HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-01-26Meridian City Council January 26, 2016
A meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:10 p.m., Tuesday, January
26, 2016, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd.
Members Present: Keith Bird, Joe Borton, Genesis Milam, Luke Cavener, Ty Palmer and
Anne Little Roberts.
Others Present: Bill Nary, Jaycee Holman, Bruce Chatterton, Warren Stewart, John
Overton, David Jones, Bill Parsons, and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll-call Attendance:
Roll call.
X Anne Little Roberts X _ Joe Borton
X__ Ty Palmer X_ Keith Bird
__X__ Genesis Milam __X__ Lucas Cavener
__X Mayor Tammy de Weerd
De W eerd: Thank you for being here. Sorry we are getting started late, but welcome to
our City Council meeting. I'd like to welcome the Rocky Mountain High School football
champions for joining us here tonight. It's okay if you clap. Item No. 1 is roll call
attendance. Madam Clerk, will you, please, call roll.
Item 2: Pledge of Allegiance
De Weerd: Thank you. Item No. 2 is the Pledge of Allegiance. If you will all rise and join
us in the pledge to our flag.
(Pledge of Allegiance recited.)
Item 3: Community Invocation by Troy Drake with Calvary Chapel Meridian
De Weerd: Item No. 3 is our community invocation. Tonight we will be led by Pastor Troy
Drake. He is with Calvary Chapel here in Meridian. If you will, please, join us in the
community invocation or take this as an opportunity for a moment of reflection. Welcome.
Drake: Hello, Mayor, Council Members. Let us pray. Lord God in Heaven, just want to --
on behalf of the city express our gratitude towards you that we have this country, this
state, this city where we can live and work and play in freedom, God. So, we just
appreciate that so much and we just ask for safety for the citizens tonight and, Lord, that
you would root out evil and protect our law enforcement officers, God, so that we can
pursue the dreams that we desire and, Lord, also I just thank you for these people here
that serve you, Lord, tirelessly and I just pray, God, that you would bless them, God, that
they would do like your Prophet Micah said, that they would -- that we humbly serve you,
God, and we just thank you for them and pray that you would give them wisdom here
Meridian City Council
January 26, 2016
Page 2 of 27
tonight as they work through these matters of business of the city and I pray that you
would bless them for their time and their efforts and you give them just supernatural
wisdom to accomplish your will. So, we appreciate you, God. We appreciate them. And
it's in Jesus' name we pray, amen.
Item 4: Adoption of the Agenda
De Weerd: Okay. Item No. 4 is adoption of the agenda.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Under 6-G, the resolution number is 16-1116. Under 9-A the ordinance number is
16-1670R. And we would like to add Item 11, which is an Executive Session as per Idaho
State Code 74-206(1)(a), which is to consider hiring a public officer employee, staff
member or individual agent wherein the respective qualities of individuals are to be
evaluated in order to fill a particular vacancy or need. This paragraph does not apply to
filling a vacancy in elective office or deliberations about staffing needs in general. And
with that I move we approve the amended agenda.
Borton: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve the amended agenda. All those in
favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 5: Proclamation
A. Proclamation for Rocky Mountain High School Football State
Champions Day
De Weerd: Item 5 is under Proclamations. I will move down to the podium. It's taken us
a little while to get our high school champion football players here to celebrate their big
win as our state champions and so I would like to invite them forward at this time to come
join me as I read the proclamation. So, come on up, guys. Okay. I have two
proclamations here. One has listed all your names and that's not the one I'm going to
read, because I know I will mess every single one of them up. But I will tell you that it will
be listed in our minutes for the history of this day and so if you ever want to send your
grandchildren back to say I was at this City Council meeting, I had a day named after me
and my name is in the records of the city, you can do that. So, I will give that one to your
coach, but for now I will read this proclamation. Whereas being a Rocky Mountain football
player is more than tackles, yardage, kickoffs and touchdowns, it is training to build
leadership, character, confidence, teamwork and resilience, all traits that are needed to
succeed on the field, in the classroom and in the real world and whereas the Rocky
Meridian City Council
January 26, 2016
Page 3 of 27
Mountain football team's overall record for the 2015 season was 11 wins and one loss,
and whereas their hard work and teamwork resulted in recently winning the 20 15 state
championship tournament for football, the first in the school history and whereas the
capturing of the state title builds school spirit and allows these student athletes to walk the
halls of Rocky Mountain High School with a little extra swagger and whereas the
leadership, training, and discipline of their coaches helped all team members to focus their
talents and passion to becoming a winning team and each player making a valuable
contribution to their victory, therefore, I, Mayor Tammy de Weerd, of the City of Meridian
do hereby proclaim January 26, 2016, as Rock Mountain High School football state
champions day in the City of Meridian and call upon the community to join me in
congratulating the Grizzlies on their remarkable athletic achievement for representing
Meridian so proudly in the state championship. So, if you will all join me in congratulating
these young men. And I'm going present this to your coach and ask for a few words on
behalf of the team and if you would all be interested, we'd love to have you introduce
yourself, the position you play, and what grade you're in. And so, coach, I, with honor,
present you this proclamation and along with our congratulations on this tremendous feat
and so proudly representing our community.
Criner: Thank you very much. Appreciate it. First of all, for all the hours and hours and
hours of work that our coaches, our players, our parents have put in for this to come as an
honor -- an additional honor for this football team for all those hours is fantastic. It's
something that will be with us forever and they will never be able to take that away and I
thank the City of Meridian, the Council, the Mayor, for giving us this consideration and we
have got one down and we are going to work to get another. All right?
Perez: I'm Devon Perez. I'm a senior and I played cornerback.
Shaw: I'm Jacob Shaw and I play receiver and I am a senior.
Belderrain: I'm Tyler Belderrain and I'm a sophomore and I played safety.
Nyirakomini: My name is Moses Nyirakomini. I'm a senior and I play quarterback.
Alibergic: My name is Nino. I'm a kicker and I'm a senior.
Roper: My name is Jake Roper. I play running back and I'm a senior.
Dalmas: My name is Jonah and I'm a junior and I'm the kicker.
Walters: My name is Roshawn Walters. I'm a senior and I played safety.
Page: My name is Trent Page. I play quarterback and I'm a freshman.
Black: My name is Will Black. I'm a senior and I play safety.
Gillespy: I'm Ryan Gillespy. I'm a senior and I play receiver.
Meridian City Council
January 26, 2016
Page 4 of 27
Ewing: My name is Tucker Ewing. I'm a junior and I play receiver.
Peewee: I'm Peewee. I play outside linebacker and I'm a junior.
Blackstock: I'm Bailey Blackstock. I'm a senior and I play cornerback.
Robinson: I'm Caleb Robinson. I'm a junior and I play center.
Novakiny: I'm Austin Novakiny. I'm a junior and I play safety.
Frazier: I'm Kyle Frazier and I play outside linebacker and I'm a junior.
Tuccindardi: I'm Joey Tuccindardi. I play defensive lineman. I'm a sophomore.
Freeborn: I'm Keeghan Freeborn. I'm a sophomore. I play left guard.
Sever: My name is Reece Sever. I'm a senior. I played outside linebacker, middle
linebacker and defensive end.
Nawahine: My name is Gavin Nawahine. I'm a junior and I play D end.
McKernan: I'm Blake McKernan. I play fullback and I'm a senior.
Rinker: I'm Alex Rinker. I'm a senior. I play receiver.
Redd: I'm Zach Redd and I played center and I'm a junior.
Allegood: I'm Parker Allegood and I played tight end and I'm a senior.
Wetherell: I'm Den Wetherell. I'm a defensive lineman and I'm a senior.
Kraft: Josh Kraft. I play wide receiver and I'm a senior.
Jacobs: I'm Connor Jacobs. I'm played offensive right guard. I'm a junior.
Perkins: I'm Thomas Perkins and I play quarterback and I'm a junior.
Blaser: I'm Christian Blaser. I'm a senior and I'm quarterback.
Mitchell: I'm Ryan Mitchell. I'm a senior and I play corner.
Tia: My name is John Tia. I play safety and I'm a sophomore.
Parendo: My name is Andrew Parendo. I play D line and I'm a senior.
Meridian City Council
January 26, 2016
Page 5 of 27
Shelton: My name is Cordell Shelton. I play corner and I'm a junior.
Piper: My name is Jake Piper. I'm played wide receiver and I'm a senior.
Wood: My name is Connor Wood. I play right tackle and I'm a junior.
Hill: I'm Tamir Hill. I'm a freshman. I play D line.
Martin: I'm Taylor Martin. I'm a senior and I play middle linebacker.
De Weerd: If we can get all of you here for just a quick picture and, then, we will excuse
you. But I would say -- this is the kind of group that I group up in. My father was a football
coach and so kind of used to the chaos, but also know the hard work and discipline that it
takes to have a championship team. So, big congratulations to this group. Okay. On the
count of three let's do it. One. Two. Three.
B. Proclamation for School Choice Day
De Weerd: Okay. Our second proclamation is on School Choice Day and I would ask
those that are here to receive this to come forward. If -- we know how to clear a room.
But if you couldn't -- I know. If you couldn't tell the -- the priority of youth and education in
our community -- they just left the room. But it's with honor I read this proclamation.
Whereas being a student is more than reading, writing, and arithmetic, it is developing
leadership, character, confidence, and teamwork, all traits needed to succeed in the
classroom and in the real world; whereas Meridian is home to a multitude of high quality
diverse educational options, such as public, charter, magnet, STEM and home schooling
from which parents can choose for their children and whereas educational variety plays a
huge role in the success of all of our students, as well as greatly enhances the vibrancy
and economic vitality of our community and whereas the leadership, training, commitment
and discipline of our teaching professionals in all types of school settings offer the highest
quality education possible for our children and whereas on January 27th many will rally
together to fill the steps of the statehouse to show their support and favor school choice.
Therefore, I, Mayor Tammy de Weerd, do hereby proclaim January 27th as School Choice
Day in the City of Meridian and call upon all of our citizens to recognize and appreciate
the value and importance of educational variety for our youth and for our community. So,
I sign that this day and look forward to presenting this to Krysten Counts. I will present
this to you and --
Counts: I'm really thankful for school choice, because I grew up with a very difficult
childhood and having school choice really blessed me and going to Cole Valley has really
pushed me to my full potential and to show that you may struggle, but the outcome is
greater and so I just thank you all for coming tonight.
LeClaire: So, my name is Briana LeClaire, I'm executive director of the Idaho Federation
of Independent Schools, which is Idaho's statewide private school organization, and I
would like to -- well, I will let the rest of the folks up here introduce themselves, but I just
Meridian City Council
January 26, 2016
Page 6 of 27
want to say that we really appreciate the support of the city and our of mayor. This means
a lot that the City of Meridian considers school choice and private schools to be of so
much importance that they would declare this. So -- come up here and say hello.
Bartelsen: Hello. I'm Mary Bartelsen and I'm here because with my kids we have done
every kind of school choice you could do.
Lockhart: I'm Jean Lockhart. I'm the board chair of Federation of Independent Schools
and I also work at the rescue mission and we are excited about school choice, because
the kids who come to the rescue mission are always struggling in school and having
options always helps them.
Norton: My name is Greg Norton. I'm from the Sheridan Academy. We are on Overland
and Eagle. I encourage you to come by and say hello, check out our school. High school
and junior high.
Wilson: I'm Leigh Wilson. I'm the executive director for Sheridan Academy and what he
didn't tell you is he is also the founder of Sheridan Academy.
Den Hartog: I'm Lori den Hartog. I'm the senator for District 22, which is part of Meridian,
and a proud supporter of school choice. My kids go to Nampa Christian and I think there
are a lot of opportunities and a lot of different ways that we can educate our kids. Thank
you.
De Weerd: I will point out that this weekend I wore my Cole Valley Chargers T-shirt and
so had even a comment on it on Facebook.
Item 6: Consent Agenda
A. Indemnification Agreement with The Sundance Company for Use
of 2100 S. Silverstone Way, Meridian, Idaho for 5-9 Police
Training Event
B. Professional Services Agreement with Daniel Borup For
Fabrication And Installation Of Meridian City Hall Plaza Artwork
for an Amount Not-to-Exceed $36,100.00
C. Approval of Task Order 10050.b to MOUNTAIN WATERWORKS,
INC for the “WRRF CENTRATE MODIFICATIONS - DESIGN”
project for a Not-To-Exceed amount of $146,975.00
D. Approval of Task Order 10517.a to THE LAND GROUP, INC. for
the “WILLIAM WATSON-BAINBRIDGE PARK - DESIGN” project
for a Not-To-Exceed amount of $80,960.00.
Meridian City Council
January 26, 2016
Page 7 of 27
E. Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement for Cavanaugh
Subdivision
F. Sanitary Sewer & Water Main Easement Decatur Estates
Subdivision No. 1
G. Resolution No. 16-1116: A Resolution Approving the By Laws of
the Meridian Historic Preservation Commission as Amended on
January 14, 2016.
H. Approval of Twenty-Three (23) Development Agreements 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 for the 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
I. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law: Eagle Commons at
Overland (H-2015-0024) by Eagle Commons at Overland, LLC
Located Northeast Corner of S. Eagle Road and E. Overland
Road 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: Okay. Item No. 6 is our Consent Agenda.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I as stated before, Items 6-G, the resolution number is 16-1116 and with that I move
we approve the Consent Agenda, for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest.
Milam: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda. If there is no
discussion or questions, Madam Clerk, will you, please, call roll.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener, yea; Palmer, yea; Little Roberts,
yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 7: Items Moved From the Consent Agenda
Meridian City Council
January 26, 2016
Page 8 of 27
De Weerd: Item 7. There were no items moved from the Consent Agenda.
Item 8: Action Items
A. Public Hearing Continuing from January 19, 2016 for UDC Text
Amendment 2015 & Meridian Design Manual Revamp (H-2015-
0011) by City of Meridian Planning Division Approved
1. Request: Text Amendment to the Unified Development
Code (UDC) as follows:
a. 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
b. Reformat of the Meridian Design Manual Including
Reducing Duplicate Guidelines; Removing Site Design
and Transportation Related Guidelines; Emphasize
Architectural Elements and Change the Name of the
Design Manual to the City of Meridian Architectural
Standards Manual
De Weerd: So, A-8 is a public hearing continued from January 19th on the UDC Text
Amendment 2015 and the Meridian Design Manual revamp. I will turn this over to Bill.
Parsons: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, new Council members. I'm
glad to be here this evening before you to hopefully get these UDC text amendments
wrapped up at the beginning of the year. This project was continued from your December
15th, 2015, hearing for three reasons mainly and I prepared a memo for you that outlined
what we were looking at this evening. One would be looking at our -- removing our R-4
dimensional standards or not moving forward with the proposed changes that I shared
with you on the December 15th hearing. The Council directed staff to look at some other
options for some creativity to our open space site amenity standards and, then, a previous
council member also wanted staff to look into providing some language in the UDC for
allowing transitional lot sizes being added to our UDC as well. As I have mentioned to
you this evening, the -- this project is broke down into two requirements or two sections.
One is item A on your agenda. The other item is B. On the first are the three items that I
talked about and, then, item B were the changes to the design manual, which the previous
motion on those changes were approved and supported by the Council at that time. So,
tonight again I'm only going to touch on these three items that we talked about in my
Meridian City Council
January 26, 2016
Page 9 of 27
memo. The Meridian design manual itself, Council approved those changes, so tonight is
really just about item A on the agenda. So, I at least wanted to provide those clarifications
to you. One other item that I would like to share with you is I want ed to thank Council for
indulging staff and the BCA last week for continuing this item . We do have a
representative from the BCA tonight to share his concerns or his comments with the letter
that you received in your packet last week. So, as I mentioned to you when I presented to
-- presented this project back on December 15th, staff was proposing some modifications
to the R-4 dimensional standards. In particular we were requesting a 50 foot minimum
street frontage requirement and a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet. Some of the
Council members at that time felt that was a stretch and the lot sizes were getting too
small, getting closer to our typical R-8 standards. So, what staff has done -- and I did
revise the table that accompanied the memo that I prepared last week, but we, actually,
aren't even proposing to move forward with any modifications to the R-4 dimensional
standards, so that currently is off the table. Staff also went even further and we also
removed the R-2 dimensional standards. Again, that's something we discussed with the
UDC focus group, but in staff's mind there weren't really -- our philosophy was -- on that
instance was if something isn't broke why fix it. So, we really weren't hearing any issues
from the development community as far as our minimum street frontage and lot sizes for
the R-2 district. So, staff went ahead and removed that table as well and so we will leave
that. We are recommending that those dimensional standards remain the way they are
currently in the UDC. The other item that Mr. Rountree brought up at the hearing was --
and I think you have seen it probably over the last several meetings where the neighbors
come out and they testify about transitional lot sizes adjacent to their subdivisions.
Typically from a planning perspective residential to residential to us there is no transition
needed. That's residential use to a residential use. We are more concerned with
transition between commercial and industrial uses to residential. So, staff did not prepare
any language to add to the UDC. We went back, we looked at the Comprehensive Plan.
We feel that we have policies in place in that document that we can use as a tool and
provide our development community the tools or the -- at least take a message forward
from this Council that they are looking for that as part of their annexation and their
subdivision projects and I think one thing that I have communicated to our staff that I will
after this hearing is that when we pre-app with developers or even owners, that we need
to let them know that this is a concern from the city that we do want you to take advantage
and listen to the neighbors during your neighborhood meeting and provide some of those
transitional lot sizes along the perimeter of your development and, then, go to your smaller
lot sizes. It's, again, something supporting the comp plan and certainly sounds like it's
supported by this Council moving forward. The last item came down to our open space
requirements and we did have a developer that stood up and talked about just trying to
get some kind of proportionate share of -- if I do this style of amenity can I offset my open
space in lieu of that and at the time staff wasn't ready to move forward on any of those
types of revisions, because we knew that would take a lot more work, a lot more effort,
with the development community, city staff, and also our BCA partners and so what I have
done this evening and I have outlined in my memo is I came up with two options. Now,
keep in mind this isn't ready to be adopted tonight, it's merely just discussion points for
this evening, but I would like Council to give me direction on if staff is at least piquing your
interest or if there is something there that you see you want us to pursue that we can take
Meridian City Council
January 26, 2016
Page 10 of 27
up with our next UDC text amendment, at least let me -- provide me with that feedback so
I at least can get that out in front of the development community and get it out with our
next round of UDC changes. So, to accompany my memo last week I did have option one
for you to consider. Now, keep in mind these still need to be vetted and this is something
that Mayor brought up last time as well, it's -- currently as you all are aware we require ten
percent open space in the UDC for developments five acres or greater and so we realize
that sometimes when an R-2 development comes in there are potential for more open
space on the residential lot and so we had proposed some language at that time that said
if you had a certain lot size -- an average lot size you wouldn't need to meet the open
space requirements, but you would still have to meet the minimum site amenities
requirement. We still see value in that. We have not -- might not necessarily want to
move forward with that at this time, but in my option one I still kept that in as a viable
option for us to look at at a future UDC text amendment update and so that provision is
still here located on item A and, then, item B goes to something that we can entertain or --
again, this is staff's best guess at this point and it was brought up by that developer. So,
for example, you have a large open space lot or an essential open space lot and on that
lot you have a clubhouse, a pool, and maybe a tot lot. Well, at that point maybe there is --
there is an option to reduce your open space, because you have everything consolidated
on one open space. The clubhouse can be used when the pool is not in session. You
have a tot lot that can be used as well and, then, they can also recreate in the open
space. So, this was our first look at saying, okay, if we do have that nice amenity package
on one large consolidated lot maybe that does work, maybe we don't need that open
space, because we can get everyone congregating at one central open space. And so
what I have tried to do here is, basically, allow that, but, again, we don't want that open
space to go below five percent. We still think there is a value to have a minimum open
space in the code under this scenario and, then, under our qualifying site amenities I have
highlighted which appropriate site amenities would count towards a reduction to your open
space and the reason why I left it as determined by the director built into this is because,
again, at annexation or plat we still want to leave that discretion open if we f eel like this
amenity package isn't meeting the intent of the open space or site amenity ordinance, we
still want to leave that discretion to the director as part of our recommendation to the
Planning and Zoning Commission and to the City Council and that's why I left it pretty
open and I think in particular in talking with the development community there seems to be
one of the amenities that they think is above and beyond your typical tot lot is a clubhouse
and I agree, I mean certainly we can all agree he re that there is a value to a clubhouse
and to a pool and so I was trying to break it down and now these amenities that I
represent here they are all in the -- currently in the UDC. There is no minimum size
requirements at this time. That's something that we still need to explore. But we
highlighted the clubhouse and here in this particular case I did add 500 square feet and
this was something that I took up with our building department just to make sure what's a
good -- what's a quality site with a minimum size we could see based on say a hundred
acre subdivision or a 50 acre subdivision and this seemed to be something that would be
a fitness facility, it could be incorporated into a clubhouse. Currently we do allow for a
neighborhood business center and there are specific standards in our code that they
would have to meet in order for that to qualify and, then, going back to the swimming pool
scenario if one was provided. Again, there would be a minimum square footage area
Meridian City Council
January 26, 2016
Page 11 of 27
around that clubhouse that could be used as your open space as well. And, then, they
would have to provide two additional amenities in order for them to take advantage of that
reduced open space. Now, keep in mind, again, this is my first blush at it, but I felt in
looking at typical developments in Meridian what I have seen over the last couple of years
we have typically seen a pool, a changing room, a tot lot, and, then, some grassy open
area for people to recreate in and to me that seems to be what's attracting people to those
communities. So, this is -- and, then, I took a look at what we currently have in code and
how could we keep what we have, but kind of modify it in order to give that developer or
that property owner a comfort level that they could ask for a reduction in ope n space. So,
I will pause for a moment and let you ponder this and stand for any questions you may
have on option one.
De Weerd: I guess, Bill, my question is are we incentivizing something different, you
know, or are we just going to expect cookie cutt er options and with less open space and
less imagination? I -- I think that ultimately this Council has wanted to incentivize the --
the creation of communities within a community and to have something that's different,
unique, and responds to the -- the demand that is different than what we have and to be
incentives to -- to innovate, instead of just more of the same, but less amenities and less
open space and more people tighter together. Does that make sense?
Parsons: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I think -- I think the status -- I mean
certainly the code the way we have it now, nothing is broken in it. I mean we are trying to
work with the development community and we feel that what we have in place does give
them viable options, but we do want to try to incentivize these projects, so we don't get the
same cookie cutter development. Right now the way that I have it structured we are using
the amenities that we have in our code. We haven't looked at other communities to see
what they allow for as far as their amenities go and this is -- this only touches on a very
small portion of that, amenities, and, then, as you get to option two you can see how we
have some more of those options available to you, but this is just a first blush. If we are
going to reduce -- there is -- I guess for staff we struggle there is -- there is always a value
to open space in a development and there is always a value to an amenity in a
development and that's how we feel. We want inclusive communities, just like the Council
wants, and we don't -- we don't want to lose sight of that. So, we don't want to go too far
one way and reduce the open space where, really, all we are getting is homes and, then,
an amenity package that no one uses. That's always -- that can be the case, too. Or put
a financial burden on an HOA in 20 years from now, because they can't afford open space
or those expensive amenities, because they have to maintain them. So, there is always a
fine line there on how you do that and, to be frank with you, this is a struggle, this isn't
easy to do, and we are trying to work within our current code, but I think that's why we are
asking for tonight take these under -- take these options under consideration. If you don't
like any of them tell us to go back to the drawing board and we are happy to do that. We
just want to make sure we give you some options and provide you some clarity on where
we are struggling with it, too, and, then, hopefully come back in six months with something
that we can all agree to and build in better incentives for the community as a whole and
provide usable open space and amenities that everyone can take advantage.
Meridian City Council
January 26, 2016
Page 12 of 27
Palmer: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Palmer.
Palmer: Madam Mayor, thanks. I may be -- I'm probably alone in this, but I would be in
favor of seeing that sentence go away, that if a developer can convince the director that
his amenities are worthy enough of four percent or three percent open space left over,
then, by all means. My two cents on that.
De Weerd: Any other --
Cavener: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Cavener.
Cavener: Bill -- and, Madam Mayor, thank you for your comments, because I think you hit
the nail right on the head for at least where I'm coming from related to a lot of these
amenities. And so, Bill, really, my questions are the proposed size of these amenities,
such as 500 square feet for the clubhouse, I think you said 550 I think in the pool -- is that
on par with what we have seen in some of these communities already? My point is that I
don't want us to set a minimum threshold that is at or near the bottom of what a lot of our
development community has proactively done on their own to create really some amazing
communities in Meridian and -- and I want to make sure that if we are setting these
minimums that they are at least meeting with the averages or enhancing what is already
occurring. And my second question is related to the fitness facility. Is the intent of that
that is to be an indoor facility or an outdoor facility or a combination thereof?
Parsons: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilman Cavener, the first part of
your question -- typically we see clubs -- I -- the only clubhouse I have seen with
residential development was the Heritage Grove Commons project a nd I believe they put
in roughly 1,000 to 1,100 square foot clubhouse. Most of the clubhouses come in with our
multi-family developments and they can range anywhere from 1,000 square feet up to
3,500 square feet, depending on the size of the apartment com plex. Certainly these
numbers -- again, they are arbitrary. They are not based on anything at this point, except
my interactions with the billing department as far as how many people can occupy --
technically fit within a certain size pool, a certain size clubhouse and still feel like you
could go have a good congregation of people there and not feel like you're bumping
elbows with your neighbors, which you could actually do events therein and do community
-- I guess do community events there and that's where I landed on this 500 square feet.
As far as fitness facility, to me it would be indoors. But it does -- code doesn't say that at
this point. Typically the fitness facility would be a separate space inside a clubhouse. So,
it would be another amenity in conjunction with that overall structure. So, technically you
could get a thousand square foot clubhouse in a fitness facility for a thousand square feet.
And, then, the pool, we don't even have regulation on that. The square footage that
building code will dictate that based on the occupant load that the architect based on part
of their building permit. So, he crunches those numbers and tells us whether or not the
Meridian City Council
January 26, 2016
Page 13 of 27
pool -- how many occupants can go in that pool facility. It's not based on size of the
development at all, it's basically built on code -- building code.
Cavener: Okay.
Parsons: And that's why it's tough to put a minimum square footage on these. I can give
you an example of a project off of Pine where the neighbors came out and they were --
they testified, because they had a residential pool and three or four hundred homes using
this one little pool and they were concerned that other HOAs coming on would have
problems -- wouldn't be able to use their pool, because it was undersized and we certainly
don't want to go down that road and that's why I'm trying to be cautious this evening that
these things need to be discussed further, so we can all have a better understanding of
what these -- what it will take in order to incentivize our open space and our site
amenities. And, again, this is just option one, but we can certainly get into option two if
Council and Mayor doesn't have any further questions.
Milam: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Milam.
Milam: I do have a question, Bill. Maybe I'm just not understanding why the additional
qualifying amenities would need to be on the same open space.
Parsons: I think the idea there are, Councilwoman Milam, is that you get a larger area to
recreate on. So, rather than having these little pocket parks -- or these little remnant
pieces of open space, you actually get one -- the intent is to have one grander, more
usable, larger open space, consolidated open space that everyone can go and share in
one central location, so you bring the community in one space. A lot of them disperse
them throughout, but certainly certain developments you have seen there is plenty of
walking paths, micropaths throughout the development that can also be used to recreate
and add value to the community, too. But that -- that was the intent behind this provision
is my thinking on it.
Milam: Thank you.
De Weerd: Bill, I guess I heard you talk about -- mention multi-family. So, in what way
does this impact what's happening -- what the requirement is now for multi-family?
Parsons: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is only to our open space
standards. It doesn't affect the amenities required for a multi-family development. Still are
under a separate section in our ordinance.
De Weerd: So -- but this would impact open space for multi-family?
Parsons: There is the potential for that as well. Correct.
Meridian City Council
January 26, 2016
Page 14 of 27
De Weerd: Because the argument of reducing the impact fees charged from multi-family
was because they have the open space that -- that captures the kids and activities in the
development. If we are reducing that, that kind of goes counter to the argument we had in
reducing the per unit impact fees.
Parsons: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, if you look at item A you can see that
we also -- there is a couple of caveats here. One there is an average lot size of 12,000
square feet, but if you're in -- say, for example, if you're over at the apartments near
Kleiner Park, that developer would also get -- based on this scenario, that developer could
take advantage of reduced open space, because they are next to a regional -- walking
distance of a regional park. So, you don't necessarily need that much open space as part
of that. You need the density to support the commercial and that mixed use development
and the idea would be they could recreate in the park and so, again, this is one effort --
De Weerd: I would agree with that if they paid, then, the full impact fee.
Parsons: Yes. And that's --
De Weerd: So, I mean you can't have your cake and eat it, too, but I guess we could
consider that, but I guess when I started hearing that I thought, um, that kind of counters
the argument we had when we talked about park impact fees and -- and how it was
justified to reduce those because of the open space requirement. If we change that it
opens up that dialogue again. Okay. Any other questions from Council at this point?.
Okay. I --
Parsons: Option two? Would you like me to move on to option two?
De Weerd: Yes, please.
Parsons: Thank you. So, option two goes back to a point system. Again, this is just a
first blush at this, but all of these items that are here are currently in the code, just
structured differently and, again, this provides that and hopefully incentivize open space
and site amenities so that we do get an overall integration and quality design with the
development. That's critical to recognize that, too. That it is integrated as part of the
overall development, just not remnant pieces of open space, which I think th is Council and
even staff has seen over the years and so what the attempt here is is we would, basically,
set a level of point system on the type of amenities that is proposed and also the type of
open space that is proposed. There will be required open space. As I recall Mr. Rountree
said at the December 15th hearing that he still wanted to see the street buffer landscaping
go in collector roads, arterial roadways, still have that street beautification and that's -- in
this table here it represents that your arterial street buffers and your collector street
buffers -- again, that's going to be required open space. You have to do that. And, then,
we have tiered our amenities based on a level one, a level two and a level three and also
our open space. So, this first table breaks down our qualifying open space that we
currently have in code. Level one, of course, the minimum, essentially, and, then, level
three would be something above and beyond what the code requires. So, I will let you
Meridian City Council
January 26, 2016
Page 15 of 27
look over that. So, currently we have 5,000 square foot, 50 by 100 area could as
qualifying open space, a plaza, community gardens, water features. I know some of our
subdivisions out there have grand entry features and water features into the subdivision.
We see value in that. We have added that as one of those enhancements as part of this
point system if you will. We have devalued ACHD storm drainage facilities as a level one.
Some of those aren't always integrated into development very well, so those aren't very
attractive. And, then, the list goes on and on. But, again, these are things that are
currently in code that count towards qualifying open space. This second table again
would be our site amenities. Again, it's a three point system, level one being the lower
end of the spectrum, level three being the higher end and each one of those are broke
down and these -- some of these qualifying amenities do relate to multi-family amenities
as well. And so going down that, currently we have things like art -- public art are level
two. There is your clubhouse. There we put a little larger square footage on that and to
count towards more of a -- a point system or amenity package to allow them to reduce the
open space and, then, it just goes on from there. One thing that we see -- that Council
sees as well is, you know, as developments come forward you can see more and more
expansions of our -- our public amenities, our fire stations, our parks, our walkways, our
multi-use pathways and so those -- those are valuable and we can work with the
developer and get either that land donated or a partnership with them to create those
public amenities for our community. So, we have rated those a little bit higher there on
the level three. So, that's something that I would like the Council to look at and see if they
see value in that, too. That could even be a school site, park and ride facility, a park. So,
I will let you digest those options and if you need me to go back to the present -- the
previous slide I can certainly do that as well and if you need anything else further to
explain I can -- I'm happy to do that. Again, this has not been vetted with any of the
design professionals, the UDC focus group, or the BCA. I haven't even run it against a
hundred acre subdivision. So, this is really just something that I put to paper about six
months ago and at this time we have kind of saved it on one of our drives just to kind of
look at it in the future to try to see if we can morph this or work this into a future discussion
with the BCA and also our UDC focus group and ultimately the City Council and Planning
and Zoning Commission. So, with that I will stand for any questions on option two.
De Weerd: Council, any questions on this particular topic?
Cavener: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Cavener.
Cavener: Questions and comments. Bill, I guess question one would be is -- I don't want
to assume, which is why I'm asking, but as you would proceed with flushing this out there
would be some more -- oh, side bars or definitions associated with some of these things.
There is some that I feel are very arbitrary and some that have a little more meat to them
and I would want to make sure -- that I guess we are adding a little more meat to all of
them as it would move forward and I just didn't want to assume that was your intent, I
wanted to make sure that as you progressed that that would be your intent.
Meridian City Council
January 26, 2016
Page 16 of 27
Parsons: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, some of these amenities you see here
-- I'm assuming you're talking about amenities and not necessarily open space.
Cavener: Correct.
Parsons: Some of those do have some design criteria that are -- that aren't represented
on -- on this table here. For example, the dog park. But the clubhouse and some of the
things, right, we probably want to further look at that and see how we want to define these
amenities. Our ordinance right now on some of this is -- it's not spoken to in the definition
section of our code and we certainly want to look at that. Now, when I presented i t back
to you on the 15th of December, we did tell you that we are proposing some changes to a
couple of these amenities. One was the picnic area. We had some more specifics to that
and I'm not sure of the other one. I would have to look up the table, b ut I can look at that
really quick. Oh, I think we were taking out the requirement for the five percent additional
open space would count as an amenity. We basically said an area that's 20,000 -- at least
20,000 square feet. So, we are shrinking that do wn and adding that requirement for the
20,000 square foot area. But, yeah, some of those probably need to be defined a little bit
better on -- particularly from how are you going to separate a level one amenity from a
level three amenity, because if you came in with a half basketball court and, then, you
came in with a horseshoe pit, well, what -- what amenity -- what's better? That's tough
and that's why I put it at level one regardless of what it was, because it's hard to define
something like that, but that's certainly a good observation, something we need to take
under consideration if Council allows -- wants us to move forward on something -- a
system like this.
Cavener: Great. Thank you.
De Weerd: Any other questions? Okay.
Parsons: So, to wrap up this evening, if -- if Council wants to -- wants staff to explore any
one of these -- option one or option two, I would certainly encourage that in your motion.
With my memo last week I did have a revised table for you. As I mentioned to you in my
earlier part of my presentation we did remove the changes to the dimensional standards
of the R-2 and the R-4. So, those have been removed. We can look at those at a later
date and we took out some of the open space changes as well. So, tonight we r eally
would like to have Council move this -- or conclude this UDC text amendment and provide
some direction on how you want us to move forward on the open space. With that I would
stand -- conclude my presentation and stand for any questions you may have.
De Weerd: Thank you, Bill. Council, any questions at this point?
Cavener: Madam Mayor, one additional question, if I may. Bill, on the -- option one
versus option two, I guess my other question I didn't get to was related to the point
system. Is that a best practice at other municipalities across the country are -- are using
and do we -- do we gain anything by -- by heading down this path that we are not already
Meridian City Council
January 26, 2016
Page 17 of 27
gaining or -- I guess talk to me a little bit about why the -- why putting forth this as an
option.
Parsons: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilman Cavener, no, no other
jurisdiction has this. It's something that I have created based off of direction that I have
heard from previous Council meetings when we first brought this forward. We thought this
would -- I think the previous -- my predecessor brought forth something similar to this and
talked about a point system and it seemed Council embraced it at that time and so I
searched high and low through codes throughout the country and nothing like this exists
and so that's the challenge is if you go this route are you making it better or are you
making it worse and that's -- that's why we have said tread lightly with this, because we
really want to look at this, get it in front of our community members and say is this really
the direction we want to go or are we happy with what we currently have.
Cavener: We don't make it easy for you.
Parsons: Yeah.
De Weerd: No, but isn't it nice to -- to think that they are taking notes as suggestions and
conversations are made throughout various applications and I really appreciate that staff
is being responsive to what you here in Council bring up and also that they hear the
applicant's also raise questions about it. So, thank you for the attempt and we will see
how it starts to move along. Okay. At this point it is a public hearing. I did have one
person signed up as neutral. James Budge. Would you like to provide testimony at this
point? Okay. Thank you for signing up. We appreciate that. Okay. Yes, Dave. If you
will, please, state your name and address for the record.
Yorgason: I will. My name is Dave Yorgason. My address is 14254 West Battenb erg
Drive in Boise, Idaho, and I am here representing -- do I have three minutes? I want to
make sure I'm -- do I have a time limit?
De Weerd: We will give you five and we do have your letter that you submitted on behalf
of the BCA.
Yorgason: Thank you. I'm not here to talk long. Here to answer any questions as well.
De Weerd: Okay.
Yorgason: I am here probably wearing a few hats. I have developed a few subdivisions
in your city, including some that have water features and grand old swimming pools and
large open spaces and walkways and so forth and also some more in fill tinier
developments. I'm also here as a member of the UDC focus group and thank the city and
the staff for the opportunity to be a part of that group and also here representing the
Building Contractors Association of Southwest Idaho. So, with that in mind --
De Weerd: So, which hat are you wearing?
Meridian City Council
January 26, 2016
Page 18 of 27
Yorgason: Probably all of them, Madam Mayor.
De Weerd: Okay.
Yorgason: Because I think my answers are all the same. I take doing business in the city
quite seriously. I really have appreciated the opportunity to do business here and look
forward to future business in the city as well. Prior to my land development career I
actually had a lot of experience in putting forth incentives to -- for corporations to put forth
the results the corporations wanted to have and so I understand the desire to maybe
improve or provide more creativity or better enhancement or whatever the city may desire
to have and with that is putting the proper incentives in place to get the results that you
the city want. So, I appreciate that process and I look forward to, if the city desires, my
input to providing further comments to make that work for you. I heard three comments
and I'm sorry I was not here on December 15th. I had another conflict on that night and
likewise had one last week, so appreciate your postponement until tonight. I heard three
items. I will go in reverse. One is transitional lot sizes. All I can ask is if there is some
concern, please, state those as staff to the applicant at the time of the p re-application
meeting. We need to know at the very front end when we do our design. We don't want
surprises when we do our design later at the city -- P&Z hearing or City Council meetings.
So, I'm sure staff has done a pretty good job of that, we would just ask for that to continue
to happen, so that we can take that consideration on. As a developer we purchase
property and pay a certain price tag with certain expectations. Second is open space
amenities. I just kind of refer to those there. Look forward to working with -- with your
staff as I'm sure it's not a complete version -- it probably will never be complete. I, frankly,
think the point system is going to be a tough formula to create that will be a permanent
final version. It will always be an ebb and flow. So, I applaud the staff's effort, but I think it
will be a challenge to get there, but I certainly do support the process in trying to add
some flexibility or incentives to have the improvements and the results that you desire of
the city to improve the amenities, the -- the entrances, whatever it may be. I would add
that I don't think a 500 square foot facility is large enough for a fitness facility, a swimming,
that's probably getting pretty close, depending on the size of the developme nt. More
comments if you want later. Last one is the dimensional standards. There was a lot of
discussion with the UDC focus group regarding dimensional standards and the primary
reason why we even broached that topic is because more and more -- and Council
Member Borton, I very clearly remember an application I brought to the city that you were
concerned about. You probably don't remember, I still remember, because it kind of
burned in my soul a little bit, because you were the one dissenting vote. Bu t the point
being is we had an application to try to achieve the density for the -- that was shown on
the Comprehensive Plan, but we had to ask for an R-8 zone only for the reason of trying
achieve R-8 dimensional standards for an R-8 -- actually, it was more like up to R-3 -- we
were just shy of three units per acre with the R-8 zoning dimensional standards.
Sometimes parcels are irregular shaped, sometimes they are just smaller in fill, but here
at the city, as you continue to grow you will see more and more in fill on tougher and
tougher parcels and,
Meridian City Council
January 26, 2016
Page 19 of 27
then, also the larger parcels that are upward against existing, but larger developments --
maybe they are older developments with larger parcels. And so that was the reasoning is
because of those more challenging sites and trying to not scare the neighbors with an R-8
application thinking and we will have eight units per acre, but, rather, we are just trying to
achieve what's already desired in the Comprehensive Plan of densities closer to that. So,
that's what -- the whole reasoning behind the change to the dimensional standards was. It
wasn't to pick on R-4 or R-8 or R-15 or any of them, but look at all of them with those
intentions in mind. Our hope is that -- and I'm speaking for several developers when I say
this -- that you would consider adopting the proposed -- originally proposed dimensional
standards for the R-4 -- R-2, I guess, but that's not really where most of the applications
are. If there is too much concern we respect that and if you want to pull that piece out and
have a workshop session, I know a few developers that do a lot of business in the city
who would be interested in that if that would be your preference. As I mentioned before,
there was a lot of work, a lot of discussion as to what those recommended dimensional
standards should be and that's what was proposed to you on the 15th and where we are
today. Those are my comments. I appreciate your time and consideration and stand for
any questions you have.
De Weerd: You know, Dave, I guess your first statement about no surprises, if our staff
had a better crystal ball in determining what the City Council might think or even Planning
and Zoning for that matter, they would be millionaires and they certainly wouldn't work for
us. Because it is -- every application is different and sometimes when you come in and
walk through the door with your application, you haven't even had your neighborhood
meeting to know what the neighbors are going to be bringing up and so it just kind all gets
messy from there. So, we would love to have things so nailed down and buttoned up tight
that you will never have a surprise, because I understand surprises are money and they --
they demand redesign and, then, that impacts your -- your business analyst and what --
what they have projected as to what your ROI is and all of that. We get it. We try to
minimize surprises, but it's a public process and it can change, you know, on -- on a dime.
So, that one is difficult. I love your idea for an R-4 work session. We have a new Council
up here and I think our staff would look forward to that opportunity as well to really get an
idea to have developers come and talk about visioning and what they want and how
things should look and get an idea of what Council is looking for. I think that is a perfect
idea in looking at the dimensional standards and even how that would translate into a lot
of the recommendations. So, that in and of itself might be a great approach in looking at
this after tax season so -- or legislative season.
Yorgason: Yeah.
De Weerd: But I appreciate that suggestion. Council, any questions from Mr. Yorgason?
Palmer: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Palmer.
Meridian City Council
January 26, 2016
Page 20 of 27
Palmer: Madam Mayor. Dave -- well, I guess actually what you said, I would love that
opportunity as well, let the developers know what I'm looking for, but for them to tell me
what they are looking for and with the proposed -- it looks like option one is where you
prefer, the point system. I think I'm with you there. In -- obviously that would probably
help the developers opportunity to make a profit around -- on the property around the
parks. Would you see that the long term property values would be an increase in that kind
of situation where there was more amenities, but less open space than with, you know,
possible deterioration or lack of ability of an HOA maybe to maintain those things than if
we just kept requiring that ten percent.
Yorgason: Madam Mayor and Council Member Palmer, I don't want to stand here and
advocate for option one or two. If option two could be identified and figured out, that's
great. I just think that could be a little more of a challenge. But maybe not. Having said
that, I think you need to have flexibility. I wouldn't just stand here and say the apartments
next to Kleiner Park are going to devalue, because they have less open space. I don't
think that's going to be the case. What I do think, however -- kind of a joke, but thanks for
catching that. What I do think, though, is that there is a significant balance when a
development is created. Open -- and staff correctly pointed out you have to not just
consider the actual initial capital infrastructure costs to develop into the pencil, but the
longevity of it. Can it be maintained with proper association dues or whatever it may be.
And I see as the city becomes a little more urban, especially in your downtown core and
there may be some actual in fill or type developments there where the parcels are smaller,
you can go a little more dense with those types of units and it's okay if they are not just a
20,000 square foot park next to get credit for it, but rather have a little more compact, a
little higher dense use if you will, where a clubhouse can't have that. It's like a multi-family
community I guess in some ways. But I can see that -- and I'm not going to stand here
with all the answers, because I don't do all those developments, but just -- I can see the
flexibility with someone who has a great idea that maybe comes from out of town and this
worked very well for them in X city and they want to bring it here. So, I think it's important
to have that flexibility, but at the same time I would caution the city, because I have seen
both sides. You don't want to just open yourselves up to have less and you don't want
less. That's where I'm encouraging as I have been in that other role before to have more
incentives to -- to encourage better, but open the door so that there is less.
De Weerd: You know, you raise a really good point and maybe that's something else to --
to have in the consideration is does that amenity or that contribution have to necessarily
be on site. There was a high density, low income housing unit down in Garden City and
we give them credit for the Boys and Girls Club. There had to be a work out in terms of
offsetting some of the costs of the impact having that high density development that close
to the club, because that just put them over in their numbers, but it is those kind of things
in working together to say, well, this is too small to have an on-site amenity that's going to
be of any kind of quality. So, if we are looking for that, if there is something nearby that
you can transfer that impact and invest in that, would that be something that could be
considered as well. And now I just welcomed an even messier idea, but it -- it at least has
some merit if there is anything that is going on in other areas, even that example of how
Meridian City Council
January 26, 2016
Page 21 of 27
did they institutionalize that, those kind of considerations as well. Don't reinvent
something, but see if there is a good model out there.
Chatterton: And, Madam Mayor, you bring up a good point. There are systems around
the country that do allow for, as Mr. Yorgason said, off site improvements, off site
amenities. Typically, though -- and he also brought up the example of more urban higher
density development, at least than what we typically do now. Usually you will see off -site
amenities being done in a situation where there isn't room for it on site. So, we are not
quite there I don't think in terms of -- you know, as we start experiencing more in fill I think
this will become an issue for us. You typically are not going to see, for instance, off-site
improvements for a single family subdivision. I actually haven't heard of that. But it's fairly
common to require it in a more urban setting.
De Weerd: Yeah. An interesting conversation. So, I think that would be kind of fun. Any
other questions? Okay. We appreciate you being here and wearing the multiple hats. I
know with your experience with the city, the quality of development that you have done
and knowing how things need to pencil out, one of the things that really struck me is -- I do
know the investors -- the people that come in want that predictability piece and if we are
trying to get some something different, how -- how do we -- how do those incentives look,
so what we do bring to our community is for the good of the whole and that is what we
continue to struggle -- how do you -- how does that look and we appreciate having
partners to be at the table to help us tackle some of those more difficult conversations. So
thank you.
Yorgason: You're welcome, Madam Mayor. And I thank you as well, because these are
not solved in a one room meeting setting, they are ongoing and we appreciate the
opportunity to continue to work with the city. I do want to leave with one thought and that
is I don't want you to think that in my pre-application meetings with the city that there is a
lot of surprises later. That's not my experience. But we recognize there are surprises
through the process. That's the risk that we take and we try to figure that out, but we -- we
don't have lots of negative -- but for the occasional big use we just encourage the staff to
continue to -- to put warnings out there that there may be some -- some concerns of
transitional size lots, whatever it may be.
De Weerd: I think some have more surprises than others.
Yorgason: Yeah. Thank you.
De Weerd: This is an open public hearing. Is there anyone who would like to provide
testimony? Okay. Well, Council, I do know that Bill asked a question of a direction for a
path moving forward and would open it up for your discussion. I guess, Bill, I would -- I
would maybe suggest bringing what you just presented to City Council and some of the
questions that you received through to our UDC committee that you have been working
with, as well as some of our key community partners to start the dialogue, but I would also
suggest moving forward and getting something scheduled and maybe getting a good
representative group to come in and have kind of a -- a Development 101 discussion on
Meridian City Council
January 26, 2016
Page 22 of 27
the subdivisions, both -- the different densities, including multi-family, what they can look
like given different open space standards or the flexibility for the -- of varied amenities and
-- and maybe even include ULI in the conversation to start putting ideas in front of Council.
I do know because two of our Council members that just retired off the City Council, they
also had served on Planning and Zoning prior to coming in here, where part of the rewrite
or even the establishment of certain ordinances and so they had a good base of
knowledge and background of the conversations going into a number of the policies and
those conversations are just as important as the policies themselves. So, starting a
conversation with our Council members and -- would be a really good thing in my opinion
and I would look to our City Council that I'm offering up your time for such a workshop to
see if that's something that you're interested in.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Bill, first of all, you and the staff done a great job of putting this together and also to
presenting it and I appreciate that. But as I understand, you would kind of like us to -- to
either pass or deny the main portion and, then, the options come later, is that not what I
got?
Parsons: Yeah. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, correct. I have revised the
table with the changes that we discussed at the 15th, so we are ready to go forward this
evening with those changes that I presented in my presentation this evening.
Bird: And I'm one Councilman that's ready to agree to that and to -- or to go forward with
that part and while I am willing to listen to changing, as David had said on the R-4, I --
you're going to have to do a lot of arm twisting on me. But, anyway, as I understood it,
you would kind of like us to do something on the first part and with the options we can
state in the motion if we want you to go ahead with option one or option two or both
options to pursue them farther; am I not right?
Parsons: That is correct.
Bird: Okay. Thank you. Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: With that, if the Council don't need anymore public testimony, I will move we close
the public hearing on H-2015-0011.
Milam: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All those in favor
say aye. Okay. All ayes.
Meridian City Council
January 26, 2016
Page 23 of 27
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: After hearing all staff and applicant -- public testimony --
De Weerd: We are the applicant and staff.
Bird: I know. I'm just reading. I will be politically correct this time. Okay?
De Weerd: Okay. Sorry.
Bird: There is so many times I'm not, so -- anyway. After considering all staff and public
testimony, Council's talk, I move that we approve the file number H-2015-0011 as
presented by staff at the hearing on January 26th, 2016, and also to have the staff go
ahead and work on option one and I wouldn't even mind having them look at option two
myself. That's my motion. Continue to work on it.
Milam: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second. Any discussion from Council?
Cavener: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Cavener.
Cavener: If I have been reading this correctly and if I'm hearing what Bill asked of us is to
give direction on really one or the other. Bill, is that your intention tonight? Are you
looking for direction one way or another or --
Parsons: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, if you like both of them we can still --
again, both these still need to be worked out, so keeping either option on the table -- I
think Dave's even in agreement with looking at both of these as we move forward and
even taking one step further, even looking at possible -- the possibility of having some
kind of alternative compliance process to allow them to relocate their amenities to an off
site or a city park or some other type of public facility in the future, so that they can do an
in-fill development. We could certainly add that to the mix as well. We just want to make
sure we are heading down the right path for you before we come back with something.
Cavener: Madam Mayor, just an additional comment.
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Meridian City Council
January 26, 2016
Page 24 of 27
Cavener: I don't personally have any issues with that. I just want Bill to maybe feel
empowered that if -- if one option or the other just really doesn't look like it's panning out,
don't feel like that you necessarily need to bring, you know, a proposed plan on one of
them if the ultimate thought is going to be this isn't going to be successful.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: As the maker of the motion I felt that both options need to be looked at and to be
continued on, because I think they are both very important to this -- to the layout of the
UDC. So, if -- you know, Bill, if you don't mind, I would like us to work towards both of
them and I think they both got good points to it and I think it's -- but I think they need to be
refined and I just -- I -- that's why I threw both of the options in.
De Weerd: And I imagine that's why you got a second.
Milam: Yeah. Second agrees. And, Madam Mayor, just also want to add a comment --
and I know we have already discussed this, but I want to make sure in these that we are
not encouraging the minimum, but incentivizing the maximum as much as possible.
De Weerd: And I will say we -- we didn't -- we shouldn't have to reinvent the wheel. I
believe that there was some alternative compliance options for downtown parking that
gave credit to reduced parking spaces within an lieu fee that went towards a larger
parking facility. So, we have already had some those of conversations. It just -- it's
exploring what some of the options and ideas there are. Any further conversation or
discussion from Council? Madam Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener, yea; Palmer, yea; Little Roberts,
yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 9: Ordinances
A. Ordinance No. 16-1670: South Meridian (H-2015-0019) An
Ordinance for the Annexation and Re-zoning for a Parcel
Located in the W ½ and the NE ¼ of Section 5, Township 2 North,
Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Section 6, Township 2 North,
Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, the NE ¼ of Section 1, Township 2
North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, the E ½ and the NE ¼ of
the NW ¼ of Section 36, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise
Meridian, the SE ¼ of the SW ¼ of Section 25, Township 3 North,
Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Section 31, Township 3 North,
Meridian City Council
January 26, 2016
Page 25 of 27
Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, and the SW ¼ of Section 32,
Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County,
Idaho. This parcel contains 1322.14 acres more or less
De Weerd: Okay. Item 9-A is Ordinance 16-1670R.
Bird: No R. It's eliminated.
De Weerd: R is eliminated. Madam Clerk, will you, please, read this ordinance by title
only.
Holman: Thank you, Madam Mayor. That was a typo. City of Meridian Ordinance No.
16-1670, an Ordinance AZ H-2015-0019, South Meridian, for annexation and rezone for a
parcel located in the W ½ and the NE ¼ of Section 5, Township 2 North, Range 1 East,
Boise Meridian. Section 6, Township 2 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian . The NE ¼
of Section 1, Township 2 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian. The E ½ and the NE ¼ of
the NW ¼ of Section 36, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian . The SE ¼ of
the SW ¼ of Section 25, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian. Section 31,
Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian. And the SW ¼ of Section 32, Township
3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as described in the attached
Exhibit 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-4, Medium Low Density Residential District; R-8, Medium
Density Residential District; R-15, Medium High Density Residential District; and C-G,
General Retail and Service Commercial 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 effective
date.
De Weerd: After hearing the reading of that title I'm sure many of you want to hear it read
in its entirety. It must be just a real interesting ordinance. Is there anyone who would like
to hear it read in its entirety? Okay. Seeing no one jumping up and down, Council?
Milam: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Milam.
Milam: I move that we approve Ordinance No. 15-1670 with suspension of rules.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 9-A. Madam Clerk, will you call
roll.
Meridian City Council
January 26, 2016
Page 26 of 27
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener, yea; Palmer, yea; Little Roberts,
yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 10: Future Meeting Topics
De Weerd: The next item -- did we put the Executive Session before or after the future
meeting -- Item 10. Council, any items for future meeting topics?
Item 11: Amended onto the Agenda: Executive Session Per Idaho State Code
74-206 (a): (a) To consider hiring a public officer, employee, staff
member or individual agent, wherein the respective qualities of
individuals are to be evaluated in order to fill a particular vacancy or
need. This paragraph does not apply to filling a vacancy in an elective
office or deliberations about staffing needs in general
De Weerd: Okay. Item 11 is Executive Session.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we go into Executive Session as per Idaho State Code 74-206(1)(a).
Cavener: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to adjourn into Executive Session. Madam
Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener, yea; Palmer, yea; Little Roberts,
yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
EXECUTIVE SESSIONS: (7:31 p.m. to 8:39 p.m.)
De Weerd: Okay. I would entertain a motion to come out of Executive Session.
Milam: So moved.
Borton: Second.
Meridian City Council
January 26, 2016
Page 27 of 27
De Weerd: All those in favor say aye. All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Do I have a motion to adjourn?
Milam: So moved.
Borton: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to adjourn. All those in favor? All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:39 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
MAYOR TA ' De EERD DATE APPROVED
AT ST: �e '
.o- J
4/t g� (p��:Cityof
J
o. _. 4 ,\ t 9 s' i"°�a w
i _N
LMAN, CITY CLEW` °�
rF SFAL,