HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-12-15Meridian City Council December 15, 2015
A meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:04 p.m., Tuesday,
December 15, 2015, by Mayor Tammy Rountree.
Members Present: Charlie Rountree, Keith Bird, David Zaremba, Joe Borton, Genesis
Milam and Luke Cavener.
Others Present: Bill Nary, Jaycee Holman, Caleb Hood, Sonya Watters, Josh Beach, Kyle
Radek, Mike de St. Germain, Perry Palmer, Jake Garro 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 X Lucas Cavener
X Mayor Tammy de Weerd
De Weerd: Thank you. Sorry we are starting a few minutes late, but thank you for joining
us. For the record it is Tuesday, December 15th. It's four 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 Darrell Taylor from Ten Mile Christian
Church
De Weerd: Item No. 3 -- is Dusty here? Darrell? No.
Item 4: Adoption of the Agenda
De Weerd: Well, we will skip Item No. 3 and go to Item No. 4, adoption of the agenda.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: On Item 5-I, the resolution number is 15-1105. On 5-J the resolution number is
15-1106. On Item 7-E the resolution number is 15-1107 and that item has been
requested to continue to December 22nd, 2015. On Item 7-J, the applicant has requested
Meridian City Council
December 15, 2015
Page 2 of 70
that item to be continued to January 5th. And on Item 9-A the proposed -- or the
ordinance number is 15-1666 and on 9-B the ordinance number is 15-1667. With those
additions, Madam Mayor, I move we approve the agenda.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve the agenda as amended. All those
in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried or as noted.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 5: Consent Agenda
A. Approve Minutes of December 1, 2015 City Council PreCouncil
Meeting
B. Approve Minutes of December 1, 2015 City Council Meeting
C. Approval of 2016 Dog Licensing Agreements (9) with
Intermountain Pet Hospital, Idaho Humane Society, Linder Pet
Medical, Meridian Vet Clinic, Settler's Park Vet Hospital,
Sunnyside Animal Hospital, The Pet Doctor, and Treasure Valley
Vet Hospital
D. Approval of Task Order 10135.b to MURRAY SMITH &
ASSOCIATES for the "SEWER LINE REPLACEMENT AT
GREGORY LIFT STATION - DESIGN" project for a Not -To -Exceed
amount of $115,367.00.
E. Memorandum of Agreement For Meridian Development
Corporation's Contribution To Meridian Youth Farmer's Market
F. Purchase Order approval for purchase of Z34/22 IC Articulating Z
Boom Lift from ONE SOURCE EQUIPMENT and Authorization for
the Purchasing Manager to Sign the Purchase Order for the Not -
To -Exceed amount of $58,500.91
G. Amended Development Agreement Baltic Place Addition - MDA
(H-2015-0006) Located at 1151 E. Kalispell Street, in the NE 1/4 of
Section 18, T.3N., RAE.
H. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law : PP 15-018 Sundial Circle
Subdivision by Conger Management Group Located 2250 W.
Whitelaw Drive Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of
Eleven (11) Single Family Residential Lots and One (1) Common
Lot on Approximately 2.54 Acres in the R-4 Zoning District
Meridian City Council
December 15, 2015
Page 3 of 70
I. Resolution No. 15-1105: Resolution of the Parks and Recreation
Commission - 2016 Pathway Priority Task List
J. Resolution No. 15-1106: Resolution Adopting the Parks and
Recreation Master Plan
De Weerd: Consent Agenda.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we approve the Consent Agenda, authorize the Clerk to Sign and
the -- or the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda. 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 the Consent Agenda
De Weerd: Item 6, there were no items moved from the Consent Agenda.
Item 7: Action Items
De Weerd: I will ask as we move into Item 7 under Action Items, is anyone here for the
public hearing for Eagle Commons at Overland? Okay. Are you -- you're not the
applicant. So, it has been requested by the applicant to continue this to January 5th. If
you are not able to come to that public hearing, if Council agrees to continue that, we will
accept your testimony tonight. Otherwise, I would invite you to stay here until we get to
Item J and see what Council decides to do or tell us that you will be back here on January
5th. Okay. Thank you.
A. Request for Reconsideration by Gem State ER, LLC Located at
6168 N. Elk Ranch Lane for Bull Ranch (AZ -15-013): Annexation
and Zoning of 10.06 Acres of Land with an R-8 Zoning
District, PP -15-017: Approval Consisting of Fifty (50) Building
Lots and Twelve (12) Common Lots on 10.06 Acres of Land in a
Proposed R-8 Zoning District
Meridian City Council
December 15, 2015
Page 4 of 70
De Weerd: Okay. Item 7-A. Council, in front of you you do have a letter of request for
reconsideration by Gem State ER, LLC. The letter details why they would like
reconsideration. Council, do you have any questions that are caused from this letter or
discussion on this request for reconsideration?
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I would clarify one point on a request for consideration.
De Weerd: Is your mike on? Is your mike on?
Zaremba: It is on, yes.
De Weerd: Okay.
Zaremba: I will lean closer. And Mr. Nary can correct me if I'm going off course here, but
for a request consideration, the only thing we consider tonight is whether we would like to
hear this at a public hearing. We are not discussing the issue or --
De Weerd: That's correct.
Zaremba: -- the merits of the issue, we are only deciding should this be rescheduled for a
public hearing and I guess my question to Mr. Nary is since the decisions were made at a
public hearing, would it be re -noticed for a new public hearing if we decide to reconsider?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Yes. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, excuse me, Council Member
Zaremba. Yes, the rest of the ordinance requires if the Council makes that direction they
will have to pay to have it renoticed. It will be set at a future date, not tonight, but based
on the schedule and a new notice will be done.
De Weerd: Okay. So, any further questions, comments, direction from Council?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: My comment is I don't -- I don't believe that there has been any new relevant
information provided. The information provided was information either provided or
discussed in the previous hearing and I don't think any new information has been provided
that wasn't provided previously. So, with that comment, Madam Mayor, I would move that
we deny the request for reconsideration for the reasons I just stated.
Meridian City Council
December 15, 2015
Page 5 of 70
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to deny the request for reconsideration on Item
7-A. Any discussion from Council? 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.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
B. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order for Denial: AZ
15-013, PP 15-017 Bull Ranch Subdivision by Gem State ER, LLC
Located at 6168 N. Elk Ranch Lane, in the NW 1/4 of Section 30,
Township 4 North, Range 1 East (Parcel # R1002730200).
Request: Annexation of 10.06 Acres of Land With an R-8 Zoning
District and Preliminary Plat Consisting of 48 Single -Family
Residential Building Lots and 9 Common Lost on 10.06 Acres of
Land.
De Weerd: Item 7-B is the Findings of Facts -- yes, Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we approve the Findings of Facts and Conclusion of Law for AZ
15 -013 --
Bird: Second.
Rountree: --and 15-017.
:3R'0 1110" - •. TOO I
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 7-B. Any discussion from
Council? 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.
C. PY 2014 CDBG Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation
Report (CAPER)
De Weerd: Item 7-C is program year 2014, Community Development Block Grant
Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation Report. Thank you, Sean, for joining us.
Meridian City Council
December 15, 2015
Page 6 of 70
Kelly: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, thanks for the
opportunity to present to you this evening. Yes, it's the Consolidated Annual Performance
Evaluation Report. It's a bit like a report card. It's not a report card. What it really is,
though, is a self reflection in some ways for us to look back over the last year and ask
ourselves did we do what we said we were going to do and, then, how well did we do that
and, then, use that going forward to the next action plan cycle to make sure that we are
actually taking care of those things. So, I'd like to start off with this graphic here. You
have seen this in various formats and, hopefully, you have had a chance to look over the
Council memo that was provided two weeks ago. This map is our low to moderate
income area and what's interesting about this map and what I like about this map is that it
has the concentrations of low to moderate income individuals within each block as a
visual, so that you can see that and we will be using this going forward as we go through
our planning phase for the action plan as well. It also shows you where the projects that
were either built into the annual action plan for 2014 or amended earlier this year into that
action plan. So, what did we do? To start with we have the Boys and Girls Club gym
that's finally been built and it's almost finished and that's actually a really great thing, not
just because it's a seven or eight year old planned project that we really want to be
finished with, but it's a great facility for that agency to actually utilize and I think parks has
actually -- and the city is actually taking advantage of it as well. So, that's a good
completion. The February 1 date is probably going to move somewhere, but it's going to
be right around that date. We also began construction of the Idaho Avenue sidewalks.
We actually completed that. It happened just after the close of the fiscal year, which is my
program year as well, so it says it's incomplete, but it has been completed now. As you
know, last November we did complete the picnic shelter and the ADA restroom at
Centennial. For our public service projects -- one thing to talk about with CATCH, they
had some issues this year with us. It was the first year we got to work with them. They
did not expend very much of what we allocated them and we worked with them throughout
the year. They had a few things that kind of got in their way, not the least of which was an
unplanned maternity leave and you might think now that's something that you can plan,
but if you're sitting on an adoption list and someone calls you tomorrow -- and so our
Meridian case manager was fortunate enough to be on that adoption list and get to be
able to -- it was in two months. So, they didn't plan for that. We didn't plan for that. It's a
great thing for them. Unfortunately, they just weren't able to work as well within that
program with only one staff member. Having said that, with what they did draw down,
seven homeless -- or previously homeless families were worked with within their program,
six of which attained a level of self sufficiency through CATCH's program. There is some
other things that happened there, too. We have our own restrictions that we place on the
organizations that we work with and most of them are to be as conservative as possible,
so we make sure we meet the letter of the law with HUD, but some of those things also
get in the way and I think going forward this next year we are going to have some
conversations about how to loosen some of those restrictions within the law to make sure
that they can help more individuals and if you look you will see the amount of money that
they actually spent down, which was probably ten percent of what we gave them. Think
about what they could have done with the rest of that had they had the staff and we had
the looser restrictions that would allow them to do that. The Meridian Food Bank, as
Meridian City Council
December 15, 2015
Page 7 of 70
always, capitalizes on their uncanny ability to make use of donated dollars. The network -
- the network that they have and the people that they have that they are associated with,
everything from Rosauer's to Albertsons, they are just able to make a lot of use out of
those dollars. Fifty-five thousand households -- or 55,000 individuals served. The Boys
and Girls Club still had some money left in their 2013 scholarship program and we allowed
them to use some of that, so that's 16 low income individuals that were actually able to --
families that were able to utilize that. For the financials, you can see here that CATCH still
had a significant amount of their portion that didn't draw down. The asterisks -- that
should be pretty clear. Those are dollars we will be able to, going forward in the next year
when we consolidate or we do our next annual action plan, those are dollars that we will
be able to use for future projects. We did have the community center fagade, which
causes a lot of this this last year and the three projects below that on this list that have not
drawn down yet. I want to make clear -- of course, it looks like nothing's happened on
those projects, but I'd like to talk about those projects a little bit. Storey Park, that
upgrade, we ran into a small -- small issue going through the environmental assessment
that we have overcome now. The women's side of that bathroom cuts right through the
flood plain -- the current flood plain and it's --
De Weerd: It has nothing to do with the women's room, though.
Kelly: Madam Mayor, it does not. However, it's about, I don't know, 60 square feet and
it's -- so, that caused some hoops to be jumped through and so we have done that and,
hopefully, we will be moving forward with that project with Parks, excuse me, very soon.
The homeowner down payment assistance project with the Housing Authority, we gave
them some money for last year that they haven't been able to use yet. That's not to say
they haven't tried. I have done three environmental assessments on homes for a family
that's desperately trying to get into one and close. Unfortunately, they are -- the
inspection versus what the seller would correct never made it past muster, so this final
house they are looking to close on the 29th. So, on the 29th they should have a very
good Christmas present -- maybe a little late, but for that family. And, then, our slum and
blight assessment that is planned for this spring. That's my planning project for this
spring. It's not the only dollars that we expended was last year's dollars, some of them
were from 2013. Here is where you can see the picnic shelter and the restroom facility
that we talked about in November, as well as the sidewalk -- the Idaho Avenue sidewalk
project. That dollar remaining is about half of that now, so we still have some funds left
over from that project, even though it's complete. So, that's more -- that's more dollars to
roll forward into the next annual action plan -- annual action plan cycle. Madam Mayor,
Members of Council, as of right now the city's Finance Department is reviewing the
CAPER. They are trying to make sure the financials are good. The CAPER itself is
mostly what I have given you and the executive summary, but there is all sorts of reports
that HUD wants to make sure are done through our IDIS system, so that's what we are
currently working on now. There is a few changes that we are going to be making, but
they are not any part of substance, they are just making sure that it's correct. Public
comment period was open on November 30th, so we will close that today. I have not
received any comments as of today, so any testimony given to me today we would record
and, then, we would have that, too, to send forward to HUD. Madam Mayor, requested
Meridian City Council
December 15, 2015
Page 8 of 70
actions. Staff will stand for any questions Council may have at this time. Subsequent to
those questions you have already continued this -- the resolution until the 22nd, which is
just as well, but we just need to hold that public hearing. So, if there is any questions that
you may have.
De Weerd: Thank you, Sean. Council, any questions for Sean?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: I have none.
D. Public Hearing: PY 2014 CDBG Consolidated Annual
Performance Evaluation Report (CAPER)
De Weerd: Thank you, sir. Okay. Item 7-D is a public --
Rountree: Just a question. Open the public hearing?
De Weerd: Yes. I will the open public hearing on Item 7-D for program year 2014 for our
CDBG and ask if there is any members of the public who would like to provide testimony
on this item? Okay. Council, any further questions for staff?
Cavener: Madam Mayor, seeing no other questions -- do we keep that public hearing
open, then, for another --
De Weerd: No.
Cavener: We can close that? Then I move we close the public hearing on the CDBG
Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation Report for 2014.
. n11i1111+ - .. I I
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on Item 7-D. All
those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
E. Resolution Number 15-1107: PY 2014 CDBG Consolidated
Annual Performance Evaluation Report (CAPER)
De Weerd: Council, the resolution under 7-E has been requested to continue until next
week. Do I have a motion?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Meridian City Council
December 15, 2015
Page 9 of 70
Bird: I move we continue proposed Resolution 15-1107 to December 22nd, 2015.
Cavener: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to continue Item 7-E until next week. All those
in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
F. Public Hearing for Jackson Headquarters Vacation (H-2015-0028)
by B & A Engineers, Inc. Located at 3410 & 3500 W. Commercial
Court
1. Request: Vacate a Portion (10x135.5 feet) of the 10 -Foot
Wide Public Utility and Drainage Easement Located on the
East Boundary of Lot 3, Block 2 and the West Boundary of Lot
4, Block 2 that is Platted with the Commerce Park Subdivision
De Weerd: Item 7-F is a public hearing for H-2015-0028. I will open this public hearing
with staff comments.
Beach: Thank you, Mayor and Council Members. This is a vacation for Jackson
headquarters. The project site is 3410 and 3500 West Commercial Court. The applicant
is requesting to vacate a portion of a ten foot by 135 and a half foot section of an existing
ten foot wide public utility and drainage easement located on the east boundary of Lot 3,
Block 2, and the west boundary of Lot 4, Block 2. This is platted with the Commerce Park
Subdivision. The remaining public utility and drainage easement will remain along the
shared property line. So, they are not requesting to vacate the entire section, just a
portion. Approval of the subject vacation application will remove a portion of that
easement and allow the applicant to submit for a building permit to construct an addition
to their existing industrial slash office building and they have applied for their building
permit, but they are waiting for this vacation to take place, so that they can move forward
with that and all public utilities, which include Idaho Power, Cable One, Intermountain
Gas, with the exception of CenturyLink, who did not respond to the applicant's request,
have given consent to relinquish the portion of said easement. The Nampa -Meridian
Irrigation District has stated that they have no jurisdiction over the easement area. Staff
did ask the applicant to provide a letter from CenturyLink prior to tonight's hearing and to
this point staff has not received such a letter. So, staff is recommending that we continue
this public hearing to such time as the applicant can provide a letter from CenturyLink
stating that they have no interest in the easement. Staff will stand for any questions.
De Weerd: I guess my only question would be could Council grant the vacation and that a
building permit would be held until that letter was received? Mr. Nary?
Meridian City Council
December 15, 2015
Page 10 of 70
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I don't think we have a method in our
ordinance to grant conditional approval. So, you -- although it seems logical, we don't
have that in our ordinance to allow for a conditional approval and, then, rely on the staff to,
then, get that document. They are supposed to submit that document with the application
or at least by this point.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Nary. Any questions for staff at this time? Is the applicant
here this evening? Well, hi, Joe.
Canning: Hi, how are you?
De Weerd: It's been awhile.
Canning: It's been awhile.
De Weerd: Welcome. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record.
Canning: I can do that. My name is Joe Canning and I'm with B&A Engineers in Boise,
Idaho. Address is 5505 West Franklin Road.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Canning: And I'm here tonight with the applicant. Scott Stom is also in the audience. I
think Scott may want to address the Council also. I appreciate the Mayor's question, if
this could be a conditional approval. Our first request went into CenturyLink in August of
this year. We have been desperately trying to get a hold of those folks. I don't know if
anyone is aware, they are in huge turmoil right now. The offices here in Boise, at least the
administrative offices, have pretty much disappeared from an engineering standpoint. We
have been in contact previously with folks here in Boise. We have been in contact
recently with more staff in Nevada. Today we were sent to folks up in Washington. So,
we are desperately trying to get this letter from CenturyLink and they are, basically,
nonresponsive. A little bit of history on the easement itself. It was created by the platting
of the subdivision. It's a typical size lot easement that is done in almost every plat. It
shouldn't be done in every plat, but it was done in this one. Idaho Power is the only
company we are aware of that has any facility in that easement and that's why this is a
partial request for a vacation. We deal -- we still have to protect their existing facility that's
in part of the easement. The yard we are trying to relinquish and vacate is the part where
Jacksons wants to expand their headquarters and that's what's holding up this building
permit at this particular point in time. So, I think there is a couple of issues here we
wanted to talk about. Number one was the CenturyLink issue. We are more than happy
to get that letter if they ever get it to us. It's a real problem and we are trying to chase that
down and, then, additionally, I believe there is an appeal period that goes with an approval
of an easement vacation. If there would be any way to release that to shorten it,
something like that, would be most appreciated. Jacksons does own all the property on
each side of this easement. Of course, they have quite a facility there and they would
sure like to get going and I really think that's all I have to say. But we have been working
Meridian City Council
December 15, 2015
Page 11 of 70
on it since August. Everyone is in compliance, except for CenturyLink. That's the Issue
we have got. So, Scott, if you would like to come up.
De Weerd: I think, Joe, the whole reason I asked the question is we have all been hung
up by CenturyLink and so I -- I had assumed you would get up there and share the length
of time you have been trying to do this. So, appreciate that. Welcome, Scott. If you will,
please, state your name and address for the record.
Stom: Yeah. My name is Scott Stom. My address is 3450 East Commercial Court,
Meridian, Idaho. 83642. 1 work with Jacksons and I represent Jacksons and like Joe
said, we have been held up -- well, we have been working through this project -- or this
vacation issue since August. We are very anxious to move forward with our project to
expand our office building. Initially we wanted to expand and what we are trying to do is
connect the two buildings, part of Capital Distributing with our existing Jackson
headquarters to put everything together. We had to phase the project. Phase one was
actually midway through construction and we have to split out into phase two while we
worked through this vacation issue. So, it was our hope tonight that we could get this
approved and move forward without further delay and I would just hate to have the
CenturyLink delay us from accomplishing -- or trying to do what we are trying to
accomplish. I know John Jackson is excited to move forward with our project and I just --
it seems like this is a technicality that -- you know, if we can't get a hold of CenturyLink,
which we have been trying to do for the last, you know, four months, I guess we -- it's just
-- it's just really difficult to stomach. So, I just ask if there is any way possible that this
could be approved we would sure appreciate it. And, then, like Joe said, if we can't
approve this, we are looking -- I think it was in our -- in early discussions with the planning
department, it seemed like it was entertained that the appeal period could be waived,
because, really, what we are talking about here is an issue that's within the confines of our
own property. It's not like we are opposing adjacent property owners regarding this
easement or the use of this easement. There is no way for this easement to go further
north, because of the irrigation canal in the way, too. So, with that said I would just also
like to recommend the waiving of that appeal period as well. So, that's all I have to say.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Scott. Okay. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone
who would like to provide testimony on this item?
Brown: For the record Kent Brown. 3161 East Springwood, Meridian, Idaho.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Brown: I'm doing two of these and CenturyLink is my last one on both of them. They are
holding me up on those projects also. But I want to take the opportunity to also speak to
-- lots of times we are asked to put these easements, which is really interesting in the fact
that they never do have any facilities in them. They have an opportunity and the nine
years I was with the city of Boise I never had -- very few that would respond. CenturyLink
occasionally would go through a block, but, then, they don't fit within these size lot
easements and so they have to be bigger. So, you would make a special effort. When
Meridian City Council
December 15, 2015
Page 12 of 70
you have your single family home, for example, it's not an easement, they run the line to
your house. It's a service. And so these side lot line easements rarely, if ever, have
anything in them and I would like to see them go away. I tried to do that a few years ago
when I was working for another engineering firm and -- and the utility companies promised
that they would make a speedy turn around. Those things happen and change and those
people that made those promises are no longer there, especially with CenturyLink, and
just to make you understand that it -- it really does -- it takes a lot of lot effort. I'm doing
these vacations and I'd almost rather do a preliminary plat and go to a neighborhood
meeting and everything else, because you just can't get people to respond to you and I
even sent certified mail. Well, the certified mail was in Colorado and that doesn't do you
any good, because they don't respond. It goes to their corporate office and that's where
it's located and so -- thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any further testimony on this item? Council?
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: My first instinct would be to ask if their telephone service provider could be
changed to something like AT&T and, then, we get the easement released from them. Or
does CenturyLink have a monopoly in this area?
Milam: A monopoly in this area.
Zaremba: Okay. That wouldn't work.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: This is for Mr. Nary. Bill, with that easement, I mean they could -- we could approve
this and let them go ahead and do it, but they could come back in ten years and still got --
I mean we don't take away the easement unless they allow it; right?
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Bird, I mean that's the
problem. But there is an appeal process to do this and so I think that's really the
appropriate process they need to follow. Like I said, our ordinance requires that they were
supposed to submit this with the application. We do allow it to be done prior to final
approval, but we still need relinquishment or we need a process to create the
relinquishment, because the easement was created by the plat, which is a statutory
process. So, if you simply granted this tonight and they wanted to exercise that
easement, they would have a right to do that and that's a bigger mess than what we really
want to deal with. So, there is an appeal process to go through to get that relinquishment,
extinguish, when they won't respond and I think planning has actually discussed that with
the applicant and I think they said -- and I don't recall the time period. I was trying to find it
Meridian City Council
December 15, 2015
Page 13 of 70
while they were talking -- that they were talking waiving. If that's a process that we can
waive, then, we can certainly do that. But I don't think -- I think we still want to follow the
process to grant this, because we don't have a way to grant it conditionally.
De Weerd: Well, always have new things come up. Thanks a lot.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Joe.
Borton: Bill, will you say that again. It sounded as if the city grants a vacation of the
easement, the easement exists for the beneficial user or CenturyLink in this case, even if
it's vacated by the city, until CenturyLink actually consents to its relinquishment?
Nary: Council Member Borton, either they still have the right to exercise that -- use of that
easement, unless we have granted it through our process to extinguish it. Right now our
initial way of extinguishing it is getting consent. If they won't consent, there is a process
that they can follow to have us grant it without their consent and what I'm saying is I think
that's what they need to do, rather than have you simply grant approval without following
any of the processes in the code.
De Weerd: So, what is that process in the code? I'm not sure I'm clear on that.
Nary: Madam Mayor, that's what I was looking for. I don't know if Planning -- I don't know
if Bill knows how quickly that can be accomplished.
Parsons: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I'm into -- I don't remember discussing
any waive of appeal period with the applicant. The way our code is structured it follows
the state code and it says when these plats are created by -- or when these easements
are created by a plat it needs to be vacated by getting these letters. I'm not sure of the
appeal process either as far as this. Typically a vacation application does not produce
findings, it produces a resolution that Legal Department prepares and it gets back on the
agenda. That's where I was following that maybe the applicant thought they could save
two weeks and not have to wait for the resolution to get approved and we would sign off
on the building permit. So, I'm not sure what the appeal process is at this point either to
explain it to you.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: What's the decision that's being appealed? You used the word appeal process.
Appeal of what?
Parsons: Vacations are either typically yes or no. So, I think either approval or denial.
guess that's -- to me that would be the appeal if they don't like if you vote no on this,
Meridian City Council
December 15, 2015
Page 14 of 70
because they don't have the information to do that, then, they would have to go through
that process. I'm not that familiar with state statute to explain that to you other than --
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, if you wouldn't mind -- I know the applicant
doesn't want a delay. This is an issue that wasn't raised to us before right now, so I don't
know -- no one's asked us either and we haven't ever had this come up. Usually we have
always gotten these things. So, it is unusual to not get a response of any kind. If you give
us a week we will work with the applicant and get this resolved, whatever we need to do
with the code, to get this done, so we aren't violating any conditions of the plat and we
don't create a precedent we are going to just do this when there is a problem of this type.
We want to make sure we are clear about that. So, if you give us a week and put this
over to next week we will get this resolved.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Short of Joe just giving me the phone number and I will call them, too. Mr.
Zaremba.
Zaremba: If we go that direction, would it be possible for the city to send CenturyLink a
certified return receipt letter that states we are about to remove this easement and if we
hear no response it's over.
Nary: I don't know the answer to that. So, all I'm saying if you give us a week we will get
this resolved.
De Weerd: Because I think we would all like to say that. Would the applicant like to
respond to some of the discussion before we continue this, if that's -- do you have any
response?
Stom: So, again, this is Scott Stom. So, as I'm understanding it, we will take a week and
how do we determine in a week if that's, you know, time to resolve it is my question.
De Weerd: I guess the week allows our legal team to look into how you can do it without
permission if you can and what would the process be if they never respond. I guess it's
just to work with you on identifying what options we might have or if we have any at all
and what the next steps would be.
Stom: Correct. Yeah. If that's what we have to do -- I mean, obviously, a delay is not
going to be taken too well in the upper management. John Jackson. He was anticipating
to get this resolved tonight, so -- but, you know, if it takes a week I guess we need to work
through that. I guess -- yeah. A week would be --
De Weerd: I guess, Scott, what we are hearing is we don't know if we even have a legal,
viable option --
Stom: Right.
Meridian City Council
December 15, 2015
Page 15 of 70
De Weerd: -- to even give you that.
Stom: Yes.
De Weerd: So, that's -- that's what we are trying to identify.
Stom: I understand that. So, again, in a week if we can't contact CenturyLink or we are
having no luck getting a hold of them, I understand there is -- it sounds like there is still
maybe a process that can be worked out to where we could move forward anyway?
De Weerd: That's what we will work to identify.
Stom: And that's -- that sounds fair if that's what it takes, so --
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: At that point the week is not to give CenturyLink an additional week of time to
respond. If they do, great. But the week is for us to get the process lined out and ready to
take action next week to help you out and insure that it still complies with state code.
Stom: Okay. Yeah. Understood. So, again, if I can reiterate, you know, three of the four
utility companies didn't have an issue. You know, I think the primary one was Idaho
Power. We had a tough time getting a hold of them, but we finally got that resolved,
because we are, basically, vacating everything north of their transformer. So, it's just,
again, you know, three of the four didn't have a problem. So, I don't know if that could be
weighed in on this as well. So, just my input, but --
De Weerd: We wish that counted, because we have all been hung up by CenturyLink and
we all have felt your pain.
Stom: Understood. Okay.
De Weerd: So, sorry.
Stom: Well, thank you for working with us.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we continue the public hearing on H-2015-0028 to December 22, 2015.
Milam: Second.
Meridian City Council
December 15, 2015
Page 16 of 70
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to continue this item to next week. All those in
favor say aye. All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: If this process, once approved, has been done by resolution, can that be
available and prepared for the same day?
Nary: Yes.
G. Public Hearing for South Meridian Annexation (H-2015-0019) by
City of Meridian Located Along Amity Road, East of Linder Road,
West of Eagle Road and North of Columbia Road Approved
1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 1,322.14 Acres of Land
with R-4 (1,241.10 Acres), R-8 (10.37 Acres), R-15 (30.10
Acres) and C -G (40.57 Acres) Zoning Designations
De Weerd: Thank you. Item 7-G is a public hearing for South Meridian Annexation,
H-2015-0019. I will open this public hearing with staff comments.
Hood: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. I wish this project was as
exciting as a utility easement vacation, but it's not, unfortunately. It's just a small little
annexation of 1,300 plus acres. So, on the screen is a vicinity map. The City of Meridian,
with consent from all the subject property owners, has applied for annexation and zoning
of 1,322.14 acres of land, all zoned RUT right now in Ada County. There were 1,241 of
those acres proposed for the R-4 zoning district. 10.37 acres in the R-8. 30.1 acres in the
R-15. And 40.57 acres in the C -G zoning district. The project contains 42 different
parcels and 22 different property owners. The properties are generally located along
West Amity Road, east of South Linder Road, west of South Eagle Road and north of East
Columbia Road, but it does not include all of the properties within those arterial roadways.
There are some county properties that will remain in the county. But a good chunk of
those properties -- again, this one probably shows it better -- the ones that are the 45
degree angle highlight are the subject properties that are being annexed. But, again, it
doesn't include all of those properties between those roadways I just mentioned. The
properties are generally developed with rural residential properties. Some are being
framed. Several of the properties have commercial, industrial type uses also operating
from them. Most of the -- the property owners desire to annex, so their respective
properties can be developed to urban densities at some time in the future, but there is no
development proposed at this time with this application. It is just an annexation and
zoning application. There are seven different comp plan future land use map designations
Meridian City Council
December 15, 2015
Page 17 of 70
on the properties, but most of them are either low or medium density residential, so either
the yellow or the green. Green is the low and the yellow is medium density. There are
also properties that have the medium high density residential, a mixed use community,
mixed use regional, mixed use nonresidential, and civic designation and I will point that
one out. Right here. That's the future 77 acre park site. The subject annexation meets
the eligibility requirements for a Category A annexation classification as set forth in Idaho
Code Section 15-222. The subject annexation being processed in accord with -- with
state code. Over the past year city staff has had several meetings and worked closely
with the subject property owners to develop an annexation plan. Each property owner has
submitted a consent to annex form. These written consent to annex forms have been
recorded. In addition to the consent to annex form, a develop agreement was prepared
by our legal staff for each property owner that addresses current uses and future
development of the property. Each development agreement is customized for the owner
and parceled. Some provisions within the development agreement vest owners with land
uses and/or operations. They are typically allowed within the city limits. As I mentioned,
again, most of these properties are rural residential in nature. Some of the properties
have livestock, for instance, and we don't allow that within city limits. So, in these
situations the develop agreement allows that use or uses to continue until the properties
actually do develop or propose development within the city. The development agreement
that each property owner has already signed will be recorded if and when the City Council
approve the annexation application. So, with the Meridian Heights and Redtail and the
Simplot properties to the north of the subject property, extending sewer and getting down
to this area is a bit challenging. It's really kind of cost prohibitive for any one developer to
take sewer from near the intersection at Victory and run it down to get down into this area
here. So, this public -- public-private partnership solution gets services past that mile,
allowing the orderly development of the city. A large part of the annexation plan involved
an active role by our Public Works Department to insure extension of city utilities,
specifically sewer and water and Warren Stewart is here if there are any questions on
that. I do -- Tom was also very involved with those meetings that I mentioned previously,
too. The sewer, again, is, essentially, stuck up at Victory and Meridian and there are
development pressures down further to the south. There are a couple of different sewer
sheds in this area and those are somewhat highlighted in this exhibit. Sewer trunks
currently exist in Meridian Road and Linder Road near the Ridenbaugh Canal. Within
each development agreement there is a section entitled commitments and conditions by
the City of Meridian. This section outlines the advancement of sewer and water
infrastructure for the benefit of the subject properties. The section explains the city's role
in planning, designing, and construction of infrastructure over time. There are two phases
in which the infrastructure will be installed. The first phase anticipates completion of the
infrastructure in or about Meridian Road within two years of annexation. The second
phase envisions infrastructure in or about Linder Road and Victory Road within four years
of annexation. Additional extensions of these utilities is needed in the future. It's
envisioned that the additional extension of these utilities will be done by or with
developers in the future. The future development of these properties will have to adhere
to the characteristics of their underlying land uses and all City of Meridian ordinances in
effect at the time of development, including any necessary utility extensions. Again, no
development is proposed this evening with any of the subject properties. A more
Meridian City Council
December 15, 2015
Page 18 of 70
thorough review of each individual property as it develops and their utility plans will occur
once we receive a development application. The one caveat to that -- and this came up at
the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting -- is the 77 acre park site that I highlighted
on the comp plan map. So, let me summarize a little bit some of the testimony and I will
read the folks' names that were at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on
November 19th. And this how the folks signed up on the sign -in sheet in back of the
room. In favor Mary Taysom, Robin Willamen, Brian White, who was neutral. Carl and
Bonnie Riderman. Susan Bloomberg. Kurren Ramus. And Cynthia Davis. In opposition
was Ronald Galloway. Commenting was Kent Mills. Gary Hanson spoke in option. Jay
Christensen, Dave Taysom, Gordon Hamilton and Aaron Raap. No written testimony was
received before the Planning and Zoning Commission and I checked the clerk's laser
fische late this afternoon and I didn't see that anything had been submitted in between the
Planning and Zoning Commission and this meeting tonight. During the Commission
meeting a couple of things were discussed. The district boundaries -- and this is
something we have talked about before -- the varying lines of the boundaries between
school districts, fire districts, zip codes, just different things and how they aren't all nice
and smooth and don't all choose the same line for those things, but, again, the fire
districts, the difference between the Kuna School District and the West Ada School District
and how those lines maybe affected with annexation. Particularly schools was talked
about there at Planning and Zoning Commission. And, then, also, again, the future
development of a park site. Mr. Raap was at that meeting and had some concerns --
wanted to know when the appropriate time would be to comment on lighting, sounds --
he's an adjacent neighbor and wanted to know if that was the appropriate forum for those
types of concerns and comments and review that master plan. I did put in -- and I see
Mike Barton is here. I do know Mike contacted Mr. Rapp and spoke with him about that. I
don't know the extent of those discussions, but I did at least connect parks up with him
and I think that they are on the same page now, but I will let -- Mike, if you have anything
to add, maybe give him a minute. So, there isn't an official spokes person for this group,
Madam Mayor and City Council, but I know there are several of the property owners that
are in the audience this evening and I just appreciate working with them. It's been quite
the process, but they have all been real good to work with, real responsive. It's been quite
the effort on both sides or all sides, but I'm happy and proud to say that we made it to this
point and so with that I will stand for any questions, but maybe someone from -- some of
these property owners would like to address you as well.
De Weerd: Thank you, Caleb. Council, any questions for Caleb? I guess, Caleb, the
applicant is the city.
Hood: Correct.
De Weerd: So, you just gave the applicant's report. I will open this up for public
testimony. I only have one person on the sign-up sheet, Charles Wood signed up in favor.
Would you like to provide testimony? Okay. Well, we will go ahead and open it up for
others. Come on forward. Mr. Brown.
Meridian City Council
December 15, 2015
Page 19 of 70
Brown: Well, you will find my name on something then. I signed something down there,
so --
De Weerd: Well, you might have signed the wrong one.
Brown: Yeah.
De Weerd: But welcome. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record.
Brown: For the record my name is Kent Brown and my address is 3161 East Springwood,
Meridian, Idaho. I'm speaking in behalf of Charlie Wood and -- and I know that the people
are anxious and -- to be annexed and -- and it seems like when you attend the meeting --
at least when I do with my clients and we meet with staff, you hear certain things or my
client hears certain things and, then, I go back and interpret what was said, because
you're anxious and hopeful that that's what it is and I think the same thing is true with the
development agreement and just have a few questions. I would ask, you know, for some
clarification I guess on those. In section five of the development agreement -- and I didn't
realize that everybody's would maybe be different, but -- at least on the one that Charlie
provided to me. Section 5.1.3, it talks about any property or easements needed by the
City of Meridian to provide any sewer or water infrastructure needed in furtherance of this
agreement shall be provided by the owner to the city at no cost. When I read that I first
was drawn to the exhibit the Caleb had on the screen that it's a sewer that the city is
extending on the screen and Charlie is in the one that's supposed to be done down
Meridian Road and that those would be the easements and, then, I started looking at the
people that are involved and not all of those properties are in the request for annexation.
The American Paving pit there at Amity and -- at the corner -- the southeast corner of
Amity and Meridian Road and, then, the Simplot property that's the -- as I have always
known the old chicken coops, neither one of them are in this annexation and so I --yes, I
assume that the furtherance of this is for this entire area being annexed, that the owners
are to provide easements, so that this can happen and what draws me to that is in 6.1 --
this is directed towards the city commitments and conditions by the City of Meridian. It is
the intent of the parties in this agreement to provide for the advancement of sewer, water
infrastructure, utility infrastructure for the benefit of the subject properties and the City of
Meridian and adjacent and adjoining properties for the furtherance objective of the city to
provide the needed infrastructure of water and sewer. So, to me I guess I'm hopeful that
that's what that's saying, because we have extended sewer in the past in certain areas
and, then, just because it's on someone's property we can't go get it and it sounds like -- if
I'm interpreting this correctly -- Mr. Nary or Caleb -- that that's saying that the City of
Meridian can request an easement to get to the adjoining properties after the sewer gets
extended here and, then, I guess those that are adjoining land owners that are part of this
annexation agreement can work with the city to make that -- that happen. As I
understand, the people that are not involved when I read 6.2, there is a whole list of
reasons why the city might not be able to build this and this kind of makes the agreement
not happen or one of them is 6.21D, the inability to acquire all the needed targeted
properties necessary to allow the expenditure of this improvement. 6.2G, which is
acquiring that the easements -- I'm just kind of curious which easements have been
Meridian City Council
December 15, 2015
Page 20 of 70
acquired. We are moving forward here and are we advanced maybe a little too quickly if
we don't have -- for example, with the one that's supposed to be done in two years, do we
have the one from Simplot, do we have one from American Paving. I know if I was
bringing something forward those would be a question that you would have of me to -- you
know, how am I going to get there. So, those are the questions that kind of stuck out in
my mind as I looked at those and if someone could clarify those I would appreciate it.
De Weerd: Okay. Just for those of us who tried to follow you, can you ask your questions
-- like did you have three questions in there? I think three.
Brown: Yes.
De Weerd: Okay. Well, at least I was tracking that. Can you just ask those three specific
and, then, I know how to --
Brown: Am I correct in looking at this agreement that the -- the people that are
participating in this agreement have the ability to go get the city making the request of the
adjacent properties to get it for the -- some of the people that are involved in this
agreement.
De Weerd: So -- and maybe in layman's terms, did we have -- have we worked with those
along that line to get easements and at least have their verbal agreement that that is the
line and they want to work with us?
Brown: Yes. And as I understand in reverse, Mr. Wood, if he goes and gets the sewer
from -- from his neighbor and he brings sewer to his property, then, he also has to provide
an easement at the city's request to extend the sewer, you know, through that area.
De Weerd: So, beyond the main trunk that you're looking at, the ancillary, branches --
Brown: Because I understand the end goal, the end goal is to put sewer in all of this area
and the way to make that happen is to insure that there is the easements to make that
happen and the agreement is really clear in the fact that the developer -- landowner or
developers of the future need to do that, but the way that protects that is that there is
easements to go get that.
De Weerd: Okay. I'm just clarifying your question. Okay. So, we have two questions --
Brown: But that's me being hopeful.
De Weerd: Okay. What's your third question?
Brown: The third question was what easements do you have today that are in there.
De Weerd: Well, Warren, I hope you -- you can answer that.
Meridian City Council
December 15, 2015
Page 21 of 70
Stewart: I will do my best. Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. So -- and
Bill can correct me if I'm wrong. He's the expert on the actual agreement. But I
understand what our intent was when we wrote this. So, the intent with the language -- if
we go back to Section 5 that Kent brought up -- was to include language in there that said
this is really about the commitment the City of Meridian made, which is the two phases of
the sewer trunk line, what you're seeing on this map, the dark -- the dashed green line and
the dashed red line and the agreement, essentially, says if you're one of these people
that's annexing property as a part of this agreement and the sewer line goes across your
property, you agree to give the City of Meridian an easement at no cost in order to
facilitate the extension of this sewer trunk. It does not, however -- and it was not our
intent to indicate that once we get this -- this particular sewer line built and it's stubbed
across Meridian Road south of Amity there, a little over a quarter of a mile, to, then, be the
agent to go to other landowners and request easements on behalf of developers that may
want to develop other places. That's not what we intended. I don't believe that's what the
agreement says. It's specific to the piece. It's locked into the piece of infrastructure that
we are building here. That was the intent, that's it for this piece of infrastructure. As far as
the easements that exist, there is, essentially, two parcels that I think people are
interested in that are not part of the annexation that we will need to get easements across.
One of them is the Simplot property where they have the storage units and the old chicken
coops and we are actually in negotiations and discussions with the Simplot folks
presently. We have had conversations with them. We have another meeting, in fact, this
Friday where we will be talking to them about the actual route for the line and so forth.
So, we are hopeful for a positive conclusion to those negotiations. The agreement -- the
reason that you see the pieces in there in Section 6, essentially, there is items in there
that say, okay, if the city is unable to obtain those easements from these property owners,
there is a way to back out of this for the city and for the property owners, essentially the
out clause if worst case scenario comes and we cannot obtain the ability to get the sewer
line through there. The property, which is being referred to as the American Paving
property, is currently -- I don't know whether it's been purchased or whether there is a
purchase agreement, but we have at the city an application that's actually come in for a
development on that and we have been negotiating with them an easement corridor
through there as well and they have been working in good faith with us on putting an
easement through and across that property as well. Those are the only two pieces, other
than public right of way and parcels that are included in the annexation that we need to
get easements through. So, I think if we can successfully negotiate those, which we are
still doing and those are going forward well I think at this point, we will be able to get the
easements in place and we will be able to build the sewer. Once that sewer trunk is built
to there, though, there was no intention to then act as an agent for developers out there.
We essentially expect that to develop like things currently do in the city where one
developer will pick it up, take it to and through his property to the next one.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Anything further?
Brown: To accomplish the goal that you're trying to accomplish there needs to be an
ability to go get that sewer, so realistically the one that's being done the first two years
goes to two landowners and kind of dies on their property and depending how quickly or
Meridian City Council
December 15, 2015
Page 22 of 70
whatever -- and I know that that will put pressure on them for those properties to maybe
be developed quickly, but if there is the inability for -- for the development community,
there is a number of sewer lines in the city that we can't develop property, because
someone has a blockade that they are not intending to develop and where these people
are in the agreement to do this and move this forward, it -- it seems shortsighted that we
can't at least make that happen that there is easements or the likelihood for those and as
we work in some of the other communities those easements have been provided to the
development community and the city makes that happen.
De Weerd: Thank you, Kent. Any questions for Mr. Brown? Okay. Thank you.
Brown: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. This is the public testimony portion. Is there anyone who would like to
provide testimony? No one wants to provide testimony. Okay.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: Question for Mr. Nary that might tie somewhat into Kent's comments. If the --
Section 6.2 lists in each development agreement a number of conditions which could bar
the city from completing the design and construction of these improvements and one of
those items that could bar the city from being able to perform is that inability to acquire
those target properties. If that occurs and there is no ability to acquire those target
properties, the city would not be in default of the agreement. So, the condition or
consequence of potential de -annexation that is one of the remedies in the event of default,
but if there is not a default, what occurs if an annexation is completed, the target
easements aren't acquired, the city is not in default, so the remedy provisions of the
annexation don't apply, what knocks the completed annexation off center one way or the
other?
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Borton, I think that was
probably what Mr. Brown didn't raise in 6.2. 6.2 is all about the time that we have
committed to getting this project completed. Two years and four years. All of those
conditions are related to delay. So, all of those things are related to delaying the project
beyond the two years, beyond the four years. That doesn't cause the default because of
the delay. So, if there is a position at some point in time -- which, again, I -- this was all
discussed with all the property owners in the meetings I was present at. I mean we are
always hopeful that those things get resolved. They generally have been. So, those
types of issues that -- I don't know at what point in time we would be making a decision
and bringing to the Council and saying -- say the chicken coop property. They are never
going to sell this to us, they were going to do that. We have other remedies in the code
that we could address getting sewer infrastructure if we need to. So, I don't know when
that conversation ever occurs. But all of this -- all of those conditions -- 6.2 all the way
through N, are all about delay of the projects, not default of the projects. There are
Meridian City Council
December 15, 2015
Page 23 of 70
conditions of default and the remedy -- the sole remedy of the property owner is the
annexation. So, that -- that is a potential that exists out there at some point in time, but I
don't know when that's going to occur, because, again, as long as we are -- and we have
an application for a project that these will likely be part of that application requirement.
So, we have a property that's probably going to be taken care of that Mr. Brown has
already raised. The other one they -- they have much more in the interest of the Simplot
property to allow that through than to not allow that through. So, we do anticipate that that
will happen, but if it doesn't, again, we will have the discussion and see of other legal
remedies. But all of those things were meant to deal with the potential for delay, because
we are making a very aggressive commitment of the two and are four years to get it done.
We wanted to make sure that if there was a necessity for delay based on things that were
outside the city's control, that we weren't going to be held to a strict standard and, then,
suddenly that delay immediately becomes a default and we are de -annexing everybody in
two years. That's what we were trying to avoid. And Warren can correct me if I'm wrong,
but all the other conversations about the -- the extensions of the sewer, in the meetings I
was present in, I mean what was always explained to the property owners is the city isn't
agreeing to build a sewer line all by itself with all the city's funds all the way from Victory to
Amity or to -- yeah. To Amity. Yeah. So -- or Lake Hazel? Yeah. Amity. I'm sorry. That
part of this was the -- was extending it through -- I think as Caleb stated, areas that are
constrained and economically impractical for one or two, probably to four, to bring that
sewer to that point. What we anticipated and discussed with the property owners was that
the natural process of development would occur after that. The to and through policy that
we have, the ordinances that require that. Again, the people that were interested in
signing development agreements are all interested in developing their property. So, it
wasn't ones where people just said I'm going to -- I'm going to annex because I just want
to annex today, they didn't have a plan in place, but they certainly were interested in
annexing in the future and developing their -- annexing now and developing in the future
once sewer was available. So, I don't -- and, hopefully, that clears it up and if it muddied it
up worse, then, forget it, but -- and if Caleb or Warren need to correct my -- my belief of
what we discussed with the property owners, but -- but, clearly, on those two issues of the
easements, those conditions in 6.2 were meant to deal with delay and not for default.
Borton: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor. A question about the future. Economics change and the
desire of what somebody wants to build changes. Accepting these annexations without
any plats or plans or even conceptual plans, something that somebody is agreeing to
zone as R-4 today, if when they are actually ready to develop, be that six years from now
or seven years from now, they decided it really needs to be an L -O, how easily can they
change that or can they?
Nary: That might be --
Meridian City Council
December 15, 2015
Page 24 of 70
Hood: Your voice is --sounds a little hoarse, so let me tackle that one. I mentioned --
Madam Mayor, Councilman Zaremba -- multiple comp plan designations and we even
talked to some of the property owners about potentially changing their designation on the
future land use map to office or commercial or something like that. So, that is
contemplated in some of the agreements explicitly, in some of them it's just anyone within
our area of impact can go through that process and change and zone to office in your
example. There are a couple of them -- and I can't remember if it's universal or not, but
several of them do have -- the first one is R-4, as I mentioned in my presentation. Twelve
hundred of the thirteen hundred acres is R-4. Almost as a holding zone, if you will. It's to
get it annexed -- now, R-4 will probably work for -- I will just -- 50 percent let's say of the
property owners. But the other half will probably have to go through that rezone process.
You know, properties on Meridian Road, R-4 probably isn't the best land use for a lot of
those properties there. So, I envision a lot those properties rezoning. So, it is
contemplated, but it's case by case for everybody. Some of them where we have it as low
density residential on our map, and rezone -- we don't see the need for that, probably
didn't make a development agreement that you get a free request to rezone the property,
but a lot of them we did include that language in that you get the first request for a rezone
and the city will process that for you. The plat and all those other fees, that's on you. But
one rezone request, basically, per property, general rule of thumb I think that's probably
80 percent of these, something like that. Hope that answered the question.
Zaremba: Great. Thank you.
De Weerd: Any further questions?
Cavener: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Cavener.
Cavener: Maybe a question for Caleb. Caleb, I think it was last week -- maybe two
weeks ago that we had a fairly well attended public hearing where many of our residents
were frustrated and confused because they had moved into an area that was zoned one
way, felt that they weren't aware of a potential for a rezone in that area could be changed.
What -- what power or what steps can we take as a Council to make sure that future
residents who move out to that area are better educated or more aware of what the
potential for a lot of this large piece of land mass could potentially become?
Hood: Madam Mayor, Councilman Cavener, it's a good question, good point. Obviously,
that hearing predated -- or it came after a lot of this stuff that we kind of worked through
and I know we don't like to -- generally we do like to have our zoning designations match
our future land use map and that would be the one thing I would request for anybody
that's talking something. If you looked at the zoning map, that's good, that's today. Look
at the future land use map. That's tells you what -- with pretty little effort someone could
up zone the property to. So, this -- what we see on the map now is what I tend to send to
a lot of folks, to say it may be zoned R-4 now, but what does it show on our future land
use map? What's the ultimate vision for the property. Same case with that one. If you
Meridian City Council
December 15, 2015
Page 25 of 70
look at the comp plan map, it doesn't show single family homes. So, that's the one
request. It's not -- you can't just go to a zoning map and it's R-4, it's always going to be R-
4. You really need to go to -- and even this isn't set in stone. You can change it. So, it's
something where, you know, you need to regularly check it, do your due diligence, but this
is the one document I would recommend folks go to to look at and say what's the potential
look like to rezone that property.
Cavener: Thanks.
De Weerd: Further questions from Council? Again, before I ask if Council would like to
close the public hearing, is there any further testimony? Okay.
Milam: Madam Mayor?
I.4TH.�2 6Ma=►VAnFr11
Milam: I move that we close the public hearing H-2015-0019.
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All those in favor
say aye. Did I get all ayes? Okay. Thank you, Mr. Zaremba.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Okay. Discussion?
Milam: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Milam.
Zaremba: I actually got it in on time with everybody else, so that's probably why you didn't
hear me.
De Weerd: Mrs. Milam.
Milam: I move that we approve the annexation and zoning of 1,322.14 acres of land with
R-4 --I guess I don't need to read all of that, do I? H-2015-0019.
Rountree: Second.
Milam: With all staff and applicant comments.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second. Any discussion from Council? Madam
Clerk, will you call roll.
Meridian City Council
December 15, 2015
Page 26 of 70
Roll Call: Rountree, yea; Bird, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: I will say to those that are in the room that are related to this annexation,
thank you for your diligence and working together and working with staff. We appreciate
that. And we expect that you will hold our feet to the fire, so -- and I will tell -- I will thank
our staff. Warren, Caleb, Robert, Tom, Bill, thank you. There was countless hours in
work with the neighbors and listening to their concerns, addressing their concerns.
Tonight was a testament of that -- that hard work and you have established a foundation
of trust and now we need to continue that relationship and thank you again for your due
diligence.
H. Continued from December 1, 2015: Shelburne Subdivision No. 1
(H-2015-0004) by Shelburne Properties, LLC Located 1/4 Mile East of
S. Eagle Road and North of E. Amity Road Approved w/ Conditions
1. Request: Final Plat Approval Consisting of Forty -Eight (48)
Building Lots and Twelve (12) Common Lots on 19.42 Acres of
Land in the R-4 Zoning District
De Weerd: Okay. Item 7-H is continued from December 1st. It's on H-2015-0004. I will
ask for staff comments on this final plat.
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 19.42 acres of land. It's zoned R-4
and is located east of South Eagle Road off of East Zaldia Lane, north of East Amity
Road. The proposed final plat depicts 48 new building lots and 12 common area lots. All
of the proposed lots are for single family detached homes and comply with the
dimensional standards of the R-4 district. There are two existing homes and an accessory
structure on this site that are proposed to remain on lots within the subdivision. Staff has
reviewed the proposed final plat for substantial compliance with the approved preliminary
plat and found the number of buildable lots and common area lots the same as shown on
the preliminary plat. Therefore, staff finds the proposed final plat in substantial
compliance with the approved preliminary plat. A condition of approval of the preliminary
plat required emergency access to be provided for any development over 40 building lots.
The applicant has submitted a recorded emergency access easement over the adjacent
property owned by the Taylors in compliance with this requirement. Written testimony has
been received from Katie Miller, the applicant's representative, in response to the staff
report. Staff is recommending approval with the conditions in the staff report, with one
change. That site specific condition number 5-B be deleted, which states remove the
western most driveway, stub street shown at the north boundary of the site as it was not
approved with the preliminary plat and not shown on the final plat and instead add a new
condition under the site specific condition number four as follows: A driveway easement
Meridian City Council
December 15, 2015
Page 27 of 70
shall be depicted across block one for the existing driveway for the property at 3550 East
Zaldia Lane and what that's in reference to is there is a -- there is a driveway -- if you can
see my pointer right here to this property -- this one right -- one of these two right here.
That just allows for their driveway access still. Staff will stand for any questions.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions? Thank you. Is the applicant here this
evening? Would you like to provide testimony? Or staff adequately portrayed your
application. Yes. Staff says what you would have. Okay. There you go. Council, any --
Council, any questions for the applicant or staff? This is a final plat.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I'm still trying to understand the driveway easement. Just to the right of where
the driveway easement is talked about, to the right of that is that a current or future
planned public road? That right there.
Watters: Yes.
Zaremba: Is that -- is that a public road? And I guess my question is should this access
to Zaldia Lane continue forever or should they eventually take their access on that side
road, if that's a side road?
Watters: At that time we would look at -- when it redevelops we would look at the access.
Right now we have a driveway access that we need to preserve. This is a future public
street access for the future extension of Zaldia as a public street along the north
boundary. But until these county properties develop that's -- that's how it's going to be for
a while.
Zaremba: So, Madam Mayor, follow up. Should we say as part of that condition that the
driveway easement needs to exist until the property redevelops or the use changes or
some wording like that?
Watters: We can.
Zaremba: I would feel more comfortable if we included that.
Watters: That's fine. I can add that.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions for staff? Okay. Do I have a motion?
Zaremba: Madam Mayor, I move we close the public hearing on --
De Weerd: We don't have a public hearing.
Meridian City Council
December 15, 2015
Page 28 of 70
Zaremba: Uh?
De Weerd: This is not a public hearing.
Zaremba: Oh, it wasn't. Okay. Well, in that case, Madam Mayor, I move we approve
H-2015-0004, to include staff's comments and with the noted condition that we would
delete site specific condition 5.13 and add a new condition under specific number four that
says a driveway easement shall be depicted across Block 1 for the existing driveway for
the property at 2550 East Zaldia Lane, which easement will continue until -- is there a
name for that future street?
Watters: East Zaldia Lane. It's private right now, but --
Zaremba: That's what -- well, let me just identify it as the street that -- the future public
street that will create the eastern boundary of the property in question.
De Weerd: And also referred to as East Zaldia Lane. Okay.
Zaremba: That works.
De Weerd: Do I have a second?
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second. Any discussion by Council? 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.
I. Public Hearing for Una Mas (H-2015-0016) by Glenn Walker,
NeuDesign Architecture Located Southwest Corner of E. Ustick Road
and N. Records Avenue
1. Request: Modification to the Development Agreement to
Remove the Requirement for all Building Elevations to be in
Substantial Conformance with the Previously Approved
Elevations
De Weerd: Item 7-1 is a public hearing for Una Mas at H-2015-0016. I will open the public
hearing with staff comments.
Meridian City Council
December 15, 2015
Page 29 of 70
Watters: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Council. The next application before you is a
request for a development agreement modification. This site consists of 9.5 acres of land,
zoned C -G, located at the southwest corner of East Ustick Road and North Records
Avenue. This property was annexed with a development agreement back in 2005. The
applicant requests a modification to the development agreement to remove the portion of
development agreement provision number 5.1.12 that requires all buildings to be in
substantial conformance with the elevations presented at the April 4th, 2006, hearing, as
shown here on the right, and have similar modulation and treatments to those elevations
as determined by the planning director. Because the city has since adopted design
standards since this project's approval in 2006, the quality of design to this development
can be insured through design review as currently required in the development agreement
and by the UDC with a certification of zoning compliance and design applications. So,
staff is fine with the applicant's proposed change. Glenn Walker submitted written
testimony in agreement with the staff report. He is the applicant's representative and staff
is recommending approval of the proposed modification to the development agreement.
Staff will stand for any questions.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions? Okay. Would the applicant like to
provide comment? No? Okay. We found Kent Brown's name, so just wanted to let know
we found the missing sheet. He signed up to testify on this item and I don't think he wants
to. Is there anyone that would like to provide testimony on this item? Okay. Council,
seeing --
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we close the public hearing on H --
De Weerd: Item I? Do you know that?
Bird: Yeah. H-2015-0016.
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on Item 7-1. All
those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
LVA WI11670[4W-11V �1Z197I_1IW_\'1�II
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve H-2015-0016 and to include -- include staff comments and
applicant response.
Meridian City Council
December 15, 2015
Page 30 of 70
Milam: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 7-1. Any discussion by
Council? 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.
J. Public Hearing for Eagle Commons at Overland (H-2015-0024) by
Eagle Commons at Overland, LLC Located Northeast Corner of S.
Eagle Road and E. Overland Road
1. Request: Execute a Development Agreement Required with
the Annexation of the Property for the Purpose of Including a
Concept Plan and Specific Provisions Relevant to the
Development of the Property
De Weerd: Item 7-J has requested a continuance through -- until January 5th, 2016. 1 will
open this public hearing and ask for a motion to continue.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we continue H-2015-0024 to January 5th, 2016.
LVA n17 17, iii. - .. 0 .1
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to continue Item 7-J to January 5th, 2016. All
those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. I'm going to miss you, Mr. Zaremba.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
K. Public Hearing for Twelve Oaks Center Subdivision (H-2015-
0025) by Twelve Oakes, LLC Located South Side of W. Franklin
Road, Approximately 1/4 Mile West of S. Linder Road Approved
1. Request: Short Plat Approval Consisting of Four (4) Building
Lots on 1.44 Acres of Land in a C -C Zoning District
De Weerd: Okay. Item 7-K is a public hearing on H-2015-0025. I will open this public
hearing with staff comments.
Meridian City Council
December 15, 2015
Page 31 of 70
Watters: Thank you, Madam Mayor. The next application before you is a request for a
short plat. This site consists of 1.44 acres of land, zoned C -C, located at the south side of
West Franklin Road, approximately a quarter mile west of South Linder Road. The
proposed subdivision is a re -subdivision of Lot 1, Block 1, of Twelve Oaks Subdivision.
The proposed plat consists of four building lots. All of the proposed lots comply with the
dimensional standards of the C -C and the TN -R districts as applicable and is in
substantial compliance with the criteria set forth in the UDC for short plats. Written
testimony has been received from Carl Porter, the applicant's representative, in
agreement with the staff report and staff is recommending approval with the conditions in
the report. Staff will stand for any questions.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions?
:3 0MIIFV03TI *Lt2
De Weerd: Mr. Cavener, did you have a question?
Cavener: No questions.
De Weerd: Okay. Would the applicant like to make comment? Okay. Council -- oh, this
is a public hearing. Is there anyone who would like to hear or provide public testimony on
this item? You would think it was really late already. It seems like I have been doing this
all night. I see no public testimony.
Milam: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Milam.
Milam: I move that we close the public hearing on 7-K.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on Item 7-K. All
those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
Milam: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Milam.
Milam: I move that we approve H-2015-0025 with all staff comments and applicant's
response.
Rountree: Second.
Meridian City Council
December 15, 2015
Page 32 of 70
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second. Any discussion by Council? Madam Clerk, roll
call, please.
Roll Call: Rountree, yea; Bird, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
L. Public Hearing for TM Creek East (H-2015-0018) by SCS Brighton,
LLC Located Southeast Corner of S. Ten Mile Road and W. Franklin
Road
1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 14.93 Acres of Land
with an R-40 Zoning District Request: Modification to the
Development Agreement (Inst. #1140457759) for TM Creek to
Include the Subject 14.93 Acre Parcel in the Agreement
2. Request: Modification to the Development Agreement
(Inst. #1140457759) for TM Creek to Include the Subject 14.93
Acre Parcel in the Agreement
De Weerd: Item 7-L is a public hearing on H-2015-0018, for the annexation and zoning
and a modification to a DA. I will open this public hearing with staff comments.
Watters: Thank you, Madam Mayor. The next applications before you are a request for
annexation and zoning and a development agreement modification. This site consists of
14.93 acres of land, currently zoned RUT in Ada County and is generally located on the
south side of West Franklin Road, approximately a quarter mile east of South Ten Mile
Road. The applicant requests approval to annex and zone 14.93 acres of land with an R-
40 zoning district, consistent with the corresponding future land use map designation of
high density residential for this site. The applicant proposes to develop multi -family
residential uses on this site. A conceptual development plan was submitted as shown that
depicts high density multi -family residential use of the property, with arrows depicting
internal and external circulation and a general alignment of a future mid mile collector on
the property to the east. A subsequent conditional use permit application will be required
for approval of a multi -family development in the R-40 zoning district. Staff is not
recommending a new development agreement as a provision of annexation. However,
the applicant is proposing a current modification to the development agreement for TM
Creek. That is the property here to the west. The development is under the same
ownership and they would like to incorporate the subject property in that agreement. Staff
recommends a few new provisions are added to the development agreement that pertain
to the development of the subject property, including, but not limited to the following:
Provide cross -access between properties. Construct a multi -use pathway along the north
side of the Ten Mile Creek. Subdivide the property prior to issuance of any building permit
and provide an overall target density of at least 16 to 25 dwelling units per acre. The
Meridian City Council
December 15, 2015
Page 33 of 70
Commission did recommend approval of the subject annexation and zoning. Mike Wardle
testified in favor. No one testified in opposition. Gary Hansen commented on the
application. And written testimony was received from Mike Wardle, the applicant's
representative, in agreement with the staff report. There are no outstanding issues for
City Council and there has been no written testimony since the Commission hearing.
Staff will stand for any questions.
Rountree: Questions for staff?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: Seeing none, is the -- Mike, you want to make a presentation? Just a short
one?
Wardle: Okay. Mr. President, Commission -- Council Members. Mike Wardle, Brighton
Corporation. Address 12601 West Explorer Drive in Boise. I would just note that you
have seen in the staff reports that these are two companion applications that were
encouraged in discussions earlier in the year concerning the formation of the Urban
Renewal District in the Ten Mile area. And so the Brighton parcel is coming forward and
staff has noted that we are incorporating that into the previous TM Creek project and so,
really, we have no issues at all. It is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. The
zoning R-40 is appropriate and its just an extension of what we did previously. I would
answer any questions that you have.
Rountree: Questions for the applicant? Thank you. This is a public hearing. Anyone
wish to provide testimony on this application? Seeing none, are there any further
questions for the applicant or staff?
Bird: Mr. President?
Wen riiff--Im■LVA M:31�i1
Bird: I move we close the public hearing on H-2015-0018.
Milam: Second.
Rountree: It's been moved and second to close the public hearing on this item. All those
in favor signify by aye. Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borton: Mr. President? Quick question for Mr. Nary. The modification for the DA, how
was that -- is that referenced in the same 2015-0018 application? Because it's the DA for
the different property or do you represent by instrument?
Meridian City Council
December 15, 2015
Page 34 of 70
Nary: Mr. President, Members of the Council, Council Member Borton, so what we will do
in the modification is we will tie it back to the original instrument. So, this -- so, in your
approval it's fine to use the language that's in here, but we will tie it together in the
modification in the addendum.
Rountree: Need a motion.
Bird: Madam -- or Mr. President. I would move we approve H-2015-0018 and that is
annex and zoning of 14.93 acres and also the modification to the development agreement
on 14.93 acres and to include all staff and applicant comments.
Borton: Second.
Rountree: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item L. Roll call.
Roll Call: Rountree, yea; Bird, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Okay. That was M; right?
Rountree: No. We are on M now.
M. Public Hearing for Calnon Properties (H-2015-0017) by Kostka &
Calnon, LLC / Calnon Enterprises, LTD Located 2215 W. Franklin
Road
1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 55.55 Acres of Land
with C -C (40.06 Acres), TN -C (5.46 Acres) and TN -R (10.03
Acres) Zoning Districts
2. Request: Amendment to the Future Land Use Map
Contained in the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan to
Change the Land Use Designation on 40.06 Acres of Land
from Medium High and High Density Residential to Mixed Use
Commercial; and 15.49 Acres of Land from Medium, Medium -
High and High Density Residential to Mixed Use Residential
De Weerd: Okay. 7-M is a public hearing on Calnon Property, H-2015-0017, annexation
and zoning and amendment to the future land use map. I will open these public hearings
with staff comments.
Watters: Thank you, Madam Mayor. The next applications before you are a request for a
Comprehensive Plan map amendment and an annexation and zoning. This site consists
of approximately 54 acres of land, currently zoned RUT in Ada County, located at 2215
West Franklin Road. This is the property directly to the east of the property you just
Meridian City Council
December 15, 2015
Page 35 of 70
heard. The applicant proposes to amend the future land use map contained in the
Comprehensive Plan to change the land use designation on 40.06 acres of land from
medium high density residential and high density residential to mixed use commercial and
15.49 acres of land from medium density residential, medium high density residential and
high density residential to mixed use residential. Annexation and zoning of 55.55 acres of
land to a C -C zoning district, which consists of 40.06 acres of the site. TN -C zoning,
which is 5.46 acres, and TN -R zoning, which is 10.03 acres, developer requested. A
concept plan was submitted that depicts retail, office, and service commercial uses within
the proposed MUC area and professional office and medium high density residential uses
within the proposed MUR area. And that is right over here. The arrows depicting internal
and external circulation and the general alignment of a future mid mile collector street are
also depicted. On mixed use areas, development is required to integrate the three major
use categories, residential, commercial and employment. The MUC area does not include
a residential component and the MUR area does not include and commercial component
as required. Professional office combined with medium high density residential at a
density of eight to fifteen units per acre is depicted on a small portion of the site, but does
not commit to a minimum number of units. As is with the current residential land use
designation a target density of 508 dwelling units could be expected for this area. With
the proposed change to the future land use map this number is substantially decreased to
approximately 136 units. These calculations assume development with a 25 percent loss
to infrastructure and open space and the average target density of each land use
designation, less the area owned by NMID for the Vaughn Lateral is located and the
creek. As a compromise between the applicant's proposal and the higher density of
residential uses currently designated and anticipated for this area, staff recommends a
change from the mixed use community land use designation proposed south of the Ten
Mile Creek and west of the future collector street to mixed use residential consistent with
that proposed on the east side of the collector street. This will insure a higher density of
residential uses in this area, which will contribute to the mix of uses required in the MUR
designation. Within MUC areas no more than 30 percent of the land area should be
residential. Within MUR areas no more than 40 percent of the land area should be
nonresidential. While not necessarily the burden of this application area, it should be
understood that cumulative changes to this area of the Ten Mile plan, east of Ten Mile
Road, have likely resulted in a loss of employment and residential densities needed to
support transit supportive development. The loss of employment and residential acreage
and the loss of transit supportive densities may limit future transportation services and
have long term transportation implications. However, realizing a significant higher density
residential component is still important to the long term viability of the area. Cumulative
changes to the future land uses within the Ten Mile interchange have resulted in
significantly more commercial property than originally planned. With both employment
and residential densities lessened in this application area and elsewhere within the
specific area plan, it is unclear how a further reduction of residential acreage and
increased commercial acreage can be supported within this area of Meridian. In accord
with staff's recommended change to the future land use map for the 9.3 acre area south of
the creek and west of the future collector street, staff recommends a zoning change from
the proposed C -C to the R-40 zoning district. This is as shown here on the map on the
left. Further, staff recommends a site reconfiguration of the proposed TN -C and TN -R
Meridian City Council
December 15, 2015
Page 36 of 70
districts as follows: A total of 6.9 acres of TN -C zoning on either side of the future
collector street south of the creek at a depth of 300 feet from center line and 6.5 acres of
TN -R zoning on the remainder of the site south of the creek and east of the collector
street in the TN -C zoning. This will leave 32.9 acres of C -C zoning on the north side of
the creek. The R-40 zoning will enable the development of high density residential uses
as desired in this area, which will merge with that to the west for a larger development
area. The zoning should be compatible with future development to the south in the C -G
and TN -C district and to the east in the TN -C district. The TN -C and TN -R zoning will
accommodate the office and medium high density residential uses proposed by the
applicant. The TN -C zoning will allow traditional neighborhood style development on
either side of the collector street, which will provide a transition from development in the
C -C zone to the north and will merge with the future traditional neighborhood uses to the
south. It will also allow for a wide variety of small scale retail, commercial, and community
service uses. The TN -R zoning will allow for the development of a daycare center, as well
as other residential types, for example, single family, townhouse, duplex, multi -family, and
vertically integrated residential uses. It will provide a transition in uses and zoning to the
existing and future medium density single family residential properties to the east and
south. The C -C zoning will allow small scale retail office and service commercial uses as
proposed, as well as a wide variety of commercial uses, such as restaurant, drive-thru
establishments and personal and professional services. Employment uses, such as
offices, daycare center, industry -- industry, information, and hotel and motels and
residential uses, such as multi -family and vertically integrated residential. Overall, the
zoning proposed by the applicant as refined by staff, will allow for the development of a
mix of residential, commercial, and employment uses as required in MUC and MUR
designated areas if the site is developed in accord with the provisions in the development
agreement and recommended by staff. To insure a density compatible with the Ten Mile
plan for this area, while still compromising on overall land uses for this area, staff
recommends a minimum of 380 dwelling units are provided on the overall site. In order to
insure the site develops as proposed and as recommended by staff, staff recommends a
development agreement is required as a provision of annexation that includes, but is not
limited to, the following provisions. The development agreement shall be modified prior to
any development occurring on the site to include a more detailed conceptual development
plan that is consistent with the MUC and MUR designations and includes a mix of uses
from each major use category, commercial, residential and employment. Future
development is required to incorporate design elements contained in the Ten Mile plan for
the MUC and MUR designated areas. This property shall be subdivided prior to issuance
of any building permits. A minimum of 380 residential dwelling units of varying types are
required to be provided. A ten foot wide multi -use pathway is required along the north
side of the Ten Mile Creek and to the property to the south per the master pathways plan.
Direct access to Franklin Road is prohibited, except for the future collector street and
cross -access is required to the properties to the east and west. The Commission
recommended approval of the subject application per the staff report. Mike Wardle, the
applicant's representative, testified in favor. No one testified in opposition or on the
application. Written testimony was received from Mike Wardle, the applicant's
representative, in response to the staff report. Key issues of discussion by the
Commission -- the Commission was conflicted in determining the number of the
Meridian City Council
December 15, 2015
Page 37 of 70
residential units and density appropriate for this site and did leave it up to the Council to
determine if the staff recommendation is appropriate or if a lesser number or density
would be more appropriate. And that's condition number 1.1D in the staff report. The
Commission did not make any changes to the staff recommendation. The outstanding
issue for the Council is the number of residential units and density appropriate for this site.
Written testimony has been received from Mike Wardle since the Commission hearing.
Since that hearing staff has met with the applicant and discussed a modification to the
zoning of the property, which more accurately depicts the mid mile collector and zoning
established by the Ten Mile Center project to the south. Staff does not object to
applicant's proposed change. And that proposed change here is the map on your right.
The applicant also requests a minimum number of residential units required to be
constructed on the site be reduced from 380 to 218. Staff is not in favor of the proposed
reduction. Lastly, the applicant requests development agreement provision 1.1.11, which
prohibits direct lot access via West Franklin Road be modified as follows: Direct lot
access via West Franklin Road, an arterial street, is prohibited per UDC 11-3A-3. The
applicant would like to add unless approved by ACHD and the city in conjunction with a
more detailed development plan and/or subdivision application. Staff is okay with this
change, as any future plans will come by the -- come through the City Council and you
can have an opportunity at that time to approve a waiver for access. Staff will stand for
any questions the Mayor and Council may have.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions at this point?
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I have a technical question that I'm not sure is even a valid question, so I will
ask it and we will see. There was a time when we required six months to elapse between
changes to the Comprehensive Plan map. I don't know if that's still true. It was true at
one time. If it's still true, my memory is pinging me that we did one of these about three or
four months ago and I can't identify where, but I'm thinking south of the interstate.
Watters: Madam Mayor, Councilman Zaremba, we still have that provision in our code if
it's a sole application for a comp plan map amendment. If another application is
accompanying it, we are letting those go through as often as submitted now.
Zaremba: I think I understood that. Thank you.
Watters: So, they don't have to wait six -- every six months.
Zaremba: Okay. That's what I wanted to hear.
De Weerd: Anything further from Council? Thank you. Would the applicant like to make
comment? Good evening. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record.
Meridian City Council
December 15, 2015
Page 38 of 70
Wardle: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Mike Wardle. 12601 West Explorer Drive in Boise.
want to thank Sonya. It was a lot of technical information. I hope to make it reasonably
simple and short in our discussion and based on staff's comment relative to the three
issues that we had put on your plate, as it were, hopefully we just need to address one of
those three this evening and that would be the minimum number of residential units. I just
want to take a step back for a moment, just to note that in the discussions earlier in the
year Kathy Kostca, who is the owner of the Calnon property, has indicated that she has no
plans at this point, but with the city's encouragement for participation in the URD, Mr.
Turnbull volunteered to basically companion these applications and bring them forward
and so that's the reason that this is brought forward with very little specific information at
this time, but it affords the city the opportunity to bring some property in that will add value
to the potential renewal district. We just note that with the discussion Sonya identified
since we had -- actually two discussions. First of all, since the applications were
submitted and prior to the Planning and Zoning Commission, we had the discussion about
modifying our request for Comprehensive Plan amendment and we concurred with that
and as it's been presented the area north of Ten Mile Creek will be designated mixed use
commercial. The area south mixed use residential and that was an acceptable alternative
and agreed upon with staff and the Commission. Conceptually we also agreed with the
zoning designations that were brought forward, but you saw in the handout that we
provided that the conceptual difference between the zoning that was proposed by staff at
the Planning and Zoning hearing really was based on the Comprehensive Plan map and
did not account for the actual alignments established for the mid mile collector with the
Treasure Valley Investments property immediately to the south or the adjacent zones. So,
those were really the issues. But with staff's consent or agreement with the applicant
request on the zoning, restated that the Council accept and approve B&A Engineers
November 16th, 2015, zoning map, that issue, I believe, is laid to rest and the third, which
relates to a discussion that we actually had on the Brighton parcel with ACHD, they simply
noted that on specific applications right -in, right -out limited access certainly can be
considered and so we just added that request for clarifying language. Which takes us
back to the one issue and that is the minimum density standard and when we got to the
Planning and Zoning Commission hearing I suffered some brain damage trying to look at
the formulas. So, Sonya, if you would go to the fourth slide -- and some day I'm going to
learn how to use this, but I'm not sure when.
Watters: I can come to your office and give you a PowerPoint tutorial.
Wardle: Yeah. There you go. This -- this was the slide presented at the Planning and
Zoning Commission hearing and it was a request that instead of the 380 units that staff
had recommend as the minimum number for the overall site, that we used, actually, the
Comprehensive Plan designations that you have in your standards right now in the mixed
use commercial, which is the area, again, north of Ten Mile Creek, which is that strong
division line kind of about two-thirds of the way south in the property and also in the mixed
use residential designations it establishes the target density for the areas at the same,
eight to 12 units per acre. Now, staff in its formula had suggested ten units per acre, but
it's our belief that if we are going to establish the minimums, that the minimums ought to
be founded on what your Comprehensive Plan actually says. The minimum it suggests as
Meridian City Council
December 15, 2015
Page 39 of 70
a target would be eight. So, that was what led to the 188 unit request at the Planning and
Zoning Commission hearing. And, Sonya, if we go to the third of the last slide. Using the
zone map that takes it from the conceptual to actual -- and I just want to note that the little
red circle at the bottom of that map is the actual location of the mid mile collector
established with the Treasure Valley Investments project. So, utilizing, then, a formula
that staff had kind of worked with talking about -- and I'm not going to get into the
technicalities, because there is some percentage issues and so forth, but based on, again,
some reasonable or minimum standards, C -C dwelling unit count as noted in the northerly
area there, that 30 point -- 32.84 acres times 30 percent, which comes out of the goals
and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan times the minimum established in the
Comprehensive Plan, would yield 78 acres in that area. And, again, this is not to say that
there will be 78 in that area or in any of the others specifically. The R-40 dwelling units at
7.22 acres -- and this is really the distinction between staff and the applicant. The staff
recommendation as a minimum for -- or the calculation for that R-40 was actually 25 units
per acre and you would be hard pressed to find in the city today any multi -family project
that actually was developed at 25 units per acre. Twenty, sometimes a little bit plus or
minus, is typical. The project that we will bring forward immediately to the west of this, as
we currently have it configured, is right at 20 units per acre. So, if we establish a
minimum of 25, we have, essentially, said this is going to have more than almost anything
else developed in the city. So, we utilized, again, a number, 12 units per acre at a
minimum that would generate 86 units and, then, the TN -R utilizing again a formula of a
percentage, 75 percent of the land are being utilized for residential, would yield 54. So,
the number using your Comprehensive Plan and reasonable numbers, particularly for the
R-40, would come up to about 218. Now, I was tempted to bring a sword this evening, but
didn't think I could get it into City Hall, so that the Council could, in its wisdom, you know,
and utilize the Solomon rule and figure this out. But clearly 380 units is not an appropriate
minimum number to be applied to the properties that are before you. It's not to say that
there won't be substantially more than what we are proposing, the 218, when it gets down
to reality in the future, but if we establish it at that point now, it might -- it might have some
impact on market capability to respond to reasonably, good opportunities that might come
to the city that, otherwise, would be deferred. So, we would propose, based on the
information that we have -- the discussions with staff, that the one point of disagreement is
this number and ask the Council to -- utilizing the minimums established in the
Comprehensive Plan, set that number as the minimum number of residential units on the
overall properties at 218. And I will be happy to answer any questions that you have.
De Weerd: So, Mike, on that typically when you put any number in there it becomes the
minimal and the maximum. In particular at a public hearing that the public comes to this
density is usually the -- the hot button, the hot issue, so you're comfortable with this,
knowing that often people will pull it out of the public testimony and out of the documents
and say, you know, this is what we were expecting and base their testimony on that.
Wardle: Madam Mayor, it's a good question and it provokes the answer that perhaps no
number is appropriate, because the zoning and the requirements of the Comprehensive
Plan necessitate certain numbers of -- for instance, R-40 is going to be a multi -family
project. The TN -R is going to have -- could be, as Sonya pointed out, could be single
Meridian City Council
December 15, 2015
Page 40 of 70
family, but it could be townhomes, it could be even multi -family. In the C -C zone by
conditional use permit you could do multi -family. So, perhaps no number is appropriate,
because something will come back in the future with residential uses. So, I appreciate the
question. It's a good -- perhaps the best solution.
De Weerd: Let's just stick with the zone. Council, any questions for Mike? Okay. Thank
you.
Wardle: Thank you.
De Weerd: This is a public hearing. Is there anyone who would like to provide testimony
on this item?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: Does staff agree with the calculations on the slide five, the math that's done? I
presume so, but --
Watters: On the current slide?
Borton: Correct.
Watters: This is the applicant's calculation.
Borton: Correct.
Watters: Staff's calculations are quite different. I'm not sure what you're asking.
Borton: The potential minimum residential units for these zonings -- is this map correct,
understanding that staff would like a greater minimum.
Watters: I believe so, Councilman Borton.
Borton: Okay. Understanding that's not your recommendation.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions from Council?
Bird: I have none.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Meridian City Council
December 15, 2015
Page 41 of 70
Borton: I have a couple questions for Mike
before, but --
Wardle: Yes, sir.
I could have asked them when he was up
Borton: With regard to the requested change on the DA 1.1.11, are you comfortable with
inclusion into that language that the permissive access is only related to potential right -in,
right -out?
Wardle: Madam Mayor, Council Member Borton, yes. Yes, because that's actually ACHD
controls that, they will have their access management standards that they will apply. It's
not to say that short term until a lot of additional development occurs they may allow
something more, but eventually it's like the only -- it's a right -in, right -out, except for the
quarter mile collector to the west in the TM Creek project and the mid mile collector that
will be developed through the Calnon properties.
Borton: So, would that inclusion be acceptable, though?
Wardle: As we proposed It?
Borton: Well, specifying a right -in, right -out.
Wardle: Yes. Because that's actually what ACHD had already indicated to us that we
said as acceptable when we -- we actually made that contact before we bought the
Calnon property that came in as TM Creek this evening. And so it was in response to the
question specifically can we have a right -- you know, at least that type of an access and it
was approved.
Borton: Okay.
Wardle: Subject to, obviously, the development application in the future.
Borton: Okay. And, Madam Mayor, the second question I think staff in their presentation
and in the application material brings up some -- some compelling narrative regarding
residential densities and the loss of that in the general area and kind of the basis for their
recommendation. Can you speak to the reason why that shouldn't be promoted more, as
staff suggests?
Wardle: Why increased density?
Borton: Yeah. If the math on the slide is correct and the recommendation is the minimum
density is 218 and staff's recommending for the purposes described that it's set at 380,
give me your perspective on why the concerns about loss of employment in residential
densities in the area shouldn't be resolved by kind of bumping that floor up above the 218.
Meridian City Council
December 15, 2015
Page 42 of 70
Wardle: I'd like to go back to slide two, Sonya. Sorry. Slide three. There we go.
Obviously, the Brighton -- the Calnon properties. If you look to the north, the city has
already annexed and zoned the entire complex as industrial. It's from my own perhaps
seasoned experience that you're not going to see the type of tier residential along that
corridor facing industrial that might be desirable and so as this application came forward
we were looking for greater flexibility, that's why the mixed use commercial and the
commercial zone, but there, again, there are some requirements for a certain percentage
of residential component to be included therein and the same thing with the mixed use
residential to the south of Ten Mile Creek, again, some minimum residential components.
So, I think we are simply arguing do we put a number on it or not. The number that staff
has proposed -- and this is staff report page 12 and it's -- obviously, you don't probably
have direct, easy access to it, but in their -- in the calculation that staff had proposed the
R-40 at 25 dwelling units per acre. Again, that number is extremely high as a minimum.
And, then, rather than using the minimums established by the Comprehensive Plan, they
proposed the mid range or the average, eight to 12. So, again, we are simply asking if we
do put a number in the development agreement let's establish it as the minimums and we
are willing to concede, rather than the 188, to 218 based on a little bit of a different
formulation than we had at Planning and Zoning. But I would go back to the Mayor's
question and even wonder why perhaps we put a number in their at all. So, I hope that
answers a little bit of your question.
Turnbull: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilman Borton, David Turnbull,
Brighton Corporation, 12601 West Explorer Drive.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Turnbull: You know, I think there is a lot of good work that's gone into this from our
original application. We have had very productive meetings with staff and came to broad
resolutions and fine resolutions -- I mean more detailed resolutions. This one issue that
we are kind of stuck on right here -- and I agree with Mike that the Mayor made kind of a
good point. I remember 25 years ago -- a very good point. A very good point. And I
remember 25 years ago when I first started developing property in the City of Meridian the
complaint was we have got too much residential, we don't have enough commercial, we
need more property tax base and my how things have changed. So, I think our point here
is that we are trying to build in enough flexibility. Obviously, Brighton on the existing
property we have directly to the east is going to have well over 300 units and that's a lot of
residential in any given area. To add a minimum on top of that of 388, you're talking --
you're getting into the seven, eight hundred unit range in a very small area and there is
very few places in this community -- I don't know of any places in this community right now
that support that kind of density yet. I will tell you that if the market evolves and changes
and it will support that kind of density, it is perhaps the highest and best use of that
property, that, obviously, we will be coming forth with applications like that. But we are
hesitant to have minimums set up as a requirement, because those just set markers that,
you know, potentially run afoul of what the market will support, what the market will
demand and so we are offering a compromise. If you do choose to set a minimum
standard, we do think that the minimum standard that is proposed by staff is too high.
Meridian City Council
December 15, 2015
Page 43 of 70
But, otherwise, like I said, we have had some very good dialogue, collaborative efforts
with the staff and we appreciate all of their efforts. So, hope that answers the question.
De Weerd: Thank you. Did you have additional questions for Mr. Wardle?
Rountree: I have got a question for Mike.
De Weerd: Okay.
Rountree: Mike, I have the same issues with my system up here as you have with yours,
because it keeps kicking me off, and I can't recall in our packet on this project was there a
neighborhood meeting?
Wardle: Madam Mayor, Council Member Rountree, yes, we had a neighborhood meeting
and, interestingly enough, I expected something far different than what happened. The
neighbors that came didn't really have any particular issues and they were primarily the
single family neighbors to the east. There was no opposition and nobody came to the
hearing, so --
Rountree: That was my question, because the last time we saw this we had a room full.
The project to the south.
Wardle: Oh. Yes. Well, we anticipated similar interest, but they were invited --
Rountree: That's good. Thank you.
Wardle: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Anything further for the applicant?
Bird: I have nothing.
Wardle: Thank you, Madam Mayor.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Council, any further information needed from the applicant
or staff? I would entertain a motion to close if not.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: Move that we close the public hearing on Item M, H-2015-0017.
Rountree: Second.
Meridian City Council
December 15, 2015
Page 44 of 70
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on Item 7-M, one
and two. All those in favor say aye. All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borton: Mr. Nary, is there an order to these that's required with regard to implement a
future land use map prior to an annexation?
Nary: Yes.
Borton: Okay. Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: I would move that we approve the future land use map amendment as proposed
by the applicant in H-2015-0017, to include -- I don't know if it goes in the map
amendment itself -- residential unit count. Mr. Nary?
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, isn't that part of the DA? Wasn't that part
of the DA conditions?
Borton: It is.
Nary: Yeah. So, it wouldn't be on the map, it would just be on the annexation.
Borton: Then I move for the approval of the amendment to the future land use map as
present by the applicant, specifically the map provided by B&A Engineers, dated
November 16th, 2015.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Okay. Hearing none,
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.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton.
Borton: I would move that we approve H-2015-0017, the annexation and zoning of Kostca
and Calnon Properties to include DA requirement in 1.1.1D, establishing a minimum
Meridian City Council
December 15, 2015
Page 45 of 70
residential unit base of 218 units, as well as the DA modification of 1.1.11 regarding right -
in, right -out access if approved by ACHD and the city, as well as the zoning map dated
November 16, 2015.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and second. Just a question there. There was some
discussion on not placing the minimum, just having the R-40 and applicant would -- would
come back with the appropriate densities at that time. Just wanted to see if you wanted to
set the minimum, because it -- we have all heard apartment testimony often enough to
know that a minimum becomes the maximum as well.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
I04TWI �=2 6MA=IS • • ,
Borton: The motion still includes a minimum. I think the understanding it might create
some potential confusion for the public. If it truly, in fact, the accurate application of our
existing zoning requirements and the true minimum available for the site as zoned, then, it
does nothing more than provide the public an accurate reflection of what the potential
minimum is. If it's misconstrued to be a public -- or, excuse me, to be a maximum -- I
would rather have that clarity included in the DA. It doesn't inhibit any of the development
rights of the developer --
De Weerd: To increase their density.
Borton: They clearly can -- can go above that -- can go within any range provided by our
zoning.
De Weerd: I think footnoted that would be a good thing, so you don't put our future
council in a predicament.
Milam: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Milam.
Milam: But, then, would it be more clear to put a minimum and a maximum? No?
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: It may be semantics, but rather than say this is a minimum, could we say no
less than and that may be interpreted -- no less than may be interpreted differently than
minimum. It's a word choice. I'm just wondering if that helps.
Meridian City Council
December 15, 2015
Page 46 of 70
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: On discussion, I like the idea of not even having numbers, because of the simple
fact is this 218 is the minimum, but when somebody gets -- when somebody buys a
property and stuff they might look at 218, but they don't -- you know, they don't -- they
think that's max, they don't -- they don't read or we don't -- we don't get it down right on
the plats or something. I mean I don't know how many times -- and all of us have been
through this -- that people come in and I mean it's a plain as your nose what it says, but
they all swear up and down that that's not what they were told. While I prefer the 218 over
the 380, 1 could -- I could sure -- and maybe we can't with our existing ordinances land
maps and stuff, but I would just soon not have a number, period, stuck to it. Let the -- let
the zoning types determine the density.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: Just respectfully disagree, only to the extent that -- that its inclusion provides
some glimmer of clarity and if you exclude it, then, you have the risk of the public trying to
decipher it themselves, do the calculation, believe that perhaps the minimum units is 80
and being even more upset. I don't know if there is an answer that can solve that on
every situation. So long as the developer has complete rights to develop within the full
range of densities allowed by the zone, including the minimum units, might help the public
know that surely it isn't 50.
De Weerd: I think with that clarity that that certainly helps. Or the glimmer of clarity. I like
that.
Milam: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: I think that's quote worthy Yes, Mrs. Milam.
Milam: Along that note, it also -- it's such a small amount that it could be misleading. If
people were looking at that for some guidance when, in reality, there could be 40 units per
acre, which is -- what is that? How much is that? How many acres? Seven? Oh, it's
280. Is that the one we are talking about or a different piece? Yeah. I don't know.
De Weerd: I think there are a lot of people who like to see them reduce it and think they
R-40 really only have 20 and, then, they are the heroes. Really.
Borton: Madam Mayor, I think -- I think having the floor, if there is any matrix to include,
the floor is the one that might matter.
Meridian City Council
December 15, 2015
Page 47 of 70
De Weerd: Okay. The motion stands and if there is no further discussion, 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. With a glimmer of clarity.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Council, I am going to recommend that Item 8-A and B be moved to the 22nd,
next week. So, if any staff is kind of hanging out to participate in the strategic plan update
and quarterly dashboard discussion, we can have it next week, unless anyone here in the
public is here to listen to that specifically. Anyone here listening to that specifically?
Okay. Any opposition to that?
Rountree: No.
De Weerd: Next week is very light and we are going to start at 5:00, so that we can have
an opportunity to have a cup of punch with Mr. Zaremba and Mr. Rountree, so -- from 5:00
to 6:00. But anyway. Okay. If there is -- there is no objection, so we are moving those to
-- to the 22nd.
hTATILT ="6M1VARVIF17-TIVOTIM
Zaremba: Do we need to officially amend the agenda?
De Weerd: No. When we -- when we get to it we will.
Zaremba: Okay.
N. Public Hearing for UDC Text Amendment 2015 & Meridian Design
Manual Revamp (H-2015-0011) by City of Meridian Planning Division
Design Manual Revamp Approved/UDC Text Amendment
1. Request: Text Amendment to the Unified Development
Code (UDC) as follows: 1) UDC Sections: Definitions;
Residential Dimensional Standards; Fencing; Structure and
Site and Multi -Family Design Standards; Common Open
Space and Site Amenity Requirements; Specific Use
Standards for Drinking Establishments, Flex Space and Home
Occupations; Timelines for Signatures on Development
Agreements; Subdivision Design and Improvement Standards
and Other Miscellaneous Sections; AND 2) Reformat of the
Meridian Design Manual Including Reducing Duplicate
Guidelines; Removing Site Design and Transportation Related
Guidelines; Emphasize Architectural Elements and Change the
Meridian City Council
December 15, 2015
Page 48 of 70
Name of the Design Manual to the City of Meridian
Architectural Standards Manual
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Item 7-N is a public hearing for the UDC text amendment
to the 2015 Meridian Design Manual revamp. I will note it's H-2015-0011. 1 will turn this
over to Bill.
Parsons: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. The last public hearing
item on the agenda tonight is the UDC text amendment and update -- or revamp of the
design manual. Staff has been before you on a couple of occasions talking about the
revisions that we wanted to take forth not only to our development community, but also to
the Planning and Zoning Commission and in front of this body. Tonight's presentation --
we will try to break it into two parts. I will go ahead do my presentation as part of the UDC
changes and, then, Brian is also here to assist me to that update to the changes to the
design manual and, then, I will follow up -- once Brian concludes his presentation, then,
will follow up with what transpired at the Planning and Zoning Commission back on the
19th and, then, I will conclude and stand for any questions that you may have for myself
and Brian. So, when we came forward to you back in October we brought forth a table
that had all of those listed changes. The slide before you this evening kind of defines -- or
depicts the major sections of the code that we are looking to change. The table itself is
approximately nine pages. And, again, all of these changes -- or a vast majority of these
changes have and were brought forward to the development community, landowners,
anyone that does business with the city, so that we could get their input and keep our
proposed changes transparent to the community. So, tonight I'm just going to touch on --
and very broadly give you an overview -- you have seen a lot of these. So, the first one
that I did want to touch base on was, again, the dimensional standards. I know, again,
staff did not -- we brought this forward to you in October. Some of the Council members
did have some concerns with the -- some of the minimal dimensional standards that we
were proposing at that time. I do have a couple slides in tonight's presentation that kind of
shows how the changes would correlate to actual development on the ground and I
believe Council's direction was to have staff actually attend a town hall meeting and
present those findings and get take from the public how they would perceive the changes
to our code and Caleb actually, with Brian's assistance, was able to generate some
graphics and take that to that town hall meeting and share that with the community. In
particular, I think Council, from what I recall, had concerns with the R-4 standards and that
R-8 dimensional standards and so this next slide here really represents -- again, this isn't
taking any topography, site constraints, waterways, that would impact certain properties in
Meridian. This is, basically, a 17 acre piece of ground and based on our current R-8
dimensional standards this is what we typically get, based our minimal standards today
and this is one of the similar graphics that was presented at that town hall meeting. So,
you can see here you got 97 units, you get 5.6 dwelling units to the acre and you have
approximately 14 percent open space. Keep in mind code requires ten percent. This
same graphic, done at the 4,000 square foot minimum lot size, with 40 feet of frontage,
you increase density slightly to 6.9 dwelling units to the acre. It looks like open space has
an increase and the number of units has gone up from 97 to 120. This is just one
example. Staff did not do any other graphics or anything for any of the R-4, the R-15 and
Meridian City Council
December 15, 2015
Page 49 of 70
the R-40 district. This is just one example that we brought forward. Staff did receive a
letter from the BCA and, again, they were in support of the smaller lot sizes, letting kind of
the market drive what the community wants to happen. In the presentation to the
Planning and Zoning Commission, Caleb did mention that the neighbors -- or at least
some of the residents that he spoke to at that town hall meeting didn't seem to be very --
didn't really want smaller lots backing up to their larger lots or to their home. They didn't
see this as a benefit to the community. I don't know how many residents Caleb talked to,
but he didn't seem to get a very well reception from -- from the community. The next item
that we talked about at that hearing in October was reference to gravel mining and, again,
we are removing that entirely from our ordinance, but we are keeping the definition of
gravel mining in our ordinance, so that way if there are any code violations we will have
something clearly that we can reference in our code to determine or interpret if that is, in
fact, grading the site or is it a commercial mining operation. As we discussed previously --
and this has been a topic for the city in the last year and a half or two, it's our common lot
fencing standards and so we are proposing a third option for the development community
and we are also proposing to add those graphics to the UDC as well. Planning and
Zoning Commission did like that. Mr. Dave Yorgason did testify at the hearing that he
would like the flexibility to have options for not requiring fencing for some of those lots that
back up to common open space. There is -- certain developers don't like to have fencing
off their common lots, but like to have the buildable lots incorporated as part of the
common open space or at least front on the open space, so it looks like one large open
space rather than walling off that open space and we discussed those options and that
right now the way our proposed changes are this evening we are going to require
developers to fence all of their common lots, so we don't have the homeowners putting up
illegal fencing, we want to make sure that gets in -- put in with development, but there is
an opportunity through the alternative compliance process to request that no fencing be
allowed along that common open lot and that can be taken up by the director and if we
can't support the applicant's position on that, certainly they could take that decision to
Council to take direction or action on. So, design standards here. Currently this is a
phase one. So, Brian was doing that modification to the design manual. This is, again,
phase one where we are taking the design -- the current design standards in the code and
we are basically striking all of them and with a future phase two we envision coming back
with more robust standards to help with site design standards. Brian will -- our task is
really to focus on the architectural design standards and he will touch bases on more --
more on that in his presentation with -- as I get -- finish up my UDC presentation. One
thing that we did not bring forth, but came about as a result of a recent road project was
the widening of McMillan Road is currently, as the Council knows, we require landscaping
along all of our roadways, so a local street primarily the ten foot wide landscape buffer.
Collector roads is a 20 foot wide landscape buffer and an arterial street requires a 25 foot
wide landscape buffer. Typically when the developer comes in and they want to subdivide
a piece of property, they are required to dedicate a certain amount of right of way, but they
are not required to improve an arterial roadway, they pay impact fees for that. So, what's
happening is if that arterial street is not within ACHD's five year work program, these
developers by our code currently requires them to landscape that unimproved right of
way, so that we don't have this strip of ground in front of that nice common lot built by the
subdivision. Well, this change would require the developer to put that in regardless of
Meridian City Council
December 15, 2015
Page 50 of 70
whether or not it was in the five year work program and a recent example of that would be
with the widening of McMillan Road some of the landscaping that was -- I guess some of
the frontage -- the street frontage along McMillan Road did not have the right of way --
unimproved right of way landscape and so ACHD did not put landscaping back in and so
the city is essentially stuck with basically compacted dirt and gravel along the side of the
road next to the sidewalk and we want to make -- and that's what this is trying to do is
make sure we get that landscaping put back in. If the developer put that in with their --
with their development regardless of timing for that right of way improvement, ACH D is
willing to put the landscape -- whatever they take out they are willing to replace exactly
what they took out. So, this -- this is an effort to make sure that we have beautification
along our streets and we don't end up with that example of just gravel or dirt along our
entryways or our arterial roadways. And I know BCA had some concerns with that
requirement as well. Mr. Yorgason was concerned that would be a throw away cost to the
developer, particularly say for example the road is going to be widened within the next
year, the developer just went in and put all this money into landscaping and, then, was
going in less than a year widening -- ripping out that landscaping in order to widen the
road. So, there was some concerns with that. Planning and Zoning Commission stayed
with staff's recommendation and kept this provision as is stated -- or presented to you this
evening. Open space requirements --
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: Bill, to that point, though, what you're saying -- in that scenario, if that was ripped
out six months after it was installed, ACHD would fund the -- the replacement of all that
taken out?
Parsons: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilman Borton, that -- that's what
this is trying to do -- attempt to do, to make sure that is replaced, yes. Last -- one of the
last items that I want to touch on -- and I think we talked about this the last several
meetings we have had with you as well, is the open space requirements and some of
those proposed changes and I won't go into those and the only reason why I kept it in my
presentation this evening is because Planning and Zoning Commission did struggle with
some of the proposed changes, particularly with that average lot size of 10,000 square
feet. They certainly want to make sure that we have attractive developments in the
community and we do provide that residential subdivisions have the appropriate amenities
and open space for the residents in the community. So, they struggled with that. But,
again, there weren't any proposed changes that came -- came about. They were just
concerned -- right now the way it reads it's an average lot size, so there could be some
lots that are under that 10,000 minimum and some lots that are larger than that. We just
don't know until development comes, but you have to hit that at least average lot size of
10,000 square feet in order to take advantage of reducing your open space. But it is the
desire of the city to at least -- if you are going to take advantage of large lots that you still
meet the intent of the subdivision amenities ordinance that still falls under the same
section. With that I don't really have anything else for you, unless you have any questions
at this time. If you don't, I will go ahead and turn it over to Brian and he can segue into the
Meridian City Council
December 15, 2015
Page 51 of 70
design manual and, like I mentioned to you earlier in my presentation, I will summarize
with how the Planning and Zoning Commission -- action on this application.
De Weerd: Thank you, Bill. Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: Just to clarify a couple of things. On the changing in dimensions in the
different zoning districts, we are still preserving the original setbacks and things, we are
not changing that. Okay. And refresh my memory. Do we -- how do we log common wall
buildings? I know we have done it, but is that separately allowed?
Parsons: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, as stated the setbacks aren't changing,
but there is one exception to that. In the R-8 district currently there is a 15 foot setback to
the street and staff is proposing that that 15 be reduced down to ten feet. So, that way
you get your living area closer to the street and push your garage away from the street to
take advantage of the smaller lot size. If you would indulge me on the other question. I'm
sorry.
Zaremba: How do we allow common -- shared walls, common walls?
Parsons: Yeah. A lot of this change, too, is also taking -- the way the R-8 standards are
currently in the ordinance if you had attached product as part of your development and
zero lot lines --
Zaremba: Yeah.
Parsons: -- you could take advantage of a 40 foot wide lot or a 4,000 square foot
minimum lot size. But that allows a principally permitted use in an R-8 zone, you just have
to tell that to us with the platting of your project and show that on your plat that there is
zero lot lines and there is no easements provided along that lot line and --
Zaremba: We are not changing that?
Parsons: Not changing that. That would still be a principally permitted use in the R-8
district.
Zaremba: More questions if I may and that is is your discussion of fencing, the last thing
that you said I didn't totally catch what you said. I'm not sure I heard. Were you talking
about the problem that we used to have with double fencing and -- you said something
right at the end about that and I didn't catch what you --
Parsons: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilman Zaremba, that's one
problem that we are trying to address here, but we also want to build in flexibility and so
we want to make sure that fencing gets put in correctly at the time of development, so
homeowners are -- it's understandable that they can't double fence that or when you have
that common lot fenced off that's your fencing, it's -- there is nothing else you can do to
close off the fencing or put up illegal fencing. That's what we are trying to avoid.
Meridian City Council
December 15, 2015
Page 52 of 70
Zaremba: Great. Thank you.
De Weerd: Yeah. Additional questions? Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Bill, on the lot size for the R-8, could we memorialize the process that we have
done for a number of years with respect to buffers or bordering property that if -- if this
proposed dimensional standard change for R-8 abuts an existing R-4 that the lot sizes
would be bigger -- will be bigger adjacent to that subdivision to save the heartburn of -- it's
going to come in here and somebody is going to say, well, you have a buffering, you need
to make the lot sizes larger. We almost always condition that situation and just get it out,
so as the developers subdivide and put together their preliminary plats that they take that
into consideration and it just becomes part of the process, instead of us being the judge
and jury on that, just have it in our process.
Parsons: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, currently the last couple meetings we
were -- we have seen the residents coming and asking for that transition. Now, our comp
plan does speak to providing that transition. If you want something in code I'm not sure
how to really address that and have staff look for that, other than maybe getting some
assurances or go back to my staff or -- and Caleb is here, too. Take it up with the P&Z
and say, hey, listen, we are hearing loud and clear from the Council that when plats come
forward we really need to stress the importance of transitional lot sizes, particularly when
they are up against larger lots, R-4 developments, R-2 developments, or even one acre
county development and transition for that as you go to your smaller lots. We can make
that an internal policy. I'm not sure how to really wrap that into code for you, unless we
add an asterisk or something that says you provide that transition in accordance with the
comp plan. I don't know if Caleb has any ideas on that or not, but I know we have --
certainly have enough Comprehensive Plan policies that speak to that and, you know, we
have a great artist next to me named Brian. What we could certainly do on our cut sheets.
We have cut sheets for our -- each individual land use designation. Maybe we put an
asterisk on there and we say, you know, when you butt up against the low density
residential, provide that transition, so we at least get that out in front of the development
community when we preapp with them and let -- or even property owners when we
preapp, say, hey, this is what our expectation is, this is what the city envisions, providing
that transition.
Rountree: Well, those are all good ideas
specifically tonight, but just explore that.
Parsons: Absolutely.
I don't expect you to address my question
Rountree: It's something we are doing. I mean it's just almost every subdivision in that
situation we are having to make a special condition. You have to go back and redraw the
plat. If you know that's going to happen up front, just get it done, plan out what of kind
comments folks might have on that. And the next question I have is on the landscaping
and your comment that, well, if the landscaping goes in and ACHD is going to go ahead
Meridian City Council
December 15, 2015
Page 53 of 70
and they will acquire the landscaping in their right of way, at some point in time work with
the future homeowners association -- it's usually not the developer when they are
widening a road. And though Ten Mile is not necessarily the example of the setbacks that
we require now, are you telling me that ACHD is willing to buy the additional right of way
to put in the landscaping when they are widening the road and from the back of sidewalk,
a cross section to the back of sidewalk on the other side, they are going from property line
to property line, and in order to put landscaping back in, they would have to acquire
additional property. Do we have an exception in -- in that particular policy for that
situation? Because a lot of the old roadways -- or almost all of the existing roadways
pretty much fall in that kind of category if you're going to go from three or two to the full
five lane section that we are seeing in a lot of collectors and arterials.
Hood: Madam Mayor, Councilman Rountree, regarding the right of way for those projects,
I mean that Ten Mile project that was recently completed is a good example. You have --
most of those subdivisions have a landscape buffer and there is not much of one
anymore, but they had it. And let me just summarize, because the right of way kind of
adds another wrinkle to this. But ACHD's policy -- and this goes to some of the discussion
you all had earlier today about the primary benefit of the motorists. If there is not green on
the street side of the sidewalk, they cannot patch that back. There is nothing for them to
match into. That is their policy. So, there has to be green on the street side -- it can just
be a strip, a two foot strip, but if there is not green on that -- now, the back side, because
that's something we require in the landscape buffer. But that's why we still want to see
this, because I -- don't know if any of you have driven out on McMillan. It's been done for
several months now, but you will see on the north side primarily the subdivisions that
didn't have -- it was just gravel up to the sidewalk, they put gravel back.
Bird: Yeah.
Hood: But the ones that had grass, even just a strip or two, they put it back. Now, the
right of way, again, throws a little bit of a wrench into your question, but that's generally
what this is going to -- ACHD will preserve the right of way with development, so they
shouldn't -- going forward, unless something changes from a five lane to a seven lane,
that they weren't anticipating, then, we are more into your scenario. But generally
preserving the right of way with development requiring that to be set aside, dedicated, so
that doesn't create that issue.
Rountree: So, is this proposed change clear on that?
Hood: I think so. All this does is -- as Bill pointed out, all this does is get rid of the caveat
that says if it's in the five year work plan or not. It doesn't say if it's in the five year work
plan or not. If it is or isn't, you still need to have grass on the front side of the sidewalk --
Rountree: Okay.
Hood: -- really the only thing we are changing here. Because we have got some projects
coming in and it was -- and so they didn't put the green in and, then, when ACHD does a
Meridian City Council
December 15, 2015
Page 54 of 70
project we are like where is the -- where is our landscape strip? There wasn't one there,
so we aren't putting one back and -- yeah. So, that isn't -- parks didn't want to buy it and
maintain it, so it's like -- so, that's the intent of the section.
Rountree: Thank you for the explanation.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Bill, on our R -4s now existing with the 8,000 square feet, what -- what kind of units
are we getting per acre now? About 3.5, 3.7 or something?
Parsons: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilman Bird, I would say
anywhere from high twos, low threes.
Bird: Okay. So, the developers can, basically, pick up another unit on that per acre; is
that right? If they are getting three now, they can pick up another --
De Weerd: On these dimensional standards I know a lot of discussion comes up
generally in the R-8. I'm not understanding maybe why we are fiddling with the R-4 or the
R-2.
Parsons: Madam Mayor, it came down from the development community. They were
looking at some of their suggestions at our UDC focus group. They had suggested some
of these ideas, so we figured since we were toying with changing some of the other
dimensional standards we would look at the other ones. But certainly we don't have to
change anything if the Council doesn't want to this evening on those. We don't really get
a lot of R-2 in the city and if we do we typically don't require a development agreement
either, because it's such a low density development, probably our least -- our least
restrictive for a residential development, it's just a large lot development. We don't get -- if
they never developed it, the way they brought it forward, then, they come back and replat
it. So, again, that's just something that Mrs. McKay brought up at our -- at our meeting. It
gives it a little more lots out of their projects if they go that way. Thought maybe we would
get more variety, more of an R-2 mix into the community. Particularly on the fringe.
De Weerd: So, they are looking for the flexibility and lot size design, not necessarily
greater density, but more diversity?
Parsons: I think that's all of our goals. I mean even the city, plus the UDC focus group is
we do want to get -- again, we want densities to reflect what -- what our code says,
because right now we have maximum densities in our ordinance and we want to get those
densities in line with that and we want to prevent developers having -- coming before you
-- it almost goes to your example this evening where we put a unit count on a lot and the
homeowner -- or the homeowners think that that's the maximum or the minimum -- the
maximum lot number -- or maximum units they can have. What we are trying to prevent
Meridian City Council
December 15, 2015
Page 55 of 70
here -- and I think you have seen in the last couple -- over the last couple years having
people come in with an R-8 development, but request an R-15 zoning district, because it's
the same thing, the community comes out and says you're doing R-15 with 15 units to the
acre. Why are you getting R-15? And that's to them -- that's high density development in
our community and so that's why we have also proposed some of these changes as well,
to try to avoid those situations, so we don't have to up zone the property just to meet -- to
get them relief from a different dimension -- or different residential district.
De Weerd: Yeah. But at least they have an option available to do it different. My concern
is would we do this -- with the exception of some of our better developers, this becomes
the standard, so --
Parsons: And certainly that's one thing that our Planning and Zoning Commission talked
about or at least I brought up there is when you -- when you get these smaller and
narrower lots you have to pay particular attention to the design of the homes, because you
take that five foot setback off each side of that lot, you end up with a 30 foot wide lot -- or
home on a 40 foot wide lot. So, it's -- design is going to be crucial. Absolutely. Or you
get more of the attached product that we all want to get, so we can have -- you kind of do
that transition where you have single family attached homes on the perimeter and, then,
almost like at Heritage Grove over there on Ustick and Locust Grove where they have the
MEW lots, the alley loaded lots in the middle, but still have your traditional single family
around the boundaries. I think that's the ultimate goal here. But, like you said, you have
good developers and you have developers that want to do the minimums and it's hard to
have that balance, that fine line, with minimum lot sizes sometimes.
De Weerd: Can we just go to the open space? I'm not sure I understand what the
proposed changes are. Maybe everyone else tracked it and, I'm sorry, I don't feel well
tonight, so I'm trying to follow things, but that one was one that completely lost me.
Parsons: That's okay. I will try to explain it a little bit better for you, Madam Mayor,
Members of the Council. So, currently -- the current UDC standards require any property
under five acres typically we don't get an amenity or we don't get open space. Anything
between five and 20 we get ten percent -- the code requires ten percent open space --
De Weerd: Okay. Then I do understand today's standards. I just don't understand the
proposed one.
Parsons: So, our proposed changes -- basically, if you come in with a large lot
development -- in our world a large lot development of 10,000 -- your plat has to be R-2
basic -- I know we say average 10,000 square foot lots, but R-2 is what you're going to
probably end up with. So, if you have an R-2 development for this you wouldn't
necessarily be required to do the ten percent open space.
De Weerd: Oh. Okay.
Meridian City Council
December 15, 2015
Page 56 of 70
Parsons: Because you have bigger lots, you have bigger backyards for the kids to
recreate. So, we will give them that. So, if you have this type style of development you
don't need to meet the ten percent open space, but you still have to meet the amenity
requirements and that's really all -- all that we are saying here. Anything else, R-4, R-8
developments would still have to comply with that ten -- ten percent.
De Weerd: Okay. So, you're basically only adding a fourth bullet under the UDC
standards that for R-2 or those averaging 10,000 square feet you don't need to meet the
use.
Parsons: Yes. And if it's an annexation we can always still require something more than
just what the applicant proposes, too, but this is an attempt to try to give them a little more
flexibility to these larger lot type style development.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any other questions for Bill?
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: On the lot sizes -- R-4, if we reduce that from 60 feet to 50 feet, your comment
a little while ago about deducting the setbacks, 50 feet with a five inch setback -- five foot
setback on each side would allow a buildable front of 40 feet. Typically in R-4 are three
car garages, which are going to take up anywhere between 27 and 30 feet of that 40 feet.
So, we are talking about having an entryway or the rest of the front of the building that's
only ten feet wide, maybe 13 feet wide. Is that -- is that okay?
Parsons: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we see it all over the community, you
know, a lot of those patio homes sometimes they have -- will get a tandem garage. I'm
not sure of what the dimensional standards are for that project south of -- Sawtooth
Village, Arch Rock, they had some townhomes along Linder, I believe, and, then, as you
transition there is some single family -- I think there is some three -- three car garages, but
I don't design homes, so -- I know I look at them, but I don't -- I don't know, maybe we
have some developers here that could probably answer some of those questions if they
want to get up and testify on anything, but typically -- that's a good point as well. But
certainly you're going to get two story homes with living space over the garage if you need
to get square footage on that lot and that's typically what -- what I have seen on -- either
get patio homes with an extra deep two car garage or you get a two story with a tandem
garage with living over that and a bonus room upstairs is basically what I have seen in
Meridian since I have been reviewing some home plans for those communities out there.
Zaremba: Okay.
De Weerd: Okay. If there is nothing further, we will move to Brian.
Meridian City Council
December 15, 2015
Page 57 of 70
McClure: Madam Mayor, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, thank you for having
me here tonight. I'm here to speak with you about design review, more specifically design
manual overhaul and what is now referred to as the architectural standards manual. I
discussed this with Council several times now, so I am going to try and be brief. So, why
the overhaul? We wanted to streamline the design manual, we wanted to emphasize
consistent application. Wanted to recategorize existing items and correlate with city policy
and to eliminate duplicates and consolidate some similar items for which there are many,
to focus on building design elements and, then, to create express standards. Lastly -- and
it's kind of a next step is to relocate site development through either the Comprehensive
Plan or the Unified Development Code. Since the last Council update there have been a
few minor revisions. I removed a few paragraphs from the introduction. I highlighted this
in your memo, but the intent for that is to relocated the text to the UDC in an upcoming
phase, it is not to get rid of it. The same application standard as in process -- it's still
envisioned. We don't want to change that. We just don't want to -- necessarily want to
have to change it again if the wording gets tweaked a little when they go to the UDC. And
for the standards themselves, we made some minor grammatical tweaks. There were no
significant changes. Just some minor formatting occurred and, then, a bunch of new
photos were added. Public involvement briefly. Early on we had a design manual work
group. There were a series of meetings over several months, beginning in December of
2014. After we completed a draft, additional invitations to comment were sent out. There
was broader outreach to design firms and, then, we also attended a BCA meeting and
provided them with all of our -- or at least working documents. In terms of the formal
application before the Planning and Zoning Commission on November 19th, they
recommended approval of the UDC revision to enable this document, which is really what
this is about. And, then, finally, we are here today. Finally, kind of next steps, as part of
this overhaul it allows site design elements that were not applicable at design review were
removed from the old design manual. These will be revisited later and incorporated in
either the UDC or the Comprehensive Plan. So, the ones that are more specific can go to
the UDC and the ones that are more kind of vague or general would go to the
Comprehensive Plan potentially. Some of them may, some of them we are keeping.
Additionally UDC changes would also have to occur to formalize some of the processes,
such as the new design standards exceptions. I touched on this last time, but,
essentially, that's a form of alternative compliance that lends itself more to creative design
freedom and latitude to approve. Any other ideas you want to do and not because it won't
sit on the site. And, lastly, tonight is -- staff is seeking approval to reference this new
document within the UDC. With that, if there is anymore detail questions I would be
happy to answer that. Again I will come with this again, so I don't want to bore you,
though, if you're good with it. And with that I will stand for any questions.
De Weerd: Thank you, Brian. Council, any questions?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Meridian City Council
December 15, 2015
Page 58 of 70
Borton: Brian, if you mentioned it earlier, I apologize, but who in the development
community do you reach out to for a project like this -- oftentimes the BCA isn't
necessarily the best spokesman for the development community.
McClure: The BCA -- Madam Mayor, Councilman Borton, the BCA -- we sent some drafts
and they -- you're right, they are the builders and not necessarily the people who are
designing these buildings, so they will build whatever they are given. But we were -- just
standard protocol for us to approach the BCA and involve them. The earlier stages of the
design work group we approached -- we sent out e-mails to people who were serving on
the design review committee. We haven't used that in a while, but we invited all of them
and, then, the additional -- I'm trying to think of what else we might have -- we had a -- we
had a developer in there and, then, we had another -- and the architects that have been
working with staff. So, they helped kind of steer with us initially and, then, afterwards we
sent it to a whole lot of architects, that we could find, and that was how we reached the
other architects. We didn't really receive any comments from any of them in terms of the
broader outreach, but we did try.
Borton: And similar outreach to the developers themselves?
McClure: The developers themselves we only approached the BCA. There were a
number of them included on the broader outreach as well, but, yeah, we didn't -- the
development community in general we didn't make a -- we didn't aggressively outreach to
them. The Mayor originally had asked us to speak with the realtors. We weren't really
sure how to do that and Caleb sent out an e-mail to a realtor contact, he said he would
send it to others, and, again, we didn't hear any feedback at all. We did try that. I'm not
really sure where that went after the e-mail went out, but -- yeah, that's -- did I answer
your question?
Borton: You did.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I think, Councilman Borton, hitting BCA -- because in housing it's a little different
than commercial to the fact that most of the builders hire the architects that draw it and
they have a lot of say on what the house is going to be, along with the owners, so I -- I
think Brian covered it -- covered the area pretty dang good on this.
McClure: Madam Mayor, Councilman Bird, just a note. The BCA -- Mr. Yorgason was
supportive of the project at the last meeting as well and just to make sure we are clear on
it, I said this last time as well. How we approach residential design is not changing from
what we do currently, so currently single family homes are not -- there is no design review
required, unless Council has directed that to occur. That is how it remains moving
forward. So, like the previous design manual which has had single family residential
standards, but were only applied when Council asked for them to be. The manual has
Meridian City Council
December 15, 2015
Page 59 of 70
single family residential standards, but they only apply when Council directs us to apply it.
So, nothing is really changing there in terms of single family homes.
De Weerd: Anything further from Council? Any questions? This is a public hearing. Is
there any member of the public who would like to testify? Our resident testifier, for the
lack of --
Turnbull: Madam Mayor, David Turnbull. Brighton Corporation. 12601 West Explorer
Drive in Boise.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Turnbull: Yeah, I didn't come here for this. I have been participating in parts of both of
these processes. You know, there seemed to be a few questions on some dimensional
standards. I would be happy to give you my take or input or answer any questions on
garage sizes or anything that you might have like that. I would say on the design review
this is primarily a commercial focused effort here. It's kind of impossible for me to attend
all of these hearings and keep up with all that's going on, but we did have one of the
architects that we use quite a bit Cornell Larsen involved in that and he would sort of
report back to me and I think he may have been one of the more active participants. You
know, as far as the BCA, that's really not their thing, they are into residential home
building. A few of them do some commercial building, but it's more commercial
developers like ourselves or commercial architects like Cornell Larsen that probably have
the best input there. The realtors -- you know, if you ever need to get a hold of them,
Miguel Legarreta is probably the right contact there or you can go up to their statewide
association as well. You know, I think that -- just a couple of comments on some of the
things that were reviewed in the UDC. I think the issue of what does R-4 mean, what
does R-8 mean, I think that those dimensional standard changes were probably more to
get the density in line with the underlying designation, so with an R-8 -- you know, I will
give you Century Farm as an example. That is an R-8 zone, but we are getting three units
to the acre. So, it was more of a public perception thing, I guess, if you want to look at it
that way, because sometimes when people see R-8 they think, well, we are going to get
eight units to the acre and it's virtually impossible to get eight units to the acre with the R-8
dimensional standards. So, the only way you could look at it is just redesignate your --
you know, keep the same dimensional standards and relable them, too. That's another
way you could look at it. I would say -- and this is just our experience -- if we are doing
single family housing, single family detached housing -- we tried one project with 46 foot
wide lots in a PUD, but that didn't work particularly well from a home design standpoint.
So, our standard right now in our company is this smallest frontage we would do,
basically, if you measure to the setback -- street frontages can be a little bit different than
the setback frontage. The narrowest we will do a single family detached is 50 feet. Fifty
foot wide lot. If you get narrower than that -- in my opinion you want to get quality
architectural design, you probably ought to go to attached, so that you combine those
frontages and so you have some opportunity to create some interest in the entry and not
be totally garage dominated front. So, that's -- you know, I would be happy to answer any
questions you might have there. Fencing was brought up on common areas. My
Meridian City Council
December 15, 2015
Page 60 of 70
personal opinion is that as long as there is an alternative compliance element there, there
are a lot of times where we have done common areas where we don't think it's really
appropriate to have fencing and I know what the concern is with the fencing, somebody
else will throw up a fence, but if you have an alternative compliance method where your
CC&Rs or something like that that fencing can be either not allowed or that if it is install it's
to a certain design standard, then, that might solve that. And, then, the open space
question was something that probably I brought up, because in the previous -- and I can't
even remember what the resolution is on this one, but we have done some large projects
where we have done -- you know, you're counting amenities, but we put in a clubhouse
that costs, you know, what, a million dollars plus and that counts as one amenity, when it
really should count as several. So, we talked about how do -- you know, do we go to a
point system and we didn't want to get too complicated, but that's sort of the difficulties
you run into when you take one standard that -- and apply it to all. So, you know, is a pool
that costs 100,000 dollars one amenity versus somebody putting in a little park with a park
bench and a picnic table. Just doesn't seem to equate. So, there, again, maybe an
alternative compliance method is the appropriate way to look at it. Like I said, I didn't
come here to testify, but just listening to the presentation and some of your questions that
is the input I would give you. And I will stand for any questions if you have any.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: No, but I appreciate your --
De Weerd: Great comments.
Bird: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. This is a public hearing and I don't see anyone else in the public that
looks like they are dying to provide feedback or comment. Council, any other questions
for staff or Mr. Turnbull?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Seeing none, I move we close the public hearing on UDC Text Amendment 2015
and Design Manual Revamp H-2015-0011.
Milam: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on Item 7-N. All
those in favor say aye. Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian City Council
December 15, 2015
Page 61 of 70
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I want to make a statement to our staff. Brian, Bill and Caleb, all you guys have
done a superb job on this. I appreciate all the work you have put into it and stuff and you
covered all the bases for us.
De Weerd: Dean is looking pretty nervous over there. You need to articulate.
Bird: Anyway, thank you guys very much.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: With respect to the design standard manual, what's happened is the original
intent of the design guideline that was created was to give you a place and as we work
through it find -- find all the bugs and work those out and, hopefully, the same group of
architects and folks that spend a lot of time originally on this. The intent of having this was
to get this body out of the design business and it's happened and it's been a good thing
think. And I appreciate staff's work and, Brian, especially, your work in coordinating that
and Bill and Caleb, the work you have done as well. And I think it's been successful and
it's been successful to me in that it has morphed into something hopefully better and
reflects the things that are working and got rid of the things that weren't. So, I think that's
a good thing. With respect to the UDC revamp, I -- I would like you to explore the -- the
border or buffer comment that I made about dimensional standards. I would like to see
the -- the R-4 stay the same. R-8 could go down and just for some flexibility of housing
types and just because it's R-8 and it says -- David mentioned doesn't mean that it has to
be that, so I was looking, thinking do some things with larger lots and architecture, but
maybe have some setbacks that are different, but make them work well. So, that would
be my recommendation at least for the R-4. Go ahead and work the other five categories
with respect to the changes. On the amenities, I think you have gone the right direction
with the larger lots. I think we do need to define what -- what an amenity is in terms of --
and I think, David, you represented it rather well that, you know, is a swimming pool or a
clubhouse an amenity, as opposed to a bench and jungle gym. Pretty significant
difference in terms of space and expense and usability to the community that it's in. So, if
you can explore some way to -- I don't think it needs to be a dollar and cents thing, but to
expand that definition that a clubhouse might offset a certain amount of open space. Or a
swimming pool and adjoining meeting space or whatever would possibly eliminate some
-- some or most of the empty space, with the exception of maybe the entranceway or a
boulevard or a collector into the community. But have that be the focus of the open space
in the area. Again, that's just a thought and you don't have to do what I'm saying, but I
just would like you to think about that. I really have a tough time seeing that you might
Meridian City Council
December 15, 2015
Page 62 of 70
just as well do away with the R-4 if you bring it down that low, because it -- the products
are going to begin to all look the same in the R-4 at any rate.
De Weerd: Any comments from Council?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: To echo Councilman Rountree and -- on the amenities. I think we really need to
look at what the amenities are putting in and how we can -- you know, a pool and a
clubhouse and stuff like that is quite -- an amenity and, then, to stack other stuff on top of
it don't seem fair, so -- and I'm like him, I -- I can change everything but the R-4. I just --
-- you may as well just have all R-8.
De Weerd: Really?
Bird: That's what you would end up with.
Milam: Oh. No. You didn't mean that.
De Weerd: Is that a motion?
Milam: No.
Bird: No.
Borton: For the record.
Bird: It's for the record.
De Weerd: He was just mumbling, Dean.
Bird: Yeah. Don't put that down.
De Weerd: Any other comments from Council?
Rountree: Madam Mayor, with respect to the motion on this item, because it's been ask
for approval and there is portions of it that I think we can approve and portions of it that we
would like staff to take additional work on.
De Weerd: Can you talk into your microphone.
Rountree: I will move over two inches, so it can hear me. So, I would move that we -- can
we approve a portion and direct staff to -- okay.
Meridian City Council
December 15, 2015
Page 63 of 70
Nary: Yes.
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I would move that we approve the design manual revamp and
its inclusion in mentioning in the UDC and direct staff to consider our comments with
respect to the UDC text amendment and bring some clarification back to us. Do you have
a date? Do we need a date certain?
De Weerd: Can we make those two separate motions or do they have to be together?
Milam: If you want to get it done this year, then, you might want to --
Nary: They could be done -- probably should be done separately.
Rountree: Okay. All right. Then I move that we approve the design manual revamp and
its inclusion by reference in the UDC.
Milam: Second.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second regarding the design review of the UDC. Any
discussion? 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.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we have staff consider the discussion this evening and bring back
a final recommendation with respect to the comments made on the proposed UDC text
changes.
Bird: Second.
Rountree: And, then, a date certain?
Nary: Well, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, unless you're going to do it next
week, which I don't think -- is a little ambitious, they will just have to renotice it for a future
one. I don't know of any other way to do it.
Rountree: I don't have a 2016 calendar, but I would say for January -- is it the 11th?
Meridian City Council
December 15, 2015
Page 64 of 70
Milam: 12th. 19th. 26th.
De Weerd: The workshop on the 12th or -- 19th. 26th.
Rountree: Bring that back to the Council on January 19th, 2016.
Bird: Second agrees.
De Weerd: Okay. Any discussion?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Joe.
Borton: The weight afforded to amenities, the discussion sounded kind of quaintish, like
you allocate points for a clubhouse, versus a tot lot. If that's not the direction, it probably
would be helpful to staff. Or if that is the direction. One way or the other on how you're
going to allocate the weight of --
De Weerd: Quaintish. Sounds kind of --
JflF NW41N=ff , r9Ma
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I didn't mean to be pointed. I meant it that I know the creativity
of staff and they will come with a solution that works or they will make -- they will continue
with the recommendations they have, because it is a workable model for them.
Parsons: I guess, Madam Mayor, for my clarification, just so I make sure I bring back the
correct information. One, talking about maybe having something in the ordinance about
transition lot sizes when you butt up against an R-4 or R-2 development.
Rountree: Correct.
Parsons: Maybe explore as far as regards to the R-8 standards or the R-4, it seems like
Council is leaning on just leaving that alone, so --
Rountree: Correct.
Parsons: -- really nothing to explore there. And, then, it sounds like a point system,
essentially, for the open, meaning a credit has been -- if you put in a clubhouse and a
pool, you did five percent opens space or something to that effect. I know I have played
around with some of that language. I have kind of a draft of that started. I don't know if
that's the perfect solution at this time. But certainly I can reopen that drawing board and
see what we can do, Caleb and myself. I mean look at that. Those are probably the two
items. It's just the --
Meridian City Council
December 15, 2015
Page 65 of 70
Rountree: You covered it think rather well, Bill.
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I just would like to clarify what I think I heard on the R-4 and the R-8. I would
be supportive of not changing the R-4 requirements from what they currently are. I would
be supportive of changing the R-8 requirements. So, it's not changing the four, but do
change the eight.
Parsons: Yeah. Leave it as is.
Zaremba: Is that what you were saying?
Parsons: Yes. Leave it as --
Zaremba: Okay.
Parsons: Leave everything dimensional standards to what is here, except for the R --
R-8 district is what I heard.
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Zaremba: Works for me.
De Weerd: Okay. There is a motion and a second to continue this to next month on the
19th. So, all those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: Just to add a comment, I, too, appreciate all the work that staff is putting into
this. This is a continuing and evolving project, but I also wanted to recommend --
recognize the time and effort that Mr. Turnbull puts into many of our things. He was on
the committee that helped write the UDC. He has stayed involved in making good
recommendations about what works and what doesn't and has been very generous of
sharing his time and his knowledge with the city staff and Council and everybody else and
just wanted to recognize -- I, for one, appreciate the comments that he makes and the
help that he's been.
Rountree: I will second that motion.
De Weerd: I will third.
Meridian City Council
December 15, 2015
Page 66 of 70
Milam: Third.
Bird: Fourth, fifth, sixth.
Milam: All those in favor -- oh.
Bird: It's nice to have somebody involved like that.
De Weerd: I appreciate your comment, Mr. Zaremba, and thank you, Mr. Turnbull. Our
thanks to staff as well for your diligence and making sure the I's are dotted and the T's are
crossed and that you go out and seek feedback and that's appreciated.
Item 8: Department Reports
A. Strategic Plan Update Moved to December 22, 2015
B. Quarterly Dashboard Discussion
De Weerd: So, with that said we will move into Item 8-C. I will just -- I don't think we have
to have a motion to move department reports.
C. Police Department: Budget Amendment for the Purchase of a
Replacement Canine to Service the Needs of the City, for the
Not -to -Exceed Amount of $8,000.00
De Weerd: So, we are looking at under the police department and, lieutenant, are you
going to comment on this?
De St. Germain: Yes. We purchased two dogs back in October 2014. One of the dogs is
skittish and just can't go up stairs and we have tried everything. We have had other
handlers work with him and he just cannot operate from high levels. We put him up on
tables and he just shuts down immediately. So, we had a warranty on the dog for five
years. We contacted the company, they are going to give us a replacement dog and,
then, started not returning our phone calls. So, we contacted legal. They have sent a
letter and a demand by December 9th I think it was and we have no response from them
whatsoever. So, we have got a handler with a dog that doesn't meet our standards. So,
we would like 8,000 dollars to purchase another dog from a more reputable canine
vendor.
De Weerd: Thank you. So, you have one that does the ground work, but doesn't want to
do anymore than that?
De St. Germain: It's amazing. You get him on just a second floor and that dog just shuts
down and lays down and won't do the same things that he does -- we took him to the fire
station and put him up the stairs, he won't go past the third stair. He starts tugging to go
Meridian City Council
December 15, 2015
Page 67 of 70
back down again. So, I don't know why we didn't pick that up in the beginning, but Berle
said we put him through the drills and he passed all the basic drills, but the dog can't
function at this time.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
Iplay,kyf @MLVAImo: • •
Borton: You're going to get a dog from a different vendor, I presume?
De St. Germain: Pardon me?
Borton: From a different vendor?
De St. Germain: Oh, yes.
Borton: Yeah.
De St. Germain: This vendor I think is going bankrupt. They purchased a lot of dogs for
the Army and I think they didn't do their finances well and so they have not returned any of
our phone calls. We have all called them. We have mailed them. And, then, finally we
contacted legal to send them a demand letter.
De Weerd: Okay.
Cavener: Madam Mayor? Question. What happens to the dog?
De St. Germain: What we are going to try to do is we are going to put him on the POST
site and offer him to an agency like BLM that doesn't go out -- they are on land all the time
and he's a good drug dog, but he's not a good bite dog. So, they use him out in the BLM
area I think he will function well and we would have to give him to them at a reduced rate.
Try and get some of our money back and, then, see what happens with legal.
Cavener: Thanks.
Milam: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Milam.
Milam: I move that we approve a budget amendment for the purchase of a replacement
canine for the not to exceed amount of 8,000 dollars.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Madam Clerk.
Meridian City Council
December 15, 2015
Page 68 of 70
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 9: Ordinances
A. Ordinance No. 15-1666: An Ordinance (AZ 15-012 Graycliff
Estates) of the City of Meridian Granting Annexation and Zoning
for a Parcel of Land Containing 52.46 Acres more or less, located
in the SE'/4 of Section 25, Township 3 North, Range 1 West,
Boise, Ada County, Idaho from RUT to R-8 (Medium Density
Residential District) and R-40 (High Density Residential District)
in the Meridian City Code
De Weerd: Item 9-A is ordinance 15-1666. Madam Clerk, will you, please, read this
ordinance by title.
Holman: Thank you, Madam Mayor. City of Meridian Ordinance No. 15-1666, an
ordinance AZ 15-012, Graycliff Estates for annexation and rezone of a parcel of land
located in the SE 1/4 of Section 25, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise, Ada County,
Idaho as described in Attachment A and annexing certain lands and territories situated in
Ada County, Idaho, and adjacent and contiguous to the corporate limits of the City of
Meridian, as requested by the City of Meridian, establishing and determining the land use
zoning classification of said lands from RUT to R-8, Medium Density Residential District,
and R-40, High Density Residential District, in the Meridian City Code. Providing that
copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County
Recorder and the Idaho State Tax Commission as required by law and providing for a
summary of the ordinance and providing for a waiver of the reading rules and providing an
effect date.
De Weerd: You have heard this read by title. Is there a motion to approve?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve Ordinance No. 15-1666 with suspension of rules.
Milam: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 9-A. Madam Clerk, will you call
roll.
Roll Call: Rountree, yea; Bird, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener, yea.
Meridian City Council
December 15, 2015
Page 69 of 70
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
B. Ordinance No. 15-1667: An Ordinance (RZ 13-016 DaVinci Park)
for the Rezone of a Parcel of Land Being Portions of the NE 1/4 of
the NE'/4 of Lot 7, Crestwood Subdivision No. 1, Located in
Section 31, Township 4 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, City
of Meridian, Ada County Idaho; Establishing and Determining the
Land Use Zoning Classification of C -N (Neighborhood Business)
and R-8 (Medium Density Residential) Zoning Districts in the
Meridian City Code
De Weerd: 9-B is Ordinance 15-1667. Madam Clerk, will you read this by title only.
Holman: Thank you, Madam Mayor. City of Meridian Ordinance No. 15-1667, an
Ordinance RZ 13-016, DaVinci Park for the rezone of a parcel of land being portions of
the
NE '/4 of the NE '/4 of Lot 7, Crestwood Subdivision No. 1, Located in Section 31,
Township 4 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, City of Meridian, Ada County Idaho;
establishing and determining the land use zoning classification of C -N, Neighborhood
Business Zoning District, and R-8, Medium Density Residential Zoning District, in the
Meridian City Code. Providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada
County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder and the Idaho State Tax Commission as
required by law and providing for a summary of the ordinance and providing for a waiver
of the reading rules and providing an effect date.
De Weerd: You have heard this ordinance read by title only. Any discussion from
Council?
Milam: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Milam.
Milam: I move we approve Ordinance No. 15-1667 with suspension of rules.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 8-B. 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
December 15, 2015
Page 70 of 70
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: We are at the end of our agenda, Council.
Bird: Madam Mayor, I move we adjourn.
Rountree: Second.
Milam: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:28 P.M.
(AUD G -RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
MAYOR T1 -"Y De WEE DATE APPROVED
�UtAT=,DgiJ,Crs l!a
ATTEST: �p
�4- k / / a City O(
JAYCEE HOLMAN, CITY CLEC K
�. SEAL,
A
;RF,�s��`��; a'�