HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-06-20Meridian City Council June 20, 2017.
A meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:05 p.m., Tuesday, June
20, 2017, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd.
Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, Keith Bird, Joe Borton, Genesis Milam,
Luke Cavener, Ty Palmer and Anne Little Roberts.
Others Present: Bill Nary, C.Jay Coles, Jaycee Holman, Bruce Chatterton, Sonya Allen,
Josh Beach, Warren Stewart, Jeff Brown and Joe Bongiorno.
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 Weerd: I will -- if I could call this meeting to order. Thank you all for your patience.
Sorry we are starting a little bit late. We had a 1:30 budget workshop that went a little bit
late and so thank you all for joining us and for your patience . For the record it is Tuesday,
June 20th. We will start with roll call attendance, Mr. Clerk.
Item 2: Pledge of Allegiance
De Weerd: Item No. 2 is the Pledge of Allegiance. If you will all rise and join us in the
pledge to our flag.
(Pledge of Allegiance recited.)
Item 3: Community Invocation by Troy Drake with Calvary Chapel
De Weerd: Item No. 2 is our -- or 3 is our community invocation and tonight we will be
led by Pastor Troy Drake with Cavalry Chapel. If you will all join in the community
invocation or take this as an opportunity for a moment of reflection. Thank you for joining
us.
Drake: Madam Mayor, Council Members, if you will join to pray. Oh, Lord God in Heaven,
thank you so much for your grace in this beautiful place that we get to live and how the
founders were so wise and inspired to pen the words that we could have life, liberty and
pursuit of happiness and so we just thank you, God, for that and you have given us a free
place to live and the pursuit of that and so we just thank you. Lord, we just want to
Meridian City Council
June 20, 2017
Page 2 of 76
acknowledge you, that you are the one who made this great nation and , Lord, just pray
that you would protect all the things that go on here in the summer in Meridian. Just
thankful for this great city that we have and so we are praying for the Dairy Days Parade
and events surrounding it and Fourth of July and -- and all the other things that I saw on
the calendar and -- and, Lord, that you would just bless it and that people would be
grateful and -- and, Lord, we are also praying for the first responders here this evening,
those who are -- our police force and the firefighters and -- and, Lord, that you would
protect them as they protect the citizens, Lord, and -- and that we would just be grateful
for what we have and -- and, Lord, I just pray for those who have no hope tonight and that
they would turn to you as you are the one who gives lif e and hope and -- and so lastly,
Lord, and not least, we just want to acknowledge these servants here that we have
elected and that you would just give them great wisdom here in small details or big things
and that, Lord, we just appreciate them and I pray that somehow they would know that
and, Lord, that you would give them lots of grace and wisdom in making decisions here
this evening and so we thank you in Jesus' name, amen.
Item 4: Adoption of the Agenda
De Weerd: Thank you, Pastor Troy. Okay. Item No. 4 is adoption of the agenda.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: On the Consent Agenda, Item 7-L is proposed to be resolution number 17-2017
and we will be adding an ordinance under 11-B that's identified as Ordinance No. 17-
1732B and the proposed ordinance in 11-A is 17-1734. And with those changes I would
move that we approve the amended agenda.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Have a motion and a second to amend -- or approve the agenda as amended.
All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 5: Future Meeting Topics - Public Forum (Up to 30 Minutes Maximum)
De Weerd: Mr. Clerk?
Meridian City Council
June 20, 2017
Page 3 of 76
Coles: Madam Mayor, there were no sign-ups for Item No. 5.
Item 6: Proclamation for Year of the Lions
De Weerd: Thank you. Item No. 6 is a proclamation. While I move to the -- the front
podium, I will say that we are excited to be reading a proclamation regarding the 2017
Year of the Lions. The Lions Club will be celebrating their 100 year anniversary on June
3rd and -- and helped plant ten trees around Meridian to -- to celebrate the centennial.
So, maybe you can kick this off with a little bit of information about what you have done.
Burks: My name is Dennis Burks. We came here from Mountain Home. We now reside
in the greatest city in Idaho right here in Meridian. We started this adventure about eight
weeks ago when we wanted to set up Idaho as an example. So, we started traveling
Idaho and we received these proclamations. In return what we are going to do is take
them back to Chicago next week for 100th celebration as 50,000 Lions from around the
world gather and that to celebrate our 100th year. It's an honor and a privilege to sit here
and represent the Lions of Idaho and we look forward to carrying on many more projects
with you and your staff.
De Weerd: Well -- and maybe you can tell us about your big event this weekend.
Burks: This weekend and that -- as you can see, there is no Lions here from Meridian,
they are at an undisclosed location. They won't even tell me where they are at, because
they are preparing for this rodeo this weekend and it's their second rodeo that the PRCA
sanctioned. They are extremely excited. They said they have got a great stock coming
in, they have got great cowboys coming in and cowgirls and they are very excited to
entertain the -- the people of Meridian.
De Weerd: And the rodeo happens in the future Borup Park on the corner -- well, kind of
near the corner of Cherry Lane and McDermott.
Burks: Yes. Yes, ma'am.
De Weerd: I had to plug that, so -- I'm going to come and join you.
Burks: Thank you.
De Weerd: Turn this around so we are facing our citizens. Okay. Whereas the Lions
Club International was founded in 1917 and is celebrating their 100th anniversary and is
the world's largest service organization with over 1.4 million members in 215 countries
Meridian City Council
June 20, 2017
Page 4 of 76
and whereas under the motto We Serve, Lions Club empower volunteers to meet
humanitarian needs, encourage peace and promote international understanding through
participation in club activities in their communities and whereas Lions Clubs in Idaho have
provided vision screenings for over 30,000 students and whereas the Meridian Lions Club
has -- was chartered on September 20th, 1938, and the Meridian Roaring Lions Club was
chartered December 5th, 2016, and whereas the City of Meridian appreciates and
supports the service provided by the Lions Club members, especially in our local area as
they give up their time, talents, and resources to our community. Therefore, I, Mayor
Tammy de Weerd, here do proclaim the year 2017 as the year of the Lions here in the
City of Meridian and encourage our citizens to show their appreciation by supporting the
Lions Club in their many activities. And I'm honored to give this to Dennis and I will tell
you that when I was in Austria I was able to visit the Lions Club there. They were having
a Christmas market and they are the same across the world. They are community
minded. They love to give back to their communities. They are focused on improving the
communities that they serve in and we want to tell you how much we appreciate our Lions
Club and for you joining us here today.
Burks: Thank you so very much.
Item 7: Consent Agenda
A. Approve Minutes of June 6, 2017 City Council Regular Meeting
B. Final Plat for Whitebark Subdivision No. 2 (H-2017-0070) by
BHH Investments I, LLC Located South Side of E. Amity Road,
Midway Between S. Locust Grove Road and S. Eagle Road
C. Final Plat for Southern Highlands Subdivision No. 4 (H-2017-
0073) by Sky Mesa Development, LLC Located South of E.
Amity Road and West of S. Eagle Road
D. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Decision and Order for
Caven Ridge Estates (H-2017-0020) by New Cavanaugh, LLC
Located South of E. Victory Road and East of S. Meridian Road
E. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Decision and Order for
Oxygen Subdivision No. 1 (H-2017-0061) by James A. Kissler,
LLC Located 1303 S. Silverstone Way
Meridian City Council
June 20, 2017
Page 5 of 76
F. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Decision and Order for
Oxygen Subdivision No. 2 (H-2017-0062) by James A. Kissler,
LLC Located East of S. Eagle Road and North of E. Overland
Road on East side of Rackham Way, North of the File Mile
Creek
G. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Decision and Order for
Oxygen Subdivision No. 3 (H-2017-0063) by James A. Kissler,
LLC Located 1260 S. Eagle Road
H. Final Order for Silverwater North (H-2017-0069) by Trilogy
Development Located Southwest Corner of E. Victory Road
and S. Mesa Way
I. Final Order for Little Creek Subdivision No. 1 (H-2017-0067) by
David Alexander Located 1470 N. Locust Grove Road
J. Second Addendum to Development Agreement for Una Mas
(H-2016-0132) with Una Mas, LLC (owner) and Chad Olson
(Developer), located at at the southwest corner of E. Ustick
Road and N. Records Avenue, in the northwest ¼ of Section 4,
Township 3N., Range 1E. The specific area of this request is
located off the southwest corner of N. Records Avenue and E.
Tecate Lane
K. Memorandum of Understanding Between City of Meridian And
Meridian Downtown Business Association: Art On The Street
Event
L. Resolution No. 17-2017: A Resolution Accepting the Traffic
Box Art Image Repository
M. Linder 4-Plex Pedestrian Pathway Easement
N. TM Crossing Navigator Sewer and Water Easement
O. Professional Services Agreement With Jack H. Schonely for
Police Officer Training in an Amount Not to Exceed $4,000
Meridian City Council
June 20, 2017
Page 6 of 76
P. Approval of Award of Bid and Agreement to SCHMIDT
CONSTRUCTION, CO. for the “LOCUST GROVE & LAKE
HAZEL WATERLINE EXTENSION” project for a Not-To-Exceed
amount of $818,863.24.
Q. Approval of Task Order 10044.L to Brown and Caldwell for the
“WRRF HEADWORKS CAPACITY EXPANSION – SERVICES
DURING CONSTRUCTION” project for a Not-To-Exceed
amount of $870,050.00
R. Amendment to January 24, 2017 Subrecipient Agreement
Between City of Meridian and West Ada School District for
PY2015 Community Development Block Grant Funds
Adjusting Grant Allocation Amount from $65,000 to $80,000 for
the Meridian Picnic Shelter Project
S. Approval for Finance to Pay Vendor Payments of $1,578,788.78
De Weerd: Okay. Item 7 is our Consent Agenda.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Under 7-L the resolution number is 17-2017. With that I move we approve the
Consent Agenda. For the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest.
Borton: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda. Is there any
discussion? Hearing none, Mr. 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 8: Items Moved From the Consent Agenda
Meridian City Council
June 20, 2017
Page 7 of 76
De Weerd: There were no items moved from the Consent Agenda.
Item 9: Action Items
A. Public Hearing Continued from June 6, 2017 for Goddard
Creek (H-2017-0007) by Brian Porter Located 2780 W. McMillan
Road
1. Request: Rezone of 12.38 Acres of Land from R-4 to the R-
40 (5 Acres) and the C-C (7.38 Acres) Zoning Districts
2. Request: Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future
Land Use Map to Change the Land Use Designation on
12.38 Acres of Land from Office and High Density
Residential to Mixed-Use Community
3. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a Self -Storage Facility
Consisting of Ten (10) Buildings on Approximately 7.38
Acres of Land in the Proposed C-C Zoning District
4. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a Multi-Family
Development Consisting of Eighty-Two (82) Dwelling Units
in the Proposed R-40 Zoning District on Five (5) Acres of
Land
5. Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Twenty-
Two (22) Building Lots, and Five (5) Common Lots on 12.38
Acres of Land in the Proposed C-C and R-40 Zoning
Districts
6. Request: Amendment to an Existing Development
Agreement (Lochsa Falls Inst. #103012598) to Update the
Development Plan for this Site from Office to Multi-Family
and Self Storage
De Weerd: So, we will move right into our Action Items. Item 9-A is a public hearing
continued from June 6th on H-2017-0007. Mr. Chatterton.
Chatterton: Madam Mayor, I thought a couple of introductory remarks would be in order
for this application. Recently I heard that at least one member of our community felt that
Meridian City Council
June 20, 2017
Page 8 of 76
planning staff are advocating for the developer or the development on this application and
I think from time to time it's really good to review what planning staff -- the role of planning
staff, what it is and what it isn't. Our role is never to advocate for proposed development
or advocate on behalf of developer. We are not pro-development, we are not anti-
development. In fact, I know a lot of local developers who would laugh or cry at the
suggestion that we are somehow on their -- on their side. Nevertheless, we are
advocates. Were advocates for a timely resolution of each application. Whether the
answer is yes or no it's getting to that final answer or if the approval is some sort of
modification of the application, which often occurs, too. We are advocates for the
Comprehensive Plan as the community's vision. We are advocates for upholding the
zoning code. But when we see that the zoning code is not working or it's outdated, we
are duty bound and do, in fact, propose changes to it as we do several times a year.
Finally, we are advocates for striking the best balance we can between development and
the impacts it creates on our community. Sometimes admittedly that's a delicate balance,
but the idea is to create the best outcome for our community that we possibly can . That's
our role and I just wanted to -- I know you wanted me to clarify that and that's I think the
context of this application, as well as others. There are difficult applications. There are
far easier ones. And sometimes things, you know, can get complex, but we always try to
strike that balance. I will turn it over to Josh. He's so important he actually got a preamble.
Beach: All right. So, the application here before you is, again, Goddard Creek. As we
have gone through in previous hearings for this specific application, there are several
applications tied to this particular project . They are a Comprehensive Plan map
amendment. In this case the conditional use permit for the multi-family development has
been withdrawn and a conditional use permit for a self -storage facility in a C-C zoning
district, a rezone -- to rezone that portion of the property with the storage units to C-C. A
preliminary plat and a development agreement modification. So, without going into all of
the history we have gone through in several of these applications, I will attempt to go
through the memo that I drafted and explain the changes requested by the applicant in
regards to what they were previously asking for and , then, contrast that with what they
are asking for now. So, the -- since the City Council hearing on the 23rd of this year --
excuse me -- 23rd of May of this year, the applicant has submitted a revised preliminary
plat and landscape plan. The changes to the plat and landscape plan are as follows --
so, as I go through my slide here you will see a slide for the Comprehensive Plan map
amendment, which is consistent with what they had previously asked for from office and
high density to mixed use and this is the proposed preliminary plat. So, previously the
plat included 22 building lots and five common lots. This revised plat is for a two lot
subdivision on the left-hand side or the west portion would be the area that's zoned C-C,
one lot there for the proposed storage units and on the east side of that is currently zoned
R-4 and that's proposed to stay that way. As I said previously, they did withdraw the
Meridian City Council
June 20, 2017
Page 9 of 76
conditional use permit for the multi-family project. The developer opted to not move
forward with that and as part of this, as I mentioned, there was a development agreement
modification request. The applicant is just requesting to move forward with that, but they
would like to have the ability to have the zoning and the land use ability on this property
be in line with what's R-4 and I can explain that a little bit further. Currently as part of that
Lochsa Falls development this property was zoned R-4, but the uses available to the
property were limited to those in the L-O zoning district. The applicant would like the R-
4 uses, which are typically your single family homes, duplexes, things like that, to be
allowed there. There was not a current development proposal for that project and so that
will be something that this property will have to come back to the city in the future for a
subdivision if that is, indeed, what happens on the property. There are certain conditions
that need to be modified and we can go through those in your -- in the memo if you would
like. The applicant is proposing their landscaping and their landscaping plan does show
a sidewalk and landscaping across the frontage of that proposed R-4 parcel that would
get us the required landscaping, as well as a sidewalk that would otherwise not be
installed at this time. Typically we like to see that happen when there is a gap in the
sidewalk like this and the applicant has shown that on their landscape plan. I'm happy to
go through some of the conditions that need to be modified if you would like. So, I can
actually pull the memo up here if that would be easier . Let me find that. So, as I
mentioned, there are certain conditions associated with this that are no longer applicable ,
because the multi-family portion of the project has been withdrawn. There is actually
quite a number that need to be removed as part of the application , but we have noticed
that there are a couple of things that we wanted to address that need to be added or
otherwise modified as a result of that. So, a couple of things here. Except for construction
of the storage facility, no building permits shall be issued on Lot 2, which is the storage
unit portion of the project until a subdivision has been approved by the City Council and
we wanted to make sure that Lot 2 shall only be developed with those uses allowed in
the R-4 zoning district. Lot 2 would be the portion that is the R-4. I apologize. A 25 foot
wide landscape buffer and detached sidewalk along the McMillan Road shall be
constructed in its entirety with the first phase of development. The intent is to have that
constructed when the storage units are constructed and, then, there is a couple conditions
to be modified. Modify condition 1.1.1E as follows: The site shall develop with a self-
storage facility, strike through the multi-family residential development, because, as I said,
that's been withdrawn and shall comply with the specific use standards as set forth in the
UDC for self-storage facilities. And, then, third -- the third condition there, modified
condition 1.1.1D as follows: Future development shall comply with the design standards
listed in the UDC and the City of Meridian architectural standards manual. We wanted to
make sure that those specific things for multi-family were also -- were strike through and
removed from that condition as well. I'm happy to answer any questions you have on
these conditions or on the application itself.
Meridian City Council
June 20, 2017
Page 10 of 76
De Weerd: Council, any questions for staff at this time?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Bill, I got a question for you. The DA has never been modified; right? They are
coming through now on a conditional use for this application; right?
Nary: Mr. Bird. Yeah. There is -- Mr. Bird, Members of the Council -- Madam Mayor,
Council Member Bird, I'm trying to recall -- I don't believe the DA has been modified
previously, because the prior construction of the apartment s was part of the original
planned unit development that was allowed back then and so this -- this I think is a DA
modification is -- is in here to match up the zoning of what they are requesting to fit the
storage units.
Bird: That's -- that was my -- excuse me, Mayor. That was my question, Bill. I didn't see
anywhere an application that we were modifying the DA. Are we doing -- Josh, did I
misread it or --
Beach: Councilman Bird, yes, that was always part of the application was a development
agreement modification.
Bird: Still part of it.
Beach: Yes. As Mr. Nary said that it was never in line with --
Bird: Oh, yeah.
Beach: -- storage was never unallowed.
Bird: I just need to read. I'm sorry.
De Weerd: Any other questions from Council? Not at this time. Is the applicant here? If
will you, please, state your name and address for the record.
Allatorre: Of course. My name is Tim Allatorre. I'm the project architect and my address
is 6532 Lone Tree Boulevard, Suite 102, Rockland, California.
Meridian City Council
June 20, 2017
Page 11 of 76
De Weerd: Thanks.
Allatorre: And I started this project a year ago and I feel like the last man standing. I'm
back here, we have lost everybody else. I just want to echo the comments that were
made about the planning staff and just be on record to say that I have worked in many --
well, several states, dozens of cities, and the Meridian planning staff is one of the most
professional and objective that I have worked with. We haven't always agreed, but I think
that's a good planner who, you know, puts the needs of the community first and so I just
want to have that on the record that we are grateful for Josh and Bill and the other city
staff. As Josh mentioned -- I don't get a mouse today? I'll just give you the --
Beach: Yeah. I can go ahead and do it for you.
Allatorre: I will just point you -- okay. As Josh mentioned, we have eliminated the housing
component of it. You can go to the next slide here, Josh. And just to recap, the area we
are talking about -- next slide and, Josh, already covered this year. Oh. Yeah. Stay
here. So, just one point on our tentative map . Josh had mentioned that -- we are -- oh,
thank you. We were seeking to align the allowed uses on that eastern parcel to be
consistent with the R-4 zoning. If -- now that is to our benefit. It makes this property more
valuable than having the land use consistent with the zoning where right now they are in
conflict, which makes development more difficult. But right now we have absolutely no
proposed use or projects. There is no buyer. There is nothing in the works for that parcel.
So, if that is a point of contention we are fine with just leaving it how it is, just to get
something moving on this parcel. But it would be nice if we could have those in line.
Thank you for -- just to recap where we are at with the storage, the storage facility project
hasn't changed from what you saw last month . We are still -- there is around 150,000
square feet of storage with a 1,300 square foot office and, then, a manager's unit of about
2,000 square feet and we have -- as Josh mentioned, proposing to continue the sidewalk
right now on the western border where it opens up to the subdivision, there is a sidewalk
that stops and there is a break in that sidewalk up until you get to Goddard Creek. So,
we are proposing to connect those sidewalks to continue the pedestrian path from the --
the Selway apartments and the Goddard Creek Subdivision all the way to the west and,
then, as is shown here we are proposing also to landscape that whole area. So, the
landscaping that's existing on the Goddard Creek Way, western side, that would be
continued around the south -- or the north side of McMillan Road and, then, wrap -- wrap
the project. And, then, the sidewalk would continue. Focusing on the storage facility, as
I mentioned, we are proposing a very rich layered textured landscape around the
development, with an emphasis on the McMillan and the Selway apartment elevations,
providing screening and setbacks as per city standards and, then, we are proposing to
build out the development in two phases. Phase one would be to build all the perimeter
Meridian City Council
June 20, 2017
Page 12 of 76
buildings and two of the inner buildings. The majority of the architectural features on the
perimeter buildings. So, that would encapsulate the site, protect the view corridors,
security, et cetera, and, then, hopefully, the market continues to -- to be good and we can
build out phase two, which would be for those other two interior buildings. Connectivity.
Our primary and, really, the only access point for the public would be in the center of the
self-storage site onto McMillan and for emergency access we do have two access points
for emergency vehicles and the one on the northwest corner, that would allow to connect
to future development that is yet to be planned over there. That was something that city
staff asked us to provide. Just a typical storage unit plan. There is nothing very
complicated about what we are doing. Then we are going to have downstairs office with
display area for selling boxes and packing materials and upstairs we will have a two
bedroom manager's unit that will be on site security throughout -- throughout the day.
The architecture of the buildings. We have 18 tower elements that are around the
perimeter and they are spaced about a hundred, hundred twenty feet on center and, then,
those are broken up with some scoring in the exterior façade, as well as some
architectural variation in color and some build outs and cornices. So, the whole site -- all
sides will have a nice cohesive design. Our tower elements wrap the corners. There is
not going to be these kind of western false front facades. Everything will appear solid
and -- and thought out. We try to keep everything at a pedestrian scale. We have the
wainscot band across the bottom. Windows, columns, arches, everything is down to the
pedestrian scale. So, when you're walking down McMillan you have trees on both sides
and this nice little building to your right -- and it's not going to feel overbearing or imposing
for the pedestrians. Again is -- here is a shot of this. Now, we don't have all the landscape
in here, but as my first exhibit we have landscape on both sides of the walkway, a bunch
of really nice trees that have been put in there . Our main tower element. And, then, the
view looking east on McMillan. And, again, this would be the view as you come from
Goddard Creek, that's that southeast corner. So, we have a tower element there and the
architecture wraps the corner and, then, there would be landscaping screening that. So,
if you have any questions I'm here and as well as John from TO Engineering. He's --
he's our civil engineer and we are happy to answer any questions you may have.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none, Mayor, at this point.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Coles: We had a number of individuals sign up this evening. Diane McClane signed up
against. Does not wish to testify. Dorothy Pefferle signed up against. Does not wish to
testify. David Blasko signed up against and does not wish to testify. Pam Fiscus signed
Meridian City Council
June 20, 2017
Page 13 of 76
up against. Does not wish to testify. Carol Young signed up against. Does not wish to
testify. John Hopkins signed up against. Does not wish to testify. Cheryl Hopkins signed
up against. Does not wish to testify. Linda Ullman signed up against and would like to
testify.
De Weerd: Good evening. Thank you for joining us. If you will, please, kick this off with
your name and address.
Ullman: I will. My name is Linda Ullman. I live at 2735 West Root Creek Street.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Ullman: And I wasn't sure -- I didn't know that the three stories were not going in. I just
found this out. But the only thing that I would to like to say is I had gone to all the meetings
along with a lot of other people when they put in the Selway and we knew that they would
be going in, but the one thing that we really wanted is for the -- the gentleman to drive
through our community and see how nice our community was and at least keep the colors
and the same things to where it all kind of came together and I guess that's kind of what
I would like to ask is that they -- it does look like it fits into our community if this passes
and if this goes. We do have three within a mile -- three storage units within a mile. I
think that's a lot. But, you know, if it's going to happen it's going to happen and I do ask
that we do keep it the R-4, which was in the agreement and that something is settled,
because we really want the best for our community and we were at the last meeting and
we have -- we have only missed one and the applicant was not here the last meeting, so,
then, they did this meeting and we -- some of us have postponed our vacations or
readjusted our stuff to be here to let you know our concerns about this and , basically,
that's kind of all I want to say. I just hope that we settle it tonight and know what's going
on and that they do kind of drive around our development and see what a nice community
that we have.
Bird: Thank you very much.
Ullman: Thank you.
Cavener: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Cavener.
Cavener: Linda, would you mind if I asked you a question?
Meridian City Council
June 20, 2017
Page 14 of 76
Ullman: Yes.
Cavener: I just want to make sure that I heard you correct. Since you have learned that
the apartments have went away has your opposition changed?
Ullman: Well, no, not exactly. My main thing was having three stories of the apartments
-- now, I did not want that.
Cavener: Madam Mayor, follow up?
Ullman: Am I -- am I misunderstanding? Is that still going on or -- okay.
Cavener: Madam Mayor, may I follow up? And so you -- Linda, the request is that the
apartment portion be removed.
Ullman: Okay.
Cavener: And so with that does that change your opposition? Are you still opposed to
the project? Do you support it? Are you neutral? Share with me your perspective.
Ullman: I feel like some of it's going to happen anyway, just like when we knew Selway
would and I just want it to fit into our community. If it is going to happen, if we are going
to have the storage, just make them nice looking is what I'm asking. And whatever -- like
if this comes up again, okay, if they -- if we -- if you vote on this and you leave it at the R-
4, my question would be to you it will be another meeting before anything is built there. I
mean will we know kind -- or just they can build whatever they want, as long as it fits into
R-4?
De Weerd: Yes. I would -- Mr. Nary, you want to explain that process?
Ullman: I'm not sure how that works.
Nary: So -- so, the R-4, what they are asking, is simply to leave it at that. So, any future
-- whatever they want to do there, they are still going to have to come back to present
that to the Mayor and Council for what they would like to do. Right now it's just going to
be bare ground --
Ullman: Right.
Nary: -- and nothing else.
Meridian City Council
June 20, 2017
Page 15 of 76
Ullman: Okay. That's kind of what I was wondering if they -- they would have to come
back and --
De Weerd: They would come back with a preliminary plat.
Nary: Yes.
De Weerd: Because the only thing for the parcel that they are going to remain in R-4,
they would need to plat that and that would be -- that would be a public process.
Ullman: Okay.
De Weerd: So, you would see how the layout would be, but it would be for R-4.
Ullman: But it would be for the R-4.
De Weerd: Yes.
Ullman: Because I know that's -- that is within the agreement. So, okay, thank you.
Cavener: Thank you, Linda.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Coles: Jim -- Jim Ullman signed up against and does not wish to testify. Angie Ludlow
signed up against and does not wish to testify. Richard Stillwell signed up against and
would like to testify.
De Weerd: Thank you for joining us. If you will, please, state your name and address for
the record.
Stilwell: Richard Stilwell. 15 -- 5117 North Dove Rich Place.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Stilwell: In the Kelly Creek Subdivision. I'm more confused than I was before . I have a
real problem with the procedure.
De Weerd: Can you move that --
Meridian City Council
June 20, 2017
Page 16 of 76
Stilwell: I'm sorry.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Stilwell: With the procedure that has gone on. Is that -- I was at the -- first of all, this
started out on December 23rd for the zoning and planning commission, then, there was
another meeting in March 23rd I believe and, then, yet another one in April, at which point
the zoning and planning commission recommended denial and, then, it came to City
Council and that appeared on the 23rd of May, I believe. I may be wrong about these
dates. At which time a motion was made to approve the request to change the zoning to
allow the apartment complex. Well, that motion was defeated. You know, in everyday
parlance, in the King's English, if a motion is defeated you would think that was the denial.
But, then, we come to learn that, no, it isn't a denial and so now it appears that we are
back to where we started again, which is asking for a motion to amend the zoning -- the
R-4 zoning; am I correct about that? Or at least expand the uses of that. Am I correct
about that?
Palmer: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Palmer.
Palmer: Since it was my motion, maybe I will speak to it. It was before us as it was and
so we have to take an action, whether it's an approval and that motion, then, gets
approved and, then, the action is taken or if I were to make the motion to deny it and ,
then, that motion was passed, that would be the action. Where the motion is what failed,
the project didn't fail, the motion failed. So, the action is what failed. And, then, that's
when it got a little confusing, because the applicant got back up and said, well, maybe we
can separate the use, so, then, it seemed like there was -- really the major opposition was
to the multi-family, not so much to the storage units. So, we went ahead and pushed it to
another meeting to allow the developer time to work with staff to separate the projects , so
that we can either hear them separately or they could decide not to do it , which it sounds
like they have decided not do the multi-family at all and just stick with the storage, but,
yes, still changing the zoning to allow for the storage, as opposed to just whatever it was
before. But it was still -- there was no approval or denial that took place. So, then, it took
more time than anticipated to fully separate these and have the process go through , so
that we could actually make the decision tonight. But in the -- in the decision in the motion
that I made to continue it to tonight, we made clear that the decision will be made tonight,
that what they bring for us is -- we are either going to approve it or deny it, we are not
going to push it to another meeting to decide later. So, it is just the storage and, then,
Meridian City Council
June 20, 2017
Page 17 of 76
the other side R-4, which like it was pointed out, is usually single family homes or
duplexes, but not apartments. Does that help?
Stilwell: Well, I understand -- so, we have two issues before us; right? One is the storage
unit -- first the storage -- at the end of May the storage unit was going to be moved to the
east side and, then, apparently, they were not able to gain -- or I guess egress -- or
changes of egress from the county, so now we are back on the west side where it was
originally planned to be. Okay? So, that's one issue. And I have no position on that one.
My other issue is what about the other five acres? Now, there is something in here about
further the applicant is requesting that this property, meaning the five acres, I believe, is
no longer be allowed to be developed with office as originally approved under the Lochsa
Falls planned unit development. The study proposes that the property be developed with
allowed uses listed in the UD --
De Weerd: Sir, can you pull the microphone over.
Stilwell: Okay.
De Weerd: You can pull it over if --
Stilwell: Okay. Do I need to start again?
De Weerd: No.
Stilwell: Okay. Fine.
De Weerd: I think just --
Stilwell: In other words, he's now proposing that the property be developed in allowed
uses with the UDC table. Okay. So, there appears to be a change there as well. The
problem with this proposal is that I have no idea what they are going to put in there. Just
as a normal human being I would like to see what was going in there before we start
making changes and so I -- you know, I opposed this. The last point that I would like to
make and, then, I will be quiet, is that through this whole process, starting with the zoning
and planning commission, there are notices required, in fact, signs posted where the
development is supposed to occur and for so many days and so on and so forth . What
we have had here for the last couple of meetings is that things keep changing. I mean
the -- the storage unit was going to be on the east side, then, the west side, now it's back
on the west side. I'm sorry. And I just found out about this about a day ago, okay, and
apparently that wasn't the zoning and planning department's fault, because they just
Meridian City Council
June 20, 2017
Page 18 of 76
found out about it recently. But if we are going to have citizen participation, they have to
be given notice and notice has to be more than 24 or 48 hours, you know, certainly
including a weekend. Otherwise, you know, this -- it just doesn't work well, folks. I mean,
you know, people have to -- you know, within our HOA we have to consult, does the HOA
take a position, does it not take a position? What about the neighbors that are going to
be affected. Is that -- we have to be given proper notice and proper notice means at least
a week or two weeks, so that we can figure out what's going on. Otherwise, you're going
to get a random set of citizens down here who may understand it or like me isn't quite
sure what's going on and really can't take a position. I can't tell you that I really oppose
the eastern five acres, because I have no idea what's going in there. Okay? So, I would
respectfully request that you deny their petition to make any changes on that eastern five
acres until they can come back with some kind of an idea of what they are going to put in
there.
Palmer: Madam Mayor?
Stilwell: Thank you.
De Weerd: Mr. Palmer.
Palmer: Madam Mayor. And, sir, with all due respect, it's because of the notice that was
given to the citizens and the citizens came that we had a second and third meeting. Had
nobody come to the first one and there was no objection to it, I imagine we probably would
have just passed it as it was. But because there was so much objection we took a step
back, slowed it down, give the developer a chance to make the neighbors happy by
changing the project with what all the concerns were and so that's why we are here today
and it sounded like, you know, when the applicant got up that he wasn't completely set
on keeping it R-4. He would like to to make it simpler for future development, but if there
-- if it sounds like there ends up being a lot of objection to that being R-4, that might be
something that we can -- I don't know how that process works, whether that's what's
before us, if that's something that we can keep that or if he would have to come back
again, but -- I don't know, but it's -- I just wanted to --
Stilwell: Yeah. I know.
Palmer: That it's -- it's because --
Stilwell: I do understand that, yeah, as a citizen -- you know, by profession I am an
application developer, software engineer. I don't understand all of -- you know, all the
jargon in terms of --
Meridian City Council
June 20, 2017
Page 19 of 76
De Weerd: Can you pull that --
Stilwell: You know, by profession I am application engineer, Software developer. I don't
understand all the jargon and I certainly don't understand all your procedures. I'm not
saying that they aren't good procedures, it's just I don't -- you know, we don't understand
them and it's not reasonable to expect them to understand all the details. For an example,
when a motion to approve is voted down , I think, you know, for the average person they
would think, okay, that issue has been solved. Well, you know, we found out, no, that
isn't the way it works and so it's just a confusing process and I think if you're sensing
some frustration -- which I am a little frustrated -- is that the number of hours that I have
spent sitting in these hearings, not only here, but also in terms of the Planning and Zoning
Commission -- I must be up about eight, ten hours. Plus the time that I have -- and I --
as you can tell, I haven't really dug into this. I mean if I was going to actually learn this, I
would be at this -- I would put in at least 20 to 40 hours on trying to understand what these
various designations -- I still have no idea what he's proposing in terms of UDC Table 11-
2A-2, because when I look in there, there is a -- there is a whole list of uses with different
codes next to them. So, I have no idea which one applies to the -- to the -- you know, to
the subject property here. That's my only point. It -- you know, it -- the procedure needs
to be more transparent. That's -- that's all I'm saying. So, I thank you for your time and
if I seemed a little frustrated, I hope you can understand. Thank you.
Cavener: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Cavener.
Cavener: Mr. Stilwell, would you stand for a question?
Stilwell: Yes.
Cavener: I appreciate you being here. I appreciate you being here two weeks ago, the
week -- two weeks before that at the Planning and Zoning Commission and appreciate
your frustration and I apologize for any issues this has caused, but I'm hoping maybe you
could give us just a little bit of insight outside of this application . You strike me as an
individual who is educated, articulate, and pragmatic. What are the things that you would
like to have seen done differently, so that it was more transparent for you?
Stilwell: I think that the -- I think that, first of all, may be a part of the confusion is that it
was a complicated petition that was put forward and these things need to be phrased
more -- you know, I think more clearly in some respects. That's number one. Number
Meridian City Council
June 20, 2017
Page 20 of 76
two, I mean with all due respect to the Council, is that, you know, if we aren't going to
approve something, then, we should deny it or vice-versa -- or if we are not going to do
that and we want to have -- we are denying this particular suggestion or -- or petition for
the particular use, but we want to keep this open, because we want to consider other
uses -- and that should have been stated. You know, maybe it was and I didn't understand
it, but when I walked out I thought, well, that part is over with and -- well, no not really.
And I just think it -- it needs to be more clearly stated is all. Okay? And, then, second
thing is is that if we are going to allow the petitioner to, basically, amend his petition, okay,
then, their needs to be given proper notices. In other words, the petitioner -- and I don't
fault the -- the developer here or the architect or the engineering firm, but they need to be
able -- they need to understand that if they are going to make changes, then, they need
to complete their changes and have --
De Weerd: Sir, if you could speak into the microphone.
Stilwell: Okay. They need to complete their changes and have them posted at least on
the city website a week or two weeks before the hearing, so that the public has reasonable
notice.
Cavener: Thank you.
Milam: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Milam.
Milam: Sorry just to jump in here. So, just to clarify, is I agree with you. I know there are
a lot of times that I try to explain things sometimes in a way that people could understand,
because before I did this I wouldn't have understood a word they were talking about up
here, so I understand where your frustration comes from. What happened a couple of
weeks ago is we didn't approve the project, because we asked the developer to go back
and remove the apartment buildings and, then, bring it back. So, we did a continuance.
So, we said we continue this meeting until the 20th, hoping that -- we tried to let all of you
know, then, we are going to be coming back on the 20th for this continuance. We couldn't
-- if we denied it he would have had to go through a very lengthy process to start over
and that would be unfair to him. So, we gave him an opportunity to fix what we didn't like
in the application and come back today. The five acres -- all he's asking for is that he can
build houses on it. R-4 is no more than four houses per acre and those lots are probably
the -- similar to the ones that you -- the ones that you live in are probably R-4 or R-8.
Stilwell: Okay.
Meridian City Council
June 20, 2017
Page 21 of 76
Milam: So, they are the same size or bigger than the rest of the surrounding area.
Stilwell: Okay.
Milam: If that's helpful.
Stilwell: Yes.
Milam: Okay.
Beach: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Josh.
Beach: If I could just to clarify a couple of things that -- I think there has been some
confusion -- and I'm trying to pull up the -- a couple of things in our code that I think folks
are confused about. One is Table 11-2A-2, which does have quite a long list of potential
-- either conditional uses, accessory uses, or permitted uses and if there is a dash on
here, it's a use that's not permitted at all. So, yes, there are things besides single family
homes, if I scroll through here, that could potentially be approved on that five acre piece.
So, I don't want the impression to come across that it's just going to be single family
homes. And there may not necessarily be a -- you know, in theory there will be a
preliminary plat on that property, but if a single property -- build one home on five acres
of property, that's -- that's a scenario in which there could not be another hearing in front
of any board or commission or the City Council. I don't see that happening, but just -- just
so that's out there. I will also say that Councilman Milam indicated that four homes -- it's
actually an 8,000 square foot lot is what's allowed in the R-4. So, you could potentially
have more than four on an acre. So, I wanted to make sure that was clear. I apologize
for any confusion there was with the memo that I sent out, but I wanted to make sure --
that folks were aware that there is a discrepancy right now with -- the development
agreement allows this R-4 parcel as it currently states -- or as it's currently zoned to have
uses that are allowed in the L-O zoning district. As a -- as a planner I don't -- I don't like
that, because it's -- there is a lot of confusion involved and that may be part of the reason
why folks have decided they don't want to develop the piece of property, because the
zoning does not match what you can actually do with the property. So, in regards to lining
those back up, it made sense and discussions with the applicant is that you can do one
of two things I think would make sense. You can ask to rezone that L-O and have that
be consistent. You can have it do R-4, so that the zoning and the uses are consistent
and that was the -- that was the reasoning why we put that in the memo is 11-2A-2 is a
Meridian City Council
June 20, 2017
Page 22 of 76
table that allows for those uses in the R-4 zoning district to match what the actual zoning
is. So -- and it may have been overkill on explanation, but I wanted to at least explain the
reasoning why we went that direction.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: I'm sorry, I think you just made everything more confusing. Also I -- you know,
I will tell you that generally this begins with a neighborhood meeting and that
neighborhood meeting happens within a 300 foot noticing area. What neighbors see at
that time is often nothing similar to what is eventually applied, because we hope that the
applicant learns from talking to the neighbors what is palatable and what isn't and so
oftentimes they do go back to the drawing board. I don't know about this case, but I do
know what we eventually see, because of the public process that is put in place, that it's
oftentimes a totally different application than what was originally envisioned and -- and so
I understand your confusion. I have stood where you have and probably why I got
involved with the city is I wanted to have a better understanding of what all that process
was. So, your voice is important and many times it's the citizen voices that do change
applications, because the developer wants to see approval. Planning and Zoning
Commission is a recommending body. They --
Stilwell: I understand.
De Weerd: -- they cannot in this regard make decisions. They make recommendations
to the decision making body, which is the City Council, and at the meeting in May when
they heard this, they did not like the apartments in the same reason -- well, most of them
didn't -- to the same reason the citizens had concerns and so they said -- the first motion
was to approve. It failed, but we still needed to take action and the Council at that time
was not ready to take action, because of some of the -- the comments they heard and
they said, well, why don't we continue this, allow the applicant to look at what they are
proposing and consider something that's a modification of what they have applied and
that is within in City Council's rights to say we are not going to totally kill this, but we want
to give you another opportunity to bring something else back , considering all the
testimony that was heard, that we hope -- and I think I even said at the end, I hope you
have heard the neighbors and that you will work with them and I think they work ed with
the feedback that they heard and that's what you're seeing today. When we continued it,
it was on June 6th, I believe, and they continued it because they weren't quite ready to
come back with a proposal I think they felt would satisfy what Council's feedback was at
that public hearing and to be sensitive to the citizens. So, that's why we are here today
is to consider, yes, yet another application or another version of what they can do and
with the clarification that staff made, we have planned developments, they were -- they
Meridian City Council
June 20, 2017
Page 23 of 76
were zoned one thing, even though they were a collective of a number of different land
uses, and that's -- if all of you that were part of the Selway apartment concern, that was
part of the master plan for Lochsa Falls. However, it was all classified under an R-4. So,
this particular development, although it's part of that master plan, it was specifically
designated for office. So, staff would like to see a clean-up, so that when someone comes
in they will see the uses intended actually reflected in case someone does do their
research and say, oh, well, that is office, a conditional use permit is -- is required to
consider storage units and this is R-4, which is primarily residential homes. There are
other uses allowed, but those are conditional uses that require a more extensive public
process. I hope that makes sense to you.
Stilwell: It does and I would just like to say that I'm not anti-developer and I'm not anti-
development, I'm well aware that that property is going to be developed and I also think
it's worthwhile for the homeowners try to work with the developer. They may not get
everything they want, but oftentimes half a loaf is better than no loaf at all and so I think,
you know, the homeowners and, you know, if need be the homeowner's association
should make an effort before we bring -- the matter comes to you guys to make an effort
to see if we can compromise or if we can come up with a solution that's going to satisfy
everybody. So, in addition to that I'm not anti-development or anything like that, I just get
worried when people start saying here, make this change, but we aren't going to tell you
what's going in. You know what I mean? That makes me concerned and that was --
was my -- and, then, you know, I went on a camping trip this weekend, when I -- when I
Ieft I thought, yeah, this was not going to come up, that this was just putting the storage
unit back on the west side of the property and that was it. I come back from this camping
trip and, guess what, then I started reading this other language and it's like well, what's
up here. What's going on? And I started to review the whole procedure and the process
that I -- as some might describe and that's when I started to get frustrated, because I
couldn't understand what was going on here really. I really couldn't, in all good faith, take
a position saying I oppose this, because I wasn't sure what I was opposing, to be very
honest about it. At the same time I couldn't take a position of supporting it, because I had
no idea what I was supporting.
De Weerd: Well, you know, that's why we show up, too. We want to see that's actually
being proposed as well.
Stilwell: I'm sure there is other people that would like to get up here and --
De Weerd: Thank you.
Stilwell: And thank you very much.
Meridian City Council
June 20, 2017
Page 24 of 76
Palmer: Madam Mayor. If I could ask you one more question. So, knowing that it's on
the west side, seeing some renderings and having a basic understanding, not a
comprehensive understanding of what R-4 is -- and an R-4 -- also there is projects before
us where all the neighbors are begging, please, put R-4 around us instead. This is a side
note, but knowing, basically, what R-4 is and what those storage units are intended to
look like, how do you feel about the project as you have seen it in the last few minutes?
Stilwell: I have seen the project and to be very honest about it, I'm also a member of the
HOA board and I -- I think the position of the board at this point in time is that we are not
taking a position on the storage unit and the reason I say that is not -- it's not just to give
you an ambivalent or equivocal answer, it's because I think there is some homeowners
in our development who oppose it and are very opposed to it. There is others -- and you
may have just heard from one before in me, that say, well, it's fine and, you know, it isn't
immediately up against the Kelly Creek Subdivision, so, you know, as a member of the
board we felt that it was inappropriate for us to take a position, come down one side or
the other, because in a sense by me saying something, even though I am appearing as
an individual and not as the president of the board , still that can get kind of confused.
You can understand that, because I see you run into similar circumstances. So, you
know, at this point in time we aren't taking a position on this. Thank you.
Coles: Jamie Pollmann signed up against and would like to testify.
De Weerd: Good evening. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record.
Pollmann: Jamie Pollmann. 5030 North Goddard Creek Way.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Pollmann: Yeah. I -- I think some of the confusion with the unified development -- I even
had to write it down -- code was exactly what some of the Council Members were
surprised when they heard what staff reported about that . So, my understanding is that
the five acres -- I am opposed to the storage unit also. But that the five acres will stay
the RD4, which it is. But they want to add on top of that, which is not currently there, this
Unified Development Code; is that correct? Which opens it up to more uses. So, they
are not rezoning it RD4, they want to add Unified Development Code to open up more
uses. Is that correct?
De Weerd: No. They would like to clean up what it is allowed and instead of just the
office and have the storage units and the five acres designated as R-4.
Meridian City Council
June 20, 2017
Page 25 of 76
Pollmann: Okay. So, somewhere in there it says that they had to add the -- the Unified
Development Code and in that code it allows townhomes, two family duplexes, which
that's what we have just been fighting against is multiple dwelling homes. But this Unified
Development Code is now going to allow it, with a conditional permit. Also I am not sure
if this five acres is included in the PUD that Selway was in, but if it is and it says multi-
family dwellings may be allowed in R-4 if it's in -- already in a PUD. So, I think it's -- they
are trying to come in the back door -- not right now, in the future, to come back before the
board -- the Council, excuse me, and try to get multi-family housing in there. I'm hoping
that the Council will give the south part of the development the same consideration they
gave the north part of the development by not breaking our Lochsa Falls development
agreement, leaving it as is is what I'm hoping. I, too, feel like there is way too much
confusion, not only with the residents, but possibly with the Council to not fully understand
what they are exactly voting on. I could be wrong and I apologize for that. I'm not meaning
to be disrespectful, but that's what I feel with some of the questions that -- that's -- and
answers we are getting. I do believe -- I just want one more point, please. I do think that
the applicant feels like there is not any opposition to the storage unit, because each of us
are allowed three minutes to stand up here and talk and so the first thing we did was go
to the -- to the multi-family, because that was the most important. But a lot of people are
not -- are opposed to the storage unit also. When I was looking at those pictures -- I'm
sorry, but it looks like a prison to me. Right in our beautiful development coming into our
restaurants and all the shopping -- I'm asking you to, please, disapprove the whole
application.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Coles: Dan Fisher signed up against and would like to testify.
De Weerd: Good evening.
Fisher: Good evening. Dan Fisher. 2382 West Apgar Creek Drive.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Fisher: In the -- the UDC some of the uses with an A, which I assume means approved,
within that UDC -- or within that -- am I using the correct lingo? The correct use table?
So, in that with an A would be a restaurant, a storage facility -- storage facility self-service,
wireless communications and, then, a conditional use permit -- there is all kinds of uses.
I think we need to go right back to our development agreement and I think, even more
importantly, we need to go right back to the Comprehensive Plan that was developed by
Meridian City Council
June 20, 2017
Page 26 of 76
the City of Meridian. This is your plan. This is our plan. The plan says light office. There
is -- there is plenty of great light office that you see around town and it's beautiful. There
is dentist offices, orthodontists, office, CPAs -- it's great. And those are great neighbors.
I'm in the commercial real estate and the banking world. I know that light office makes a
great neighbor. I also like the look of it. It's a lot more appealing to me than seeing
storage units. I agree with Jamie, it looks a lot like a prison and I am very much opposed
to the open ended use of the east five acre parcel. So, I think it would be great to just
clear up the confusion. I think a lot of the confusion was having two -- two uses, two --
really two applications in one big chunk just kind of thrown at everyone, yourselves
included. I think it would be best to just clean the slate and stick with the Comprehensive
Plan of the City of Meridian and put light office in that property. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Chatterton: Madam Mayor? Maybe I could give just a quick primer on how zoning works
in general. Is that all right?
De Weerd: Yes.
Chatterton: Zoning districts -- just about everywhere. It's not just Meridian. Work pretty
much this way. There are a range of uses that are allowed in them. A good part of the
City of Meridian is zoned R-4. A good part of that -- I don't have the exact percentage,
but quite a bit of that acreage is currently undeveloped. Now, the way zoning districts
work is that you have a range of these uses, they either are allowed outright or they are
conditional uses or those uses are prohibited. The idea behind the way the zoning district
has been designed and -- we try to do this with all of our zoning districts -- is to only allow
those uses as permitted uses, which are about the same intensity as the R-4 residential
that you would expect to have there, is that lower density residential. Anything that steps
up to a little higher intensity would, then, have to be a conditional use and, therefore, we
would require an approval process. So, it's really a good -- rather than being perhaps
open ended and certainly I can see the arguments about changing a development order
-- a development agreement, but a good part of the city is in this same condition as this
-- as this eastern piece of property being zoned R-4. So, it's really not that open ended.
The idea is to be harmonious with other similar uses. Just thought I would throw out that
explanation and, Mayor, I think you're probably going to say that I just confused things
more.
De Weerd: I didn't have to say it. I didn't have to say it.
Palmer: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
June 20, 2017
Page 27 of 76
De Weerd: Mr. Palmer.
Palmer: Where Josh has highlighted this, maybe you could break down for us what
permitted accessory or conditional -- maybe that will make it worse. I don't know.
Beach: Permitted uses are those, as Bruce mentioned, that you can come in and obtain
a permit for and move forward on, without any other hearings involved. An accessory
would be something that you could only have and it could only be a small portion of that
use. So, for instance, we -- this may be a poor example, because it doesn't apply
specifically to this, but in some cases self-storage facilities are considered an accessory
use if they are associated with an apartment complex. You can't have them stand alone.
Those types of uses would be potentially allowed as part of that development for those
tenants only. Additional use as is described -- as Bruce described requires a hearing and
that would be certain things as to better rezoning as a conditional uses and those typically
go to the Planning and Zoning Commission and, then, those that have a dash as indicated
here are those that are not permitted in that zone. So, A does not mean approved. A
means it's an accessory to another type of business and it is either approved or is a
conditional use conditionally approved. Does that make sense or --
De Weerd: Well -- and the conditional use permits generally are heard at Planning and
Zoning, unless they are accompanied by another application.
Beach: Correct. And, then, just one more thing. You see Key slash C here. In those
cases there are specific use standards that are special requirements we have for those
specific types of uses and if they can meet certain standards it's permitted. If they can't
it's a conditional use and that just depends on that type of use what those conditions are
or special requirements.
Palmer: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Palmer.
Palmer: Okay. We are going good. Okay. So, Josh, then, maybe if you could scan
down -- because so far on -- on what's visible right there, the only two that they could do
without needing additional permission would be single family dwelling -- I think is what it
said. Yeah. Dwelling single family. A park.
Beach: You're correct. There is very limited use in the residential zones and that's by
design.
Meridian City Council
June 20, 2017
Page 28 of 76
Palmer: Or public utility.
Chatterton: Madam Mayor? If I could also add, we currently have 1,773 acres of R-4
zoned land within the city limits, which is vacant. Undeveloped. So, I don't believe that
this is an open ended zoning district at all. And, in fact, it's quite -- compared to many
other zoning districts we have in the city it's -- it's quite restricted. But we -- if there is --
is there is concern about the eastern piece being zoned R-4, we need to be -- would need
to be concerned similarly about a good chunk of the city. It's a lot of land.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: Here is -- here is how -- here is the issue -- and that's not the issue. Regardless
of how it's zoned, the issue today before the meeting started is that parcel has L-O uses.
You can zone it pink, blue, four, twelve, who cares. It can be used today -- and the prior
agreement was light office. Right or wrong. That's the ability -- what can or can't be
developed. So, it's -- the request is should that use be changed as part of this to those
listed in R-4.
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Chatterton: Madam Mayor, Councilman Borton, I agree completely with you on that. I
just -- there was a sense that perhaps R-4 was overly permissive in and of itself and that's
all I was addressing.
Borton: Okay. And, Madam Mayor, what I hear the public -- in what they have said and
what they have read is prior agreement, right or wrong. The terms of the deal is that
parcel is L-O. What can be done in L-O is what can be done there, don't change that.
And if we were to make a change effectively, if that literally rezoning to allow R-4 uses,
we would be changing today what can go on that property and that might l imit the public
to have a future ability to have input on it. For example, the single family home, which as
of right now could never go on that property, absent a rezone to R -4 or that change. So,
I think I understand where the public is coming from and regardless of not being rezoned,
we want you to maintain that basket of uses that exist within the L -O restriction in the
development agreement, which is, unfortunately, inconsistent with its technical zoning,
but, nonetheless, that's the restriction that exists on the property.
Meridian City Council
June 20, 2017
Page 29 of 76
Chatterton: And that -- and I agree that the development agreement is the crux of I think
the concern -- didn't want anything about R-4, though, in particular, to be -- to be a
distraction from that discussion.
De Weerd: Josh, could you pull up the UDC and show Council the allowed uses under
office.
Beach: So, same scenario. The conditional use dash is not permitted. P is permitted.
And, then, you see your -- sometimes with A slash C, which is kind of that same thing, it
would be allowed as an accessory under certain conditions in a conditional use permit
under others.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton.
Borton: As we do this, I heard the applicant say while it would be preferred to remove
that limitation that exists only in the development agre ement and restore it to the use as
consistent with its current zoning of R-4, that request does not make or break on this
application. And if the development agreement provision that limits the use to L-O uses
were to remain, that's acceptable to the applicant and it wouldn't necessarily prevent the
storage unit component from proceeding today. That's what I heard the applicant say.
So, not to say this is academic, but a little bit it might be. That's not a question. Just a
comment.
De Weerd: Okay, Mr. Clerk.
Coles: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Penny Fisher signed up against with no indication of
testimony.
De Weerd: Good evening.
Fisher: Good evening. For the record, my name is Penny Fisher. I live at 2382 West
Apgar Creek Drive.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Fisher: What I wanted to say, too, was -- I agree with sister -- Mrs. Pollmann and my
husband Dan Fisher. Even rezoning it it still goes against the Lochsa Falls agreement.
It would be completely gone at this point. I had someone reach to me and asked -- one
Meridian City Council
June 20, 2017
Page 30 of 76
of the questions they want to know is how can one parcel have two ratings and be rezoned
two different ways. I don't know the answer to that and that was something that I had a
question for. But they do fill with -- with the C-C and the R-4 Lochsa Falls agreement,
again, would be gone. They also feel that we shouldn't be here, because we were told
the applicant said we gave our okay after Planning and Zoning opted to deny the whole
project. We didn't meet with anyone after the 3:30. So, we never agreed to it. We didn't
say one way or the other. Yes, a lot of the opposition was against the multi-dwelling, but
I am looking at this, too, what little I do know -- I mean the light office, it does -- it's L-O,
but, again, this does say with a conditional permit . It does say single family attached
dwellings, single family detached dwelling, townhouse dwelling, family duplex, a mongst
other things. So, how -- if it is changed, how is that not guaranteed and why did we go
through all this to get it denied, just to have it in the future be able to. Is there something
you can do now to guarantee that townhouses -- two family duplexes are not going to be
on that property and that's a question that I have for you guys to answer and address
today before you make your decision to approve or deny.
De Weerd: Thank you. We will answer those as we get towards the end of public
testimony.
Coles: Brianne Jones sign up against with no indication of testimony.
De Weerd: Hello.
Jones: Hi. Brianne Jones. 2093 West Apgar Creek Drive in Meridian.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Jones: I appreciated opening the meeting with reinforcing that the Council is here to
advocate for the Comprehensive Plan that is in place and upholding the timeline that was
also set for the original plan. I'm referring to the development plan for Lochsa Falls and
also that the main goal is to advocate -- or to find the best outcome for the community.
We live very close to where the storage units would be and we have been super confused
like everybody here. I appreciate you having compassion for the everyday person . Even
after explaining it it's still -- with further explanation my waters are getting even more
muddy. So, when these things happen I think that we should just go back to the original
agreement. That's really the only leg that the residents have to stand on. If you take that
away from us and we rezone it, we don't have anything at that point. We are agreeing to
-- or you're agreeing to let the conditional things come back potentially, which like the
previous lady said, that could be things that we are really fighting against here. So, I do
want to go on the record saying that I disapprove -- I want to deny the entire project just
Meridian City Council
June 20, 2017
Page 31 of 76
because it goes against the original agreement that was put into place and I hope that we
can trust our Council also because there are still some members on the Council that made
that original plan that we can rely on on the trust to keep that in place. Thanks.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Coles: Jonathan Forsyth signed up against and does not wish to testify. Will Davis signed
up against with no indication of testimony.
Davis: Hi. My name is Will Davis. I reside at 2371 West Apgar Creek Drive.
De Weerd: Thank you, Will.
Davis: Appreciate the chance to be here. This has been a grand philosophical discussion
about the office, residential, et cetera, et cetera. Unfortunately, that's not the time to make
that philosophical discussion if you're going to make a decision this evening, because you
can have a great philosophical discussion about it, which should take place between the
Mayor and the Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission and members of the
community, but the action tonight could affect the lives of those people that live in this
area for a long time and that's not probably the most appropriate place to have that
happen. If we want to have a philosophical discussion about office and storage units and
townhomes, et cetera, et cetera, then, the only choice is to deny this tonight and have
that discussion and, then, say this is what we came up with. There was a lot of discussion
on the 23rd meeting about the Lochsa Falls agreement and, then, it came up that that
was 15 years ago, but this Council adopted the current Comprehensive Plan in October
of 2016. It's not like this land has sat vacant for years and years and years waiting for a
Council to make a decision and say this is what's going to be here . That was done in
2016. Your first proposal comes as against that and we are saying, oh, this is a great
thing, we are going to take some vacant land out of the community and we are going to
use it for something. That's the philosophical discussion. What's the best use for this
land? But it's not apparently -- it's not something that needs to be made tonight, if we are
talking a long term use. I sent an e-mail to the Council prior to the other meeting and I
will just close with -- with what I closed with that in. And I base that -- for eight years I sat
in the council member seat, for 12 years I sat in the Mayor's seat in a community in
another state, another time period as such, but I quoted what was attributed to Dwight
Eisenhower when he was president, the important things are seldom urgent, urgent things
are seldom important. If we need to take time, we need to take time. I understand your
concern when you made the motion before or the conversation about the money and time
and effort that the developer has in these things . That's their cost of doing business.
They have to factor that stuff in. But what you're doing now could affect the lives of the
Meridian City Council
June 20, 2017
Page 32 of 76
people that live here for the next ten, fifteen, twenty years and I hope you will take that
into consideration as you make a decision on that. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Coles: Michael -- and I apologize, Michael, I'm not sure how to pronounce your last name.
Katriondo? Cassienda?
Caliendo: California.
Coles: Pretty close. Signed up against and would like to testify.
Caliendo: I'm Michael Caliendo and I live at 2582 West Divide Creek Street in Meridian.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Caliendo: Thank you. Thank you, Madam Mayor and City Council Members, for letting
me speak. I found it very ironic that I ran away from Rockland and Roseville, California,
because of the massive expansion and growth that ran you out of there. We grew up as
kids on bike trails and ponds and oak trees and I watched within 15 to 20 years an entire
community disappear that was a rural community into one big suburbia of tilt ups, strip
malls, malls, storage facilities, warehouses and industrial facilities that kind of all hodge-
podged into this one big mix that turned everything into a standstill from stop light to stop
light and everything was out of control and when I got a job o ffer here in Idaho I thought
this was a new opportunity. I moved in the middle of a potato fields, corn -- feed corn and
onion fields to get away from what I had experienced in California and I moved here and
made my investment in my future in my home. Based on an agreement -- and that's just
it. It's an agreement. An agreement is a contract and a contract shouldn't be broken
unless there is just compensation to those that are potentially going to suffer irreparable
harm, which I think this is putting a big prison facility looking -- prison facility, which we
already have three within a mile right in our backyards. It's going to decrease the value
of our homes and we are not being compensated for that. For that I'm definitely opposed
to this facility. I like the idea of R-4 and I love the idea of the office -- light office use,
because where do I go for -- when I had my knee replaced for physical therapy? Right
there I go to the physical therapy place right across from Walmart, right in my backyard,
because I like doing business with neighbors. Light office was great. There will be
dentists. There will be CPs. I'm still using my California CPA, because I can't find a
decent CPA around here that wants to do business with me. I have only gone to one, so
-- we had some differences. But I would like a new CPA. A dentist that's close. A doctor
that's close. Light office would be very, very nice to have. We have, what, probably two,
Meridian City Council
June 20, 2017
Page 33 of 76
three hundred houses within that facility and I understand the gen tleman made this
investment 15 years ago, but I made my investment ten years ago and I'm just starting to
see some of the dollars come back and I'm about breaking even on my home right now.
To start throwing more traffic and more tilt ups and more storage facilities up is not going
to increase the value of my home. I want to -- I would love to see that neighborhood stay
what it is and that's a family vicinity, light office use, and I appreciate the opportunity to
speak. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Coles: Tim Allatorre signed up for and would like to testify. John Carpenter signed up
for with no indication of testimony.
Carpenter: Good evening, everybody.
De Weerd: Good evening.
Carpenter: John Carpenter. I'm at 332 North Broadmore in Nampa. I'm with TO
Engineers.
De Weerd: Can you pull that a little closer? Thank you.
Carpenter: How is that?
De Weerd: That's better.
Carpenter: Great. At the last meeting we had a pretty direct answer from Coun cil and
the neighbors that we didn't want to have multi -family. I requested that we pull multi-
family. That was discussed and that's exactly what we did. So, tonight we are here simply
just with storage units. Twelve acres total on the property. Seven acres of storage units.
The five acres we tried to decide what to do with that five acres and that's why it 's more
time. Went back and forth with staff. Really, there is two options. Do you want to try to
go with the light office or you want to go residential. Really, if you look through code there
is a lot more options in light office. Residential is pretty cut and dry. So, to me and others
it would -- it seemed there would be less opposition with the residential to R-4. If there is
a desire by Council and the neighbors to have light office, by all means we will take it.
The residential developer that had the nice units is off to another piece of property in
Meridian. I'm sure we will see him again. Those are -- those are a very nice product. But
he is -- he's not interested in this project anymore. So, there is only Brian Porter sitting
back here that's interested in the storage units and that's it. So, the five acres -- there is
Meridian City Council
June 20, 2017
Page 34 of 76
not a plan for it. The five acres is to be developed in the future. It's at a value that -- it
won't come in at one lot. At R-4, even though it is 8,000 square foot per lot, you can never
get greater than four units to the acre by the time you take off the roads and everything.
So, usually you're three and a half, something like that. So, it's pretty safe. That's the
only reason we stuck it on there. We don't have any intentions, other than it's a little less
complicated. If the folks want to stay with the PUD that was originally approved, that is
fine. The developer for the storage unit is open either way. Just a couple other points.
The Comprehensive Plan, as it's shown today actually shows this property is two uses,
one is multi-family, if you look at it -- I don't know if you can bring it up, Josh. One of the
things that I would ask that we pay attention to in the future is if we have development
agreements that have very clear land uses, they should match the Comprehensive Plan.
The master plan for Lochsa had light office up on Chinden and light office on McMillan.
If you remember it was a developer that did pretty much nothing but residential . My guess
is he really didn't know what was -- was going to happen down there. That ground has
sat vacant for 15 years. The ground on Chinden has developed --
De Weerd: Josh, you want to blow up the --
Beach: I wasn't a hundred percent sure where we are at, what we are looking for.
Carpenter: I'm looking for the Comprehensive Plan.
Beach: Okay.
Carpenter: Yeah. It was just talked about that we should follow the Comprehensive Plan.
I just wanted to point out the fact that there is actually multi-family shown on -- on the City
of Meridian's Comprehensive Plan and light office. I will keep talking. So, really, I don't
know if I answered it before, but I want it to be clear, we made a decision on R-4 just
because we thought it would be easier for the neighbors. If somebody wants light office,
that is fine. There is no issue either way between the two of them.
Beach: Just a second.
Chatterton: Mr. Carpenter, are you asking for the land use plan map or for the
Comprehensive Plan text?
Carpenter: Comprehensive Plan map.
Chatterton: Thank you.
Meridian City Council
June 20, 2017
Page 35 of 76
De Weerd: And when was the map last updated?
Chatterton: It's updated -- Madam Mayor, every time we have a change to it. So, I'd have
to look back at the previous agenda, but every time the plan is amended . Usually as the
result of an annexation.
De Weerd: But I mean in terms of holistically.
Chatterton: Madam Mayor, it would have been about four years ago.
Carpenter: So, Josh has it up on the screen right now and orange is multi-family and you
can see that encroaches into that property, probably, I don't know, 25 percent and, then,
the purple is light office. So, our Comprehensive Plan that we have for this area has --
has both of those. It's dated March 2017. I don't know if that was actually when it was
put in place, but this is subsequent to that development agreement. So, we are here
asking for approval on the -- on the storage units with that C-C, with the conditional use
permit, and we are asking for either R-4 or light office on the five acres. We are not trying
to back door anybody. If there is a sense of that, that is not the case, we do not have a
plan for that five acres. I wish we did. But that -- that plan will come later. As the storage
units go in and that five acres -- somebody comes with a plan that makes sense for it, a
preliminary plat will come before.
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Carpenter: Let me make sure I hit all the neighbor's comments.
De Weerd: Well, your time is up, so --
Carpenter: All right. I will sit down. Thank you very much.
De Weerd: I guess I do have a question. I know some of the concern both during this
hearing and at the last one is traffic. I see you're not putting it on Goddard. I'm sure that
there is great appreciation to that. You have a secondary entrance or exit into the
apartments that eventually could get that way, but it doesn't look all that convenient. What
is the difference -- there wasn't a traffic study, but what is the difference between traffic
generated with the storage unit versus traffic generated with light office?
Carpenter: There actually was a traffic study.
De Weerd: Was there?
Meridian City Council
June 20, 2017
Page 36 of 76
Carpenter: We did go through that exercise. We did it -- we did it after the fact. Storage
units -- that's the -- what, trips per day? So, the number on the right is for what we had
proposed on five acres. Yeah. So, just to kind of give you a comparison, there -- as we
had it before with the apartments, five acres, there was almost 500 trips per day coming
out of that 500 -- or, excuse me, the five -- five acres. On the storage side out of the
seven acres it was a little over 200. The big difference is the timing for those, Mayor. It's
-- they don't -- don't hit the peak. So, when everybody is leaving to go to work in the
morning, people aren't going to the storage units, they are coming kind of sporadically
through the day. The storage units are actually really -- they are nice to blend in with --
with neighborhoods, because they don't -- they don't clash trafficwise. But we do have
a traffic study that was provided --
De Weerd: Yeah. I'm trying to find it. Thank you. I didn't see it in the original, but I will
find it.
Carpenter: You know what it was, it's confusing. It wasn't a requirement from ACHD,
they came out and said we don't need to do one. Because the neighbors had questions
and Planning and Zoning did, we hired a traffic engineer and did prepare that study. So,
as the neighbors said and you're aware, there has been a lot of meetings. I have been
to three neighborhood meetings myself . A lot of back and forth. But the traffic was one
of those items. So, hopefully, we have -- we have addressed it. We are taking everything
out to McMillan and that's how we had it previously. ACHD doesn't -- doesn't want
multiple access points out on McMillan. That's kind of been a problem. There is a little
bit of a clash on, you know, what you do with -- with trips, but ACHD -- if there was
residential like we had it, there are the ones that wanted us going out to Apgar.
De Weerd: Yeah. Thank you. Council, any questions?
Cavener: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Cavener.
Cavener: John, we have heard from some of the neighbors tonight and I think the Council
has received quite a bit of correspondence of complaint that the developer and the
developer's representative has purported that the neighbors are in favor of -- of this
project and many of them are here saying they are not . Can you give me a sense on
where that's coming from and -- it helps us kind of, you know, dig through the mud on --
on that particular issue where we were told maybe -- where people believed that the -- or
Meridian City Council
June 20, 2017
Page 37 of 76
that the neighbors are in support, but maybe they are not. I was just hoping you might be
able to -- to give me -- shine a little light on that.
Carpenter: I will try to shine a little light on it. It's only going to be a little bit. I can't speak
for the neighbors. Like I said earlier, I have been to three neighborhood meetings. We
have spent time with some of the board members on the HOA trying to negotiate some
sort of solution, especially when we had the multi-family. We looked at switching the
location, multi-family on the west side and storage units, just trying to deal with that traffic.
Always the issue was the multi-family. Never -- never was it a concern before tonight with
-- with the storage units. So, that -- it just hasn't come up before.
Cavener: Thank you.
De Weerd: Any other questions? Okay. Thank you.
Coles: Cheryl Mariann signed up against. Does not wish to testify. And that, Madam
Mayor, concludes all the signups.
De Weerd: This is a public hearing. Is there anyone who would like to provide testimony
that hasn't?
Pollmann: Jamie Pollmann. 5030 North Goddard Creek Way. I don't even know if this
will answer your question, but on May 23rd I brought a form of a traffic study that Ada
county had just done --
De Weerd: I found it. Yes.
Pollmann: -- subsequent to --
De Weerd: Yes.
Pollmann: Anyway, it's 3,300 trips per average day through the intersection of Goddard
Creek Way and McMillan, if that was what you were asking.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Meridian City Council
June 20, 2017
Page 38 of 76
Borton: To that point and if the applicant is coming next he can correct me, but on the
traffic count there was -- we talked about the distinction between light office and
residential and storage units and the notes from -- it's a May 19th traffic study you guys
did that had the light office trips on full build out of 1,340 daily trips. The ACHD report --
or ACHD report had 365 trips for the storage units and the residential component was
less than the 1,340, but the ACHD were much -- much lower than the existing light office
use. So, it's -- looking at traffic by itself, the storage units generate far less traffic th an a
light office use. At least that's how I read the traffic study and the ACHD report, but when
you came back up you reminded me also that you sent, ma'am, an e-mail and -- on early
June asking about the continuation and I think other developers -- or other citizens did as
well, asking at the very least if there was a continuation from the June 6th meeting to
today, to at least address the applicant has an opportunity to speak at the end to at least
provide the public some context as to what happened from May 23rd to June 6th that
necessitated not being ready or whatever took place to , then, continue it to today,
because we had a lot of members of the public and -- and some were upset, some were
concerned and I think they were all at the very least entitled to an explanation as to what
was going on behind the scenes to warrant that continuance to today. So, I'm glad you
came back up, because I remember that.
De Weerd: Okay. If there is no further testimony I will ask the applicant to come -- there
were a couple of questions that were also asked and, Mr. Nary, do you want to address
those?
Nary: There were three that I took notes of. One was how can they split this into two
zones and the subdivision process in the code allows that, for one parcel to be split into
multiple parcels that could have different zones of them . Planning has to concur that it
meets the Comprehensive Plan and the future land use map and the designations that
the city has wanted and is consistent with that and as Bruce said about zoning, again,
you're looking at uses and whether conditional or permitted uses are allowed. So, that's
a perfectly legal process of subdividing property to create different zones. One was a
question of could the Council do anything to guarantee that the future use of that property
wouldn't be something that people don't want today and the answer to that is no. This
Council can -- can do whatever it likes to do to restrict this property through the legal
process and like the development agreement you can limit what they can do, but the law
allows them always to ask a future Council, which is why we are here. The previous
Council under a different ordinance that doesn't exist anymore, created this development
agreement and put some restriction of uses, but there is no way in the law that they can
make it preventable from anybody for asking to change it. So, the ability to have a hearing
and have the public participate and have that discussion is always going to exist , unless
the city were to purchase the property. The last one was there was a question about
Meridian City Council
June 20, 2017
Page 39 of 76
compensation in relation to other properties. So, in the law in Idaho development
agreements are agreements and contracts between the city and the property owner of
that property. It is not an agreement of -- of a contract with anybody else. Yes, it's
something that the public can read and rely upon, but with the understanding that it can
be changed and legally that's allowed to be done and there is no compensation in Idaho
or any other state that I am aware of that changing those agreements requires
compensation. So, those three things were the questions I thought were more legal
oriented that I could answer and if there is something else I missed, certainly, please, tell
me. But those are the three that I took notes on.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: I had a fourth that was tied to it and it was -- the question was asked as to how
we can do that and I -- I heard it to also ask why. The how -- there is a boring, legal,
technical answer that makes it permissible, but the why -- you know, why would we allow
a property to be zoned X, but the uses of why -- it's confusing to the public and everyone
else. It's not a question that may be answered today. It's a great question. I don't recall
the last time I have ever seen that happen and so the how makes sense, but the why
would we allow that in light of the confusion it can cause is something I guess we can visit
and try to avoid in the future. It's confusing at best.
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Borton, I think the answer
is as elected officials you always have control of the why. The why is a discretion that
this Council has in regards to how land develops in the city and what makes sense. I
think Councilman Palmer brought up at the original one if land sits vacant for a long time
can the Council consider in their discretion to allow that change? Yes, that is totally within
your discretion to do. So, yeah, I usually have to answer the why -- or the how and you
guys answer the why.
Borton: Okay. Fair enough. Thank you.
Allatorre: Madam Mayor, Council Members, thank you very much for your time again
this evening. I would just like to tie into the change that we are requesting here. As far
as the entire parcel, we are really in a difficult spot with this piece of property and it's been
something that challenged us since the beginning. Like John brought up, the upper
portion of the site has a use for multi-family and, you know, looking at our exhibit here,
Meridian City Council
June 20, 2017
Page 40 of 76
coming down well past that second building into the site, that's all supposed to be multi-
family and I think we understand very clearly that the neighborhood does not want more
of that multi-family housing and when we first looked at this project, one of the options we
considered was taking that aggregate amount of land for multi-family, sticking it to the
east or the west and just reconfiguring those areas. But I don't think that's the right fit
based on all the testimony we have heard from the community and so no matter what we
do on this property, there has to be some amendment. There has to be some change in
order to make use of the land or we condemn it in perpetuity to be vacant and I d on't think
that's in the best interest of Meridian either. To address the issue of why we didn't meet
two weeks ago, after -- and, actually, I think also, Mr. Cavener, your question about the
community -- our very first community meeting, which happened last year -- the fall of last
year, I heard very clearly -- at that point we just had the storage facilities, we didn't know
what we were going to do with that five acre parcel and several of the neighbors who
came out tonight to testify against our storage facility, they were very excited about the
prospect of storage going in there. In fact, one of -- one of the very active members of
the community, who testified tonight, told me very specifically, storage makes good
neighbors and as recently as our last meeting -- or Council meeting, we met with several
of the neighbors in the -- the foyer out here, I talked with members of the HOA board,
vocal members of the community, and, once again, they reiterated to us that we don't
have any issue with the storage, we don't like the housing. And, then, tonight that target
has moved and now we are hearing that they don't like the storage either and I'm not sure
what changed over the last month, maybe it's the feeling of being jilted from the last
Council meeting, I'm not sure, but it does take me by surprise , because the feedback I
have received consistently, as the architect for the storage facility, was that they were in
favor of it. As to the last Council meeting, we were trying to find a solution that would
once and for all put to rest this question of that five acre parcel. We were working with
city staff and with ACHD to try to come to a compromise to allow us to lock down that
eastern corridor -- the corner and prohibit any future access off of Goddard Creek or
Apgar Way and unfortunately -- and as of last -- two weeks ago, there was still a light at
the end of the tunnel that we might be able to get that resolved, but we weren't able to do
that. ACHD has very clearly stated that they would not support that. And so the only way
we can move forward with developing the storage facility at this point would be to put it
on the western portion of the parcel and hope at some point something shifts or changes
or there is a use that can be found for that five acres on the east. But for right now that's
-- we don't -- we don't know how that's going to develop and when we started this whole
process we weren't sure what we were going to do with that five acres and we have come
full circle a year later back to not knowing what to do with that five acres. I did want to
address the architecture as well of the buildings . We have had several community
meetings and feedback from staff. Originally our storage facility at our very first
community meeting when the neighbors liked the idea of storage, but the feedback we
Meridian City Council
June 20, 2017
Page 41 of 76
heard was it looked too industrial and our original design was more of a traditional storage
facility look and so we -- we listened to the community and we revised our elevations, we
added more colors, more texture, more undulation -- you know, ins and outs of the site,
changing vertical plains, adding some traditional roof shapes to tie into the rest of the
community. So, we have tried to address that. You know, if there is still a sense that we
can go further or we need to do something to adjust it or tweak it, you know, hopefully,
that maybe as a condition of approval is something we can work with staff to deal with.
And, then, the last point I wanted to make had to do with the issue of marketability and
why a storage facility. Based on our market research we are not showing three storage
facilities within a mile and maybe we are missing something. I know of one that's three
miles away, which I believe is Citadel. There is another one existing of two miles away
and there is one currently under construction that's a mile from our project site. But even
with that, by California standards that's very dense for storage, but for Idaho there is
definitely a market need and we wouldn't be working on this for a year to try to get this
through if there wasn't a need and we see the need in the community and we are trying
to fill it. You know, if it's not us putting in a storage facility here, you're going to have an
application very soon with another developer seeking to put a storage facility in this
region. It -- there is a need. The two storage facilities that are existing within the three
mile radius are full to capacity. The one that's under construction is already selling --
preselling and we anticipate an equal demand -- or hoping for an equal demand on our
project. Oh. And then -- and, then, along those lines, one other thing that we actually
have heard through this entire process and every other place we do storage facilities is
there is this misconception that storage facilities bring down property values . Our team
has been doing storage facilities for a long time and we haven't seen evidence of that. If
there is evidence that storage facilities are bringing down property values, that's
something we definitely would want to know about , so we can address those issues and
make our facilities better. That’s not -- you know, we are not trying to bring down this
neighborhood with our project. I believe I addressed everything. If there is any other
questions I missed I'm available to answer those. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
De Weerd: No? No questions.
Allatorre: Thank you, Mayor.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Council, it's in your hands now for discussion. If you want
to discuss before you close the public hearing or close the public hearing?
Meridian City Council
June 20, 2017
Page 42 of 76
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: I will throw out comments onto one of the issues and it goes to what I mentioned
earlier and the development agreement provision that limits the use of the -- I guess the
eastern parcel, parcel two, to L-O uses in the R-4 zone. In light of everything we have
heard and read and seen and the applicant's comments, that would be a change I wouldn't
be willing to make at this time. I would leave the agreement as agreed and as existing
between the property and surrounding property owners that restrict that use to that parcel
to the L-O uses, understanding the applicant bringing -- can bring an independent
application at a future time to amend it with a particular plan that shows a particular R-4
use, a future Council can address it, but for now I would leave that provision as is.
De Weerd: Okay. I feel like this is a staring contest. Who is going to blink first.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I agree to a degree with Councilman Borton, but I -- I don't see any reason to change
it from L-O for the whole 4.5 acres. That's my statement. Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I have been sitting here since 1:00 o'clock. I move that we close the public hearing
on H-2017-0007.
Milam: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All those in favor
say aye. Any opposed? Okay.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Bird: I will make a motion, but -- I move that we deny H-2017-0007 and leave it in the
existing zoning as is.
Milam: Second.
Meridian City Council
June 20, 2017
Page 43 of 76
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to deny the application in front of you.
Any discussion?
Bird: Call for the question.
De Weerd: Mr. Clerk.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Borton, nay; Milam, yea; Cavener, yea; Pa lmer, nay; Little Roberts,
nay.
De Weerd: Oh. This is awesome.
Palmer: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Palmer.
Palmer: Well, I guess you still have your vote, so --
De Weerd: I do.
Milam: Madam Mayor? You may just want to explain what's going on, in case people
are wondering.
De Weerd: I think they all know that there is a tie and I am the tie breaker. There is a tie
and the Mayor breaks ties. And this would be the first time I have actually exercised that
opportunity to break a tie, because usually it's a -- you need to have a majority, because
this is something that I think that people have to agree. Pardon? This will not be the time
I exercise my right to vote.
Bird: So, it --
De Weerd: So, you're at a stalemate.
Palmer: So, does that mean it's still before us? Essentially it's a --
Bird: It's a failure.
Palmer: Oh. It failed.
Meridian City Council
June 20, 2017
Page 44 of 76
Bird: It didn't pass.
Palmer: Okay.
Cavener: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Cavener.
Cavener: In light of some of the testimony we have heard tonight about the confusion of
the process, would you mind sharing with It the audience what just occurred, because I
understood what you were saying, but I want to make sure that ever yone here in the
audience had the opportunity to understand that as well.
De Weerd: I think I -- I did try to explain that I haven't broken a tie because I felt that
Council should have a majority one way or the other. I also feel that there wasn't any
discussion. So, I don't have any idea why some of you voted yes and some of you voted
no and maybe if there were more discussion from the Council that it may not have tied.
So, there you have it.
Palmer: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Palmer.
Palmer: While there was quite a bit of delay before the close -- before Councilman Bird
did go ahead and close the public hearing, there wasn't a long delay before he called for
the question. So, if it's done, it's done or if -- could still vote no on the motion, then, could
still be an opportunity for discussion with a new motion, but if you're done I guess it's
done.
Bird: She's not voting. It's back open. Go for it.
De Weerd: There is no motion at this point.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Just maybe for the record's sake and to make it clear, I think what Councilman
Palmer is asking -- the Mayor is -- has the ability to break the tie, she's not obligated to
do that. The Mayor opted not to do that, therefore, the motion ties and, therefore, fails.
Meridian City Council
June 20, 2017
Page 45 of 76
So, there is no motion before the Council at the moment on whether to approve, deny, or
modify or remand or anything. So, by -- by the Mayor declaring not to vote to break that
tie, then, the motion does fail.
Palmer: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: And I would imagine that this does surprise you, because I haven't tried
breaking a tie, so --
Palmer: Madam Mayor, so, then, just the motion fails. It's as if you had voted no.
De Weerd: Right.
Palmer: Oh. So, it's still before us, open for discussion. Okay. I was confused. I thought
you were saying it was --
Bird: We haven't decided yet.
Palmer: -- that killed it without killing it.
Cavener: Make a motion.
Palmer: Then, in that case, if I may -- and I plan on a little bit of discussion after the
motion. I move -- now where am I on my agenda. I move we approve H-2017-0007, with
the only exception being that the R-4 stays L-O. If I get a second I --
Little Roberts: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve the rezone to allow for the
storage unit and to keep the five acres in L-O.
Palmer: Right.
De Weerd: Is that correct?
Nary: Madam Mayor? For the record's sake Madam Mayor, Members -- Council Member
Palmer, there is a memo that's attached from planning that has provisions that I think the
only provision -- and Josh can correct me -- is there is one that says to be added -- Lot 2
shall only develop with those uses allowed in the R -4 zoning district. By your motion
you're saying in the L-O zoning district should be inserted and I think everything else is
Meridian City Council
June 20, 2017
Page 46 of 76
related to the storage units. Did I miss that, Josh? All the other changes to the
development agreement are --
Beach: Yeah. All those other conditions are relevant to the multi-family portion. So,
those are the ones that need to be -- yeah. Removed. Correct.
Nary: Okay. So, if that was your intent, then, that was the only suggestion I would add
that this memo -- pursuant to this memo -- and I'm changing that one sentence in number
one.
Palmer: Exactly that. If Council Member Little Roberts agrees to -- then for discussion,
Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Palmer.
Palmer: Madam Mayor and Council, I wish that this rendering that we are looking at right
now had more than just the outlines of the tree. There was some of the comments made
that it looks like a prison and I can picture that with invisible trees . I feel like their -- their
landscaping plan -- because we look at a lot of overhead, 2D landscaping plans and, then,
we see them in reality and so I'm able to picture what the -- the end result will be and I
can imagine just looking at this you go, yeah, the thing does look like a prison and so I --
while I understand that, I feel like that's not how it's going to end up feeling, that we -- we
see a lot of storage units, some that were built decades ago that look incredibly far
different than ones that have been built in the last five or six years. They are, obviously,
storage units, but they don't look anything like they used to. They are much more fitting
with the environments around them due to all the landscaping and the undulations I think
was the word that was used before and differences in the architecture a lot of times that
we are requiring in residential homes that back up to arterial roads. I feel like with all of
the meetings that we have gone through to get to this point, the changes that have been
made have gone a lot in the ways that the residents have requested. One of them did
mention that they were fine with -- as long as it gets built as it appears, because of the
changes that were made, that do fit more with the colors and the styles of the homes.
Getting away from the multi-family, understanding the -- the traffic issues, that they are
going to be far less than they would be with -- if it was, you know, a bunch of dentist
offices and whatnot on this other seven acres. You're still going to have that, quite
possibly, on the other five acres, but between the traffic, the -- the architectural setup that
they have got, this fits. This makes sense. And they have gone a long ways to fit what
many of the neighbors have asked for and so with that a hope for an extra yes vote.
Little Roberts: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
June 20, 2017
Page 47 of 76
De Weerd: Ms. Little Roberts.
Little Roberts: I concur with Councilman Palmer. It seems like with all of this process
that we have gone through that this really does address the vast ma jority of the concerns
and that the multi-family was really the issue and I think that the developer has gone out
of his way to try to take into consideration what the neighbors have wanted and things
that we really do have -- have a balance struck here and that's really what we aim for.
Both sides of the fence have rights and we have really tried to take that into -- we are
trying to take that into consideration. But over the course and re-reading a lot of it today
-- this morning before we started meeting at 1:00, trying to re-read the testimonies as we
have gone on and the vast majority seemed like the multi-family was definitely the issue
and we dealt with that and I think this is a really good compromise.
Cavener: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Cavener.
Cavener: Since the request is for more conversation, I'm happy to provide some from a
different perspective. I agree with Council Member Palmer and Council Woman Roberts
that this has been a long process, but I'd share a different perspective, one from that of
our citizens and I agree with both of you. I applaud the developer for trying to
accommodate, make changes and I applaud our staff and the process works , because it
allows the developer the flexibility to accommodate and make changes. That said, at
every one of those opportunities there was an ample chance -- or ample opportunity for
the homeowners to support this project or a homeowners association even to come and
say we support this project and at every turn there has been silence on that end, which,
again, leads me to believe that all those residents that are over there are best case neutral
with the project and that's where for me it gets to the element of modifying the DA and I -
- the applicant spoke about that storage units make the best neighbors. I concur. I think
storage -- I would much rather have a storage unit next to me than a retail store or drive -
thru or a handful of other -- other places and the reason why we have so many storage
units is because we have got neighborhoods where we don't want boats and RVs parked
on our streets, we want them put away someplace and we don't necessarily build homes
to accommodate that. So, storage units are high in demand. I get that. Great project.
But to me we have yet to hear a single voice from our citizens speak out in support of this
project. It's hard for me to now be supportive. Recognizing that three weeks ago I was
one of the two votes that was in support of passing this application as is, but the testimony
that I have heard both in e-mail and in here tonight about that particular element of the
DA has resonated with me and I have yet to hear a compelling reason from -- from anyone
Meridian City Council
June 20, 2017
Page 48 of 76
as to why we need to change that and I have yet to hear any support from this project.
So, appreciate the motion, appreciate the second, but I am not in a position where I am
prepared this evening to change my vote.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Mr. Clerk.
Roll Call: Bird, nay; Borton, aye; Milam, nay; Cavener, nay; Palmer, aye; Little Roberts,
aye.
De Weerd: Well, it looks like I am going to have to vote and I will vote aye. And I will tell
you why is I didn't hear support of it tonight, but I did here support of the st orage unit at
our last hearing and this mitigates the concern of traffic, it does not send the traffic through
the neighborhood or out onto their entrance, which was the -- the major concern. Puts in
sidewalks along the entire length. It -- it's up against multi-family residential, which has a
great transition from the single family and I think it maintains the -- the L-O that has been
asked to be maintained. So, I think there was a compromise in this application and it
does meet the intent of the -- the light office. So, I -- I hope that -- the citizens that came
here tonight and that have been coming to our Council meetings and Planning and Zoning
see that this is a process and that your voices do change things and I -- I know as I have
gone through the process, too, where you kind of hope for what you would like, that
sometimes saying we helped mitigate the concerns doesn't quite go far enough, but the
process works and I guess I will end it with that.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE NAYS.
B. Public Hearing for Geddes Subdivision (H-2017-0041) by
Schultz Development Located Southeast of the W. Ustick Road
and N. Black Cat Road Intersection
1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 2.08 Acres of Land with
an R-8 Zoning District
2. Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Ten (10)
Building Lots and Four (4) Common Lots on 2.08 Acres of
Land in an R-8 Zoning District
De Weerd: Okay. Our next item on the agenda Item 9-B is a public hearing for H-2017-
0041. I will open this with staff comments.
Meridian City Council
June 20, 2017
Page 49 of 76
Allen: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. The next application before
you is request for annexation and zoning and a preliminary plat. This site consists of 2.08
acres of land. It zoned RUT in Ada county and is located at the southeast corner of North
Black Cat and West Ustick Roads. The Comprehensive Plan Future land use map
designation is low density residential. The applicant is requesting approval of annexation
and zoning of 2.08 acres of land, with an R-8 zoning district. A step up in density is
requested from low density residential, which is three or fewer units per acre, to medium
density residential, which is three to eight dwelling units per acre, as allowed in the
Comprehensive Plan without an amendment to the future land use map. A preliminary
plat is proposed consisting of ten single family residential building lots and for common
lots on 2.08 acres of land in the proposed R-8 zoning district. The gross density of the
proposed development is 4.8 dwelling units per acre, with a net density of 8.9 dwelling
units per acre, which is consistent with the requested step up in density if approved by
Council. The minimum property size is 4,034 square feet, with an average lot size of
4,960 square feet. Access is proposed via the extension of a local street, North Geddes
Avenue, currently stubbed out the southwest corner of the site. A stub street is proposed
to the west for future extension and interconnectivity. Because a roundabout is planned
at the Black Cat-Ustick intersection, staff was concerned about how the properties to the
north and west could redevelop in the future and requested the applicant a concept plan
addressing this, which he did. And just a quick flashback to the overall vicinity map here
-- and, then, this is the concept plan that the applicant submitted . This area here at the
bottom left -- or, excuse me, right-hand corner is the proposed plat. The rest is the
concept plan for the remaining area. The concept plan provides access to these
properties and appears to meet UDC standards and fire department requirements. A
common driveway is proposed for access to the three homes at the southeast corner of
the development. The applicant is proposing .11 of an acre of common area adjacent to
the cul-d-sac at the northeast corner of the site along the Eight Mile Lateral, which runs
along the east boundary. The UDC does not require qualified open space and site
amenities to be provided for -- for developments that are below five acres in size.
However, because the applicant is requesting approval of a step up in density staff
recommends a qualifying site amenity, such as a picnic area with tables, benches, and a
shade structure or other qualified amenity is provided as a provision of the development
agreement. The applicant also requests Council approval of a waiver to use to UDC 11-
3A-6 to leave the Eight Mile Lateral open and not pipe it as required by the UDC due to
its large capacity. The applicant estimates it would take at least a 48 inch pipe to tile the
facility. Conceptual building elevations were submitted as shown for future homes within
this development. Building materials consist of horizontal and vertical siding, with stone
veneer accents. The Commission did recommend approval of this project. Matt Schultz
testified in favor. No one testified in opposition. Mike Sorenson commented on the
application and Matt Schultz, the applicant's representatives, submitted written testimony.
Meridian City Council
June 20, 2017
Page 50 of 76
Key issues of discussion at the hearing were Mr. Sorenson would like a stub street
provided to his property at the north boundary of the site. Mr. Sorenson's property is --
it's this area right here, if you can see my pointer, which is this area right here. He was
also concerned about his irrigation rights being interrupted by the proposed development
and he would like a gas line extended to his property.
Cavener: Madam Mayor? Sonya, I don't mean to interrupt. I don't know if it's the screen,
but I can't -- I couldn't see the area that you were pointing to you.
Allen: Mr. Sorenson's property is directly to the north. Can you see my arrow on the
aerial?
Cavener: Thank you.
Allen: Uh-huh. Key issues of discussion by the Commission was the request for a step
up in density from low density to medium density residential . They were in favor of the
request, based on the proposed site design, and Mr. Sorenson's concerns regarding
irrigation delivery, access, and easement for a gas line. They were in favor of the
extension of a gas line. And irrigation delivery is -- is covered in our code. They can't
interrupt the irrigation rights of adjacent property owners. Commission changes to the
staff recommendation. The Commission added a requirement for a gas line to be
extended within a public utility easement to the north property boundary for use by the
adjacent property owner as requested and the y added a provision to the development
agreement that homes within the development are restricted to a single story in height
and a minimum of 1,500 square feet as proposed by the applicant during the hearing.
There are a couple outstanding issues for the Council. First is the applicant is requesting
a step up in density from low density residential to medium density residential, as
previously discussed, to accommodate the proposed development. And, secondly, the
approval of a waiver to UDC 11-3A-6 to leave the Eight Mile Lateral open and not pipe it
as required due to its large capacity. There has been no written testimony submitted
since the Commission hearing. Staff will stand for any questions.
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Bird: Not at this time, Mayor.
De Weerd: Okay. Good evening. If you will, please, state your name and address for
the record.
Meridian City Council
June 20, 2017
Page 51 of 76
Schultz: Good evening, Mayor Tammy. Matt Schultz, 8421 South Ten Mile in Meridian.
Here on behalf of Robert Campbell. He's the owner and home builder that would like to
do ten homes on this, real similar to a subdivision called Reardon Sub about a mile due
south on Cherry Lane, just due south of this. All single story, which makes this thing work.
If it wasn't single story limitation I wasn't going to come in here and represent it. I'm like,
no, I'm not interested. But with a single story and the 1,500 square foot minimum and the
architecture, which he's demonstrated -- I walked his houses inside and out, there is
nothing below 250 in this thing. Really nice. The yard maintenance is going to be
included. You know, I can represent this and say, yeah, we think it fits and planning
commission concurred that they think it fits and, yes, at first blush it didn't fit, you know, if
you didn't provide those development agreement items. But with those it's pretty straight
forward. We did -- I did meet with the land owner to the north, Mr. Sorenson, on site after
the last hearing, looked at the irrigation ditch, not a problem, we are going to pipe a small
one that's parallel to the Eight Mile to him. The Eight Mile is huge. Nobody else has
piped it, so we are asking for a waiver of that. And there is an existing gas line, actually,
right along our west property line that he put in, because he sold this property to Mr.
Campbell, so he -- Mr. Sorensen used to own this property and he sold it and there was
an existing gas line that we are going to protect. It fits right in the -- right on that property
line. So, it's not a problem. So, with those issues, we just think it fits, because it is single
story. It's a good addition. It's a good mix for people that are going to want to live in the
area and maybe some people that already live in the area that built 15, 20 years ago, that
maybe want to go single story, but still be in the neighborhood. So, we think it will go
pretty quick. And we think it will be a good little addition. So, with that stand for any
questions. Thanks.
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: Matt, for you or staff. Can you remind me what the fencing is adjacent to the --
that lateral?
Schultz: We are going to do wrought iron. Six foot wrought iron.
Borton: Okay.
Schultz: All on the lateral and vinyl everywhere else.
Meridian City Council
June 20, 2017
Page 52 of 76
Borton: Okay.
Schultz: Yeah. No problem.
Borton: Thanks.
De Weerd: Any other questions?
Milam: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Milam.
Milam: Not a question, just kind of a comment, Matt, to your -- to yours and I agree that
if these were crammed in two stories that would have -- I would probably have a lot of
issues with it, but there is a lot of need for single story -- people my age whose kids are
kind of going off to college or all complaining about two story houses and ready to move,
so --
Schultz: I think it works. Thanks.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Schultz: Thanks.
De Weerd: Mr. Clerk.
Coles: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Van Bishop signed up against and would like to
provide testimony.
De Weerd: Thank you for staying with us.
Bishop: Yeah. It's been a while.
De Weerd: If you will, please, state your name and address for the record.
Bishop: Van Bishop. 4630 West Moon Lake Drive. I actually live on the east corner at
the Geddes access.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Meridian City Council
June 20, 2017
Page 53 of 76
Bishop: I will admit I was rather ambivalent about this and so that's the reason I did not
provide any testimony at the Planning and Zoning, but some things came out at the
Planning and Zoning that I am concerned about and I would like to bring to someone's
attention to make sure they are considered. The first is that the builder and the developer
did have a meeting with the people in the area on the 7th of March. We, of course, were
concerned about the traffic that it would bring to the area. They told us at that time it was
a 55 plus community and it wasn't until after the Planning and Zoning meeting that I asked
him what happened to that and he says we are not going to do that, so that kind of raised
a flag to me in dealing with him and what -- what we could expect. The other thing that I
am concerned about is that the other five acres that's there, it is going to eventually end
in houses and I don't have a problem with houses being there, I appreciate more roof tops
to help pay for you guys salary and the things that we enjoy here, but the density is going
to be a problem, because if the developers that deal with that have the same ingenuity
that Mr. Schultz does that, I see another 25 homes being added to the ten that's there
and we will have 35 homes and it came out at that meeting that because of the roundabout
all that traffic now is going to have to come out Geddes and since we are not restricting
the -- the age on the people there that could be, you know, any number of cars and, of
course, living on that corner I don't like that, but a real concern I have is that about two
years ago the Ada county put in an on-demand crosswalk for the children coming from
Autumn Faire walking to the Ponderosa Elementary School there and so that is kind of
the main foot path for them, but now we are going to go stick a street in the middle of it
that is going to have a bunch of cats and so I'm real concerned about increasing the
density. It's different from what is existing in -- or all around it and I think that's going to
create some problems, that -- you know, not just for me living there, but for the youth and
those people -- that's just going to increase the risk for them going to school. So, I would
ask you to consider that as you consider this application.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Bishop: Okay. Any questions?
De Weerd: Any questions from Council?
Bird: I have none. Mayor.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Coles: Larry Freeman made no indication on the project, other than not wishing to testify.
Marsha Roberts signed up against, not wishing to testify. I apologize, I can't read the first
name, but I believe Irwin is the last name. Signed up as neutral. Not wishing to testify.
Meridian City Council
June 20, 2017
Page 54 of 76
Shirley Smith made no indication on the project, other than not wishing to testify . Lynn
Montre made no indication on the project, other than not wishing to testify. And Matt
Schultz signed up for. And that's all the sign-ups.
De Weerd: Thank you. Is there anyone who would like to provide testimony on this
application? Okay, Matt, do you have final remarks?
Schultz: Thank you, Mayor. Matt Schultz again for the record. At the neighborhood
meeting the builder did talk about 55 and over. His current one, the Reardon Sub, has
80 percent over 70. We think. But in terms of, you know, mandating it, enforcing the 55
and over for such a small little community -- it doesn't have really any, you know,
clubhouse or a -- you know, a bigger 55 an older, it just didn't really make sense to be out
there and say, hey, are you -- are you 52, you can't live here. You know what I mean? It
just -- it just didn't feel that we needed to go that far. And so we think it will self -regulate
to the market, so the majority of them will be north of 55, 65, if that's better. I don't know
if it is or not. I don't know if it's a bad thing if there is 30 or 40 year olds in here. But I --
you know, I think it will be fine. And as far as future traffic, it's pretty low density, you
know, there are ten here. There might be a maximum of 20 more if we did the same type
of development as this, which is the layout that I did, just to show them real quick how it
-- you know, we weren't messing up the future development. So, 30 lots on one access,
it's really close to Black Cat. It's actually a pretty good spot to have 30 more lots come in
and it really just kind of fits. So, not -- not to say that it's not a concern, especially if you
have lived there for a lot of years on that corner with a, you know, to be extended in the
future stub street that's been there for probably close to 20 years, I understand. There is
going to be new traffic. But we think it's relatively low density and it fits and it's where,
you know, a road needs to go. So -- so, with that I hope you concur with Planning and
Zoning and we did have a good neighborhood meeting and, hopefully, it goes through.
Thank you.
De Weerd: I do understand that at a neighborhood meeting -- and it's referred to a 55
and older, you -- you would be good with it and you wouldn't follow it, because you would
think that that's what it would be. I guess I would have a concern, too, on what is
happening to the west of that and why it couldn't come together as an entire package , so
you do have some open space in there and you show if it 's not a 55 and older, how you
can accommodate any of the families that are there with your open space being allowed
to the family. So, I -- I guess one of the things that -- of councils in the past we would like
to see a larger picture than one small piece at a time that, then, doesn't trigger the open
space and seeing how that connectivity happens .
Meridian City Council
June 20, 2017
Page 55 of 76
Schultz: I appreciate, Mayor, your comments on that and we have shown overall that
could easily have ten percent open space in it, you know, in the future with ours, but this
is the parcel we are dealing with. It is to -- like I said, it's going to be marketed as 55 an
older or 65 and older or whatever, just because we think that -- that yard maintenance
and the one story, single story, that's -- that's who is going to buy in for this price and it is
-- hopefully the people that already I live in the area that want to just go to a single story.
So -- but as far as --
De Weerd: Do you have an HOA that will do the -- the maintenance?
Schultz: That's going to get blended into the HOA dues. The HOA dues will include that.
We will set up so the dues will include the yard maintenance on these relatively small
yards that will be in here. So, people that move here are not going to want to move here
that have a big family and a small yard. I mean there is other choices in the area and this
is a choice that's going to be more suited to that 55 and older crowd. But as fa r as
regulating it and the 55 and older cop that goes around and regulates that exactly -- we
think we will probably have 80 percent 55 and older, maybe 90, may be a hundred, but
-- but to enforce it, we just didn't want go that far at this point, unless the Council really,
really wants us to and, then, we will, but we would rather not, so --
Milam: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Milam.
Milam: But my question was going to be almost what you stated -- or your question. So,
the other property is the same owner -- five acres?
Schultz: There is two owners -- there is two owners. There is -- there is a couple acres
just due -- there is three parcels. The two west of us are a guy that we hear will never
sell ever. And, then, Mr. Sorenson, who sold this piece, lives on the triangle in the corner.
We just put his -- yeah, you can see the three parcels there. So, the two square parcels
are owned by the gentleman who will never sell, according to him, and, then, there is a
triangle piece Mr. Sorenson has put up for sale with the house on it. They each have
houses on them. There is two separate owners there that aren't us.
Milam: So, it's not going to be developed by this --
Schultz: We don't have any -- we would love to, we would love to buy it, but it sounds like
there is a guy that doesn't want to sell right now. We haven't, you know, went and made
the hardcore press on him, but it doesn't sound like he's interested. But we showed a
Meridian City Council
June 20, 2017
Page 56 of 76
concept of how it could develop for those concern of, you know, limiting access and how
they could still get to it and we showed them how -- how you could still get to it if somebody
decides to develop it in the future.
De Weerd: So, the property owner to the north split it off and now it's going to be another
enclave, because he doesn't want to come into the city, but he's selling off a piece that
would come into the city.
Schultz: I think there is a complicated back story in that he didn't think he could develop
this two acre piece, but it was -- it was a legal parcel from the '70s, this two acre piece.
He didn't split it off. It's been -- he owned two separate pieces. One of them -- they are
both legal parcels and he sold it off and, then, came back and said, well, I want another
access so I can develop mine, too, kind of after the fact. Well, we are providing access
that works for everybody, but maybe just not you first, but definitely could work in the
future, so --
De Weerd: I guess that would be one of my other concerns is an enclave -- extending
the access to it, but not having that come in as well.
Schultz: Yeah. We don't control that. We would love to, but we don't. And there is
already an enclave there per se with three and we are taking one of them out. Yeah.
De Weerd: But that owner has a choice, too.
Schultz: They do.
De Weerd: Matt -- yeah. You can't make the comment from there, but -- sir.
Bird: You have to come up.
De Weerd: If you can come up here. Just restate your name and --
Bishop: Van Bishop. 4630 West Moon Lake Drive.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Bishop: The three acre parcel does have a for sale sign on it again now. He's kind of in
a predicament, because the design they have has landlocked that. There is no access
with that, unless they go through the two acres. So, that guy doesn't want to sell and so
I -- I don't know what the resolution is to that, but he's just decided he wants out, because
Meridian City Council
June 20, 2017
Page 57 of 76
he can't do anything with it and I -- I don't know if the person that moves in there, if they
will be grandfather in with access because of the roundabout or if they are going to have
to do something and get access to get us to get off of their property once they purchase
it, so --
De Weerd: Thank you.
Bishop: You bet.
Schultz: Mayor, Matt Schultz again for the record. If I can just talk about that. We had
this discussion at Planning and Zoning. His access won't get taken away by the
roundabout to the house. He has a house and two or three acres for sale right now and
if anybody wants to develop it, they are going to have to wait until things kind of go their
way, which is how development works. Sometimes you wait for the next guy to do his
thing. But as far as taking away their access, he's not in a predicament. The person who
buys it's not in a predicament. They have access to their house and if somebody takes
away access to the house, they are going to pay for it. You know, ACHD would have to
pay for it and they are not going to take away access to a driveway right there. If he wants
to redevelop it into -- into ten or 12 lots, then, yeah, his access to -- is going to get taken
away. But that will be a condition of development. I'm not taking away his access. I
haven't done anything, except for this little two acres here in the corner, so --
De Weerd: Any further questions from Council?
Milam: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Milam.
Milam: So, you guys are -- you're trying to buy that -- the other three acres? Or not?
Schultz: We just talked about it. It would be nice. You know, that's what we do for a
living. But -- but it's not real feasible without the other a couple of parcels right now at
this date and that could change. You know, it could change, but right now it doesn't sound
like it's feasible, but that could change tomorrow or whenever. You don't know.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Meridian City Council
June 20, 2017
Page 58 of 76
Borton: Matt, one of the challenges is the -- the design and the request for that
connectivity to the north, because absent that -- a request to annex and connect to Black
Cat is not going to fly. So, it does, in essence -- to develop it further. Not use it as a
single family residence. So, talk a little bit about the request to stub to the north and I
assume if that was unfeasible why it wasn't designed that way.
Schultz: Yeah. Mayor Tammy and Councilman Borton, we could provide a stub street to
the north. We could. We talked about it at planning commission with your staff as well.
They chimed in to make a real inefficient way to do it, to provide a stub so he could
develop first without that guy, if that's your intent. We could do that. If you say we would
approve this, but only based on punching that stub street north, then, we would it. I don't
think it's a deniable thing to shoot us down for not providing it, but we just felt like for the
overall master plan what we did was a good place to put it and staff and P&Z agreed with
that.
De Weerd: But I guess why wouldn't you do that if you said the guy to the west has said
they will never sell, then, you, essentially, do land lock the property to the north.
Schultz: People say stuff all the time, Mayor. You never know if he's just blustering until
you get in front of him and say here is a check. You just never kno w, you know, what
they are going to do. So, that's just in passing he says that. We don't think it's landlocked
forever. We just think temporarily he's just maybe jockeying for a lot of money. Who
knows. But just the guy showed up at the neighborhood meeting and I guess he lives
alone and he just one of those kind of guys that just want to be there and not move
anywhere else, you know, for now. And that could change. But we often see these things
where not every parcel is developable immediately. You know, there is sometimes steps
that need to be made for that -- for any certain parcel to get developed and this is one
that's -- that's like that, you know, like you said, hey, we are not going to approve it unless
you provide that stub street we would do it. But we are just -- this is what we submitted
and we would ask that it goes this way. But we are flexible if need be.
De Weerd: Any other questions from Council?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Meridian City Council
June 20, 2017
Page 59 of 76
Borton: Maybe it's a question for -- for Matt again, Matt, I applaud the efforts to try and
develop this -- this little nook of county property, but -- but the lack of access to the north
still kind of lingers as a concern and I don't know if perhaps there was a previously
designed plat that showed the access and -- or something that showed why it wouldn't
work or it's inefficient. You made reference to discussions with planning staff. That might
help me understand why it's a bad idea. And I appreciate the fact that you represent and
you're willing to modify it to stub it to the north, that in itself is hard to do on the fly. I can
visualize what the northern stub does to diminish the development potential of all the
parcels. If there was something else drawn out there I would probably want to see it and
if there is not I don't want to make a bunch of extra work, but that would help illustrate --
Schultz: Can you flash that back, Sonya, that overall, please. Actually, back to that little
layout. This is --
Borton: You have done amazing things with a small parcel -- yeah. Small parcel.
Schultz: And Caleb made a comment -- you know, he said, you know, because he can
visualize this stuff of how that road going north and being really pinched up against the
canal, it just wouldn't -- it just wouldn't flow as good, it wouldn't be something you would
choose as a layout for this whole development. If you had to then you would do it. You
know, if you absolutely had to you would do it. So, it just doesn't flow as well going up
that way. You got some -- where our property line is you have some property --
undevelopable on the other side of it that just wouldn't flow as well as this one does. So,
this was the first layout that came to mind of how the remainder property could develop.
The remainder being all the remainder property is what our instructions were. So, I didn't
do an alternate of if this one doesn't develop, then, this, so -- like I said, we are flexible.
If it's a deal breaker we will lose a lot. Can do it. We would prefer not to. So, we would
like that to be one of your two motions and hopefully denial is not on the table. But we
would prefer to move forward that way, so --
Borton: Okay. Thanks. Madam Mayor, I -- I would invite anyone else -- I may be the
only one who at least had some pause with no stub to the north, so --
De Weerd: You're not the only one. If -- if you can include me, so -- it's a conundrum.
Little Roberts: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Little Roberts.
Meridian City Council
June 20, 2017
Page 60 of 76
Little Roberts: I agree. I'm struggling with not having any access to the north.
De Weerd: Well, Council, if you -- if you want to have a discussion or close the public
hearing?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: A question back for the applicant. The -- the removal of a lot, it sounds -- the
reference makes it sound easy. I know it's not. Perhaps it's costly, too. But it may be
helpful to see an alternate layout that would -- how it would stub to the north and would
be incorporated. I think the idea of the project is great. I think the project looks great.
Again, I'm supportive of it, but it really would be helpful to see if you stub to the north here
is how from my planning experience in working with our staff it could look and --
Schultz: Excuse me, Mayor and Councilman Borton. You mean as it reflects to our layout
or to the future layout -- how the future property would lay out with a stub to the north?
Borton: Madam Mayor. Probably the -- the future layout of the remaining three parcels.
Schultz: Uh-huh.
Borton: I appreciate what you did in trying to anticipate how it could efficiently lay out like
this, I don't know if there is a Plan B concept that would show how if it were stubbed to
the north --
Schultz: It wouldn't look very good, I will tell you that. From a development standpoint.
And you got to trust me on that. I know that, you know, you like to see it, it would just --
just the inefficiency it just -- it just kind of blows up. But we could do it.
Borton: Well -- and, Madam Mayor, to that point, if that's the case, it would be helpful to
see, because it doesn't make sense for us to sit here and say --
Schultz: It could help us.
Borton: -- drop a stub to the north --
Schultz: It could help us. I know. It might help us not have to provide a stub if it doesn't
work very well, so --
Meridian City Council
June 20, 2017
Page 61 of 76
Borton: Yeah.
Schultz: No.
Borton: I don't want you to --
Schultz: As far as it reflects to our layout, we basically have three lots on the north. We
have two and just have that road running straight north and it would still have an
opportunity to go to -- to the west as well. It would be, essentially, a four way intersection
right there, instead of a T is what that would be. That's the only way to do it to get it in
there. And so you would lose the one lot and have nine instead of ten, and provide for
two different ways to get to that -- that -- a way to get the property to the west, as well as
a way to get to the property to the north. It just -- it just gets real inefficient. You know,
whether you guys care if it's inefficient or not I don't know, but it just doesn't look as slick
as this does, I know that. You know, how it's going to be, so --
De Weerd: So, is the desire to continue this with -- to see what that alternative plan would
look like?
Borton: Madam Mayor, to me it is. I -- again, Matt, I don't want to put you in a hard spot
on this, but the alternative would be to -- to approve it and ask you to stub it to the north,
kind of winging it on how -- what you envision to be the challenges, would actually be
understood by us.
Schultz: And I don't know if cost is a -- is a concern for you and inefficiency and -- I mean
just for us putting in an extra stub street is, obviously, we lose a lot and you have the extra
sewer and water, pavement, curb, gutter and sidewalk. You know, a huge -- huge impact
to a very small site. That's the one right off the top. Secondly, with an efficiently layout,
those development costs go -- go high per lot and it just starts -- it just starts not looking
as good. I mean we would do this one, anything else, it's like, you know, you only have
18 -- or 17 lots and, you know, there is more road per lot and, you know, there is just
some criteria that I don't know how you're going to judge me on it , you know, get judged
on inefficiency, is it going to get judged on, you know, per lot cost and -- and from our
standpoint it would be a major -- major hurt to our property to extend that to the north.
Borton: Okay.
De Weerd: It's a major hit to the property to the north not having access and being
landlocked.
Meridian City Council
June 20, 2017
Page 62 of 76
Schultz: He's not landlocked. He's got access to the driveway, you know. Yeah.
Borton: The development potential is more limited absent the stub to the north. I think.
Not technically landlocked, but constrained from a development perspective. It's why we
stub often to the next --
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: If we stub it to the north there is not much room between it and the ditch.
Milam: Yes.
Bird: But in the same -- and in the same token that north property is going to only be
designed one way or -- and it's probably not going to be -- the other -- the way Matt's
drawn it is we have got to have -- whoever does it has got to have all the property. I mean
you're going through the property to the west and, then, you're going to the north. I hate
to land lock anybody, but my -- my preference would be to -- to take and where that hits
the property line just stub it in as a road and we have done this many times on the through
roads and, then, just put a barrier up there future road.
Milam: Right here.
Bird: Right there.
De Weerd: Any other questions for the applicant?
Borton: Madam Mayor, I -- I only bring it up -- I don't know where -- what else is it on that
particular issue and I don't know if there is an alternative means that -- if it's left vacant
for a future road that if the other parcels were to come in it could, then, be abandoned
and became a buildable lot again. Maybe making it more of an issue, but does that make
sense?
De Weerd: Okay. Anything else from Council?
Milam: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Milam.
Meridian City Council
June 20, 2017
Page 63 of 76
Milam: I'm still -- I'm just getting more confused I guess with this whole land locking
discussion. Matt's saying they are not like landlocked and you guys are saying that it
looks like they are landlocked. So, how can I make a decision if I don't understand
the --
De Weerd: Because ACHD will not let that northern lot access out onto Black Cat, so the
only access they would have is through this lot or as the applicant conceptually drew out ,
which would necessitate two other parcels developing to even get access. So, I think
that's -- that's the issue at hand.
Schultz: If I could, Mayor and Council, make an executive decision here and -- and just
go ahead and put a condition on us that we provide a stub street to the north on -- on that
north of the property line. W hat we would do is we would just kind of shift the road over
a little bit and do two-thirds on one side and have a T -- a T right here. And so that will
-- that will have some flexibility on whether that road just kind of continues north or -- or it
will provide a way for this guy to still develop in the interim if he wants to first . So -- so,
I'm willing to make that change. Hopefully we don't have to -- you know, we can just make
that a condition of approval of the final plat that we have a stub street to the north and if
we have to lose a lot, so be it. If we can do it without losing a lot, great, but I think we are
going to lose a lot to do it. So, that's just how it goes. If that would facilitate this moving
forward, I'm just going to make that decision, because I think that's wise at this point.
De Weerd: Mr. Palmer? It's very rare that Council approves a plat without seeing it. That
would be a concern. And I'm sure staff is very competent, but they don't like having all of
that on them. They like to see what -- that Council sees what they are approving.
Palmer: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Putting words in everyone's mouth. Mr. Palmer.
Palmer: I -- I'm looking at the property at Amity and Eagle, somewhat similar situation.
Because of the roundabout there is no way for the guy that lives there on the corner to be
able to connect to either Amity or Eagle, despite how bad he wanted to take advantage
of the value of his property, but when you sit on your hands and everyone around you
develops and you don't buy up any of that property, then, you can't stop what happens
around you when you don't own it and so I feel like this makes sense. It allows to be able
to connect there when it gets developed. In the meantime they can keep on keeping on
as they are or they can decide to take advantage now or later, but everyone else can't
just sit on their hands while somebody else decides to. I really hate to -- to tell somebody
Meridian City Council
June 20, 2017
Page 64 of 76
you're not allowed to make as much money on your property, because somebody around
you doesn't want to do anything yet. So, while he's wanting to go ahead and make his
decision, I think as it's presented before us it makes sense and I don't know if anyone --
we have got three of us that have chimed in and I don't know if the other three want to
before we decide on making motions or whatnot.
De Weerd: Mr. Palmer, it has been said that that property is for sale, so --
Palmer: Okay.
De Weerd: -- so they are trying to do something, but if you don't give them access they're
not going to be able to. That's -- that's the head scratcher there.
Palmer: And which one exactly is for sale?
De Weerd: The northern piece.
Schwartz: The triangular piece.
Palmer: That doesn't gain access from the --
De Weerd: No. You would have to get access through these two lots.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Isn't he the same guy that sold this property to these people? He should have got
himself an easement. And here we thought it was an easy thing. Geez, Matt.
Cavener: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Cavener.
Cavener: Kudos to Councilman Palmer for recalling the Luke farm out at Eagle and Amity
and I do see some --
De Weerd: It's a pig farm.
Meridian City Council
June 20, 2017
Page 65 of 76
Cavener: What I call it. The Luke Farm as opposed to a pig farm. That's -- I see a lot of
similarities here and I -- Council Member Palmer brought up a very, very good point. I'm
not going to be one to ask the applicant to give up one of very few lots for potential -- and
in a way I think that's not the council member I want to be. I don't see this property being
landlocked. Maybe you were seeing things differently than I am, but to ask this applicant
to give up one lot when there is not much there to begin with and the upside being
annexing another piece of these enclaves and pull up the Swiss cheese that's in the
county, to me seems like a benefit. So, I'm supportive of the application as is. I wouldn't
ask you to change it.
Palmer: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Palmer.
Palmer: I move we close the public hearing on H-2017-0041.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All those in favor
say aye. All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Palmer: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Palmer.
Palmer: I move we approve H-2017-0041 as presented.
Cavener: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second. Any discussion?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: That includes leaving Eight Mile Lateral open?
Palmer: Correct.
Meridian City Council
June 20, 2017
Page 66 of 76
Borton: Okay.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener, yea; Palmer, yea; Little Roberts,
nay.
De Weerd: Okay. The ayes have it.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE NAY.
Item 10: Department Reports
A. Fire Department: Public Education Budget Amendment Not-to-
Exceed $13,830
De Weerd: Okay. Item 10-A is under our Fire Department and I assume this is Deputy
Chief Bongiorno.
Bongiorno: Well, thank you Mayor and City Council. I know it's -- Chief Palmer was a
great fire -- fire marshal. I have big shoes to fill. What we have before you tonight is a
budget amendment. As you know, Pam Orr, our public education specialist, gets
donations throughout the year for her public education events and stuff that she does , so
this is just a formalized taking of those donations and putting them into a line item budget
to where she can actually access that money and spend it. Unfortunately, in September
there was a coding error done where the Idaho Fire Chiefs gave a grant of 2,500 dollars
to Pam and it was coded in FY-16 instead of FY-17. So, the total amendment request is
2,500 dollars and, then, the additional 11,330 dollars is there, it's just a request to move
it to where she can access it and spend it.
De Weerd: Very good. Thank you, Joe.
Bongiorno: Any questions from Council?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay.
Cavener: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
June 20, 2017
Page 67 of 76
De Weerd: Mr. Cavener.
Cavener: I move we approve the public education budget for a not to exceed amount of
13,830 bucks.
Milam: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 10 -A. Any discussion from
Council? Mr. Clerk.
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.
B. Legal: To Consider an Approval Letter Required by the Public
Finance\ Authority of Wisconsin for Taxable Educational
Facilities Revenue Bonds for the Idaho College of Osteopathic
Medicine (ICOM)
De Weerd: All right. We got it. 10-B is under our Legal Department and I will turn this
over to Mr. Nary.
Nary: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of Council. I have a one hour presentation.
It shouldn't be that bad. Actually, we have a letter that's in the packet in front of you. I
think there is a gentleman here to answer questions about it. Similar to the TEFRA
hearing that we have done for other types of entities, this is a Wisconsin public authority
is issuing some bonds, they need to have assurance that the city is approval of the
process that they are following. The city isn't approving the bonds and the city has no
legal or monetary obligation to the bonds, but they are required to sign off on it. Mr. Baird
from my office has been in contact with -- probably with this gentleman that's here and --
Mr. Fullerton, is that right?
De Weerd: Mr. Hastings. Dr. Hastings.
Nary: Oh. Dr. Hastings. So -- and they are with their counsel and he -- his opinion of
their counsel was that the Mayor could sign this alone. Because of the nature of it and
Meridian City Council
June 20, 2017
Page 68 of 76
the amount and the obligation -- or the approval that we are granting, Ted and I both felt
more comfortable that the Council see this and also basically approve the Mayor signing
this letter and moving forward. So, if you have any other questions I think you would have
to ask --
De Weerd: Dr. Hastings.
Nary: -- Dr. Hastings.
De Weerd: Mr. Hasty. Robert, do you have anything you want to add? Okay. Council,
any questions for Dr. Hastings?
Bird: I have none. Mr. Borton, you're over legal.
Borton: Anybody in the public want to speak to it?
De Weerd: Is there anyone in the public who would like to speak to this? No? Okay.
Little Roberts: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Little Roberts.
Little Roberts: I move that we approve 10-B. To approve the letter required and have
you sign it.
Milam: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Mr. 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.
De Weerd: Thank you for waiting hours for that.
Cavener: Does he have a City of Meridian pin? I feel like if he sits through it he should
get one.
Meridian City Council
June 20, 2017
Page 69 of 76
C. Amended onto agenda: Mayor’s Office: Acceptance of City
Survey Results
De Weerd: Dr. Hastings, I will give you a City of Meridian pin, because I do think you
deserve it after sitting through this. And 10 -C is under the Mayor's office. Council, you
do have the city survey results and I hope you enjoyed reading with -- enjoyable reading.
I would ask if you have any questions. If not, we would like it if you could officially accept
these results.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Got any discussion? If not, I would make a motion that we accept the city survey
results.
Milam: Second.
Little Roberts: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second. If there is no discussion, Mr. 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 11: Ordinances
A. Ordinance No. 17-1734: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
MERIDIAN CITY CODE SECTION 8-1-3(C)(1), SPECIFYING
EXCEPTIONS TO GENERAL USE ZONE AMENITIES
STANDARDS; AMENDING MERIDIAN CITY CODE SECTION 8-
1-3(D)(3), ALLOWING BARRIERS TO BE AFFIXED TO
SIDEWALKS IN THE DOWNTOWN CORE; AND PROVIDING AN
Meridian City Council
June 20, 2017
Page 70 of 76
EFFECTIVE DATE.
De Weerd: Item 11-A is Ordinance 17-1734. Mr. Clerk, will you, please, read this by title.
Coles: Thank you, Madam Mayor. City of Meridian Ordinance No. 17-1734: An
ordinance amending Meridian City Code Section 8 -1-3(c)(1), specifying exceptions to
general use zone amenities standards; amending Meridian City Code Section 8-1-3(d)(3),
allowing barriers to be affixed to sidewalks in the downtown core; and providing an
effective date.
Bird: You have heard the ordinance read by title only. Is there anybody in the audience
that would like to hear it read in its entirety? Seeing none, I would entertain a motion.
Milam: Mr. President?
Bird: Mrs. Milam.
Milam: I move that we approve Ordinance No. 17-1734 with suspension of rules.
Little Roberts: Second.
Bird: I have a motion to approve with a second. Mr. Clerk.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener, yea; Palmer, yea; Little Roberts,
yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
B. Amended onto agenda: Ordinance No. 17-1732B: AN
ORDINANCE (H-2016-0027 MAVERIK) FOR ANNEXATION FOR
PART OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 7,
TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA
COUNTY, IDAHO, AS DESCRIBED IN ATTACHMENT “A” AND
ANNEXING CERTAIN LANDS AND TERRITORY, SITUATED IN
ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, AND ADJACENT AND CONTIGUOUS
TO THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN AS
REQUESTED BY 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 C-2 TO C-G
Meridian City Council
June 20, 2017
Page 71 of 76
(GENERAL RETAIL AND SERVICE COMMERCIAL 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 EFFECTIVE DATE. CITY OF MERIDIAN;
ESTABLISHING AND DETERMINING THE LAND USE ZONING
CLASSIFICATION OF SAID LANDS FROM C-2 TO C-G
(GENERAL RETAIL AND SERVICE COMMERCIAL 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 EFFECTIVE DATE.
Bird: We go to Item B. Mr. Clerk, would you read that by title only.
Coles: Thank you, Mr. President. City of Meridian Ordinance No. 17-1732B, an
ordinance file number H-2017-0027, Maverik, for annexation for part of the northeast
quarter of Section 7, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise meridian, Ada County,
Idaho, as described in Attachment “A” and annexing certain lands and territory, 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 C-2 to C-G (General Retail and Service
Commercial 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 effective
date.
Bird: You heard the ordinance read by title only. Is there anybody that would like it read
in its entirety? Seeing none, I would entertain a motion.
Milam: Mr. President?
Bird: Mrs. Milam.
Meridian City Council
June 20, 2017
Page 72 of 76
Milam: I move that we approve Ordinance No. 17-1732B with suspension of rules.
Little Roberts: Second.
Bird: Have a motion to approve and second. Mr. Clerk.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener, yea; Palmer, yea; Little Robert s,
yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 12: Future Meeting Topics
Bird: Council, any future meeting topics?
Cavener: Mr. President?
Bird: Mr. Cavener.
Cavener: I don't know who to ask, because we are missing some -- some folks, but I was
just hoping to get some clarification on next week's meeting. I think we have a meeting
on the strategic plan for 4:00. I just was getting clarification if we are doing the budgetary
piece first -- so, our meeting still is at 4:00, amending the agenda to include the last two
or the remaining member -- remaining pieces of the budget.
Bird: Mr. Cavener, as I understood it, we were going to amend the -- the agenda --
meeting agenda to include those two items that we didn't get on the budget today. That
start and, then, we will do the strategic, am I not right, Mayor?
De Weerd: And they would be the first two items starting at 4:00.
Cavener: Great.
Palmer: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Palmer.
Meridian City Council
June 20, 2017
Page 73 of 76
Palmer: While we are talking about next week's meeting, May we have access to the --
the new beautiful software to be able to have some time to go over every level of
everything before we have the meeting and discuss it?
De Weerd: I -- I don't know. You -- you got -- did that update go out?
Holman: Madam Mayor, you're referring to the e-mails that we exchanged yesterday?
De Weerd: Was it just yesterday?
Holman: I think it was yesterday. I sent you back a question just clarifying that I was
supposed to send that report to directors and Council.
De Weerd: Yes.
Holman: Okay. I will send that out.
De Weerd: Okay.
Cavener: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Cavener.
Cavener: It's me Mr. Cavener all night long. Just for --
De Weerd: It is getting late.
Cavener: Just for clarification. That's okay. It's been a long day. So, just for clarification,
then, we will have access to the software tool before next Tuesday's meeting or --
De Weerd: The report has everything in it. I don't know what in addition you have, other
than I guess it would show the completed tasks. So, yes.
Cavener: Yes? Great.
De Weerd: Is that available?
Holman: Madam Mayor, yes, it is available. I just have to do a request to IT to have them
turn it on and set it out -- they have set it up, but it hasn't been sent out to everybody.
Meridian City Council
June 20, 2017
Page 74 of 76
De Weerd: So, all the issues with the percentages have all been cleaned up?
Holman: Yes.
De Weerd: Okay.
Cavener: Great. Thank you.
Palmer: Awesome.
De Weerd: Okay. Oh. This week is Dairy Days events. Pancake feed Thursday at 4:00
in Storey Park. Parade Friday at 6:45. Art show on Saturday at 9:00. Youth Farmers
Market from 9:00 to noon on Saturday and the Lions Rodeo Saturday and Sunday.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: And the pancake feed is at the Merchant building at the speedway, not at Storey
Park.
De Weerd: What?
Bird: Yeah. We moved it back up there.
Cavener: Fantastic.
Bird: And did you say about the art show on Saturday?
De Weerd: Yes.
Bird: Okay.
Item 13: Executive Session per Idaho State Code 74-206(b): To consider the
evaluation, dismissal or disciplining of, or to hear complaints or
charges brought against, a public officer, employee, staff member or
individual agent and 74-206(f): To communicate with legal counsel
for the public agency to discuss the legal ramifications of and legal
options for pending litigation
Meridian City Council
June 20, 2017
Page 75 of 76
De Weerd: I did. If there is nothing further under Item 12, Item 13 is Executive Session.
Do I have a motion?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we go into Executive Session as per Idaho State Code 74-206(b) and (f).
Milam: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to adjourn into Executive Session. Mr. Clerk.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener, yea; Palmer, yea; Little Roberts,
yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
EXECUTIVE SESSION: (9:11 p.m. to 10:32 p.m.)
Bird: I move we come out of Executive Session.
Milam: Second.
De Weerd: All those in favor say aye. All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Bird: I move we adjourn.
Milam: Second.
De Weerd: All those in favor? All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:45 P.M.
Meridian City Council
June 20, 2017
Page 76 of 76
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
MAYOR ��YY DE WEERD DATE APPROVED
ATTEST:
C. JAY(COLEW, CITY CLERK
r
w
'fDIA0
SL��L
the