The URL can be used to link to this page

2005 02-10 SpecialMeridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Mtg. February 10, 2005 The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting/Workshop was called to order at 6:30 P.M. on Thursday, February 10, 2005 by Chairman David Zaremba. Members Present: David Zaremba, David Moe, Wendy Newton-Huckabay, Keith Borup. Staff Present: Bill Nary, Ted Baird, Steve Siddoway, Anna Canning, Craig Hood, Brad Hawkins-Clark and Jessica Johnson. Others Present: Diane Kushlan. PIG: Becky McKay, Dave Bailey, Brad Miller, Cornell Larson Item 1. Roll-call Attendance: __X___ Keith Borup __X__Wendy Newton-Huckabay ___X__ David Moe ___O___ Michael Rohm __X____Chairman David Zaremba Item 2. Adoption of the Agenda: Zaremba: There is one item on the agenda, so we will consider the agenda adopted as is. Item 3. Discussion of the Draft Zoning Ordinance Amendment: Zaremba: To begin we would like to do introductions. Some of us know each other and some of us don’t. I will begin with myself and we will go around this way. I am David Zaremba. I am currently Chairman of the Planning & Zoning Commission. I also attended most of the process improvement group meetings that were tasked with the beginning to put the new ordinances together and in real life I design transportation systems for large events, temporary transportation systems. Newton-Huckabay: I am Wendy Newton-Huckabay. I am a Planning and Zoning commissioner, the most junior of the P&Z Commission. I think my one year anniversary is March. In real life, I am an accountant for an electronic controls company. (Inaudible ----------------------------------------) alarms and (inaudible-------- ---). Moe: David Moe. I am just a month or so beyond you as far as Commissioner. My real life I am (inaudible ---------------------). Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting/Workshop February 10, 2005 Page 2 of 62 Baird: I am Ted Baird. I am the Deputy City Attorney, which I guess is my real life. Nary: I am Bill Nary. I am the City Attorney. (inaudible--------------------------------- ). Bailey: I am Dave Bailey. I am with Bailey Engineering and I (inaudible------------ ------------------). Hood: Craig Hood. I am Meridian Planning and Zoning Department. Much likely don’t have another life. Been with the City of Meridian for about two years. (Inaudible speaker-----------------------------------). Siddoway: Steve Siddoway, Transportation Coordinator or TC for short. Larson: I am Cornell Larson, I am an architect (inaudible--------------------------). McKay: Becky McKay with Engineering Solutions. (Inaudible------------------------- ). Kushlan: I am Diane Kushlan and I am a planning Consultant for (inaudible------- ---------------------). Canning: Diane is the one that is going to be doing the planning commissioner training two weeks from now. I am Anna. (Inaudible----------------------------). Johnson: I am Jessica from the Clerk’s Office. Zaremba: Thank you all for being here tonight and for your input. Who wants to lead the discussion? Anna or Diane? Canning: No, I am going to do it. Tonight is very loose because we weren’t quite sure where you wanted to go, so a lot of it’s up to you three and in particular probably you, too. (Inaudible------------------------------------). So if you want more detail or less detail, let me know and we will make it what you want it to be. The first thing I was going to do is just explain the format to you and I don’t know how well you two know our existing code or if you want me to compare it to the existing code or – I get the feeling you probably haven’t gone into that much detail, so I might just (inaudible) this as its own document rather than comparing it to our existing one. Would that be preferable? Somebody looks like a deer caught in headlights. (Inaudible speaker ----------------------) Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting/Workshop February 10, 2005 Page 3 of 62 Canning: It’s structured very differently from our current ordinance. And that’s all I was going to point out. I will just explain the structure of it and I won’t bother (inaudible) it. Zaremba: If I may comment, there were a number of things that I think that we were all bearing in mind that the old ordinance had over the years developed some idiosyncrasies and parts of it had been changed. There were some conflicting parts of it. This was the first cut at doing a new ordinance since the new comprehensive plan was adopted in 2002, so we had a couple of things on our mind and one was making it more user friendly, making it comply with the new comprehensive plan, trying to find ways to get rid of ambiguities and contradictions and also thinking of what kind of a development code does Meridian need to be a city of 60,000 or 80,000 or 100,000 as opposed to a code that was probably written for 9,000 to 20,000. Canning: And as Dave mentioned one was not necessarily making it comply with the comprehensive plan, but allowing it to facilitate the development of the comp plan. We added some new classifications for mixed use and things like that. So, not forcing it into the comp plan, but providing (inaudible) for developers, but they can reach those goals for the comp plan more easier, more effectively. Moe: May I ask the question of the developers and the engineers and the architects on the other side of the table are you happy with the document? I realize that you guys have been working to put together and is it what you guys were hoping for? (Inaudible discussion-------------------) Miller: My answer is I think it’s better than what we had and I think as we go through it, we will be able to refine it a little bit more. I haven’t read through the whole thing since it has been completed (inaudible), but I think it’s a lot better than what we have. Canning: There was a lot of give and take in the process. There were times I wouldn’t let them change things that I just couldn’t abide by, but it didn’t happen too often and there was times I let Brad win. Brad represents a (inaudible) that is very, was it (inaudible----), would that be the correct term? Zaremba: I would have to say that I felt it was a good group. When I first joined the group I was actually a little bit disturbed that there were so many people from the development side of the community, but as we went on I realized that that actually was a very good idea and everybody had good input and the thing that was important to me is every once in a while I would make a suggestion of something that I thought would be a marvelous thing for Meridian to do and the answer would be that nobody will buy it, therefore we won’t build it. We had the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting/Workshop February 10, 2005 Page 4 of 62 right people there to get us a good balance between reality and some fairly high fluent goals, so this is not some wild thing in the sky that we hope will happen, it’s had some good feet on the ground input from the people who will end up either building it or saying it can’t be done. I thought that was great. (Speaker unknown): I just would say that it was really excellent about having the development, engineering representatives here as – when you write a code it’s somewhat a bit of a radical exercise and in this case, I think we are going to have real life examples and so as we are going through the action (inaudible) cases (inaudible-------------------). I think that really helped to bring (inaudible) out of reality to this (inaudible-------------------------------------------). Larson: Well, when I was – if this came out like we intended it as we went through the ordinance, it was to simplify some of the processes, but it was also to consolidate things that were scattered throughout the existing code in the specific sections so that there were cross referenced properly and you could find it easily. That was one of the issues that the existing code had that we were trying to clean it out so it made it a lot clearer for the end user on the issues that are in there that need to be addressed from the city standpoint, so I think we accomplished that and we improved the process timing for a lot of the issues whether it’s subdivisions or conditional uses we were trying to shorten some of the issues and have taken some things onto City Council and letting them stop at Planning and Zoning once they are appealed. Some of those things that – if they are not implemented into their final form will be of a benefit to the city in the sense of timing and the number of hearings and people attending hearings and all of those issues, so I think it’s also has taken a lot of the city interest in monistat and taken those issues that were out there that the problems that the city was seeing on their applications and trying to get this thing so that it flows better for the general public or user, basically and that was the hope for I think for a lot of us in the development community that it would make the process easier if we could make the ordinance clearer and make it so that the Planning and Zoning people and the city officials have a good grasp or a good guideline for what the city (inaudible---------------). Zaremba: Let the record show that Commissioner Borup has joined us. Canning: A little background on the process improvement group. It was actually formed about three years ago, something like that as a reaction to some complaints about the general process being too slow in Meridian and they had (inaudible-------) mostly. So, that’s where the group started off probably (inaudible------). Cornell were you with that? Larson: No, I was not. Canning: No, so maybe Brad and Becky. That’s right. Then I had asked for a (inaudible-----) when I did the Ada County part, actually he and Becky were the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting/Workshop February 10, 2005 Page 5 of 62 only ones that ever gave me written comments and (inaudible------------) big clause I had in that one, but (inaudible--------------------), but I actually appreciate the fact that they actually took the time to read it. So, it was done and the Mayor picked some of them and I picked some of them just from my past workings with them and that the others (inaudible-------------) codes and how codes worked and it’s not something that everybody would (inaudible). We got a good group and Cornell was invaluable as an architect (inaudible--------------) and sometimes had to hold off discussions until he got back because we both figured (inaudible-------- ------), but we spent many hours together and we had incredible input. It took us much longer to get this to you because they were so interested in going over it in a lot of detail and made a lot of changes and had a lot of really great discussion. So, I don’t regret a minute of that time. It’s been really beneficial. Zaremba: The group was pretty thorough. We essentially went word by word. (Speaker unknown): I think we so too. There were instances where the group as a whole didn’t have background in a certain type of development, so we did have a couple of guest speakers – the Police Department came in and talked to us about some of the issues they had – and the schools came in. So, it wasn’t like the group didn’t seek outside opinions. We were actually looking for ways to do things that we couldn’t come up with a solution or didn’t have the expertise (inaudible -------------) to find it. (Speaker unknown): There is two members that (inaudible-----------) as I already said John Forsythe and David Turnbull are also a part of the group and Dave McKinnon. Canning: John was – if you don’t know John he has a business here in town (inaudible) commercial, so he was kind of a non-developer representative, just a business owner. Unfortunately his business takes him out of the country a lot so he made about half the meetings, so it was always good to have him there and then Dave McKinnon was another engineer rep (inaudible------------) and Dave Turnbull, you know he had a lot to say on a lot of the residential standards and he is in support of it, it was just his birthday today, so he didn’t want to have to be here tonight. Zaremba: Oh, family, huh? Gee, we could have had cake. Well, just to include other elements – at the time, Steve was head of the MDC also, so we had his input on some of the old town ideas. (Speaker unknown): Actually had staff in and out as their expertise on a weekly basis, but also his variety to the ordinance or additional input so I think that was good too. Canning: And couldn’t afford to have both of them –(inaudible-----------------). Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting/Workshop February 10, 2005 Page 6 of 62 (Speaker unknown): Had Bruce Freckleton a good deal of the time, too (inaudible---------). (Speaker unknown): I think we kind of converted what you had more to – you know once (inaudible) decision as what to do with a piece of property and then you always act on the (inaudible) cores. But, once that decision is in place, then you have a tool here that can actually help you accomplish what you intended to do. The inconsistencies with, I think, the most significant thing in here is probably the dimensional standards for development. Taking some things where you really intended to do something, but if you tried to meet the dimensional standards of that zone and that density that was agreed on that property, it was doable and so now we had all our fine developments and you got development agreements and you have got a thing where you can actually implement the City Council and the P&Z’s decision on the zoning through a tool that actually works to do that without going through the conditional use process, just to bypass the zoning ordinance (inaudible). So, I think it’s a great tool for that and you know when I get a piece of vacant ground from a developer, you know, I go straight here and say here is how we do it and over here is the Meridian Code saying you can’t do that under that zone because it doesn’t work. But, that’s the appropriate zone for that property (inaudible-----------------) and now those two things I think are a lot closer and mesh with each other. The other thing is I think there was a lot of reference to things that probably should have been comprehensive plan or in the ordinance or other areas that come out of here so that there is no disparity of this is the same (inaudible) or comp plan (inaudible---------------) the overall plan, just the implementation and I think it does a much better job than (inaudible------). Zaremba: One of the examples and we see it every once in a while. If I remembered correctly, the R-8 zone for instance, if you followed all the setbacks and sizes and stuff you could not get more than three dwelling units in a R-8 or 3 and one half or something like that, maybe four, but you couldn’t get eight. We said the goal of an R-8 zone is to be able to get eight. So, let’s figure that out. You know, how – (Speaker unknown): -- we got to the point where you could get five. Canning: Okay, with that, maybe just go a little bit of the content and mostly just looking at the table of contents at the front there and under general regulations we have many, many definitions. These definitions we worked a lot at the particularly Diane and I before it got to (inaudible) we worked on definitions a lot, just to make sure we had the correct definitions for one and that they didn’t have standards and that they were just definitions and making sure that they were used consistently throughout the document and then Diane did another check at the end to make sure that there was no extra definitions that weren’t used in the document. So, we have gone through quite a bit of checks on those and – Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting/Workshop February 10, 2005 Page 7 of 62 Kushlan: You know I think we all (inaudible--------------) that they really are fundamental in understanding the whole code and for this case and in use it’s identified in the use charts as identified as defined in those definitions (inaudible- -------). Canning: Sometimes and you guys don’t realize that but every time that we get a question of staff one of the first things we do is go to the definitions. I mean like today, Brad and I – what’s the definition of a construction site? Well, let me read it to you Brad, you know. So, that’s where we start. So, spent a lot of time on those and the PIG group spent quite a bit of time on it too. Okay, so we have got the definitions and then we cleaned up the stuff on nonconforming uses – there are still some outstanding issues there but I will get to those later. The nonconforming uses are just uses where we have annexed them and they just – or the zone has just on them any number of things. Zaremba: Normally that’s called grandfathering. Those words weren’t used in here, but that’s essentially what we are covering. Canning: The district regulations are – we separated them out into residential, commercial, industrial and then traditional. So, those traditional neighborhoods are brand new. If you flip through those first few pages (inaudible) up to like residential district and go to page two you will use a (inaudible) chart and what we did is we used a consistent set of uses, so you are not going to see uses here – something almost the same thing in a different use zone, which is probably (inaudible -------------) right now, which is crossed over, but we use this as kind of a uniform set of uses and then as mentioned before they are all defined. Then you just got what other additional accessory or – Siddoway: So, we don’t have automobile repair in one and motor vehicle repair in another? Canning: Right. Yes. Borup: Have you changed any permitted uses? Canning: Yes. Borup: In the residential too? I know that it’s some of the commercial. Canning: If you want a homework assignment that would be one of the big ones to do is look at those allowed use charts and what’s principle prevented (inaudible--------------) and it (inaudible) conditional and make an assessment for how you feel about that. Now remember conditional use permits, you will be the – or what (inaudible----------) recommended in here and I think what City Council wants is for you to be the final decision making authority on those. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting/Workshop February 10, 2005 Page 8 of 62 Zaremba: We did a number of things where the philosophy was if an application comes in that follows what is printed in the book, the director can approve it in most cases. If somebody comes in with something that they want to deviate from it then it probably goes through a CUP process with us, but if they are close to the original intent then we are the final word as opposed to passing it onto City Council. There are some things that still do go to the City Council. But, the thought was to streamline the process and actually give an incentive for people to do something that’s exactly the way that it’s written. If we get the ordinance right, then the people that want to build something that exactly meets the ordinance should have an easy time of it and it should go very quickly. If they want to deviate, then yes, we have to think about it. But, we shouldn’t have to think about every process that meets what we have already said is the code. That was the kind of the thrust, so we made it easier to get things approved and even a lot of places made the director the final authority unless somebody appeals. Canning: And as you go down that used (inaudible) you will notice the asterisks on some of them. (Speaker unknown): That’s nice that you pulled out the ones that (inaudible) so you don’t have to try and remember that (inaudible----------------) Canning: So that is one of the later sections – basically, specific use standards. (Inaudible-----) a cemetery you have got to look and see what other criteria I have to meet. I have got some standards for that. So, what we did is we took most of the conditions of approval that you end up putting off these things – we kind of took those and just codified them so that we could make them principal permitted or sometimes they are still conditional, but if some of the codes were in the code rather than the only way to get them to do those things is for the Planning & Zoning Commission (inaudible------------). So, that’s residential – (Speaker unknown): Can I ask one question? (Inaudible-----------) really curious of the single family patch (inaudible) in the conditional use permit? I understand the duplexes, but (inaudible-------) was that discussed or where did that discussion go and to me, I think, single family (inaudible-----) and having to do (inaudible) but requiring a CU because it’s attached – just wondering – Canning: We kept the purpose statement of the R-4 basically as it is now, which is a single-family residential (inaudible--------------) Zaremba: I think part of the reason was that I keep defending the side setbacks in like the R-4 and the R-2 and to have an attached building you have no side setback between the buildings and maybe it’s just a personal preference that in the low density zones, there should be more space. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting/Workshop February 10, 2005 Page 9 of 62 Canning: Before we go too much further on this one, I don’t think the intent was to get into this kind of level of detail tonight. If – Zaremba: We will at one time. Canning: Yes, at one point, but for now I just want to kind of go over the structure, but those are certainly good questions that we should make note of, keep track of – Borup: Previously, it looks like it wasn’t even conditional (inaudible--------). So, that is – Zaremba: If it is prohibitive. Canning: It’s a step closer. The thing in the residential I want you to look at and again just to point out to you – as a planner, I just bristle every time I see the minimal living area and I know this was a big deal to the city a number of years back, but (inaudible-----------) I would hope that you would all consider whether or not a minimal living area is appropriate. (Speaker unknown): They usually show up in somebody’s CC&R’s for the subdivision. I am not sure they need to be addressed (inaudible----) part of it. The issue is because a lot of times it will just be in the CC&R’s (inaudible------). Canning: I guess what I am hoping is that the Planning & Zoning Commission will recommend that those be taken out. I left them in there because I know it’s a big deal. I have – it goes against every (inaudible) principle plan I have ever been taught. Zaremba: My question is always where did they – what purpose did they serve in the first place? Was somebody trying to prevent conversion of garage to living space? Canning: They were trying to prevent an overflow of first starter homes. Borup: But, back in the days when Meridian was considered just a bedroom community for Boise and it was all – (Speaker unknown): Kuna is going through the exact same thing right now – (inaudible) of going through the whole process that Meridian was going through by (inaudible--------------------). (Speaker unknown): (inaudible----) are worried about there being to many small homes and one of the larger ones and they are trying to do some restrictions --- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting/Workshop February 10, 2005 Page 10 of 62 Canning: I think our land values are at a point now that we don’t have to worry about it as much. (Speaker unknown): If I could chime in real quick, there is a tracking problem with that as well and (inaudible) is ten or fifteen percent, we don’t know how many 1,300 square foot homes are being built in this case and it is just a tracking nightmare if you ever try to do that. Canning: We have just avoided it so far, but we really should address it. Borup: The other problem is this ground floor area. A situation where a 1,500 square foot house, which means the (inaudible) square footage is having 780 on the ground floor. And it had living over the garage and so it is a 1,500 square foot home, but it didn’t meet the City’s criteria, but have met the covenants. The covenant was like 1,300 or 1,400 feet, so it was over the covenants, but not allowed with the Building Department. Canning: So, that is one thing that I would like you to consider in your review and then as Dave mentioned we changed the dimensional standards dramatically, particularly on our R-8 and R-15 and we even – the R-15 discussion may get a little confusing and I will tell you why. We have some R-15 zone land that was probably zoned in anticipation of getting about six to seven units per acre as opposed to 15, so we got kind of two different sets of standards depending on when it’s platted. If it’s platted from this point forward it would have much more lenient standards than if it was previously platted because I don’t think those units were really --- those lots were platted to be for density that the zone allowed. If that makes any sense. But, I still feel a little uncomfortable about that – having two different classifications for the R-15 and maybe we can do something else, I don’t know. But, that is something for you to think about. We struggled with this one a lot. Zaremba: Well and we had some discussion and at the moment I don’t remember which way the discussion came out, but some discussion about putting a minimum number. You know? If you have an R-15 for instance, you must get at least 10, you know, R-15 is between 10 and 15. You can’t put four in an R-15. Canning: And the only place that we ended up with a minimum of standards though were in the traditional neighborhood. Zaremba: Okay, that’s where the discussion was. Canning: The commercial districts, I think, are probably a lot more straight forward. We moved of the landscape buffers into the dimensional standards just so that they were there because they function as the setbacks, as much as the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting/Workshop February 10, 2005 Page 11 of 62 setbacks or even more so we felt it was important to move those forward. We eliminated a zone. Siddoway: We eliminated several, right? Canning: We eliminated several. We had several zones that were never used. RSG – Zaremba: There was an R-1 and an R-3 wasn’t there? Siddoway: R-3, we kept the R-2, got rid of R-3 – Canning: Right and we switched the R-2 to the R-3 standards so the folks that are R-3 we’ll just make them R-2 and they will be fine because it’s the same standards. Siddoway: We got rid of TE and we got rid RSC, which doesn’t show up in our schedule use anywhere, but it says it’s a zone for regional shopping centers. Canning: And “O” was another zone – Siddoway: And “M”. Canning: Yeah. Siddoway: The mineral traction and so we can have a couple of property zones, TE and R-3 then we proactively rezoned those ourselves. Canning: We will have to. So, we will have to go back and rezone those, but there are mostly schools right now – (Inaudible speaker and discussion) Canning: So, it won’t be difficult to rezone those and we will just change them all to the same zoning (inaudible-----) – Zaremba: At the same time as we change churches to L-O if they currently are R-4 or something like that? Canning: It will be a little easier on the TE because we will take every TE and say assessors just change this to this zone. The churches and stuff, you need to have a legal description because it is not everything that is zoned R-4 being changed. If you can tell the assessors to just search for every TE and change it that’s a pretty straight forward one. Some of the other ones are – but, they can search for every R-3 and just change it to R-2 and every TE and change it. Those are the only two that we actually have to change. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting/Workshop February 10, 2005 Page 12 of 62 Borup: At one time there was a discussion of another zone. It looks like what you did is just adjusted the requirements in the existing zones. Canning: Residential? Borup: Yes. Like an R-8. So, we don’t have to go to PUD’s every time now? Canning: Exactly. The dimensional standards are more in line with the zone, where a density – and with the new building (inaudible) which is the skinny lot, the taller buildings, skinnier lot. Borup: Well, I was getting tired of all the PUD’s and we were approving (inaudible) this is what needed to happen (inaudible-----------). (Inaudible discussion) Zaremba: Well, the thought is we would end up with fewer applications for diminished standards and you know if we get the standards right in the first place then we would stick to it. There will be somebody that applies, but we put them on the end of the agenda so their public hearing is at 1:00 in the morning. Canning: In the industrial we did add an industrial category called the (inaudible) (Inaudible discussion) Canning: You can tell we have had a lot of fun over this. The traditional neighborhood districts, we have got the old town and then the two new ones that are talked about a little earlier, the neighborhood center district and the neighborhood residential district. (Speaker unknown): (Inaudible---------------) I think there was a discussion we had about actually removing (inaudible) from the table that was previously in here that are no longer considered permitted in the city in any development, right? Canning: Right. (Speaker unknown): The thing like – I can’t remember what they were – (Inaudible discussion----) (Speaker unknown): -- farm based (inaudible----------------------------) within the city. (Inaudible---------------------------) that were in here that are no longer in use in this (inaudible). Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting/Workshop February 10, 2005 Page 13 of 62 Canning: Diane went through and tied a lot of them back to in the definitions you will see references to a SIC Code and that’s the Standard Industrial Classification Code System so we used definitions when we could of the – you know that are basically federal definitions are widely accepted and then also when I am trying to make an interpretation as to whether a use is similar to one of those if it’s within basically three degrees of being that same classification code and I can make that interpretation right away. Instead of 6.1.2 it’s 6.1.2.3, which mans it’s only three away, so that’s good and we just go with it. It gives us another objective tool to make those decisions regarding that. Sometimes we couldn’t always refer to them because there are some that just you want to pull out special, like (inaudible). Increase is a prime example because (inaudible) gets a small retail shop, it can be a medium sized commercial shop or it can be an industrial thing, so it’s all sorts of things. But all the uses are – the names have been changed. (Speaker unknown): This may be too specific, but did we ever clarify whether like a workout facility (inaudible--------------) ? Canning: Yeah. It’s in there somewhere, I can’t remember off the top of my head, but – Zaremba: It’s in the I-H. Canning: The traditional neighborhood district, you will see some different standards there. We still got a lot of use, but the standards start to look different. They start referencing design review and it’ll be worthy of a little extra time to go through that and see what you think about that. Another good one to add to your homework. The third chapter is – it’s called regulations applying to all districts and that’s what it is. The first part of Article A is kind of a mesh-mash of miscellaneous ones and then you get in the subsequent articles or larger things like the landscape ordinance, the parking ordinance, the open space or temporary use of signs and all those ones that it doesn’t matter what district you are in, there is standards that are going to be there. Zaremba: This was not my idea, but I think it was an excellent idea. It was to have one place where you have standards that apply to everything no matter what it is. I mean, in the old ordinance you sometimes have to look six or seven different places to have any idea of what the end result is on this piece of property and to have – okay, these apply to every district and then there is the section in front of it that applies to your specific district and I think that makes it much more not only user friendly, but it’s going to be easier for us to keep track of the ordinances – Canning: And these apply to every use, too, like it doesn’t matter what (inaudible----------------------------) and then we have got fences, outdoor lighting, noxious (inaudible). Some of these are out of order now because I added a Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting/Workshop February 10, 2005 Page 14 of 62 bunch of (inaudible) after Diane got to it and I didn’t have time to go back through it and alphabetize it, so we will take care of that, but, you have got outdoor service areas, self service uses, sidewalks, parkways. I do want to point out structure subject to design standards was a special one. As you are reading through some of the districts as far as the maximum size of the structure, their applicability is also listed, but it’s in the dimensional standards as well. (Inaudible discussion) Zaremba: 11.3(a), 13. Structure subject to design standards? It’s on page seven of Chapter 3. Canning: Okay, so we just left it in this place. So, basically if you wanted to do something in C-N district that is larger than 7,500 square feet, you have got to meet these standards and the idea was that some of the zones really intended to have buildings that were only fairly small. That they used to be a principal permitted use if it wasn’t going to be in some huge building or some huge use. It was the size of the use, not necessarily the use itself that was a concern. So, like in the commercial neighborhood district where it was really intended to just kind of blend in almost to the houses or to support those houses if you had a structure greater than 7,500 square feet, well you are kind of getting out of character with that zone. So, the idea was to add an additional layer of standards and review to those. Kushlan: Like you said, though, this is one of those cutting edge areas – image form is really (inaudible---------------------). Canning: And that it is very true in the traditional neighborhood districts too. It wasn’t the use that was important so much as the form of that. We worked on design guidelines. We got a basic stab at design guidelines for the new residential and commercial district and Steve is working on – or somebody (inaudible-------------------) right hand guides is working on the ones for downtown. Zaremba: I was just going to give an example of what she is talking about. (Inaudible discussion) Zaremba: An example of what she is talking about. If you have a lot of fairly small buildings and then somebody wants to put a real big building in there, the design standard is set – it talks about the facades and others so that they can’t just have 1,000 feet of a straight wall because it makes it real obvious that that is a different building than the rest of them. So, the point is okay there have to be some variances to the depth of the front wall that makes a big building look like several smaller buildings. (Inaudible discussion) Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting/Workshop February 10, 2005 Page 15 of 62 Zaremba: Yeah, like that storage area that we had. Canning: Like the retail stores allowed in C-N, but you don’t a Wal-Mart to go into a C-N district. It doesn’t fit the purpose statement at all. But, still it’s an allowed use, so how do you deal with that? Well, one way to deal with it is to have kind of maximum size on the structure, unless you start going through some architectural (inaudible). Borup: Do we address the issue of multiple buildings on the single lots? (Inaudible-------------)? Canning: Yeah, multiple buildings are allowed on a single lot in the commercial and industrial districts. (Inaudible discussion) (Speaker unknown): -- how come industrial isn’t in here because of a lot of the industrial zoned properties are on arterial streets? Canning: Because Brad won on that one. Zaremba: We didn’t even vote. (Inaudible discussion) Zaremba: Yeah, I missed that one. Canning: One of the key of the design reviews that we are going to try and get adopted (inaudible). With those design standards, then we don’t need conditional uses for everything like in Old Town in particular that it was really the form of the development in Old Town that was of concern and why it was a conditional use; not the use. I mean it’s pretty clear what uses we want downtown for the most part. It’s the design of those structures that house the use, so it’s really – this is more of a form based code for those traditional neighborhood districts and then also for these larger structures in some of the more standard districts. I have – well, Diane and I we have been developing and working on this for a while and I ran into a former boss of mine who is touring the country a fair amount talking about form-based codes. He is kind of an expert on these. I had a chance to chat with him for a while. It was fun because he said really what works best is you can’t do the whole zoning ordinance in the form- based code, it just doesn’t work. You have to pick a few specific areas and set up a few districts and just have those work as a form-based code and I am like “yeah”. So, this is a hot planning topic and this will be different than anything I am (inaudible) right now. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting/Workshop February 10, 2005 Page 16 of 62 (Speaker unknown): I think some of these numbers were pretty generous, too, before they force you into some of the design review standards. For example, on the C-G zone we have a 200,000 square foot – it’s over 200,000 square feet. (Tape turned over) (Speaker unknown): -- for those particular zones so that it didn’t come back and bite you later from the city standpoint and having a big building conflict. Zaremba: How many square feet is a typical Albertsons? (Speaker unknown): Probably 48 to 60. Zaremba: Just for reference. (Speaker unknown): Wal-Mart is probably 290,000. (Inaudible----------------------). The – what the Costco (inaudible--------------). Canning: But Citicorp, you are just counting the footprint. (Speaker unknown): That is actually all three floors. Canning: That is all three floors? (Speaker unknown): I think we had to keep it over. Two hundred is the Wal- Mart, Jabil, even Winco and Home Depot. I think they are like four acres. That is not to say you won’t get something (inaudible----------------------------------). Actually Wal-Mart and Sam’s Club are going into Nampa and those are going to be some very big stores. Canning: So, some other things – sidewalks and parkways are in here because they apply to any development as well as subdivisions, so that is why they are in here as well as bikeways, pathways; ditches, laterals, canals and drainage of course – the alphabetized ones are the new – they are non-alphabetized under the new ones. (Inaudible-----) irrigation system, public water supply and sewer system, before almost all of these have been in a subdivision ordinance, yet they really apply to all developments. There is one phrase in the code that says that all subdivisions (inaudible) apply everywhere. So, that is why we have them everywhere. We rely on that one phrase a lot. Then as separate articles there is landscaping, I mentioned before. We went through and tried to get a uniform setup to all of these. You will notice purpose, applicability and it usually goes into the process and then standards is what it is. So, you will see that throughout the organization within article, within subsections all over should go purpose statement, which is just to let you know what we are going to do and we rely on that one a lot too to determine whether something (inaudible). Purpose, applicability (inaudible) these standards pertain to; process, whether they can go Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting/Workshop February 10, 2005 Page 17 of 62 through and then standards. So, I think the landscape ordinance didn’t really change all that much except for the landscape buffers. We did monkey around with those quite a bit. For the separation and (inaudible) uses and we moved them up to the dimensional standards with the (inaudible) so that people saw them there. That was one that people knew. The buffers along streets is still in here because – Moe: What is the purpose of the highlighted areas? Canning: I think that that one was a discussion item or I highlighted it because I think we hid in other ways, in other places. We started talking about open space requirements and that one in particular got a little tricky because we have got them in here and we have got them in the plan development and we have got them in subs. So, we have them in three different places. We had decided that parkways could meet some of the open space standards, but I think that this is different than what was in subs and in the PUD’s. So, I highlighted it because it was inconsistent and I didn’t know which one we were going with. So, do you know – the parkway is when you have the curb and then some green area and then the sidewalk and then the – and we wanted to let people count the parkway basically as part of their open space to encourage the detached sidewalk. Zaremba: And incentive to create detached sidewalks was – (Inaudible discussion) Canning: Right because there is no driveway cut in it, then they would get double credit for those. This is just – I think I probably shared it with them – the real impact of some of these more traditional neighborhoods is those free trees and they just make the (inaudible) in planning the (inaudible------------------) trees have more to do with the long-term livability of the community (inaudible--------). Just for whatever reason those trees in the front of everybody’s yard, just makes that feel of the American home or whatever you want to call it, I don’t know, but it has a huge impact on the look of that subdivision as time goes on. May be tacky houses behind it, but if you have got a 50-foot tree in front it looks beautiful. The north end the houses just aren’t that great, but man those trees are beautiful. So, we were trying to encourage parkways. Right now they are very expensive to build and the developer really doesn’t get any credit for them because they can’t count the open space, so it’s a way to really encourage those. But, this one was different than the ones later. Newton-Huckabay: Well, street trees make everything look unified. Canning: They really do. Yeah. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting/Workshop February 10, 2005 Page 18 of 62 Zaremba: It’s kind of an “awe” factor. I definitely, you know as I go around other cities, precisely, that if there are streets that are lined with trees, it feels comfortable. Canning: So, that was the highlighted (inaudible-----------------------------). I had them color code it, but we couldn’t afford to do colored copies for everybody, so some of them I have in red and those are the ones I am hoping you will ditch. Then you will see code references that got highlighted just so you can search for them and put them in. You will see some (inaudible----------) where we need to search out the rest. Off-street parking. That didn’t really change all that much. Siddoway: Clean up the diagonal (inaudible) conventional standards in that section. They have been really difficult to interpret in the past. (Inaudible discussion) Canning: Yeah, we have got the parking spaces are the same list of uses that are in the rest of the zoning ordinance. What a novel concept that is. Kushlan: I think there is some standardization that occurred in terms of requirements (inaudible--------------). Canning: They are pretty lenient parking standards, but I am not a real proponent of forcing people to do more parking than they think they need, but for the most part the developers want to do more than we are asking. (Speaker unknown): We haven’t gone so far as to put a maximum on this? Canning: No. Zaremba: Well, I even suggested that as an incentive that we should have a provision that if they put in a transit stop, they could give up half of the requirement parking and several of the people said well our big (inaudible) customers tell us how much parking we have to have and that wouldn’t be a benefit to us anyhow, so we didn’t go with my (inaudible). We did clean up, didn’t we – we enabled the overhang the sidewalk without having to have a bumper with two feet of dead space? Canning: Yeah, we did codify that one. We took some of the more common issues we had with the landscape ordinance and the parking ordinance and we did clean up those. I wasn’t aware of the diagonal parking, so we may need to look at that. Just look at it and write your comments. Siddoway: Yeah, the length and (inaudible) is confusing. David, we did just so you know, put a provision in that the director can approve a reduction in parking Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting/Workshop February 10, 2005 Page 19 of 62 requirements if there is alternative transportation provided, so there is a mechanism to get at that. You know, it’s not as cut and dried as – Zaremba: It’s enabled, but not required. Miller: Hey, Anna let me ask you a question on page 7 of the parking requirements there, how – if I am building an industrial warehouse, how am I going to now how much parking I need when it says I need one space for two employees and a larger shift, plus one per vehicle stored on site? Borup: That is in the freight terminal, or the truck terminal? (Inaudible discussion) Miller: -- it shouldn’t just be a square footage requirement? Because when I build a building, I don’t know how many employees – like take the building 72,000 square foot buildings that we have next door to RC Willey. I have got a tenant I just met with today that wants 25,000 square foot (inaudible-----------) – Canning: So, in the event that – that is the problem that if you required one of the standard ones for industry is one per 1,000, so you’d have to have 25 for that site. But, if he has got no employees and it’s just – if there is just three of them there all day then that’s all it needs. Miller: Well, you know the next tenant might have 25 employees. (Speaker unknown): I think what Brad is saying that if you are doing a spec building on speculation like a lot of the ones that he has this doesn’t give him guidelines because he doesn’t know what those tenants are going to be until later on down the road. Miller: So, I am going to end up going on the square footage (inaudible-----). So, okay we will just go to the 1,000 – one per 1,000. It has to make ten percent of office before 1,000 on that. Because I just don’t think that this doesn’t make any sense especially if the building is going to turn over. You just never know – employees just isn’t a good base of (inaudible---------) for us. (Inaudible discussion) (Speaker unknown): I think you could go bigger on your standard though because of lot of the industrial stuff could go up one space per 2,000 square feet and actually Boise is on the warehousing one per 2,000 because you might have a 30,000 foot building and only have three employees – Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting/Workshop February 10, 2005 Page 20 of 62 Canning: On warehousing, but see it’s the same problem if he is doing a spec building then he speculating that it’s all going to be warehousing, but if it’s manufacturing you still have to make some decision somewhere along the line. (Speaker unknown): Is there an alternative (inaudible---------------------------)? (Inaudible discussion) (Speaker unknown): He has more than one option to look at. Canning: Right. (Speaker unknown): So, then he can say well I can’t do that one because I don’t know what (inaudible-----------------). Canning: Yeah, well if you are doing a 70,000 square foot building and you say well I am going in with 70 spaces that is one per 1,000, you know or you could say that would allow 140 workers. Well, we would go 140 workers that is a lot of workers in there, you know, that is probably more than enough. I mean we have to make a judgment call one way or the other. Nary: (Inaudible--------) section in (inaudible) one, it says parking uptown (inaudible-------------------------------) vehicles is defined in Chapter 1 may be allowed (inaudible) if it is operated by the occupant and (inaudible-------------). That would sound to me like you could park a semi in a residential area. Is this the parking standard for residential? (Inaudible--------------) made them sound like residential (inaudible---------) Zaremba: Which page are you on? (Inaudible discussion) Canning: Yeah, there are standards for residential in there. The State Code allows any licensed and operable motor vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating over 26,000 pounds allows one of them in a residential neighborhood per house. It’s a funky State Code thing. But the state does allow you to have a commercial vehicle that you can drive between your home and your office and the cities can’t enforce you not to do that. So, that’s what it’s referencing. Nary: The other one, the number two in that section (inaudible----------) it says vehicles without current registration shall not be parked (inaudible-------) in any residential property other than an enclosed space, so like if my registration on my car expired, I have to park it in the garage. I couldn’t park it on my driveway. Canning: Yeah, where are you? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting/Workshop February 10, 2005 Page 21 of 62 Nary: It’s just number two – Canning: Yeah, that’s to keep the hobby auto motors down. Nary: Sure. I was just thinking on the other end (inaudible------------------) and it would be awfully hard to enforce that under an expired registration. Canning: The intent is not to do it for them it would be for the hobby auto motive folks. Zaremba: Or somebody who is just leaving a junker on their lawn. You have a way to enforce that. Nary: Just something to think about as we talk about (inaudible-------) enforcement and some of that might be (inaudible-----------). Canning: Well, and that is one of the outstanding issues is that enforcement is always tricky on these and we don’t intend – yeah, like the guys vehicle – you know the registration is due on January 31st and it’s February 10th , you know, we don’t intend to go knock on his door. We are not going to catch him. We are just assuming that we are going to enforce that, would it become a problem if somebody brings it to our attention. (Speaker unknown): Anna, are you finding that in newer subdivisions where there are CC&R’s that you don’t have any enforcement problems? Are they typically self-enforcing? Canning: Yeah, or the neighbors will call us about daycares tend to be an ongoing code enforcement issue. (Speaker unknown): I would imagine just the older neighborhoods is where you would really have the problem with junk cars and things, isn’t it? Canning: Yeah. Borup: Depends on the definition of older. (Inaudible discussion) Siddoway: Yeah, just junk and dripping oil and never move for six months and – (Speaker unknown): The association get on them? Siddoway: So, I guess they self police and it would be the association, but they still show up. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting/Workshop February 10, 2005 Page 22 of 62 Canning: Okay and getting onto the rural structure. We have only got signs, but again signs – Brad (inaudible) and caught some of the major glitches that we have been running into on the signs, but the other changes were mostly just to get it in the purpose, applicability, process standards type thing so that it was in that same format. Zaremba: When we get to this I would like to revisit the automated signs and have some further discussion. Canning: I think temporary signs would be a good one. There is a highlighted section on – it’s after the tables. (Inaudible--------------------------------------). Then, a couple of big things. Temporary use. This is a whole brand new section. We went all out for you. Article E. Zaremba: Three regulations applying to all district’s articles. Canning: So, we have got overall general standards for temporary uses and then we have got overall general standards for temporary uses and then we have got specific standards for fireworks stands, for subdivision model homes or real estate sales offices, for construction sites, for (inaudible) food products, for arts, entertainment and recreation events, for vendors not associated with an arts entertainment and recreation, for promotional activities involving the sale of goods and merchandise where it is accessory to the principal permitted use. So, there are a lot there. We took every temporary type of use that we could think of and tried to (inaudible) with. This was as few of groups that we could get down to, but there you go. (Speaker unknown): I still think that requirement for the fireworks stand is too much. It has to be a dustless material. Canning: That’s when he lost. (Speaker unknown): I just don’t think it’s realistic for some guy who is going to sell fireworks for two weeks to have to put a dustless material down where he is going to have his lot if it’s not paved. Canning: So, that is something for you to consider as you go through it. (Inaudible discussion) Zaremba: Would watering it down help or what? Canning: All they have to do is oil it for the two weeks. (Speaker unknown): Isn’t that bad for the environment? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting/Workshop February 10, 2005 Page 23 of 62 Zaremba: Yeah, you can’t oil it. (Inaudible discussion) Canning: You should see the dust that comes off this one at the corner of Franklin. It is just piles of dust coming, it’s crazy. Borup: So is the corn maze. Canning: We don’t permit the corn maze. I wanted to talk about private streets a little bit because this is something the PIG group was not aware of. We had left private streets in the version that you guys all worked on, kind of similar to the way our code is now. It’s just – you can ask for a different type of street if you are doing a planned development. You can ask for different sections. It doesn’t get used much. The only time it’s been used since I have been here is to give (inaudible) frontage standards for the L-O district, but that is the only time I have seen it used. We moved it more toward what Boise City basically uses for, which is almost like another addressing system. The Fire Department was pretty fairly in favor of this. It allows folks in a multi-family development or in a commercial development where you don’t have public streets going into it, but you have kind of designated drive aisles that are the fire lanes. It allows them to name those so that they can address off of them. The Fire Department has just been going crazy with some of these new either multi-family developments or commercial ones trying to get adequate signage there so that if somebody has a heart attack they can get there in time. So, this is complete wholesale change, hopefully the PIG group isn’t too upset by it. But, the private streets as we have them were not being used and this just is needed. We need some way of getting something other than public streets to get addresses off for the Fire Department. (Speaker unknown): Is the intent that (inaudible) discourage private streets or does it encourage it? Canning: Well, the purpose statement – it’s intended to provide better circulation and safety within commercial, industrial and multi-family developments by establishing a clear emergency vehicle travel lane and private street being addressed for properties that do not have internal public roads. (Speaker unknown): So, it’s not really for private streets for a subdivision (inaudible----------). Canning: Right. It goes – (Speaker unknown): So, like a little tiny infill, single-family development could not utilize private streets? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting/Workshop February 10, 2005 Page 24 of 62 Canning: No, you would be using just the reduced ACHD section. We did talk about, I don’t know if you remember, but we talked about advocating for different reduced street sections. Yeah, it does say it is not the intent to approve private streets for single-family duplex and/or townhouse developments. But, it gives me the authority to extend the applicability where it is a safety concern. So, I – (Speaker unknown): So, common drives are still in there somewhere, right? Canning: Yeah, common drives are still in there. Borup: (Inaudible----------------------------) post office – a lot like a multi-family? Canning: The Post Office doesn’t care that much. It was more the fire folks. Zaremba: The Post Office is putting more and more of the community mail gang box with eight or twenty mailboxes in it. So, they don’t really care where the building is addressed. Fire and Police would. Siddoway: So, now instead of changing the street width and sidewalk requirements based on the number of homes, there is just one standard, right? Canning: Yeah, there is just one standard and I’d certainly take comments on those standards and (inaudible------) on a perpetual easement, it has to connect to a public street that has been approved (inaudible) connection. (Inaudible------- -----------------------). And no gates and because these are emergency vehicle traveling – 26-feet wide and 7.5 and then sidewalks. Right now we have retired two sidewalks, one each side of a private road. I just put one five foot attached sidewalk or four foot detached sidewalk on one side of the street (inaudible---). So nothing in industrial, but in commercial and nothing in multi-family, but where there is a commercial one – because usually those commercial ones is kind of a loop that goes through the development and rather than having people walk through all of the parking aisles, I wanted one sidewalk that they can walk without having to dodge cars. (Speaker unknown): So, this is talking about – say you have got five (inaudible) buildings, so you have got parking that goes around the perimeter. That is talking about that type of thing? Canning: That type of thing, exactly. (Speaker unknown): So, you wouldn’t require any sidewalks in those --? Canning: Not in multi-family. Because for the most part, multi-family usually have sidewalks that go in front the units and that is where people are wanting to walk are in front of the units. As opposed to a commercial one where like if you have ever tried to get from one end of the parking lot to the other and like the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting/Workshop February 10, 2005 Page 25 of 62 theatres at Edwards – I mean, for a small portion there is a sidewalk there and it’s nice, but for a lot of it you are just kind of wandering in and out amongst the parked cars. (Speaker unknown): You probably need to make sure that the multi-family is still (inaudible----) in the wave of sidewalk in multi-family. Siddoway: So, if I am a multi-family developer and I wanted to do a building in a parking lot, no continuous sidewalk along it, but just a strip from somewhere up to the front door can I get away with that? Canning: Well, yeah, I guess the way it is written – (Inaudible discussion) Canning: Well, we don’t see many multi-family where it is anything other than building, parking, and drive-by parking building. Borup: So, the sidewalk develops with their bumper, too. Canning: Well, and usually the sidewalk goes in front of the building. I am thinking more of – (Inaudible discussion) Canning: There is no frontage requirements for any of those uses. So, the need for frontage requirements wasn’t there anymore and this new need came up, so that is why I switched everything on it. But at least I am telling you about it. Okay, specific use standards, these are the fun little things like so you want an artist studio it has got to be fully enclosed and if you are in an industrial district then you can’t exceed 25 percent and things like that. So, these are just – for most of them there is only a few; some of them there is quite a few; daycare facilities for children have quite a few’ drive-thru establishments – this was an interesting one. We got creative on this one. Basically, there are some process things in some of these because it says like for drive-thru's if you don’t enjoin a residential district or an existing residence then you are just an accessory use and we don’t want to see you, but if you are next to a residential district then you are conditional use, basically. (Speaker unknown): Didn’t we address ATM’s? (Inaudible discussion) Canning: No, that is the self-service (inaudible). Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting/Workshop February 10, 2005 Page 26 of 62 Siddoway: So, a bank in the middle of El Dorado Subdivision will no longer be (inaudible)? Canning: Right. Go away. Secondary dwelling units, this brand new one. (Inaudible) units. Now, this is the one exception to my (inaudible) size that I agreed to. This is the maximum (inaudible) size and I do think it is appropriate here. Education facilities – Borup: What – someone asked about that the other day. I thought it had to be part of their house to – Canning: Yeah, (inaudible-------------------). Speaker unknown): They would basically have to put two houses on the same – a R-4 today requires a – (Inaudible discussion) Canning: And the allowances for secondary dwelling units are very liberal. I think we allowed them along with all the residential districts. It’s potentially a doubling density, but it’s necessary. I mean, we have got a lot of old folks coming up that are new (inaudible) – Borup: Well, some of them aren’t much more than a wet bar. (Inaudible----------) or a microwave and a sink and a little mini fridge. Nary: Well, it’s probably not really increased in density because you are talking about the family and children and the children are gone and now you have got parents. So, I don’t think it’s necessarily that you are really increasing density (inaudible-----------------). Canning: Yeah, you are probably not getting more people necessarily, but you are having a second dwelling unit – (Speaker unknown): What about the owner occupancy (inaudible) with that Anna? What if you rent the house out and the people who (inaudible----------) – Canning: It says that an owner has to be in one of the two units. Kushlan: Well, it’s absolutely critical because it’s a built in enforcement because if you get an owner there they are not going to tolerate loud parties and noise (inaudible---------) and their neighbors there. (Speaker unknown): It’s basically saying that both of them can’t be rentals. (Speaker unknown): How do we enforce that later? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting/Workshop February 10, 2005 Page 27 of 62 Canning: Yeah, the noise and complaints. As soon as you get a complaint – (Speaker unknown): So, the property sells to an investor who rents them both out, you’d would basically have to not use one of them? Zaremba: Well, he can’t rent them separately. He can rent them to somebody who is going to put their grandmother in the other one. Canning: No, because it has to be owned or occupied. One of them has to be occupied. Zaremba: Okay. (Speaker unknown): But, see it won’t become an issue unless they become a nuisance – Kushlan: Well, the tricky thing is you get into what’s a family because if somebody rents from them and then have their mother living with them and it depends on how independently they live in – you know, so the enforcement of this is not a simple (inaudible--------) but I think these standards are the ones that have been approved in a lot of other jurisdictions (inaudible---------------). Borup: It’s a pretty common thing in other parts of the country. I know Las Vegas – Kushlan: But, if you really get into the enforcement part of it, it can be tricky real quick. Zaremba: Well, as you said, in theory enforcement only comes up if there is a complaint. As long as nobody notices – (Speaker unknown): If I am renting a house and it has a cottage on it, I want to use the cottage as well. I don’t want to be excluded from it’s uses. Canning: You might have to use it for your home office or something like that. You can’t rent it out to somebody else. (Speaker unknown): Well, but the way this is read and I have got, say adult kids and I rent a house and I have got an adult child and they want to live in there, they (inaudible). Canning: Right. (Speaker unknown): Just the owner can occupy one of them and then you can rent the other one out or whatever – (inaudible------------). Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting/Workshop February 10, 2005 Page 28 of 62 Nary: This is kind of a lawyer thing, but in that one owner occupancy and (inaudible) term, the applicant for the secondary dwelling shall demonstrate that either the single family dwelling (inaudible) the family relationship was (inaudible) definition of family it doesn’t require you (inaudible------). Canning: Right. Single family dwelling is just a use code. It’s a use, but we have single family dwelling defined as (inaudible--------------) for a family and then a family is defined also. (Speaker unknown): So, it provides sort of a barrier to proliferation on (inaudible) and also a use of force when it becomes a problem. Canning: Will it get violated? Probably, but if those folks that are back there aren’t creating a problem – (Speaker unknown): That argument probably applies to about 70 percent of this (inaudible). Borup: (Inaudible---------) for their parents when they are gone, rather than let it sit there when they could rent it out. Canning: Right and that’s not a problem. I mean some people don’t let you rent it out. Some people say it has to be a family member period. But, you know, once grandma croaks, you know enjoy your new (inaudible). Borup: Ensure that the people are doing to start with as a rental – not what’s intended, but it (inaudible------------) prohibited is it? (Speaker unknown): So, if you have an existing home and say you are going to move an elderly parent in, you would then as an accessory use apply for a building permit say for like a bonus room up over the garage and go in and do an addition? Canning: Hmn hmn. Borup: See that is happening already just doing a building permit and – Canning: If they are attached (inaudible) it’s a lot easier. This allows for each (inaudible----------) – Siddoway: Yeah, and bear in mind what you were saying, Keith about it as being a microwave and a little sink. That’s not actually a dwelling unit, but this is actually a full blown kitchen. Canning: Usually the kitchen is what distinguishes the (inaudible). Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting/Workshop February 10, 2005 Page 29 of 62 Borup: But if it’s really for elderly parents, they probably don’t need a full blown kitchen. (Speaker unknown): In that case then this wouldn’t apply because that’s not what – (Inaudible discussion) Canning: It’s tougher than – building folks notice it more when it’s a detached (inaudible-----------------). (Speaker unknown): Now most covenants would prohibit this. So what happens if I apply and the city allows me to do it and the neighbors complain that is not allowed by the covenants? (Inaudible discussion) Zaremba: We run into that with a lot of stuff. (Speaker unknown): We used to run into that all the time at the county and you know we said you know we are not in the business of enforcing covenants. Civil action is the only way. But people never understood that. They ask why do you allow this when it’s not allowed in our covenants? Borup: Because some covenants may allow it. Canning: -- that’s their business, I am not going to fight their battle for them. Nary: You hear the same things from the City Council. They are not (inaudible) covenants and (inaudible------------) city code, that’s fine, but if doesn’t comply with the neighbors – Borup: Because there may be some covenants that would allow it and then they say well how come my covenants allow it and the city doesn’t? Siddoway: (Inaudible--------) requests in the past for a provision that would allow for (inaudible) apartments and just been totally unfriendly to the issue, frankly, as our code has been and we have a lot of interest in – Borup: That is just getting more all the time. Siddoway: My mother is sick and I would really like to bring her home, but she is kind of independent, so we would like to add onto her own little place and we say okay, but you have to have this much frontage and your separate two car garage Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting/Workshop February 10, 2005 Page 30 of 62 and you have two, two-car garages now and it has to be 1,400 square feet and that is not what they want to build. They want to build something small. Canning: But the maximum size is 700 square feet, which really will limit a lot people won’t want to. I mean, (inaudible) sized apartment – Borup: Yeah, if it’s going to be a one bedroom – Zaremba: I was going to say you could make a one bedroom apartment out of it – Canning: Okay. Moving on. Education services, those are schooling. Entertainment establishment, adult. As it turns out I didn’t know when we went through this before, so some of the things folks you might have noticed (inaudible) whacked out (inaudible). A lot of the definitions we could take out because there is a whole other section of code in the city code that deals with this. (Inaudible discussion) Canning: We had all these definitions that people get embarrassed reading that I got to take out. (Inaudible discussion) Nary: Anna, on that section you might note that it might be better to simply put, you know, pursuant to Idaho Code rather than code section – if they change the code section no one is going to remember that our code section doesn’t relate to it anymore. Just put Idaho Code. That probably is best. Canning: See now, we have a lot of (inaudible) references all over. Nary: Well and I said, they don’t change it all the time, but occasionally they do and you will have a situation where this code and ours doesn’t match what the real code is. Canning: It should be before as amended because the problem is most Idaho Code is so big that sometimes we don’t know where to look. Nary: That’s probably the other compromise as far as the future or something like that, so at least it’s clear – Borup: Won’t it be confusing to put the date (inaudible) Idaho Code as of this date? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting/Workshop February 10, 2005 Page 31 of 62 Canning: You know when it gets codified they put dates after everything, so they will have the date that it was written on there. Borup: I am saying though for changes and the code number changes – Canning: Our code will say what today’s date was, so why is this (inaudible) as of today’s date? Then it would apply. (Speaker unknown): And then when you go to look at the Idaho Code, it will tell you what day the changes were made – Zaremba: And track through the amendments? (Speaker unknown): -- but, that will solve the problem. Canning: (Inaudible). Home occupations is a big new one. Basically, we allow home occupations, but we opened it up quite a bit. You don’t need an accessory use. A lot of them don’t even require any permit at all. There is so many people. This is another one, where there is so many people that have offices at home that should have accessory use permits, but you know they call up and it’s just like, you know, can I just pretend that you didn’t call me? Can you just hang up and go away? I don’t want to make you go through what you have got to go through just to sit there (inaudible). Nary: The worst is when they do ask and then they get denied. Go through all that and – Canning: So, this loosens up home office quite a bit. Basically, if you are not having anymore impact than you would as a single family home then you know go for it, we don’t care. If you have got a lot of people coming or if you have got a lot of trucks coming, then you need to go through a different process. (Speaker unknown): I noticed that a couple of these conditions are not required in the traditional neighborhood district because they are trying to bring this up (inaudible------------), which is (inaudible--------------------). Canning: Yeah, you have a home office (inaudible-----------) loosened up more in that traditional district. Zaremba: --the people that would buy there are aware of that and understand it’s a different kind of neighborhood. Canning: And there is no existing of that, so it’s not like – (inaudible) – that’s the nice thing about that, the zones, they don’t exist yet. You can’t get people complaining about it. Another big new one. This one was fun a multi-family development. I think we have all been disappointed in the apartment complexes Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting/Workshop February 10, 2005 Page 32 of 62 that we have seen come by. We had a guy that does them right to come in and talks to us and tried to get some really good standards and I think we did. So, you can take a look at those. One in particular, as you get to page 17, we have quality of life open space and recreation amenities. So, we took those – we liked them so much here that we went and used them in subdivision and planned development also, so you will see those come up a number of times. Yeah, he was fun. He just started rambling. (Inaudible-----) urban farm – folks that like to grow veggies on either side of me that really pushed (inaudible--------------). It’s in there. Zaremba: Growing corn in the front yard, right? (Inaudible discussion) Nary: Another thing, this (inaudible-------) changes in different spots. Is this for a reason or --? Canning: Where? Nary: I am on pages 18 and 19 in landscaping requires font changes (inaudible-- -----------------) page 19, the top of the page. It just changes in a bunch of different spots and I didn’t know if there was a reason or – Canning: It refers to those uses. Nary: Oh, okay. (Inaudible discussion) Canning: Those were the big ones. We have got vertically integrated residential projects. This was in the (inaudible) on page 25. Well – this was for the commercial traditional neighborhood and traditional commercial district, (inaudible) zoning or district by district zoning doesn’t work well if you are trying to get them going up, they are stacking up. We only did it for the residential projects. We didn’t do it for the ones that would have commercial and the ones (inaudible) office on the next because that switch wasn’t a problem. It’s when you get the residential use with them, so that’s why it’s just for residential projects. We still allow them for just commercial projects, even some light industrial in there and we just didn’t need to put these standards on those. Nary: Is then applicable to the type of development where you have commercial on one level and the residential on the other? Canning: Yeah. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting/Workshop February 10, 2005 Page 33 of 62 Siddoway: You said commercial on one level and office on the next is just allowed? Canning: Yeah. Siddoway: So, if you were C-G zone for example, well I guess both of those (inaudible--------------) just traditional commercial? Canning: This is allowed in all (inaudible) districts. (Tape over) Canning: Okay, wireless communication facilities. I didn’t touch base (inaudible- --------------) in years gone by. (Inaudible discussion) Canning: I incorporated (inaudible-----). Well except that it’s been approved, so we really should get that one ordinance done, but it won’t be on the books very long. Nary: And that’s why I think we just need to ask the Council if we can just hold off and incorporate it (inaudible-----). Canning: It depends on what kind of schedule these (inaudible------------). I did reorganize – it went purpose, applicability’s, process, documentation and then standards and I think I finally deciphered through all of the standards. (Inaudible- -----) sign ordinance that was pretty well wasted. (Speaker unknown): Was this before or after? Canning: This was right before Mexico. (Inaudible----------). I think I finished it like 10 minutes before I left. I am out of here. Then we get to Chapter 5, which is missing a cover sheet by the way – Nary: (Inaudible---------) questions on the City Council review (inaudible). One of them was on page 38, (inaudible-------) and I just couldn’t find (inaudible---------) says basically who can request review, the applicant, the commissioner, the director or the director of (inaudible) but I didn’t find the definition of what’s the party of (inaudible). Canning: Oh, okay, we just need to add that. If you want to write up who that should be – Nary: Well, we have a lot of problems in Boise with who is the party of record. It’s good in one sense because it makes people come to the first meeting and Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting/Workshop February 10, 2005 Page 34 of 62 not wait for the second meeting, which is fine. Just that you have to show (inaudible) and that you signed up on the list. Which is fine, but you really want the request for the Council review the decision either the record of the Planning and Zoning Commission, be the commission itself or a City Council member to be asking to review that Planning and Zoning decision. As a lawyer, I don’t really want them to do that. Canning: The Council? Nary: Yeah, I just think it makes it very problematic for the Council member to be the one signing an application to review it as to whatever it’s beef is and then I have to – (inaudible---------------). Canning: I would agree to taking the City Council off. I would like to leave director in there. Nary: No, I think director is good. I just didn’t like – you know, because essentially the Commission saying we want to review that director’s decision, but yet they don’t really – the Commission generally doesn’t have that authority to do that (inaudible) application that would make sense. They couldn’t review their own decision by that person who doesn’t prevail of the Commissioners to say now I am going to go ahead and appeal it because I lost. I don’t think that makes much sense. Well, yeah, the director does make sense, but I think that – Zaremba: I don’t read that this is reviewing City Council decisions. Nary: It says requests the City Council to review it, whether it’s a decision that (inaudible----) or a decision the Commission made, the only people that can ask is the applicant, the Commission itself, the director, a (inaudible------) record, which will define or a City Council member. What I am saying is I don’t really want the City Council member asking to review the Commission decision because they would then have to recuse themselves from hearing it. They can’t seek appeal and then be a decision maker. It doesn’t make any sense. The court would have a problem. The other problem would be if you have a Commission member, you vote four and one, that one person says okay, now I want to appeal it because I lost. I want them to appeal at the City Council. It doesn’t make much sense. That’s not really the Commission’s role, nor would you really want the Commission to say the director made a decision we don’t like, we want to review it. Because, again, you put yourself in a conflict. I don’t think it makes sense to have the Commission to be a party that could seek review. (Speaker unknown): (inaudible------) define party of record. Nary: We run it around in Boise a lot between effective party or party of record and I think we tried to go with the party of record because we had a way of Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting/Workshop February 10, 2005 Page 35 of 62 documenting it and what else we ended up with is (inaudible) like I said you have to show up at the other hearing and you have to be signed up. You didn’t have to testify because people would sign up and then they say, okay I referred, I don’t need to testify. But, we just want to make sure where somebody (inaudible----) to avoid the person (inaudible---------) the decisions made, they don’t bother with it, then they go to the Council one. (Speaker unknown): Well, see I have been in situations like in Nampa where I got the notice that it was a Planning and Zoning meeting and I thought well, they are not going to make a final decision, I won’t go to this, I will go to the next one for a variance. Well, I found out that the Planning and Zoning Commission had the final say in it after they made a decision. So, I said whoa, whoa, I have got to appeal this thing. So, I filed my appeal. So, what you are saying with your definition, I wouldn’t be able to file an appeal. Nary: You have to go to the meeting. Again, you don’t have to do it that way, but it does – but we see it occasionally, not very often, but occasionally where you have the Commission (inaudible) seems pretty good, everybody seems fine and then all of a sudden there is ten people at the Council that don’t like it and they didn’t bother going to the Planning and Zoning Commission because they didn’t think they had any reason to go there when they really should have resolved those things at Planning and Zoning. (Speaker unknown): Don’t you think, though, that maybe a contiguous property owner ought to have the right to appeal even if they didn’t go to the first meeting? Nary: Well, maybe there at least needs to be an ability to request some exception in some way. If you have somebody who can’t come to the meeting because their mom died and they are out of town and the decision gets made and they still wanted to appeal it that would make some sense. But, it doesn’t matter to me. I am just saying that I think we need to define what it is and whether it’s just any effected party, which really just (inaudible--------------) and appeal it if they want to; and again, the Council may want them free reign to do that. (Inaudible discussion) Borup: So, how about someone from another city that shows up? So, they can appeal it too, if they have been at the first meeting that has really nothing --? Nary: Yeah, probably won’t happen very much, but I think like you said it doesn’t matter – it doesn’t make any difference to me. I just wanted to make sure it’s defined whether it’s just an effective party or whether it’s something more specific or narrow or something. Boise was becoming a problem and people just didn’t even go to the Planning and Zoning meetings, so an issue that might have been able to be resolved, discussed, hashed out they just didn’t (inaudible-----------). Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting/Workshop February 10, 2005 Page 36 of 62 Then they appealed it and they delayed the progress and made it longer and that was frustrating to the applicants because this person never talked to them, never came – Canning: I like that that just the folks that have signed up the second time because we do have record on it and it takes that power away from those people that just didn’t bother the first time around. (Inaudible discussion) Nary: The only other question I have on the appeal process, I do like that you made it a (inaudible) appeal because we rewrote that Boise ordinance three years ago and we amended it three times a year because we made it an entire review process that doesn’t work. (Inaudible discussion) Nary: Just a review of the old record (inaudible-------------------) really cumbersome (inaudible-----------). So, the only thing I was wondering is on the decision it says that if the Council reverses the Planning and Zoning (inaudible) and they refer it back to them, for them to issue a new directive consistent with the Council’s orders and I would think the applicants would be (inaudible----------) wait another month and one half, rather than Council to issue their own findings, their own orders and move forward. Borup: But they do it now anyway. Nary: Yeah, that’s what happens now. So, I am just thinking this seems to make it go back when you don’t really want it to go back. You want the Council to (inaudible) and make a decision, they make a finding, you know, maybe it takes a week or two for them to get the actual findings done (inaudible) – Siddoway: Commission doesn’t want to change their mind. The Commission has already made their decision. (Inaudible discussion) Nary: Right and it frustrates the Commission to have (inaudible) because they think why are we hearing it for, the Council already said what they wanted, so I mean we are just pushing it through on the Commission side. That doesn’t help them either. So, that is the only section I thought on the appeal that we would want to look at. Canning: Just to back up a little bit. Borup: Then eliminate number 2, you are saying there in B-2. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting/Workshop February 10, 2005 Page 37 of 62 Nary: No, I think what we do is just reword it that the Council – the Council can make a finding, if they uphold a (inaudible) order, upholding a decision that was already made, if they reverse it or change it or alter it or amend it whatever, they will issue their own finding and order and then move forward. It doesn’t need to go back to the Commission or it doesn’t need to go back to the director. Issue the finding and move forward, it would be easier. Canning: Oh, you do that on the director also? So, do you want to consolidate one and two? If it comes back to me, I am just writing a letter so they don’t have to, that’s all. Nary: Yeah, and that is probably fine. It’s just a tracking mechanism, but the Council, I think, once they get it they should just issue the letter that they have and move forward. Canning: I just wanted to move back to page 33, the table there. This sets out all the authorities, so this is where you want to look for the stuff that says PZ because that would be you. So, like an accessory use, there is no recommending authority. The Director is the final decision-making authority and there is no – or it’s administrative with public notice, so I do send out public notice on that, but like on comprehensive plan amendment, the Planning and Zoning Commission is the recommending authority, the City Council is the final decision-making authority and it is a public hearing. We have a bunch of plat ones and I will get to those. (Speaker unknown): Is conditional use the only one where we made the final decision-making authority the Planning and Zoning? Canning: Yeah and there is not many others that we can do because you can’t get – the plats have to go to City Council and text amendments have to go – (Speaker unknown): I think what we did if I remember correctly is we gave equal authority on a lot of those decisions rather than going to P&Z (inaudible). Canning: Right. Siddoway: Like property evaluating adjustments and short plats? Zaremba: Yeah. There are some things that by Idaho Code the City Council has to hear anyhow, but where they didn’t we tried to get them to the Director and for conditional use we made it P&Z. Canning: The only other one we might have considered is temporary uses, but usually they are in a hurry to get those. So, it doesn’t really do any good to get that to you guys six weeks to get (inaudible----------). Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting/Workshop February 10, 2005 Page 38 of 62 (Speaker unknown): So, this should cut down on some of the demands on P&Z and the City Council? Canning: Oh yeah, definitely. Zaremba: Oh yeah and the applicants. If you can work it out with the director, you are done. Borup: That’s probably a bigger issue because these type of things are pretty short. I mean, nobody testifies, but it still takes 10 minutes – (Inaudible discussion) Canning: Yeah, so even the stuff where we are making the decision, the director, I am making the decision and it still is a lot less work for my staff because we don’t have to go through all of the legal – Zaremba: It doesn’t take three weeks to get it on the Commission’s calendar and you know – (Inaudible discussion) Canning: Okay, in the other stuff there is really no big changes, just the authority there. I don’t think there was any more changes. I think we added a section – oh, we were going to do a 1,000 feet for industrial uses – I think I forgot to put that in there. Instead of the 300 feet it’s going to be 1,000 feet. (Speaker unknown): Hold on now, what was that? Siddoway: Industrial setbacks from (inaudible) – (Inaudible discussion) Zaremba: And that doesn’t count the landscape buffer, you have to have a detached sidewalk and then a 25 foot landscape and then a 1,000 foot setback. Canning: 1,000 foot noticing. We were thinking about that. It’s just the noticing. (Inaudible discussion) Canning: It’s just the heavy industrial, I think is what we are talking about. (Speaker unknown): You know what, that really makes me mad. That (inaudible). That is an existing use, you know it just bothers me that the residents can make such a stink. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting/Workshop February 10, 2005 Page 39 of 62 (Inaudible discussion) (Speaker unknown): Well, you see in Nampa you have got the Sugar Factory and all those houses encroaching in on them in new developments and they are griping about the noise from the Sugar Factory (inaudible--------------). Zaremba: It’s the same people that build around airports. You buy a house next to an airport and then complain about the airport. Canning: How about all the property next to the sewer treatment plant. I mean, you know, we could not convince that developer that that was not a good place to build those out. He just thought that was great. No, you are wrong. Okay, there is a bunch of stuff on alternative compliance. We took that idea from the landscape ordinance and (inaudible) advice throughout the document that basically (inaudible---------) that you are meeting the purpose statement and you meet or exceed the intent of what the regulation is and you just want to do something better then the director can approve the whole thing at once. There is a lot of potential for abuse there and I mean it is a lot of flexibility, but it’s a lot of potential for abuse, too. I promise to be a good steward of it. All it is going to take is one bad Planning Director to do you in. So, I am just warning you. Zaremba: Well, but there is an appeal process if somebody doesn’t like the Director’s decision, they appeal to the Commission. Canning: Yeah, this would be one where the Commission or the City Council may want to appeal one of my decisions, Bill. So, if it’s an alternative for a (inaudible) decision then that may be one where they just may have gotten way out of hand and – (Inaudible discussion) Nary: Let me try and think of some other way – because again, I don’t know that you want – I don’t think that you want the Mayor or the Council being involved in any decision process until we appeal it and then get to decide on the appeal. Canning: That’s true. Nary: And that would be a cumbersome thing. Again, most of the time (inaudible------------) person is subject to the Council’s review, but most of the time it’s a record making decision and the party that are affected don’t care. I don’t know that it matters that much. Borup: If the applicant is not going to appeal it, why would anybody else care? Canning: What if the neighbor did? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting/Workshop February 10, 2005 Page 40 of 62 Nary: Yeah, if the neighbor brought it up, that is fine. (Speaker unknown): I mean Boise neighbors used to appeal the Director’s determination. Nary: All the time. (Speaker unknown): You know, one idea is to when you first start this to have someone monitor the process (inaudible----). Send a report every month of what you decided and – Zaremba: I don’t think I want to know all that. (Inaudible discussion) (Speaker unknown): And if there are issues, then you can go back to the code in terms of what you are allowing (inaudible) compliance. There is a way for you to protect yourself that you are making it known and what your decisions are. It’s a way for them to know what is going on. Canning: I only react because I make a lot of those alternative compliance on the landscape plan day to day. Usually, it’s – they have got an encroach for three feet by three feet and you know is that okay? It’s like yeah. So, (inaudible- -----------). (Speaker unknown): Is that an interpretation or is that an alternative compliance? Canning: Usually I make them (inaudible---------------). (Speaker unknown): So, it’s formalized? Canning: Yeah, I get some extra – we don’t make them go through everything, but I usually get an extra tree or something. (Speaker unknown): Well, maybe the ones that are really (inaudible ---------). Canning: Yeah, and there are ones that I won’t do until I call the Mayor and I am comfortable that she is not going to fire me. Nary: Well, I think that is the right way and I think that realistically that’s what I think Council is going to be comfortable with. You know if you are going to have a director then you are going to have some confidence to make those judgment calls. That is why there is a director and you are going to know which ones might be a little more problematic. Now, occasionally, if we had a different director that Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting/Workshop February 10, 2005 Page 41 of 62 did do something – usually one or two before somebody appeals it and then somebody else says don’t do that anymore. But, I couldn’t see becoming a real prolific problem. Canning: Okay. No other big things except – (Inaudible discussion) Canning: Yeah, well before we get to that there is a section at the end of Administration on Planned Developments. This is one of the very, very last ditch things I did before I took off for Mexico and I did realize that I had made a mistake, but I didn’t have time to go back and do it. We have an issue with Planned Developments. I don’t know where to put them. You know, Diane and I had this conversation several times and we just never come to one that is apparently (inaudible---------) of the list because I am still moving it – Planned Developments, there is one huge change and let me tell you about that first so you can maybe help me figure out where to find it. The last thing (inaudible------) go through, but I did want to get through this Planned Development because we need to get this figured out. No longer can you ask for uses that wouldn’t otherwise be allowed in the district Planned Development. That is gone. It shouldn’t be there. Zaremba: The 20 percent use exception, you mean? Canning: That’s not planning. Yeah, that is just something else. Yeah and in both – it’s kind of like minimum house standards – just put it that way. It is not appropriate. That’s not the way you plan and so that is gone. What is there though is say you have got a commercial district that – I don’t know, something is allowed as a conditional use in that district. So, a C-C district or a C-N district and there is a bunch of conditionally allowed ones. You can ask through the process that those be principled permit (inaudible) uses instead of conditional uses. So, it does give you a little more flexibility in the approval of the (inaudible). It would have to already be a permanent uses of itself or you result (inaudible----------------). You need to rezone the rezone. Then it needs to be consistent with the comp plan. So – (Inaudible discussion) Canning: Well, that is the question. The issues and I just wanted to let you know that portion of it because that was the biggest change in there. It is in some ways it’s like a conditional use because we only allow some uses with a PUD. So, in that sense it is somewhat akin to a conditional use and that is what I was thinking when I threw it in here. In other ways, it is a regulation applying to all districts, you know similar to the landscape ordinance, you know it’s an option you have in any district to do a PUD, so in some ways it could go there. Really what it is is an overlay district. We don’t have any other (inaudible) growing Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting/Workshop February 10, 2005 Page 42 of 62 districts and usually overlay districts work fast when it’s tied to a geographic feature like flood planning or seismic zone or – Zaremba: Mixed use are not overlays anymore. Canning: What? Zaremba: Mixed use are not overlays anymore. Canning: They never were. We need to have a discussion about that. I have got to get you straightened out on that one. We don’t have any overlays right now, so mixed use is not an overlay. Mixed use is what the comp plan designation is, but it’s not a zoning tool. The only zoning – we don’t have a zone that allows for mixed uses. Although now we do. That is what those traditionally (inaudible----------). Siddoway: (Inaudible--------------) ordinances as (inaudible), flood plains (inaudible-----------------------). Zaremba: So, the options for Planned Development would be to have it under administration that way it is right now or to have a separate chapter for it or to put it under Chapter 3? Canning: It’s under Chapter 7, which is kind of – half of it is back still in Chapter 7. Zaremba: Well, Chapter 3 is the one that applies to all zones. This could happen in all zones, couldn’t it? Canning: We can treat it similar to a subdivision. The subdivision is the same way. You can do a subdivision in all zones. This one is different in that the PUD allows uses or allows different uses, so it is different from the subdivision in that respect. So, there really is a very odd character in that we never know quite what to do with them. Borup: Doesn’t this new code (inaudible-----------) wouldn’t the PUD (inaudible---- ----------------------)? Canning: Yeah. Really the PUD – when I think of a PUD is this is what has been (inaudible---------). You have got an unusual piece of property that it’s not really – it’s a larger of one, so there is some flexibility and some room to do something, but it’s got some feature on it like the river going through it, where you can’t develop or you can’t get a rope to the other side, so you want to (inaudible-------) on this one side. Well, you are going to do it on this one side, but you are going to do it nice and you are going to do it right. It’s not going to be just a little bit smaller than the ones that are on the other side or the next door ones. This is Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting/Workshop February 10, 2005 Page 43 of 62 really for something that meets the density standards of the zone, but it’s really (inaudible----------------------------------) and I actually think we require a variety of (inaudible). Siddoway: So, we are allowing mixed uses in a lot of areas now? Do we still have exclusionary zones? Canning: The TN-R and the TN-Z are the only ones in Old Town that allow it. (Speaker unknown): Those are the ones that also can be (inaudible------------) and (inaudible----------------------) in under zones? Borup: Just commercial, not residential. Canning: In the higher density (inaudible--------). Siddoway: We do have provisions for mixed uses. Kushlan: Vertically integrated are allowed in the (inaudible) and the R-40 for conditional use. Borup: With commercial? Kushlan: Yes. Canning: So, like if you wanted a daycare or a (inaudible) or something like that. Or a little retail shop or – (Speaker unknown): Coffee shop. Canning: Stuff like that, yeah. Borup: It’s going to be in the neighborhood center then if we ever get one? Canning: Well we were hoping that the TN-Z and the TN-R would be – actually the purpose of getting it – that is what those are for. But, you could also have a R-15 area or a R-40 and you have got a laundry mat – a huge apartment complex that can support it’s own coffee shop or snack shop or dry cleaning, not that anyone uses dry cleaning anymore. (Speaker unknown): Or a dentist office or something like that. Canning: So, we opened up the mixed of uses, but we shut it down on planned developments quite a bit. So, we have it as a Chapter 7 and I moved a bunch of stuff out of there and put it in Chapter 5. I am tempted to move it back to Chapter (inaudible) but I would be happy to take some comments. The only Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting/Workshop February 10, 2005 Page 44 of 62 uses for – like if you look – if you allow multi-family dwellings in R-4 and R-8 only with a PUD – you know maybe since the ultimate – we might not need that in here. If we could get it out of here – it would have to be conditional here and see we didn’t really want to make it conditional (inaudible). Maybe we just need to put something in PUD saying that they can use both (inaudible----------------------). We will take the PUD out of the use charts and we will just put it in the PUD section. That will take care of that. Zaremba: A somewhat similar subject. I remember when we discussed cluster developments and I don’t remember what we did with them or what we decided. For instance, if you had an R-4 zone that you could – instead of spreading them out cluster them and put the rest of the property in a planned thing. A Planned Development would allow the clustering? Canning: Yeah. And that is what we were talking about in multi-family that we needed to allow multi-family for a PUD (inaudible-----------) doesn’t allow because that is how you choose that density. Zaremba: But then there is a required open space that forever has to stay next to it? Canning: Right. I guess I asked you for your opinion, but my inclination is to move it back to Chapter 7, if that sounds – (Speaker unknown): So, this becomes an entire Planned Development section? Canning: Yeah, I will take out the stuff out of 5 and I will move it back to 7. (Speaker unknown): So, was there an intended difference between Planned Developments and Planned Unit Developments? Canning: No. (Inaudible-------------------------). It was a half hour before I left for Mexico. Okay, now subdivision – I want to go through this. If we haven’t confused you now – wait and see. Okay, so the process gets tricky here. Most of the standards are no longer here they are all in Chapter 3, but hold onto your seats for this one. Okay, you have got the regular preliminary plat process. The preliminary plat process stays the same. Combined preliminary and final is pretty much the same. It can’t exceed four lots and no new street dedication, excluding widening (inaudible) required – and final plat is the same. Okay, then we have this thing that is called a short plat, so if you are not in a residential district basically you can do what we call the short plat if you have got an original parcel of record or a lot in a recorded subdivision, so this is – Siddoway: -- this is the one they are going to want. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting/Workshop February 10, 2005 Page 45 of 62 Canning: -- yeah. Brad started this whole thing. It wasn’t the result of a previous short plat, so you only kind of get to do these things once. You can’t divide something in half, divide it again in half, divide that in half – none of that and a proposed subdivision does not exceed four lots on a previous platted property, so say you have got a lot out in Bonito Subdivision and they want to do four lots. They can do that. Or you have got an un-platted piece of ground on Gaudains and Franklin and you wanted to just carve off a little bit and sell it to some carpet manufacturer, then you can only get two. You can only get two. So, if it’s a previously platted lot, you can get up to four new ones. If it is an un- platted piece of property, you only get up to two lots. Okay, is that confusing enough for you so far? Hold on, we have got more. Siddoway: Everything is supposed to be simplified. Canning: Not when it came to this one. Zaremba: Well, there is always the original process. If you don’t fit into this narrowly defined thing, then you go through the original process. (Speaker unknown): The short plats are at staff level. Canning: Yeah, short plats are staff level. Zaremba: Again, it’s one of those things that if you comply with the whole list it is easy. If you don’t then there is still the original process. (Speaker unknown): Are you sure it’s appropriate to use the word plat when you are not really recording the subdivision plat? (Speaker unknown): What do you do with sanitary restrictions on that (inaudible- ---------------)? (Speaker unknown): I mean the word – Canning: I think we did decided that we would process it as a plat. You would have to get your signatures. I think that that is where we – I think that that was one of those compromises. Kushlan: How does state law define a plat in the --? (Speaker unknown): We talked about this when we did it because we (inaudible) part of how the state law defines it, but I think it’s got to include the Highway District signatures and it’s got to include all those signatures (inaudible) and county surveyors certainly doesn’t know how to go through without all the certain signatures on it. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting/Workshop February 10, 2005 Page 46 of 62 Kushlan: Exactly. Borup: But you save on the public hearing. Kushlan: So, if it’s intended to be more a record of survey, though – Canning: That is what we do now. Now, I remember back we decided that we would make that (inaudible---------------------). (Speaker unknown): I guess the question is if the only thing different then is the director is going to approve the preliminary plat and then all of it goes to the Council for signatures, I mean for final plat approval – Canning: No. (Speaker unknown): -- the Council has to sign the final plat, right? Kushlan: The City Clerk would have to sign on behalf of the City Council. The Council has never seen it. (Speaker unknown): The ones I did is we just recorded the record of survey; the City didn’t have to sign it at all. (Speaker unknown): For a split, right? Kushlan: For a split – a one time split is different. (Inaudible discussion) Nary: The only other suggestion I can make, I guess when we decide, too, is that you have final plat and preliminary plat defined, but you don’t have short plats defined in this section. (Speaker unknown): We did discuss some of these detailed. Canning: We did and it was very – I thought we got this straightened out. Maybe we didn’t. (Speaker unknown): (Inaudible----) defined preliminary / final on four lots and then you had the short plat. I thought the combined preliminary – (Speaker unknown): -- we did, but didn’t work out all the details. (Speaker unknown): But I think a preliminary / final (inaudible) require public hearings. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting/Workshop February 10, 2005 Page 47 of 62 Canning: Okay, combination was P&Z recommending, the City Council final at the public hearings; final plats, no recommendations, but City Council; short plat was director and administrative process. Kushlan: So, that was the compromise, no public hearings. Canning: No pubic notice, but you still had to go get all those signatures. Kushlan: I just remember the old Ada County code had a short plat process and we didn’t use it because there was a question whether there was compliance with state law. (Speaker unknown): Well, I think the thing is that we have (inaudible) in all of our areas. We always treat plats like they are special uses or conditional uses under the state code, which they are not. A subdivision is a really an administrative decision by P&Z and the City Council – why we always run them through because they are going with annexation stuff. The state law does not require a public hearing, even for a subdivision. They require the City Council to approve it and they don’t require the notice and it is not a special use under the state code. So, the city can choose to do otherwise with it, but I still think in order to get through the maze of process that we have, the City Clerk is going to have to sign that the City Council approved it. Canning: Well, we can just have it put on the consent agenda or something, as approved by the – so maybe we just need to modify that line on the authority chart to say, director approval and then forwarded to on a consent agenda for City Council. (Speaker unknown): So that the Clerk has the ability to sign off on (inaudible). You do have Sanitary Services (inaudible---------------------). Canning: Does that sound do-able? Nary: Yeah, because I think Dave is right, you know, they are not required to have a public hearing. We are only having a public hearing because most of them are a CU or annexations, but yeah, I don’t see a problem with that. In Boise, we grouped them all together. We just grouped them in one section in subdivisions and we threw them all together. Canning: Yeah, I am wondering if we just do it as maybe just on the short it says CC and no public hearing just like we have for a final. So, maybe CC is the final decision maker similar to a final plat because we have been moving toward putting all the final plats on the consent agenda anyway. So, we could do that. That will work. But, I think that is what we decided is that we skip the public hearings, but you still had to get all the signatures. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting/Workshop February 10, 2005 Page 48 of 62 (Speaker unknown): So, you skip the neighborhood meeting, you skip the notification process, you know all of – preliminary – basically you do have a preliminary and final, but you are skipping all of the public notification stuff and getting it to the City Council in a very short period of time because we are trying to turn it around to encourage commercial development. That is the bottom line is that we are trying help the process and encourage commercial development when the city is comfortable but the public input is not necessary to make the decision. (Speaker unknown): We were just sitting here talking if they are based on the short plat nobody would ever do a combined preliminary / final plat. (Inaudible discussion) Canning: Yeah, you only get one short plat, so you would have to go through – Siddoway: How do we track that? How do we as staff say this already has a short plat? Kushlan: We just need to start the (inaudible----------------) with the GIS? Zaremba: Do you have any control over the recording number? Can you put an “S” at the end of it? Canning: No. But, we get regular updates that show records of survey or plats (inaudible---) and that is why we wanted it to be a plat so that we could look it up to see it because then it shows up with a title and it shows up everywhere as, you know, such and such plat. We can look up and see if that was a short plat. Nary: Since it is a one time only it would make sense that a one time restriction have some date that has to – you know something that was done 20 years ago in the split or 15 years ago – would it make sense to have some date that anything that was filed prior to this date wouldn’t count as having a one time only? Canning: That is what the original parcel of record has a date. Nary: Oh. Canning: But, there is this question that comes up that Becky always brings up. They can do a split in the county a number of different ways and do we want to – if we are annexing that piece of property that is a legal split in the county, do we want to recognize that as being eligible for this short plat? Basically, if they are doing a one time split in the county, turning around a doing a one time split with us. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting/Workshop February 10, 2005 Page 49 of 62 (Speaker unknown): I like it. Nary: I guess the argument would be as long as that county provision would apply – this says that one of the prohibitions is that it is not the result of a previous short plat. Well, (inaudible) we didn’t have this process before. Canning: It’s not an original parcel of record that is what it is. McKay: Yeah, the parcel of record was what, 1970--? Canning: 1982. McKay: 1982, but in the county, Bill, it can have a parcel that was split prior to January 1, 1985 and then we can get one additional split after January 1, 1985 and then I could annex into the City of Meridian and am I eligible for a split in the City of Meridian? (Speaker unknown): Or having run out of the practicality of it in being able to not to any new public streets and not do any of the other prohibitions here. I don’t think that – McKay: You always have something that (inaudible--------------). (Inaudible discussion) McKay: You will never have to do another subdivision again. (Speaker unknown): I have never seen a one time split I didn’t like. Zaremba: And do it again. (Speaker unknown): Well, and maybe you could put this thing in here that the director can say, you know on their discretion can say man I am not comfortable with this, I would really rather it would go through Council. Canning: Yeah, we took that out. I have that right now. Nary: I was going to say, I didn’t notice is there an out clause, I mean because sometimes you think it seems like periodically you run into a situation that staff doesn’t feel comfortable with, it kind of sounds like it fits, but they are not very comfortable that this should just not go through a process and do you have an “out” to do that? Canning: No. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting/Workshop February 10, 2005 Page 50 of 62 Nary: Then I recognize that you might be careful in willing that because if you just default to doing that all the time, you sort of frustrate the whole process that you have gone through, but it just seems like it and maybe that is just the lawyer that answered that, but sometimes you just need an “out”. I mean, you just have to have the ability to say, you know what, this doesn’t fit or doesn’t feel right, I just need to go with the process with this. (Speaker unknown): I think she could make a decision unfavorably and they would just have to appeal it. Borup: I mean it’s not like she has got to have a reason to make a negative decision. (Speaker unknown): It simply just doesn’t fit her opinion. Canning: Yeah and I guess Bill we just tried to make them as – we didn’t give a whole lot of lead way on this one. Nary: And like I said, I don’t know if it is just this one, but I just – you know we write a lot of the policies or ordinances for the Council, I almost always if I can, try and give an “out”. They can deviate from the (inaudible----------) and that is okay. So, I don’t know whether or not that makes sense in here for some of these things to have some sort of catch all, but still gives you some sort of discretion to exercise that it does have to go through the process. Because I think it would be harder under Cornell’s example that the director just says I just don’t like it and there is nothing to base that on. So, they have to appeal it and now the Commission is saying – Commission is still having to hear it and the director has to be in some uncomfortable position of saying I just don’t like it. Nothing grants me that authority I am just going to do it anyway. Zaremba: What if we added one more condition – you have under “A” the five conditions that it has to comply with, what if there was a sixth one that just said it’s in the best interest of the city? That gives you the lead way to decide whether it is or it isn’t. Canning: I feel more comfortable saying there is no public health or safety or public health – how does that go? Public health welfare? (Inaudible discussion) Nary: Just something to think about before our next discussion on this and whether or not it’s this process or the whole process that there needs to be some way that the Commission or the director has the ability to say that it just doesn’t work. Newton-Huckabay: Well and it saves you if this is really a bad idea in practice. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting/Workshop February 10, 2005 Page 51 of 62 Nary: Well, because sometimes I think the practicality is that the worse situation for a director or a Commission is to feel like this is a bad idea and I am totally handcuffed and I can’t do anything. I have to prove a bad idea verses saying oh the Council has free reign to approve bad ideas. That is what they get elected to do, but they can approve anything within the bounds of what they want, but I think that the Commission and the director, I think they at least should have some discretion in being able to articulate if it doesn’t fit the best interest of the city or it does have some concern of the city perspective to say you know let’s let the elected officials because that is what they get elected to do to make that call. Zaremba: One element that requires some interpretation. Canning: Okay. So, how about there are no health or safety concerns and it is within the best interest of the city (inaudible---------)? Zaremba: Works for me. Borup: We had one (inaudible-----------------------------------). Canning: Yeah, there are some (inaudible----------------) but in the end we usually come up with some sort of compromise. Okay, yeah, we will just add another standard in there that gives me a little bit (inaudible). (Inaudible discussion) Canning: Only on the consent agenda basically. Borup: They can remove it. Canning: Yes. McKay: Does this allow a consent agenda, like if we have another jurisdiction that this – Canning: That this is not the tool that you can look across to the (inaudible------). McKay: I asked her if there are provisions in here for a consent agenda? (Tape turned over) Nary: -- that is starting to get the (inaudible), but yeah, that is part of the public hearing process is (inaudible) create some ability to do that so that you don’t have to sit through four hours of planning to get the five minutes that you asked for. If nobody seems to object, then everybody is fine. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting/Workshop February 10, 2005 Page 52 of 62 (Speaker unknown): If it required a public hearing, though, could you do that? Nary: Could you do what? (Speaker unknown): Consent agenda? Open the public hearing off of it? Nary: What I think the way the draft talks about is that it essentially is a separate hearing agenda – (inaudible) consent agenda for the Council is approved contracts – separate – and I think we could probably accelerate it or abbreviate it or whatever and it is for all of the public hearings that there is no objection, no objection by any party, no one in the audience objects and that way you could move all – that is what Boise does like at the Planning and Zoning they say anybody object (inaudible) and if not here is five of them that we can pass them all along. Canning: But, it is only going to be for City Council, not for P&Z. (Speaker unknown): Why not? Canning: Because City Council only feels comfortable doing that if someone has had the opportunity to be heard at P&Z and didn’t like miss it because it was on our abbreviated hearing. Borup: The want to make sure there is announcement (inaudible---------------) open and a time even if they didn’t sign up. (Inaudible discussion) Canning: Yeah, they want someone to do a full hearing. McKay: But even at the Council level that would be beneficial. Like final plats for example. That is a good one. Nary: As you noticed that even lately, for a while now, we moved all those final plats up to the front part at the hearing agenda, rather than at the end. McKay: Yeah, it used to be at the end. Nary: If you noticed we moved all the ordinances at the end. Borup: Couldn’t we do the same thing at P&Z? The same definitions at the first of the agenda? Canning: Except you don’t have final plats. They just put the final plats at – Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting/Workshop February 10, 2005 Page 53 of 62 Borup: Well, I know that, but the same ones that we are talking about that could go on the same definition – it could go on --? Canning: An abbreviated agenda we don’t usually know until the hearing. I mean some of them you know beforehand. Nary: The only problem sometimes is that people don’t think to come. They call ahead and they find out where it is. It’s number 14, their meeting starts at 7:00 and they think, okay, I will show up at 8:00. So, then you do this abbreviated agenda at 7:05 and suddenly you push it up front and somebody is not there. We had that happen in Boise so many times and what happens is they end up appealing and it becomes a real nightmare. You know, like Anna said at the end of the day the Council’s objective is that somebody could get hurt. At some point they got a chance to get hurt and they don’t want to hear it at an appeal. They would much rather have the opportunity to hear it upfront. McKay: And I have seen them, Keith, where the chairman is real quick going through that front end of the agenda and people have gotten there, I mean, less than five minutes after it started and it was already approved and boom and they were like what do I do? They have to interrupt the meeting and say I was here for this item and then I have seen them go back and take it and put it back on the agenda and sometimes not. Nary: Well, they just didn’t understand. They didn’t know what was happening. They didn’t know what was going on. Borup: I was just thinking and I guess it doesn’t really apply –people have waited three and one half hours for a – with no testimony, nobody in public, no objections and you know they sat there for all that time. Canning: And hopefully there will be fewer of those on your agenda. Borup: Well, that is probably true because most of those will be handled by you. Canning: Yeah. Well and that is the big goal there. McKay: And now the Clerk’s Office sets your agendas, right? Canning: Yeah and right now they don’t do it based on intensity of project. They do it based on what planner it is assigned to because I try and get all of them together so that person can get out and get home and quit charging overtime. McKay: Because a lot of jurisdictions, the complexity of the project and if they know there is going to be opposition it is at the end and that the more routine items first. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting/Workshop February 10, 2005 Page 54 of 62 Borup: That is what we were doing before, so each planner could get rid of all of his. Canning: Just trying to save you guys money. Zaremba: Well, just to express a personal opinion I am happy with the way it has been arranged. I have no problem with one planner doing the first couple of them and then going home and then another planner doing the next few. What it does for us is it mixes up the easy and the hard ones and I kind of like that instead of having six hard ones left for the end, you know? It is almost like a break to have an easy one. Siddoway: Well and several times you have done the opposite, the hard ones first because they are the ones that are packed in the audience and they want to get it down, rather than have them sit through all the short ones. Borup: We have had times where we have adjusted the agenda, so all the people could leave. Canning: Okay, crack the lid here, we talked about that enough and can talk about that some other time. Property boundary adjustment. They want to point out we do allow for a reduction in density or the number of lots, which we don’t have right now. That’s new. Subdivision design standards, you will notice that most of this has been put in the regulations defined for all districts. So, the stuff in here is really just germane to subdivisions. You have got street names, cull-de sac lanes, driveways; we have got the common drive stuff there – Zaremba: Did we ever say anywhere that we discourage cul-de-sacs? I mean I am thinking that there should be connectivity and stuff. Canning: The comp plan does, but we don’t have it in here, but – Newton-Huckabay: Discourage what? Zaremba: Discourage cul-de-sacs for connectivity and transportation ease and – McKay: The homeowner’s love them. Canning: But that is comp plan stuff and you should pulling that more from (inaudible) in the comp plan. We do have (inaudible). Then we get to common open spaces, inside amenities, which is the same. It is very similar to what was in the multi-family and then you have got the parks stuff on parkways again. Then Planned Development we have got that same stuff, same standards for open spaces (inaudible------------). I will try and figure it out. Okay, that was the open (inaudible) format. I think we have gone through most of the significant changes. Some of the outstanding issues, one was planning development, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting/Workshop February 10, 2005 Page 55 of 62 which we already talked about and dwelling unit standards. I already mentioned that to you – private streets – enforcement there is nothing in there right now. I emailed what we had in a sign ordinance over to the attorneys and said please come up with an enforcement section for me and we will plug it in. So, I am just leaving that kind of up to them. We will look at it and make sure it is kind of written kind of the same way as ours. Zaremba: I would be an advocate of having some financial penalties for infractions. I mean, it costs the city money to administer an enforcement program, there should be a penalty. Nary: Yeah, the only problem with doing that is it becomes nightmarish for criminal process. I mean, there are some things – we will probably figure out how to make some of those effective. But, it is a really difficult criminal process to put through. We do – I mean we have got that one case pending now with the guy over in Parkside Creek with his awning, but they are real tough to deal with, sometimes criminally, but we will figure out someway to do that. (Inaudible discussion) Nary: We have a criminal case pending as well as a civil case pending and I was going to drop (inaudible) but I wanted to make sure that the thing gets done. (Speaker unknown): Let me ask a question. When this goes before Planning and Zoning is it going to be the only item on the agenda as a special item? (Speaker unknown): I just don’t want to be on that agenda. Canning: That’s a perfect (inaudible) for the next question, which is what do you guys want to do next? We talked to, when we started this – I asked you kind of how much review you would want to do or did you feel comfortable giving some of that review over to Dave as a representative? At that time, you felt pretty comfortable, but I don’t want to tie your hands. You have seen it now. Zaremba: I would propose a suggestion and see if the other Commissioners rise to it that we now the Commission members read this word for word. This evening was a good thing for us to understand how this came about and the format and the reasons behind it, but I would say now read it word for word and maybe have another workshop the 10th of March, which would be the second Thursday of March. There are only 28 days in February, right? Again, have the same people so that if any Commissioners say oh well now this wording in this place we need to discuss and in trying to anticipate anything that might come up at a public hearing because that would be the next step. We are going to have to have a public hearing before we make our recommendation to the City Council, who will also have a public hearing. But I could see at least having one more meeting like this and I would propose that it would be a month from today Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting/Workshop February 10, 2005 Page 56 of 62 and give us the chance to read it word for word. I have skimmed it a couple of times, but I have not read it word for word. Canning: The only thing that I would suggest is that I don’t think one meeting is going to be enough – Zaremba: Well it may not be. Canning: If you want to try – the thing about zoning ordinances is as you know you can’t read it from beginning to end, you have to go back and forth and look at the specific use standards and then go back to the use table and then check the definitions, so you are going to be all over the place. It is not like I can just say to read Chapters 1, 2 and 3, but we may only want to talk about Chapters 1, 2 and 3 at that point. Zaremba: Yeah. Well, I don’t anticipate – again, not to speak for the other Commissioners at last, but I don’t anticipate that we are going to have the kind of discussion that we actually had in the PIG group. The work has already been done, really and what I am looking for is if a Commissioner reads through and suddenly has an epiphany that there is one great flaw someplace and then we all need to discuss that. When I say we need to read it word for word, I don’t think we are going to go through and discuss it word for word like the PIG did. I mean, that was a couple hundred hours’ worth of meetings and I don’t think the Commission needs to start from scratch second-guessing everything the PIG did, that is just – I would like to read through every word and see if there is one big thing that stands out to me that needs to be discussed and have everybody else have that same opportunity. Let me ask, am I offering you something you don’t want? Newton-Huckabay: My only suggestion to that is to facilitate and expedite that meeting and say within 72 hours submit our list of questions from reading it before the meeting so that we know what we are going to discuss so we don’t spend three hours splitting hairs (inaudible). Zaremba: That is a good idea. Newton-Huckabay: So, that would be my preference and I do want to read it, I agree, but – I have an accounting background, so – Canning: Do you just want to give your comments or use mark up sheets too, but (inaudible) logical is to just copy the sheets you mark up and let me have them. Zaremba: Commissioner Moe do you have an opinion. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting/Workshop February 10, 2005 Page 57 of 62 Moe: Quite frankly I agree 100 percent. I want to have some time to digest this myself. I am not going to second guess – the Committee has put a lot of time and effort into this thing and that is exactly why they were brought forward to take care of this. I agree I would like to put the comments beforehand so they are out there and get them resolved at that point and go forward. Borup: I think a lot of this stuff that maybe needs discussion, things have already been brought out tonight – minimum housing sizes, that is going to need some discussion. I would like to go and look at the things that have changed on allowed uses and maybe why they changed from what it was previously and beyond that (inaudible------------) and the other thing (inaudible) you know they are already talking about making the other changes. Zaremba: Anybody have an instant opinion about the format? Moe: I happen to like the new format. Having gone through this tonight, it’s much easier than the other. Much easier. (Speaker unknown): Do you have a projected date of when you would want to have this in place? Zaremba: Last December. Canning: January 1, 2005. (Speaker unknown): When? Canning: January 1, 2005. (Speaker unknown): Wasn’t our original objective to have it finished in December and have it in January 2005. Canning: You know, for a zoning ordinance we are flying. Zoning ordinances are typically a two to three year process, so it’s slipped by the timeline because you all wanted to put more work into than I would have ever imagined. Moe: Yes, it is your fault. Zaremba: But I think it is a good product. (Inaudible discussion) Zaremba: Well, if we have another workshop next month and essentially resolve – I could see resolving almost everything in that meeting unless there was some strange thing that came up. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting/Workshop February 10, 2005 Page 58 of 62 Canning: You are not going to have the public coming out in droves. When I did Ada County the only – Becky and Dave had comments on 99 percent of the ordinance and then I had two or three hundred other people commenting on the animal rights. There are no animal rights. Zaremba: But I am just thinking timeline, I could see public hearings sometime in April and maybe we can get it done in one public hearing and move it onto City Council. Borup: I think so. Look at how many people we had at the last comp plan. (Speaker unknown): There were a lot at the last comp plan. Borup: The final hearing? (Speaker unknown): Through the process. Borup: Yes on the process, but no I mean the final hearing. Siddoway: We had to have one of the hearings at the high school auditorium. Borup: Well, yeah, those were more – I mean they were hearings, but yeah almost workshop type things. Kushlan: So, you are thinking July 1st ? Canning: I don’t think we are going to have a lot of public show up for this in all honesty because I think the main people that would have shown up for the UCA, they would have been the ones to slow it down and – McKay: Brad just wants to know how much time he has to get those 500 short plats ready. (Inaudible discussion) Nary: The only other thing and it is not going to slow it down, but probably I guess Anna would have the discussion with the Mayor on whether or not to have this type of workshop with the Council as well. Just like you Commissioners, there are certain things that from your experience being on the Commission, you know – I have seen this a lot – change better or worse or different, well, the Council has got the same thing. They are going to probably want to have this kind of discussion as well as how did we get here and what does this all mean? Borup: I think it is kind of exciting. It will be interesting to see, you know, the development communities’ responses and how much difference that may make in things and sections for Meridian. (Inaudible----------------) cutting edge. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting/Workshop February 10, 2005 Page 59 of 62 Canning: Well, you know David Turnbull is the president of the (inaudible) or was this past year – he – Zaremba: He was heavily involved. Canning: He was supposed to be reporting to them. Brad reports to the owner in all the industrial land in Canyon County. (Inaudible discussion) Canning: And then Cornell is an AIA, so he is supposed to be representing them. We didn’t have a landscaper in the group. That is the one thing – so, I just don’t see any big – Diane thinks maybe Secretary (inaudible) might be a big hotspot, but I just don’t see – you know, Meridian residents are just so new that they are just busy unpacking. They don’t have time to show up at public hearings. My theory is you don’t move to Meridian unless you are accustomed to change and life change every day. Zaremba: Should we establish then that we will have a meeting on March 10th and can it be here at 6:00? (Speaker unknown): I will be out of town on the 10th . Canning: I don’t know about the availability of this room, Mr. Chairman. Zaremba: Place to be determined? Newton-Huckabay: This is like the seventh meeting in a row. Zaremba: It is, but eventually we will be done with this and our other meetings will be shorter. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. (Speaker unknown): (Inaudible-----------) and the comp finally comes around. Zaremba: Yeah. Newton-Huckabay: Well, when is that because I only have to do this for six years? Borup: The last one is ’89 and we just finished – Kushlan: Kind of like being drafted. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting/Workshop February 10, 2005 Page 60 of 62 (Inaudible discussion) Canning: Okay, so I will work on the changes that I talked about. Diane and I will proof read it. There are proof reading things that need to be done. There is no doubt about it. Zaremba: Yeah, I noticed a couple of typos. Canning: Don’t concern yourselves with those, we will hit 99 percent of them. If we miss one City Council can pick it up or – Zaremba: Keep track of what you move, though, because we will be talking to what we are looking at. Canning: And the only big changes I will do is move that Planning Development section out of administration – Zaremba: -- into Chapter 7. Newton-Huckabay: Is it possible to get those admin documents, say in the next two weeks? Canning: What if I just send you a new Chapter 7? Newton-Huckabay: Yeah, take out Chapter 7 and then we have that to review prior to meeting. Zaremba: That sounds good. Canning: Yeah, that isn’t very long. It is actually in both places. Zaremba: Cornell’s input is very important – I just picked the 10th because it is a month from today. Is there – anybody have another suggestion for another date? Newton-Huckabay: Well there is a fifth Friday in March. (Inaudible discussion) Newton-Huckabay: What about the fifth Thursday in March, the 31st ? Zaremba: I will miss that meeting. Newton-Huckabay: The 24th is (inaudible). Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting/Workshop February 10, 2005 Page 61 of 62 Borup: So, are we going to be doing anything is going to be substantially changing it? Zaremba: I don’t see us doing any major changes. Borup: Would there be one more final workshop that we could get input if there was? Canning: We can set the – (inaudible-----------). McKay: Could it be the 9th instead of the 10th ? (Speaker unknown): I am in town the 9th that is a Wednesday. Zaremba: That is fine with me. (Speaker unknown): Except that is design review for (inaudible-------). (Speaker unknown): Well, let’s just do it on the 10th that is all right. (Inaudible --- ----------------) changes. Newton-Huckabay: Well, if we are sending in our questions and queries three days before then that would give time to compile that list – Zaremba: We will give them to Anna and if you check with Anna to see if we have raised anything that alarms you. Canning: I had one other thing and lost it – Dave had wanted to take us all out to dinner – Dave Turnbull and I think that the only days that we came up with are Wednesdays and I think one was March 9th – I am sorry, (inaudible----------------) – but he wanted – do Wednesdays work with --? He said he would take us to Eppies, do you guys want to go to Eppies? You guys want to do that? Zaremba: Oh, neat. Yeah. Canning: Okay, so Eppies March 9th or do you want to go the week before or --? (Speaker unknown): The week before would be better. Canning: So, that would be March 2nd ? Okay, I will talk to Dave about March 2nd at Eppies. Zaremba: All right in that case I would entertain a motion from one of the Commissioners to adjourn. Newton-Huckabay: I move we adjourn. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting/Workshop February 10, 2005 Page 62 of 62 Moe: Second. Zaremba: It’s been moved and seconded that we adjourn this special meeting and workshop. All in favor say aye? ALL AYES. MOTION CARRIED. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:15 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: / / DAVID ZAREMBA, CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTESTED: WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK