Loading...
2004 02-05 SpecialMeridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting February 5, 2004 The scheduled special meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 6:36 P.M. by Chairman Keith Borup. Members Present: Michael Rohm, Leslie Mathes, David Zaremba, and David Moe and Keith Borup (arrived at 6:50 p.m.) Others Present: Wendy Kirkpatrick, Anna Powell and Jessica Johnson. Zaremba: I don’t know if Chairman is going to make it to this special meeting or not so I will jump in and temporarily take charge hearing no objection. Moe: No objection. Zaremba: All right, I would like to open this Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting/Workshop for Thursday, February 5, 2004. This is not a public hearing. There are members of the public in the audience and of course it is an open meeting. Anybody is welcome to attend, but we will not take testimony from the audience. Let me begin with Item Number 1, which is roll call. Item 1. Roll-Call Attendance: ___X___ David Zaremba ___X___ David Moe ___X___ Leslie Mathes ___X___ Michael Rohm ___X___Chairman Keith Borup Zaremba: In addition to that, I would like to welcome David Moe. This is his first meeting and he is joining us as a newly appointed Planning & Zoning Commissioner and we look forward to his input and keeping him awake late at night. Moe: Well, thank you. Item 2. Adoption of the Agenda: Zaremba: There is only one item on the agenda, so I will consider it to be adopted and the item is Comprehensive Plan Amendment Land Use Consistency Matrix. I will turn the rest of the meeting over to staff. Item 3. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Land Use Consistency Matrix: Kirkpatrick: Okay, Commissioners. I will go ahead and introduce myself since we have a new Commissioner this evening. My name is Wendy Kirkpatrick and I am a City Planner over here with the Planning Department. I will kind of go through and review. We are here tonight with a proposal for doing a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to include zoning consistency matrix in our Comprehensive Plan. Basically, the Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting February 5, 2004 Page 2 of 9 consistency matrix would be a guide to the compatibility of different zoning designations and comprehensive plan designations and I gave you all a copy of Boise City’s Land Use and Zoning Consistency Matrix just to kind of give you an idea of what we are aiming for here. Actually when I started here at Meridian and starting going through their code I was surprised that we didn’t already have one. Now, I will kind of go through what’s some of the allowed – potentially, what’s some of the allowed compatibilities would be between zoning designations and conference of plan designations and if you have any questions, feel free to stop me and we will do some questions at the end. Basically I am here this evening to see if you approve of this potential conference of plan amendment and if you do, staff will go ahead and make an application and then we will come forward with an official comprehensive plan amendment. This is just sort of a draft to get feedback from you all at this point. Unidentified Speaker: Feedback being the key thing here. Kirkpatrick: Yes, lot’s of feedback. (Inaudible) Zaremba: The first feedback is I think it’s a great idea to be doing this. Kirkpatrick: Well, good. Okay, I will go ahead and I will start going through our first comprehensive plan designation is Wastewater Treatment Plant and the proposed zoning designations we thought would be compatible. These are no residential designations. We have community commercial, general commercial, industrial and light office. These being compatible with that comp plan designation. With the low density comprehensive plan designation we thought R-4 should be considered to be compatible and then we also have as kind of a side note that L-0 would be deemed compatible if we had the scenario where the property was a maximum of three acres in size and it had frontage on an arterial street or section line road. Let’s see, going down to medium density residential we had R-4, R-8 and up to R-15 as being compatible. The other sidebar where L-0 would be compatible if it was on an arterial street or section line road and a maximum size of three acres. With the high density residential designation, we had R-8, R-15 and then R-40 as being compatible and then again light office would be compatible on the arterial section line and with the maximum property size of three acres and part of the point of that was we saw like a smaller scale light office as being compatible with residential and we put that cutoff at three acres. We did not think that, you know, a 15/20 acre light office development would be compatible with residential, but a smaller size or a smaller scale would be compatible. Powell: One option there for the high density residential might be to take the size limitation off that in the arterial location because if you think about it if somebody wanted to mix – would you think it as appropriate if somebody wanted to mix some offices in with an apartment complex, would you want them to have to go through comp plan amendment or a PD process to do that or do you think it would be appropriate to have that kind of mix? Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting February 5, 2004 Page 3 of 9 Zaremba: Well, if they went through a PD they would get a 20 percent exception anyhow. Wouldn’t that be – that wouldn’t require a comprehensive plan amendment. Powell: No, it wouldn’t, so this – if they wanted to do it under this scenario they would have to go through a PD process. Part of it we are being a little lenient on the side of the light office because the comp plan doesn’t designate a whole lot of property for just light office. It’s more the mixtures of the commercial. It just depends on, you know – we are – you know the thought just occurred to me so I thought I would just throw it out. I mean, that’s all we are doing for the next half hour. Zaremba: My personal opinion would be to leave it that they would need a PD – a plan development application. Powell: Okay. Rohm: Yes, I think that gives everybody an opportunity for input and that’s the nice thing about the plan development. Powell: Well, and there are not a whole lot of high-density residential areas either. They are fairly limited, so you may want to protect those so that’s a good sign too. Okay. Kirkpatrick: Okay, so moving along. Mixed-use neighborhood which is a mixed-use designation that’s a smaller scale more of neighborhood scale versus a regional scale for mixed use and we have R-8 in our 15 residential theme compatible and then the smaller scale C-N neighborhood commercial and C-C community commercial as being compatible and the (inaudible) T-E Zone – never seen it. Again light offices as being compatible. For mixed use community, which is one step up so far as looking at the scale of that mixed use – actually on second, we thought that R-4 and R-8 would not be compatible so when we come back to you we probably won’t include those, but we would see R-15 as being compatible, R-40 and then again our first two commercial designations C-N and C-C. Then again, T-E and light office and for mixed use regional we think we would actually drop out the R-4 and the R-8 for being compatible and again include R-15, R-40 and then for our commercial designations we would include C-C, which is sort of your midlevel intensity of use there and then we would consider C-G, which is your large regional, like a Wal-Mart, Walgreen’s type commercial use – that would be compatible with the mixed use regional designation and then here we would pick up industrials being compatible, T-E again and light office. With the commercial designation we had the higher density residential R-15 and R-40 as being compatible. All three commercial designations C-N, C-C and C-G and again light office – Powell: If you are wondering about the residential designations on that – a lot of our guide for doing this was from the comp plan and they do talk about what kind of uses and I think they do say that multi-family is appropriate use in a commercial district and you can get multi-family on an R-15 if you are doing like attached townhouses or Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting February 5, 2004 Page 4 of 9 something like that. The density would (inaudible). We rarely see 40 units to the acre. Most of our apartment complexes are around 15 and sometimes they are a little over. That’s why the residential (inaudible). Zaremba: The other point is that some of this enable the future thought of having buildings where there are businesses on the ground floor and residential on upper stories. Kirkpatrick: Like we saw in Courtyards at Ten Mile, kind of based on that premise. Zaremba: I agree with that and that makes this – enables that more or less to say that a mixed use can include either one of them. Kirkpatrick: Yes. Powell: And with this matrix it doesn’t mean you have to approve everything that comes your way – I mean you can still decide that it’s inappropriate for that zone to be in that area, of course. You know, it’s not – doesn’t automatically – Kirkpatrick: -- but it does allow them to apply without having to do a comprehensive plan amendment. Let’s see – so moving on next we have the office designation and we thought that those smaller scale neighborhood commercial was compatible and light office. For public quasi public this one is a bit more complicated. We will be looking at kind of what the surrounding land uses would be – say if there was a school site in a residential area and the school property were to be redeveloped then in that case we would see residential as being compatible. It would be a case-by-case basis. We also see neighborhood commercial. Again T-E and light offices being compatible with the redevelopment of a public or quasi-public use property. Powell: So, actually we are going to take that footnote and put it in the use – in the comp plan designation category. You will find all the way across the board. Kirkpatrick: So the note number two right would apply to all of those zoning designations. With the industrial comprehensive plan designation we thought again that – actually we think now that C-N is not compatible that C-G, which is the larger scale commercial designation would be compatible – industrial, of course and T-E and then finally the Old Town comprehensive plan designation – because every use in Old Town is a conditional use and has a zoning of Old Town. We have Old Town as being the only thing compatible with Old Town. With that I will end my presentation. Do you have any questions or we would like to hear feedback on this. Zaremba: I have a couple of comments, one which is very predictable in that I think we need to prepare to have an I-L zone. I know there is work going on and that is as we are revising the ordinances themselves whether or not we need to get that on to this chart or be aware that when we do create one – Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting February 5, 2004 Page 5 of 9 Powell: So that means two industrial zones? Zaremba: Yes, two industrial zones. Powell: Yes, and we were just going over (inaudible) today. Thursday is my day I meet with my zoning person and she has done a I-L and an I-G and we are putting most everything that are the type of things that you are used to seeing will still go under the I- L, but then she has got an I-G category that will be the kind of the worst offenders. Then she is also working with a flex use – like a flexed based use and she has got a couple of different ones of those and then we are also looking at vertical uses, vertical integrated uses. Those could be – Zaremba: Is an example of that the ground floor businesses? Powell: Yes – Zaremba: -- and second and third floor apartments? Powell: -- and you could even do like a studio down below – you know, like an artist studio down below and an apartment or house up above, something like that. She has added a couple of new uses that are kind of industrial mix and that’s the flex space one so there is kind of an accommodating some of the really light industrial in that flex space use. She is also adding a heavy manufacturing use, so I think we have addressed it a couple of ways and then, yeah, we will have to go back and amend this. We can’t put it in now because it’s not there – Zaremba: -- because it doesn’t exist? Powell: -- yes, but we will go back and add it in. Zaremba: Second, well, you mentioned under mixed-use community, mixed use regional removing R-4 and R-8 and I agree with that – that makes sense. That leads to the comment that maybe it should be noted on here that the comprehensive plan allows for a step up and a step down of one zone and in preliminary talks we talked about not actually using the x’s to indicate that, but just a separate note that says from what you see you could go up or down one zone. Do we want to make that general statement or – on this page, I mean? Powell: Well, that language is in the comp plan and we were hoping that this kind of clarified that that was an option to go up or down. If you don’t want to do that – Zaremba: I didn’t want to show the up or down on the face of the truck, but I guess the statement in the comp plan that you can go up or down is sufficient. Powell: Well, is there – I can’t remember. Is there text that explains under which conditions we’d go up or down because we could certainly add that as a footnote? Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting February 5, 2004 Page 6 of 9 Kirkpatrick: I think it’s just noted on the actual land use map. Zaremba: Yes, okay. Kirkpatrick: I don’t it’s specific. Powell: It says in residential area, other residential densities will be considered without requiring a comprehensive plan and then, however, the density can only be changed one step, i.e., low to medium, not low to high, etc. Zaremba: That is sufficiently wording to be exact, but not necessarily to go on this chart. Powell: Yes, I guess my preference would be this is one of those ones that I know that the developer’s reps will copy this and this will be the first thing they turn to and if it isn’t on here, if they have to look somewhere else for it, it may not be as useful (inaudible). Borup: It makes sense to have it on this chart. A footnote. Zaremba: Add a footnote that repeats – Powell: Right now it’s on there – it’s marked on there, Chairman Borup, so we already indicate like medium density can go to R-4 or R-15. Borup: I thought you eliminated R-8 also. Powell: No, R-8 would – if we did it just strictly by the comp plan, low would be our 4, medium would be our 8, high would be R-15 or R-40 or something like that. I guess medium would be R-8 or R-15 and high would be R-40. Kirkpatrick: So then getting your feedback, you would want to add R-8 under low density because that would be one step up? No, actually R-4 is one step up. Borup: Are we still talking about the mixed use? Powell: No. Kirkpatrick: I am talking about low density residential. Zaremba: If we take for instance let’s just look with medium density. What you are saying is that the real interpretation of medium density is R-8 and R-15 and we also have put on R-4 because it is a step down. My instinct would be not to put the R-4 on there. Kirkpatrick: Under the medium density? Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting February 5, 2004 Page 7 of 9 Zaremba: Just stick to the hard definition. If medium density is R-8 and R-15 not to put an “x” under R-4, but to have a footnote that says under certain circumstances you can step up or down. Powell: Yes, we can do that. We’ll just put them (inaudible) – Zaremba: I am thinking rather than including the step up or down on the chart, my instinct would be to focus the chart on what we really want medium density to mean and then have a foot note that says you could step up or down one from this. Rohm: I like that. That solidifies it and then the footnote at the bottom gives us room to move one way or the other. Zaremba: Yes, but mark the one way or the other as the possibility. Rohm: Right. I agree with that it makes sense. Powell: Okay. Borup: Was there – and I apologize for being late – twenty-five after, I was two minutes late and realized I left all my paperwork home, but was there any other discussion on the waste water designation on any other uses? Powell: Not so far. Borup: Okay. Powell: If it would seem that you would like to – Borup: Well, I am going back to our public hearings from a couple months ago and the thing that still comes in my mind is there is not enough commercial demand that can fill up all that space. Powell: Well, I can give you an update on what’s happened on the (inaudible). We haven’t been following. Borup: Yes, unless something has changed, City Council has recommended denial. Powell: Right and they are going to do an additional study. The Public Works Department is going to do a study. A component of that is looking at the other issues as related to land use and trying to see what is appropriate, so once that is done it may be appropriate to come back in and amend this table to reflect that, along with (inaudible) categories (inaudible) for the zoning. You are not limited on how many text amendments you can do, it’s just the math and then that’s fairly easy to go through and adjust these if you need to. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting February 5, 2004 Page 8 of 9 Borup: I don’t know if I know what would be appropriate, but it seems like maybe a few more than what’s on there. Powell: Well, the ones that might be – Borup: -- maybe down to R-40 or something. Powell: Well, that would be residential. Borup: That would be residential, right. Powell: But C-N could be or T-E. Now the reason T-E, we left it out because those are primarily education facilities. It may be appropriate, especially if it was a vocational one where they were working on cars or something like that, that might be appropriate. C- N’s, actually Mr. Centers is going to come back with a mix of uses, one of them being kind of this idea of like a group daycare facility for teenagers or kind of like a half-way house type thing and that might be appropriate and that’s allowed in the C-N, so that is another consideration. There are some of those kind of not really residential kind of quasi-residential uses that are allowed in C-N that may be appropriate. If you wanted to do that we can certainly do that. Borup: Okay. It looks like our time is up. Powell: Well, what did you want us to do on wastewater treatment? Borup: I think – anything from anyone else? I think it makes sense to include C-N and T-E. I don’t know if it’s going to help an awful lot, but some. Zaremba: I would support to adding T-E to it. The purpose of C-N is like the neighborhood centers to be businesses that residences can walk to and if we are not going to have any residences in the W-T, then there wouldn’t be any point in having C- N’s there, I would think. Although, there are residences across the street that could walk there, so I could go either way on C-N. Powell: They could serve businesses. I mean if it was like a little sandwich shop or something that was serving the businesses – Zaremba: I could see including it then. Borup: I don’t know that it would be many that would apply, but it’s available and the other choice to go through the comp plan amendment. Zaremba: Okay, that makes sense. Powell: Did we get a general (inaudible)? Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting February 5, 2004 Page 9 of 9 Borup: Yes. Zaremba: I would comment for the record since I opened the meeting that shortly after opening it our Chairman did join us and I will turn over the rest of the management to the meeting to him. Borup: You did a fine job. Zaremba: Oh, thank you so much. Borup: I guess the rest of the meeting is to say that we would adjourn this special workshop at this time. Do we have a motion for that? Zaremba: It did open. So moved. Borup: Do I have a second? Rohm: Second. Borup: All in favor? All ayes. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED. ALL AYES MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:59 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: / / KEITH BORUP, CHAIRMAN DATE ATTESTED: WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK