HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-06-16 ../c/l/.1.
E IDIAN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR
MEETING AGENDA
Amended Agenda
City Council Chambers
33 East Broadway Avenue
Meridian, Idaho
Tuesday, June 16, 2015 at 6:00 PM
1. Roll-Call Attendance
X David Zaremba X Joe Borton
X Charlie Rountree X Keith Bird
X Genesis Milam X Luke Cavener
Mayor Tammy de Weerd
2. Pledge of Allegiance
3. Community Invocation by Troy Drake, Lead Pastor, Calvary Chapel Meridian
4. Adoption of the Agenda Adopted (pg 2)
5. Consent Agenda Approved with amendments (pg 2-4)
A. City Hall West Side Parking Lot — Temporary License Agreement with Ada
County Highway District (ACHD)
Moved to this to Item 6A (pg 4-7)
B. Amended Cooperative Agreement for Improvements and Maintenance of
the Interstate 84 Meridian Road Interchange (ITD Project No. A010(939)
Between the Idaho Transportation Department and the City of Meridian
C. Accommodations Subdivision on-site Sewer Easement
D. Approval of Task Order 10561.A to Jensen Belts Associates for the
"HILLSDALE PARK DESIGN" project for a Not-To-Exceed amount of
$66,658.00.
E. Resolution No. # 15-1071: Amending the Community Development Block
Grant PY2014 Action Plan
This is moved to Item 8A2 for approval following Continued Public Hearing
F. Approval of purchase of Motion Tablets from CDW-Government, LLC. for
the Not-To-Exceed amount of $56,669.00 and authorize the Purchasing
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda—Tuesday,June 16, 2015 Page 1 of 4
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing,
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
Manager to issue and sign a purchase order to CDW-Government, LLC for
the Not-to-Exceed amount of$56,669.00.
G. Approval of Award of Bid and Agreement to L2 EXCAVATION, LLC for the
"WATER LINE REPLACEMENT — E ANTILLES COURT" Project for a Not-To-
Exceed amount of$76,995.30
H. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law: AP 15-002 Franklin Mini Storage by
Osborne Enterprises Located 1975 E. Franklin Road Request: City Council
Approval of a Reduction in the Buffer Width Required in the C-G Zoning
District to Residential Uses as Allowed by Unified Development Code
(UDC) 11-3B-9C.2
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order of Approval: SHP 15-001
Newton's Nook Subdivision No. 2 by Penwood III, LLC Located 397 SW 5th
Avenue Request: Short Plat Approval for Two (2) Commercial Lots on
Approximately 0.26 Acres in the L-O Zoning District
J. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order of Approval: SHP 15-002
Newton's Nook Subdivision No. 3 by Penwood III, LLC Located 381 SW 5th
Avenue Request: Short Plat Approval for Two (2) Commercial Lots on
Approximately 0.20 Acres in the L-O Zoning District
K. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order of Approval: SHP 15-003
Newton's Nook Subdivision No. 4 by Penwood III, LLC Located 397 SW 5th
Avenue Request: Short Plat Approval for Two (2) Commercial Lots on
Approximately 0.20 Acres in the L-O Zoning District
L. Final Order for Approval: FP 15-016 Paramount Subdivision No. 29 by
Brighton Land Holdings, LLC Located West Side of N. Meridian Road and
the North Side of W. McMillan Road Request: Final Plat Approval
Consisting of Sixty-Two (62) Building Lots, Twelve (12) Common Lots and
Three (3) Other Lots on 18.42 Acres of Land in an R-8 Zoning District
M. FP 15-019 Oak Leaf Subdivision No. 2 by Oak Leaf Development Company,
Inc. Located North of Chinden Boulevard and West of N. Jayker Way
Request: Final Plat Approval Consisting of Eleven (11) Single Family
Residential Lots on Approximately 7.99 Acres in the R-2 Zoning District
N. Continued from May 26, 2015: FP 15-013 Silverwater Subdivision No. 2 by
Trilogy Development Located at the South Side of E. Victory Road on the
East Side of S. Standing Timber Way, in the NW 1/4 of Section 30,
Township 3N., Range 1 E., Request for Final Plat Consisting of 2 Common
Lots on 4.67 Acres of Land in the R-8 Zoning District
6. Items Moved From Consent Agenda
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda—Tuesday,June 16,2015 Page 2 of 4
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing,
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
A. Moved from Consent Agenda: City Hall West Side Parking Lot — Temporary
License Agreement with Ada County Highway District (ACHD) Approved
7. Community Items/Presentations
A. Eagle Scout Project Presentation by Jacob Chambers (pg 7)
8. Action Items
A. Community Development Block Grant PY2015 Action Plan Draft
Prioritization Hearing (pg 9-13)
1. Amended onto the Agenda: Continued Public Hearing for
Community Development Block Grant PY2014 Action Plan
2. Moved from Consent Agenda: Resolution No. # 15-1071: Amending
the Community Development Block Grant PY2014 Action Plan
Approved
B. Continued from May 26, 2015: FP 15-012 Silverwater Subdivision No. 3 by
Trilogy Development Located at the South Side of E. Victory Road Midway
Between S. Meridian Rd and S. Locust Grove Rd. in the NE 1/4 of Section
30, Township 3N., Range 1E., Request for Final Plat Consisting of 42
Common Lots, 6 Common lots, and 1 Other Lot on 17.22 Acres of Land in
the R-8 Zoning District Approved with conditions (pg 14-16)
C. Public Hearing Continued from June 2, 2015: RZ 15-006 Three Corners by
Sweet Land Development, Inc. Located Southeast Corner of N. Locust
Grove Road and Chinden Boulevard Request: Rezone of Approximately
12.65 Acres of Land from the C-C (Community Business), R-8 (Medium
Density Residential) and R-4 (Medium-Low Density Residential) Zoning
District to the C-C (9.38 Acres), R-8 (2/6 acres) and R-4 (0.51 Acres) Zoning
Districts Approved (pg 16-18)
D. Public Hearing: TEC 15-002 Pinebridge Subdivision by B.W. Meridian, Inc.
Located East Side of N. Locust Grove Road, South of E. Fairview Avenue
and North of E. Commercial Street Request: Two (2) Year Time Extension
on the Preliminary Plat in Order to Obtain the City Engineer's Signature on
a Final Plat Approved (pg 18-21)
E. Public Hearing: CPAM 15-001 Hill Properties/Century Farm School by
Martin Hill, Hill & Hill Properties and Brighton Investments Located East
Side of S. Eagle Road and South Side of E. Amity Road Request:
Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to Change
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda—Tuesday, June 16, 2015 Page 3 of 4
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing,
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
the Future Land Use Designation on 87.01 Acres of Land from Low Density
Residential to Mixed-Use Neighborhood Approved (pg 21-32)
F. Public Hearing: AZ 15-004 Hill Properties by Martin Hill and Hill & Hill
Properties Located East Side of S. Eagle Road and the South Side of E.
Amity Road Request: Annexation of 78.62 Acres of Land with the R-8 (39.83
Acres) and C-N (38.79 Acres) Zoning Districts Approved (pg 32)
G. Public Hearing: RZ 15-007 Century Farm School by Brighton Investments
Located 1/4 Mile South of E. Amity Road and 1/2 Mile East of S. Eagle Road
Request: Rezone of 8.39 Acres of Land From the R-8 to the C-N Zoning
District Approved (pg 32)
H. Public Hearing: AZ 14-016 Nesting Swan Ranch by Blossom 1, LLC Located
4617 and 4620 S. Martine) Lane Request: Annexation and Zoning of 27.75
Acres of Land with an R-8 Zoning District Approved (pg 33-49)
I. Public Hearing: PP 14-018 Nesting Swan Ranch by Blossom 1, LLC Located
4617 and 4620 S. Martinel Lane Request: Preliminary Plat Approval
Consisting of Thirty-One (31) Building Lots and Seven (7) Common / Other
Lots on 10.37 Acres of Land in a Proposed R-8 Zoning District Denied (pg
33-49)
9. Department Reports
A. Continued from June 9, 2015: Legal and Fire Departments: Memorandum
of Understanding and Agreement between the City of Meridian and the
Meridian Rural Fire Protection District
Continued to June 23, 2015 (pg 50-51)
B. Public Works: Roadway Lighting Policy
10. Future Meeting Topics
11. Executive Session Per Idaho State Code 67-2345 (1)(b)(d): (b) To Consider the
Evaluation, Dismissal or Disciplining of, or to Hear Complaints or Charges
Brought Against, a Public Officer, Employee, Staff Member or Individual Agent, or
Public School Student; AND (d) To Consider Records that are Exempt from
Disclosure as Provided in Chapter 3, Title 9, Idaho Code (pg 56)
Into Executive Session at 8:55 PM
Out of Executive Session at 11:35 PM
Adjourned at 11:35 PM
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda—Tuesday, June 16, 2015 Page 4 of 4
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing,
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
Meridian City Council June 16, 2015
A meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:05 p.m., Tuesday, June
16, 2015, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd.
Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, Charlie Rountree, Keith Bird, David
Zaremba, Joe Borton, Genesis Milam and Luke Cavener.
Others Present: Bill Nary, Jacy Jones, Sonya Watters, Clint Dolsby, Jeff Lavey, Chris
Amen, Sean Kelly, Max Jensen, Austin Petersen and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll -call Attendance:
Roll call.
X David Zaremba X Joe Borton
X Charlie Rountree X Keith Bird
X Genesis Milam _XLucas Cavener
X Mayor Tammy de Weerd_
De Weerd: Well, thank you for joining us. I'd like to welcome you to the City Council
meeting. For the record it is Tuesday, June 16th. It's five minutes after 6:00. We will start
with roll call attendance, Madam Clerk.
Item 2: Pledge of Allegiance
De Weerd: Item No. 2 is the Pledge of Allegiance. If you will all rise and join us in the
pledge to our flag.
(Pledge of Allegiance recited.)
Item 3: Community Invocation by Troy Drake, Lead Pastor, Calvary Chapel
Meridian
De Weerd: Item No. 3 is our community invocation. We will be led tonight by Pastor Troy
Drake. He is with the Calvary Chapel in Meridian.
Drake: Hi, Mayor Tammy.
De Weerd: Hi, Pastor Troy. If you will all join us in the invocation or take this as an
opportunity for a moment of reflection.
Drake: Our gracious and Heavenly Father, we just want to thank you for this free country
that we live in, God, where we can pursue our dreams and work where we want to and
live where we want to and where we just owe a debt of gratitude to you for that and so we
are grateful tonight here, Lord. We do pray for the peace for the citizens of Meridian, God,
that you would protect our -- the citizens and also those who serve us, God, the fire, the
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 2 of 57
police, all those who are responsible for keeping the peace and responding to
emergencies, Lord. We pray for peace tonight here in town and, lastly, Lord, I just want to
pray for these people here who have devoted their time, lots of it, in order to -- to serve
the citizens, Lord, we are just thankful that we get to elect our representatives here and
that they are just willing to do the hard work to make sure that we have a good place to
live. So, we just thank you, God, for them and pray that you give them much grace and,
Lord, that you would give them lots of wisdom when it comes to these agenda items
tonight, any type of spending that needs to be done, that they would be wise and good
stewards of those things and -- God, and you just give them great amounts of wisdom to
accomplish your will. So, we thank you ahead of time for what you're going to do and we
just honor you, in Jesus' name we pray, amen.
De Weerd: Pastor, do you need a City of Meridian pin?
Drake: No. I'm good. I'm good.
De Weerd: You have a good collection of them.
Drake: I have got a whole -- I give them to kids and so -- thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you for being here tonight.
Item 4: Adoption of the Agenda
De Weerd: Item No. 4, adoption of the agenda.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: On Item 5-A, it's been requested to move that item to 6-A. On item 5-E, the
proposed resolution -- or the resolution number is 15-1071 and that item has requested to
be removed to that Item 8-A-2. On Item 8-A it's been requested to add an A-1 and that is
the continued public hearing for the Community Block Grant action plan. And with those
additions and changes, Madam Mayor, I move that we approve the agenda.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve the agenda as presented or as
noted. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 5: Consent Agenda
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 3 of 57
B. Amended Cooperative Agreement for Improvements and
Maintenance of the Interstate 84 Meridian Road Interchange (ITD
Project No. A010(939) Between the Idaho Transportation
Department and the City of Meridian
C. Accommodations Subdivision on-site Sewer Easement
D. Approval of Task Order 10561.A to Jensen Belts Associates for
the "HILLSDALE PARK DESIGN" project for a Not -To -Exceed
amount of $66,658.00.
F. Approval of purchase of Motion Tablets from CDW-Government,
LLC. for the Not -To -Exceed amount of $56,669.00 and authorize
the Purchasing Manager to issue and sign a purchase order to
CDW-Government, LLC for the Not -to -Exceed amount of
$56,669.00.
G. Approval of Award of Bid and Agreement to L2 EXCAVATION,
LLC for the "WATER LINE REPLACEMENT — E ANTILLES
COURT" Project for a Not -To -Exceed amount of $76,995.30
H. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law: AP 15-002 Franklin Mini
Storage by Osborne Enterprises Located 1975 E. Franklin Road
Request: City Council Approval of a Reduction in the Buffer
Width Required in the C -G Zoning District to Residential Uses as
Allowed by Unified Development Code (UDC) 11 -3B -9C.2
1. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order of Approval:
SHP 15-001 Newton's Nook Subdivision No. 2 by Penwood III,
LLC Located 397 SW 5th Avenue Request: Short Plat Approval
for Two (2) Commercial Lots on Approximately 0.26 Acres in the
L -O Zoning District
J. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order of Approval:
SHP 15-002 Newton's Nook Subdivision No. 3 by Penwood 111,
LLC Located 381 SW 5th Avenue Request: Short Plat Approval
for Two (2) Commercial Lots on Approximately 0.20 Acres in the
L -O Zoning District
K. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order of Approval:
SHP 15-003 Newton's Nook Subdivision No. 4 by Penwood III,
LLC Located 397 SW 5th Avenue Request: Short Plat Approval
for Two (2) Commercial Lots on Approximately 0.20 Acres in the
L -O Zoning District
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 4 of 57
L. Final Order for Approval: FP 15-016 Paramount Subdivision No.
29 by Brighton Land Holdings, LLC Located West Side of N.
Meridian Road and the North Side of W. McMillan Road Request:
Final Plat Approval Consisting of Sixty -Two (62) Building Lots,
Twelve (12) Common Lots and Three (3) Other Lots on 18.42
Acres of Land in an R-8 Zoning District
M. FP 15-019 Oak Leaf Subdivision No. 2 by Oak Leaf Development
Company, Inc. Located North of Chinden Boulevard and West of
N. Jayker Way Request: Final Plat Approval Consisting of Eleven
(11) Single Family Residential Lots on Approximately 7.99 Acres
in the R-2 Zoning District
N. Continued from May 26, 2015: FP 15-013 Silverwater Subdivision
No. 2 by Trilogy Development Located at the South Side of E.
Victory Road on the East Side of S. Standing Timber Way, in the
NW 1/4 of Section 30, Township 3N., Range 1 E., Request for
Final Plat Consisting of 2 Common Lots on 4.67 Acres of Land in
the R-8 Zoning District
De Weerd: Item 5 is our Constant Agenda.
Rountree: Madam Mayor, with the previously approved changes, I move that we approve
the Consent Agenda, authorize the Clerk to attest and the Mayor to sign.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda as changed.
Madam Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll Call: Rountree, yea; Bird, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 6: Items Moved From Consent Agenda
A. City Hall West Side Parking Lot — Temporary License Agreement
with Ada County Highway District (ACHD)
Moved to this to Item 6A
De Weerd: Item No. 6-A was moved from the Consent Agenda. It's regarding the City
Hall west side parking lot. I believe that Councilman Borton had had some questions.
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 5 of 57
Borton: I did, Madam Mayor. The source of the questions was just concerning an update
and the status of the parking lot. Some of the unforeseen soil conditions upon further
investigation and it now being contemplated to be an interim or temporary lot, which gave
me some concern. I wasn't sure of the difference -- what that meant from an engineering
and construction perspective from what was originally intended. So, I thought it was
worthy getting that clarity.
De Weerd: Okay. We will have Max answer that, but I think it's probably more for either
Councilman Rountree or I to address. We did bring this item to our -- the Council for
discussion with some of the initial estimates for the cost of the parking lot, as there is a
higher and better use hoped for that corner. The pavement will last ten to 15 years and to
address parking in our downtown, but also to hopefully have that parcel as an area for
redevelopment. Mr. Rountree, do you have anything at add?
Rountree: The original estimate for the parking lot was done based on engineering to
provide a permanent long-term parking facility. We looked at the numbers and it was just
too much money for the thought that at some point in time that property could and
probably will be redeveloped. We looked at the engineering and felt that we did not have
to do the extensive earthwork that was being recommended and reduced the cost
significantly and within the budget we had allocated as a Council for the parking lot and
come up with a solution, along with some changes that we were able to work out with
ACHD as far as things they were originally requiring with sidewalk to be removed and
replaced and that sort of thing, so, again, brought the cost of the project down and,
actually, I think that the bids came in even under what our final estimates were. So, Max,
if you want to give us an update of the status of where that is, that, hopefully, will answer
your questions, Joe.
Borton: Okay.
Jensen: Madam Mayor, Member of the Council, my name is Max Jensen with Public
Works Department. In regards to the bids, they were approximately 12,000 higher than
the engineer's estimate, but we are still within the budget for the project. We did open up
bids on that last Tuesday and the low bidder was sent the agreement for signature and we
just received it back here today, so that will be back in front of you next Tuesday for
consideration.
De Weerd: And, Max, I'd like to commend you for your diligence and certainly for Ada
County Highway District and their interest in working with us to minimize the cost and to
get this project moving forward. So, thank you for that.
Jensen: I appreciate that. Thank you for your help as well.
De Weerd: Uh-huh. Any further questions, Mr. Borton?
Borton: Yeah. I have one, Madam Mayor.
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 6 of 57
De Weerd: Okay.
Borton: And some of the -- the source of the question was does the changes in design or
engineering create some expense in ten or 12 years that wouldn't otherwise be there as
originally intended? Is there going to be some replacement or -- assuming it doesn't
redevelop as quickly as we hope are we kicking some the expense down the road, rather
than paying for it now?
Jensen: Councilman Borton, that's a very good question. As an interim parking lot we --
the decision has been made as far as not an everlasting parking lot. So, a temporary use
until a better use comes along. So, with that in mind there may be additional maintenance
issues that -- that do come up. The certainty of that is unknown. The original
recommendation by the consulting engineer was to remove approximately about eight feet
of soils throughout the whole site. In some test of the bores out there they found
construction material and wood and concrete, but there were previous buildings on that
site that were removed and pit run was brought back in to fill those voids. So, one of the
recommendations by the consultant engineer was to remove about nine feet of fill all the
way across the project site. The other option is to build a typical section for asphalt and
the pit run and the base and build it on existing soil over there, but still compacting it and
doing standard per the ISPWC. So, if you went through the whole site and removed about
nine feet of fill, as the first suggestion was, that would increase costs roughly about
120,000 dollars for that site and that's not within the budget. So, the other option was -- is
that we could build upon -- excuse me -- build upon the soils that are currently out there
and -- and that was the direction that -- that we had created this final design based upon.
Borton: Okay.
Cavener: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Cavener.
Cavener: Just one brief question. Under ideal situations what's the life span of a
temporary lot? I mean how long would it last before it would require some future
maintenance and repair work?
Jensen: Councilman Cavener, that's -- that's not a -- nobody is really going to put a year
or a time frame to that for a -- for a parking lot. You know, under ideal situations you have
a parking lot they will last, you know, 30, 40 years and that's if everything is built perfect,
the materials brought in were perfect, compaction was perfect, the testing was perfect.
So, there is -- there is no per se set number as far as if you build it correctly or if you build
it differently than -- like in our case here instead of removing eight feet or nine feet of soils,
to use the existing. The geotechnical investigations show that there were some portions
in some areas that there were pieces of wood or concrete. That doesn't necessarily mean
that things still won't last a good life span. It's -- it's uncertain to put a certain time frame
on it.
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 7 of 57
Cavener: Great. Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Any further questions from Council? Do I have a motion?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we approve Item 6-A.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 6-A. Madam Clerk, will you call
roll.
Roll Call: Rountree, yea; Bird, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, nay; Milam, yea; Cavener, yea.
De Weerd: In favor of the ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE NAY.
De Weerd: Thank you, Max, for being here.
Jensen: Thank you for your time.
Item 7: Community Items/Presentations
A. Eagle Scout Project Presentation by Jacob Chambers
De Weerd: Okay. 7-A is an Eagle Scout presentation by Jacob Chambers. I will ask you
to come forward. Thank you for joining us.
Chambers: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Hello. My name is Jacob Chambers. I would
like to thank you all for letting me speak to you today about my Eagle Scout project. My
Eagle project is on the matter of bone marrow donation. If you would look on your flyers
that have been given to you on your desk, bone marrow donation is mostly found in the
blood cancers like leukemia and now if I may ask a question to the council members.
How many of you have experienced someone with leukemia or another type of cancer?
Cancer is very common. Now my project is to help save people with very rare problems
like leukemia or aplastic anemia. Now, my event will be held at the Boise Hawks
Memorial Stadium from July 9th through July 11th and it will be to raise awareness to the
community about bone marrow donation. Do you have any questions?
De Weerd: Council, do you have any questions for Jacob?
Cavener: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 8 of 57
De Weerd: Mr. Cavener.
Cavener: Jacob, why did you select this as -- for your Eagle Scout project?
Chambers: Well, I selected this for my Eagle project because I thought it was a crucial
part of getting people to be aware of bone marrow donation. There are a lot of myths
surrounding bone marrow donation that have often caused people to not sign up to be a
bone marrow donation, causing the loss of life and I felt it was very important to inform the
community that saving lives is important through this organization.
De Weerd: So, Jacob, could you tell us, perhaps, what kind of process do you go through
to see if you are an eligible donor?
Chambers: Yes, Madam Mayor. Be The Match has a -- is a very well set organization, so
first they ask you questions about your health, like have you had heart disease or a --
cancers or blood cancers before and after you have gone through a series of questions
about your medical health, then, they will inform you and you will go to what is known as a
cheek swab station where you swab your cheeks in your four coordinates, so your upper
two and your lower two and they will swab all those coordinates and they will send you to
a lab and that lab will check your DNA to see if there are any corruptions in your DNA and
will link you to potential donors. Now, if you do -- if they do think you are a match they will
call you in for blood testing to see if your blood is the best option for a potential candidate
or patient and if your blood has been accepted and is the best match for the patient, they
will contact you with when -- with the next steps in order to become -- for bone marrow
donation.
De Weerd: And I think, as you noted, it's the -- the uncertainty or the mystique behind
what that is. What -- is it painful going through bone marrow -- donating your bone
marrow?
Chambers: Thank you for asking that question, Madam Mayor. It is not painful to go
through bone marrow donation. There is two options of ways of doing this. First is using
stem cells, which are nonspecialized cells inside of your body and you get a series of
three shots over five days, so it's not very painful. Then you go through a basic blood
transfusion where they collect those stem cells and put the blood directly back in your
body. You will not lose any blood during this procedure and is used in about 95 percent of
all bone donations. Now, the other -- the other treatment is where they actually go inside
of your bones and collect the bone marrow. Now, the bone marrow, when you do -- that's
-- this type -- there is only about five percent of people do this and it's mostly because of
specific things that react in your blood, but those five percent you will be -- experience no
pain, you will all be put under anesthesia, so you will not feel anything. They will be very
delicate. You should be up to your normal routine within two -- two days -- I'm sorry.
Within your treatment and it has no permanent effect on your bones and between three
and seven days your bone marrow should regenerate.
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 9 of 57
De Weerd: Thank you, Jacob. Any other questions from Council?
Rountree: No.
De Weerd: So, do you have an ask for us?
Chambers: I -- I do not currently. I have asked for you -- one thing that would help me a
lot would be the community education with this -- helping my project to inform the
community the most that we can to help save lives and that would be a very great thing.
De Weerd: So, those of you with social media, if you will post this event on your social
media or if you have friends that you know that might be interested, share that with them,
and although I will be out of town at my parents' 60th wedding anniversary, I would
challenge all of our Council Members to show up and to support you at the Hawks
stadium.
Chambers: Thank you, Madam Mayor. I would like to thank the Council for their time and
I would like to thank you for your involvement in helping save lives. Thank you very much.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Rountree: Nice job.
De Weerd: And I might mention that Jacob, the soon to be Eagle Scout, is going to be a
new MYAC member and so we honored to have you, Jacob.
Item 8: Action Items
A. Community Development Block Grant PY2015 Action Plan Draft
Prioritization Hearing
1. Amended onto the Agenda: Continued Public Hearing for
Community Development Block Grant PY2014 Action Plan
2. Moved from Consent Agenda: Resolution No. # 15-1071:
Amending the Community Development Block Grant
PY2014 Action Plan
De Weerd: Okay. Our next item under Item 8-A is our Community Development Block
Grant. I will turn this to Sean.
Kelly: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, thanks for the
opportunity to be here tonight to discuss next year's plan for the CDBG action plan. What
follows is the committee's recommendation for what goes forward for our draft action plan.
You will notice that the action -- that our entitlement for the city has gone up by ten
percent for this year, which is quite a considerable amount. That has also added to our
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 10 of 57
public service dollars in terms of what we can spend. That cap was raised by about 5,000
dollars in this year alone. The administration is always capped at 20 percent as you
know. We are asking for that full amount this year. I know it seems a little early, but our
2017-2021 -- or con plan is ready to start -- start -- start to go to bid, so that needs to be
included in this year's -- this year's budget to include our fair housing and other program
issues that we need to work with every year. The application process -- we had a bunch
of LOI's and almost all of our LOI's submitted full applications. We only had one LOI,
letter of intent, that did not submit a full application. So, I was pretty successful in that
campaign. The scoring committee, which was comprised of Councilman Cavener, Caleb
Hood, Ken Corder, Todd Lavoie, Karen Woodell, myself, and we had two community
members this year, as opposed to one the last two years. We had Gretchen Caserotti
from the library come back to us to help us out, as well as James Rucker, from the senior
advisory board. The projects were assessed based on the goals in front of you here, as
well as project capacity and capacity to carry out the program. This is an overview of the
national objectives and the goals that HUD has established. Every project that we
approve and that we put on an action plan has to be supported by our con plan and has to
meet one of these national objectives. I want to draw your attention to two of them that
are on this slide, because they mean a lot for this year and for the next year and that's the
expand economic opportunities, as well as the aid and prevention of elimination of slum
and blight. As I have been here twice now I think talking to you guys about the problems
that we have with slum and blight, which we have a bonafide plan that's currently in that
substantial amendment that will come up here in a little bit -- a little while. But expanding
economic opportunities -- the slum and blight prevention and the elimination -- the
restoring historicity of buildings, those things that would be in that slum and blight plan,
those are very good economic opportunities or programs that we can use to spawn
economic development within the -- using CDBG. CDBG strategies and objectives that
we have within our current consolidated plan, again, economic opportunities -- that's one
that we are trying to hit this next year, however, we are slightly hamstringed being able to
meet that, because we don't have that slum and blight plan. So, there is a couple of
things that I'd like to try to do with this action plan for the next year to bolster other areas
of the CDBG program for the next year, so that we can kind of compensate for not being
able to do some of those economic development activities. We also didn't have a lot of
applications that had anything to do with economic development specifically, so that also
is a hindrance to that. Public service applications. We had three, which is a -- there is an
interesting anomaly this year, as mentioned by I believe Caleb Hood during our committee
meeting, probably the first year that they had seen the ask cannot meet the cap for public
service. Usually we have a competition and we have to either select two over three or
perhaps ask one to step back a little bit from their ask. We didn't have to do that this year.
So, the committee is recommending that all three that had submitted be accepted for the
next year's action plan. You will notice the Meridian Food Bank number in green there. In
previous years Meridian Food Bank -- their ask has been decreased and so the committee
as a -- the committee has decided or had decided to put forth that that gap between the
ask and the cap be afforded to the Meridian Food Bank. We thought that that was
apropos. CATCH has returned as well. They'd like to ask -- their ask is smaller than it
has been -- than it was this past year and that's because they are coming in -- they are
really coming into their program capacity and understanding what they can do in Meridian
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 11 of 57
and so they have lowered their amount because they think that that's a better -- better
policy for what they can do in Meridian within one given year. So, that's why that number
is a little bit -- a little bit less, it's about 6,000 dollars less than it was last year. And, then,
the senior advisor committee -- Ken Corder actually put together an application for a
senior resource guide to be used around the City of Meridian. For the nonservice
applications we had seven applications. Those applications did go above the cap that we
have, the outstanding budgetary that we had there. We do have 50,000 dollars that came
from three private -- three previous program years. HUD is going to change the way they
-- they actually have already changed the way they do things. As of 2015, as of this year,
they are no longer going to use first -in, first -out for any CDBG, any home or any other
things. So, because of that we would like to use those -- use that -- the obligated funds
from I think it's 11, '12, and '13, most of that came from admin. We have used these
before. We use it on the Idaho Avenue project, a couple of the projects to bolster them up
in previous years. But this will clean us up for 2015. We will have no deobligated funds in
previous -- from previous years and we will be starting fresh with whatever HUD --
whatever HUD rule that they come with up for 2016 and how to operate that way. What
that does is it gives us enough money to actually do an entire of the program. So, of the
seven applications we did the -- the community has asked for five to be funded and with
two alternatives and I will explain the alternatives. Meridian Elementary School -- as you
know, we are doing a project with them. We have worked with them in the past. They are
currently building their fitness path with the ADA equipment that is a serendipitous
occasions, because ACHD has agreed to punch in from 4th Street to connect with that
path in 2017, creating a free flowing pathway -- master pathway piece to come all the way
through and reach those amenities, like the clinic and the food bank and the Boys and
Girls Club. It's also creating a community element, which is why the Meridian Elementary
School is asking for a baseball field to be renovated, two dilapidated baseball fields that
they own, they want those to go away and they want to put a picnic shelter -- some type of
a community shelter there. It's turning a very public area into a very accessible piece for
that LMI community. It's right in the heart of our LMI community. Parks and Recreation
would like to continue the Five Mile Creek pathway that is north of Pine, south of Fairview,
right about 2 1/2 -- or was it 2 1/2 Street, something around there. That number, if you
notice, we did not recommend funding it fully. I did talk to the project manager for that
particular project, they had a little leeway there. What that does is it zeros out budget by
bringing them down by just that much. It doesn't impact their project too greatly. Boys
and Girls Club are asking for the -- their main building to be painted, so that's a brush up
project and that falls right in line with the gym being built this year. So, that brings their
new building online with the esthetics of the new -- of the new gym. Neighbor Housing
and Services is actually called Neighbor Works now. They have -- that was their parent
organization before. They just assumed that label as well. They and the Ada County
Housing Authority wanted to partner with Meridian again to do more down payment
assistance for low income individuals -- for down payment assistance and closing costs
here in Meridian. That puts vacant homes with an owner in it that's paying taxes. It's
actually putting money back into the community and the county. And, then, that is where
we go to the Meridian Development Corporation. They have two projects they put forth.
The first project is really important I think, because it's the one that actually answers the
strategy that we tried to use this year, which is economic development. We can't use it,
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 12 of 57
so what I'm asking to do and what I asked the committee to do is to have these as
alternate projects in the action plan. This and their sidewalk improvement project. The
sidewalk improvement project would have scored a lot higher had we had a slum and
blight plan actually implemented and actually used that. So, if we have these as alternate
projects in the action plan and we have a project that cannot fulfill its obligations or it does
not progress as it should, we have a fall -back piece that we don't have to spend a lot of
time doing a substantial amendment, especially right in the middle of the time that we are
planning for the very next year, which becomes a little bit more arduous. So, that's why
those two projects are being asked to be alternative projects built in. Just to -- just to be
clear, too, the fagade improvements is completely dependent on that slum and blight plan
finished in that year. If it's not, then, that's clearly not going to work. But if we can get the
slum and blight plan finished in the next year, which is not going to be as intensive as the
con plan development and a lot cheaper, hopefully that can actually be a project that we
move forward with if we have something that falls. This is the plan that I have currently.
hope to return on July 7th after taking all of your input and moving forward with
reprioritization if we need to. July 7th I would give the -- give a similar presentation with
the prioritization with a more clear description of what these projects are going to look like.
That would put us at August 12th for City Council again to approve that. This will be -- I'm
going to start the public -- the citizen participation plan, the public review process about a
week and a half early, so that we don't end up with a mismatch of when the publication
actually hits, so we have a 30 day -- it's probably going to be about 40 days on the next
one, so I think that that might become a standard operating procedure, too, so we don't hit
that. Madam Mayor, at this time I'd like to solicit any comments or input that Council or
you may have for the 2015 program year action plan.
De Weerd: Thank you, Sean. Council, any comments, questions for Sean?
Cavener: Sean, I appreciate your hard work on this and the committee as well. One of
the things I was really pleased to see were these fall back plans. It seems every year we
have a plan in front of us and inevitably something gets in the way and that project goes
away and being able to have projects ready made, ready to go should that happen is
forward thinking and I appreciate your effort on that.
De Weerd: And thank you, Mr. Cavener, for serving on the selection committee. Any
additional questions?
Rountree: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Sean.
Kelly: Madam Mayor, thank you.
De Weerd: Also on our agenda is a public hearing for the Community Development Block
Grant. Okay. I don't get it.
Kelly: Madam Mayor --
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 13 of 57
De Weerd: We have 8-A-1 and A-2.
Kelly: Yes, Madam Mayor. Hopefully this is less baffling than it was on the 9th. Staff
would ask that public comment period be closed as of tonight. No comments have been
received by staff at this time, so there is nothing to add to that substantial amendment.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions on this? And before I close the public hearing
is there anyone who would like to comment?
Cavener: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Cavener.
Cavener: No comments, I move that we close the public hearing on the Community
Development Block Grant fiscal year 2015 action plan.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on this item. All
those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Okay. Then the next item is a resolution on the 2014 action plans. Do you
have any comments on that?
Kelly: Madam Mayor, I just wish that the -- or staff recommends that the adoption of the
program year 2014 substantial amendment as described to Council on 9 June is adopted
and forwarded to HUD.
Cavener: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Cavener.
Cavener: I move that we approve Resolution 15-1071, amending the Community
Development Block Grant fiscal year 2014 action plan and to send a copy to HUD.
Milam: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve the resolution on Item 8-A-2.
Madam Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll Call: Rountree, yea; Bird, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 14 of 57
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Thank you, Sean.
Kelly: Thank you, Madam Mayor.
B. Continued from May 26, 2015: FP 15-012 Silverwater Subdivision
No. 3 by Trilogy Development Located at the South Side of E.
Victory Road Midway Between S. Meridian Rd and S. Locust
Grove Rd. in the NE 1/4 of Section 30, Township 3N., Range 1E.,
Request for Final Plat Consisting of 42 Common Lots, 6
Common lots, and 1 Other Lot on 17.22 Acres of Land in the R-8
Zoning District
De Weerd: Okay. Item 8-B is continued from May 26. It's final plat 15-012. 1 will ask for
staff comments.
Watters: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. The next application before
you is a request for a final plat. This site consists of 17.22 acres of land. It's currently
zoned R-8 and is located south of East Victory Road, south of the -- excuse me -- north of
the Ridenbaugh Canal and east of Meridian Road. A final plat is proposed that consists of
42 building lots, six common lots and one other lot consistent with the approved
preliminary plat. Written testimony was received from Shawn Brownlee, the applicant's
representative, in agreement with the staff report, except for condition number 5.13, which
requires a minimum five foot wide detached sidewalk to be constructed off site along the
frontage of the out parcel with the property owner's consent per a provision of the existing
development agreement. This property was part of the preliminary plat for Cavanaugh
Subdivision that was platted back in 2007 and this is the outparcel here that we are -- we
are talking about. At the time Council required a detached sidewalk to be constructed
along the frontage of the property. The provision does leave an out. It reads that if the
construction and easement for the sidewalk is not allowed in writing by the owner of the
outparcel, the applicant shall bond or provide another city approved method for providing
assurance that the pathway improvements in that area are constructed when the
outparcel redevelops. The applicant is requesting Council to remove this condition of
approval. Staff will stand for any questions.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
Rountree: None.
De Weerd: Does the applicant have any comments? No comments? Okay. In
agreement with -- okay. Council, I'm looking for a motion.
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 15 of 57
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve FP 15-012 and to remove the condition 5-B from the application.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion.
Borton: Second.
De Weerd: And a second. Any discussion?
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary
Nary: Madam Mayor, the -- the only way you can remove that condition is you're going to
have to grant a new condition requiring they amend their development agreement. You
already have a contractual development agreement requirement and a final plat is not
appropriate to remove those conditions. They are going to have to go through the
development agreement modification process. So, if you would like them to do that, that's
going to be required. Or you can leave it in and they can still go through the development
agreement modification process, if that's what you would like to do.
Bird: Yeah. I would -- I forgot about the DA. So, that's my fault. Let's just take that five
out if the second will agree.
De Weerd: Second agree?
Borton: Yes.
De Weerd: Okay.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor, I didn't hear what he said.
Bird: I just took out the condition of five. Leaving it in, then, they can go --
Zaremba: Leaving the condition in?
Bird: Yeah. And, then, they can get a DA modification if they want to. I forgot it was in
the DA.
De Weerd: Okay. Any further discussion? Madam Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll Call: Rountree, yea; Bird, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener, yea.
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 16 of 57
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
C. Public Hearing Continued from June 2, 2015: RZ 15-006 Three
Corners by Sweet Land Development, Inc. Located Southeast
Corner of N. Locust Grove Road and Chinden Boulevard
Request: Rezone of Approximately 12.65 Acres of Land from the
C -C (Community Business), R-8 (Medium Density Residential)
and R-4 (Medium -Low Density Residential) Zoning District to the
C -C (9.38 Acres), R-8 (2.76 acres) and R-4 (0.51 Acres) Zoning
Districts
De Weerd: Item 8-C is a public hearing continued from June 2nd on RZ 15-006. 1 will ask
for staff comments.
Watters: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Council. The next application before you is a
request for rezone for Three Corners. This site consists of approximately 12.65 acres of
land. It zoned C -C, R-8, and R-4 and is located at the southeast corner of East Chinden
Boulevard and North Locust Grove Road. Adjacent land use and zoning. To the north is
Chinden Boulevard and single -- single family residential property in Banbury Subdivision,
zoned R -1P in the city of Eagle. To the east is a private school and church, zoned C -C
and R-8 and to the south and west are single family residential properties, zoned R-4 and
R-1 in Ada County. In 2013 this property received rezone, preliminary plat, and a
development agreement modification approval to develop 54 residential lots, eight
commercial lots, and six common lots on the site. The property is subject to two different
development agreements. The Council has approved two phases of final plats for this
property. The applicant is requesting a rezone of 12.65 acres of land from C -C, R-8 and
R-4 zoning districts, to the C -C, which is 9.38 acres and the R-8 zone, which is 2.76 acres
and the R-4 zone, which is .51 acres. Basically to clean up the zoning boundaries. In the
previous approvals, the 2013 zoning districts and the subdivision were deemed consistent
with the mixed use community designation of the comp plan. During review of the second
phase of the final plat it was discovered that the current zoning boundaries did not
coincide with the boundaries of the final plat. In order to expedite the approval of the final
plat, the Council granted approval of the final plat with a condition that the applicant obtain
approval of the rezone application to correct the zoning discrepancy prior to city
engineer's signature on the final plat. Because the subject rezone is only required to
correct the zone boundary error, staff is not recommending a development agreement and
the applicant is still responsible to comply with all previous conditions of approval and the
recorded development agreements associated with this property. The Commission
recommended approval of the proposed rezone at their hearing. Kent Brown testified in
favor. No one testified in opposition or commented. Kent Brown did submit written
testimony in agreement with the staff report. Written testimony since the Commission
hearing from Kent Brown in agreement with the Commission's recommendations. Staff
will stand for any questions.
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 17 of 57
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Is the applicant here? Good evening, Kent. If you will, please, state your
name and address for the record.
Brown: Kent Brown. 3161 East Springwood, Meridian, Idaho. As we came forward and
you might remember in our final plat hearing we made the lots larger in that phase. They
had more depth to them and that depth caused us to go into the commercial zoning and
into the R-8 zoning. Realistically, there is a few hundred feet and realistically just a clean
up of the zoning boundaries and I think that clarifies any anything. We haven't -- when I
showed up for the neighborhood meeting the contractors thought I was there to steal stuff
after they left. So, I haven't had anybody ever comment on this, so -- anyway. They
wrote down my license plate number.
De Weerd: Well, it's nice to hear we have neighbors that are keeping an aye out
Brown: Right.
De Weerd: For shady characters.
Brown: Right.
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Brown: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone who like to
provide testimony on this item? Okay.
Milam: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Milam.
Milam: Seeing none, I move that we approve RZ 15 -- oh, close the public hearing.
Bird: Second.
Milam: Trying to get through this. Sorry.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a public -- and a public hearing. And a second to close
the public hearing on this item. All those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 18 of 57
De Weerd: Okay. Now, Mrs. Milam.
Milam: Move that we approve RZ 15-006.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 8-C. Madam Clerk, will you
call roll.
Roll Call: Rountree, yea; Bird, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
D. Public Hearing: TEC 15-002 Pinebridge Subdivision by B.W.
Meridian, Inc. Located East Side of N. Locust Grove Road, South
of E. Fairview Avenue and North of E. Commercial Street
Request: Two (2) Year Time Extension on the Preliminary Plat in
Order to Obtain the City Engineer's Signature on a Final Plat
De Weerd: Item 8-D is a public hearing on TEC 15-002. 1 will open this public hearing
with staff comments.
Watters: Thank you, Madam Mayor. The next application before you is a request for a
preliminary plat time extension for the Pinebridge Subdivision. This site consists of
approximately 100 acres of land. It's currently zoned C -G and is located south of East
Fairview Avenue and east of North Locust Grove Road. The preliminary plat for this site
was approved in 2007 and consisted of 61 building lots and 21 common and other lots on
170 acres of land in the C -G zoning district. This is the fourth time extension requested
for the subject preliminary plat. No final plats have been approved by Council for this site.
However, Pine Avenue has been widened, the roundabout constructed, Webb Avenue
constructed and new public utilities and municipal services and infrastructure have been
installed, which has facilitated the development of the Scentsy campus and the PKG
campus. Approval of the subject time extension will allow the applicant to proceed with
the platting process. If the subject time extension is not granted, the entire property would
need to be resubmitted for preliminary plat approval. Written testimony has been received
from Dan Torfin, applicant's representative. Staff is recommending approval with the
conditions listed in Exhibit B of the staff report. Which includes the requirement for
compliance with the current Public Works construction standards and the improvement of
the planter island in the middle of the Roundabout in Pine Avenue. The applicant has
requested additional time to complete the roundabout improvements as a water source
has not been developed at this time. He requests an extension from the November 1st,
2015, deadline that's stated in the staff report to November of 2016 to complete these
improvements. Staff will stand for any questions.
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 19 of 57
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Would the applicant like to comment? We haven't seen you in a long time.
Torfin: An awful long time. Exactly two years. And it was the same request. Madam
Mayor, Members of the Council, Dan Torfin representing B.W., Inc., in our request for time
extension. Well, we -- we have been approved -- our project has been approved since
2007, so we were in a different City Hall and we had the Scentsy campus and the PKG
campus get started. That was a great start, but any other users have really just faded
away. We have talked to quite a few multi -family developers. We are in discussions right
now and those are things that we think would be a catalyst to get the project started and
so really the platting is kind of a formality. We do have a development agreement that
guides this development specifically. I talked to Dennis and he would like to have another
year to do the landscaping. The irrigation system has not been developed for Pinebridge
and the location is quite a bit north and so for a roundabout it's extensive. Even though
we are asking for a two year time extension and we thought last time we would definitely
be started again with this project with some office user and so it's -- you know, it's our
hope to get something going within this next two years as well. We do have some work to
do. We would love to just landscape and finish out the boulevard and the roundabout and
do the things that we love to do, but we are going to need a little more time to develop that
water source. Right now we are -- we have engaged our consultant to go through and do
asbestos analysis on all the homes. Some of the homes are rented out and we have
turned Pinebridge into a farm. We have got hay fields and we have got horses and cows
and we have got a tree farm. We hope that we can start turning it into some of the other
things that you see on our project. We will likely be back before you with a multi -family
development. We did at our -- our last request there was a request by a gentleman that is
a neighbor on Fairview to get a couple houses cleaned up in that location. The house
adjacent to his property is owned by a bank. Idaho Trust Bank bought it back in 2007 or
'8, so they have owned it for a substantial amount of time. We have the house next door
to it, but it's our intention to encourage the bank to clean up their property and if the
Meridian Fire Department would like, we have a -- you know, we have some homes that
they could use for practice training -- not necessarily burn them down, but potentially there
will be some things that we can do to start cleaning up that frontage and so I -- I will stand
for questions that Council and the Mayor might have.
De Weerd: Thank you, Dan. Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 20 of 57
Zaremba: Just a comment. My memory is trying to tell me that water was intentionally
not supplied to the roundabout thinking they would be landscaped as desert materials that
wouldn't require any more than the normal rain. Am I remembering that correctly or --
Torfin: There was a proposal that -- it was always going to have water and landscape,
but, you know, lush landscaping. There was a sculpture at one point that really wasn't
supposed to be out for public consumption and it was quite odd. Some people loved it
and most people hated it, but we -- right now we have zero water landscaping out there.
We are trying to keep it maintained. There are some trees that got planted. I think when
PKG opened there was some trees that got planted that have to be hand watered right
now and so we have been doing that for several years. It doesn't sound very smart, but
that's -- that's kind of the reality, but we hope -- we hope to get some things started out
here. Commercial development in Meridian is vibrant, it's just not vibrant in this location,
and a lot of -- the people we have talked to have moved out near Fairview and Eagle that
wanted the exposure and to be near The Village. So, that is our request and we thank
you for your time.
De Weerd: Thanks, Dan. And I understand flag ship food group is -- is very successful in
their building, too, so --
Torfin: Yeah
De Weerd: Congratulations, you have some good employers out there.
Torfin: Yeah. Thank you.
De Weerd: Council, any further questions?
Rountree: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Thanks. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone who would like to
offer testimony on this item? Seeing none, I would entertain a motion to close the public
hearing.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move we close the public hearing on Item 8-D.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on 8-D. All in favor
say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 21 of 57
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we approve the time extension requested in Item 8-D.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve the request to extend the time frame
two years. Madam Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll Call: Rountree, yea; Bird, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
E. Public Hearing: CPAM 15-001 Hill Properties/Century Farm
School by Martin Hill, Hill & Hill Properties and Brighton
Investments Located East Side of S. Eagle Road and South Side
of E. Amity Road Request: Amendment to the Comprehensive
Plan Future Land Use Map to Change the Future Land Use
Designation on 87.01 Acres of Land from Low Density
Residential to Mixed -Use Neighborhood Approved
F. Public Hearing: AZ 15-004 Hill Properties by Martin Hill and Hill &
Hill Properties Located East Side of S. Eagle Road and the South
Side of E. Amity Road Request: Annexation of 78.62 Acres of
Land with the R-8 (39.83 Acres) and C -N (38.79 Acres) Zoning
Districts
G. Public Hearing: RZ 15-007 Century Farm School by Brighton
Investments Located 1/4 Mile South of E. Amity Road and 1/2
Mile East of S. Eagle Road Request: Rezone of 8.39 Acres of
Land From the R-8 to the C -N Zoning District
De Weerd: Item 8-E and F -- or I mean G. Or I can just make up numbers. Are all public
hearings. I will open them all at the same time for CPAM 15-001, AZ 15-004 -- and shall I
open the next one as well, Sonya?
Watters: Yes.
De Weerd: And RZ 15-007. 1 will ask for the staff comments.
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 22 of 57
Watters: Thank you, Madam Mayor and Council. The applications before you are a
request for an amendment to the future land use map contained in the Comprehensive
Plan, annexation and zoning, and a rezone request. This site is located off of the
southeast corner of South Eagle Road and East Amity Road. The portion of the site
proposed to be rezoned was annexed with the Hill Century Farm property to the south and
that is this small area right down here. The application is proposing an amendment to the
future land use map to change the land use designation on 87.01 acres of land from low
density residential to mixed use neighborhood as shown on the map there on the right.
The applicant also requests annexation and zoning of 78.6 acres of land with R-8, which
consists of 43.2 acres in CA which consists of 35.4 acres zoning districts and a rezone
of 8.39 acres of land from the R-8 and C -N zoning district, consistent with the proposed
mixed use neighborhood designation. The applicant has requested a change to the
configuration of the R-8 versus the C -N zoning, since submittal of the application as
shown on the right there. The initial application showed the R-8 boundary along this
yellow line here and they have since shifted it to include this area right here and this is just
a little better drawing of the proposed zoning district. A conceptual bubble plan was
submitted as shown that depicts how the property is proposed to develop with a mix of
uses consisting of medium density residential homes at densities of four to eight dwelling
units per acre. Maybe small scale retail, office and professional convenience uses and
elementary school, a YMCA, city park, and potentially a library and health complex. This
plan has been revised in accord with the reconfiguration of the R-8 and C -N zoned
property. The revised plan is shown there on your right. A more detailed plan was
submitted for the school and the YMCA as shown here on your right. The map -- the
aerial map on the left, the red area is where the YMCA and the park and the school are
proposed. Approval of the rezone to C -N will allow the school parcel to be regulated
under one zoning jurisdiction, rather than two, and will allow the school to develop without
approval of a conditional use permit, which is required in the current R-4 district. There
are three existing homes on this site. If you watch my pointer here there is one here
fronting on Amity, there is one here and one over here at the southeast corner of the site.
The home along the center of the south boundary of the annexation area is proposed to
be zoned R-8 and is proposed to remain. That's this one right there. And the home at the
southeast corner of the site is proposed to be included to be included as a C -N zoned
area and is proposed to remain as long as the current owners live there, after which time
the YMCA will expand into that area and the home on the north boundary of the site is
also now proposed to be included in the R-8 zoned area and is proposed to remain until
redevelopment of that area occurs, at which time the homes and outbuildings will be
removed. The Commission recommended approval of the subject application. Mike
Wardle testified in favor. No one testified in opposition or commented. Mike Wardle
submitted written testimony in response to the staff report. There were no major issues of
discussion by the Commission. However, they did make some changes to the staff
recommendations based on the applicant's response to the staff report and I will just go
through those real quickly. The recommended approval to modify development
agreement provision 1.1 E, to allow the two existing homes in the C -N district -- only one
now, since the zoning boundary has changed -- to remain until redevelopment occurs,
rather than be zoned R-8 at this time and not require them to hook up to city services.
The second provision to be modified is 1.113 to allow an extension of the hours of
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 23 of 57
operation in a C -N district for the YMCA to open at 5:00 a.m., rather than 6:00 a.m., as
required per the C -N district. The third provision is 1.1G8 to allow a net density in the R-8
zoned portion of the development to be four to eight dwelling units per acre consistent
with the Hill Century Farm development immediately to the south, rather than six to eight
units per acre gross. And, lastly, include a provision in the development agreement that a
landscape buffer to residential uses is not required adjacent to the Hill home at the
southeast corner of the site as buffering will be achieved through the adjacent city park,
YMCA, and school complex and the property will eventually be part of the YMCA site and
that is DA provision 1.1 H. There are a couple of outstanding issues for City Council. One
that just came up kind of late this afternoon. The Parks Department is requesting an
additional provision to be added to the development agreement as follows: In order to
provide appropriate visibility, parking, and emergency access to the future neighborhood
park, a public street -- allowed on -street parking shall be required along the north side of
the park when the property north of the park is developed and staff also recommends a
provision is added to the agreement that requires the annexation area to be subdivided
prior to issuance of any building permits beyond those required for the development of the
school, YMCA, and park site as shown on the concept plan. Written testimony since the
Commission hearing has been received today from Mike Wardle and staff will stand for
any questions.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Cavener: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Cavener.
Cavener: One quick question. Sonya, on the Planning and Zoning Commission changes
on number two, what was the rationale or the reason behind the recommendation to
change the opening from 6:00 a.m. to 5:00 a.m?
Watters: The YMCA opens at 5:00 a.m. The C -N district restricts hours of operation from
6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.
Cavener: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: I guess I have a question --
Watters: 10:00 p.m. Excuse me. Sorry.
De Weerd: -- about the northwest corner, the -- what is existing up there? It's a power
substation. Is that in the county?
Watters: It is in the county, yes, Madam Mayor.
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 24 of 57
De Weerd: Are we going to be expecting an annexation there or is that going to be like
Swiss cheese, keeping it in the middle of urban development?
Watters: Applicant has not proposed to include that property as it is out of their control.
De Weerd: Okay.
Watters: The city would like to see it come in.
De Weerd: Separate from that maybe if we could draft a letter to Idaho Power about their
site.
Watters: Yes, Mayor
De Weerd: Okay. Any -- any further questions from Council? Okay. Would the applicant
come forward. Good evening. You brought an audience with you.
Wardle: Madam Mayor, Mike Wardle, Brighton Corporation. 12601 West Explorer Drive
in Boise. I did bring an audience, but this is not the dancer, this is -- this is a young lady
that -- that supports the dancer and grateful to have them back in the neighborhood. They
were gone for a couple of years, but now they are back.
De Weerd: Well, Mr. Bird wondered if it was the dancer
Bird: I thought she was older. This one is --
Wardle: The dancer is preparing as the understudy for the lead in Secret Garden, a
Shakespeare, currently. So, she's very, very busy right now. But maybe she will be back
to dance a bit later. Thank you very much. Madam Mayor, I just want to complain that
spend hours preparing for these hearings -- preparing my remarks and so forth and Sonya
takes all of the steam away. But I appreciate her efforts. And I just want to comment that
through this process when we brought in the Hill Century Farm project with just a school
site, we had no idea of the potential opportunities that would come forward through public-
private collaboration to bring not only the school, but a conjoined YMCA facility where they
will literally share facilities between the two, potential of a park that Marty Hill has had in
his mind for a long, long time and, then, other potential elements. So, this unique
opportunity also presented some rather unique challenges, not the least of which were the
fact that we had to deal with the Comprehensive Plan amendment. To make this possible
we had to look at the annexation and the zoning options as well to make sure that all of
the potential uses at some point in the future could be accommodated. A little
parenthetical. I'm certain that Idaho Power Company would be glad to come in if you just
asked them nicely, so that might be a possibility. But since we didn't own or control that,
we didn't offer that as an option. But I want to just note that in this process of making this
happen quickly -- because the school district wants to start an elementary school site late
this summer, it necessitated a very expedited process, not taking -- not taking any steps
out of the process, but just to make sure that everything happened as quickly as it
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 25 of 57
possibly could and so we went through a number of discussions with staff and came
through -- and I want to -- I want to very specifically commend Sonya, because she found
solutions for all of the challenges and as we sat not only on the -- the Brighton and Hill
side, but also with the school district and the YMCA team, the solutions were found to
make all of this happen. I'm not going to go through, then, the process to -- because
Sonya has actually shown you all of the items that I would have presented to you in my
presentation, but just looking at the overall site plan you can see that the red boundary,
with north being to the left, because of the way the property configures, so that's the
boundary between the Hill properties and the properties that Brighton is developing. The
yellow line is simply a line that came through the discussion that Sonya showed earlier
where we had a little bit of a break, an L-shaped break in the R-8 and the C -N zones, but
now we have proposed to align those simply because originally we thought that the park
would wrap around the north side of Marty Hill's property and it -- it is not going to wrap
around, so we just felt that it would be better -- and, then, to accomplish one thing that
staff had originally proposed or recommended and that was to at least bring the parcel
with the original home and outbuildings on the north into an R-8 zone, so that it wouldn't,
you know, be out of sync under the provisions of the C -N. So, a lot of things have -- have
transpired to make all of this happen. I have to acknowledge that I was caught a bit off
guard at 5:05 this evening when we received the information concerning the parks
department request. But as Sonya has been solution oriented, I have sat here this
evening and put together some thoughts and I think I have a solution as well to take care
of that issue. If you -- and you may not have access on your computers, but if -- in the
staff report in the conditions under the planning division, Condition 1.1 talks about the
required development agreement and this is on page 15 of the staff report if you have it
available. But in that 1.1, Item G, talks about the conceptual bubble plan, the fact that
prior to any other plat applications beyond the school and YMCA, that certain things
needed to happen and there were, as a result of that, a number of items, I through XII,
that would necessitate being considered as part of that development agreement and the
planning process that would occur in the future. I would just note that the city controls the
process. Nothing will happen on any of the C -N land north of the school and YMCA
without platting in the future, without even possible conditional use permits, depending on
what the uses proposed are. And certainly, and not least, the CZC and design review
process that all have to take place before anything occurs. We want to make sure that we
don't delay what happens, so I'm going to just rip out a piece of paper and I'm going to
hand it to the Mayor.
De Weerd: The clerk is probably a better choice
Wardle: Well, I want the Mayor at least to be aware and read this --
De Weerd: Okay.
Wardle: -- and we will get it to the clerk. In response to -- and I have to go to my cell
phone, because this is the only place that I found that this was -- as I was leaving the
office this afternoon at 5:05. Parks Department comments were requesting that there be
a condition that says in order to provide appropriate visibility parking and emergency
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 26 of 57
access to the future neighbor park, a public street allowing on -street parking shall be
required along the north side of the park when the property north of the park is developed.
At about 5:07 1 called Mr. Turnbull, who could not be here this evening, to say, David, this
is new. What your thoughts? And his thought was we would certainly agree that in the
planning process that appropriate visibility, parking, and emergency access to the future
neighborhood park be considered in that, but that we would not necessarily commit that
there would be a full street frontage along that park -- or along the north side. So, again,
because the city controls the process and we have to come back with detailed plans and
plats and so forth, I don't think this will be lost. So, as a result, the proposed language
that we have requested -- and perhaps maybe the clerk needs to read this into the record,
if it could be passed on. This is what I would ask for the Council to add to Condition 1.113
as Item XIII.
De Weerd: Okay. And you read it into the record yourself, so --
Wardle: Not in exactly the precise words.
De Weerd: Not in exact. Okay. Madam Clerk, would you mind reading that?
Jones: Thank you, Madam Mayor. New condition XIII, planning of the C -N property north
of the park and YMCA shall consider appropriate visibility, parking, and emergency
access to the future neighborhood park.
De Weerd: And I guess I would just add, Mr. Wardle, is that this has been a conversation
from day one on the park and having that visibility on the north side, because it was
somewhat restricted on -- on where the school was going to be on the east and on the
south with the houses and the parking lot of the park, the visibility was not -- was certainly
of concern by the Parks Department, the parks commission, and we have been pretty
consistent with that conversation. So, I'm sorry that you were surprised by it, but it's -- it's
been consistent on every park that the city has contemplated for some time.
Wardle: Well, Madam Mayor, I just want to be sure that -- when I talked to Mr. Turnbull he
was not aware that that was an absolute requirement and I talked to Mr. Siddoway as I
was driving to the meeting this evening and he indicated that he had talked to Marty Hill
about this. So, we -- Steve and Marty Hill and I talked about it out at the counter in the
foyer this evening before the meeting and Marty was not aware in the discussions that it --
it was considered a street along that full boundary of the park on the north side. He had
believed from the conversations that it was talking about the area to the east along the
YMCA. So, all I'm telling the Council and asking the Council to do is don't put any
absolutes on us -- the language. Because you control the process assures that this will
have to be considered, but we can't tell you tonight, because we don't have a site design
for the area to the north that it would be a whole frontage along there, but certainly Mr.
Turnbull's commitment is that there would be appropriate access, parking, and visibility for
the park in the future.
De Weerd: Okay.
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 27 of 57
Wardle: I would simply ask, based on the Planning Commission recommendation, with
the one change that was noted because of the zoning boundary relocation and this
addition, that the Council approve the request as proposed.
De Weerd: And, Mr. Wardle, did you have a comment on the second item, which is a
provision added to the DA that requires the annexation area to be subdivided prior to the
issuance of any building permits beyond those required for the development of the school,
YMCA and park site?
Wardle: Madam Mayor, no, that's acceptable. That really has to happen anyway, so that
is not an issue for us. Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Any questions from Council?
Rountree: I have none.
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba? No?
Zaremba: Not really a question. I just was going to comment that our experience around
other parks is that an access road or a nearby road is used by the park users and parked
on, even if it goes through a residential or a commercial area and there is often push back
from the neighbors about people parking on their street to go to the park and I'm -- I'm
sure Steve has probably explained better than I, but I -- part of the reason that I'm sure he
is making the suggestion that it be a roadway that actually goes along the edge of the
park is to minimize the complaints that will come in the future from people along that road
if the road isn't right along the park. If it's somewhere else through the project it may
generate complaints.
Wardle: Madam Mayor and Councilman Zaremba, I would ask Sonya to go to slide seven
in the packet that -- and I would give the clerk a copy of these slides as well. Can you --
yes. Thank you. This is unique in the sense that there is such an extensive amount of
parking immediately available. So, the park element is roughly maybe 40 percent or 35 to
40 percent of that frontage, but Mr. Hill's existing home is on the west boundary just to the
west of that northerly play field and the intent now is to take that -- if they were going to
wrap the park around his property, which they are not proposing to do, it would probably
change the equation, but with that zoning boundary there may not be a direct access
through there or across from Mr. Hill's property and the street frontage that will be there in
front of him in the future. I just -- I guess we want the flexibility as we work through the
planning and the development aspect of it in the future that we not be told that it's required
that there has to be a street along the entire frontage of that park. Certainly adequate
frontage, visibility and parking, but with the parking that's available from the YMCA
complex this is quite different from your normal neighborhood facilities.
De Weerd: Well, I hate to differ, but people like the shortest distance to their designation
and I think that through experience it's not just the parking, it is the safety aspect and
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 28 of 57
having the vision corridor on that, as you stated in the verbiage that you're suggesting,
but, again, the recommendation comes from our parks commission and through
precedence that we have set with other city parks. So, I -- that's why that comment
probably came up.
Wardle: Well, Madam Mayor, we appreciate that, but what we don't appreciate is the fact
that we saw it at 5:05 this evening for the first time.
De Weerd: And I would agree with you on that. I think it must have just slipped by and --
but I do know with -- and I'm not going to say Mr. Turnbull wasn't listening, but it has been
in conversations with the YMCA and Mr. Turnbull, so -- because I have been there and --
anyway, any other questions from Council? Okay.
Wardle: Well, Madam Mayor, just one concluding -- we don't want this to hold up this
process, so we acknowledge that there will be a condition applied. We also acknowledge
that there is going to be a lot of future discussion about this. So, thank you.
De Weerd: And I apologize for the five minutes to 12:00 change, so to speak
Wardle: Thank you very much.
De Weerd: Okay. This is a public hearing. I do have one person signed up on the -- the
sheet. Keith Miller signed up against. Good evening, Mr. Miller. If you will, please, state
your name and address for the record.
Miller: My name is Keith Miller. I live at 6246 North Maximus Place, Meridian, Idaho.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Miller: I'd like to preface my remarks with the fact that the development of Hill Century
Farms, along with the new school and YMCA and other things is very good for the City of
Meridian and we need to see it. In October -- on October 16th, 2014, at the Meridian
Planning and Zoning public meeting the application for annexation -- annexing and zoning
the Hill Century Farms Subdivision was approved. Subsequently the City Council
approved that action. The drawings that were shown during that initial public meeting in
the application -- the drawings made by KM Engineering showed a 12 inch sewer line
coming up or down Eagle Road, whichever way you'd like to say it, with a connector going
into the Hill Century Farms Subdivision and Rock Hampton Street. And this was for the
first phase. The public was led to believe that the sewer line and water line would extend
further down South Eagle Road to the southern most point of the development, about
three-quarters of a mile south of Amity Road. The Meridian City Code in Section 948,
about sewers, under required use of sewers it says new subdivisions or developments.
The owner or developer in the new subdivision or development, whether subdivided or
not, shall at his expense construct the necessary extensions of the public sewer system to
provide public sewer facilities for each lot or public area in his subdivision. Additionally,
the owner or developer shall have the responsibility at his expense of installing the main
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 29 of 57
sewer line to the boundary of his development, which is furthest away from the point at
which initial connection is made to the existing sewer main. Since the public meeting and
approval, the sewer line has been rerouted to go through -- through the mile rather than
along Eagle Road, over private, undeveloped land from Amity Road -- south of Amity
Road and east of Eagle Road, blocking access to the sewer by other landowners and
developers. This change is contrary to what was agreed to in the public meeting and
shown and it is also against the Meridian City Code. It is also contrary to the public good,
because it blocks further development on the west side of Eagle Road and on the south
end of Eagle Road for at least five years or more. This shows favoritism to one developer
over the -- over and above other land developers or holders. Meridian is a pro active or
pro development city and restricted access to the sewer impedes development. I would
respectfully request the City Council disallow these nonapproved changes to the sewer
system and revert to the approved public plan. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Miller. Council, any questions? We will try and address your
questions and concerns.
Miller: Thank you.
De Weerd: Are there any other members of the public who would like to offer testimony
on this Item? Our director of parks. Not really a member of the public, although you kind
of are, but -- staff comments are always welcome.
Siddoway: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. I just want to state for the
record that it certainly wasn't our intention to throw out a last minute condition
unexpectedly and I apologize that it's had that effect. It has come up in -- in at least a
couple of preapps that I was in and, again, in a design meeting. So, today as I was
preparing for this and saw that it was on the agenda, I looked for the condition, expecting
to find it and did not. So, when I didn't find it I -- I contacted Sonya and asked about it and
so thus we -- we thought it was worth considering and you have already articulated well
the reasons behind the -- the proposed street frontage adjacent to the parks, so I guess I
just wanted to just come up and state that for the record and ask if there are any
questions of me.
De Weerd: Thank you. No. I think, Steve, we are very familiar with that condition
Siddoway: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any other -- yes, please. How is retirement working for you?
Good evening.
Gestron: Well, they say that some people fail. Thank you. Dr. Gestron, 3675 Deerfield,
Eagle, Idaho. I'm here representing the West Ada School District. I just thought it was
probably appropriate to come up and publicly acknowledge all of the work that Brighton
Corporation is doing on our behalf and publicly acknowledge the Hills for their -- their
dream and what this represents and, finally, to thank you publicly for -- and the staff in
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 30 of 57
particular for doing everything you can to expedite this, so that we have this elementary
open in 2016, because Sienna, for example, will be over 900 next year and you know that
we build elementaries for 650. We were fortunate enough to get the funding, pass the
bond from the community, and immediately, then, of course, we put architectures,
engineers, and everyone else on our typical fast track that we really work, but we
appreciate everybody's efforts. We are looking forward to providing this area with an
outstanding elementary and just a project that's unprecedented for our valley. So, again,
just appreciate your expediency on all of the processes that we are going through.
Questions?
De Weerd: Any questions for Bruce? For Dr. Gestron.
Rountree: Are you on schedule?
Gestron: We are currently on schedule. That depends on tonight's vote
De Weerd: Okay. Well, thank you for your testimony.
Gestron: Thank you.
De Weerd: Any further testimony? Mr. Wardle, I guess, hopefully, you can answer Mr.
Miller's question, otherwise, I will probably put Clint on the spot there.
Wardle: Madam Mayor, Council Members, Mike Wardle once again. I will make my
statement and, then, if it needs to be corrected it can be corrected. There are two trunk
lines actually in the city's facilities planning. One on the north side of -- north and easterly
side, excuse me, of Ten Mile Creek and one that goes on the westerly and the southerly
side. All of the developments that lies north and easterly and even south of Lake Hazel
Road in the future will be served by the trunk line that goes through Hill Century Farm.
So, we didn't actually deny any access to any property that was intended to be served by
that north and easterly trunk line. It will be extended in the future as the other -- future
development comes along south of Lake Hazel. But everything that was intended to be
served is served. I don't know what will happen on the westerly side of Ten Mile, but
that's, obviously, a future consideration as development occurs on that side. So, I believe
that's really the solution. We did not -- we did not purposely or intentionally -- we actually
tried to implement the city's plan as we did this and it was all reviewed with and approved
by the city. Thank you. If I need to be corrected, I can be corrected.
Dolsby: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, that is correct. There is a trunk line that
runs -- that is going to be built to serve Hill Century Farm that is meant to serve on the
east side of Eagle Road mainly and, then, there is a separate trunk that's going through
White Bark and Southern Highlands as that's constructed. It will serve much of the area
to the west of Eagle Road, also to the south of Lake Hazel down in that part of the impact
area.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Council, any further questions?
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 31 of 57
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Did you have any other closing remarks, Mr. Wardle? I thought you
were eager to answer the questions that --
Wardle: Well, sometimes my attention span is a little short. We want to keep the school
district on schedule, so we -- we simply ask for your approval. Obviously, we will live with
and work with any conditions that the Council decides to attach, but we also would expect
that in future discussions that there may not be as many absolutes as perhaps we think
this evening. So, thank you very much. If there are not further questions I would step
aside.
De Weerd: Any further questions for Mr. Wardle?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: None.
Wardle: Thank you.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we close the public hearing on Item 8-E, F and G.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close these three public hearings. All those
in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we approve Item 8-E, 15-001.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 8-E. Any discussion? Madam
Clerk.
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 32 of 57
Roll Call: Rountree, yea; Bird, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we approve Item 8-F, AZ 15-004 with the recommended DA
changes from staff, with one change. On item 1.1.E to allow one existing home and that
the applicant's recommended DA provision with respect to vision and access to the park
site on the north side be included, as well as the recommendation that has been
suggested by staff for the required subdivision prior to issuing building permits and all
other staff and applicant comments.
Bird: Second
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Madam Clerk.
Roll Call: Rountree, yea; Bird, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move we approve Item 8-G, RZ 15-007, subject to staff and applicant
comments.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 8-G. Any comments from
Council? Okay. Madam Clerk.
Roll Call: Rountree, yea; Bird, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 33 of 57
H. Public Hearing: AZ 14-016 Nesting Swan Ranch by Blossom 1,
LLC Located 4617 and 4620 S. Martinel Lane Request:
Annexation and Zoning of 27.75 Acres of Land with an R-8
Zoning District
I. Public Hearing: PP 14-018 Nesting Swan Ranch by Blossom 1,
LLC Located 4617 and 4620 S. Martinel Lane Request:
Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Thirty -One (31) Building
Lots and Seven (7) Common / Other Lots on 10.37 Acres of Land
in a Proposed R-8 Zoning District
De Weerd: Item No. 8-H and I are public hearings on AZ 14-016 and PP 14-018. 1 will
open these two public hearings with staff comments.
Watters: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. The next applications
before you are a request for annexation and zoning and a preliminary plat. The
annexation area for this site consists of 27.75 acres of land. It's currently zoned RUT in
Ada County and is located at 4617 and 4620 South Martinel Lane and 3570 East Amity
Road. This project was heard by the Council on March 17th. The applicant had
submitted a revised conceptual development prior to that hearing based on the
Commission's recommendation of denial, based on their determination that it was leapfrog
development and not an orderly expansion of the city limits and services, the location of a
stub street to the north and the impact on area schools. The revisions to the plan included
the removal of private streets on the northern portion of the annexation area and the stub
street was relocated farther to the west. Council determined these changes to be
significant and remanded the project back to the Commission for their review and
recommendation. The Commission heard this project on May 21st and recommended
approval of the revised plan to the City Council. The staff report has been undated to
reflect the revised plan and changes. I will just go ahead and go through the applicant's
request again, since it's been a couple months. The applicant is requesting annexation
and zoning of 27.75 acres of land with an R-8 zoning district consistent with the medium
density residential future land use map designation. The map on the screen there on the
left is the boundaries of the annexation area. A preliminary plat is proposed on the 10.37
acre portion of the property at the southwest corner of the annexation area, consisting of
31 single family residential building lots, which include the lot for the existing home, and
seven common lots. The gross density for the subdivision is 2.99 dwelling units per acre,
with an average lot size of 6,926 square feet. The map on your right there depicts the
boundaries of the preliminary plat. The property at the southeast corner of the annexation
area is an assisted living facility that's currently receiving city services and is not included
in the plat. The property at the northeast corner of the annexation is not included in the
plat either and will remain a rural residential property. A conceptual development plan is
proposed showing how the property -- there is an aerial view, but this is a concept plan
showing how the property is proposed to develop in the future, along with the Luke parcel
here at the southwest corner and the parcel where the existing home is located here
within the platted area. Redevelopment of these areas will require a new preliminary plat.
Access is proposed via South Martinel Avenue from East Amity Road. Private streets are
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 34 of 57
proposed internally for access to the new residential homes with a gated entrance off
Martinel Avenue. Martine] Avenue is the street here that runs clear up to the north
boundary. Private streets are proposed internally for access to the new residential homes
with a gated entrance off Martine[ Avenue. Martine] Avenue stubs to the north property
boundary for future extension. Public street frontage is provided to the assisted living
facility at the southeast corner of the site, which is right here and is also required to be
provided to the parcel to the west owned by the Taylors, which is right here. With
redevelopment of the northern portion of the site. A cross -access easement is required to
be provided to the Luke outparcel at the southwest corner of the site for access to the
private streets. Again, the Luke parcel is right here. This is the proposed preliminary plat.
The applicant has submitted photos of typical sample elevations as shown here for future
homes in this development, as well as the future homes to the north. Two story elevations
were submitted as shown after the Commission meeting. The applicant had every
intention of constructing a mix of single and two story homes, but their elevations they
submitted originally were only of single story homes. So, they submitted these as a
supplement to the application. The Commission recommended approval of the requested
annexation and zoning and preliminary plat applications. Tamara Thompson testified in
favor at the hearing. Frank Shoemaker, Bradford Deadman, Dan Luke and Roger Taylor
testified in opposition and no written testimony was received on the application. The key
Commission discussion was the differences between the original concept plan and the
revised one. There have been no changes to the staff recommendation and no written
testimony since the Commission hearing. Staff will stand for any questions Council may
have.
De Weerd: Any questions from Council?
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: Sonya, would you indicate where the gates on the roads are going to be,
please.
Watters: Yes.
Zaremba: I missed that.
Watters: Madam Mayor, Councilman Zaremba, Councilmen, it's going to be
approximately right in here. This is the only private street and that is within the platted
area at the southwest corner of the site. These will all be public at the north. So, again,
right about -- approximately right in here.
Zaremba: Thank you. The drawing before that I think answered my question. My
recollection is that we have a requirement that if there is a gate that traffic that's not going
to make it through the gate must have an escape without backing onto the main street and
it appears that there is a u -turn available before where you're indicating the gate is.
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 35 of 57
Watters: Yes. Right here. Uh-huh.
Zaremba: Yeah. So, I'm satisfied.
Watters: Okay.
Zaremba: Thank you.
De Weerd: Sonya, I believe at the Council discussion the -- the southwest corner was
also noted to -- to have discussion at P&Z. Was that discussed? For creating an
outparcel there.
Watters: Yes. Madam Mayor, the applicant provided a conceptual redevelopment plan
for that property here and they are providing a cross -access easement for future
redevelopment for that property to come through here and access the private street.
De Weerd: Okay. And is that in the DA to allow that access?
Watters: Yes, it is.
De Weerd: Okay. Okay. Anything further from Council?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Is the applicant here? Good evening. If you will, please, state your name and
address for the record.
Thompson: Good evening. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. My name is Tamara
Thompson. I'm with The Land Group at 462 East Shore Drive in Eagle. As requested, we
went back to Planning and Zoning with our new concept plans. They had not seen that
previously and I'm pleased to announce that we obtained Planning and Zoning
Commission approval -- or recommendation for approval to come back before you. In the
process we did -- of coordinating the access to the north with the subdivision to the north.
We -- we did lose the private streets on the north side, but the preliminary plat that's
before you tonight still does have the private streets as a part of that proposal. We have
read the staff report and agree with its conditions and findings, with a few modifications.
1.1.1 H has to do with -- hope it will work tonight -- that ten foot wide common area shown
on the concept plan. So, I do want to just reiterate this is a concept plan on the north side.
This will be phase two. That's not part of the preliminary plat that's before you tonight.
The property line is the middle of a ditch in that location and Mr. Taylor that's to the west
of us uses that for irrigation, so he needs access to that. So, in order to provide that
access and a consistent maintenance, we are proposing that that be a common lot. Let's
see. Number 1.1.2F and 1.1.3G. These related and they deal with a 15 foot wide
common lot on the south side of Lot 29 for future connectivity to pedestrian connectivity to
Eagle Road and we would like to provide an alternate for that, that in lieu of that we will
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 36 of 57
provide access to Eagle Road north of Lot 24 in that approximate location and I believe
we discussed that one last time also. And, lastly, general condition 1.2.4 deals with
irrigation and tiling irrigation ditches and I just want to confirm that we will tile anything that
we can, but there is active farming for some of the adjacent neighbors, so the ones that
affects them we will be leaving open. And with that we will respectfully request your
approval tonight and I will stand for questions.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Do you propose some kind of a bulb or a turnaround or is that indicated on this
drawing as the end of the access street coming off of Amity? Is that included in that
shaded area or is it just going to have a barricade at the end of that road and if you get up
there you can't turn around?
Thompson: Yeah. Madam Mayor, Councilman Rountree, we will be providing a cul-de-
sac at the top temporarily until phase two is constructed.
Rountree: Okay.
De Weerd: Okay. Anything further from Council at this point?
Bird: I have got none.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. I did have several people sign up. When I call your name
if you would like to provide testimony at that time I would invite you forward. Frank
Shoemaker signed up against. Good evening. If you will, please, state your name and
address for the record.
Shoemaker: Good evening. My name is Frank Shoemaker. My address is 3497 East
Zaldia Lane in Meridian. My property is on the north boundary of this project. I would like
to ask for an additional three minutes if possible for my neighbor Mr. De Angeli who lives
at 3405 Zaldia Lane. He also abuts the north boundary of this property. I'm opposed to
Nesting Swan -- is this on? Can you hear? Okay. I'm opposed to Nesting Swan
Subdivision density as presented this evening. The lot sizes have not changed. The feet
have not changed since our first meeting with Planning and Zoning several months ago.
Even when the March 17th meeting with City Council concluded, Commissioner Bird's
comments and concerns that this area north of Amity Road and east of Eagle Road be
kept at a density not greater than R-4. The developer did relocate the stub road in phase
two at the request of Randy Clarno, who had purchased options on both Shoemaker and
De Angeli properties. Mr. Clarno will be before the City Council on June 23rd requesting
approval of the Shelburne Subdivision. His density is R-4. The key elements to
remember this evening are transitional area, conformity, and not leapfrog developments,
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 37 of 57
similar lot size and architectural style. Two projects in the immediate area were also
zoned R-8, Kingsbridge and Napoli. City Council concluded this density was too high for
the area and was not a good transition. The Kingsbridge project is north of the
Shoemaker and Di Angeli properties and the final plat is R-2. Those lots along Zaldia
Lane are 15,000 square feet and an architectural style limited to one level dwellings on
four of the six building lots backing up Zaldia Lane. The building lots in Napoli Subdivision
west of the Di Angeli and Shoemaker properties was approved as R-4. Lot sizes on the
east side of Tindaris Street vary from 12,153 square feet to 12,642 square feet. The lots
as proposed for the Shelburne project on the Shoemaker and De Angeli properties, which
are adjacent to and note of phase two of the Nesting Swan Subdivision, which will be
before you -- City Council June 23rd vary from 33,433 square feet, which included an
existing barn on the Shoemaker property, 12,979 square feet, 11,000 square feet,
10,6243 square feet. Frontages vary from 76 to 88 feet, with a depth of 135 feet. If the
Nesting Swan Subdivision is approved as presented tonight several lots will be less than
6,300 square feet, with an average lot size of approximately 6,600 square feet. This will
set a precedence for phasing those lots adjacent to Shoemaker and De Angeli properties.
Currently have a frontage of 60 feet and 110 feet depth. Average lot size 6,600 square
feet. These lots in Nesting Swan phase one and two need to be at least 10,600 square
feet. The size of the lots dictate the architectural style. Small lots typically two story
homes. Very little architecture style. Larger lots we are going to have some one story
houses and a little bit a diversity. Two story houses are pretty much going to be a box
design. What they showed here appear to be on larger lots than what they propose.
Now, Sonya, do you have those pictures? This right here -- let's see. Let me start here.
This is Zaldia Lane. This is what we have in our neighborhood right now. A lot of buffer
zone, a lot of green area. That's the Kingsbridge Subdivision. Along here we have the
Napoli Subdivision. You have seen that. Again, a good diversity, transition area to the --
to the subdivision and the surrounding area. This is what we are going to see -- this is
what exists in the Meridian area on small lots. We have two story houses, varying
architectural diversity and so this does not conform to this one or this. The Nesting Swan
Subdivision is too high in density. It does not conform to the area and at a higher density
than the existing Kingsbridge and Napoli Subdivisions and the proposed Shelburne
Subdivision, which will go before City Council June 23rd. As proposed the neighborhood
conforming will be adversely and it will set a precedence for the second phase. I think you
can look at these pictures and ought to be obvious that there is a difference in architecture
and style that's going to be existing on the subdivision as proposed. Smaller lots. Two
story houses. The City Council in approving the Kingsbridge Subdivision and the Napoli
Subdivision stated the R-8 density was not a good fit for the area. Councilman Bird
reinforced those concerns when he suggested that the area north of Amity and east of
South Eagle be kept R-4. And one of the most high density projects in our area. I thank
you for hearing my comments. Any questions?
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Shoemaker. Council, any questions?
Rountree: No.
Bird: I have none.
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 38 of 57
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Roger Taylor signed up against. Good evening. If you
will, please, state your name and address for the record.
Taylor: Roger Taylor. 4607 South Eagle Road, Meridian.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Taylor: Okay. When we moved into this subdivision and built our dream home we had a
great view and we had privacy and that's soon going to be all gone. To ease the pain you
can continue with a six foot privacy fence, which is already along the north side of the
property now along -- along here, which would help give us some privacy and to help the
view a little bit if we could have this area here and here --
De Weerd: Sir -- can someone go and show him how to use that?
Rountree: He's got it.
De Weerd: Oh, is it? I'm sorry, my eyes aren't working.
Taylor: If we could have them --
De Weerd: I'm over here.
Taylor: -- as single story homes that would at least give us a view of the hills. Now, for
this ditch that we are worried about here, they are going to call that common area. Are
they going to have access to that? Here. Are they going to have access to that common
area?
De Weerd: We will ask the applicant when they get back up
Taylor: Because I have got a ditch right there with running water. Okay. The ditch that
runs from here over to here can all be tiled and buried, which would make the project look
better, be a neater job, and it would help control all the weeds. I can't believe that there
was no changes -- or very little changes from the last plan that was submitted that the
Mayor and Council had already rejected. Not one lot changed in size or the number of
lots changed. As Mayor and Council, you have the power to change it to an R-4 all the
way to Amity. This would be consistent with the subdivisions and border -- that border this
development. I hope for the neighborhood that it's changed to an R-4. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Taylor. Any questions from Council?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: I have none.
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 39 of 57
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, sir. Marie Morgan signed up against. Good evening. If
you will, please, state your name and address for the record.
Morgan: Good evening. My name is Marie Morgan and my address is 4620 South
Martinel Lane in Meridian.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Morgan: My husband and I own the property that is to be phase two of the Nesting Swan
Subdivision. I would like to see larger lots on our property, as well as the nicer homes that
that would bring. We talked to our developer and asked him if he would do larger lots on
phase -- at least phrase two and he said he wasn't sure he could do that, but if the City
Council approved that and would go along with that, that he would make larger lots there
for us. At previous meetings I have heard neighbors, planning board members, and City
Councilmen speak in favor of gradual lot progression from the nearby Kingsbridge
Subdivision through the bordering Shelburne Subdivision, which is to our north, which is
proposing R-4 zoning on towards Nesting Swan. We support phase one as it's proposed
and we don't wish to slow their progress down, but in order to insure their interests are
considered, I would like to address the size of our lots today. I propose that the zoning in
phase one presented tonight, if it is approved, have it approved on a condition of a
development agreement limiting phase two lots to at least 8,000 square feet or larger. I
believe that will win most of the support of the neighbors, provide for a smooth transitional
flow and allow our developer to follow through with what he has said he would do for us.
Thank you for your consideration.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions from Council?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Ma'am, why are you worrying just about phase two size lots? You know, that -- you
don't have much of a buffer through there, so I personally think that the whole
development should have the R-4 lots --
Morgan: I agree.
Bird: -- as I have stated before. So, why are you just worrying about phase two?
Because it's your property?
Morgan: I agree with that. I think that the whole thing should be R-4, but I didn't feel that I
could speak for the person that owns phase one. I wasn't sure I could speak for her, so I
just wanted to speak for our own property. But I would like to see the whole thing as R-4.
Bird: Thank you.
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 40 of 57
Morgan: Thank you.
De Weerd: Nothing further. Thank you. Dan Luke signed up against.
Luke: Dan Luke. 3290 East Amity, Meridian. I live on the southeast corner of the
roundabout. I got 12 things I want to say that I got down and, then, the 13th is for Keith.
De Weerd: You're lucky 13, Keith.
Luke: I got to wear these. I wanted to write it down so I don't forget. All right. Does
everybody know where I live? Right on the roundabout. Okay. Number one. Before they
had this project we had -- we had -- me and my neighbor put our properties together to
sell them together. Number two. I had a verbal and handshake out on Eagle Road when
this was all discussed. Number three. I was notified on the first two meetings of this -- of
their project. Number four. A guy named Sandy Sanderson come up to my door and
offered me 70,000 dollars for my acre and a half and I tear everything down. Number five.
I pay taxes on my property of 160,000 dollars. Number six. I was left out. Number
seven. I want my property to be developed also. Number eight. Eagle is the only road
between Meridian and Boise to get on the freeway. There is going to be five lanes on
Eagle and five lanes on Amity. Number nine. They are using my land as a barrier for the
roundabout. Number ten. My land is the lowest in the area. The road is over three foot
high in front of my house. A fence wouldn't even work for privacy. Number 11. 1
apologize for the hours you have spent on their project. Number 13. You said on the last
meeting that you wanted the housing to go all the way to the roundabout. That was on the
-- that was on the map. I want to change your mind. I want to show you something and
have everybody look at it and see what you think. Since these people don't let on their
life, I want to show you what's next on my life. I went to ACHD --
De Weerd: Dan, can I just interrupt you for a moment and ask, Jo, will you give him your
three minutes? Okay.
Luke: So, you're saying -- yeah, she wanted to me.
De Weerd: I wanted to verify it with her.
Luke: Thank you. Now, I talked to right away the supervisor and I talked to Christy Little,
program administrator. Now, I told them the whole deal what's going on on this project,
about what these people are doing to me and I couldn't believe the thing that they said to
me. I was just astonished. They are telling me that on Eagle Road, right -- right here on
the -- right here on this corner -- do you see that corner right there on my property? They
are going to give me 24 feet of right of way right there. A right -in and a right -out. And
Christy also told me since -- what I'm -- propose to do or want to do is she said I could
also put an access out onto Eagle Road, a right -out, but there is one little problem -- there
is not a problem. She said I can get through there, but she would see -- she would rather
see this piece of property go past that island a little bit. So, what that means is I need to
take -- or we need to take some of their land, so we can -- so I got an access out onto
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 41 of 57
Eagle. Now, I want to -- I want to give this to you guys. Did you want to read this? So,
what this is saying is I got a hold of Rick McGraw, which is Coldwell Bankers, and he went
out of town this weekend, he wasn't able to come, so got me a guy that he works with
called Jarem Langston and if you guys could read this, it's showing you what -- how good
this piece of property can be worth. It can be valuable. It can be a lot of things in the City
of Meridian. It's just showing you how good this -- this piece of property can be. They
highly recommend -- it's a very valuable piece of commercial property. That's what Rick
McGraw is telling me. You know, I gave him -- I would have probably give that guy a
hundred bucks just to come in here to tell you guys what life is about on this piece of
property, but --
Rountree: If you could sum up now. Your time is up.
Luke: What's that?
Rountree: If you could sum up now.
Luke: Okay. So, what I'm trying to say is, you know, these people have -- they are giving
me access out on my own property? I can't believe people -- they are trying to do what
they want to do. They are trying to make -- you know, I will tell you what happens --
what's going to happen if we can't get this piece of property commercialized. This is what
will happen. Jack show -- Jack has got something that will show you what -- what will
happen if I don't end up -- this is my grandson. You know, I live in the county right now.
It's not the --
Rountree: If you could, please, summarize. Your time is up.
Luke: I want to add something --
Rountree: No. No. He's had his three and he's working on your three.
Luke: The picture right there is going to tell you what it's going to be like if we don't take
care of my property. They are not -- they don't want nothing to do with it. All we need is a
little access out there onto Eagle Road and we will have a prime piece of commercial
property. I'm just telling you I have been left out and we need to change the map to make
this right. You got Idaho Power on one side, you got a pond on the other, and the other
side over here has not been finished yet. I'm just saying this piece of property is going to
be worth a lot in the future and I think you guys -- the City of Meridian would rather have it
commercialized than being a pig farm than commercial. Thanks. I don't know what else I
can say.
Bird: Mr. President?
Rountree: Mr. Bird.
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 42 of 57
Bird: Danny. This application has nothing to do with your property. So, what we -- what
we work on on this property is -- this application is just this property. If you want it to be
commercial or something you need to put an application in for that and -- but right now
what we are ruling on is this application that is before us. We cannot enact anything on
your property, we can't put any conditions on it, we can't do anything with it. So, you need
to -- if you want it to be zoned commercial, you need to bring it through, get with the staff,
find out if it can be done and go that route.
Luke: It's going to be too late -- if you say yes -- because if you say yes on their project,
then, they ain't going to give me access out onto Eagle and my piece of property ain't
going to be worth nothing.
Bird: Well --
Luke: That's all I'm saying. They left me out. I'm just telling you what should be done
together and -- didn't I say anything about leap frogging yet? I'm sorry, you got to read
this. I got to tell you. I forgot to read it.
Rountree: You are past your three minutes.
Luke: Yeah. That was number 12.
De Weerd: Mr. Luke, I think you're out of time.
Luke: Can I just read this?
De Weerd: If you would like to give it to the clerk she can make a copy of it.
Luke: Definition for leapfrogging. That's all I ask.
De Weerd: I think our City Council knows what leapfrog is. Jack Martin. Well, thank you
for being here. Oh. Okay. Those are the names that signed up. Is there anyone else
who would like to provide testimony on this item? Okay. Would the applicant like to wrap
this up?
Thompson: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Tamara Thompson again. I will
attempt to address comments that were made by the neighbors. As far as the density, our
overall density is 2.99 and if you take out the large lot we are under four at 3.79 1 believe
is what it is. So, as far as the density is concerned, we -- we are under the R-4. The R-8
is consistent with the medium density residential and we are asking for that zone due to
the dimensional standards on that and which deal with the lot size and the setbacks. So,
we would like to stay with the dimensional standards of the R-8, but we are fine if there is
a condition stating that the density has to stay below R-4. That would be an acceptable
condition if that's what you would like to see. Let's see. As far as transition to the north,
there is a 30 foot wide easement in that area right now. There is going to be high school.
The school district has already purchased the property to the immediate east of the site,
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 43 of 57
so the smaller lots and the density that we are requesting is appropriate for this area due
to the proximity to the corner and having a high school right next door. As far as the -- I
wanted to go back to that landscape. The easement to the north is 30 feet to the property
to the north. So, in lieu of -- in lieu of the properties touching, the properties on the north,
there is a 30 foot landscape buffer in that area that would provide the transition and one of
the conditions of approval here is that a pathway be provided in there for school children
to be able to get to the school without going onto the public streets and we will provide
that access. Let's see. As far as -- our original application included five foot perimeter
fencing. The conditions that staff has -- has put that up to six feet of solid fence on the
perimeter and we are acceptable -- we are agreeable to that condition. Let's see. As far
as being consistent and everything being the same out here as far as the density, as far
as the lot sizes, I recently was at a presentation by the BCA, the Building Contractors
Association, and one of the items that they brought up is home prices and how to retain
home prices and their studies have found that one of the things that affects home prices
more than anything is having too much of the same product in the same area. So, what
we are proposing provides variety, provides a lot of different choices for home buyers and
that will -- from what the BCA's findings have been, will support higher home values and
retain those home values for the existing homes. So, we will have a gated community in
one area and smaller lots in another and that will transition, then, into larger lots. This
provides the variety of options and, again, we are under the -- the R-4. As far as Mrs.
Morgan, my client is not in town and that -- as far as the -- if he would approve larger lots,
that was not anything that was verbalized to me, so I can't really comment on that, if that
was a conversation that -- that they had or not. And, then, Mr. Luke brings up several
items and the property is currently comp planned medium density residential. It's not
commercial. I -- we are not changing his access. We are providing him access to a
private gated community should he like it. We are not saying that he has to do that. What
he currently has for access will retain -- he will retain that. We are not changing that for --
for as long as that use is as it is today and he has gone to ACHD and talked to them about
what access would be allowed if it were commercial. So, we are not changing any of that.
We are providing access should he like to be included in the gated community, but that's
not a requirement. So, I think I have addressed everything. Please correct me if I'm
wrong, but in conclusion we do comply with the Comprehensive Plan and we agree with
staff's findings with the few conditions that I named earlier and we would respectfully
request your approval tonight. Thank you.
De Weerd: Tamara, I think you didn't note the tiled ditch or the ditch --
Rountree: The common area.
Thompson: I'm sorry, Madam Mayor, I'm not sure what --
De Weerd: Well, you mentioned that you would establish a common area and I think
that's phase two and the gentleman suggested that it go along side the road and where
the other red line is.
Thompson: Madam Mayor, I believe -- oh, I see. Okay.
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 44 of 57
De Weerd: Oh, there you go.
Thompson: So, I believe what Mr. Taylor was stating is that here, here could be tiled.
That that did not need to be left open and we are agreeable to that. We will tile everything
we can, but I wanted to clarify with that condition that we would be leaving some of the
ditches open because of the act of farming. My understanding is that this area would
need to be left open and Mr. Taylor's question I believe was would there be access to that,
yes, there is. There is an easement on both sides of that ditch and, again, the property
line is the middle of the ditch and we have pulled the individual lots property lines out to
the edge of the easement for that ditch to retain, so that Mr. Taylor could have access to
both sides and so that the homeowners association could, then, access that to maintain
the subdivision side of the ditch. I hope that answers that question.
De Weerd: It does.
Rountree: Madam Mayor. On that particular subject would the easement on the back of
the lots adjacent to that common lot be fenced?
Thompson: Madam Mayor, Councilman Rountree, the fence would be at the back of the
lots -- individual lots.
Rountree: Which is at the edge of the easement?
Thompson: On the east side, yes. Yes. Yes.
Rountree: Madam Mayor. You mentioned the pathway on the north side. Is it the
intention to build that pathway as well?
Thompson: The -- our condition of approval is to -- is to provide that pathway. That would
be provided with phase two.
Rountree: And there was some discussion about the elevation of the superior lots and
that circular drive in phase two to single level. Comment on that. I didn't hear your
response to that.
Thompson: Councilman Rountree, the developer would not like to be limited on -- it will
be the individual property owners if they want a single story or a -- or two story, but we
would like to not limit the -- a section of lots to just single story.
Rountree: Madam Mayor, final question. We have heard testimony from Mrs. Morgan
about being a property owner for phase two and wishing to have an R-4, yet this proposes
an R-8, and I'm curious what's going on here. Is there a -- are they still owners and they
have a developer that's going to buy based on the condition of the outcome of this or they
have sold it or what's -- what's going on here?
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 45 of 57
Thompson: Madam Mayor, Councilman Rountree, my understanding is that there is an
option to purchase and based on the outcome of the annexation and the zoning and the
conditions of approval. I don't believe they have closed yet. But, again, I -- that was news
to me as far as the larger lots. This is what my client has asked me to present.
Rountree: Okay. Thank you.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Tamara, on the phase two, I understand it's concept, but your density level, are you
including the existing property and home in that density level?
Thompson: Madam Mayor, Councilman Rountree, yes, the -- so, the density for the
southern plat -- that's the plat that we have now, that density is 2.99 and that includes the
home. But if you remove the larger lots -- let me see if Sonya has it in the staff report
here. I believe it's 3.79, but let me find it for sure. Yes. Sorry. So, if you remove that --
the larger lot for the existing home -- because it is larger than the others, then, the overall
density is 3.79 without that large lot.
Bird: Yeah. That -- that's what I was figuring.
Thompson: Yeah. So, if you take out all of that --
Bird: You know, if you want to stand or the deal, let's just -- I think it would be smart for
your neighbors and everybody around there if we just zoned that R-4 on both of them. I
know you --
De Weerd: The setbacks are different for an R-8 versus an R-4
Bird: I know. I know
De Weerd: I have a question. You know, I understand the gated community concept, but
the Luke property still concerns me, that that piece is carved out of a -- I envision gated
communities as kind of upper scale, it's -- there is a perception of safety and it is for a
certain set that wants the security that they believe is provided by a gate. To have a piece
of property cut out like that just doesn't make sense.
Thompson: Madam Mayor, my understanding is that the developer did talk to Mr. Luke
and try to include that piece. They could not agree on a purchase price. But that doesn't
preclude Mr. Luke from redeveloping his property and having it included in -- at no cost to
the -- a private community and last time we were here we did talk at length about the
benefits of a gated, private community and the vision of what the developer has for that
and it is up scale, it is secure, and it lends itself to a different buyer. Typically those
buyers are older without children, but it's not going to be -- you know, that's not going to
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 46 of 57
be the requirement. I don't know how to answer that about Mr. Luke's property. This --
this is the property that is under option and they couldn't come to an agreement and it
wasn't trying to leave him out. I wasn't included in those conversations, but he can be
included in this if he would like to be and he can do it himself without the cost of -- of the
roadways and of each of those homeowners having to provide the annual payments in
order to live there.
Milam: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Milam.
Milam: I have a question. I'm still a little bit confused regarding the access to Mr. Luke's
property. You mentioned that it would stay the same as long as the zoning doesn't
change and I would like more -- I'd like to understand that detail a little bit clearer.
Thompson: Madam Mayor, Councilman Milam.
Milam: Milam.
Thompson: Milam. Sorry. As far as his access, as long as -- and I didn't say the zoning
change, I said the -- and maybe I did, but I meant to say commercial. But as long as the
property stays as is, no applications are submitted, nothing would change there. It will
stay as is. Nobody is going to change his access as far as require him to use this private
street. His -- his access would stay as is. If and when a development application is
submitted, at that time it may be conditioned that he would have to take access separately
and we are providing for him to take that access -- that cross -access in order to do that.
But it's not a requirement as part of this development that that happen. Did I clarify that?
You still look a little confused.
Milam: Yeah. Madam Mayor. So, I guess to clarify, if he's not -- if his property is not part
this development, I agree with him that a commercial use would be more appropriate. At
least in terms of location and the traffic and being cut out like that. So, if he were to do
that -- so, you're saying that he -- there may be requirements by ACHD or somebody that
may require a different access, but you're not doing something disallowing access to that
property.
Thompson: That's correct.
Milam: Okay. Thank you.
Thompson: Yeah. Anything that we are doing is not affecting his access. A future
development application could potentially change that and I don't know what that is, but at
that time, you know, should he need access to the private street that that cross -access is
being granted.
Milam: Okay. Thank you.
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 47 of 57
De Weerd: I can't believe that that access would be granted if the use is not compatible. I
doubt if your gated community folks would like a retail cut through.
Thompson: Yeah. And, Madam Mayor, the Comprehensive Plan for that is medium
density residential, so --
De Weerd: Okay. I just wanted you to clarify that.
Thompson: Yeah. I do. We are aware of that. There would be a whole process that
would have to happen for that commercial to take place. It sounds like Mr. Luke has had
that conversation with ACHD and that they are talking to him about direct access, which I
would like to just state that they did not allow us any direct access onto Eagle Road. We
did ask for it and it was not something that they would allow.
De Weerd: Didn't you say you were accessing on the north part of phase one?
Thompson: That is for pedestrian only.
De Weerd: Oh. Okay.
Thompson: And what you see there hashed in is -- that is for emergency access, so it
would have a barricade there for vehicles, but it's pedestrian only.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions from Council? Thank you.
Rountree: Justin.
De Weerd: Justin, I think Council wanted to hear from you. And, of course, the applicant
always has the last word, so we kind of did this out of order. Sorry about that.
Lucas: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I'm here for questions, obviously. There
was a lot of discussion about the Luke property and access. All I can say is that
discussions like that with ACHD staff, they are often hypothetical what if discussions and
they are not specifically pertaining to development application, obviously. It is a unique
situation, but I don't want to elaborate more than that, because I don't think it would be
appropriate at this time.
De Weerd: It would be speculative
Lucas: Correct.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 48 of 57
Bird: Does that property -- that property don't have access to Eagle Road now, does it?
Lucas: Which property?
Bird: The Luke property.
Lucas: I'd have to verify that with Mr. Luke himself. I do not believe he has a driveway cut
to Eagle Road.
Bird: Just Amity.
De Weerd: Yeah. Just Amity.
Lucas: It's just to Amity. Yeah.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions from Council? Okay. Thank you. And any final
comment from applicant? Okay. Thank you.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: And I brought it up at the March meeting and I failed to follow up with you on it
was whether or not in a scenario that an outparcel like this, if it's been -- there has been a
successful or unsuccessful result on other areas of the city where a project like this has
been left out, remained in the county, and become successful or problematic? And
should have -- I should have -- I know it was briefly referenced, but --
Watters: Madam Mayor, Councilman Borton, I can't think of any off the top of my head.
We typically like to include parcels like this, rather than leave them out if it's possible, but,
again, that's not something the city can control.
Borton: Right. Okay.
Watters: We just try to look out for the best we can as to allow them an option for
development, so that they -- they don't get land locked or there is no access or things like
that.
De Weerd: I think there probably is an example at Linder and Ustick where the Ada
County Paramedics went in when that subdivision -- I think it's Turtle Creek or --
Rountree: Yeah. Turtle Creek.
De Weerd: When that came in it left an outparcel. Of course, it has other constraints with
the drainage ditch there, but -- ACHD did grant them access and took care of the
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 49 of 57
extraordinary conditions and if I tried I probably could think of some more. Any other
questions from Council? Hearing none, what is your pleasure?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I will close the -- I'm going to ask that we close the public hearings on AZ 14-016
and PP 14-018.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on Item 8-H and I
All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we approve AZ 14-016, but instead of an R-8 zone it will be an
R-4 zone and to include public, applicant, and staff comments.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Madam Clerk, will you call
roll.
Roll Call: Rountree, yea; Bird, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener, nay.
De Weerd: Motion passes.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE NAY.
De Weerd: Item 8-I. It's kind of difficult to approve a preliminary plat when you just left on
the setback.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I will make a motion. If I'm wrong Bill can straighten me out. I move we deny PP
14-018.
Rountree: Second.
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 50 of 57
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to deny Item 8-I. Any discussion? Madam
Clerk.
Roll Call: Rountree, yea; Bird, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES.
Item 9: Department Reports
A. Continued from June 9, 2015: Legal and Fire Departments:
Memorandum of Understanding and Agreement between the City
of Meridian and the Meridian Rural Fire Protection District
De Weerd: Okay. Item 9-A is under Department Reports. Continued item from Legal and
the Fire Department on an MOU.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I contacted the fire district attorney
actually last Tuesday night based on the Council's request for some additional changes to
the contract or the MOU. He was in trial all of last week. I was at AIC. We exchanged a
couple of e-mails. I spoke with him today and the district had a meeting last night to
discuss the Council's request and what he is requesting and what the district I think was in
agreement with is to bring forward next week an MOU that would only address the fiscal
year 16-17 -- or, excuse me, fiscal year'16. The desire of the district -- and if the Council
is in agreement -- we need to workout a few other issues that are in this MOU, besides the
information that's provided, as well as what the Council had recommended last week.
There is some other issues about property and ownership and a variety of other issues.
Mr. Fitzgerald's request and the district's request is see if we can iron out all of it, so that
we aren't coming back with piecemeal addendums or amendments to that. So, if you
would be willing to move this over for one week we will bring back the changes for fiscal
year '16 only and, then, we will work on over the next few months with the district's
attorney hopefully an MOU that we can all agree to and move forward at a later date on
that.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions at this point? I would ask for a motion to
continue this item.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 51 of 57
Borton: Move that we continue Item 9-A, Legal and Fire Department MOU with Meridian
Rural Fire Protection District until June 23rd.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to continue Item 9-A until next week. All those
in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
B. Public Works: Roadway Lighting Policy
De Weerd: Item 9-13 is under our Public Works, roadway lighting policy
Petersen: Good evening.
De Weerd: Good evening. Nice to have you, Austin.
Petersen: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Good evening, Madam Mayor and Members of the
Council. Thank you. For taking the time to hear me today. Earlier this year I gave a
presentation to the transportation commission regarding street lighting policy and gave
them a brief overview of the benefits of street lighting, as well as national standards. The
commission recommended that a letter -- after reviewing these the commission
recommended that a letter be drafted and brought before City Council. The resulting letter
I believe was in your meeting packet. Now, a little road map -- and I'd like to give a little
road map for where I'm going with this presentation. First I'd like to talk about some of the
benefits of street lighting and give you guys some of the background I gave the
transportation commission, then, I'd like to give some background on the street lighting
policy and, then, move onto the reasons for writing the letter. So, the benefits of street
lighting. In a word safety. Adding continuous lighting to a roadway segment or to an unlit
intersection has been shown to improve safety for all roadway users. According to the
highway safety manual, a crash modification factor of providing continuous street lighting
to a roadway segment is 0.27 for injury crashes and .083 for noninjury crashes. That
correlates to a 28 percent reduction in injury and a 17 percent reduction in noninjury
crashes for nighttime accidents.
De Weerd: Austin, can you bring that a little closer to your mouth?
Petersen: Oh, sure.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Petersen: These numbers indicate that not only are there fewer nighttime accidents, but
that many of the accidents are also less severe. This is because drivers have more time
to react due to increased sight distance and less veiling luminance. Veiling luminance is
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 52 of 57
best described by the effects that you notice when you have -- when you're on a dark road
and you have a vehicle approaching you with their headlights and it's hard to see past that
vehicle's headlights until they get past you. Adding continue street lighting helps to
mitigate that problem. Street lighting often makes obstacles, pedestrians and cyclists
more noticeable. It encourages and facilitates multi -modal transportation and people --
people are much more likely to walk or bike or use transit during the night if streets are
well lit. Street lighting has also been shown to reduce crime. Now, the question often
comes up is it really needed or how much traffic is there really at night. In answer to that
I'd like to point out that the number of crash fatalities during the night are similar to that of
the day. However, there are only about 25 percent as many vehicle miles traveled during
the day as there are at night. So, if you look at the number of fatalities per vehicle mile
traveled the nighttime rate is three times that of the daytime, as illustrated in this figure
from the Federal Highway Administration's lighting handbook. Now let's look at the impact
of street lighting -- that street lighting has on nighttime conditions. This chart shows the
number of fatal crashes that occurred during darkness at each hour for the 2009 fatality
analysis. The blue bars show -- show streets without lighting and the reds are streets with
continuous lighting. As you can see the reduction is significant and is as high as 50
percent during some hours. The question also comes up as to where is lighting most
important and the answer is that it's important on both local urban streets and larger urban
arterials, it just plays a little different role in each. On arterial roadways street lighting
primarily benefits the motorists. According to the Green Book a well designed adequate
lighting system is more important to the optimum operation of an urban arterial than any
other street. Why is this? This is largely due to the higher speeds and traffic volumes
experienced on arterials and the limited sight distance provided by low beam headlights.
The average low beam -- beams provide only about 300 feet of illumination in front of the
vehicle. Stopping sight distance at 40 miles per hour is 305 feet on a dry roadway and
stopping sight distance is just the amount of time that it takes for you to see an object and
realize that you need to stop, take your foot off the gas, hit the brakes and come to as
quickly a stop as you can. So, greater -- in order to make a smooth transition or stop it
requires a greater sight distance. So, the great sight distance provided by lighting
minimizes undue fraking and swerving and helps to optimize traffic flow in addition to
reducing crashes. On local and collector streets lighting promotes and facilitates multi-
modal transportation. It also increases both perceived and the actual security of
pedestrians and it also increases the driver's peripheral vision, which helps reduce vehicle
and pedestrian conflicts and here we have -- just to give you an idea of what continuous
lighting looks like versus a road that's not lit, this first picture on the left is Linder Road just
north of Cherry Lane before lighting was installed and the picture on the right is Linder
Road south of Cherry Lane near the high school where lighting -- continuous was installed
per AASHTO recommendation. As you can see there is quite a difference. These were
taken with the same camera on the same day.
De Weerd: And were the -- the car lights on that car or --
Petersen: Yeah. I did -- when I took it I did forget to turn off my headlights there, but if
you look further down the road you can just get a -- an idea of how great your sight
distance is.
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 53 of 57
De Weerd: You drive down Ten Mile you already see that.
Petersen: So, now that I have gone over a few of the benefits of street lighting, I'd like to
go ahead and talk a little bit about streetlight policy. According to the state statute that
describes the responsibility of a county wide highway district within a city, one of the
responsibilities of the highway district is to procure and install highway lighting where it is
of primary -- where it is primary benefit to the motorists. The statute also mentions that
the energy cost and maintenance is the responsibility of the city. Change the slide.
ACHD's policy is to install streetlights at all four corners of a signalized intersection and to
install lights at nonsignalized intersections with reconstruction and widening projects and
normally when they do that it's only one light at each intersection. This policy does not
address any need for continuous or transition lighting. So, now I will talk a little bit about
what it actually says in the most recent edition of the Green Book. The Green Book -- the
2011 edition of the Green Book states that lighting on urban arterials should be
continuous. In the event that it is impractical to provide continuous lighting, consideration
should be given for intermittent lighting. And intermittent lighting is just installing light at
intersections and conflict points and it also mentions that where only intersections are
lighted a gradual lighting transition from dark to light should be provided, so that drivers
have time to adapt their vision. ACHD's policy for installing lights at intersections and with
roadway widening and improvement projects does not conform with this AASHTO policy.
The Green Book also mentions that looking at a roadway's functional class is not enough.
Pedestrian and vehicle volumes, night and day crash ratios, roadway geometry, emerging
lanes, and curves are all factors that need careful consideration when establishing
illumination levels and warrants on lighting. These items are also not addressed by
ACHD's currently policy. So, reasons for writing a letter to ACHD are enumerated on
page one of the letter from the transportation commission. The letter -- the main goal of
the letter is to spur change in ACHD's street lighting policy. ACHD staff has recognized
the value of continuous lighting and has coordinated with the city to obtain grant funding to
light Cherry Lane between Linder and Meridian Road. Grant funding like this is great for
existing deficiencies, but more -- but the most effective times to install lighting is in
conjunction with roadway improvement projects. There are over 70 road widening
projects and over 40 intersection improvement projects that are listed in ACHD's 2012
capital improvement plan that are within the City of Meridian's impact area. A large -- a
number of those will include curb, gutter, sidewalk and bring things to a full urban section.
ACHD has been more than happy to install continuous lighting with improvement projects
if the city pays for the additional cost. Now, according to state statute they are the ones
responsible for installing lighting where it's to the primary benefit of the motorist. In order
for ACHD to include the additional cost of continuous lighting in their capital improvement
budget or to use impact -- or to collect impact fees for that cost, there has to be a change
in their policy. Such a policy change will need to be approved by the ACHD commission.
After reviewing the information that I have presented, the transportation commission
recommended that City Council request that Ada County Highway District update ACHD
Policy Manual Section 5107 to include installation of continuous transitional lighting with
roadway and intersection improvement projects per AASHTO recommendations. So, also
a couple notes on that. I think that if we do write a letter it would be important to -- oh,
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 54 of 57
forgot to change the slide. Sorry about that. That it would be important to detail the
reasons detailed by the transportation commission for making such a change and, then,
also to perhaps have a time frame for ACHD to come and give a presentation back to the
Council with their decision to upgrade or update the policy or their reasons not to. And I
think that we should also encourage other cities in Ada County to send similar letters to
make this change. I will now stand for any questions that you have. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you, Austin. And amazing research went to that. We appreciated all
the examples and the statistics and it was a great presentation. Council, any questions?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Austin, do you know if -- if their -- the state statute or the ACHD's deal -- ordinance
allows impact fees to pay for lighting? Do you know if that -- if the impact fees are allowed
to pay for it?
Petersen: So, after talking with Gary Inselman at ACRD, my understanding of their impact
fee policy is that they can only assess impact fees for what is in the capital improvement
plan and right now intersection -- four lights at an intersection and approximately one light
at unlit intersections is within their policy. So, when they do a roadway widening
improvement project, they do collect impact fees for those lights, but any additional
lighting for it to have continuous lighting or transition lighting at a main intersection, would
not be eligible for impact fees.
Bird: Follow up?
De Weerd: Because of policy?
Petersen: Correct.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Bird.
Bird: Austin, then, in other words, they -- as you have stated, we need to make sure they
change their policy that includes the rest of the lighting that we need within the block, mile,
or whatever it is be right in there so that impact fees can pick it up, which the state statute
says they should; right?
Petersen: Correct.
Bird: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: Any other questions?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 55 of 57
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Austin, do you know if ACHD has adopted by policy the AASHTO guidelines?
Petersen: Yes. In their policy manual it does specifically state documents that are their
standards and the AASHTO Green Book is the primary one.
Rountree: So, they are not following policy.
Petersen: Correct. And part of this, I believe, is also that their policy has not been
updated for a long time. I do not -- the previous editions of the Green Book -- the latest
one is 2011 and that's what I referenced here -- did not have as strong of language about
whether you needed to have continuous lighting on urban arterials or not, but I think that's
where -- when they originally wrote the policy they didn't include that.
De Weerd: Interesting.
Petersen: But a lot of research has come out in the past about ten years showing that
continuous lighting does have a major impact on reducing nighttime crashes.
Bird: Safety. Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Just a statement. Common sense tells me that if you're going to put sidewalks in
you should put some lighting along the sidewalks for safety for pedestrians, if nothing
else.
De Weerd: Well -- and ACHD is concerned about vehicle safety.
Bird: But they put in sidewalks for people to use; right? Don't they put sidewalks in?
De Weerd: I assume that's why a sidewalk goes in, but --
Bird: I know.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other comments and direction for Austin --
Rountree: Direction or question is do we send a letter.
De Weerd: Yes.
Rountree: And --
Zaremba: I think it's a good idea.
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 56 of 57
Rountree: Well, not even send a letter.
Bird: Send the letter.
Rountree: I don't know that it necessarily needs to be just by the Council. Probably ought
to reflect the Mayor's opinion as well. So, I would suggest we all sign it.
Bird: Write it up.
Petersen: So, what will be the process for drafting this letter? Should I write a letter and
bring it to you and, then, you will review it or --
Rountree: If you want a letter out that's probably the best way.
De Weerd: So, the process -- if you will draft the letter we can put it on the Council
agenda next week and get Council approval on the letter and I would also recommend
cc'ing all the -- the cities and the mayors and we will get it sent out.
Petersen: All right.
De Weerd: Okay?
Petersen: Sounds good. Thank you.
Item 10 Future Meeting Topics
De Weerd: Thank you, Austin. Council, under Item 10, any topics for future meetings?
Bird: I have none.
Item 11: Executive Session Per Idaho State Code 67-2345 (1)(b)(d): (b) To
Consider the Evaluation, Dismissal or Disciplining of, or to Hear
Complaints or Charges Brought Against, a Public Officer, Employee,
Staff Member or Individual Agent, or Public School Student; AND (d) To
Consider Records that are Exempt from Disclosure as Provided in
Chapter 3, Title 9, Idaho Code
De Weerd: Okay. Item 11 is Executive Session.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we go into Executive Session as per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1) (b) and
(1)(d).
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 57 of 57
Milam: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second. Madam Clerk, will you, please, call roll.
Roll Call: Rountree, yea; Bird, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
EXECUTIVE SESSION: (8:55 p.m. to 11:35 p.m.)
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:35 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
/% /is
DATE APPROVED