July 12, :00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. COMPASS Office Board Room 700 NE 2nd Street, Suite 200 Meridian, Idaho

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "July 12, :00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. COMPASS Office Board Room 700 NE 2nd Street, Suite 200 Meridian, Idaho"

Dulcie Armstrong
5 years ago
Views:

Communities in Motion 2040 Preferred Scenario Workshop Workshop Summary July 12, 2012 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. COMPASS Office Board Room 700 NE 2nd Street, Suite 200 Meridian, Idaho Workshop Objective:

1 Communities in Motion 2040 Preferred Scenario Workshop Workshop Summary July 12, :00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. COMPASS Office Board Room 700 NE 2nd Street, Suite 200 Meridian, Idaho Workshop Objective: To develop a Draft Preferred Scenario for final technical refinement and subsequent recommendation for consideration and action by the COMPASS Board in September Scenario Definitions Used in the Workshop: Raw Scenario = Initial result of creating a hybrid scenario between Active Corridors and Outdoor Playground Draft scenario = Scenario used at the start of this workshop, which is based on public and stakeholder comment received on the alternatives from the Spring 2012 Workshops, and which conforms with local comprehensive land use plans ( comp plans ). Draft Preferred Scenario = Outcome of this workshop Introduction Carol McKee, COMPASS Board Chair, welcomed the participants (Attachment 1), thanked them for their investment in today s effort to refine the draft scenario, and reviewed the meeting objectives. Susan Hayman, facilitator (EnviroIssues), reviewed the meeting agenda and provided an overview to the breakout group process to be used during this meeting. Carl Miller, COMPASS, and Amy Anderson, Placeways, presented slides (Attachment 2) that reviewed work completed to develop the draft scenario, including the public input process and efforts to reconcile the draft scenario with local comprehensive plans. Carl and Amy explained that this workshop would provide opportunity for participants to make adjustments to several review areas in specific geographic locations that require additional work to meet the control totals for jobs and population, and to look for opportunities to resolve differences between the draft scenario and public preferences expressed during the public comment period (raw scenario). They explained that the work completed at this workshop would result in a draft preferred scenario that would receive technical refinement as needed, and then presented as the recommended preferred scenario to the COMPASS Board in September. Breakout Sessions Participants separated into six groups based on the participants geographic areas of familiarity. Each group had a printed regional map, printed maps of specific review areas, July 12, 2012 Preferred Scenario Workshop Summary Page 1 of 4

2 markers, a facilitator with flip chart and a CommunityViz technician with laptop and projector. Participants were asked to address their assigned review areas by choosing to accept the draft scenario as is, or by modifying jobs and population to improve the scenario and better meet the expressed preferences of the public process, while also monitoring the effects of these changes on key indicators. CommunityViz technicians projected review areas for participants to see on a screen, provided data as needed, and made adjustments to review areas by moving jobs and population as instructed by participants. Facilitators kept discussion on task and documented key decisions on the paper maps and flip charts. Full Group Session At the end of the breakout sessions, the groups reconvened to discuss their results while the CommunityViz technicians incorporated any modifications from the review areas into the regional scenario (see Attachment 3 for flip chart notes from each group). Group 1 State Street Corridor, Fairgrounds and Central Bench Group 1 considered the review areas within the Stage Street Corridor and Fairgrounds together. Representatives from Garden City and Boise confirmed that redevelopment was identified for these areas. The group moved some residential numbers from the Fairgrounds to State Street and moved some jobs outside of the Fairgrounds. For the Central Bench review area, Group 1 moved residences and jobs from an area near the oil facility to the Lusk area. Group 1 identified some areas that needed additional work. Additional work needs to be done in the Fairgrounds area near 30 th Street to increase development. The downtown Boise area has a lower level of density than the comprehensive plan currently accommodates and should be increased. Bishop Kelly High School was zoned for redevelopment on the map, but the current plan does not indicate this. There is an area east of Micron zoned as farmland on the map that is existing urban development. Group 2 Wilder, Highway 19 and Melba This group decided to adjust the growth patterns within these review areas to reflect local comprehensive plans. Group 3 Foothills, State Highways 16/44 Group 3 tried to conserve farm land within the Foothills review area by moving residential numbers to areas with steeper slopes where homes can be built and farming is less practical. The group also moved jobs from Highway 16 to downtown Eagle, and made other adjustments to reflect existing entitlements. July 12, 2012 Preferred Scenario Workshop Summary Page 2 of 4

3 The group did not feel comfortable making decisions for the State Highways 16/44 review area because they did not have a representative from Star in attendance. The group made some draft changes based on Star s comprehensive plan and will consult with Star after the workshop. Group 4 Eagle Road/Franklin Road and Ten Mile This group planned for higher densities within the Eagle Road/Franklin Road review area, particularly more office jobs and residences near St. Luke s. The group also wanted to confirm that entitlements were reflected near Pine Bridge. The group accepted the higher amount of development in the Ten Mile area than the current comprehensive plan allows, but cautioned that it may be too much. Group 4 also shared feedback about the Communities in Motion 2040 process. Group 4 would like local planning staff to be more involved early in the process of developing scenario alternatives. Some information from local planning staff is not reflected in the draft preferred scenario, such as entitlements. Local planning staff would like to continue to be involved in further development of the scenario. Group 5 Idaho Center, Northwest Nazarene, Karcher Interchange, Happy Valley/Amity Group 5 decided that the Idaho Center review area needed more development. Nampa staff noted that the area is seeing a lot of commercial and multifamily development even now. The group chose to take a small percentage of jobs and residences from the fringe of the greater Nampa area and move them to Idaho Center area. New residences would come from single family homes. The group decided to accept the number of jobs from the raw scenario but adjusted some residences between the CanAda Road and Star Road. In the Northwest Nazarene review area, the group decided to accept the number of residences from the raw scenario and increased the number of jobs. They decided that the new residences and jobs would come from a small percentage of the greater Nampa area. Nampa staff noted that this area has many older structures that will need redevelopment over time. For the Karcher Interchange review area, the group decided to remain consistent with the local comprehensive plan. The group also identified an additional area that they thought needed more work in Happy Valley/Amity. The group decided to add more households and mixed use jobs because Nampa wants to transition the area to more mixed use. July 12, 2012 Preferred Scenario Workshop Summary Page 3 of 4

4 Group 6 Middleton/Residential Caldwell and Middleton In the Middleton/Residential Caldwell review area, Group 6 decided to smooth out the number of residences among the transportation analysis zones (TAZs) and changed some land uses to medium density. They also requested that the Fairview golf course and residential areas near the golf course be separated into different TAZs when TAZs are next updated. For the Middleton review area, the group decided to move population growth out of the floodplain and away from the historic highway. The goal of this move was to preserve the highway and limit growth in this area. Next Steps Placeways staff compiled the adjustments from the breakout sessions during the meeting to confirm that there were no conflicting adjustments between groups. Doug Walker, Placeways, and Carl Miller explained that the team would be conducting a quality control meeting on the following day. COMPASS will provide local city staff and other local planners with data on an individual TAZ level at the quality control meeting on July 13. Liisa Itkonen, COMPASS, and Communities in Motion 2040 Project Manager, explained that local planners will have an opportunity to look at the data in detail after this workshop and provide feedback to the project team. She encouraged participants to stay engaged with the process and to check the project website and s for updates. The meeting adjourned at 12:30 p.m. July 12, 2012 Preferred Scenario Workshop Summary Page 4 of 4

5 Attachment 1 Preferred Scenario Workshop Participants 1. Sabrina Anderson 2. Rodney Ashby 3. Mary Barker 4. Troy Behunin 5. Brian Billingsley 6. Elaine Clegg 7. Mayor Tom Dale 8. Brent Danielson 9. Matt Edmond 10. Kelli Fairless 11. Karen Gallagher 12. Bruce Gestrin 13. Len Grady 14. Brooke Green 15. Ryan Head 16. Norman Holm 17. Caleb Hood 18. Chris Hopper 19. Rob Howarth 20. Gerald Hunter 21. Casey Jones 22. Tracy Kasper 23. Kathleen Lacey 24. Katie Lamansky 25. Melissa Lavitt 26. Meg Leatherman 27. Jeff Lowe 28. Robb MacDonald 29. Paul Mann 30. Carol McKee 31. Bryce Millar 32. Mike Moser 33. Patricia Nilsson 34. Brent Orton 35. Amar Pillai 36. Charlie Rountree 37. Nichoel Baird Spencer 38. Joe Swenson 39. Mark Tate 40. Bob Taunton 41. Mayor Darin Taylor 42. Andrew Townsend 43. Brent Turley 44. Bill Vaughan 45. Mark Wasdahl 46. Mayor Tammy de Weerd 47. Julie Williams 48. Rachel Winer 49. Mitch Young 50. Janell Zuckerman Support COMPASS: Matt Stoll, Liisa Itkonen, Carl Miller, Amy Luft, Eric Adolfson, Ian Shives, Walt Satterfield, MaryAnn Waldinger, Nancy Brecks, Jessica Wilson Placeways: Doug Walker, Amy Anderson, Emily Sanschagrin EnviroIssues: Susan Hayman, Jessica Ruehrwein, Seth Baker Volunteer Facilitators: Deb Hiller-LaSalle, Lori Porreca, Kelly Stasky

6 Attachment 2 Welcome! Communities in Motion 2040 Preferred Scenario Workshop The workshop begins at 9:00 a.m. Workshop Purpose & Overview Carol McKee, COMPASS Board Susan Hayman, EnviroIssues Please sign in, claim a seat with your table tent, and then help yourself to refreshments! Workshop Purpose Workshop Overview 3 To develop a Draft Preferred Scenario for final technical refinement and subsequently recommended for consideration and action by the COMPASS Board in September Opening Development of the Draft Scenario Overview of the Draft Scenario Refining review areas (Breakout Groups) Reporting Out Agreement for a Draft Preferred Scenario Closing Workshop Conduct 5 Listen actively Participate constructively Be creative Think outside the box Ask for help/clarification l when you need it Stay engaged Honor the workshop process and timeframes Silence all personal electronic devices HAVE FUN! Draft Scenario Development Carl Miller, COMPASS July 12, 2012 Preferred Scenario Workshop Summary v.1 Attachment 2 Page 1 of 8

Attachment 2 Scenario Workshops Workshop Invitees/Interests 7

Major Employers Refugees/Refugee Bike/Ped Advocates Agencies

Community Groups Schools Neighborhood/Homeowner

Advocates State/Fed Agencies News Media Economic Development

districts Transit Groups Environmental Interests

organizations Professionals First Responders Other Elected

Managers Schools Health Interests Real Estate Agents University

Users plus entire COMPASS Board Leadership Team Youth Local

Public Outreach Purposes: Engage wide audience Highlight themes;

Not: the final preferred growth scenario the authoritative land

Country May 7 th through June 17 th 261 people submitted comment

(letter/email) Scenario Rankings Indicator Rankings 1.

7 Attachment 2 Scenario Workshops Workshop Invitees/Interests 7 Agriculture Low Income Groups Recreation Groups Bankers/Lenders Major Employers Refugees/Refugee Bike/Ped Advocates Agencies Military Business Community School Districts Minority Groups Community Groups Schools Neighborhood/Homeowner Developers/Builders Special Districts Associations Disabled Advocates State/Fed Agencies News Media Economic Development Tourism/Hospitality Non-member Elderly Advocates cities/highway districts Transit Groups Environmental Interests Transportation/Land Use Member Agencies Faith-based organizations Professionals First Responders Other Elected Officials Universities/Trade Government watchdogs Property Managers Schools Health Interests Real Estate Agents University Students Healthy/Local foods Utilities Housing Agencies Vanpool Users plus entire COMPASS Board Leadership Team Youth Local Emergency Management Public at large Preliminary Scenarios Public Outreach Purposes: Engage wide audience Highlight themes; capture ideas Illustrate trade-offs Clarify priorities Today Not: the final preferred growth scenario the authoritative land use plan Active Corridors Hometowns Outdoor Playground Town and Country May 7 th through June 17 th 261 people submitted comment forms 22 people / organizations submitted open ended comments (letter/ ) Scenario Rankings Indicator Rankings 1. Active Corridors 2. Outdoor Playground 3. Town and Country 4. Hometowns Many wanted a hybrid. July 12, 2012 Preferred Scenario Workshop Summary v.1 Attachment 2 Page 2 of 8

8 Attachment 2 Public Comment Themes Neighborhood and Housing Preferences Improve transit Preservation of/access to recreation/open space/farmland Support mixed use More infill and density (less sprawl) Improve biking/walking facilities Air quality Scenario Planning 16 Draft Scenario Overview Amy Anderson, Placeways Construction Steps To Date What the Workgroups Will Do Process Overview Public Process said Active Corridors Outdoor Playground Active Playground Raw Scenario July 12, 2012 Preferred Scenario Workshop Summary v.1 Attachment 2 Page 3 of 8

Attachment 2 Scenario development Public process said 19 Development

Draft Scenario Draft Preferred Scenario Preferred Scenario Indicator

Traffic congestion 4. Jobs-housing balance 5. Population near transit 6.

Housing variety Analysis factors used for suitability analysis: transit

of impact, mixed use density, open space, ag land overlap, existing

Practical realities Committed Inventory 21 Constraints Floodplain Stable

Committed Inventory Vacant platted lots Entitlements Etc.

Personal interviews Enforce stable subdivisions Adjust for realistic

9 Attachment 2 Scenario development Public process said 19 Development Suitability Low Raw Scenario High Active Corridors Outdoor Playground Draft Scenario Draft Preferred Scenario Preferred Scenario Indicator Rankings 1. Walkability 2. Housing + transportation affordability 3. Traffic congestion 4. Jobs-housing balance 5. Population near transit 6. Population near parks and schools 7. Preserved agricultural land 8. Housing variety Analysis factors used for suitability analysis: transit access, floodplain, infrastructure access, environmental overlap, areas of impact, mixed use density, open space, ag land overlap, existing active, existing walkable. Practical realities Committed Inventory 21 Constraints Floodplain Stable Neighborhoods Etc. Committed Inventory Vacant platted lots Entitlements Etc. 22 After Before Build-Out Analysis Conforming to Comp Plans Comp Plans Personal interviews Enforce stable subdivisions Adjust for realistic conversion potential Add subareas where needed Calculated capacity Apply other exceptions Merge overlay districts Add entitlements Future gross capacity July 12, 2012 Preferred Scenario Workshop Summary v.1 Attachment 2 Page 4 of 8

Attachment 2 y (Dwelling Units) Conforming to Comp Plans r, by specific type) Residential Capacit Or Employment (Jobs, City A Sample Transect Where Raw Scenario

density when required Where Raw Scenario units exceeded comp planspecified capacity, excess units were moved nearby Changing basic use when required Where Raw

scale Longer horizon than local comp plans Emphasizes development growth patterns; transportation system planning will follow 30 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000

10 Attachment 2 y (Dwelling Units) Conforming to Comp Plans r, by specific type) Residential Capacit Or Employment (Jobs, City A Sample Transect Where Raw Scenario units exceeded comp planspecified capacity, excess units were moved to highly suitable locations with matching land use City B 26 Conformity measures Reducing density when required Where Raw Scenario units exceeded comp planspecified capacity, excess units were moved nearby Changing basic use when required Where Raw Scenario use differed substantially from comp plan, comp plan was applied Draft Scenario 27 Notes and Data Draft Scenario Notes Population growth 29 Regional scale Longer horizon than local comp plans Emphasizes development growth patterns; transportation system planning will follow , , , , , ,000 50,000 - Population by Jurisdiction: 2010 and Population 2010 Population July 12, 2012 Preferred Scenario Workshop Summary v.1 Attachment 2 Page 5 of 8

11 Attachment 2 Jobs Growth , ,000 Jobs by Jurisdiction: 2010 and 2040 Workgroup instructions 150, ,000 50, Jobs 2010 Jobs Procedure 90 Minute Session Review data for your subregion Adjust scenario to improve it (details next) Check indicators and control totals Report back to large group Large group discussion Technical details ironed out tomorrow and next week Scenario adjustments Focus on about 16 review areas 2 to 3 per subregion 34 Scenario adjustments Scenario adjustments Suggest improvements to draft preferred scenario. Potential options: No change conform with comp plans, as shown Conforming shifts stay within comp plan limits, but move units to better match intent Raw Scenario quantities shift density to match Raw Scenario, overshooting comp plan limits Hybrid some mix of the above Aim for small adjustments that do not alter the character of the scenario Stay as high as you can as long as you can Can set any specific number of households and jobs by type Don t get lost in details tune-up can happen later July 12, 2012 Preferred Scenario Workshop Summary v.1 Attachment 2 Page 6 of 8

Attachment 2 Review Areas Reading the maps 37 Eagle Foothills 38 Middleton Wilder Hwy 19 Downtown Caldwell Karcher Interchange Highway 16 State Street TOD Garden City Ten Mile Eagle/ Fairgrounds

Franklin Central Bench Idaho Corridor Center Grid reference number - Remaining DU capacity - Remaining Employee capacity Northwest Nazarene Melba Kuna- Meridian Road Chips = New Development Units

12 Attachment 2 Review Areas Reading the maps 37 Eagle Foothills 38 Middleton Wilder Hwy 19 Downtown Caldwell Karcher Interchange Highway 16 State Street TOD Garden City Ten Mile Eagle/ Fairgrounds Intchg. Franklin Central Bench Idaho Corridor Center Grid reference number - Remaining DU capacity - Remaining Employee capacity Northwest Nazarene Melba Kuna- Meridian Road Chips = New Development Units Houses Retail Jobs Office Jobs Industrial Jobs Education Jobs Public Service Jobs Number label shows exact quantity (Can be negative) Remaining Capacity = Comp Plan Existing Entitled (Can be negative) Key Indicators Workgroup constraints Available for region and subregions Good reminder of public priorities Jobs-Housing Balance Land Use Variety Population near Transit Pop. Near Parks & Schools Adhere to local control totals for population and jobs Don t worry about what types of jobs for now Monitor performance on public priorities via key indicators Ag Land Consumed Walkability Breakout Groups Please find your name on one of the breakout group lists please proceed to the designated room in 15 minutes. Closing Remarks Liisa Itkonen, COMPASS Please ask for assistance if you aren t sure which group/room you are assigned to. July 12, 2012 Preferred Scenario Workshop Summary v.1 Attachment 2 Page 7 of 8

13 Attachment 2 43 Next Steps Thank You! Scenario Planning Workshops in Nampa, Boise, and Meridian. 3-5 Possible Scenarios Public Feedback on the Scenarios Many public outreach opportunities for review and comment on the possible scenarios. Follow up workshop to incorporate public comment on the scenarios and create a preferred scenario Preferred Scenario Adopted Scenario COMPASS selects the scenario to implement for CIM Please check back often for updates on CIM 2040! Additional QA/QC work; Final review by COMPASS teams July 12, 2012 Preferred Scenario Workshop Summary v.1 Attachment 2 Page 8 of 8

14 Attachment 3 Preferred Scenario Workshop Transcribed Flip Chart Notes Group One Problem areas East of Micron showing existing urban development as farmland (P. Nilsson). Fairgrounds o Draft is problem; preferred draft fixes problem. o Mike Moser (Garden City) fairgrounds won t be developed. 30 th Street development group wanted more time to look at this. Downtown? should be more developed (E. Clegg, Boise City). Other concerns Page 1/3 Perspective is that regional development (population, jobs) won t increase as much as projected. Perspective that Downtown Boise not being developed enough. Tabled concerns/questions Question, re: Downtown Boise. o Inconsistent with Comp. plan? o Where was quantity derived from (in terms of numbers), because not designated in Comp. plan. If numbers under, in compliance with Comp. plan? Bishop Kelly High School will not redevelop color may be wrong. Page 2/3 Page 3/3 Group Two No flip chart notes recorded July 12, 2012 Preferred Scenario Workshop Summary v.1 Attachment 3 -- Page 1 of 5

15 Attachment 3 Preferred Scenario Workshop Transcribed Flip Chart Notes Group Three Foothills *Changes reflect current entitlements From 424 to 3516 (residential) 538 units. From 401 to 3517 (residential) 679 units. 3516/3517 increase jobs. Move jobs from yellow boxes o More centrally (M3) o Yellow = more residential. Move 500 jobs from Highway 16 to Eagle Downtown. Foothills (continued) Move residential from 427/407 to 429/430 (topography). Move 100 Ed. To 317 (center). Foothills (continued) Moved residential and jobs to reflect entitlements. Clustered foothill development. Add BLM admin land MOU with City for 2,000 acres (verify). SH 16/44 * 3 Bands Southern 2 bands mixed use. o 800 jobs/100 residential. Northern band medium density residential. o 20 jobs/447 r.u. #2398 o Remove retail? (No, no change). o Add higher density residential? (No, no change). o 375 residential/keep 200 office. 16/44 NW (ID 2398) (ID 3975) o Remove residential. o Add higher density residential (300 residential). o Keep 200 office. Page 1/7 Page 2/7 Page 3/7 Page 4/7 Page 5/7 Access will drive development. SH 16/44 intersection Southern 2 bands. o Leave it pink mixed use. July 12, 2012 Preferred Scenario Workshop Summary v.1 Attachment 3 -- Page 2 of 5

16 Attachment 3 Preferred Scenario Workshop Transcribed Flip Chart Notes o Southern 2 bands 2359, o Jobs: 100 residential units, 800 jobs (400 retail each, leave 300 each office). SH 16/44 intersection Northern band. o Intense residential. o Medium density residential. o 20 jobs, 447 r.u. Page 6/7 Bin: Floating Feather/Emmett SH 16 Check red box. Clarify levels of development: o Undeveloped. o Developed at max intensity. o No change. o Etc. Page 7/7 Group Four Eagle Road/Franklin Road Plan for more jobs. St. Luke s (more residential and office). Need more research to understand numbers. Entitlements? o Look at entitlements for Pine Bridge. o Disconnect between entitlement data and what is shown. Ten Mile Accept more development than build out allows but may be too much. Timing of development needs to be considered / Comp. plan has longer horizon. Reduce residential to 9 per acre? Page 1/2 Summary Need time for information exchange between staff/agencies. Some data is not reflected in mapping. o Can this be incorporated and looked at? o For example, entitlements. Cities need to know how many jobs or houses they have to work with. Staff/agencies willing to continue to work/help with a plan. Page 2/2 July 12, 2012 Preferred Scenario Workshop Summary v.1 Attachment 3 -- Page 3 of 5

17 Attachment 3 Preferred Scenario Workshop Transcribed Flip Chart Notes Group Five Idaho Center Take small percentage of jobs and residences from greater Nampa area and add to Idaho Center. o Should come from single families. o Take from fringe. Accept job number 4,000. Move 6,500 households to the north between CanAda and Star. Page 1/4 Happy Valley/Amity Add 3,000 household. Add 500 mixed use jobs. Page 2/4 Northwest Nazarene Add 1,000 jobs. o 1/3 commercial/retail. o 2/3 office. Accept raw scenario for households. Jobs and households will come from small percentage of greater Nampa area (fringes for households). Page 3/4 Karcher Interchange No changes, accept Comp. plan. Page 4/4 July 12, 2012 Preferred Scenario Workshop Summary v.1 Attachment 3 -- Page 4 of 5

18 Attachment 3 Preferred Scenario Workshop Transcribed Flip Chart Notes Group Six Middleton/Residential Caldwell Historic district to medium density from townhomes. o Minus 100. o Add 50 near court house. o Add 50 near memorial park. If fairgrounds move, site would redevelop as commercial. o What s assumed in G.I.S. will not change. Caldwell golf course zoned differently than residential. o Separate TAZ zone. Middleton West TAZ 2895 and East half 2896 to neighborhood center (mixed use). Page 1/2 Page 2/2 July 12, 2012 Preferred Scenario Workshop Summary v.1 Attachment 3 -- Page 5 of 5

AGENDA OPEN DISCUSSION/ANNOUNCEMENTS

**AGENDA** OPEN DISCUSSION/ANNOUNCEMENTS COMMUNITIES IN MOTION 2040 LEADERSHIP TEAM DECEMBER 20, 2011 1:30-2:30 PM MERIDIAN CITY HALL, 1 ST FLOOR MEETING ROOM 33 EAST BOARDWAY AVENUE MERIDIAN, IDAHO **AGENDA** I. 1:30 CALL TO ORDER II. III. AGENDA