2003 03-26 SpecialMeridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting March 26,
2003
The Special Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to
order at 7:00 P.M., on Wednesday, March 26, 2003, by Chairman Keith Borup.
Members Present: Keith Borup, Jerry Centers, Leslie Mathes, and Michael Rohm.
Commissioners absent: David Zaremba.
Others Present: Bruce Freckleton, Brad Hawkins-Clark, Nick Wollen, Wendy
Kirkpatrick, Dean Willis, and Will Berg.
Item 1. Roll-Call Attendance:
___O___ David Zaremba ___X___ Jerry Centers
___X___ Leslie Mathes ___X___ Michael Rohm
___X___ Chairman Keith Borup
Borup: Thank you for your patience, ladies and gentlemen. We had a little bit of
technical difficulties there. We would like to begin our Special Meridian Planning and
Zoning Commission Meeting for Wednesday, March 26th
with roll call of Commissioners.
Item 2. Adoption of the Agenda.
Item 3. Consent Agenda:
Item 4. Public Hearing: AZ 03-002 Request for annexation and zoning of 19.79
acres from RUT to C-G zones for Callister Development by Dave
Callister – southwest corner of West Overland Road and South Stoddard
Road:
Item 5. Public Hearing: CUP 03-001 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for
a contractor’s yard for an excavation company and mini-storage facilities
on 5.91 acres for Callister Development by Dave Callister – southwest
corner of West Overland Road and South Stoddard Road:
Item 6. Public Hearing: CPA 03-001 Request for a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment to change approximately 12.25 acres of the site from mixed-
use-neighborhood to commercial for Callister Development by Dave
Callister – southwest corner of West Overland Road and South Stoddard
Road:
Borup: The first item for Public Hearing is -- actually, it's Item Numbers 4, 5 and 6, all
on the same project. We'd like to open these three hearings at this time, AZ 03-002, a
request for annexation and zoning of 19.79 acres from RUT to C-G zones for Callister
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 26, 2003
Page 2 of 63
Development. Accompanying that is CUP 03-001, request for Conditional Use Permit
for a contractor's yard and mini storage on 5.91 acres, and, finally, CPA 03-001, a
request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change approximately 1.25 acres of
the site from a mixed-use development to commercial by -- also by Callister
Development. With opening these Public Hearings, we'd like to start with the staff
report.
Hawkins-Clark: Good evening, Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission. Before
we hit the details on the first couple of Public Hearings, staff just wanted to call your
attention to one main item tonight. The State Statute, Title 65, deals with
Comprehensive Plan Amendments. One of the clauses in that statute does state, as
you probably read in the staff report, that a Commission cannot make a
recommendation to the governing board, the City Council, more than once every six
months. Our interpretation of that is that since you do have two Comprehensive Plan
Amendments on tonight's agenda, should you make a decision to recommend one of
them, it could potentially jeopardize the other one. That, of course, is up to the
Commission, your decision, and legal counsel would certainly have to give some input
on that, but we just wanted to point that out, that we do have both applications on
tonight that are subject to that statute. With that, I think we will start with the Callister
project.
Kirkpatrick: All right. Good evening, Members of the Commission. I will go ahead and
do the applications in the order they are on the agenda. First, we have the CUP. This
is a Conditional Use Permit. They are requesting a Conditional Use Permit from the
City of Meridian for construction of a contractor's yard for an excavation company and a
mini storage facility. I will go ahead and put up the site map. You can see the subject
property is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Overland Road and
Stoddard Road. The newly constructed Bear Creek Subdivision is just there to the
south and the east of the subject property. This application, actually, is proposing
several phases. Phase 1 of the applicant's project will be an office, shop, and
contractor's yard. They intend to construct this within 18 months. Phase 2 is a
proposed mini storage unit on 2.91 acres and that will be constructed approximately
one year after Phase 1. Phase 3, which is -- actually, will be located in the northern part
of the parcel -- okay. For Phase 3, we do not have a specified date for construction,
because sewer is not available at the site yet and they are proposing a commercial
facility. They will have to wait until sewer is brought out to the area before they can
develop Phase 3, which is the northern 6.34 acres of the parcel. I will kind of go
through some of the highlights here in our staff report. We have found the proposed
commercial designation is compatible with the approved C-G zone and the 21 acres
area to the east and the existing industrial zone to the north. We do find that there are
potentially some incompatibilities that exist between the proposed commercial
designation and the existing Bear Creek Subdivision to the southeast. You all will want
to think about that this evening. Okay. I will go through and outline some of the sewer
issues. Bruce will probably touch on this also. Sewer service is not currently available
to the site the area will be serviced in the future by the Black Cat Trunk. We do not
have a date for when this will be served and Bruce will go through that. Staff supports
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 26, 2003
Page 3 of 63
the approval of the proposed septic system for the office and shop use only and
recommends that the applicant enter a Non-Development Agreement on the balance of
the property, which will be the northernmost part of the subject property. They will not
be able to develop that as a commercial use until they are hooked up to sewer. I will go
ahead and read into the record some of our annexation and zoning conditions. We are
asking that the applicant construct a landscape buffer along Stoddard Road. The
applicant is proposing a monument sign, which they, actually, say that the -- excuse me
-- will be 10 feet in height. A planned sign program will be required for Phase 3. The
arrangement for the septic system and the connection for the proposed office use and
shop is temporary and shall be abandoned and connected to city sewer once sewer is
located 300 feet of the property. Okay. I will get into some of our site-specific
requirements for the Conditional Use Permit. Again, we are requiring a 20-foot wide
landscaping buffer installed along Stoddard Road from the northernmost point of Phase
1 to the southern most point of the substation site. This is required by our Landscape
Ordinance. The proposed fences around the entire perimeter of the contractor's yard
and mini storage facility shall be six feet tall and site obscuring. We are -- this is,
actually, Point Number 3 and this is Page 13. We will probably have some discussion
on this later, so you probably want to put a star next to that. A 10-foot wide gravel
shoulder must be constructed along Stoddard Road adjacent to the landscape buffer.
The balance of the future right of way must be landscaped with at least grass per
Ordinance 12-13-10-9. This will require a License Agreement with ACHD. This is,
actually, based on our code. I want to go ahead and add another sentence there, that
this will be required or as required by ACHD. We are concerned that if there was a
conflict between what we were requiring with the code and what ACHD required later
on, we wanted to resolve by saying they can meet our standard or meet a standard
established by ACHD. If you want to make that addition to Number 3 let's see 4. We
have a portion of the landscape buffers along Stoddard are proposed to be used for
storm drainage. All such integrated storm water retention areas shall be designed and
constructed in compliance with Ordinance 12-13-14. Number 5 addresses the
monument sign and the applicant is going to limit the height of that sign to 10 feet. Six
addresses sewer issues, which I have already gone through. Number 7, I have a word
that I want to delete from that and I will go ahead and read that. Water service to the
site will be the extensions from existing mains in Stoddard Road. The applicant will be
responsible to construct the water mains to and through this proposed development and
you want to go ahead and delete the word looped from Number 7. Let's see. Number 8
I will go ahead and go through that. We have this issue resolved, we think, currently.
The Idaho Power substation will be brought into compliance with the approved
landscape plan into Ada County prior to occupancy of the proposed contractor's yard.
From what I understand, they had an issue there to resolve with Nampa-Meridian
Irrigation District to get irrigation to that site. They have resolved those issues and plan
to have landscaping in within a month, but we are going to go ahead and keep that note
in requiring that that landscaping be installed. Let's see. Number 9 and Number 10. I
think these are going to be issues that are going to come up this evening. All vehicular
use areas utilized through the proposed contractor's yard and mini storage uses shall
be paved in accordance with Meridian City Code. This will require the access road off
of Overland and all areas within the contractor's yard that are drive aisles, including
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 26, 2003
Page 4 of 63
access to the proposed covered parking and shop, must be paved. Storage areas may
remain gravel, but all vehicular use areas and driveways must be paved. This is --
historically in the past this is how we have dealt with scenarios like this. We have
required paving on the drive accesses and I believe also in contractor's yards in that not
only in the parking area, but in the vehicular access areas, and I think we are going to
go through that again this evening. Number 10. Ordinance 12-13-11-2.B and C,
require that the proposed driveway access along the west property line from Overland
Road to the entrance into the contractor's yard be landscaped with one tree for 35 linear
feet and shrubs and other vegetative ground cover. The Landscape Plan will be
modified to reflect this change. We are requiring that partially because we expect that
there will be residential developments that will be developed adjacent to this property
and we want to make sure that that buffer is in place. I will briefly go through 11, 12,
and 13. All mini storage units shall have a 20-foot clear minimum separation between
buildings and between fences and buildings for circulation and access. Twelve
addresses irrigation ditches, laterals, and canals and 13, the Site Plan and Landscaping
Plan reflecting all modifications needs to be submitted 10 days prior to the next Public
Hearing. That will be before it goes to Council. Okay. Are there any questions of staff?
Centers: Mr. Chairman? Would you go back to Number 3 on Page 13?
Kirkpatrick: Okay.
Centers: The third line. Did you want a line this will require a License Agreement with
ACHD, you want to line that out and insert: Or as required by ACHD? Was that your
intent?
Kirkpatrick: Actually, let me go ahead and -- Brad, do you want to delete the License
Agreement? Okay. We, actually, want to leave the phrase, this will require a License
Agreement with ACHD and add or as required by ACHD. We want to leave or
otherwise required by ACHD. Excuse me.
Centers: Going back to Page 6, Item 2, and Bullet Point 2.
Kirkpatrick: Okay.
Centers: Why wouldn't we want them to provide the buffer and landscape buffer all the
way through phase three? I'm thinking of Bear Creek Sub -- at the time they are granted
the CUP, rather than wait until they develop it.
Kirkpatrick: Well, because they haven't submitted for even a conceptual improvement
for Phase 3, we are not requiring the landscape be extended through Phase 3 at this
point.
Centers: Okay. Is the fence going to be on the inside or outside of the landscaping?
Kirkpatrick: Let me get out my Site Plan.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 26, 2003
Page 5 of 63
Borup: Inside.
Kirkpatrick: It is on the inside.
Centers: Inside of the landscaping?
Kirkpatrick: Yes.
Centers: Well -- okay. Thank you.
Borup: Any other questions? I had one on the -- your landscape comment on Item 10,
Page 14.
Kirkpatrick: Okay.
Borup: You said it must -- when you say the Landscape Plan was to be modified, was
that referring to the driveways or the access -- or the area along Stoddard -- are there
some that weren't in compliance, I guess, is the question. I didn't see anything that was
further than 35 feet, unless I'm reading this wrong. Was that the reason for that
comment? Was there something that didn't look like it was --
Kirkpatrick: If you look at the northeast corner of the property, along Stoddard Road,
they didn't propose landscaping.
Borup: Right.
Kirkpatrick: That's the revision we are asking for there and also --
Borup: Okay. You're saying -- oh, I'm sorry. You're saying, right, it needs to be added
into the area that didn't --
Kirkpatrick: And, then, the southwest corner of the property – okay. Okay. If you look -
- okay. If you look at your map, north is to the left. That is confusing. If you look at the
access road, which is currently being used by Idaho Power as an access road, we are
asking for landscaping along that access point. That's where I think the one for 35 feet
--
Borup: Well, Jerry, what was the question you had about the landscaping?
Centers: Well, primarily, why didn't you do it all at one time, which is the normal
requirement?
Borup: Okay. Yes. That's why I realized I think we -- they are requiring it to be all
along Stoddard and I thought you were thinking that it wouldn't be.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 26, 2003
Page 6 of 63
Centers: But they are not requiring it along Overland.
Borup: Right. Right. Okay any other questions?
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, could I just clarify on that one? Commissioner
Centers, we have in the past on -- with Conditional Use Permits, since that does grant a
little bit more flexibility to the project. They are not proposing any development at this
point in time on the whole northern 6.3 acres. Typically, we look for the landscaping for
a consistency of maturity and at this point, if they are not going to develop the northern
six acres until a much later time, it -- we have allowed projects such as that to install the
landscaping when they come in with a development application. Otherwise, they would
-- they would be looking at extending pressurized irrigation and whatnot up into an area
that no -- development may not take place for several years. That's what we have
looked at on those.
Centers: I guess I'm confused. It would be the -- this area right here is going to be
developed later? Is that all part of Phase 3?
Hawkins-Clark: Correct.
Centers: Including that that, too?
Kirkpatrick: That is correct. Yes. That's --
Centers: So, those little buildings are all conceptual?
Hawkins-Clark: Those are actually existing, I think they are just foundations. Yes.
There are no existing structures on that end of the project at all.
Borup: They have been torn down.
Centers: So, there is not going to be any landscaping from here clear through here.
Chairman Borup was either correct or incorrect on Stoddard.
Borup: Well, I think that's what they are saying in Item 10, is they want to add it on
Stoddard.
Centers: Oh. Okay.
Hawkins-Clark: But not adjacent to Phase 3 so, you are correct, Commissioner
Centers.
Borup: Oh, but not on phase -- well, that's the way it's already drawn, isn't it?
Hawkins-Clark: No. The way it's drawn is just there in front of Phase 2 to the south.
From that point, correct, to the south.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 26, 2003
Page 7 of 63
Borup: I thought you just said not do it in Phase 3.
Hawkins-Clark: Correct.
Borup: Isn't that the way the plan is already drawn? I'm getting confused.
Hawkins-Clark: Here is -- at this point on Stoddard Road, as Commissioner Centers
pointed out, the recommendation is to allow them to not landscape until this northern six
acres is developed.
Borup: Okay. That's the way the Site Plan is drawn presently is that correct?
Hawkins-Clark: Other than the access for Overland -- off of Overland Road here on the
west side of the property.
Borup: So, in the staff recommendation, the only change from their Site Plan that
you're recommending is do landscaping on that access road?
Hawkins-Clark: Correct.
Borup: Okay. I think I understand now. Anything else from staff? That was just on --
that addressed the annexation and the Conditional Use Permit. Is that correct, Wendy?
Kirkpatrick: Correct. It did not address the Comprehensive Plan amendment yet.
Borup: Right. Are you prepared to do that now? Is that what you want to go ahead and
do?
Kirkpatrick: Oh, yes.
Borup: Okay.
Centers: Could I ask a question first? How were these put on the agenda as they came
in or just by chance that this item is first?
Kirkpatrick: I don't know, but would Will know that, how they were put on the agenda?
Borup: A lot of times the staff will put it on -- sometimes it's by how it comes in, other
times it's perhaps by how long of a discussion there may be.
Centers: Because if I -- well, I know understand it correctly. If we approve Item 6 on
the agenda, Item 7 can go home. Correct?
Borup: Yes. Well, no. It depends on what we do on seven. They both would need to
be sent to City Council at the same time.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 26, 2003
Page 8 of 63
Kirkpatrick: Well, actually, I neglected to point out we -- you won't be able to take action
on this, this evening. They have not finalized their one time division for this property.
Currently, if we were to take action on the property this evening, they would have to
come in with a Planned Development application, which they have not. Once the one-
time division is finalized, they can -- you can take action on this application. We are just
opening testimony and giving the staff report this evening.
Centers: I thought I read that so, the staff had -- I think I read that, where you were
recommending that we continue it --
Kirkpatrick: Correct.
Centers: Okay. Thank you.
Kirkpatrick: Anymore questions before I start with the Comp Plan amendment?
Borup: Go ahead.
Kirkpatrick: The applicant is proposing a Comprehensive Plan amendment to amend
the Comp Plan 12.25 acres from Mix Used Neighborhood to a commercial designation.
This is the same subject property we were talking about earlier. Basically, without this
Comp Plan change they would not qualify for the zone change from RUT, which is
county zoning, to C-G, General Commercial. Staff supports this Comp Plan change or
amendment. Are there any questions of staff?
Borup: No questions? Okay. Would the applicant like to make their presentation?
Boyle: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, Clint Boyle with Pinnacle Engineers, 12552
West Executive Drive in Boise, Idaho. I will try to make this brief, because I understand
most of the people here are here for the North Meridian Plan -- Comprehensive Plan
amendment. I just want to touch on a few items. First of all, the Comprehensive Plan
amendment that's proposed this evening, again, this submittal is somewhat tied with the
Meridian -- North Meridian Plan in the sense that a Comp Plan Amendment can only
occur once every six months. Therefore, by moving either of these applications
forward, they, essentially, need to proceed forward at the same time, is my
understanding from staff. Otherwise, it could have an adverse impact on either one.
We realize that, so we certainly are requesting approval of the Comp Plan Amendment
on this project and realize that we are somewhat tied with the North Meridian Plan and,
hopefully, that planning process moves forward quickly as well and they both can
proceed to City Council and for the final approvals. With that said, as far as the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment itself, this particular piece of property -- can we scroll
back a couple to the zoning map, Wendy, if you wouldn't mind? This particular piece of
property is -- right now, as you can see on the Comp Plan, has existing industrial zoning
immediately north of it. It has G-C, general commercial zoning. Within the vicinity of
this area here has also been approved for annexation with C-G zoning, the Queenland
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 26, 2003
Page 9 of 63
Acres Development. The portion of this site that is designated as -- currently as mixed-
use on the Comp Plan. Is that area that is north of the Hardin Drain and the Hardin
Drain somewhat bisects the site and we can see that from the aerial photograph? The
southerly portion of the site is public -- quasi-public on the Comp Plan. That will remain.
Idaho Power has an existing substation that was constructed recently on that portion of
the site. We believe that this fits in very well with what's happening out there. There
are already large commercial designations adjacent to this site to the east in the Comp
Plan. There are also industrial uses to the north. We feel that this makes a nice
transition, being that you will have a transition from industrial on the north to commercial
designation to the public -- quasi-public on the south end of the site. With regard to
some of the requirements in the Conditional Use Permit, on the request -- I want to just
touch on those briefly. Then, I will answer some questions, but I wanted to skip over to
the site-specific conditions and I will just hit on those that there is potentially some
disagreement on. First of all, as a clarification, Site-Specific Requirement Number 1
indicates that minimum 20-foot wide landscape buffering along Stoddard Road. There
was some confusion, it sounds like, with regards to the staff report and what they were
intending for landscaping and can we skip back to the site plan there, Wendy? The
proposal right now proposes a 20-foot wide landscape buffer that would run adjacent to
Stoddard Road next door to the proposed storage units. This is a 20-foot buffer. There
is, actually, a 34 foot wide buffer proposed in front of the office for the contractor's yard
facility. That is the extent of the landscaping request right now. Phase 3, the reason
that the landscaping around the frontage, in addition to those that staff had mentioned.
The reason that that is not being installed at this point in time is that the developer, due
to the lack of existing sewer main lines in this area, there can be no further
development in Phase 3 until such time as the Black Cat Trunk Line gets down into this
area. That could be quite a few years, is my understanding, and Bruce could clarify
that, but we certainly intend to install the appropriate landscape buffers when the sewer
is available and phase three of this development comes back in front of you for a
Conditional Use Permit. The developer will certainly install those buffers, it's just at this
point in time this is, essentially, going to remain -- my pointer is dying on me here --
Phase 3 will remain in just a vacant agricultural type use until that point in time. That's
part of the reason on those buffers. In addition to that, ACHD does have a project
within their five-year plan to widen Overland Road within this location. It will also
include the improvements and widening of Stoddard Road near the intersection. I
believe that Stoddard will be improved roughly 500 feet back from the Overland Road,
Stoddard Road intersection, as part of that project that ACHD has scheduled for 2007.
Again, based on some ACHD projects, based on the sewer constraints, those are the --
some of the reasoning behind why that buffer isn't presented in front of you with this
Conditional Use Permit. Point Number 3 in the staff report --
Borup: Clint, while you're still on that same -- do you want to comment on the
landscaping on the access road, the access driveway?
Boyle: Sure and I would --
Borup: You skipped over that.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 26, 2003
Page 10 of 63
Boyle: I was actually going to get to that specific point on Site-Specific Number 10.
Borup: Okay. Go ahead.
Boyle: But I can address it now.
Borup: No. You can cover it then.
Boyle: Moving on to Item Number 3, again, I believe we have it resolved with the staff.
Again, we just wanted to make sure the requirement indicates some improvements out
in the right of way consisting of the gravel shoulder and some grass landscaping.
Again, the only clarification we wanted there is we just wanted to make sure that ACHD
would agree to that, assuming that there isn't any adverse requirements or conditions
from ACHD. We don't have a problem with that, but, again, since it is in the right of
way, and ACHD has authority on that, we just wanted to make sure that there was some
flexibility that we would comply with ACHD's requirements. Item Number 4 is fine. Item
Number 5 on the monument signage, again, we are agreeing to not exceed 10 feet in
height. The sign may come in lower than that as well, but that is a limitation that we are
putting on the development. Typically, in a C-G zone you're allowed to go to a 20-foot
height, so this is half of the height that is typically allowed within that zone. I will just
skip down to Item Number 8 with regard to the landscaping and that's been brought up
this evening. Idaho Power, I have had discussions with them and they have committed
to have the landscaping installed on -- on and around the substation by May 15th
of this
year. That would be all of the landscape areas that are shown on the site plan around
the substation. The substation site is indicated here, a fenced-in enclosure. They have
landscaping on three sides of that that will be installed. They have committed to have
that installed by May 15th
. Again, I believe that we can comply with that requirement
fairly easily. Item Number 8. Item Number 9 -- 9 and 10, because they somewhat go
hand in hand, relate to the access way off of Overland Road. That would be an existing
gravel access way that extends back to the Idaho Power substation site. Idaho Power
installed that access way. It was facilitated to allow large equipment back into the
substation site for whatever maintenance or other operations they may need back
there. We felt that it would be a nice idea to have an entrance into the contractor's
storage area from off of the existing gravel roadway. It would facilitate the equipment
that may be associated with the contractor's yard, trucks, et cetera, it would give them
an access that would reduce the amount of traffic traveling say on Stoddard Road. We
felt that that was a good designation there. However, after indicating that there on the
plans, we understand that the planning staff is recommending that this access drive,
which, again, is not a public access, it's not open for employee access, it's not open for
customer access, as far as their vehicles, this would strictly be for the equipment
associated with the contractor's yard to utilize this. It would be a gated access.
Centers: Where would the gate be?
Boyle: In this location here.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 26, 2003
Page 11 of 63
Centers: And how would they get to the mini storage?
Boyle: This would not be an access for the mini storage area, so the mini storage
would access off of Stoddard Road and there is a gate in this location here that allows
access into the mini storage and that's all paved. The front area with the front parking
lot is paved and landscaped. All of the mini storage area will be paved. The
contractor's yard area with the equipment storage, storage of materials, et cetera, we
have proposed to be a gravel facility. The only access off of this roadway would be
Idaho Power, which currently has that access road in place as part of their substation,
and the equipment associated with the back contractor's yard area.
Centers: Well, if you read Item 9, it doesn't really clarify the fact that the contractor's
yard will be gravel.
Boyle: Right.
Centers: And are you wanting it to be gravel?
Boyle: Right. Correct. That was a point of discussion that we have had with the staff
and I guess a point of divergence there with the staff and two things there. First of all,
with regards to the access roadway, if I can just wrap up with that, then, I will try to
answer the question on the contractor's yard. Again, the staff is recommending that this
entire length from Overland back to the contractor's yard be a paved route and not only
a paved route, but that we also install landscaping with trees one every 35 feet along
this distance, which distance, if I remember right from my plan, is roughly five to six
hundred feet long. 541. Thank you. With that said, my understanding from the staff
was that one of the main concerns with an access way such as this is dust, potential
dust coming up from a gravel road. The developer of the project indicated that he
would be willing to do some dust abatement on the road with potentially other items,
maybe it would be that the gravel roadway be oiled or that we do a recycled asphalt mix
on that road. However, at this point in time the roadway -- this access way already
exists as a gravel access for Idaho Power. Eventually, when sewer is there, this area
will be developed and if he places a paved roadway in here, it's very likely that when
this develops that that roadway is -- it's going to be either modified or removed at that
point in time. The landscaping, again, with the buffer on the landscaping, this
somewhat addresses Item Number 10. The same thing there that use that he's
buffering right now is agricultural land. Again, as far as the landscaping and the paving
of this access road back to the contractor's facility, the developer would much rather just
commit to and say that he will not take access off this roadway if he is going to be
burdened with the requirements of paving and installing landscaping improvements
adjacent to this existing access. That is the other option, I guess, the developer is
presenting as far as those items go. As far as the contractor's yard itself and the paving
within the contractor's yard, there is a covered facility indicated in this location that
would be for equipment storage and, again, this is just to keep equipment out of the
weather, so as he is -- as he's transporting backhoes or trackhoes to various sites, this
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 26, 2003
Page 12 of 63
allows him an area where he can store those vehicles. It isn't a covered parking in the
sense that employees are going to be traveling in and out of it day in, day out. The
same with the shop area, which is in this location here, which is attached to the
backside of the office again, it's strictly for the maintenance and repair of his contracting
equipment. The discussion we had with staff as far as paving within that contractor's
yard facility is that with the heavy equipment and other storage that's going to be going
on there, it didn't seem very sensible, nor practical to install paving that has a high
likelihood of being torn up, essentially, by all of the equipment that's moving around
within the contractor's yard area. He has committed to the sight obscuring fencing
along the north, sight obscuring along the east side. He did want to just pose a
question to the Commission the staff was recommending that the entire site have sight
obscuring. The south boundary of this site adjacent to the Hardin Drain, essentially, is
adjacent to the Idaho Power site, so he wanted some consideration as to whether he
could leave that in fencing that wasn't sight obscuring along the south portion only.
With that said, I believe that's -- most of the requirements in here, other than Item
Number 13 is the requirement for the tiling of the Hardin Drain. The Hardin Drain is a
significant drainage way that runs through the site presently and the consideration that
he would like there is -- his understanding is that typically with the drains and the tiling
requirements, that that was an outcome of safety issues with people potentially getting
into those drains. He wanted the Commission to note that there are no residential
developments through this area on either side. The substation is one side and if this
development moves forward, you will have storage units and the contractor's yard on
the other. There will be fencing all the way along the storage units and contractor's yard
that will, essentially, keep people out of the drain. On one side of the drain he's also
willing to install fencing adjacent to Stoddard Road in this location, which, essentially,
would enclose this entire area in fencing, based on the existing fencing that's out
around the site. Given that, and the fencing that he's proposing on here, the fact that
there is no residential adjacent to it, that it is a fairly substantial drain, he is requesting
that he not be required to tile that drain at this time. With that, we do agree with the rest
of the staff comments that were indicated within the report, outside of those points that I
clarified. I, again, would respectfully request your approval on this item. Actually, on all
three items I'll stand for any questions.
Borup: Questions for Mr. Boyle?
Centers: Yes. Mr. Chairman so we should -- we should add in our site-specific that you
intend to do 35 feet of landscape buffering right here?
Boyle: Presently on the site plan we have 34 feet.
Centers: Thirty-four.
Boyle: And that's fine. The front of the contractor's facility, we don't have a problem
with that.
Centers: Is this totally fenced, the Idaho Power facility?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 26, 2003
Page 13 of 63
Boyle: The actual substation is fenced in this location.
Centers: Okay so there is no fence --
Boyle: There is no fencing in this area.
Centers: -- back here?
Boyle: There is fencing here from the adjacent uses. You know, your standard farming-
type fences, if I remember right. We might have a picture of it.
Centers: Okay but the Hardin Drain is accessible?
Boyle: Presently it's accessible to anyone.
Centers: Right and it would be later.
Boyle: If we installed the fencing -- and this shows somewhat of what the fencing is like
around this site, outside of where the -- the substation is. If we ran the fencing along
Stoddard, the whole -- the entire site would be fenced --
Centers: But I wouldn't call this a -- I'd call it a fence to keep cattle out or horses.
Boyle: Right.
Centers: You agree with that?
Boyle: I would agree that it is an agricultural type of fence there.
Centers: Going back to the plat or the schematic. The access from Overland, you
mentioned that if we required this to be paved now, that he would just as soon not
access there, because it might be torn up when they finish Phase 3 and -- correct.
Boyle: Correct.
Centers: And not usable. Isn't this the only access that Idaho Power has into their
property?
Boyle: No. They have access off of --
Centers: They have access back here?
Boyle: -- Stoddard Road. These are two driveways into their facility.
Centers: Is this an easement or is this deeded land?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 26, 2003
Page 14 of 63
Boyle: This is an easement that Idaho Power has.
Centers: Okay so, how are you going to block access that Idaho Power has, unless
you get them to --
Boyle: Right and I guess what I'm indicating here is that we would not have an entry
here. Our site would be fenced --
Centers: Well, I'm referring to your comment that, you know, you just wouldn't use it
and it may become blocked in the future anyway. You couldn't do that.
Boyle: Right.
Centers: You would have to --
Boyle: Well, Idaho Power -- we would have to maintain access for Idaho Power.
Centers: Okay. I guess you would agree with me there.
Boyle: Right.
Centers: Okay.
Boyle: That is correct. The only point that I was trying to make there, Mr. Centers, if I
could just clarify, is that the -- down the road when this develops, there is a high
likelihood that there will be paved entrances in -- I don't -- and the easement for Idaho
Power is fairly wide, so the location of that may change from where that existing road is,
as far as the location of where that pavement ultimately ends up at, to better
accommodate the future uses of Phase 3.
Centers: Yes. I understand that. The inference was that it might not even be usable.
Well, it has to be usable, because Idaho Power has the easement.
Boyle: Right.
Centers: Okay. Thank you. That's all I had.
Borup: Anyone else?
Mathes: I have question. On the Hardin Drain, if you don't tile it, that maintenance road
has to stay usable, correct?
Boyle: Right. Right. Correct.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 26, 2003
Page 15 of 63
Borup: Along the same subject, do you know the diameter of the pipe that that would
require?
Boyle: I don't offhand. We had an Alta survey that was actually prepared by a different
company that indicated a -- and this was -- I believe it was down -- I don't remember the
exact location where they had it called out, but I believe it was on the west side of the
property. It showed a 36-inch CMP --
Borup: You understand that a Variance needs to be applied to -- well I guess City
Council does a waiver now, rather than a variance. Yes. That saves a little bit of -- but
it still must be granted by City Council.
Centers: Yes. We can't grant it correct?
Borup: Right. Okay. Then, your application calls for an eight-foot high fence. Is that
your intention?
Boyle: That is the intention.
Borup: Okay.
Boyle: I believe the staff report indicated a minimum of six-foot.
Borup: Right.
Boyle: Yes.
Borup: Maybe back a little bit on what Commissioner Centers had said -- or discussed.
The short -- your short answer on the access road and the landscaping is you'd rather
not do the landscaping and you don't want to pave the access road. If it would be
require, then, the gate into the property would be eliminated. Is that a summary of --
Boyle: That is a rough summary and I guess, really, the clarification item there -- and I
think the staff would vouch for this, is it is somewhat unclear within your ordinance as
far as the paving of different areas. I think what it states in there -- and staff can correct
me if I'm wrong, but it talks about vehicle use areas being paved and once you
determine that it's a vehicular use area, then, the landscaping requirements also apply.
I guess, you know, again, we are contesting that it -- while vehicles may travel the road,
our understanding of the ordinance is those vehicles use areas particularly apply to
areas that are accessible to the public, to employees as far as like parking lots, drive
aisles within parking lots and whatnot, so --
Borup: Okay.
Centers: Mr. Chairman, a follow up to that. I would just comment that the vehicles
using this road would be heavy equipment and susceptible to making a lot more dust
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 26, 2003
Page 16 of 63
and maybe that's what staff was looking at and the ordinance, I think, is kind of broad,
because it depends on a -- the individual CUP involved and the uses, et cetera. That's
my opinion. Would you agree?
Boyle: That sounds reasonable to me.
Centers: Okay. The other thing, at your -- at the outset you indicated -- and I want to
clarify this -- that this Comprehensive Plan Amendment is going hand in hand with the
latter one on our agenda tonight. If they go hand in hand, that both can be passed at
the same time, so it's just one -- that would be technically one Comprehensive Plan
amendment, then, even though there is two different issues. Correct? You inferred that
and I --
Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Commissioner Centers. Yes. The -- you know, other jurisdictions
in the area often will set up two dates a year at which all Comprehensive Plan
Amendment applications are due. The City of Meridian has not done that formally, but,
essentially, that's what we have tried to do here.
Centers: So you could do a half a dozen --
Hawkins-Clark: So you could do a half a dozen on one night and forward them on.
Centers: So I was way off base earlier in my comments that --
Hawkins-Clark: You were way off.
Centers: -- Number 6, first up, and Number 7 could go home, that's not true. Okay. I'm
glad we got that clear. Thank you.
Borup: Because both recommendations would be -- we would just need to recommend
both on the same date.
Centers: Right. Right.
Boyle: Chairman, if I may. Commissioner Centers -- and to that point, this particular
application that's in front of you was submitted several months ago and it has been
waiting in the wings, so to speak, to tag along with the North Meridian Plan.
Centers: Okay. Okay.
Borup: That's what I understood also.
Centers: That saves us time and energy and that's it. I appreciate it.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 26, 2003
Page 17 of 63
Borup: Okay. Maybe while Mr. Boyle is up, I -- are there any other thoughts from staff
on this access road, the paving, and landscaping? I guess you stated the ordinance, so
--
Kirkpatrick: Right. I stated our position. I do want to clarify while the use bordering the
subject property is agricultural, it is zoned residential, and it is possible to put in a
subdivision at this point.
Borup: Five-acre subdivision.
Kirkpatrick: Correct. It is zoned RUT and R-1. That area.
Borup: Then they are both the county. I mean in the county --
Kirkpatrick: In our future Comp Plan, it's designated as residential and staff
recommends that this access road be paved. We have not changed our view on that.
Borup: How about if they did not have any access to the contractor's yard?
Kirkpatrick: I don't believe we have a representative from Idaho Power here this
evening to clarify whether they are going to continue to use that access road. We still
would have the same concerns over, you know, the dust problems. I don't know what
the usage is on the road. I would want clarification from Idaho Power and what their
continued usage is going to be.
Borup: How was that approved -- or was it? Idaho Power's project was in the county?
Or it still is in the county.
Centers: Yes.
Borup: So that was approved by the county.
Kirkpatrick: I think that Clint had something that -- it originally was approved as a
temporary access by Idaho Power.
Rohm: So, does that mean that access would, then, be closed off at Overland Road
and no longer available to Idaho Power once the substation is completed?
Kirkpatrick: I would have to research that. Actually, I don't -- I don't know what would
happen.
Rohm: But it seems reasonable to require the landscaping and pavement, if, in fact, the
easement's not vacated, because they will have free access coming and going
indefinitely in support of staff's position. It seems logical to me.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 26, 2003
Page 18 of 63
Boyle: Chairman, Commissioner Rohm, I just might clarify that point. We have had
extensive meetings with Idaho Power, since they are the property owners presently,
and, in fact I had discussions with their utilization of access way today. They indicated
that this access way would be utilized by Idaho Power from their representative that I
spoke with, they indicated that it would be utilized possibly once or twice a year on this
access road. To further clarify that, I can indicate that if this is a concern of the
Commission regarding this access way that Idaho Power, again, desires to sell off this
portion of land. Their representative indicated that it wouldn't necessarily cause them
any adverse problem if that access road were vacated or removed.
Rohm: Well, that seems like the logical answer to vacate the easement and, then, you
don't have an issue.
Centers: But if I could interrupt, that brings me back to what I read earlier this
afternoon. Idaho Power actually owns the whole parcel they bought it from Grey Wolfe
back -- way back.
Boyle: Right.
Centers: So, they really don't have an easement now, they have own the land.
Boyle: Right.
Centers: Right so, why would they -- did they indicate they wanted that easement?
Boyle: We -- I believe we have an easement proposed is what we have on our site
plan.
Centers: Okay.
Boyle: And if I could just clarify further, with the original approval with ACHD, they were
granted a temporary access road, so when the substation went through its approvals,
ACHD granted a temporary roadway that was conditioned that when further
development occurred on the site, that roadway would be abandoned. When we went
to ACHD we requested that that access roadway be allowed to remain to facilitate the
site plan as we have presented and ACHD -- and I believe they have a representative
here that could clarify that further if you wanted -- committed to allow that access way to
remain with the restriction that it's for Idaho Power and the contractor's equipment
access only. Again, if the issues with paving and this roadway are coming up, we will
commit to abandoned the roadway, that existing roadway, and that will take care of the
access road and the landscape issue.
Rohm: I don't know if Idaho Power would concur with that.
Borup: Well, but that was the question I had. Idaho Power's property is part of the
annexation and it's part of the rezone.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 26, 2003
Page 19 of 63
Boyle: No.
Borup: Well, then, what is it being zoned? If it's being annexed, it's got to be zoned.
Boyle: It is part of the rezone. Right.
Borup: Well, not -- I didn't mean rezone part of the zoning is what I meant to say and
it's also being zoned C-G?
Boyle: Right.
Borup: Okay. Then, there is the substation, but is it part of the Conditional Use?
Boyle: We didn't propose that as part of the Conditional Use Permit, because they are
in the process of the split. With regard to the lot split, again, that's a process that Idaho
Power indicated would be completed within in the next two weeks. They have filed a
record of survey with Ada County and Ada County Development Services indicated that
they did not need to do that, that they were considered a public -- quasi-public agency.
They met with the Assessor's Office today on the issue. Essentially, they have filled out
an application requesting that split and it's a matter of the Assessor's Office assigning
new parcel numbers. Again, the lot split is going to take place here very soon.
Borup: And what I was leading up to is I would think the city would be able to put
whatever requirement would be necessary on that access road. If it were a lot split,
there would need to be an easement. If there is not an easement, then, you would
have control of the access. Unless there is a good reason to circumvent the -- I mean
to -- you know, for a variance from the ordinance, I think I agree with what the other
Commissioners have said.
Centers: The bottom line is Idaho Power -- you're buying the land from Idaho Power
and they said we would sell it to you, but I want an easement right here. Correct?
Boyle: They did not indicate that. We simply facilitated that easement, because they
have an existing -- they had an existing roadway there, they had an existing gravel
road. When we actually indicated these plans, we put an easement across there, just
with the understanding that they had already installed a gravel roadway through there
and they want continued access. Originally, when we put that in, we were under the
impression they would have continued access. Then, as we got into the ACHD history
on the site, it was determined that it was a temporary access. I guess, you know, they
are obviously -- Idaho Power isn't here to speak to it. We certainly don't have any
problem with a condition that -- that we have to receive Idaho Power's -- that as a
condition of approval that that access road has to go away, if it's this Commission's
desire that we have to receive Idaho Power's approval of that, because I'm very
confident that we can obtain that approval from Idaho Power.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 26, 2003
Page 20 of 63
Borup: Well, unless they have an easement, there is nothing -- no necessity of
obtaining anything from them, is there?
Boyle: Well, again, if there was concern that they may need that roadway from the
Commission in the future --
Borup: Well, then, if they felt that they better have an easement or deeded land.
Boyle: Right.
Centers: I'm not clear how we get one -- get one answered one way and another one
the other way. When you develop this phase, is it possible that you will be utilizing this
or can you speak for the developer?
Boyle: Is it possible that we utilize the roadway or the access?
Centers: Both. Both.
Boyle: It's possible. Sure.
Centers: So, I don't know why you would want to stand there and speak for this
developer that you want to abandon that and not have any use of that period.
Borup: Well, I think you meant not any --
Boyle: Well, I'm talking about the access drive.
Centers: To the other phases.
Boyle: Right.
Borup: To the contractor's yard.
Centers: All right. Okay.
Boyle: I mean down the road in the future when Phrase 3 develops there may be an
approach here that comes into some parking and whatnot for that area, but, again, yes,
specifically talking about that access way back in the contractor's yard.
Rohm: Well, it seems to me that if it was a temporary roadway that was granted Idaho
Power to build a substation, then, at such time that the substation is completed, the
temporary access goes away and you don't have a road period and -- and you only,
through application, put a road in at a later date. That road should be abandoned and
no access at this time. Does that make sense to staff?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 26, 2003
Page 21 of 63
Kirkpatrick: If you want to go ahead and point out that even if the road is not
constructed, they will be required to put in the landscaping to buffer the commercial use
from the adjoining residential uses.
Rohm: Okay. At this time.
Kirkpatrick: Correct.
Mathes: For all phrases? I mean why Phase 3 if they don't have the other two sides?
Kirkpatrick: I believe it would just be for Phases 1 and 2, because they are not trying to
obtain conceptual approval for Phase 3 this evening. I also want to point out, again,
tonight that you can't make a make recommendation for this application this evening.
Mathes: Okay.
Borup: So, if they are required to do the landscaping, we are talking right along this
stretch right here, from the drain, -- from the drain north to phrase -- just along Phase 1.
Is that your understanding, Clint, that if --
Boyle: That's my understanding of what staff --
Borup: What she said.
Boyle: Yes.
Centers: You know, Mr. Boyle, while we are waiting here, that entrance there,
according to the scale -- I don't have my ruler, but I think it's 30 feet, is what it appears
to me. It's a lot of heavy equipment that is being -- a heavy contractor would own for
storage correct?
Boyle: It would be such as flat bed trucks, trailers.
Centers: Hauling backhoes and maybe big stuff?
Boyle: Yes.
Centers: I can see their need for that entrance.
Boyle: Yes. I think -- the point, if I understand it correctly, Mr. Centers, there can be
accommodated based on the turning radius that we installed, the apron going into the
driveway. While the -- you know, as far as the width being 30 feet on the throat, again,
as far as trucks entering, the bigger issue there is going to be on the radius, which is
something that we can certainly design to accommodate those trucks entering the site
on Stoddard Road.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 26, 2003
Page 22 of 63
Centers: Well, I guess having to contend with the people that are coming into the
storage units and -- you know, I don't know -- if you eliminate this, you have one access,
period, and I think the Fire Department will want to address that.
Boyle: And, again, with the access points, I just might clarify, again, with the
contractor's yard, the amount of trips coming out of the actual equipment area is going
to be very minimal on a daily basis. It's not -- and, again, the office is an Accessory
Use. This is where the employees will be dispatching the equipment that's out in the
field are going to be operating, so this isn't going to be an intensive vehicular use area,
by any sense of the imagination. While there will be heavy equipment entering the site,
that is not going to be something that's going to be occurring regularly throughout the
day. It's going to have a fairly limited use as far as the heavier equipment coming and
going.
Borup: Well, maybe, to sum up the staff comments -- or, yes, the site-specific
comments, with the modifications we made on the earlier ones, on three and five, and
you clarified Number 8 on the landscaping, so it's really just 9 and 10? Is that what we
are down to as far as --
Boyle: Nine and 10. Again, just for the record, which, again, isn't this Commission's
decision on the request to leave the Hardin Drain open.
Borup: Right.
Boyle: But yes, that is -- that is, essentially, what we are down to.
Borup: I'm wondering if we could word something along the line that it needs to be
paved or -- or the access deleted. Does staff have any problem with something along
that line? Did you hear that that the road either be paved or the access to the west side
of the contractor's yard be removed?
Kirkpatrick: We would agree with that.
Borup: Leave that to the applicant's choice. Does that sound reasonable,
Commissioners? Any comment. Clint?
Boyle: That sounds reasonable.
Borup: That's kind of where you're at anyway, so now you have got a choice.
Kirkpatrick: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission I do want to point out, however,
that we would still require the vehicular access points within the contractor's yard be
paved. That would be the access points to the proposed shop and to the covered
parking structure within the contractor's yard.
Borup: How wide?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 26, 2003
Page 23 of 63
Kirkpatrick: Well, I don't know if we go -- do we want to go ahead and define tonight
how wide the driveway access points would be?
Borup: Well, I mean what I'm looking at --
Kirkpatrick: I mean let's go ahead and get this for the record.
Borup: Well, I think that makes sense, maybe get some paving in this area, but when
you start -- when you pave from here to here, realize the vehicles are going to be
coming in, maybe backing in, pulling in, turning --
Kirkpatrick: Well, that's up to your discretion.
Borup: Well, just have a little bit of paving here and give a chance for the tires to clean
off a little bit before you tracking it out. I'm just thinking I don't know how practical it is to
do it to the covered parking. You know, to have a driveway that would -- that they would
use.
Kirkpatrick: And, Chairman, Members of the Commission, we would be amenable to
seeing recycled asphalt, if they have to lower the expense for the applicant in the
contractor's yard as a paving material.
Borup: Mr. Boyle, you had mentioned that earlier, that that's an option you might be
looking at. Does that still make sense?
Boyle: Mr. Chairman, if I could just maybe get some clarification on that. As far as the
recycled asphalt, we are talking on the vehicular use areas, as the staff indicated, within
the contractor's yard?
Kirkpatrick: Within contractors yard.
Boyle: So, in other words, the equipment storage, et cetera, can remain gravel, but the
actual vehicular uses would be the recycled asphalt?
Kirkpatrick: Correct. We are allowing that to be an option.
Borup: So, that would be most of the area clear down -- you know, clear from here
down to the garage, but the two can blend in real easy. I mean they can blend together.
Boyle: Our preference would be what Commissioner Borup indicated earlier with
extending the paving further back into the contractor's yard, as he indicated in this area,
and allowing the rest to remain gravel. If the Commission feels so inclined, I don't know
that it would be terribly adverse to the developer to install recycled asphalt back to the
vehicle use area back to the covered storage area.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 26, 2003
Page 24 of 63
Borup: Is the gravel -- is it going to be rolled and compacted, is that the intention?
Boyle: Right.
Centers: I didn't think I have any more questions, but, then, staff, if you're agreeable to
that, why wouldn't recycled asphalt be okay here?
Kirkpatrick: There would be heavier vehicle usage on that road.
Borup: Maybe vehicle speeds would be little a different there than parking vehicles
inside of the yard. Okay. Is there any other discussion with Mr. Boyle here or are we --
I guess you're done.
Boyle: Thank you.
Centers: Thanks.
Borup: Do we have anyone else to testify on this application? It looks like everyone is
here for the other one. Okay. Discussion from Commissioners?
Centers: Well, I made -- Mr. Chairman, I made a lot of notes and I think the other
Commissioners have and we are going to have time to ponder everything, because we
are going to have to come back to it anyway. I think the project has a lot of merit and
it's kind of a good fit for the area, they just get some things hammered out and we will
talk about them at the next hearing. We will continue this one.
Borup: Yes. It is going to need to be continued. I have a hard time remembering
things a month from now.
Centers: I made a lot of notes.
Borup: Okay. I was going to say, would it worthwhile to maybe discuss, generally, what
we are feeling or what things we are maybe thinking about or are we in agreement that
everything has been cleared up, except for eight and nine?
Centers: Yes. I don't have a problem with a chain link fence along the drain, not sight
obscuring. I think we -- you know, that Council would allow the exception to the tiling.
That's up to them, you know. That's not us. Just how we feel on the access off
Overland. Give them an option. That's fine with me.
Borup: Okay.
Rohm: I'm a little bit curious about the landscaping. If, in fact, the road will be left in
place, would you want the landscaping all along the west side? Staff the entire length
of --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 26, 2003
Page 25 of 63
Kirkpatrick: If the road is active or if the road is inactive?
Rohm: If the road will be active, you would want the landscaping along the entire west
line of the property?
Kirkpatrick: That is, actually, up until -- up until the Hardin Drain. We would want
landscaping from Overland Road to the Hardin Drain.
Rohm: Thank you.
Centers: And if it's inactive, you wanted it to buffer the residential --
Borup: Just in Phase 1.
Rohm: Just in phase -- yes.
Centers: Okay.
Rohm: Phase 1 or 2?
Kirkpatrick: Phases 1 and 2.
Rohm: Right. Yes.
Borup: See, I'd rather see landscaping along Stoddard, than along a field full of weeds.
Well, Commissioners, we have a couple -- we can either just continue the whole
hearing or we can close it and table it without a decision. I guess that's the two choices.
Is there any other information we are looking for that would -- that we want to continue
it?
Centers: No. I guess if we continue it to our second meeting in April, does that -- does
that coincide with everything we are trying to do here?
Borup: I would maybe recommend we not make a decision on this until the end of the
meeting, until after our next hearing.
Centers: As far as when we continue it?
Borup: Yes so, I think we -- can't we just postpone this decision until the end of the
meeting?
Centers: As far I'm concerned. Fine with me.
Borup: Any problem with that, Nick?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 26, 2003
Page 26 of 63
Wollen: As long as the continued -- the period it's going to be continued to is mentioned
in the --
Borup: Before the meeting is over.
Wollen: Yes. I believe that that's what --
Borup: Okay.
Centers: Let's move on to Number 7, then.
Borup: Okay. Mr. Boyle, you understand that? We don't know when we are going to
continue this to, but -- but I don't think -- you don't need to stay, you can probably -- I'm
sure you could get that information calling in tomorrow. Right. It would be postponed --
a decision will be postponed until the end of the meeting.
Item 7. Public Hearing: CPA 03-002 Request for a Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment to include the North Meridian Area Land Use Map and a Text
Amendment to include Mixed Use Village standards as proposed by the
North Meridian Area planning effort and adoption of a new Traditional
Neighborhood Development zoning designation, development of a Capital
Improvement Program and adoption of a Park Plan – by Wardle &
Associates:
Borup: Next item is Public Hearing CPA 03-002. This is a request for Comprehensive
Plan Map Amendment to the North Meridian Area Land Use Map and text amendment
to include a mix-used village standard as proposed in the North Meridian Area. We did
-- have a draft from a -- how long ago was that? Several weeks back. February 4th
.
Has it been that long? Some preliminary information so, we'd like to open this Public
Hearing and start with the staff report. Is the staff going to do an introduction or just
introduce Mr. Wardle?
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, I guess we could use
some input on this, I guess. We -- the Commission has received a full workshop -- had
the opportunity during the February 20th
workshop to see a summary of this plan, but,
you know, it does appear, given the audience, that there are a number of folks that
probably did not participate in that February 20th workshop. To be honest, I'm a little bit
ambivalent, I guess, as to how we should proceed. I mean certainly staff is prepared to
give you a perspective based on our staff report on this effort. It may be a little bit
lengthy, a little bit overwhelming to those that aren't familiar with the plan and if we -- if
the Commission would prefer to see another summation, I guess I would prefer that the
applicant do that prior to staff kind of jumping into our items. I guess we'd like some --
appreciate some feedback. I mean would you like to have another sort of cursory
overview of what this plan entitles, some of the background and some of the changes
between the proposed North Meridian Plan and the current City Comp Plan or, you
know, we can dive into some of the more specific issues right away, I guess.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 26, 2003
Page 27 of 63
Borup: I think I would like to see maybe a brief overview. I don't believe we had -- I
don't believe we had any Public Hearings at our last meeting.
Hawkins-Clark: I think that's correct.
Borup: So, I think maybe -- Mr. Wardle, is that something you can do in about five
minutes?
Wardle: Reasonably.
Borup: And, then, I'm thinking if some other questions come out during the hearing,
then, we can go into more detail at that time. I think maybe just a brief overview would -
- would be good and, then, go into the staff report. Then, there may be some other
questions that would come out that we would want to spend some more time on.
Wardle: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Mike Wardle, I was
involved as the facilitator for the North Meridian planning process that included the City
of Meridian, the Ada County Highway District, the Ada County Commission and staff
from all of those entities, as well as the development community. I do have a full
presentation that deals with the staff report as well, but if there is a break point that I
can take some brief comments first, that, then, let staff make its presentation and, then,
resume at that point, since I respond --
Borup: That's what I had in mind.
Wardle: When we went through the process previously, we defined the area and the
effort specifically. It is the Ten Mile area between Chinden and Ustick, north and south,
and on the west McDermott to Locust Grove on the east. The proposed North Meridian
implementation actions are identified in the plan that was presented and dated
November 15, 2002. Assuming that you have copies of that plan, there was, in the
Executive Summary, an action checklist, Page ES-3, that identified specific
responsibilities that would fall under the purview of the City of Meridian, of Ada County,
the Ada County Highway District, and COMPASS. The City of Meridian must deal with
the land use and zoning issues, also community facilities and parks, and of those,
specifically, the land use and zoning actions must begin with the Commission. Now,
this evening's request for consideration is of the land use concept proposed in the plan.
Now, I'm going to set up the easel just on the side, so that these folks can see it and so
that we can keep the plan up. Maybe what I can do is set it up where the offer concise
remarks is, that way as we get into other items that will still be visible. Within the
context of the plan it varies from the other -- from the city's Comprehensive Plan in that
it proposes a four tier mixed use designation, beginning with the most local and
smallest element of the village mixed use. The next step would be neighborhood and
it's located specifically on what I would at least term the minor arterial elements within
the community. The next would be community scale and in this particular case that is
on Linder Road. Then, regional, which would be on Black Cat Road and on Chinden in
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 26, 2003
Page 28 of 63
that the plan recommends or acknowledges Chinden Boulevard as the main east-west
throughway that's a regional facility and the potential for Black Cat Road to be the
connection on the south to the Ten Mile Interchange and to the north to State Street,
Highway 44, and Highway 16. This is significantly different from the future land use
map that was approved by the city in June of last year. I need to go onto the next slide.
There we go. That plan had a series of designations. Specifically, it had two types of
land use categories or residential categories identified. The green elements were a low
density and that area, actually, is about 29 percent of the total landmass in North
Meridian. The yellow areas were identified as medium density residential with a three
to eight unit per acre density allowance. In addition, then, there were three of the four
proposed mixed use elements were incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan. There
was a regional mixed-use area on Chinden Boulevard, two community scale mixed use
areas, and three neighborhood scale mixed-use areas. The city may address
recommendations individually and over time. Let's go to the next slide. We are
specifically looking at this application for an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan
Land Use Map and, companion to that, to add the mixed use village standards to the
text and, actually, proposing that we work with staff to modify all of the mixed use
standards, so that the hierarchy builds in accordance with the concept that's been put
forward. Several other items that will be addressed individually and by separate
processes include, for example, the urban service policies that the City Council adopted
and approved last evening that incorporated the recommendations from the North
Meridian Plan and additional work that staff had done with others in the process. An
element has already been addressed that included proposals of the North Meridian
Plan. A Park Plan must still be adopted. It's anticipated that the recommendations
contained in the plan will be considered and addressed during the process of actually
adopting that Park Plan. Public safety and other community service issues will also be
addressed. However, they do not involve or require an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan. The proposed solutions to some of the issues that have been
raised by the Fire Department in its March 19, 2002, memorandum to the Commission
will be addressed through the adoption or the development of the Capital Improvement
Plan, in conjunction with a long-term funding program for facilities that will be needed
not only in North Meridian, but other areas of the community as well. The Ada County
Highway District has provided comments to the Mayor and City Council and I'm
assuming -- I'm not certain, but I would assume that those comments have been
provided to the Commission this evening as well in the form of a March 20, 2003, letter.
I would note that the District's concerns have been reviewed and discussed at length
during the formulation of the North Meridian Plan. Yet transportation issues do remain
the most serious challenge associated with the effort. It is a separate item and apart
from the Comprehensive Plan itself. Those are facility issues that will have to be
addressed at that point. Perhaps the single transportation issue that does need to be
addressed as part of the Land Use Plan is the fact that we have made a
recommendation that Black Cat Road be designated as the north-south link through this
area that, again, would tie -- I'm going to put up another board on this easel for just a
moment. I hope the Commission Members can see that as well. Black Cat Road is
recommended to be the link between the Ten Mile Interchange at the south end of the
system, up to Highway 44 and Highway 16. The alternative is Ten Mile Road, which is
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 26, 2003
Page 29 of 63
exactly one mile to the east. We think that the Black Cat link makes sense, given that
Linder Road is just one mile to the east of Ten Mile and is already providing a link
across the river to the north to Highway 44 and to the area. If you look at this plan, you
have got Eagle Road, you got Linder Road -- it's our contention that Black Cat provides
a more logical link, given the fact that Star Road is down here, then anticipating that
there would be a future connection of Ten Mile across the river just one mile west of
Linder Road. In addition to that, by utilizing Black Cat and Linder Road as those two
primary north-south links, it, then, creates the opportunity for larger concentrations of
more subtle and discrete neighborhood types of uses within a four mile area in both
quadrants, rather than having two major roadways that, essentially, split north Meridian
entirely into two very distinct areas. The plan, again, recommends that Black Cat is the
most logical and the city should make a recommendation to Compass, knowing that the
designation of Black Cat need not affect the Ten Mile Interchange location. Now, Mr.
Chairman, I would conclude at that point, because I think this gives a brief summary of
the fact that we have a land use proposal with four mixed-use designations. We have
recommendations as far as the transportation system is concerned and there are
certainly some issues that we do want to address that respond directly to staff's report,
but would certainly stand for them to step in at this point.
Borup: Questions from the Commissioners before we go on?
Centers: Just one, Mr. Chairman. You're saying the ACHD's comments, in its current
form, the ACHD Board of Commissioners, are unable to adopt or endorse the North
Meridian Area Plan, you're saying that that comment and the ACHD is a separate
issue?
Wardle: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, yes. It really does not directly affect the
question of the land use element of the North Meridian Plan. Their issues are, as you're
well aware, you adopt recommendations that simply say comply with ACHD's
requirements and so they do not directly take a position that affects the land use.
Centers: Then, I think every -- not every, but most subdivisions that we see at the
Commission level, most of the opposition uses traffic as the reason for their opposition
and increased traffic. With that in mind, I think they go hand in hand. How are you
going to move the traffic and how are you going to pay for the expansion in the roads.
You're saying that they are separate issues?
Wardle: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Centers, they are, but let me take a step back to tell you that
-- and the public that are here this evening, that this entire process started -- this started
with two studies that ACHD commissioned. When they first started looking at
development applications in north Meridian and, specifically, at that time the big ones
were Bridgetower, Lochsa Falls, and Keltic Heights, now called Paramount. What they
did was they took a look first at a six square mile area and concluded that that was
probably not sufficient. They expanded that to look at a 12 square mile area. In
meeting with all of the elected officials of all three jurisdictions and the development
community concluded that our planning effort would look at everything within ten, simply
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 26, 2003
Page 30 of 63
noting that east of Locust Grove Road, part of that was already in the City of Boise a lot
of it was already committed to development. In the process, then, they did this second
study that said that over but a 20-year period they anticipated, essentially, a build out
scenario --
Centers: Who are they ACHD?
Wardle: Correct. You saw this little graphic a month ago when we discussed it, but
they did two comparisons and in their study they acknowledged the fact that the
Compass growth projections for North Meridian within this 10 square mile area
anticipated that there would be 4,214 new dwelling units over a 20 year period. What
they called the developer scenario was simply an extrapolation by Washington Group of
the development applications that had been submitted, essentially, over the ten square
mile area and they concluded that there would be a build out at 2020 of nearly 16,000
units. That's what prompted the Highway District and the City of Meridian to sit down
with the Ada county folks, who were basically receiving those applications, since the
land at that point was still un-annexed then, to go with the developers into a program to
assess how they could get these facilities in place. The problem is that when the Ada
County Highway District adopted a Capital Improvements Plan, they used the
COMPASS numbers for that projection for the next 20 years and, essentially, have not
identified projects that need to be developed in north Meridian. There is a point of
contention between the two entities. The point is that we are talking about the arterial
system that they either, by exaction or by impact fee credits, will improve and there is
no issue about that, that's, actually, something that they are putting on the development
community currently.
Centers: But ACHD's letter disputes every comment you just made, because they say
in their letter some members of the development community believe that the north
Meridian area will achieve full build out in the next 20 years, but we have no evidence to
support this claim.
Wardle: Well, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Centers, this is a discussion that I had with the Ada
County Highway District Commission two weeks ago and pointed out that there is a
step -- and if you will look at page --
Centers: I'm just reading what they wrote.
Wardle: I know. I know what they have stated.
Centers: And it's the opposite of what you just said, though.
Wardle: And I think that they are probably mistaken.
Centers: Okay.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 26, 2003
Page 31 of 63
Wardle: And I think that their own actions indicate that they are mistaken, with all due
respect to our good friends at ACHD. On Page ES-3 of the plan --
Centers: E-F?
Wardle: E-S. That's in the Executive Summary and the checklist, so right up at the
very beginning of the plan. There are several things that need to happen to accomplish
what ACHD is suggesting they want and let's start at the bottom with COMPASS.
COMPASS needs to revise the north Meridian growth projections. I want to emphasize
the reason for that is two fold. First, a map that your own staff has prepared that shows
the level of applications -- I'm wondering, Eileen, if we could go to slide -- this is at the
very end of this presentation, which I did not anticipate getting to, but go to slide 12.
Borup: And Page 4 in the staff report. I think that's the map that accompanies Page 4.
We don't have a map.
Wardle: Okay. This particular map is a map that was given to me by your staff that
identifies those projects in red that have been approved or are in the process of being
approved and others that are in the blue that are being planned for that North Meridian
Area. ACHD staff also has a tally sheet that identifies the number of -- and I'm going to
just -- I'm going to hold this up. I didn't make copies of it. This is a tally sheet of
subdivisions that have been approved or are pending that indicate that in the two-year
period -- the first two-year period of the planning process for North Meridian, the 2020
build out period, that 6,574 units have been approved or are in the process of being
approved for that same area.
Borup: Where did that come from?
Wardle: This is, actually, an item -- and I will provide it to you, you can make copies, but
this is from ACHD. This was provided to us several weeks ago when we met to talk
about a specific project. The fact that ACHD's own tally and the listing that is contain in
your staff report this evening on pages four and five of projects that have been
approved or pending and so forth, suggest that we already have, if this number is
correct, 50 percent more development proposals approved in terms of lots than what
the current Ada County Highway District Capital Improvements Plan projects for the
next 20 years. Back to your comment, Mr. Centers our point is that we have asked --
Centers: You're talking build out, Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Correct.
Centers: They use the term build out, not the number of subdivisions that had been
approved and the number of lots that have come on board.
Wardle: I agree, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Centers, the build out that they have projected
in their own study suggested, again, 15,912 build out by the year 2020.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 26, 2003
Page 32 of 63
Centers: That was the developers' estimate on your --
Wardle: No. I used that word -- that's a term that they used in the study that ACHD did
and funded through public funds with the Washington Group. They used two scenarios,
the COMPASS or the planning, and the developers. That was a term that they applied.
That number is directly from the ACHD funded study through Washington Group.
That's not our number. We have never generated a number that we said would be --
we talked about densities and the opportunity to increase those numbers, but -- so the
point is if you look at the COMPASS action checklist, we are suggesting that they need
to revise the north Meridian growth projections. That's a first and fundamental step and
they are in the process of doing that. Then, if you go up to the Ada County Highway
District, the first action item there is to prepare a Capital Improvement Plan based on
updated grow projections. See COMPASS. We are simply saying that the process is,
actually, underway that will make these efforts mesh and that is necessary, but I would,
again, contend that with all due respect to the ACHD Commission for what they have
told you this evening, that is not a fundamental land use issue. The only issue on
transportation that does pertain to the land use map is whether it will be Black Cat Road
or Ten Mile Road as the primary north-south link from the interstate to Highway 16. Mr.
Chairman, I will provide this sheet, so --
Borup: Appreciate that. Yes. We want to get a copy.
Wardle: So I understand ACHD's statements, but I just don't think that they are correct
or valid and I don't mean to get into a fight with ACHD, but I think we are already
contending a little bit, so --
Borup: Well, I think we can look at those numbers, the Washington Group numbers,
and the difference between COMPASS and the so-called developers numbers. My
feeling is it's going to be somewhere in between, if you look at a real world situation and
what's developed in the past -- I mean a good example would this area right here. I
think that COMPASS has 522 in this square mile and mine just left -- and 1,954 in the
second -- the second number. Paramount, which is that whole red area, only has 764.
If this over here has 764, you're not going to get another 1,200 in these white areas.
Wardle: Mr. Chairman that 764 is only a partial -- within the plan that you will see in a
month.
Borup: Okay.
Wardle: There is other land use --
Centers: It was 1,100 residential units.
Borup: Okay. I was looking at the summary on Page 5 so 1,100 in that -- it could be
pushing that.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 26, 2003
Page 33 of 63
Wardle: Yes.
Borup: But I'm not convinced that in 20 years that these things are going to be at full
build out. I mean you can look at the city -- the map of Meridian City proper and we still
have big pockets of areas that are pasture and -- but -- so it may be longer than 20
years, but some day.
Wardle: Mr. Chairman, the point -- I think there are two issues that we talked about with
the ACHD Commission. First and foremost, I don't know that anybody is going to be
able to guess when it's going to build out. Their study projected a 20-year build out and
we have said that we don't know whether it will happen in 20 years or not. I would
expect -- I guess if you took a poll of everybody that's developing in any of those
projects today, none of those people expect to be there in 20 years. They expect to be
out of those projects well in advance of that. Now, this area, whether they are other
locations within the City of Meridian or not, this is ground zero in the sense that Boise
has built to it on the west -- on the east as this moved west and Meridian, essentially,
when you look at your own development patterns, has largely built out to Ustick Road.
This is the area that by opening up first the White Drain Sewer Trunk and, then, the
North Slough Sewer Trunk that will actually provide service to Lochsa and to
Paramount, it opens up that whole tier to development in an accelerated manner. I'm
not here to try and nail down exact numbers, but I am suggesting that the numbers are
far different from those that have been projected. I want to just take it one step further
to show you exactly what ACHD has indicated. Let's go to the next slide. ACHD in this
Capital Improvement Plan that it adopted just recently, has indicated that there will be
three projects needed in the next 20 years. First is Ten Mile Road and the interesting
irony of this is that they don't project enough traffic on Ten Mile Road to make it impact
fee eligible. Then, the next item that they are talking about that would need to happen
in the next 20 years would be an intersection improvement at Linder and McMillan.
Then, finally, the one-mile section of McMillan Road between Meridian and Locust
Grove. Those are the only three projects within the North Meridian Planning Area that
ACHD sees being done in the next 20 years based on the growth projections that they
use for their Capital Improvements Plan. That's not -- that's not a realistic expectation
and the problem is, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Centers, if they follow the course of action
that they have set up in their Capital Improvements Plan. Then, they would be telling
any development that occurs out here the roadways need to be improved, but you can't
use impact fees to make those improvements. I would suggest to you that the problem
doesn't lie with the North Meridian Plan or the concepts that we have put forward, it lays
with the basis upon which the Capital Improvements Plan for transportation
improvements in North Meridian have occurred. It's going to happen and the needs are
going to be substantially greater than what there Capital Improvements Plan suggest,
so --
Centers: Don't they -- don't they update that every five years?
Wardle: Actually --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 26, 2003
Page 34 of 63
Centers: When is the last time they looked at that?
Wardle: 1997 was the last adopted one, I believe. They are now suggesting that it
needs to be updated at least every three years. The beauty is they can actually
updated it whenever they need to and they can do it whenever they look at
development patterns in an area, take an assessment of it, work with Compass to
review projected growth numbers and make adjustments. That's what we have told
them that needs to happen, that even though the plan that they have adopted right now
shows only this, which we don't think is really accurate, we believe that they have at
least the opportunity to make the changes necessary on a much short fuse basis than
what they have done in the past. Now, we have deviated a great deal from where we
started out here, but I think it's important for you to understand that what they have
provided to you I think is a perspective that is not necessarily accurate.
Centers: Okay.
Wardle: And that will get me into all sorts of trouble with my good friends at ACHD. Mr.
Chairman, I, again, would --
Borup: Yes. We would like to move on to the staff report. Maybe make just one
comment on your form here.
Wardle: Yes.
Borup: Maybe this reflects the accuracy of ACHD's numbers, I don't know, but
Silverleaf Subdivision says 730. I believe it was originally 73. They multiplied it by 10.
Wardle: That would account for some numbers. I'm sure that ACHD will probably --
Borup: And it got reduced to 72 in the last application.
Wardle: I can't account for the veracity of the numbers, I simply --
Borup: Well, that's probably the only one.
Wardle: Yes.
Borup: But that was quite a drastic one.
Wardle: Thank you.
Borup: For anybody in the audience, Will has made copies of these numbers and they
will be back on the back table if you'd like. They all should be close, except for that first
one. Okay. Ready for the staff report. Mr. Hawkins-Clark, are you going to be doing
that or --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 26, 2003
Page 35 of 63
Hawkins-Clark: Just to clarify, again, where we are at tonight, I think the plan that most
of you have received that -- as Mr. Wardle pointed out, the November 15th document,
that's the bound, the Comprehensive Plan Amendment that is before you tonight is not
this entire document. We are talking about just the Section B and that is in our staff
report that kind of highlights some features of that. I think some of where -- where staff
is going was, first of all, that we -- we don't anticipate that there would be a formal
recommendation tonight, because of some of the questions that we had in our staff
report. As well as I think that you probably will receive some testimony tonight that
provides some insight that I think is going to be very valuable to the process. That
neither staff, nor Mr. Wardle have considered, so -- but mostly I think we need to
remember that the Section B also -- it doesn't -- isn't outlined -- the Comprehensive
Plan amendment at this point isn't outlined to be well molded into -- or blended into our
current Comprehensive Plan. We have, as you know, about 14 different subject areas
in our 2002 Comp Plan that all, in one way or another, could sort of fold into this Section
B of this plan. What I was going to do just real quickly was highlight a couple of the
concerns, as well as just background information, I guess, that is going on -- or that we
have seen here. The slide that is on the screen now ties to Page 4 of our staff report
and it's bounded on the north by Chinden Boulevard, Highway 20-26. The North
Meridian area is here in the center of the screen. That's Ustick Road. Again, what we
are talking about with this proposed application is only everything west of Locust Grove
Road, which the vast majority of the development has applications that you have
approved and that Council has approved have taken place within this area. There are a
few subdivisions that are technically outside of the boundaries of the North Meridian
Plan Amendment, particularly the Parkstone Subdivision that P&Z recommended
approval of last month. It is outside, so any numbers have not been included for that in
terms of looking at traffic counts and other things like that. The Meridian School District
Charter High School site on North Locust Grove is also outside. Summerfield
Subdivision, Ada County -- a couple of Ada County subdivisions, Edinburgh Place and
Vienna Woods are all outside. All of these other colored grids and patterns here are
Preliminary Plats that have been approved all the way through the process by City
Council and it does total 3,378 lots. This is the similar slide to the one that you just
viewed, so I won't spend any time on that, but to go back to -- here is the grid that is on
Page 4 of the application for any others that don't have that document, but 3,379
buildable lots have been approved, approximately 1,231 acres are involved with that.
Again, we are talking about 6,400 acres with this plan amendment, the 10 square miles.
The pending residential Preliminary Plats are here and that adds another 1,135
buildable lots for -- about 440 more acres. Our estimate is that if you add this -- the
pending Preliminary Plats with the already approved Preliminary Plats, it's about 30
percent of the total area of the North Meridian area that has some form of entitlement
already pending or approval
Centers: Approved plats by the Council?
Hawkins-Clark: Correct. This document -- or this table that's up on the screen have
been approved by the City Council.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 26, 2003
Page 36 of 63
Centers: Okay.
Hawkins-Clark: Yes. That's the 3,378 number.
Centers: And pending could be approved by us, but not by them?
Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Pending has been accepted as formal applications by the city,
but have not had final action, so -- and, again, a key piece of this, I think, is the phasing
of all of these developments. You know, some of these preliminary plats -- for example,
the Lochsa Falls, you know, we saw three final plats come through at one time. Some
of them -- you know, you may see a final plat just one a year. It is going to be a little
difficult to estimate the actual build out on these, since so much of that is market driven
and we have already experienced some -- you know, some inconsistencies with when
these come in, the final plat applications and actual build out. Again, that's when the
impact fees are actually collected is at the time of receiving the Building Permits. There
is, I think, some analysis, frankly, that needs to be done there by us and ACHD on doing
a little bit better estimate on when the Final Plats are phased in the approved
preliminary plats, so we can get a better idea of the roadway impacts. I think, hopefully,
that gives you a sense of what -- what the plan scope is, what has already been
approved or pending. Then, what's on the screen here is just kind of a quick
summation of some of the key elements that are different or that vary between the 2002
Comp Plan and the proposed amendment that you have before you tonight. The
number of mixed-use areas -- both plans proposed regional, community, and
neighborhood. The city's adopted plan just has one regional area and that's at Chinden
between Black Cat and Ten Mile. The North Meridian Plan has three large areas. The
community centers, the City's Comp Plan has two of those. There are also two of the
community centers in the North Meridian Plan. There is also three of the neighborhood
designations in each plan and, then, the village is the main difference, one that's -- 16
are shown in the North Meridian Plan and the current Comp Plan does not, actually,
have a village designation in it at all. That may seem a little misleading, the 16,
because those are, again, fairly small in size, but they would certainly add quite a bit of
nonresidential uses that are not in the City's Plan as far as the number of park sites,
more or less equivalent. There is one additional park that the City's Park Master Plan
and our Comp Plan have that the North Meridian Plan does not. However, they are
encouraging strongly the neighborhood parks, which, to date, the Parks Department
has mostly looked at only community size parks, which would be the 25 to 30 acres.
Doug Strong, our new Parks and Recreation Director, is here tonight, should you have
any questions about the Park Plan. Since he's only been with us for two weeks, he may
not be able to give a whole lot of input, but that, certainly, he's expressed some
willingness to consider those neighborhood parks. They certainly, from staff's
perspective, have a lot of value, particularly on a case by case -- like the Parkstone
application that you saw the last month, which had that six-acre park in the middle of it.
I don't think that that is a large area of concern, because the city has got some flexibility
there, I think. The school sites are largely going to be the same, one elementary per
section. Then, the number of residential designations, the City of Meridian's Plan has a
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 26, 2003
Page 37 of 63
high density, medium density, and low density, whereas, the proposed amendment has
just one residential category that would have a minimum three dwelling units per acre.
There are some standards that we can get to -- get into later that go into more detail on
that, but it takes a step back and says we -- they don't feel comfortable in putting
specific categories on the map that say this will be low density, medium density, high
density. It's just takes a look at a single residential category and allows quite a bit of
flexibility within that. I think the -- some of the basis for that is the flexibility it does grant
the development community and they are not tied, per se, to the designation. Let me
go back to this other map here. On Page 6 of our staff report, we talk about these
mixed-use regional areas, which, again, are this red category, red color on the screen.
There is about 1,200 acres, more or less, of this mixed use regional on the North
Meridian Map all along the Chinden corridor at the Black Cat, McMillan Intersection and,
then, a piece here at the Ustick, Black Cat. Our experience is that property
assessments and market demand are going to frequently push up these high visibility
corridors and even though mixed-uses are permitted, you're typically going to see
developers come in with a hundred percent commercial if they can, particularly in a first
come, first serve kind of approach. As I state at the end of that, I think if the ordinances
that are put in place actually set up a requirement for residential and for required mixed
uses. This is a little bit of -- our concern is ameliorated a little bit, but that's a lot of
commercial designation and that ties to our need -- our desire to see the Zoning
Amendment for the traditional neighborhood development, which was Section C to
accompany this. Otherwise, you know, we just don't have ordinances in place now that
can help us to accomplish what this plan envisions with these areas. That's a concern,
but I think there is some room for getting growth management or other design control
tools, you know, integrated later, but, even so, I think a little bit more economic
feasibility is probably going to be important for this area. The economic consultant that
we had come in as part of our Comp Plan process, I believe he was estimating
somewhere in the neighborhood of 45 to 50,000 square feet of retail, supported by a
one and a half to two square mile area. That, of course, has got a lot of room in it. That
report is available if any of the Commissioners would like to see it and -- but it kind of
gives a feel for how -- you know, for how much, you know, residential and the
relationship there. The Urban Land Institute is also got quite a bit of numbers and there
is a lot of research out there that I don't think we have really fully applied that we could
to this plan, but that corridor is a concern.
Borup: Brad, question. Is it the Chinden Corridor that you're mainly concerned about or
the general -- or the amount of commercial in the whole area?
Hawkins-Clark: The Chinden Corridor is probably the first and foremost. You know,
ITD does have -- they classify that as a type four facility, which, you know, is going to
just have half mile signals, so we don't have the concern of a strip, in that you have your
curb cuts, you know, every two or 300 feet. I mean that's not the issue. It's really more
of a design. You're going to have some controlled access up there, so the concern, I
think, for us is just more the ratio, the relationship between the amount of commercially
designated land to the population base that's anticipated.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 26, 2003
Page 38 of 63
Borup: Well -- and that was one of the questions I had with that area designated, is
with the general as it is, is there anything preventing residential going in those areas?
Hawkins-Clark: Well, no. No, it's --
Borup: Not with the mixed-use, it could still be --
Hawkins-Clark: Correct.
Borup: Well, I'm thinking of -- well, Eagle Road specifically. Eagle Road from McMillan
to Chinden and, then, that area. It has a pretty good mixture of residential and
commercial. I don't know if that was planned or that was just the way the marketplace
worked out, but -- and they seem to be compatible, but the square footage of
commercial you're talking about is a lot different than what that area has, too. I had the
same thing, especially after reading the staff report, can this area support that much but
--
Hawkins-Clark: Well -- and we recognize that --
Borup: It if can't support industrial, then, it's going to go residential. I mean we have
seen examples of that in our city already, an area that was zoned industrial and went
residential.
Hawkins-Clark: Yes. We recognize that this is a regional area. Part of the --
sometimes the difficulty in looking at planning and putting lines on the maps is that you
tend to get stuck and, remember, we are not just talking about Meridian's area of impact
in terms of the potential market. I mean Eagle has got three miles for shared frontage
on the north side of Chinden, all of which is -- I believe the majority is residential, if not a
hundred percent of it. You know, you have the two golf courses on the north side, some
of the Star area, some of the eastern Canyon county, potentially all -- you know, all of
that. We are -- you know, we are not just talking, admittedly so, about this 10 square
mile area.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Hawkins-Clark: I think the only comment I would make on the Black Cat Corridor issue
is that the Highway District has set a policy to acquire five-lane right of way, so -- a
principal arterial on both Black Cat and Ten Mile. In terms of speed and width today, the
Highway District's policy is for both of those to be identical. I think, really, the bigger
question, as Mr. Wardle pointed out, is the -- you know, the land uses along those and if
Black Cat is not going to -- if that remains a five lane, is that's going to -- can a regional
center survive there just as well as it could on a five lane Ten Mile? Possibly but I think
there is -- the question of can traffic move over from the future Ten Mile Interchange --
you know, there is numerous places the traffic could cross from Ten Mile over to Black
Cat between I-84 and Ustick. The question of ITD is a little bit out there, but I think
most planners and transportation folks would agree that ITD is not going to acquire right
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 26, 2003
Page 39 of 63
of way to make -- from 44, the Emmett highway, all the way to I-84. They are not going
to make that a state highway, it's going to be the local system, -- you know, that entire
stretch in there. It really is not a question of I think the classification or who is going to
have the jurisdiction, it's probably going to remain ACHD, but I think it's important for us
to look at the corridor as far as land uses, definitely. The main obstacles, I think, to
consider is that the city has accepted a residential plat for 35 acre residential where
there is -- shown here at the Ustick, Black Cat intersection, that's going to be
processed. There is also an existing 70-acre Ada County Subdivision that's here at the
northeast corner of McMillan and Black Cat. The school district has intentions to have a
55 to 70 acre facility there on the -- next to the wastewater treatment plant. I think that's
really a big question for the Highway District and others to have a lot more
conversations about. We are recommending that Wastewater Treatment Plant area be
-- have a mixed-use overlay placed on it. Our Public Works Department does have
concerns about residential immediately abutting the wastewater treatment plant. We
would like to see that remain as our current plan has it. Then, for any of you that were
involved with our Comp Plan process, the whole question of where the neighborhood
centers are potentially most viable at the mid section or at the intersections, received a
lot of discussion. This plan is showing some neighborhood commercial at the half
miles. The Meridian plan doesn't show any large commercial at the key intersections,
so I won't go into that whole argument here tonight, but I think it does relate to the
whole design of how these intersections would work. I believe Ada County staff had at
one point talked about the -- you know, if we are wanting to get these -- these
intersections to really go function in a way that isn't just a massive high speed, you
know, overpass. Actually, get -- alleviate congestion, you may have a possibility of
having some kind urban interchanges or other design things that keep you from having
your Fairview-Eagle kind intersection. I think there is a lot of -- you know, there are
certainly some tools out there that many folks have thrown out for how to get a good
intersection to function well with commercial added. I think at the same time our plan
has only been in place for a few months, so we do feel that giving it some time to
actually work and have the community know that there is a plan that the city is going to
stick to is important. I'm not sure that -- there was some other text policies that I
touched on, on Page 7 and 8 of the staff report that I think are a little bit tangential to
the big questions before you tonight on the land use map. The Urban Service Policies
Section I think is -- we came to agreement last night, City Council adopted that, so I'm
not sure there is much discussion. You should have in your boxes this week what the
Council adopted last night, so you can see some of those policies. We are, I think,
more or less in agreement with the applicant on that section of -- the subsection of B on
how the Urban Service Policies would work and that's available for you to see, so I don't
foresee too much discussion really happening there, unless at the next meeting after
you have had a chance to review what's put in your boxes, if you have questions, then,
that could be looked at. There is quite a bit of discussion on parks, some new ideas on
how to fund parks that are included in the plan and I guess the main comment I would
have on that is the -- I don't think that this -- that the Comprehensive Plan is necessarily
the place to put real detailed park implementation strategies, that's probably best put
into the Park Master Plan. I think we do have some -- you know, some broad policies
related to parks that may fit, but, for the most part, I think those policies that are related
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 26, 2003
Page 40 of 63
to parks in Section B would best fit into the Parks Master Plan and their Public Hearing
process on that, which should be upcoming soon. Did you want to speak to that at all,
Doug?
Strong: If there is a question.
Hawkins-Clark: Okay. Yes. If there are questions on that park section, again, Doug is
here. We do have some concerns about splitting off the North Meridian Area into a
separate impact fee zone, which it was proposed for both street impact fees and park
impact fees. It's just difficult to really, I think, project that we would have all of the needs
met. I think we prefer to have the flexibility to use impact fees everywhere in the City of
Meridian, not just have to spend them only in the north Meridian area. That is a
concern of ours. Any questions at this point?
Centers: Mr. Chairman. While you have that map still here, Mr. Clark, you mentioned
residential here and here. It's already been approved. You just referred to that.
Hawkins-Clark: No.
Centers: Applications?
Hawkins-Clark: There is an application, correct, that's been received.
Centers: So those acreages are not included on page five of your report?
Hawkins-Clark: That's correct.
Centers: Could we go back to the overlay that Mr. Wardle had up there at the end of his
presentation where it showed in pink and it showed Lochsa and all the --
Borup: Staff had prepared that map, I think.
Centers: It could have been staff prepared it. It refers to the acreage that you're talking
about. There we go. This is the 10 square miles. In your acreage calculations, you
quote 1,950 acres and there is 6,400 acres there these four sections, 2,560 -- 2,560
acres of it. In the notes, you say this does not include the six to eight built out, Ada
county, rural density subs within this area. Are some of those in this --
Hawkins-Clark: Yes, they are.
Centers: Do you have any idea how many acres are involved in those six to eight built
out, because they are built out and they are not going to change them?
Hawkins-Clark: I'm sorry, I don't -- I don't have that tonight.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 26, 2003
Page 41 of 63
Centers: Take a wild guess. Do you think we are more than half built out in that 10-
mile square area? Not built out, but approved out and built out?
Centers: Half would be 3,200 acres.
Borup: Commissioner Centers, yes, it's all -- I would say 50 percent would be
stretching it. I mean, you know, I think that those Ada County Subdivisions are mostly
five to 10 acre subs and they are, you know, 13 to 15 lots or something like that each,
so I don't -- you know, a couple hundred acres.
Hawkins-Clark: 39.6.
Centers: You get where I'm coming to here? We have a Comp Plan from 2002 that, as
you said, a lot of effort went into it. I'm aware of some of that effort personally and the
staff's efforts and, then, right on its heels we get an amendment to that Comp Plan for
6,400 acres, maybe 3,200 acres of which is already built out or approved out. Why?
Are their developers -- and maybe Mr. Wardle can comment on this. Are there
developers of certain large subdivisions that are coming down the pike pushing for this
Comp Plan change?
Hawkins-Clark: Well, I can tell you that we do have an application that is -- for the
Paramount subdivision which --
Centers: Yes. I'm aware of it.
Hawkins-Clark: -- would certainly be impacted by this proposed change and, as you
know, this was not -- this whole north Meridian effort, the city had a big role in it we were
a key stakeholder, but it was not a city initiated or city facilitated process. I can tell you
specifically on that project that there would be changes proposed here that would
facilitate the concept plan that we have seen.
Borup: But other than that, for the most part, no matter what happens on this plan,
subdivisions are still going ahead. It's not really going to have an effect on --
Centers: And that's my point, Mr. Chairman. We have got -- you know, maybe I'm
stretching it -- half built out or approved out, but, you know, we are talking about a 10
square mile area here and we are really not.
Borup: Oh. Right.
Centers: We are not.
Borup: Yes, because --
Centers: Because most of it's built out or approved out and -- but, yet, they want to
change a lot of things that -- Number 1, that I see was the bottom there, one residential
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 26, 2003
Page 42 of 63
zone, period and, you know, flexibility. I think that's the major change. Don't get me
wrong, I have been involved in approving a lot of subdivisions and I could be
considered pro-development, but I just don't -- I don't see the big need. That's my
personal opinion and -- I don't see a big problem, but I don't see a big need.
Borup: Any other questions --
Centers: No. Thank you.
Borup: -- for staff Brad, maybe just one. You made a couple references to -- well one
was for like the Ten Mile, Black Cat connection, and intersection, maybe a need for
future urban intersection. Who would -- who would be looking at deciding where those
would be necessary would that be ACHD? What I'm getting at is the idea of
preservation -- of right of way preservation. At this point, now that we are planning this,
in my mind is the time to look at that preservation, not 20 years when we have to tear
down buildings to accommodate those types of things.
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, I mean the -- the city, as you know, has an ad hoc --
or a Transportation Committee that makes recommendations as a part of the TIP
process every year. The Transportation Improvement Program, and that annual
process does have a big impact on what, of course, gets put into the five year work
program and the CIP for Ada County Highway District. I -- you know, Mr. Wardle had
made some reference to the -- you know, the fact that ACHD has not included any of
these North Meridian grid streets in their plan, but, at the same time, the City of
Meridian hasn't recommended in our annual TIP process that any of them be put in
there.
Borup: And I understand that part. I'm -- I am concerned about the preservation of the
right of ways and those won't be in a five-year plan or maybe even in a 10-year plan,
but --
Hawkins-Clark: Correct.
Borup: But if we can project and know there is going to be a need, I think it behooves
us to be worried about that now when the projects are coming up and make that a
requirement of the development or application to at least have a right-of-way
preservation. I know we did that at the Crossroads, supposedly, unless it changed
when it went on to City Council. I mean there is -- originally, there was enough right-of-
way for an urban interchange there, at least on the two corners. That just looks -- but
who would make that determination or where they are necessary and also that that
information be available to staff, so that it can be looked at on -- when the projects
come along. Is there a method to allow for that?
Hawkins-Clark: Well, I think it -- that's probably best answered by a representative from
the Highway District, but today, unless it's in the five-year work program, they can't pay
for it, so --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 26, 2003
Page 43 of 63
Borup: Well, I'm not even talking about paying for it. I'm talking about just preserving
the right of way.
Hawkins-Clark: Right. We are at an advantage here in this North Meridian Area that
the vast majority of it --
Borup: Exactly.
Hawkins-Clark: -- is all going to have to be annexed and one of the findings for
annexing property is it in the best interest of the city.
Borup: Well, see, but we can't make that requirement and preserve that unless we
know where they are going to be necessary.
Hawkins-Clark: Which is a collaborative process between at the city and --
Borup: I, for one, would really like to see that before we get too much further along. It's
a waste of taxpayer's money to be going in there and tearing down buildings to widen
intersections. Okay. Mr. Wardle will talk about that. Thank you. Mr. Wardle, if that's
okay, I think I would like to go ahead and get some input from the public first, and, then,
perhaps you could answer staff's questions and that at the same time.
Wardle: Well, Mr. Chairman, I will certainly defer to your choice, but I think that some of
the issues that have been raised will be addressed if I can have a chance to respond,
so that -- otherwise, there will be a lot of confusion on the part of folks. There are
statements made here by staff and by Commission members that, really, are not in
accord with what the intent is. I think it's important to make some statements and,
perhaps, if I tied it up, then, the public can state whatever -- I'd like to finish it, so that
we can at least put the package together for everybody to understand what they are
really dealing with.
Borup: You don't even know what the public wants to say at this point.
Wardle: Well, the public needs to be able react to the whole picture, so I'm suggesting
that if I have a chance to finish just comments on staff's input, then, the whole package
will be there and some of the questions will have been answered.
Borup: Okay. Let's go ahead.
Wardle: Let's go to slide Number 4 that puts us in juxtaposition of the City's Comp Plan
with the board on the easel. I wanted to pick up a couple of important pieces from the
discussion that just occurred. Let me start with right of way preservation. Among the
publicly funded studies that ACHD has done that have included the study that started it,
is another study that they recently completed that identifies the specific right of way
requirements for all of these roadways and there is a construction cost estimate for all
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 26, 2003
Page 44 of 63
of them based on three to five lanes of improvements and intersections. The right of
way requirements have been identified or the eventual build out of that area and
certainly will be required by ACHD in any development application that occurs on this
arterial grid.
Borup: That's on the section line roads.
Wardle: Section line roads. Correct.
Borup: That doesn't do your coat hanger tie in from Ten Mile to Black Cat, though.
Wardle: Oh, to the south?
Borup: Well, you -- on one of your transportation maps you showed a conceptual tie in.
That one. Yes so, that would not -- would identify it in --
Wardle: Mr. Chairman, Commission Members, no, that is not and, certainly, it has to be
addressed and that's why we have suggested in the action checklist that that issue be
addressed early. It needs to be done and we are in full accord.
Borup: Now, does the ACHD study address intersections?
Wardle: Intersection improvements in the North Meridian Area, yes. All of those
associated with any of this Ten Mile square grid.
Borup: I mean as far as a huge necessity for an interchange, perhaps? Have they
gone to that extent?
Wardle: Mr. Chairman, the -- no, they have not. They have simply looked at it in the
context of whether it's a three or five lane intersection.
Borup: That's the way I read it.
Wardle: Yes. That's what they have formulated.
Borup: So is that --
Wardle: Alternatives are not considered.
Borup: Is that practical to look at areas that may need improvements beyond the 20
years?
Wardle: Mr. Chairman, I think their basis is that it's built out in 20 years. That's -- they
have actually looked at build out as the basis. Whether it occurs in 20 years or not, it's
built out is the number that they addressed.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 26, 2003
Page 45 of 63
Borup: There would need to be more improvement at that point, because traffic is not
going to increase anymore?
Wardle: How can you tell, Mr. Chairman? It's a question that probably our generation
isn't going to have an answer for.
Borup: Okay. Well, I was going back on --
Centers: Speak for yourself.
Borup: -- on Brad's statement that perhaps the interchange may be necessary at some
of those and I don't know if that's based on -- that's not based on anything that ACHD
has put there, then?
Wardle: That is correct.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Go ahead.
Wardle: Mr. Chairman, in comments that Mr. Centers made, I need to go back to the
genesis of this effort. The they, in terms of coming up with this plan -- and you would
recall that in June of 2001. Then, in September of 2001, information was presented to
this Commission during the formulation of the Comprehensive Plan that this process
had been initiated. The initiators were the Mayor of Meridian, the Chairman of the Ada
County Commission, and the Chairman of the Ada County Highway District
Commission, who came to the development community and said we want to look at the
this entire area. This is not -- was not created -- was not initiated by the development
community, this came from the elected officials from the three entities involved.
Absolutely, this process follows along, but we also submitted to this Commission in
September of 2001 a statement that suggested that you needed to be aware. That
when you adopted that plan you had two choices, you could keep out the North
Meridian Area in anticipation of a completion or you could simply note that at the time
that the North Meridian Plan was completed, that you would consider how that would be
interfaced with that plan. Let me go into a couple of specifics now that just deal with the
staff report itself. On Page 2 of the staff report, staff suggests that the process that
would be anticipated in this -- this is from the third paragraph down. It talks about a
multi-step review and approval process and, then, in the latter part of that paragraph
staff does not support the application -- or the amendment with out concurrent approval
of a formal Zoning Amendment. We agree that we need to work out the mixed-use text
and standards, but that the Zoning Amendments are a second step in the process. The
first step, really, is does the land use plan propose and does the four tier mixed-use
designation meet the city's expectation. If the Commission does not agree with the
concept, then, it should make that recommendation immediately to the City Council, so
the Council can make a final decision and if the Council does not agree with the plan
concept that's been put forward, then, the process ends. Nothing more happens. I
want to stress -- and I would read just a statement from the plan itself, Page B-1,
bottom left paragraph, which said, an early and often repeated objective by the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 26, 2003
Page 46 of 63
participants -- and that largely was from elected officials -- has been to, quote to change
the development patterns of the poorly connected and repetitive single-family
subdivisions, which were symbolic of the last decade's growth. My contention to you is
that we have an opportunity to consider a significant question. The plan that has been
put forward -- and Mr. Hawkins-Clark had indicated that you have three land use
designations, but there are only two residential land use designations in north Meridian.
There is a low density and a medium density and, essentially, there is no high-density
proposal land use element in that North Meridian Area. We really have, again, 30
percent of the land area is in less than three units per acre. That will consume far more
land than the question that I put to the City Council, before is Meridian intent on being
an urban community or semi rural. If semi rural and you incorporate the lower density
elements in this area, you, essentially, will consume far more land and generate what is
so often referred to as that negative dreaded sprawl, because you will, then, if -- if X
number of units want to come into an area, they are going to have to go somewhere.
The intent of the plan is to increase the density and -- not dramatically, but to increase it
to a point that, in fact, there may be an opportunity for public transportation in the future.
I would contend to you that that plan, as adopted in 2002, is not a plan that would
generate public transportation opportunities. It will continue basically as a single-family
element. Now, the other part that I wanted to make from your earlier discussion is that
plan, that is not commercial, that is a mixed-use designation and if commercial uses are
proposed, they have to go through the process for specific approval. You could have
nothing but residential in that area, but if you have residential, we have actually set a
minimum standard of residential in that high traffic corridor and six units per acre, which
would probably generate sufficient land use density for public transportation. The reality
is that there is nothing on this plan that is a given commercial site mixed-use and within
each of those mixed-use areas there are standards proposed for any commercial uses,
but they are not automatic. There is no designating -- you have got commercial
designations already established here, but in all of these other areas, these mixed-use
areas, they have to come in and go through a site specific process in order to get
approval for anything other than residential. That's an important and a key element. I
don't -- let's see. I will skip to Page 6 of your staff report where it's talking about the
mixed-use regional issues. This would be our slide Number 8 and the questions or the
comments that I would make on this are -- I think fit right into what staff is asking. Is
there too much regional mixed-use area identified? There may be. Maybe needs to be
paired back so that not -- this whole frontage would be regional mixed use. Maybe it
needs to pick up more towards the intersections. They may be, as I said a moment
ago, residential only projects, but at a higher density, the minimum six units per acre.
Maybe we want to limit nonresidential mixed-use projects and require an absolute
minimum percentage of residential in any and all mixed-use projects, so that nobody
could come in with regional mixed-use proposal that did not include residential. It would
have to be incorporated. I think that there are opportunities to address those concerns
and I would agree with staff that we ought to work toward that. On Page 6, relative to
the Wastewater Treatment Plant -- and this is the Item Number 3, we agree with the
staff recommendation that says just exactly as you have in your Comp Plan. There is
no need to make that change. That probably is the most reasonable use of that area.
On Page 7, mixed-use centers -- and this is Item Number 4 in the staff report on Page 7
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 26, 2003
Page 47 of 63
at the top. This gets back to a fundamental question of precisely what type of uses you
want. The concept of the North Meridian Plan is for great flexibility in locating the
services and commercial, but also in encouraging higher density, not great high
densities, but a higher density type of land use that would encourage public
transportation in the future. Now, the location of those mixed-use centers -- again,
where staff on the Comp Plan map, which is down here, had them at the half-mile line, I
would simply point out several challenges associated with that. First and foremost, that
concept is not tested. It's a concept that came out of California and was a concept that
-- to the knowledge of when the discussion occurred in some of our task forces, had
really not been -- it was not on the ground. It had not been tested. The location of
those centers I would suggest to you are somewhat arbitrary, who knows what those
locations would be. The problem is that by locating those at the mid section lines,
rather than at the intersections -- and let's assume for a moment, for discussion, that
this was one of those centers, that it was right at this half mile line. Your most intense
traffic, if that's the commercial node, will be at a point where there is only two means of
ingress and egress. All of the traffic intensifies at the mid section line where you can
get to it only from this direction and from this direction. Certainly from the two sections
right here, whereas, if you have it at the intersection, you have got four means --
ingress-egress points and you also have the opportunity for four sections to basically
get access to this internally. That's a concept that I presented to you in two reports or
two articles last month and would suggest that the idea is significant. That if we end up
with those at the half-mile line -- and all we have done is we have created the traffic
problem there, with only two ways to get in and out, versus spreading that at a four-way
intersection. Now, the challenge is -- and it's been identified by the originator of that
mid section concept, who subsequently proposed an arterial grid concept that is
practical and visionary in coming up with intersection designs that are far different from
anything that we have seen today. Your challenge and question is simply do we stick
with a concept that is untested or do we try to take advantage of a greater flexibility as
proposed in the North Meridian Plan. Now, let me just get to basically the summation.
On Page 7 the text policies, you got items one through four, the land use policies, which
I stated earlier I think are the only issues that, really, are being addressed at this point.
That needs to be formulated and a recommendation made to the City Council and it
gets down to the question of do we agree that there is a benefit in implementing a plan
as proposed. If so, are the four mixed-use designations the appropriate uses? Item
Number 2, urban services, has been addressed. The school policies, Item Number 3,
actually, we think that this just simply needs to be worked out with the city and the
schools and ordinance changes made, but we don't disagree with staff's suggestion that
some of these larger schools need to be Conditional Use Permit applications. With
regard to the parks, we expect and would hope that the Parks Department would look at
the issues raised in the plan and incorporate a discussion of those issues in its
formulation of the plan itself when they adopt it later and, then, modify the Land Use
Plan accordingly. Finally, let me just get back to the decision. Does the Commission
agree that the North Meridian land use concept should be incorporated into the Plan? If
yes, then, we would ask the Commission proceed to develop, with staff, a set of
compromise standards for the mixed-use designations. I do have a handout of this
particular item that you can pass that down. This is slide Number 10 that shows a
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 26, 2003
Page 48 of 63
comparison of the Comp Plan currently and the proposals out of the North Meridian
Plan and, then, leaves space for us to work through a reasonable compromise with
staff. If the Commission agrees, then, we need to set about getting those standards
created. That action, then, would follow -- would be followed by a zoning ordinance
amendment. If there is not agreement that the plan itself has merit and should be
considered and adopted then we would ask, again, that the Commission make an
immediate recommendation for denial to the City Council, so that the Council can make
a decision. If the Council agreed with the Commission, the effort would be moot, the
process would end, you would have your Comprehensive Plan adopted in 2002, and
you would be able to move forward with the implementation of that plan. Mr. Chairman,
that's all that I would have and would be happy to answer questions or simply wait until
the very end and allow the public to comment and, then, respond.
Borup: Questions for Mr. Wardle at this point?
Centers: I think I'll wait until the end. I have a couple, but I will remember them.
Borup: Okay. Time now for any testimony from the public, if those that would like to
would forward at this time. We did have a few sign up. If you still want to speak, come
on up.
Vanarnem: Well, I crossed my name off, so I can wait, but I just want to --
Borup: Come on up. You're the first one to stand up.
Vanarnem: This is my first time at Meridian P&Z. I have attended Eagle's P&Z and --
Borup: Need to get your name and address for the record.
Vanarnem: Bob Vanarnem. I live at 3049 South Whitepost Way.
Borup: Thank you.
Vanarnem: Can we have the slide up again on this North Meridian Land Use Map?
That's good enough. What got me involved in this was the noise level that we were
experiencing where we live that has become, for me, an issue. When we are in our
home in the wintertime and the windows are closed, in some rooms of our home during
the morning rush, we can hear traffic noise. Addressing this with the Planning and
Zoning Commission of Eagle, a Commissioner suggested to me that one way to get this
problem addressed would be to have Commissioners, along with the developers, work
together with ACHD and ITD to address the issue of speed on these highways, the
congestion, the absence of traffic lights and so forth. What concerns me about this
proposed amendment is what we see on Eagle Road is a 55 mile per hour speed limit,
commercial development, ingress and egress into the development, with no reduction in
speed. The speed is what's impacting the noise along with the traffic counts, which is
what's intrusive in our neighborhood. If we didn't have the noise created by this speed,
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 26, 2003
Page 49 of 63
the absence of traffic lights and the congestion, it really wouldn't be of concern to me.
Chinden Boulevard could become a seven-lane road. In fact, I believe Mr. Hawkins-
Clark at the City Council Meeting mentioned that as an arterial and specifically said
seven lanes. I don't know if you meant hypothetically or if that was, indeed, what you
understood to be the plan. Eagle Road at five lanes is an ugly highway and I can't
imagine the noise level when Chinden Boulevard goes to seven -- five or seven lanes.
What I would like to see happen is that if the City of Meridian is going to allow for
development of this nature, that there be -- include transportation issues. Despite what
Mr. Wardle said, was to consider transportation issues when this land is developed,
because I, for one, cannot see how you can continue to add traffic on Chinden
Boulevard and not have absolute gridlock along this whole stretch of highway as
Chinden Boulevard exists now. If you're going to have commercial development,
according to the traffic analysis that was done for the Lakemoor Subdivision, the
Lakemoor development, which will be on the east side of Eagle Road, north of Chinden,
for motorists to be attracted to commercial development and stop. Actually, use the
development, the speed needs to be reduced from 55, ideally to 30 to 40 as quoted in
that traffic analysis, but I would be happy if we could get it down to 45. Eagle Road,
with a posted speed right now of 55, has an average speed of 63 miles per hour. I don't
see anything happening different on Chinden Boulevard, unless the commissioners, as
yourself along with the developers, say, hey, we want the speed reduced, so that we
can get the interest in the commercial activity and improve the noise level that we deal
with as residents.
Borup: Any questions? I just had one. You made a comment on gridlock.
Vanarnem: Yes.
Borup: Was that -- I wasn't sure -- reference to the will happen if you don't --
Vanarnem: Well, right now I would say we have gridlock during some day parts --
Borup: So, that would slow the speed down pretty much, then.
Vanarnem: It would slow the speed down, but --
Borup: Which it would. Is that your objective, to slow the speed down?
Vanarnem: Well, are you being serious, because --
Borup: Just a little bit --
Vanarnem: Well, yes, but do we really want -- do we really want gridlock and are
people going to be happy with that?
Borup: They are not.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 26, 2003
Page 50 of 63
Vanarnem: The realistic thing is a four-lane road or five-lane, Chinden, five-lane road,
reduced speed --
Borup: To keep the traffic from moving.
Vanarnem: Right.
Borup: Okay. Yes, sir.
Barrett: I prepared a page and a half letter for the Commissioners I'd like to share with
you.
Borup: Okay.
Barrett: My name is John Barrett. My address is 2412 West Bannock Street in Boise.
I'm co-executive director of Idaho Smart Growth. If you don't know, we are an
education and advocacy non-profit organization promoting responsible land use and
transportation planning, not only in the Treasure Valley, but other parts of Idaho that are
growing rapidly. I'm going to keep my comments brief, because of the hour and I want
to hear what others have to say. I do want to acknowledge that we are providing
assistance to the development of the north Meridian area plan. Specifically, we have
been bringing to the effort model land use policies and design standards for
development and participating in conversations about those standards and policies.
Considering in those conversations whether or not it should be incorporated into the
North Meridian Area Plan and we have an interest in remaining involved, we'd like to
help some of the -- answer some of the questions and unresolved issue that have come
up tonight and that are brought out in the staff report. I'd like to comment on just a
couple things I have been hearing, as opposed to just reading the letter verbatim. I want
to say something about the relationship between density and our transportation street
network and the traffic congestion. I hear people say, well, more density means more
traffic and more traffic congestion and I understand that belief. It intuitively makes some
sense. I think we take a little different view on that. Traffic congestion is largely
produced by two things. Number 1, when low density residential development is spread
across an area uniformly and that area has no destinations that people want to go to
within proximity to that developed area, take North Meridian, for example. Next week
we are going to be releasing a new national survey about walking and bicycling and it
asks people why don't you walk more often. The Number 1 answer they gave was the
places I want to go are too far away. The places I want to go are too far away. The
North Meridian Area Land Use Map as proposed provides incentives and design
standards to encourage developers to create those destinations, those places that
residents can go to by walking and by bicycling and by transit, that mixture of different
kinds of uses gives people the opportunity to not drive. I think that's a way to manage
traffic congestion. The other source of traffic congestion is a street -- and maybe I'm
repeating something or saying something you have already talked about previously, but
traffic congestion is also created by a street system or street layout that's disconnected
that doesn't give people choices about how to get from point A-to point B. That kind of
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 26, 2003
Page 51 of 63
disconnected street network forces people to use arterials and highways like Chinden
Boulevard. Again, the North Meridian Area Plan provides encouragements and
envisions a street network that is interconnected and that does give people choices, it
does help disperse traffic, so that all cars aren't funneled onto certain high volume
streets. The last thing I'll say is I don't know if this is a statement or a question, but I
want to say something about how we see the relationship between the North Meridian
Land Use Map to the right of the screen and the comprehensive future land use map,
Comprehensive Plan land use map on the left of the screen. If I'm wrong about this, I'd
like to be corrected. We see this North Meridian Land Use Map Plan as an overlay. It
doesn't discount or abandon all of the hard work and investment that was made in the
City's Comprehensive Plan, it is an overlay map that gives developers the opportunity to
submit projects that meet that -- those land use designations. If a developer does not
want to submit that kind of project for those designated areas, then, the city's
Comprehensive Plan and that map is still the default. It doesn't go away. It's not being
replaced by the map on the right. That's how I see that. This North Meridian Land Use
Map simply gives developers another alternative to develop under if they don't want to
do the Comprehensive -- follow the Comprehensive Plan as adopted. It's not replacing
it, as I see it. Again, if I'm wrong, I'd like to be corrected. My letter makes other
comments and I will leave my comments -- end my verbal comments now and would be
happy to answer any questions.
Borup: Okay. Are there any questions for Mr. Barrett? Thank you.
Barrett: Thank you.
Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else that would like to come forward?
Nelson: I'm Patricia Nelson. I'm Planning Manager for Ada County Development
Services and I will just give you some comments. I would encourage you to ask Mr.
Hawkins-Clark for the letter that the county wrote -- I believe, Mr. Wardle, was that last
year when the initial drafts -- I think it was a four page letter that the county wrote that
addressed some of these issues. I think it would be helpful in your deliberations to look
at that. We did have similar concerns regarding the build out number and all I can say
on that issue is with Meridian staff and other regional staff, I am a member of them all,
the advisory committee and the demographic advisory committee of COMPASS, and
we are -- we start with the control totals for the county. Those have been very accurate
through the years, those forecasts. We try to assign, then, growth to -- appropriately
within -- listen to the cities as to where that growth will occur throughout Ada County
and the policy of the Ada County Comp Plan and through our Zoning Ordinances to --
our goal is to have 95 percent of the growth occur within the areas of impact. We are
more than willing to give up the rural and put that in the cities, if that's where people
think that will happen. That will be looked at and I will not say tonight that I believe that
that will build out in 20 years. I think Chairman Borup had it exactly right, that there are
a lot of other pressure points throughout the county. At least those are revised every
five years as we learn more of what's going on, those projections. I guess that's all I
have to say tonight and I will stand for any questions.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 26, 2003
Page 52 of 63
Borup: Any questions? A couple of comments I have. You had commented on the
growth projections from Compass. Are you saying that you feel that they are accurate?
or --
Nelson: They need reviewed and they will be reviewed and they are being reviewed
countywide, I guess. That process is underway. It's the goal to have those ready for
the 2030 regional transportation plan.
Borup: I know I have seen some of the past ones and usually they are very accurate.
In this particular area I think it's fairly obvious that there needs to be some revisions,
though.
Nelson: Well, Mr. Chairman, they are very accurate at the county total. When you get
to the traffic analysis zone level, yeah, it's --
Borup: Well, I'm just looking at one square mile.
Nelson: There is a wide variety. That's why they are done every five years.
Borup: This one square mile it had 500 projected and we got an 1,100 lot subdivision
within that mile already proposed, so --
Nelson: I guess that's the other -- Mr. Chairman, is that we are looking at people, not at
lots, as you said, and that's -- I mean on example it gives the City of Star. I'm not sure
how many thousands of lots the city has approved, but you're more than welcome to
look at the reporting that Compass does of building permits. One year zero, because
they don't have sewer capacity to those subdivisions yet, so --
Borup: And, then, I was interested in your -- you had mentioned the letter the county
had written and I think I remember seeing that somewhere along the line, but are there
some specific things that you think would be real pertinent to this that you might want to
mention?
Nelson: Well, per that letter and part of the whole process that the county staff
participated in was, I believe, one of the first -- my first comment to Mr. Wardle was that
-- I know it was cold. It was two winters ago -- it could have been -- I'm not very time
sensitive that way, but -- we need to figure out what type of streets we want in this area
and that's not a Highway District concern or responsibility, that's ultimately local
government responsibility and their planning. I think it's great that we have focused on
McMillan, I think there is support from the highway district, and you see that as a
different type of arterial. Just planning for streets doesn't begin and end with just
determining the function of class, it's the character of the street the city wishes to have
built in that and have a clear understanding of the cost of that. How it's going to be
done and I think this plan furthers that, even from the 2002 city plan, if I've got my years
straight, but -- and I guess that's part of what the county reviews, you know. We have
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 26, 2003
Page 53 of 63
not yet been asked to adopt the 2002 plan yet or this one, for that matter, but we will
look at are we continually improving the planning in the area. I don't think it's this plan
versus the other plan, but does this plan represent an improvement to the -- as Mr.
Barrett said, all of the hard work the city invested to that plan, so --
Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else? A couple other people had signed up. I
don't know if they have left or -- okay. Did you have -- any of the Commissioners have
a comment?
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup?
Centers: Yes. Go ahead, Mr. Clark.
Hawkins-Clark: I'm sorry, I was just going to clarify on Mr. Barrett's comment on the
overlay and he asked to be --
Borup: Oh, yes. I was going to ask you that.
Hawkins-Clark: -- corrected if he was wrong. It is some interpretation, but I think,
certainly, our staff's view is that it would not be an overlay, that it would, actually, be a --
you know, a full amendment that would replace the base districts that are shown -- yes.
It would be very difficult to administer an overlay and -- as well as just the fact that -- I
mean we need to envision what we want and if -- the only way to get what we want is
to, actually, you know, have it as an adopted designation and not make it optional.
Thanks.
Borup: So, you're saying if someone did not want to comply, that they could not revert
back to the original -- or too the 2002 --
Hawkins-Clark: Correct.
Borup: -- Comp Plan, even though it's more restrictive, in a lot of ways. Okay. Thank
you.
Centers: Mr. Chairman, I made some notes and I remember our first briefing on this, I
would call it. The notes I had made that there were two big changes with this proposed
plan. One was the TND development -- zone, let's call it. The other would be density. I
think Mr. Wardle agreed with me at that time that those were the two big changes. TND
allows the end run, if the developer complies, they don't need a CUP, and that was the
big plus for the developmental community, and, then, the density. There is no
disagreement there. I think the comment regarding the Mayor had requested it and in
'01 I don't think he knew what was coming on board at that time. I have been here
since, then, and I don't think he knew what was coming at June of '01. Everything you
have seen in that North Meridian Area, Lochsa, Bridgetower, Paramount, I think it's safe
to say 90 percent of those have been since then, approved or -- well, my point is -- I
think you know my point. I don't think -- well, I'm not going to speak for the Mayor. That
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 26, 2003
Page 54 of 63
would be dumb. I'd like to see the overlay again that I referred to earlier, that I quoted
as Mr. Wardle's overlay. In fact --
Borup: Yes. I'd like to make a request -- I, for one -- and I think maybe the rest of the
Commissioners would like to have a copy of that, just for our permanent records, as we
look at future projects. I think that would be real helpful.
Centers: Yes. I like that. I don't know which number it was. Well, if you refer to that,
those were approved or developed, correct? Then, you look at these proposed
neighborhood centers, these two can't be there. I mean you may as well take them off.
Correct? These two are already outdated by the development that's taken place, this
one, this one, and half of this one. This half is right here. I guess, you know, what I'm
saying goes back to my earlier comment, I think all we are really -- well, I shouldn't say
that, but the biggest proposal that we have before us tonight is the TND zone and
higher density for the remaining 3,200 acres that could become questionable here.
Borup: And some of that could go a little bit -- you know, this one here has got some
commercial area, I believe, at that corner.
Centers: Now?
Borup: It's proposed. I think it's future development but it's set aside or something.
Centers: But Mr. Barrett's comments -- and I know what he was leading to -- higher
density means better, more use of the rapid transit and that type of thing, if you can get
it there, and neighborhood centers that you can walk to -- you know, you can't disagree
with me, these neighborhood centers aren't going to happen, are they?
Wardle: May I respond?
Centers: Sure.
Wardle: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Centers, they could. The point is it doesn't say that you
have to have all four quadrants of the intersection. It's simply saying that at that
intersection, within those areas, you could have a mixed-use development that could
have commercial or services or it could be strictly residential, and if it's residential, it has
to be the higher density than what you would see in just the yellow areas. The point is
that -- let's see. We are looking at this intersection right here is -- right there. That
proposed element right there is exactly what has been proposed here. We have
another corner that's unfettered. We have a corner over here that's unfettered. We
have got one of those four corners that may be restricted, but the other three could
easily have that. Then, on the other intersection we have, actually, already got -- they
have got commercial proposals there. I can't remember what Bridgetower has in this
corner. I think they have got commercial, but --
Centers: They have office.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 26, 2003
Page 55 of 63
Wardle: Office? Okay but that fits into the concept of a mixed-use center. We are not -
- the horse isn't out of the barn to a point that it doesn't make sense to at least look at
the opportunities that still abound. If we say, well, gosh, we have got 30 percent of our
land already committed, I would suggest that given the state of development here, any
one of these developers could come back under the context of that plan and say we
would like to put together a center and amend their applications. It's possible.
Centers: Yes. Okay.
Wardle: Could be encouraged, in fact so, I don't think it's too late.
Centers: What do you think of the comment regarding the two major points of the
whole proposal are the TND and the high density?
Wardle: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Centers, with regard to the land use elements, I totally
agree that -- and, again, the density issue is not dramatic. We are not proposing a --
what some people perceive as a really high dense area. We are talking about subtle
increases by saying there would be a minimum density, at least three units per acre,
which would be, actually, be higher than what you would typically see in the sections
that have already been developed. Then, in the mixed-use areas, the minimums go up
slightly and the maximums increase substantially. That definitely affords the opportunity
for starting to get services closer to where the people live. Then, the second point --
Centers: And those options are under the TND?
Wardle: No. Not necessarily. Those are the mixed-use opportunities. The TND is,
really, the mechanism by which a specific development either comes in with a plan that
fits the prescribed standards, shorter blocks, totally connected, open space
requirements all defined, all of those elements. If they meet those standards, they don't
go through the conditional use process, because it's a higher standard than what you
would typically see in a standard development. They have the option, though, if they
don't want to meet those standards, to come in and work through a conditional use
process with you, again, hopefully, with a minimum density and mixed uses. Even in
the residential areas we would hope to see -- if it's not a mixed-use area per se, we
would hope that people would start to take advantage of the flexibility and say we would
like to get more than one type of lot or type of home in this project. We want to start
mixing these things and, hopefully, we would see, really, the character of the total area
change. It's not just for north Meridian it could be applied across the city.
Centers: Thank you.
Borup: Well, I would be interested in where -- how the Commission feels we need to
proceed. Maybe we ought to go back to the first question that Mr. Wardle asked, if we
feel it's a good concept, yes or no.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 26, 2003
Page 56 of 63
Rohm: Before we go there, I'd like to ask one question of staff if I could. Brad could
you -- you made a comment earlier on about the adoption of this north area plan, how it
would affect projects like Paramount. What I was wondering, can you enumerate on
that a little bit, say if this plan was adopted, these are the changes that would occur or
could occur with that proposed development, so that we can see what the differential
between the existing Comprehensive Plan and this new plan -- would come about?
Borup: Maybe just to precede that, under a Planned Unit Development, can't most of
these concepts be adopted anyway, and that's what we have been seeing, so it would
just make it a little easier, is my understanding. Go ahead.
Hawkins-Clark: Well, I guess I am a little hesitant to speak about a development
application that we didn't have a notice for tonight.
Rohm: Well -- and maybe you could make that as a generic statement, as opposed to
specific to an existing proposed project. Basically, by tying it down to a proposal, you
could possibly clear up some questions that I would have or maybe other people in the
audience would have as to what the long-term affect of the adoption of this type of a
plan would be on the community as a whole and just by using that example sometimes
it adds clarity. That's the only thing I was asking.
Hawkins-Clark: Well, I guess I'm a little stumped. You know, the plan development
process, which, you're right, Chairman Borup, we have seen come through several
applications, I mean the difficulty -- if a person in the public comes to our office and
says I would like to see the long range plan map, I'm looking at buying property or
whatever, I want to see what's going to happen. I mean it's kind of one of the goals of
this -- a huge caveat is that a planned development allows up to 20 percent of a parcel
to be developed in use other than what is shown on the Comprehensive Plan. For
example, if somebody has 100 acres, they come in, it's shown all residential on the
Comprehensive Plan, and they could potentially do 20 acres of that in commercial office
or some other mixed use, in a location that's, really, up to the developer, so this is -- this
is a guide. It's not a zoning map. You know, it really is intended to give a flavor for --
you know, for the overall character of this area. You know, it's going to really depend on
each development application. I -- I think the point that Tricia made about the -- you
know, the streets is a really good one and McMillan Road is, you know, I think a real
central part of this whole plan and is a pretty different approach to having a corridor
than what we have right now. I think that's a real critical part of this, is getting together
with the Highway District, getting some design standards that how that street cross-
section and how the -- you know, the uses are going to relate to that street and does it
have a median in it -- you know, what are the other relationships to that street and I
think that's a big -- that's a big piece that -- in terms of what is it going to feel like out
there, I think McMillan Road is a big part of it.
Centers: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Clark, does the staff still stand by this comment that you
made on the last page of your staff report? You know, your last paragraph? Staff does
not support approval of the CPA app without the current approval of a formal zoning
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 26, 2003
Page 57 of 63
amendment. Mr. Wardle read that, but he didn't read the last sentence, where it says or
until the transportation, questions are adequately addressed. The staff -- do you still
feel that way? Yes or no?
Hawkins-Clark: I certainly see Mr. Wardle's point that, you know, it's a moot point to go
through the process of getting a Zoning Amendment through if the plan doesn't have
the support of the Commission or the Council. I mean it's a very valid point.
Centers: Then you say or until the transportation questions --
Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Definitely. I think we stand by that.
Centers: You stand by the last -- because you have two comments there, really.
Hawkins-Clark: Right.
Borup: I might just make a comment, Commissioner Rohm, on your question of how
this would affect future city development and growth and other projects. The way I see
it is -- as I mentioned, the planned unit development can develop, as this plan would
envision. The difference would be -- if this is the vision that the city has for this area, if
this is the direction we want it to go, it's going to definitely push it that way. Otherwise,
it's left up to development community, some of them may come in with projects that
would do that, others would not, and, you know, be -- of course, it was within their rights
to not develop it that way. If we want to encourage that, then, that's what this would
accomplish, if that's the direction we want it to go. Some of them may happen that way
anyway, but would not directed by the city.
Centers: Mr. Chairman, I think the big change, the TND development, part of which you
just mentioned, and how --
Borup: Well -- but that can happen now, if we really wanted to. Not as easy. Well, you
mean on the block lengths and some of that kind of stuff?
Centers: Oh, yes. You know, that's -- Mr. Wardle, you know, agreed. That's the big
change. It bypasses the CUP, which I don't have a problem with. That's the big
incentive with that, it bypasses the CUP and if they don't take that option, then, they can
go ahead with the Planned Development option, but that's the primary incentive.
Mathes: I have a question on the TND. Does that mean it just goes through staff, it
doesn't come through us or Council, if all requirements are met?
Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner Mathes, no, they would still have an annexation, of
course, and, then, all the plats you would see.
Mathes: Oh. Okay. Just the CUP.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 26, 2003
Page 58 of 63
Hawkins-Clark: Correct.
Mathes: Okay.
Borup: Well, if there is some other -- if there are some issues that need to be covered,
I'd like to, at the very least, get those down to specific items. Mr. Wardle provided us
one worksheet on the Comp Plan and the North Meridian Plan, as far as acres of the
different designations. You know, that might be one area, if it's felt that that needs to be
discussed or if there is concerns. Does the staff -- I mean the staff noted the
differences between the two. Have you got strong feelings on which direction that
should go on the mixed used standards or how do we need to proceed? I guess that's
what I'm looking for. If there are more things we need to cover, then, we need to get
those listed tonight.
Centers: Well, I will tell you exactly the way I feel.
Borup: Okay.
Centers: Staff does all the work on it -- they did all the work on the initial Comp Plan,
we held the hearings, we listened to the people, and we made some changes based on
input. I don't want to make a move until the staff is totally happy with the whole
proposal. That's why I pinned Mr. Hawkins-Clark down. They have some other issues.
If they come back and they get together with Mr. Wardle and they are happy with it, we
don't have a lot of objection, I'm happy with it. You can call that staff support, but they
are the planners. I want them happy. That's the bottom line. I'm not trying to butter up
the staff either, that's just the way I feel. If they are happy, I am.
Borup: Did you have some suggestions, Mr. Wardle?
Wardle: Yes, Mr. Chairman. It goes back to my point. If the concept is something that
the city wants to pursue, then, I suggest that we work together with staff to come back
with compromise standards that would apply to that. If you don't agree with the basic
land use concept, then, there is no point in putting in that time. I have been -- this has
been a pro bono effort for nine months for me and I don't have any desire to do much
more pro bono on this effort if it really doesn't have the general support and consensus
of the community. No point in putting your staff through that. They have got other
things to do. In fact, what the staff needs to be doing is putting together the ordinances
for the adopted Comp Plan mixed-use designations right now and, then, you can
always take a TND portion, because that's just a Zoning Ordinance Amendment, that's
not a Comp Plan issue. I mean there are elements that they could be working on to get
you down the line, but if you want to see a change in the type of development that has
occurred, we have presented you with a plan that will do that. If you want to just work
within the context of your plan, we need to know that so, that, then, we can either go to
work with staff and get it done or we can all go back and do other things.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 26, 2003
Page 59 of 63
Borup: See, I think we need to go back to that question, then, from each Commissioner
how they feel about that, about this plan. I mean are we in agreement? Do we want to
proceed?
Rohm: Well, I think the plan itself is well conceived and there has been a lot of hard
work put in by a lot of very knowledgeable people, but we also have a public that we
need to respond to. The Comprehensive Plan that's in place now, the June 2002, all
had public comment available and the communication back and forth in the adoption
and writing of that plan was available to each and every one of us to participate. This
amended North Meridian Area Plan doesn't seem to have had that element within it.
I'm not saying that it's a bad plan, I'm just saying that there is not that element within
that plan. If, in fact, we are to proceed with the adoption of it, assuming that it's a good
plan, I still think that there should be some avenue for the public to provide comments
on it before we draw conclusions based upon our own perceptions and that's where I
would like to move.
Borup: Okay. If I'm not mistaken, that's the purpose of this meeting tonight.
Rohm: Well, true --
Borup: This is the second public -- we didn't have public testimony at the other
meeting, but it was a public meeting. This thing has been, you know, advertised --
Rohm: I --
Borup: But along that, this concept was discussed at the original Comp Plan Hearings.
Rohm: And I wasn't --
Borup: Yes. I realize that. There was -- Mr. Wardle had spent a good part of testimony
talking about this. I believe it might have been your proposal to exempt this area from
the Comp Plan, anticipating that this was coming, and there was some -- I mean the
public was definitely aware of it. I don't remember a lot of testimony along this line,
other than -- other than the mid line -- the mid mile neighborhood centers got a lot of
comment.
Rohm: And, I guess, as opposed to in the public forum, like this Planning and Zoning
Meeting, in a less formal environment where you're sitting is across the table. You're
trying to do your planning itself for those people that don't feel as compelled to get up
and testify in public, they can at least address -- make their comments known in some
other environment and maybe that's -- maybe that's not even a viable method of
introduction of additional information. I don't know if that's --
Borup: Well, the last time we had focus groups and groups on each area and there was
a lot of public input, but it also drug on for two years. Back to the question is this -- is
this a concept that this Commission would endorse? If the answer is, yes, then, we tell
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 26, 2003
Page 60 of 63
staff and I guess Mr. Wardle to workout those things where there needs to be a
compromise or something and bring it back to us, there would still be -- there may not
be a third public meeting --
Rohm: Well -- and I think Commissioner Centers said it very well as long as staff can
embrace this plan and find it acceptable, then, by all means, this body potentially would
lend the same support as well.
Borup: Well, I would think staff would like to know if we approve of the concept before
they spend their time. They may or not. Sometimes it's fun to disagree with staff.
Centers: Well, yes --
Rohm: Conceptually, it's -- I think it's well conceived and there has been a lot of hard
work by some people that know a lot more about this than I do, for sure.
Borup: What I do like about it is -- you know, whether it can accommodate the
commercial area, the office buildings, apartments, and all that. I guess, you know, the
marketplace will tell that, but what I do like is the variety. We have got something
different, we are away from the cookie cutter subdivisions that's been mentioned over
the years, and I think we have got an opportunity to do something exciting and,
hopefully, in line with something that the -- you know, that the marketplace can support
and make it work.
Rohm: I'm a little bit concerned about the single residential designation. By having just
one residential size designation within that ten square mile, the potential for very high
density within the entire ten square miles is there and --
Borup: Well, it's -- right. Yes. Two things. One, it's got to -- it's got to be viable
economically. If the public doesn’t want it, the developers aren't going to build it, not
unless they want to go broke. More important than that, as Commissioner Mathes
says, it's all got to come before this body and the City Council and if we are not
comfortable with it at that time, that's the time for us to say no.
Centers: Well, as I said, I would like the staff happy and, as referred to earlier, the
Mayor made the request in June of '01. I think the staff reports to the Mayor -- you see
the connection and if the staff is happy, I'm happy. If the staff continues to have
problems, then, I think they should adhere to their convictions.
Borup: Commissioner Mathes?
Mathes: I like the plan. I like the mixed, because they can put residential or
commercial in or office or whatever and the density -- I like the overall plan.
Borup: Okay. I don't know if that's enough of a mandate that you were looking for.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 26, 2003
Page 61 of 63
Wardle: Mr. Chairman, you didn't get a motion to recommend denial.
Borup: Well, no, I don't think that's -- there is no one that is --
Wardle: I would be -- I would be willing to work with staff on these issues and see if we
can come to some compromise standards that incorporate and come back at the next
designated meeting to see what the status is at that point. The expectation would be
that I'm going to try to argue to the staff that let's get the standards and the land use
issues in place, let's work on the Zoning Amendments as the second and next step, but
not necessarily in the same action. Otherwise, chances are, we won't see any adoption
of any plan for another six months or maybe a year.
Borup: I would like to say I support that comment. I think that makes -- to me it makes
sense. Why spend a lot of time working on something that -- well, I was going to say it
may or may not happen. That's probably slim, but -- is there a real problem with that
approach, Mr. Hawkins-Clark?
Hawkins-Clark: You know, I think -- I think the risks are still very much there. I mean
we haven't seen the development applications activity, you know, slow in this area. I
mean I -- again, I think --
Borup: Is that all the more reason to move ahead faster, rather than later, sooner than
later?
Hawkins-Clark: Well, you know, I mean we need to have the tools in place to insure
that the mixed uses happen. Otherwise, as it's been stated several times tonight and in
the plan, we are going to get the same thing we have got. You know, I guess the fact
that we do have the annexation route at each future application, should the plan be
adopted. A month later, we received an application for a 100-acre commercial
development up on Chinden -- nothing to say that couldn't happen. At the same time, it
really, frankly, comes down to some political will and if we had concerns at that point in
time, that those will be honored. You know, certainly, there is a safety mechanism
there, but the --
Borup: As far as I think this Commission is concerned -- I mean we understand the
vision and, you know, in my mind a hundred acre commercial project would not be
looked at very favorably, to say the least. I guess -- I mean someone -- I guess
anybody can try whatever they want to do, but -- if they want to waste their time.
Hawkins-Clark: Yes. I would just add that I think there is probably other input that we
could get to on these standards, you know, from Ada County and Idaho Smart Growth
and others that we could probably come back with some specifics on that and maybe
get another map that shows the wastewater treatment amended area and --
Borup: So, the question would be time. Is the second meeting in April, is that a
feasible time or do we need to go into May? The second meeting in April is the 17th
.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 26, 2003
Page 62 of 63
Hawkins-Clark: That would be too soon. I think we would prefer a May meeting.
Centers: And the same way with Items 4, 5, and 6 at the same time?
Borup: Yes. I think we already have May 1st
filled. The second meeting, so --
Centers: It's May 15th
.
Borup: I believe we have one item on May 15th
.
Centers: Yes.
Borup: If I remember the right month. Am I remembering the right month?
Hawkins-Clark: I think that's correct. I think that would be -- you know, assuming that
you want to see these -- the Callister development continue on -- I think you made that
commitment to Mr. Boyle earlier.
Borup: Yes. We want to see them at the same time, obviously.
Hawkins-Clark: Yes.
Centers: And, Mr. Chairman, I think we would want to continue the Public Hearings.
Borup: Yes.
Centers: And just --
Borup: Yes. Especially, from what Commissioner Rohm said, if there is any other
public input at all, we want to make sure we are able to hear that. On this -- on the
Callister project, I guess it's however the Commission feels on that one, you know,
whether the Public Hearing is open or not, I mean, on that one.
Centers: Yes. No one was here. I think we could just leave them -- leave them open,
don't you?
Borup: Okay. That's a good point. Leave it open and we can have Idaho Power in --
Centers: I will make the motion, then, Mr. Chairman, that we continue Public Hearing
AZ 03-002, and Public Hearing CUP 03-001, and Public Hearing CPA 03-001 --
continue all three of those Public Hearings to our May 15th
meeting.
Borup: That's a motion.
Mathes: Second.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 26, 2003
Page 63 of 63
Borup: And a second. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Centers: I would also make a motion that we continue to our May 15th
meeting Public
Hearing CPA 03-002, to our May 15th
meeting.
Rohm: I'll second that.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Borup: Thank you. That concludes our meeting this evening. Thank you, everyone, for
coming. Except for we do need a motion to adjourn.
Rohm: I move we adjourn.
Centers: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Borup: We adjourned at 10:42.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:42 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
/ /
ROBERT D. CORRIE, MAYOR DATE
ATTESTED:
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK