Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-10-24Meridian City Council October 24, 2017. Bird: I will call the regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian City Council for Tuesday, October 24th, 2017. It's 6:01. And we will start with roll call, please. Roll-Call Attendance X Anne Little Roberts X Joe Borton X Ty Palmer X Keith Bird __O__ Genesis Milam __X___ Luke Cavener O Mayor Tammy de Weerd Bird: Thank you. Now, if everybody would stand and join us in the Pledge of Allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance recited.) Bird: Our community invocation by Mr. Woodard from Ten Mile Christian Church. Nice to see you again, Larry. Woodard: Good to be here. Almost changed my prayer after I read in the paper about that escaped convict from Caldwell that killed two of our citizens. When are they going to go to jail? That has nothing to do with my prayer tonight. I was just -- that was a freebie. Our dear Heavenly Father, again, we take up significant city business and we pause to thank God for the many blessings we enjoy in Meridian. We thank you for our Mayor and this Council, who give much of their time ensuring that Meridian is a safe and enjoyable city in which to live. The fact that we are one of the fastest growing cities in the nation is a reflection of all the good things this Council has done. Tonight as we bow our heads to you, we are well aware of other cities which have problems well beyond ours. Sonoma, which was ravaged by wildfire. Houston, which experienced record flooding. San Juan, Puerto Rico, which was flattened by a hurricane. We pray tonight for these cities. Our nation, state, and this city is facing a growing challenge of illegal drugs. With these drugs other crime seem to manifest and we ask that you protect our men and women in blue who work daily to keep us safe from this epidemic. Elections are coming up within a few weeks and we pray for those who are elected by our citizens to lead this city during the next few years. May they be the best leaders possible. Our youth remain a concern for us as they prepare for adulthood. Help our teachers and administrators as they mold them to be good citizens in the future. May we as citizens look ahead and provide the buildings and facilities to house our youth during their school times. Tonight as I close I pray for the 133 new people who will be making this city their home before the next City Council meeting. May they find friendly people, good schools, safe roads, houses of worship and this Council ready to help in their transition, in Jesus' name, amen. Bird: Item No. 4, the adoption of the agenda. Mr. Borton. Borton: Mr. President. On Item 6-Y we will be adding onto the agenda -- the Consent Agenda a PO approval for PO number 18-0088 to Advanced Systems Group. Item 8-B is proposed ordinance 17-1752. And with those changes I would move that we adopt the amended agenda. Cavener: Second. Bird: Okay. We got a motion and a second to adopt the agenda as amended. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Bird: Do we have anybody -- Coles: We did, Mr. President. We had two sign up under a topic discussion of process. Denise Hansen -- and, I apologize, I can't read the last name after Hanson and Nicholas Geppert. Bird: Come forward. LeFever: I am Denise Hanson LeFever. I'm at 6706 North Zalvia Way, Meridian, Idaho. And what I want to talk about real quick today is -- I have had the opportunity to sit through Planning and Zoning meetings for months now and come to City Council meetings and I'm really enjoying learning the process and I have had an opportunity to talk to Brian, Bill, Caleb, and Joshua, they are absolutely wonderful staff, and I have gone to coffees and other things and this is a very open community and very approachable and very enjoyable. So, what I'm going to say is not -- it's just an enhancement on what everybody's already doing and I'm very pleased that -- I have also gone to neighborhood meetings and I have also gone to homeowners meetings and it's really clear that not everybody in the community understands the process and when I made a comment to that to Caleb, whala, here was -- here was a memo you guys are working on and it's very commendable and they went one step further to go back through and say, hey, take a look at it and edit it. Very, very great Planning and Zoning staff you guys have here. So, what I wanted to talk about was -- I would really like to see, basically, the city really embrace social media to some more fuller extent and using NextDoor, Facebook, e-mails -- I think that would really help with the community and especially in the process if it starts at the neighborhood meeting announcements and goes forward. It's -- it's very difficult to sit through these meetings and have -- see nobody shows up at the neighborhood meetings and, then, the wind gets out that there is something going on and, then, the developer has spent money on something and it -- and they have these people in a room. So, I think a lot of that could be fixed with using social media. I think the Planning and Zoning has got that in their hopper, I'm just throwing it out there. In addition to that, when I talked to Brian he also said that they were working on the GIS interactive map. That is something I would like to see resources spent on, as far as getting that map up. Of course, with resources and technology, I know it's very expensive, but it would be really great if those maps would go back through and have parcel counts, acres, site addresses, subdivision name, school names, flood district, highway, urban renewal sections in them, links to the flood maps, links to the highway district, owner name, tax information, current zoning, future zoning, county or city, which -- which area they are in, if they are incorporated or not incorporated into the City of Meridian. Planning and Zoning documents, if they could be tied to that. So, you can have one spot that you could see the applications, the designs, see elevations, the deeds -- the deeds, liens on the property, building permits and fire stations and I know you guys are all working on stuff like that. I would be really excited to see the city really embrace that technology if possible. So, once again, it's a commendable job the Planning and Zoning is doing. Very enjoyable process. Bird: Thank you very much. We appreciate it. Coles: We also had Nicholas Gephardt sign up as well. Bird: Thank you. Is that all? Item No. 6, Consent Agenda. Borton: Mr. President? Bird: Mr. Borton. Borton: I would move that we approve the Consent Agenda as published, with the inclusion of item Y, that's the approval PO 18-0088 and for the President to sign and the Clerk to attest. Cavener: Second. Bird: We got a motion and a second to approve the amended Consent Agenda. Mr. Clerk, will you call roll. Roll call: Bird, yea; Borton, yea; Milamm, yea; Cavener, yea; Palmer, yea; Little Roberts, yea. De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALLL AYES. Bird: Okay. We have nothing moved from the Consent Agenda. Bird: So, we are going to community items. Item A is Community Health Presentation by Blue Cross and I think the young lady is here to do it. Witt-Doyle: Thank you, Council President, Council Members. My name is Kendra Witt- Doyle. I'm the executive director of the Blue Cross of Idaho Foundation, which is located at 3000 East Pine Avenue here in Meridian . I'm here today to give a presentation that I gave at the Association of Idaho Cities conference. Mayor Tammy attended this presentation, along with Council Member Little Roberts, and after I gave the presentation Mayor Tammy asked me if I would ever be willing to come in and present this to the Council Members here in Meridian and I said gladly, definitely. So, we set a date and I'm here to give you a -- I will try to make it as brief as possible on a topic called Healthy People, Healthy Economies. This is a topic that has fascinated me for quite a while. So, a little bit about the Blue Cross of Idaho Foundation. We are actually a separate entity from Blue Cross. We are private, nonprofit foundation, that was set up by Blue Cross in 2002, really with the mission to build a healthier Idaho and we do that through engagement, partnership and creating transformational solutions that can impact health here in Idaho. So, we are a statewide foundation working across the state. We really work from the motto that we are transformational, not transactional. So, we are not just a check writer, we are really looking for solutions that can impact health in a sustainable capacity moving forward. So, with that being said, I'm a public health person by trade and the thing I find really, really fascinating is the causes of death, of comparing those in 1900 to today. Really it was around 2010. We can call it today. Back in 1900 what human beings died of was really infectious diseases. These are things such as pneumonia, influenza, tuberculosis. Today we have seen a shift to chronic diseases, things such as heart disease and cancer that are largely preventable. So, the thing that I find really fascinating again is back in the early 1900s the control of infectious disease can really be largely contributed to three things that kind of happened symbiotically at the same time. There was vaccinations, antimicrobial medicines started to come out, and we also started to improve sanitation and hygiene and at that time cities played a very significant role in improving health and really reversing this trend in sewage disposal, water treatment, solid waste. So, at that time cities played a very vital role in public health. Cities still play a very vital role in public health today and I'm going to really start to make that case and present some information for you. So, when I think about today's health system and helping the whole, I think of an analogy that I call the stream analogy. So, we have a stream and one day villagers see babies floating down the stream. They are struggling, they are trying to get out, but what do the villagers do? They jump in and they start scooping out the babies. They even put up a net to catch these babies; right? Make it easier to scoop them out. But several villagers stopped and wondered what's causing the babies to fall in in the first place? So, several of them went upstream and what did they find? They found a monster throwing in the babies. The villagers said let's go conquer that monster and stop the babies from falling in. They still kept the net, but they said we also have to go stop this monster to stop the babies constantly falling in. So, the villagers went upstream and they scared the monster, killed the monster, however we want to refer to it. and I love this analogy, because health is an oUDCome and we don't talk enough about what creates or causes health. What are those upstream issues that are causing people to fall into the river? We are doing a great job at scooping people out. We are spending a lot of money scooping people out of the river. We are not spending tons of money looking at the upstream issues of what's causing them to actually fall in in the first place . So, another analogy that we really use to drive our work at the foundation is what I call the cliff analogy or the cliff of good health. I did not invent this, a very smart person at the Center for Disease Control and Prevention actually created this analogy, but it really relates to health, that we have someone going along and we have a negative health event. We fall off the cliff and we hit the bottom. Well, what is the -- what's today's solution? Is we frequently put an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff to pick people up and take them to the doctor or the hospital system. One solution, too, is that we put up safety nets where we try to catch people before they ever hit the bottom. Or even safety nets that can act as trampolines where we try to bounce people back up to the top of the cliff. Right? The issue with that is people can yo -yo, they can come up, they can fall down, they can go up, they can fall down. We can put a fence up to prevent people from ever falling off in the first place. Primary prevention. The tendency is that people can still butt up right up against that fence. So, the goal is to try to back them up as far as possible. This is really where we drive our work under the foundation is trying to back people up as far as possible from that fence. The issue is not all communities are the same. You're going to hear me talk about -- in just a few slides here -- that are zip code predicts our health more than our genetic code. Where we live greatly impacts our health and that's due to differences in exposures and opportunities, could be differences in care. There is a variety of things that can contribute to this. So, what makes us healthy? Actually, only ten percent is related to access to care. But yet we are spending 88 percent of our funds on the actual medical services. Twenty percent is genetics, 20 percent is environment, and 50 percent is healthy behaviors. I want to put a word of caution there. Healthy behaviors and environment are really interconnected. The two are so interconnected if you don't have the options to go be healthy and your environment doesn't support that, that healthy behavior is going to be very, very hard to embrace. So, if all you have is fast food restaurants in your community, it's going to be very hard to choose healthier options if you're choosing to eat out. So, how your environment is structured in the options that it gives you impacts your healthy behaviors and the lifestyle that you choose. So, a tagline I say over and over -- and it's probably my sounding board -- is that help doesn't happen in a doctor's office. The doctor's office is the end oUDCome. Health starts where we live, learn, work and play and that's something that we really, really focus on at the Blue Cross of Idaho Foundation, because our ZIP code predicts our health more than our genetic code. I'm going to show you some data here that I think is really startling and I have even pulled some Idaho statistics around this. I don't want to just pick on Idaho. So, this is Kansas City, Missouri. These are zip codes in Kansas City. You can see the pink there, the life expectancy is 70 to 72 years and, then, we have some dark blue up above where the life expectancies is 80 to 83. You can see trends similar to this across all of the United States of where different zip codes have different health oUDComes, different life expectancies. We are not unique. And this is because when we think of health it's really an ecosystem over income, education, community infrastructure, and health are all interconnected and we have to brace that interconnectedness to ever improve health in our state and as a country. So, here is a great one. Lower-income individuals are a higher risk of having diabetes. This is actually West Virginia's data, but I'm sure we would find something very similar here in Idaho. So, we have actually recently purchased a platform at Blue Cross of Idaho called the Community Health Management Hub that takes our claims data and it starts to drill it down and overlap it with some of these community things, like education, like income. If the video plays I will show you. If it doesn't I will let it go. I will blow it up here and I will show you the video around this new platform that we purchased. Volume. If we don't see it I will skip it. (Video played.) Witt-Doyle: So, this is knew. We have just been starting to play around with this platform, but what I did do is I very -- I pulled Idaho data, specifically around hypertension. So, I put hypertension and started looking at it across the zip code and I ran into polls in some cities across Idaho. So, we have Ketchum -- and, granted, this is just Blue Cross of Idaho claims data at this point, so it's Medicare and Blue Cross of Idaho claims. 2.5.3 percent in hypertension in Ketchum. Income per capita close to 49,000. All the way down to Elk City, they are close to 13 percent with hypertension and an income per capita around 16,000. So, we are seeing, again, very similar trends here in Idaho that we are seeing nationwide. And, again, I talk about this all the time, it's really this ecosystem that income, education, and community infrastructure are all tied to health. One thing that really fascinates me is if we create healthy people how does that drive help the economy and this has been a discussion and there is a lot of anticdotal evidence that the two are interconnected and the research is really starting to come out driving healthy people and healthy economies and how the two are interconnected. So, again, the Blue Cross-Blue Shield Association actually put together a report called healthy people, healthy economies, and what they did is they took claims data from across the entire county and they put it into a really fancy equation to get a health index totaled or scored and is what they really found is that as health increases, income per capita increases. As health status increases, so does average annual pay. As health increases unemployment drops. As health increases the GDP per capita increases. This is one of the first reports really starting to link the two of how economies and how -- are interconnected and it's a really wonky statistic full of data report, but, really, the conclusion is that healthy areas tend to have faster job growth, population growth, and income growth, compared -- compared with the areas with similar demographics in the same state. So, that's similar demographics. They are not taking a lower income neighborhood and comparing it to a higher income neighborhood. So, what I really talked about at the Association of Idaho Cities is the role of cities. They played a role in the early 1900s in public health and they play a very vital role today in improving health. Because health doesn't happen in a doctor's office, it starts in our communities and elected officials have the capability to be part of the solution. This can occur through your comp plans, your urban design plans. There is so many things of creating access, to safe routes to schools, building the infrastructure that really creates that healthy community and the data is really starting to pop up as we start to build this healthy community it will drive a healthier economy. Again, that data is very new, but that's starting to be what it's pointing to. And that was the presentation that I was asked to repeat here. I can stand for questions if -- if we have time, President. Bird: We do. Any questions, Council? Fitzgerald: Mr. President? Bird: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: Kendra, thanks for the presentation. You are somewhat of a subject matter expert on some of this stuff, so what are -- what are recommendations that you would make to the City of Meridian? What are the things that we need to be looking at doing differently, what are the things that we need to be continuing to do that are great and what -- if you had a magic wand, what are the things you would love to see implemented? Witt-Doyle: Oh, gosh. Council Member Cavener, that's a loaded question. I think -- you know, it depends. I am not a one size community fits all. We do go in and work with a lot of communities. We really sit down and look at what are the assets of that community, what can you build on within that community and, then, where do you have opportunities, where are some of those gaps that you could fill in. You know, I really don't -- I keep -- don't have a clear cut answer until I dive into your Comprehensive Plan a little bit deeper and see where you're doing well and maybe where there are some gaps to get filled in. Cavener: Fair enough. Witt-Doyle: Walkable communities are a great place to start. Bird: Any other -- Little Roberts: Mr. President, Kendra -- Bird: Mrs. Little Roberts. Little Roberts: I would just like to say thank you. I mean it feels like you shortened down a little bit for us -- Witt-Doyle: I tried to get through for you guys. I know you have a full agenda. Little Roberts: But thank you very much. That was wonderful. I think it's something that we really need to pay attention to and it's nice to -- to have the numbers to go with it. So, thank you for all that you're doing and all that Blue Cros s does. Witt-Doyle: Yeah. Thank you, Council Member Little Roberts. Bird: Thank you very much for your presentation. We appreciate it. Witt-Doyle: Thank you. Bird: Council, the Historic Preservation Commission. Mr. Johnson. We got a whole -- we are getting triple played here. Johnson: Councilmen, my name is Blaine Johnson. I'm president of the Historic Preservation Commission. I reside at 6138 North Tamil here in Meridian. Take this opportunity to come forward this evening. I have two things to talk about today. First of all, regarding the ordinance that's before you, when I first joined the commission our meetings ran for about an hour and, then, were over. Over the past years our meetings have grown to hour and a half, two hours and sometimes longer than that. So, we are asking for a change in time, so that we can start at an earlier time, so our commission members can get home at a decent hour. So, that's the first thing. Secondly, talk to you -- if Hillary is ready -- most of you know we have a tour buddy out. Four star cones. And with that we are rolling out a tour coin, so that as you go through the tour and look at part of this -- this is an EF1 house and you read through this, at the bottom you're going to be asked a question and as you go through and you answer all these questions, at the end -- oh, I got it wrong. So, I'm going to try it again. Well, we get a sticker. So, our hope is that as people go through the tour and they answer the questions, then, we know who that is and we are going to award each of those people a coin. Mrs. Jones is going to present each of you with that coin right now. So, with that I will stand for questions or -- I don't know if you can vote on the ordinance now or if you have to put it on your Consent Agenda. Bird: We can certainly go through the -- some questions and stuff and, then, I think we can also -- Bill, if I'm right, we can pass the ordinance, too. Nary: Mr. President, yes, you can. Bird: Because it is listed on the agenda. Are there any questions for the people? Cavener: Mr. President? Bird: Yeah, they can talk just fine. Cavener: Not a questions, just a comment. This walking tour -- I know that Jacy has been working on for a number of years, I remember when it was in its infancy, some four, five, six years ago and it's exceeded all the expectations. This is really truly remarkable. I never thought in a million years that we would have an app that's this interactive and the coin. What an incentive for people to -- to want to engage in this tour. So, a job well done. Thank you for sharing that with us and thank you for the coin tonight. That's very kind of you. Johnson: If you look at the coins, we ordered 300 coins. The first 300 are numbered. So, you have a numbered coin. It's on the edge. And we will go through and -- we haven’t made a decision yet if the next 300 if we are going to number them or just let the first 300 to the numbered set. Cavener: If they want them they need to get to work. Johnson: Correct. Cavener: All right. Johnson: That's all I have right now. So, thank you very much. Bird: Thank you guys very much. Appreciate what you do for us. C.Jay, if you wouldn't mind, Mr. Clerk, reading Ordinance 17 -- Nary: Mr. President? Bird: Oh, yes. Nary: Before you do that I wanted to make one more comment. I don't think I heard Mr. Johnson say -- this is not just a time change, it's a day change as well. Currently the Historic Preservation Commission meets right after the arts commission and sometimes their meetings have run long and so, then, again, it extends the evening, so this is a different day. It's the fourth Thursday instead of the second Thursday, as well as the earlier time and he may have said it and I missed it, but I just want to make sure that was on the record. Bird: Thank you very much. If you would read the ordinance by title only. Coles: Thank you, Mr. President. City of Meridian Ordinance No. 17-1752, an ordinance amending Title 2, Chapter 3, Section 5, Meridian City Code, regarding meeting dates and times of the Historic Preservation Commission, providing for a waiver of the reading rules and providing an effective date . Bird: Okay. You have heard that by title only. Is there anybody that would like to hear the ordinance in its entirety? Seeing none, I would entertain a motion. Little Roberts: Mr. President? Bird: Mrs. Little Roberts. Little Roberts: I move that we accept the proposal proposed 17 -1752. Cavener: Second. Bird: With suspension of rules. Little Roberts: With suspension of rules. Cavener: Second. Bird: Okay. We have got a motion and a second. Mr. Clerk, would you call roll. Roll call: Bird, yea; Borton, yea; Milamm, yea; Cavener, yea; Palmer, yea; Little Roberts, yea. De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Bird: Okay. We will move into Action Items. Item A is a final plat for Bainbridge Hess Subdivision and it has been requested to continue to November 8th. Council, I without objection, if you have no objections, I would entertain a motion to continue this. Borton: Mr. President? Bird: Mr. Borton. Borton: I move that we continue Item H-2017-0133 to November 8th, 2017. Little Roberts: Second. Bird: I have a motion and a second to continue this to November 8th, 2017. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Okay. Carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Bird: Item B has also being the applicant requests a continuance of H-2017-0135 until November 8th, 2017. Council, without any objection I would entertain a motion to continue this. Borton: Mr. President? Bird: Mr. Borton. Borton: I move that we continue Item H-2017-0135 to November 8th, 2017. Little Roberts: Second. Bird: Got a motion and a second to continue H-2017-0135 to November 8th, 2017. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Okay. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Bird: Item C, public hearing H-2017-0114, by Premier Investments. I will open the public hearing and Josh -- or Bill. Haven't seen you for a day or two. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. President, Members of the Council. I am filling in for Ms. Allen this evening, so bear with me. So, the first item on the agenda for you to take into consideration -- or the third item I should say is the Aegean Subdivision. Before I get into my presentation I would like to make a clarification for Council that the item as noted on the agenda does not accurately reflect the correct zoning acreage that's before you that I'm going to show you in presentation, but I believe with my presentation that I share with you tonight it should clarify that error, so I wanted to go on record and let you know that the -- with the Aegean Subdivision the R-4 portion is actually on the agenda. It's noted as 25.79 acres. It's actually being annexed with 28.81 acres and the R -8 portion is actually 36.5 acres and notes on the agenda is the 3.7 acres. So, there was a -- a staff error on that, so I just wanted to go on the record and make that clarification for the folks in the audience and those watching at home and for you as well as you take this under consideration this evening. Bird: Thank you, Bill. Parsons: You're welcome. So, this application before you is for annexati on and preliminary plat. The site consists of 6.27 acres of land. It's currently zoned RUT in Ada county and is located on the east side of North McDermott Road and a quarter mile south of West McDermott Road here. As you can see here. So, the property was just directly south of the Oaks South Subdivision that was approved back in 2013. The applicant requests annexation of approximately 65.31 acres of land. Again with R-4 and R-8 zoning districts. The R-8 will approximately encompass 28.8 acres of land and the R-8 zone will be 36.35 acres of land and the future land use map -- or future land use designation on this property is medium density residential. So, the two requested zoning designations do comply with the medium density standards in the Comprehensive Plan. Again, we anticipate densities between three and eight dwelling units to the acre. The preliminary plat that is before you consists of 215 single family residential lots for a gross density of 3.43 acres of land. So, again, it's 3.43 dwe lling units to the acres. So, that is on the lower side of that density range, but it does fall within the stated parameters as I just alluded to you. A DA is recommended as a -- as a provision of annexation and those DA provisions are included in Exhibit B of the staff report. So, we have one -- the preliminary plat again consists of 215 single family lots -- residential lots. Minimum property size consists -- range from 5,603 square feet up to 8,355 square feet and the subdivision is proposed to devel op in five phases. One access is proposed from McMillan Road -- or, excuse me, McDermott Road, which is just south of The Oaks development and, then, when The Oaks South development came in there was actually a stub street along -- in the northeast corner of the development that will also be extended with this -- this subdivision. The Five -- Five Mile Creek runs along the north boundary here. That was enhanced. At least a portion of it was improved with the Oaks South development and has a multi-use pathway on that site, but because the site does abut the Five Mile Creek some of this property is located within the flood plain, so that will have to be addressed at final plat and meet our flood plain administration -- or flood plain ordinance as well. A 25 foot wide landscape buffer is required along McDermott Road. However, the applicant is proposing a 50 foot wide landscape buffer and the majority of that region is because at some future date ITD anticipates expanding the future Highway State 16, which is just to the west of this property, so the applicant wants to make sure that there is adequate landscape buffer there and berming to screen those single family homes up against that -- that future right of way or future highway, so they have gone above and beyond what the code requires. The applicant is also proposing 7.6 -- or 7.06 acres of common open space, which is in excess of the UDC, which typically would require 6.27 acres. The proposed amenities for the development consist of internal pathway, a playground with children's play equipment, picnic shelter and a gazebo in accordance with UDC standards. The applicant also provided you with sample elevations this evening for your consideration. There is a mix of building materials and stone and stucco veneer accents and these are things that are being addressed in the proposed development agreement. I did have a question this evening before the meeting started and it looks like this is a -- VRT did provide comments on this application and they are requesting that the applicant coordinate with them with the future transit stop. So, I did -- that's something unique for the City of Meridian, so I did want to pass that information along to you as well as you take this under consideration this evening. So, the Planning and Zoning Commission did recommend approval of this project at their hearing. Testifying in favor was Becky McKay, the applicant's representative. Commenting on the application was Jacob Lusard, Valley Regional Transit. Mike Weaver Janice Richardson. They also provide written testimony on the application and, then, Becky McKay provided written testimony as well on the application. So, key items of public testimony at the hearing, Mr. Weaver had stated that he would like single family homes up against his boundary and this is Mr. Weaver's property here right located adjacent to the southwest corner and he wanted homes to be single family along this boundary of his property and, then, also there was a desire, because the Five Mile Creek is kind of a riparian area or a nice natural creek, that that remain natural and maintained for -- while a green belt be improved as a water amenity. So, key items that the Commission discussed. Again, more open space. So, something that's transpired or changed from P&Z until -- and what's currently in front of -- in front of you this evening, P&Z -- originally at P&Z this location, the northeast corner of the development, there were actually two common lots -- or two buildable lots that were part of this common open space. Commission felt that that didn't look appropriate. They wanted to see a little more open space for this proposed development. So, the applicant went back and provided you a revised plat this evening where they removed the building -- buildable lots and increased the open space per Commission's recommendation. So, I wanted to pass that along to you as well. The other thing that was brought up was transition the lot sizes. Again, that was one of the concerns. Mr. Weaver brought up and the Commission took that as part of their deliberations, as well as what -- is this the appropriate lot sizes up against five acre of property in Ada county. So, again, the only change by the P&Z Commission was the loss of those two lots. Now, keep in mind that the applicant was to keep -- allowed to keep their overall total of 215 lots, but, again, it was the intent of the Planning and Zoning Commission to increase the open space for this development in which the applicant did. So, there is only one outstanding issue and it's not really an outstanding issue, it's just the fact that the applicant is requesting that a waterway remain open and unpiped and that is running along this boundary here. I believe this southwest corner here they are asking for that waterway to remain open per UDC and the applicant did provide written testimony to the Commission and they are asking for a condition -- or to Council to consider the applicant to enter into a reimbursement agreement for the sewer trunk or the trunk extension along -- at McDermott road frontage. What I have here or what you have in your hearing outline currently is code doesn't support that request, but I at least just want to go on the record that's something that you -- they want you to take under consideration and I know Warren may want to chime in and give you some background on that as well. Other than that, staff is recommending approval -- or P&Z is recommending approval, that's my presentation and stand for any questions you may have. Bird: Council, any question for staff? Is the applicant here? McKay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Council. Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions. 1029 North Rosario, Meridian, business address. I'm here representing Premier Investments on the Aegean Subdivision. As Bill indicated, the property is located just south of the Oaks South Subdivision, which is currently under construction into its phase six. It is on the east side of McDermott Road and lies adjacent to Five Mile Creek along the south side. To remind you that the multi-use pathway for Five Mile Creek is on the north side. On the south side is the Nampa- Meridian Irrigation District gravel access road. In my conversations with Greg Curtis, he's indicated that the city picked the north side, so don't -- don't anticipate having a pathway on the south side. That's our access road. But, obviously, people still use it, walk their dogs, bike, but he wouldn't let me put any micropath connections to it. Here is an aerial photo. A small portion of this property lies within the flood plain and the flood way of Five Mile Creek. That area along Five Mile Creek has been mapped by Carl Gephardt when we did Oak South, so the base flood elevations have been established. The flood way bubbles out right at -- kind of at McDermott Road and that's due to the size of the culvert as it goes under McDermott. That's why you see we left a significant amount of open space on the north side of our collector roadway. We have one access to McDermott that is a collector. It comes in and we would have manicured landscaping. Then to the north of that we would have, obviously, the gravel Nampa- Meridian access roadway. Our pump station will be located right there adjacent to Five Mile Creek. There is currently a check structure that Nampa-Meridian installed years ago. They indicated to us that they'd like us to install the pump station there and they would like to own and maintain it and we have agreed to that. On your transportation plan and on the master street map it shows a collector roadway that goes through -- through The Oaks and comes into this property and The Oaks phase six has done a trust fund for half the cost of a bridge on Five Mile Creek. My project will be responsible for either trust funding the other half or building it, whoever goes first. We continued that collector roadway with no front-on housing to the east boundary. That was discussed and decided by Adad County Highway District. So, then, the collector roadway they anticipate, then, the collector comes through The Oaks from McMillan, it will loop through into the Quenzer property and go all the way east, linking to Black Cat when the Quenzer property develops and, then, they had us stub to the south here, so that there will be another collector roadway because there is an undeveloped property south of us over just southeast where that collector could go out to Ustick. South of us is Apple Valley Subdivision those are five acre lots. That's why I kind of decided to do the R-4, R-8 mix of zoning. I did meet with those residents. They live on Becky Drive, go figure, and so I worked with them. One of the things that they asked me to do was to reduce the number of lots next to them, which I did, and increase the lot sizes and they said, you know, we can live with, you know, two, two and a half lots, three lots maybe next to us, but just try to minimize them. We talked about fencing. There there is a McFadden drain where their irrigation overflow comes into. The McFadden comes up here and, then, goes across the north side of Mike Weaver's property and, then, goes west across McDermott. We are asking the Council, obviously, for a waiver to leave that portion of the drain open and, of course, Five Mile Creek. There is a small portion of the drain which is kind of a stub that goes here. We will be piping that. It is my understanding that the drain takes both wastewater and groundwater and, then, Mr. Weaver does have like an artesian well that overflows into that . The staff, when we submitted application, came back to us and said that Mr. Weaver was concerned about the size of these lots. We eliminated three lots adjoining Mr. Weaver's north boundary. Widen those out so that they range from 9,000 up to about 10,400 square feet and we - - and I measured -- Mr. Weaver's home sits in the back here. It would be 200 -- his home is 243 feet south of our south boundary of these lots. I also stubbed to his property. We stubbed sewer. We stubbed water. I also did kind of a little cul-de-sac layout that -- for him and gave him a copy of it, showing how his property could redevelop and he could keep his house an d so he was happy with that. As Bill indicated, State Highway 16 extension will be just to the west of McDermott. So, in addition to the required 25 foot landscape buffer, we added additional 25 foot, so we will have a 50 foot buffer, allowing us to get a significant berming and significant landscaping, so that when that does happen that we have established a landscape buffer. We have lots that range from about 5,600 square feet, like in this loop in this area through here, all the way up to 15,500 square feet. We tried to have a variety of lots ranging from 55 feet in width to 70 and 80 feet in width. All of our lots are typically about 120 feet in depth. When you come in you will have a nice soft feel with all the landscaping adjacent to Five Mile Creek. The creek will be visible. You will come in and the focal point will be our central open space here. This is where our central amenities will be constructed. I have a micropath that comes through linking that and, then, another micropath that cuts through this block bringing people up to this area. I kind of split the traffic, so we would -- we would bring it this way and, then, up through this street and, then, this street would kind of be isolated. So, we have kind of a separation of our different product lines. I have a street that goes to the south to Apple Valley Subdivision, so that at some point in time if those five acre lots ever redeveloped they would have access to sewer, water, and we would have vehicular access and linkage. Staff, also asked me to put a pedestrian access, which I did right here, and, then, we will have another vehicular access. They have half a right way along their entire east boundary. So, staff is asking us to build half of this right away and, then, they anticipate that that will extend on down to Ustick Road. There was an old kind a half right of way along their north boundary. ACHD said it was not appropriate that -- if those properties ever redeveloped that they would ask that they vacate it. It didn't really have any value. It was one of those kind of right of way easements that the county had them put in the '70s on those five acre plats in anticipation that maybe they would redevelop and there would be opportunity -- oops -- for roadways. But it's just in a real poor location. When talking to the neighbors I asked them, you know, what's your thoughts. They said, well, that's the access to our irrigation, artesian pump, and we don't want it to be a road. We just want a fence. I said okay. And the highway district said, you know, it doesn't really have any value to us. We have a nice little project with 215 lots. As Bill indicated, our density is 3.43 dwelling units per acre. We are medium density residential, which is three to eight dwellings units per acre. So, we are on that lower end. I would say this is very consistent with what we have in Oak South. It's just located to the north of us. I did talk with Mr. Quenzer and sent him a copy of this drawing, asking for his input. He said, yeah, I like the fact that -- that you have the stub street. His property will be served. We will end up having to take a ten inch sewer line through our property and over to his boundary and his property will sewer through that trunk line. There is a twelve inch water line that's in Fawn Ridge in The Oaks. We will extend that through our property and stub that also to Mr. Dean Quezner. The one thing I wanted to mention to the Council -- the lift station that's located here that has additional capacity to serve this property, on your master sewer map it shows a 36 inch sewer trunk line coming across Five Mile Creek and, then, coming down to our southern boundary. That 36 inch trunk is approximately 30 feet deep. I have had a meeting with Warren in the past about the possibility of some type of latecomer fees or some eligibility in the future, because no developer that I'm aware of in the 25 years that I have done work in Meridian has ever constructed a 36 inch trunk 30 feet deep at his soul expense without any opportunity for either city participation or for reimbursement. We only have 215 lots. An eight inch equivalent is satisfactory to serve our property. Obviously, the 12 inch water main, based on your water model, is necessary and we understand that and so we will come up to the new well here and we will extend a 12 inch water main to our southern boundary also. I did get a construction cost estimate from a contractor in town, who just bid a project for the city of Nampa that was a 36 inch 30 feet deep, where they had groundwater and so the estimated cost was in excessive 500,000 dollars. So, it's -- it's a pretty hefty price for a project that only has 215 lots, but I do fully understand the way your reimbursement ordinance is written it says, hey, if it's on the master plan and you're developing, then, you build it. So, I -- obviously, in my responses to the Council wanted to mention that, you know this is kind of something -- new territory and Warren even mentioned, you know, in our earlier meetings, I would like to help you, because you're right, you don't need a 36 inch, you don't need it 30 feet deep, but until we rewrite that reimbursement ordinance where situations like this arise , my hands are tied. So, Warren may be able to kind of elaborate on that. We think we have got a great project. It's -- like I said, growth is -- is going -- where did it go? Growth is, you know, obviously, going south of The Oaks and this makes sense and it's a continuation of your normal growth patterns. Do you have any questions? Bird: Thank you. Council, any questions for Becky? Borton: Mr. President? Bird: Mr. Borton. Borton: Becky, one of your last comments on the 36 inch trunk, is it your position that a 36 inch trunk isn't necessary or it's not necessary specific to the needs of this project ? McKay: Chairman Bird, Councilman Borton, it is not necessary for the needs of this project, but it is necessary in your master sewer plan to service areas to the south for that sewer shed to go up to the new lift station. Borton: Mr. President? Bird: Mr. Borton. Borton: One other question. There was a comment in the opening about the transit stop and VRT's request. Has that been discussed and resolved or -- McKay: Chairman Bird, Councilman Borton, yes, Sonya did send me the VRT e-mail and so my thought would be to create a pullout -- turnout right here. That's a perfect spot for it. Right there. We have got ample area where they could have a pullout and have a bus stop. So, we do have a condition under 1.1.1E that says we will coordinate with Valley Transit for the potential for a regional stop. Now, I'm not sure if long term they are going to want one here, because Ada County Highway District currently has McDermott as a minor arterial, but when State Highway 16 goes in and McDermott becomes disconnected from Chinden and it will be downgraded I'm told to a collector. So, not sure if -- you know, the long range plans of VRT or up with ITD and ACHD as far as classifications, you know, in the future. But, obviously, we don't know when phase two of that State Highway 16 will take place. Borton: Mr. President. It sounds like the communications has happened and a -- McKay: Yes, sir. Borton: -- an agreement for that condition. Okay. There was a comment on Five Mile Creek improved as an amenity. I wasn't certain what, if anything, was actually being done to it or just to remain open. McKay: Councilman Bird -- I mean Councilman Borton, I think that was one of the comments from one of the neighbors. They were saying on the north side -- Borton: Okay. McKay: -- that The Oaks is constructing a ten foot multi-use pathway there. Obviously, manicuring that pathway and one -- and Mr. Weaver said I don't understand why they can't do that on the south. Borton: Got you. McKay: And so that's where that comment came from. Well, the reason we can't is southside is the maintenance side for Nampa-Meridian and they are not going to allow me to do that. Borton: Okay. McKay: We could, obviously, between the -- the gravel access road for Nampa- Meridian maintenance, we could do, you know, like red fescue or something, so, you know, visually it has, you know, some riparian look, but the manicured area will have to be, obviously, there at the entrance on the north side of my collector. Borton: Mr. President, one last question. Was there a -- and I didn't see it. If it's in the report I apologize. Is there a limit in the number of permits before there is a second access? McKay: The fire department will allow us up to 30 permits with one point of ingress and egress. So, the way I phased the project -- phase one would meet that 30. Phase two, then, would have to build the bridge, connecting both the Oak South and this project giving us our second point of access and we showed five phases . Borton: Thank you. Little Roberts: Mr. President? Bird: Mrs. Little Roberts. Little Roberts: Becky, you mentioned Mr. Weaver and how close his house was to the property -- or to the project north. How far is his house, rather than property -- sorry. on the other side. McKay: Three hundred and one feet to the east. Little Roberts: Thank you. McKay: So -- there it is. So, here is Mr. Weaver's home. So, from the rear property line, not to the home, is 243 feet to the corner of his house. From here -- what did I do? Dang it. Bill. Something. Click. To the east that's 300 -- 301 feet. Little Roberts: Thank you. McKay: And, then, as you can see we also did the distance from the homes on the five acre lots, which range 445 to 531. So, that gives you the distance. So, that's why they - - you know, they weren't really concerned about, you know -- you know, any two stories or anything like that, because we do have such significant separation. We also have the drain between us and Mr. Weaver. The McFadden drain right here. Little Roberts: Thank you, Becky. McKay: Thank you. Bird: Any other questions? Warren, would you like to speak on the -- Mr. Stewart? Stewart: President Bird, Council Members, sure, I will take a moment and talk about that a little bit. So, the sewer master plan calls for the 36 inch diameter trunk to run down McDermott Road. Obviously, this development will drop into that trunk line. It's necessary for them to feed back to the lift station. They wouldn't necessarily need something that large, but we have to extend that trunk eventually on to serve other areas of town. Our reimbursement agreement for the city right now doesn't allow for reimbursement for the installation of infrastructure that's called out in the master plan . So, since the master plan calls out for that 36 inch diameter trunk, that's what they have to build. Now, I realize that's a significant expense for this, but you look at that and you say, okay, the alternatives are to create some sort of new reimbursement agreement or -- or ordinance that allows us to do that. You end up with stacked reimbursement agreements, potentially, that could extend clear down to our southern boundary with Kuna and it gets really cumbersome to administer. So, trying to find a simple solution to that is difficult. We have looked at that. We have talked with the -- even you as the City Council in the past about that, about the potential to maybe look at that at some point in the future, although right now with the growth that we are experiencing, those kind of things typically are incentives to continue to grow. I don't know that we need an incentive right now to grow more in the City of Meridian, but that's something that if directed by you we could investigate that and perhaps pursue that. But at this point we don't have a means or a mechanism to provide a reimbursement agreement for that infrastructure. I would say that in the presentation that I gave just last week where we talked about the future of south Meridian, we talked about this McDermott trunk line and that 2025, after we have basically taken care of our responsibilities at the wastewater treatment plant to a large extent, the city is planning to use city funds, if you guys approve, to start installing this trunk sewer line. But we don't plan to do that until about 2025. So, the city is not prepared or Public Works is not prepared yet in our planning to do this for a few years. Hopefully that answers some of your questions. Bird: Any questions for Warren? Palmer: Mr. President. Bird: Mr. Palmer. Palmer: Not necessarily a question I guess, just a thought. It seems about every six months we kind of have this conversation and we get the request and , then, we talk about how complicated it is and how we really don't want to do it and thanks for developing anyway and kind of send them out the door with approval and hope they still go ahead and do it. I think more than it being an incentive for growth, what we have in existence is actually a disincentive to development and so I would hope that we could figure out the complications around it and find a way of making it happen to remove the disincentive, rather than create an incentive, understanding that probably we can't do that today. Cavener: Mr. President? Bird: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: Maybe I guess a question for Warren. To Council Member Palmer's point, this has been discussed multiple times. Has there been direction given to your department to -- or exploring this and coming up with alternatives for Council to undertake? Stewart: Council President, Members of the Council, Councilman Cavener, I can't remember just exactly what we had talked about the last time we visited . We talked about this issue to some degree. We talked about the potential complications. I think there was a mixed message about some folks thought it -- might be interested in pursuing it. I know that in -- you know, we had this kind of on the laundry list of things to do and I know from conversations that Dale has had, whether that was conversations with Council liaison, conversations with the Mayor, I'm not really sure, but Dale has -- has directed the engineering staff at least that this is not a high priority item . We will try and get to it as soon as we can, but this is not something that -- you know, my understanding is that he has directed that this is not a priority for us, something that we should expend much time and effort on at this point. So, that's -- we haven't. We haven't expended a lot of time and effort. We kind of put it on the back burner. We think it's something that we might want to look at in the future. Certainly, if you look at the growth that the City of Meridian has currently, it wouldn't appear that this has been a big stumbling block for us for growth. That's just anecdotal information. I'm not trying to make a point or anything, but, you know, having a reimbursement agreement -- we have had them in the past. They have been challenging in the past. They -- the one that I understood that they had prior to my even coming to the City of Meridian was very problematic and they got rid of it for that reason. Some cities have reimbursement agreements. Some cities don't. And some of them are more complicated than others. But it's really about do you want to incentivize growth out here on the perim eter or do you want to drive growth that's contiguous to existing infrastructure. Bird: Any other questions? Cavener: Mr. President, maybe just a comment then. I don't think it's a one or the other. I think it's -- as to the Council being responsive to the needs of the development community and not over -- taking to our tax, but to put them in a position where they are expending funds maybe that aren't always necessary and so I guess for me I do see it as maybe more of a priority and I guess I would maybe ask the Council president to meet with the Mayor and perhaps schedule this for a workshop discussion in the next, you know, few months. Stewawrt: Council President? I would say that I think, you know, the City of Meridian is investing in excess of eight million dollars right now on infrastructure in the south Meridian area. So, I think we have stepped forward in a huge way to invest ahead of growth in order to allow development in certain areas. It's just about how much can we do and where can we do it. We have got a lot of things going on at the treatment plant. We are doing south Meridian. We have a plan for this area. We had planned to -- to do infrastructure projects in this area that will allow growth to occur. It's just a matter of timing. Bird: Reimbursements can be big headaches, because you go down the line and people forget that they got reimbursements coming and we for some time forget to pay it and -- but I -- every development going down there, until 2025, unless we get moved ahead, is going to be paying for this 36 inch line -- am I right? Anybody on McDermott? Stewart: Anybody on this southern part of McDermott going south on McDermott from the lift station until 2025 would be theoretically responsible for installing the sewer trunk line that would be necessary to serve those properties or to get to those properties . Bird: Mr. Nary, I got a question for you. In a DA could you put a reimbursement in that if -- if the city started putting it in at their expense that this developer -- through the DA you could reimburse them to a degree? Nary: Mr. President, Members of Council, you could, but, again, it's another enforcement mechanism. One of the things we did when we crafted this original reimbursement was we looked at all projects from a certain date backwards, because we could identify those at that time easier than just putting it in a development agreement and not having any other mechanism in which to go and locate those so -- I mean there is no easy answer. I would agree that maybe having a fuller discussion at a future workshop would be the best, but there certainly are pitfalls and pluses and minus no matter which way we have looked at these. But certainly a fuller discussion about that would be -- certainly be warranted. I think we can arrange that for a working session to go over that. I think it would be -- it's a great idea. Okay. Any -- this is a public hearing. We got any sign-ups? Coles: Mr. President, they were no sign-ups. Bird: Is there anybody in the audience that would like to testify on this? seeing none, Becky, you got anything more to say? Okay. Council, what's your pleasure? Little Roberts: Mr. President? Bird: Mrs. Little Roberts. Little Roberts: I move we close the public hearing. Palmer: Second. Bird: Got a motion to close the public hearing on H-2017-0114. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Okay. The public hearing is closed. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Palmer: Mr. President? Bird: Mr. Palmer. Palmer: Mr. President, I move we approve H-2017-0114 and remove the requirement to tile the waterway. Little Roberts: Second. Cavener: Second. Bird: Have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Hearing none, Mr. Clerk, would you call roll. Roll call: Bird, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener, yea; Palmer, yea; Little Roberts, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Bird: Okay. Moving on to Item B, H-2017-0124. Is that you again, Bill? Parsons: That's me, Mr. President. Bird: Okay. We will open the public hearing and start with staff. Parsons: Thank you keltner of the council next item on the agenda is the tim creek apartments on the applications before you this evening in a forward development agreement modification zoning ordinance amendment and a conditional use permit it consists of eight point on acres of land one cg and is generally located south of west franklin road and east of south ten mile road this property was annexed in twenty thirteen with a development agreement and a preliminary plate known as t m creek da was later amended in two to sixteen the future land use designations on this property are mixed use commercial and lifestyle center the applicant is proposing to amend the da to change the development plan on the south side of ten mile and the east side of phase one from commercial retail which is depicted on the left though the new concept plan which is showing on the right to from commercial to multi family residential instead of two large commercial buildings the applicant now proposes to construct two multifamily structures containing a total of two hundred and forty dwellings associated garages and site improvements and a clubhouse because multifamily residential is desired in bot h of those land use designations staff is supported of the proposed concept plan change or da modification as requested by the applicant density his proposed development will be approximately twenty nine point four well dacre which is also consistent with those two land use designations the applicant is proposing an amendment to the us in particular currently the way the multi family standards are structured in our code in the us in multifamily unit has to provide a minimum amount of common or private open space early in our code a way is written the applicant anyone that does multifamily has to provide minimum open space of private open space of eight square feet because this is an open more of an urban setting more walkable community and based on the ameni ty package that the developer is proposing with this project and the design of this project staff is amenable to that uvc texas amend the only difference between where the applicant has originally proposed a change in work staffs a recommendation the going is how we handle that proposed change so when the application came into the city they develop rent proposed that they changed a multifamily standards the patio standards currently had written in the unc we didn't want the staff didn't feel comfortable wit h that change being citywide to change one section than every apartment would have the ability to write a smaller patio in some instances again that's appropriate in this case we feel it is it because of urban secs oif you have a garden style apartments yo u're in suburban you have more traditional multi family development a larger patio or mixed sense so our recommendation to not only you but also the planning and zoning commission was to allow the patio requirements to be part of the alternative compliance process that would give the direct it would be a staff level approval it would give the director to review that applicants request on a case by case basis and not change it city wide for all multi family developments that seems to give the city some assurance is that not in order to get an approval for an alternative compliance you have to provide something equal to or better than and so that's why staff fails and the plano commission felt that that was the most appropriate location for the tax change in the alternative compliance section not changing the specific standish for multi family developments and at the planning zoning commission hearing the applicant agreed with staff recommendation to change their requests as part of an alternative compliance request rather than the way they had originally submitted the condition will use permit for you this evening again as I mentioned to is for two hundred and forty dwells on approximately eight point on six acres of land one cg they are four story structures and egan the proposed density is twenty nine point four dwellings the acres access is proposed for future collector streets from south tenmile road and west franklin road and parking proposed in accordance with un status for their development with seven additional parking stalls so they are the access of what the uc requires two four story structures are excuse me common open spaces proposed in accord with you to see standards application is proposing a total of one point for four acres in the landscape plan that's before you as evening proposed a side of entries as I lived there justification as to why they're going forth with the text amendment changes one again more urban sold development here and you'll see the architecture here in a moment but also the a menity package after proposing an all go through those for you very quickly so one that reposing a separate club house which will have a lounge and entertainment area public wifi workstations a fitness center across fist studio a swimming pool indoor bicyc le storage a maintenance room outdoor fire pits and a table tennis and also separate barbecue area where residents won't necessarily need to have individual barbecues on their patios but they'll have an area where they can join interact with other resident s within the complex here is their open space exhibit that demonstrates their compliance with the u s standards the architecture character of the apartments again are more of a contemporary design again four stories mixto and you can see here the applicant again more of an urban setting as I eluded to but this is more of a contemporary design anything that they propose out there will have to comply with our architectural standards manual as well so i'll let you know that will have to come back get states ap proval of a designer you application in the planning and zonin did recommend approval of all three of the applications speaking in favor was john ware no one spoke in opposition and no one commented on the application and we did receive written testimony in agreements with the staff reporter for mikael some of the items an item that was discussed by the commission and it seems to come up on a regular basis is commissions starting to get concerned with the amount of parking that are being proposed with multi family developments as I loaded to you this evening this site does exceed the minimum standard of the udc the issue that was brought up at the herring was a lot of times when you have an apartment complex that has some garage parking is here they were con cerned was using the garage for storage rather than for parking so again or you lose address those addresses those types of things but I wanted to let you know what they discussed in their deliberations again they did support the design and the edens of th is project so that wasn't an issue so again any other changes to the staff report the planning and zoning commission did not have any changes to our conditions for you this evening they recommend approval to my knowledge or rounding the outstanding issues before you this evening I conclude my presentation and stanford questions you may have many questions for staff with this time president Mr. garner bill refresh my memory how many four story apartment complexes do we have in radian Mr. presidents members of the council I can't recall the only ones that I can recall are the ones next to the regency at river valley next to the village president mroue is tight put you on the spot later truck we've only got one ability be able to service both facilities I just guess we need to start planning to in prepared to see a budget amendment for another ladder truck soon rather than later president council member kavner I don't anticipate adding one more complex like this would justify the need to purchase an entire addit ional ladder truck to the one that we currently have a finesse away Mr. war would you like to protect you Mr. president council members glad to be here my name is john wardle my address is one to years for drive and boys and I work for brighton we're happy to be here tonight to talk about this project i'll be brief and I can stand I can answer no questions we have but I didn't want to go over a little bit on this this project as mentioned we we are modifying the location of some of the uses within the ten mile project in context we also have the timorous project which is to the south and we just opened up the first business down there we have more coming there are four hundred people that are working there right now and we felt like it was time to bring the opportunity to live out here as well and this location in particular which were south of franklin and wear estores of mile were right along the ten mile creek corridor which we are improving currently with a regional pathway system it will be landscaped th ey'll be a hard service pathway which is already down to the apartment site a landscape to all the way through and our hope is that will be the regional corridor for this location which makes the other part of the request we had before you tonight which was the udc text amendment or the amendment for the decrease in size of the private open space we do support staff recommendation to treat this as alternative compliance it does need to be project specific changing it across the board in the text for all projects may not be the right aproachbut I think as demonstrated with this project and other projects where we can show that the amenities provided both internally as well as externally the pathways we have that's a good that's a good approach as mentioned by bill we do have two four story apartment buildings I will note that there is one other project is mentioned but this will be the first project which also include elevators in both of these buildings which is different than what we have currently so this truly is an urban style project he has also mentioned we do have both covered and open parking on this project the amenities that are shown we have swimming pool entertainment areas lounge fitness center also a cardio studio indoor bike storage outdoor gathering areas barbecues on site management and probably most importantly is the residents here will have direct access to the ten locke rectal pathway as well as the other pathways that we are building to connect to the south with ten mile crossing just want show you what this project will look like and the form and shape that we are anticipating here as already mentioned we are requesting reduction for that protour usable space but it is offset by the amenity package that we have here we do agree with the staff recommendation to men the udc table and use alternative compliance and we also respectfully request your approval of the text amendment the modification of the development agreement and concurrence with the planning commission approval of the conditions permit for the multifamily project again were excited for this project we think it will start adding to the fabric of a nile specific area plan and excited for some the other things that are happening out there to create this place where somebody can work and live and shop in a very good well planned out thought community a stanford questions you might have questions for orantes buildings match up identically nice with what we got going on out there in the office buildings of stuff you guys have went way in a book the call of duty for this and I thank you very much beautiful buildings thank you so I don't see that much on the apartments but day the really really in the four stories with right in your minutes for second tonight just beautiful I would like to thank Mr. turnbull who takes pride in what he does and it makes it very easy for us to do projects because it's not just ginnie but we want to be able to save for the city rating these are projects that we do these are the standard and so thank you for the compliment thank you the other questions or statements right now you thank you we got by signed up nobody signed up is there a public hearing with anybody like to testify come forward state your name and address please canadian twenty seven west wallen radi and idaho I live out in this area of emile and franklin and I appreciate the work that they're doing and the amenities that they've done on the project my only concern with this project is actually the fact that it is a four story apartment complex no t to not three but four we have another major apartment complex just kitty corner across franklin and ten mile I think it's around six hundred and fifty units with two and three story apartment complexes and to add another one that's four stories seen as a bit much out there where we have rural land to the south east of this I know it's a little bit farther away but it is a huge building i'm not opposed necessarily to the apartments at more the height of them thank you Mr. president you can you sure this what you're concerned about the height is m the height I guess it would be the hit along with it as you add height you add more tensas well but just structurally out there I know they have the big business complexes that are going in which is residents you understand that you've got traffic during the day but when you start outing apartments and the volume of the traffic and just the visual space they take up highway it's concerning that this is becoming much more urban and not we're losing some of our rural neighborhoods out in that area because it's it's a lot of homes and neighborhoods and now we're adding these huge huge buildings in do you feel the same way we've got four and five story you know commercial buildings that are going on the same area do th e same now we been watching them in our neighborhood I think it comes down to again it's the people in the traffic that we're going to be concerned about businesses eight to five they come they go they leave but apartments don't you know with the volume of the people and it just structurally the height of this is concerning I know when they did the zoning some time ago with the property around us we were concerned with what was being zoned and the densities of that so just wanted to express that concern tha nk you very much anybody else like this bitartrate nothing more to say that council was like the public testimony is over with I would entertain a motion or unless you need some more answers or questions for public president Mr. morton I have a somewhat nerdy question or legal counsel on the udc amendment request cites a particular provision that through this process has been changed and so on now everyone's in agreement that a different section eleven dhb I believe is the location of what will now become a n alternative compliance provision is there anything specifically would need to do to just approving a modified udc change or is it that's not denying the request and proposing a different one and if it is approved with this new section are we approving th e requested udc change and then kind of concurrently staffs completed its alternative compliance and is recommended be approved was that for a kind of a convoluted question so Mr. president as a castlepoint I i think what the staff if I understand correctly but the staff was recommending was the interpretation of the council that alternative compliance is available under the other code section that is already in the udc so they're not asking to menus they're saying with the council's interpretation b that it is available under this section not under the section that was originally identified as the one that was required Mr. president saitoti of the application that requests the uncemented withdrawn no Mr. president cusimano when they submitted their application their narrative stated they wanted to change that specific section as we did our staff report our staff report reflects the areas where we want the change to happen so there's nothing in the council's motion to change in a staff report or recommendation through this process was the originally wanted with the original applications middle they wanted to change that section as we wrote the staff report and we formulated our recommendation to commission and city council we felt staff felt it was most appropriate to look at that request but put in a different section of the code it was more appropriate as an alternative in our opinion it was a better place fit for the community to have that as an alternative compliance request so we tailored our staff report to make it part of ubc the bso that's already referenced in the staff report that changes already happened i'm just letting you know on the record that the original request was a different section they were amenable to it going through an alternate compliance process so there's nothing to change in staff report or any recommendation except for whether or not you support the text amendment that's before you the site state of my staff and reaffirmed by the applicant and the planting of one commission i'm sorry am myself a little sideways I understood the original request to be that wholesale change to reduce eighty to sixty and in luo of that initial request it was concluded that existing alternative compliance might allow yo u to get there and therefore not need the initial request of the udc change in all circumstances that's what's got me sort of see Mr. president by night john martel for the record I guess in essence were withdrawing our original request to modify the zona ordinance for a wholesale change but the recommendation tonight now based on staffs reporting what the commission approved was changing the zoning or the us that this change could occur under alternative compliance currently you can't get there entretenimiento there is a need to change the text of UDC to allow that and if we need to go back and have staff reviewcan dr applications they they can reveal turn compliance at that point in time so there is a change to the text that's been requested ethan you anyt hing else not at inter day emotion to close up of hearing Mr. president ali president roberts I move in close the pump like hearing son you've got a motion of agon to go the public ring on hansen dash or when to four all in favor say I i kiani opposed of the carries closed oh what's your pleasure count president for bordon of there's no additional discussion I would move that we approve each two to seventeen four to include staff and applicant comment as been amended through today's hearing you got a monsanto one do for any discussion Mr. president of kanon comment do your comments earlier Mr. bird a few of us were fortunate to attend the topping officer one morning for a building over there and many of the employees have pay lost in which live in voice it working voice were able to come out to this event and when you see A project like this you see this is truly that live work play all in one place I just know that many of the employees have piotr going to want to live in this facility I think back to when I was A little younger and a little more active this is the exact type of place that I would want to live and so i'm excited to bring this to meridian I think it's the right type of project for the right part of town Mr. kirk would you call roll please thank you Mr. president cosmo cabinet is palmer caselle roberts color borden I colberg a next item adding subdivision has one I will open the public hearing and start out with staff reported that you josh you had you been a president members of council as he said this is for IT was called madden subdivision is he combined preliminary and final plot application the site consists of eight point three eight acres of land which is currently zoned cg located at the northeast corner of north locascio road and hes franklin rode well say that if you remember last tuesday evening a rezone was approved for this property to rezone a northern essentially the northern half of the property industrial and the south of southern southern half of the property would remain cg so as I said a combined preliminary and final plate application is proposed which consists of three building lots on eight point thirty itthe eight acres of land in the cg end il zoning districts for made subdivision the udc restricts access to arterial street s when access is available from a local street this property has fronted john olerud and lanark street franklin road and logo there are two existing access points to the site from both east franklin road and from north locus grove which are both classified as arterial roadways and to property is access to nola and lan access to the arterial should be restricted if approval for access is obtained from a city council and the account highway district city staff is of the opinion that a single access point to each arterial be granted and that the access is be shared the applicant has indicated that they will also construct access points to both neal road in lanark street which as I said are both considered local commercial streets a ten foot wide street foot wide street buffer is required to be provided along east and arch street and north road which are both public streets set forth In udc the applicant has proposed a twenty foot landscape buffer along east on march even though only a ten foot is otherwise required in a twenty five foot landscape offer is required both along north locus grove and east franklin roads which again are both designated as are two of the roadways there are existing sidewalks along both locus grove and franklin sidewalks are required to be provided with the development along both nola road and lanark street and the african has is required to obtain approval of certificates on compliance for any future buildings on the site AS well as administrative design review I will note that the applicant has asked for as I said multiple access points on two locust grove one under franklin we did receive a staff report from the highway district staff has concerns that if you read this if report the access points onto locust grove or will only be one h undred and fourteen feet apart from each other and the highway district has indicated that they have modified their their policy to allow for that and discussions with kaleo seems a little bit close and rebut nervous about how how ********** Every development going down there until 2025 must we get moved ahead it's going to be paying for this 36 in my right anybody on McDermott anybody on this southern part of McDermott going south on McDermott from the lift station until 2025 would be theoretically responsible for installing the sewer trunk line that would be necessary to serve those properties are to get to those properties if the city started putting it in at 3 from a certain date backwards because we could identify those at that time easier that just putting it in a development agreement and not having any other mechanism in which to go in and locate those so there is no easy answer I would agree that may be having a fuller discussion at a future Workshop would be the best but there certainly are pitfalls and and pluses and minuses there no matter which way we've looked at these but surely a fuller discussion about that would be going to be warranted UK pleasure Little Roberts 2017 - 01140 used clothes this president approve age 2017 0 1 1 4 and remove the requirement to tile the Waterway they will open the public hearing and start with staff ***** Parsons: Thank you, President, Members of the Council. Next item on the agenda is the TM Creek Apartments. The applications before you this evening are for a development agreement modification, zoning ordinance amendment, and a conditional use permit. The site consists of 8.16 acres of land, zoned C-G, and is generally located south of West Franklin Road and East South Ten Mile Road. This property was annexed in 2013 with a development agreement and a preliminary plat known as TM Creek. The DA was later amended in 2016. The future land use designation on this property are mixed-use commercial and lifestyle center. The applicant is proposing to amend the DA to change the development plan on the south side of Ten Mile Creek and the east side of phase one from commercial retail, which is depicted on the left, to the new concept plan, which is shown on the right to -- from commercial to multi-family residential. Instead of two large commercial buildings the applicant now proposes to construct two multi-family structures containing a total of 240 dwelling units with associated garages and site improvements and a clubhouse. Because multi-family residential is desired in both of those land use designations, staff is supportive of the proposed concept plan change or DA modification as requested by the applicant. The density for this proposed development will be approximately 29.4 dwelling units to the acre, which is also consistent with those two land use designations. The applicant is proposing an amendment to the UDC. In particular currently the way the multi-family standards are structured in our code in the UDC, the -- any multi-family unit has to provide a minimum amount of common -- or private open space. Currently in our code the way it's written the applicant -- or anyone that does multi-family has to provide minimum open space -- private open space of 80 square feet. Because this is an open -- more of an urban setting, more walkable community, and based on the amenity package that the developer is proposing with this project and the design of this project , staff is amenable to that UDC text amendment. The only difference between where the applicant has originally proposed a change and where staff's recommendation is going is how we handle that proposed change. So, when the application came into the city the developer had proposed that they change the multi-family standards, the patio standards currently as written in the UDC. We didn't want to -- staff didn't feel comfortable with that change being city wide, to change one section and, then, every apartment would have the ability to provide a smaller patio. In some instances, again, that's appropriate. In this case we feel it isn't, because of the urban site. So, if you have garden-style apartments, you're in suburban, you have more traditional multi- family development, a larger patio makes sense. So, our recommendation to not only you, but also the Planning and Zoning Commission, was to allow the patio requirements to be part of the alternative compliance process. That would give the direct -- it would be a staff level approval. It would give the director to review that applicant's request on a case-by-case basis and not change it citywide for all multi-family developments. That seems to give the city some assurances that not -- in order to get an approval for an alternative compliance you have to provide something equal to or better th an and so that's why staff feels -- and the Planning and Zoning Commission felt that that was a most appropriate location for the text change, in the alternative compliance section, not changing the specific use standards for multi-family developments. And at the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing the applicant agreed with staff's recommendation -- to change the request as part of an alternative compliance request, rather than the way they had originally submitted. The conditional use permit for you this evening, again, as I mentioned to you it's for 240 dwelling units on approximately 8.16 acres of land, zoned C-G. They are four story structures. And, again, the proposed density is 29.4 swelling units to the acre. Access is proposed from future collector streets from South Ten Mile Road and West Franklin Road. Parking proposed in accord with UDC standards for the development with seven additional parking stalls. So, they are in excess of what the UDC requires. Two four story structures are -- excuse me -- common open space is proposed in accord with UDC standards. The applicant is proposing a total of 1.44 acres in the landscape plan that's before you this evening. Proposed site amenities, as I alluded to you, their justification as to why they are going forth with -- the text amendment change is one -- again, more urban style development here and you will see the architecture here in a moment. But also the -- the amenity package that they are proposing and I will go through those for you very quickly. So, one, they are proposing a separate clubhouse, which will have a lounge and entertainment area. They have public WiFi, workstations, a fitness center, a CrossFit Studio, a swimming pool, indoor bicycle storage, a maintenance room, outdoor fire pits, table tennis and also separate barbecue area where residents won't necessarily need to have individual barbecues on their patios, but they will have an area where they can join and interact with other residents within the complex. Here is their open space exhibit that demonstrates their compliance with the UDC standards. The architecture character of the apartments again are more of a contemporary design. Again, four stories, mix of stucco, and you can see here the applicant -- again more of an urban setting as I alluded to, but this is more of a contemporary design. Anything that they propose out there will have to comply with our architectural standards manual as well. So, I will let you know that that will have come back, get staff level's approval of a design review application. Again the Planning and Zoning Commission did recommend approval of all three of the applications. Speaking in favor was Jon Wardle. No one spoke in opposition and no one commented on the application and we did r eceive written testimony in agreement with the staff report from Mike Wardle. Some of the items -- one item that was discussed by the Commission -- and this seemed to come up on a regular basis is Commission is starting to get concerned with the amount of parking that are being proposed with multi-family developments. As I alluded to you this evening, this site does exceed the minimum standards of the UDC. The issue that was brought up at the hearing was a lot of times when you have an apartment complex that has some garage parking, they were concerned with using the garage for storage, rather than for parking. So, again, our UDC addressed those -- addresses those types of things, but I wanted to let you know what they discussed in their deliberations. Again, they did support the design and the density of this project, so that wasn't an issue. So, again, any other changes to the staff report -- the Planning and Zoning Commission did not have any changes to our conditions for you this evening. They did recommend approval. To my knowledge there aren't any outstanding issues before you this evening. I will conclude my presentation and stand for any questions you may have. Bird: Council, any questions for staff at this time? Cavener: Mr. President? Bird: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: Bill, refresh my memory. How many four story apartment complexes do we have in Meridian? Parsons: Mr. President, Members of the Council, I can't recall. The only ones that I can recall are the ones next to the Regency at River Valley, next to the The Village. Cavener: Mr. President? Bird: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: This is for Chief Butterfield. Sorry to put you on the spot. Ladder truck, we have only got one, the ability to be able to service both facilities? I guess do we need to planning -- being prepared to see another budget amendment for another ladder truck sooner rather than later? Butterfield: President, Council Member Cavener, I don't anticipate adding one more complex like this would justify the need to purchase an entire additional ladder truck than the one that we currently have. Cavener: Okay. Good enough. Thanks. Bird: Any other questions for staff? Hearing none, Mr. Wardle, would you like to approach. Wardle: Good evening, Mr. President, Council Members. Glad to be here. My name is Jon Wardle. My address is 12601 West Explorer Drive in Boise and I work for Brighton. We are happy to be here tonight to talk about this project. I will be brief and I can stand -- I can answer any questions you have, but I did want to go over a little bit on this -- this project. As mentioned we were -- we are modifying the location of some of the uses within the Ten Mile Creek project. In context, we also have the Ten Mile Crossing project, which is to the south and we just opened up the first business down there. We have more coming. There are 400 people that are working there right now and we felt like it was time to bring the opportunity to live out here as well and this location in particular, which we are south of Franklin and we are east -- or east of Ten Mile, we are right along the Ten Mile Creek corridor, which we are improving currently with a regional pathway system. It will be landscaped. There will be a hard surface pathway, which is already down to the apartment site, and landscaped all the way through and our hope is that will be the original corridor for this location, which makes the other part of the request we have before you tonight, which was the UDC text amendment or the amendment for the decrease in size of the private open space. We do support staff's recommendation to -- to treat this as alternative compliance. It does need to be project specific. Changing it across the board in the text for all projects may not be the right approach, but I think as demonstrated with this project and other projects where we can show that the amenities provided both internally, as well as externally, the pathways we have, that's a good -- that's a good approach. As mentioned by Bill, we do have a two four story apartment buildings. I will note that there is one other project as mentioned, but this will be the first project to also include elevators in both of these buildings, which is different than what we have currently. So, this truly is an urban style project. There -- as also mentioned, we do have both covered and open parking on this project. The amenities that are shown -- we have a swimming pool, entertainment areas, lounge, fitness center. Also a cardio studio. Indoor bike storage. Outdoor gathering areas. Barbecues. On-site management. And probably most importantly is the residents here will have direct access to the Ten Mile Creek Regional pathway, as well as the other pathways that we are building to connect to the south with Ten Mile Crossing. Just wanted to show you what this project will look like and the form and sha pe that we are anticipating here. As already mentioned, we are requesting reduction for that private outdoor usable space. But it is offset by the amenity package that we have here. We do agree with the staff's recommendation to amend the UDC table and use alternative compliance and we also respectfully request your approval of the text amendment, the modification of the development agreement and concurrence with the Planning and Zoning Commission's approval of the conditional use permit for the multi-family project. Again, we are excited for this project. We think it will start adding to the fabric of the Ten Mile specific area plan and excited for some of the other things that are happening out there to create this place where somebody can work and live and shop in very good, well planned out thought community. And I stand for any questions you might have. Bird: Any questions for Mr. Wardle? Jon? Wardle: Yes. Bird: These buildings match up identical -- are really nice with what we got going on out there in the office buildings and stuff. I -- you guys have went way and above the call of duty for this and I thank you very much. They are beautiful buildings. Wardle: Thank you, President -- Bird: I don't say that much on apartments, but they -- they really -- and the four stories fits right in. Your amenities are second to none. It's just beautiful. Wardle: I would like to thank Mr. Turnbull who takes pride in what he does and it makes it very easy for us to do projects, because it's not just go in and be done, but we want to be able to say for the City of Meridian these are projects that we do, these are the standard, and so thank you for the compliment. Bird: Thank you. Any other questions or statements? Cavener: Not right now. Bird: Thank you. Wardle: Thank you. Bird: We got anybody signed up? Nobody's signed up? This is a public hearing. Would anybody like to testify? Come forward. If you would state your name and address, please. Aukerman: Jeanette Aukerman. 2070 West Waltman, Meridian, Idaho. I live out in this area off Ten Mile and Franklin. And I appreciate the work that they are doing and the amenities that they have done on the project. My only concern with this project is actually the fact that it is a four story apartment complex. Not two, not three, but four. Now we have another major apartment complex just kitty-corner across Franklin and Ten Mile. I think it's around 650 units with two and three story apartment complexes and to add another one that's four stories seems a bit much out there where we have rural land to the southeast of this. I know it's a little bit farther away, but it is a huge building. I'm not opposed necessarily to the apartments, it's more the height of them. Thank you. Bird: Any questions? Cavener: Mr. Pesident? Bird: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: Mrs. Aukerman, can you share with us what your concern about the height is? Aukerman: The height -- I guess it would be the height along with the -- as you add height you add more tenants as well. But just structurally out there -- I know they have the big business complexes that are going in, which as residents you understand that. You have got traffic during the day, but when you start adding apartments and the volume of the traffic and just the visual space they take up height wise, it's -- it's concerning that this is becoming much more urban and not -- we are losing some of our rural neighborhoods out in that area, because it's -- it's a lot of homes and neighborhoods and now we are adding these huge, huge buildings. Cavener: Mr. President, follow up. Bird: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: Mrs. Aukerman, do you feel the same way -- we have got four and five story, you know, commercial buildings that are going in this same area. Do you have the same -- Aukerman: You know, we have been watching them in our neighborhood. I think it comes down to, again, it's the people and the traffic that we are going to be concerned. about. Businesses 8:00 to 5:00, they come and they go. They leave. But apartments don't. You know, with the volume of the people and -- and it just -- structurally the height of this is concerning. I know when they did the zoning some time ago with the property around us we were concerned with what was being zoned and the densities of that. So, just wanted to express that concern. Cavener: Appreciate that. Bird: Any other questions? Thank you very much. Anybody else like to testify? Mr. Wardle, you have nothing more to say? With that, Council, it looks like the public testimony is over with. I would entertain a motion or -- unless you need some more answers or questions for public. Borton: Mr. President? Bird: Mr. Borton. Borton: I have a somewhat nerdy question for legal counsel. On the UDC amendment request, it cites the particular provision that through this process has been changed , 11- 4-3 and so on. Now everyone's in agreement that a different section, 11-5B-5, I believe is -- the location of will now become an alternative compliance provision. Is there any -- is there anything specific we would need to do to -- is it just approving a modified UDC change or is it -- that's not denying their request and proposing a different one and if it is approved with this new section are we approving the requested UDC change and, then, kind of concurrently staff's completed its alternative compliance and has recommended it be approved? How was that for a kind of a convoluted question? Nary: So, Mr. President, Members of the Council, Council Member Borton, I think -- I think what the staff -- if I understand correctly, what the staff was recommending was the interpretation of the Council that alternative compliance is available under the other code section that's already in the UDC. Borton: Okay. Nary: So, they are not asking you to amend the UDC, they are saying would the Council's interpretation be that it is available under this section, not under the section that was originally identified as the one that was provided. Borton: Mr. President? Bird: Mr. Borton. Borton: So, is the -- is the portion of the applicant that requests the UDC amendment withdrawn? Parsons: Mr. President, Councilman Borton, when they submitted their application, their narrative stated they wanted to -- to change that specific section. Borton: Uh-huh. Parson: As we did our staff report, our staff report reflects the areas where we want the change to happen. So, there is nothing in the Council's motion to change in the staff report. Our recommendation through this process was they originally wanted -- with the original application submittal they wanted to change that section. As we wrote the staff report and we formulated our recommendation to Commission and City Council, we felt -- staff felt it was most appropriate to look at that request , but put it in a different section of the code. It was more appropriate as an alternative -- in our opinion it was a better place -- fit for the community to have that as an alternate compliance request. So, we tailored our staff report and make it part of UDC, the 5B5. So, that's already referenced in the staff report and that change has already happened. I'm just letting you know on the record that the original request was a different section. They were amenable to it going through an alternative compliance process. So, there is nothing to -- to change in the staff report or any recommendation, except for whether or not you support the text amendment that's before you this evening. As stated by staff and reaffirmed by the applicant and the Planning and Zoning Commission . Borton: No. I'm -- I'm sorry, I'm getting myself a little sideways. I understood the original request to be that wholesale change to reduce A to sixty and in lieu of that initial request it was concluded that existing alternative compliance might allow you to get there and, therefore, not need the initial request of the UDC change in all circumstances. That's what's got me sort of sideways. Wardle: Mr. President, if I might -- Jon Wardle for the record. I guess, in essence, we are withdrawing our original request to modify the zoning ordinance for a wholesale change. Borton: Okay. Wardle: But the recommendation tonight now, based on staff's report and what the Commission approved was changing the zoning -- or the UDC that this change could occur under alternative compliance. Currently you can't get there under alternative compliance. So, there is a need to change the text of the UDC to allow that and if -- if we need to go back and have staff review that when we do our CZC and DR applications, they can -- they can review alternative compliance at that point in time. Borton: Okay. Wardle: So, there is a change to the text that's being requested. Borton: Okay. That makes sense. Thanks. Bird: Thank you. Anything else? If not, I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing. Little Roberts: Mr. President? Bird: Mrs. Little Roberts. Little Roberts: I move we close the public hearing. Borton: Second. Bird: Okay. We have got a motion and a second to close the public hearing on H -2017- 0124. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Public hearing is closed. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Bird: What's your pleasure, Council? Borton: Mr. President? Bird: Mr. Borton: If there is no additional discussion, I would move that we approve H- 2017-0124 to include staff and applicant comment as been amended through today's hearing. Cavener: Second. Bird: Okay. Got a motion and a second to approve H-2017-0124. Any discussion? Cavener: Mr. President? Bird: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: Just one comment to echo your comments earlier, Mr. Bird. A few of us were fortunate enough to attend the topping off ceremony for a building over there and many of the employees of Paylocity which live in Boise -- where I work in Boise were able to come out to this event and when you see a project like this and you see this is truly that live-work-play all in one place, I -- I just know that many of the employees of Paylocity are going to want to live in this facility. I think back to when I was a little younger and a little more active, this is the exact kind of place that I would want to live in. So, I'm excited to bring this to Meridian. I think it's the right type of project for the right part of town. Bird: Okay. Mr. Clerk, will you call roll, please. Roll call: Bird, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener, yea; Palmer, yea; Little Roberts, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Bird: Okay. Next item. Madden Subdivision. H-2017-0121. I will open the public hearing and start out with staff report. Is that you, Josh? Good. Beach: Good evening, Mr. President, Members of the Council. As you said, this is for what's called Madden Subdivision. It is a combined preliminary and final plat application. The site consists of 8.38 acres of land, which is currently zoned C-G, located at the northeast corner of North Locust Grove Road and East Franklin Road. I will say that if you remember last Tuesday evening a rezone was approved for this property to rezone the northern -- essentially the northern half of the property industrial and the south -- the southern - -the southern half of the property would remain C-G. So, as I said, a combined preliminary and final plat application is proposed, which consists of three building lots on 8.383 acres of land in the C-G and I-L zoning districts for Madden Subdivision. The UDC restricts access to arterial streets when access is available from a local street. This property has frontage on Nola Road and Lanark Street, Franklin Road and Locust Grove Road. There are two existing access points to the site from both East Franklin Road and from North Locust Grove, which are both classified arterial roadways. This property has access to Nola and Lanark. Access to the arterial should be restricted. If approval for access is obtained from the City Council and the Ada County Highway District City, staff is of the opinion that a single access point to each arterial be granted and that the accesses be shared . The applicant has indicated that they will also construct access points to both Nola Road and Lanark Street, which, as I said, are both considered local commercial streets. A ten foot wide street -- ten foot wide street buffer is required to be provided along East Lanark Street and Nola Road, which are both public streets, as set forth in the UDC. The applicant has proposed a 20 foot landscape buffer along East Lanark, even though only a ten foot is otherwise required, and a 25 foot landscape buffer is required both along North Locust Grove and East Franklin Road, which, again, are both designated arterial roadways. There are existing sidewalks along both Locust Grove and Franklin. Sidewalks are required to be provided with the development along both Nola Road and Lanark Street and the applicant has -- is required to obtain approval of certificate of compliance for any future buildings on the site, as well as administrative design review. I will note that the applicant has asked for, as I said, multiple access points onto Locust Grove, one onto Franklin. We did receive a staff report from the highway district. Staff has concerns that -- if you read the staff report, the access points onto Locust Grove will only be 114 feet apart from each other and the highway district has indicated that they have modified their -- their policy to allow for that and in discussions with Caleb Hood it seemed a little bit closer and we are a little bit nervous about how -- how close those are. Staff's recommendation still is that there be one shared access on the property line to Locust Grove and one shared access on the property line to Locust Grove , with the understanding that the likely developer of Lot 1 here to the north is Gensco, which is a construction material distributor. They will have semi trucks coming in and staff is a little bit nervous about semi trucks coming out onto Locust Grove when they have the ability to take access from the local streets and get to the intersection to get out ont o the busier roads. Having said that, the applicant is requesting tonight two Locust Grove access points and one onto Franklin. So, as I said, Commission did recommend approval. A summary of that was Doug Tamura, the applicant, was in favor. There was none in opposition. No other public comment was received. Did not receive any written testimony. I was the staff member that presented. Bill Parsons also commented on the application. There was no discussion or no key issues of public testimony as I said. Key issues of discussion by the commission were the number of access points, both specifically to Locust Grove and to Franklin. The Commission recommended the applicant be allowed to have -- to have access points onto -- two onto Locust Grove and the outstanding issues for Commission tonight -- or for Council tonight are, again, the number of vehicle access points both onto Locust Grove and to Franklin. As I said, the Commission did recommend approval and I will stand for any questions anyone has. Bird: Council, any questions for staff? Borton: Mr. President? Bird: Mr. Borton. Borton: Josh, is the Franklin Road request one full access and one right-in, right-out? Beach: I kind of -- I highlight of the sections of the staff report that -- if you want me to go through those real quick and tell you what the decision was here. On Franklin. It says the applicant should be required to close the existing driveway on to Franklin Road, located approximately 263 feet east of Locust Grove, with vertical curb and gutter and sidewalk to match the existing improvements. ACHD staff recommends a modification of policy to allow the existing driveway onto Franklin Road, located approximately 391 feet east of Locust Grove, to remain as a right-in, right-out only driveway. This driveway was constructed by ACHD in coordination with the property owner as part of the Locust Grove Road and Franklin Road intersection project. The driveway location was agreed upon at that time and met the spacing requirements at the time of construction -- be 129 foot or 32 percent modification of policy if approved at the development services manager level. So, specifically for Franklin Road, Meridian's planning staff doesn't necessarily have an issue with the one access point. We still would request that it be shared between the two properties. The understanding is they don't have a user for either of lots two or three yet, so we are not sure who is going to go there, but we know that the property to the north -- they have an applicant for -- will be an industrial user. Moving on to the section on Locust Grove -- this is where staff has the majority of our concerns. Staff recommends a modification of policy to allow the existing driveway on Locust Grove Road located 240 feet -- 248 feet north of Franklin Road and to remain as a right-in, right-out only driveway and it says the northern driveway was constructed by ACHD and as part of Locust Grove Road and Franklin Road. The intersection project is approved in its current location as a temporary full access driveway. The applicant's proposal does not meet district driveway location and successive driveway policy, which require driveways on minor arterials roadways to be located a minimum of 355 feet from the nearest intersection and 330 feet from any other driveway. The existing driveways are 114 feet apart and it says in parentheses, 330 feet is typically required. And the southern driveway is located 248 feet north of Franklin Road, when 355, again, would be required. So, staff's concern is their proximity to the intersection and, then, their proximity to each other as - as approved by the highway district. Typically we don't question too much what the highway district's proposal is or recommendation is, but staff has concerns about the nearness of those two on -- on Locust Grove and their safety. So, yeah. Bird: Any other questions for staff at this time? Doug. Tamura: Mr. President, Members of the Council, my name is Doug Tamura. I'm representing Kobe, LLC, on this project and we -- we purchased this property prior to the Locust Grove-Franklin improvements going in and so part of what you see now is what we negotiated that we told the highway district that -- and particularly now it's even more important that access to everything for our property and so we were hoping that historically we -- we would preserve the access points that we got on both Franklin and Locust Grove. That's why the highway district has been willing to accommodate us on Franklin. Our design of -- at the northern property is going to be sold to Gensco, which is a Trane distributor of mechanical heating and cooling and so our design of our project is that the semi trucks will use both the Lanark and Nola access and that as m echanical contractors come to, you know, pick up furnaces that our thought was is if we had this full access on both Locust Grove and Lanark, that would provide, you know, kind of a separate access for those, you know, not large semi trucks, but trucks, you know, and that's what we were hoping that we could preserve those two access points off Locust Grove. We had Planning and Zoning support for our two accesses, understanding the need for our potential tenant, so -- you know, I appreciate your support if we could have them. Bird: Any questions for the applicant? Cavener: Mr. President? Bird: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: Doug, you said something that kind of had my ears perk up. Now large semi trucks, but trucks. I guess can you share with us what you believed to be the size of the truck that's going to be accessing your -- Tamura: I'm not sure how Gensco works, but they are the Trane distributor and Trane is just your standard -- you know, they do both commercial and rooftops and they do residential furnaces. So, I'm assuming that, you know -- and, plus, the demand for residential in -- in the valley and particularly Meridian is huge and so the potential build out of this facility is going to be 7,000 feet of distribution. So, the amount of traffic that's going to come in here and I think that sometimes the more access you can provide a facility like that the better off you are. Now, I was hoping that, you know, the smaller trucks of the local HVAC contractors will use the Locust access, the larger semi trucks will use the -- you know, the Lanark and Nola access. Bird: Got any questions? Tamura: Thanks. Bird: This is a public hearing. Nobody signed up. Would anybody like to testify? Seeing none, Doug, do you want to have a last word? Okay. Council, do you need anymore public testimony or questions or anything answered? If not I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing. Palmer: Mr. President? Bird: Mr. Palmer. Palmer: I move we close the public hearing on H-2017-0121. Little Roberts: Second. Bird: I have a motion to close the public hearing and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, the public hearing is closed. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Palmer: Mr. President? Bird: Mr. Palmer. Palmer: Mr. President, I move we approve H-2017-0121, preserving the existing accesses. Cavener: Second. Bird: I have got a motion and a second to approve H-2017-0121. Any discussion? Borton: Mr. President? Bird: Mr. Borton. Borton: The access as requested by the applicant, are those approved in the motion? Bird: Anymore discussion? If not, Mr. Clerk, would you call roll. Roll call: Bird, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener, yea; Palmer, yea; Little Roberts, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Bird: Okay. Moving on to Item F. I will open the public hearing for H-2017-0115. I think -- which one of the staff -- I will give it to the staff. Beach: Me. Bird: Is that you, Josh? Beach: You got it, sir. Bird: Okay. You want to open it? Beach: This is an application for what's called Pond Subdivision. It is for a preliminary plat. The site consists of approximately 4.82 acres of land, which is currently zoned R-8, located at 2980 North Meridian Road. This land was previously annexed and zoned and granted conditional use permit approval in 2012 for what was called Tomorrow's Hope. The Comprehensive Plan future land is map designation is medium density residential. The proposed plat consists of 21 single family residential building lots and five common area lots and, as I said, approximately 4.82 acres of land in an R-8 zoning district. Minimum lot size is approximately 4,129 square feet and the minimum lot size in the R-8 district is 4,000 square feet. The proposed overall density for the development is 4.35 dwelling units per acre. The net density of 6.47, which is consistent with the medium density residential designation. Staff has reviewed the proposed plat for compliance with the dimensional standards listed in the UDC for the R-8 district and with the exceptions of Lots 3, 4 and 5 of Block 2, the plat was found to be in compliance with those standards. Lots 3, 4 and 5 of Block 2 shall revised to meet the above named standards. Access to the site is proposed on the plat from an existing access to North Meridian Road. existing access shall be converted to a public road and the commercial access for the residential care facility and the driveway for the existi ng home shall be reconfigured. A stub street is proposed to the east for future extension and interconnectivity. So, that would be this location. There is one common driveway proposed. The applicant is proposing Lots 6, 7, 8 and 9 -- or, excuse me, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of Block 1, to take access from that single common driveway. Open space and amenities are not a requirement for this plat, because the plat is under the threshold of five acres. The applicant has, however, provided approximately a quarter of an acre of open space for the development, which includes the landscape buffer along North Meridian Road and several common lots. There is an existing home and associated outbuildings on the site that are proposed to remain, which would be on Lot 1, Block 1, and as you can see here clearly all existing structures that are proposed to remain with the subdivision of the property must comply with the setback standards in the R-8 district. There is an existing outbuilding a Lot 1, which is this outbuilding here, if you can find my mouse, and the required street yard. UDC restricts detached accessory buildings from being located in the setback. The applicant is requesting that the City Council allow the accessory building to remain on the property in its current location. Staff recommends that the structure be removed with the development of the first phase, unless approved to remain by City Council. Additionally the Osweiller Canal crosses the southern property of the site. All ditches on the site are required to be piped, unless waived by City Council and the applicant is also requesting a waiver from City Council to keep this lateral open due to its large capacity. The applicant has submitted some conceptual building elevations for the future homes in the subdivision. A six foot tall vinyl fence is proposed along the perimeter boundary of the subdivision and the Osweiller Canal -- if the Osweiller Canal will not be improved as part of the development to be a water amenity, the lateral is required to be fenced with an open vision fence at least six feet in height and having 11 -- 11 gauge, two inch mesh or other construction equivalent in the ability -- in ability to deter access to the lateral. The Commission did recommend approval. The summary of the Commission public hearing was Matt Schultz, the applicant, was in favor. There was none in opposition. Ted Williams did comment. Did not receive any written testimony. I was the staff member that presented the application to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Bill Parsons also commented on that. Key issues of public testimony were questions on how the property to the east -- going back to the plat here -- maybe to the aerial. How the properties to the east and to the north -- specifically these two properties here -- would redevelop. Key issues of discussion by the Commission were the accessory building that doesn't mean code in terms of its location. There were no changes from the Commission to staff's recommendation and, as I said, the two outstanding items for City Council are the accessory building that does not meet setback standards and the request to keep open the Osweiller Canal. Did not receive any written testimony since the Commission and with that I will stand for any questions you have. Bird: Council, any questions for staff at this time? Cavener: Mr. President? Bird: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: Josh, it looked like on a previous slide that there is an -- an access road -- access drive to the existing structure and that's -- it's right next to Baldwin Street. Am I seeing that as a -- is it two roads that are going to be right next to each other? Or two streets that are right next to each other. Beach: Commissioner Cavener, you're referring to this area as indicated by me mouse? So, their -- staff's requirement is that -- obviously there is some work going to have to be done to coordinate with this. Staff's intension would be that the care facility take access from this public street and the driveway also take access from the public street. We don't want a separate drive aisle -- Cavener: Right. Beach: -- for any of the other structures there. We want them all to use the public street. So, they are going to likely in close proximity here, but separate. Bird: Any other questions for staff? The applicant -- Mr. Schultz? Schultz: Good evening, Council. Matt Schultz. 8421 South Ten Mile. I'm here on behalf of Berkelely Building Company and Mr. and Mrs. Pond, who f ive years ago were annexed, seven acres into the city, though the north two acres is not a part of this. That was further their -- some adult care facilities that they are running out of their house. There was a development agreement executed five years ago that showed future residential area, R-8 residential, so we are -- if we are already zoned we are complying with the development agreement. There is a few minor issues for Council's recommendation on -- like staff said, on the -- on the Onweiller lateral, which is a pretty large capacity open ditch. The south side there is a fenced off city pathway next to the Silhouette Subdivision. Our side is a ditch access road, because the ditch company always will give one path on one side and it's access road on the other. S, we are the ditch access road and we are going to fence it off with a six foot wrought iron fence to allow them to provide access to it. It will still be an HOA common lot that we have to maintain the weeds in and all of that. The other issue is the fact that the Ponds still would like to stay on about three-quarters of an acre in the city. So, it will be a very atypical city lot at three quarters of an acre. Already had services to it going across the field and it's our challenge as we go forth and build this to maintain access, which we are going to replace their current driveway with a real road and, then, their driveway will come off the end of that. We are going to replace it and switch over the utilities to standard utilities as we move forward. So, that's -- that's my problem moving forward with construction management, that they want to stay there during construction and retain the three quarters of an acre and we are going to develop -- the Berkeley building company is going to take the remaining four and build the 20 lots on it, but the plat will consist of the whole 64.75 acres. So, there was an outbuilding built -- I don't know how long ago, they -- a lot their equipment and stuff they use to take care of the two acres is in it. It's about 25 feet forward of the house and 20 feet behind the house. it kind of straddles that front face of the house. It's still 120 feet back from the new road. This is not a typical city lot. In a typical city lot there is no way we allow an outbuilding in front of the house, you know, standard six, seven, eight, ten thousand square lot you just wouldn't do it. But in this case -- this is three-quarters of an acre, 120 feet back of the new road, you're not even going to see it. Big trees. Fence. It's really I think a very, very minor issue. Staff rightly pointing it out. We don't disagree with them pointing it out, we are just asking for your -- your waiver on that requirement and your planning commission did show support for it, even though they didn't have the jurisdiction to granted it, they were -- they were at least favorable towards -- towards that. So, it's a pretty easy, straightforward efficient little project. We are excited to be close to Settlers Park, which is only 500 feet up the road and that's really our amenity here is the multi- million dollar Settlers Park, which is just a fantastic park that we have in this community. So -- so, with that we agree with staff conditions of approval, we are just asking for the - - the waiver to keep the Onweiller lateral open and fenced and to grant the waiver on the Ponds not having to tear down a very functional and nonobtrusive structure that I don't think is any -- you know, it's still going to be -- it looks fine from the road. You won't even notice it back there. So, with that we ask for your approval. Thank you. Bird: Any questions for Mr. Schultz? Thank you. Nobody signed up. Would anybody like to testify? Seeing none -- Matt, you got a -- want final word? Borton: Mr. President? Bird: Mr. Borton. Borton: I will ask Matt a question. Make him -- so, remind me the -- the fencing solution down on the canal, if it remains open, it's not being improved as a water amenity necessarily, because that was on the south side, I understand. There is a condition that has a mesh of chain, but this is a fencing to deter access to the canal, but would it ultimately be designed where you have got the standard residential fencing behind each house and, then, adjacent to that chain link or our required fencing and kind of a spite strip? Schultz: Here is how I look at it, is that I think the mess is the minimum requirement. The wrought iron is -- is still acceptable as a -- no more than a four inch gap. Kids can't get through it. It's like a -- you know, a building code type requirement that prevents access through it and so that would be the only fence along there that we provide between the ditch and the back of the lots. It would be an open vision. So, there is no spite strip at all, just one fence. Borton: Mr. President. So, is it -- is it to be wrought iron? Schultz: Six foot wrought iron is great. That's what we plan on doing. Borton: Thanks for clarifying that. Schultz: Thank you. Bird: Any other questions? Thank you, Matt. Mr. Palmer. Palmer: Mr. President, I move we close the public hearing for H-2017-0115. Borton: Second. Bird: Got a motion to close the public hearing and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Bird: Okay. Council, discussion? If not, I would entertain a motion. Palmer: Mr. President? Bird: Mr. Palmer. Palmer: I move we approve H-2017-0115 and grant the request to allow the existing shop to stay and the waiver for tiling the lateral, but including the other provisions that go along with that. Little Roberts: Second. Bird: Okay. Got a motion and a second to approve with the exceptions. Any discussion? Parsons: Mr. President? Sorry. Just before you -- you close on the motion. Bill over here. Just want to make it clear that the code doesn't allow the Council to grant a wavier for an accessory structure to stay on that lot. That's going to take the applicant to go through a variance process in order to have something different than what's allowed by code. So, I just want to make that clear. It's pretty similar to what we did across the street when Madden -- I think it was Madden Village came through with a multi-family development and they kept the two adjacent homes. We had that same situation and you had added a condition to that project that they seek a variance application in order to keep the accessory dwelling -- or the accessory structure. So, if it's your intent for that structure to stay where it is, I would have you amend your motion and make it clear that they need to seek a variance request before this body before that structure stays or remove it from the property. Bird: Second agree? Cavener: Ann was the second. Bird: You want to amend your motion? Palmer: Mr. President? Questions then. So, that's something they have to do later. Is that still something that goes through us or that staff handles, understanding our intention or how does that work? Parsons: Councilman -- or Mr. President, Councilman Palmer, a variance requires Council action. So, they have to submit -- have a neighborhood meeting, go through a public hearing process, post the site and, then, come back before this body with a staff recommendation to you for your action. Palmer: So, the motion just includes the lateral issue? Bird: We have taken out the structure. Second agree? Little Roberts: Yes. Bird: Okay. Any other discussion? Cavener: Mr. President? Bird: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: I guess a question for staff. There is not a way that we can handle both of these tonight? Bird: No. Cavener: All right. Bird: Clerk, would you call roll. Roll call: Bird, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener, yea; Palmer, yea; Little Roberts, yea. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Bird: Thank you. Okay. We are going to open up G, which is the Comprehensive Plan, H-2017-0113. Excuse me. Students, if you would go to the clerk he will give you a City of Meridian pin for sitting through and listening to us as you leave. If you would like. Okay. I will open the public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan text amendment and which staff? Is that you, Brian or -- okay. Brian. McClure: Members of City Council, thank you for having me here tonight. I'm here to speak to the Comprehensive Plan text update and existing conditions report 2017 update. So, we are doing this a little bit differently tonight. We have three items to cover tonight and what we are doing -- in two different groups. The first group includes a yearly review of Comprehensive Plan policy statements and department text and, then, the existing conditions report. You have already seen some of the ECR, existing conditions report, from others. Notably Bruce Chatterton kind of stole some of my thunder, but I would really like to have that conversation with you tonight and to take suggestions on improvement for the future. These changes together are what staff consider to be administrative changes. Approving this tonight would really help staff to move these on to other projects and responsibilities and, then, to get the ECR out there. The second group and third item are proposed policy and text changes to the Comprehensive Plan related to the rims, the north and south rims. We are separating this out to have a more of a -- some focused conversation with you. You have received two letters, one in support from South Rim Coalition and one asking for more time to discuss from the BCA. Caleb will discuss this item last when I'm all done. So, the changes to the text. This is the -- kind of fluffy stuff, the stuff that talks about what we want our parks to be, what sort of Public Works facilities we have. These are generally administrative texts to reflect actual operations, so we have more employees, we have more parks, things of that nature. But this does not include the policy statements. That's next. Generally they reflect actual operations, what we are doing now. There is some examples shown here, but too many to go through one by one. If any of the other revisions describing the application were of interest , I would be happy to discuss those an hour later, whatever you prefer. Again, the rim text will be discussed at the end. So, here are the revisions, additions to the policy statements. These are the goals objectives and action items in the Comprehensive Plan. Generally they are clean up, reflect actual operations or just change of responsibilities. In some cases we are only changing the support column, which actually isn't in the Comprehensive Plan, something we use, but we are including it here as well. Same thing. There is too many to list or describe, but shown are some examples. If you have any questions from the application I would be happy to discuss those now or later. Bird: Any questions? Go ahead, Josh -- or Brian. McClure: So, here is the thing I really want to talk about. Existing conditions report. It's the second item I will be discussing here tonight. The Comprehensive Plan as displayed in the two documents, one is the Comprehensive Plan itself, which is forward thinking, what we want the city to be in the future. The other is existing conditions report, which is what we are now. Both of these are required to meet state code. For the update, which generally occurs every three years with new photos, more photos, updated tables, new tables, new charts and reduction of overall text. Same number of pages, but a lot more graphics basically. The infographic on the slide here is a summary of the information from the ECR. Generally the infographic focus is on Meridian, but if you actually look in ECR it compares us to Meridian -- to Boise, Nampa, Ada county and Canyon County, Idaho, and the U.S. as a whole. Again I know you have seen this before, but -- so, here is some additional information related to education, jobs, pay and play Meridian. Actually, had kind of a difficult time choosing what went on these. For example, you don't see anything on schools. If you actually look here there is some pretty interesting data on enrollment if you're looking for trends. Be happy to discuss that sometime if you want. Cavener: Mr. President? Bird: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: Brian, for what it's worth, I think that's something the whole Council would value hearing a little more additional information on, whether tonight or at a future Council meeting and, again, I don't know where the Council stands on it, but perhaps that might even be a beneficial joint meeting between us and the school board as we continue to grow, further collaboration, communication with both bodies might make more sense. McClure: I agree. So, here are three trends that we found to be most interesting and all these are bad. Some of these aren't even anything that local government really or necessarily should have a role in, but they do impact us, so they are interesting. Poverty is lower in Meridian than elsewhere, but it's also climbing faster here than elsewhere, so it's something to watch. Meridian, like most cities, is aging. There is the 20 something age group. However, it appears to be decreasing as a whole. If you look at the chart you can visually see that every year -- every ten years this has gone down further and further. That is an educated and attractive workforce for employers that we are trying to attract. Lastly, housing is increasing as a percent of overall income. Most staggering is that almost 50 percent of renters -- renting households are now spending 30 percent or more of their income on housing. Cavener: Brian? Mr. President? Bird: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: Brian, can you go into that a little bit deeper, because -- I mean when we look at this chart here in front of us it shows that 49 percent of those that rent experience that, but only 27 percent of them who own -- I know that we have a lot more people who own homes than are renting a home or renting an apartment. So, how did that number - - how was that number derived? McClure: Councilman Cavener, all these numbers are from U.S. Census Bureau information. This data here is from several years of both the census information and the American Community Survey, which is what used to be the long form. Those are directly from census information. So, there wasn't -- maybe I don't understand your question. Those are pretty much straight from the -- from their information. So, there is no -- Cavener: Not a formula? McClure: There is no twisting her. Cavener: Just trying to figure out where the 50 percent number comes from. McClure: The 50 percent is just for renters. The 50 percent of households that rent -- Cavener: Maybe I misread your point. Sorry, Mr. President. Bird: No problem. McClure: I'm missing a slide. Oh, there it is. Lastly here some additional items to consider that we are requesting to consider tonight. Most of these were proposed after the application was submitted. Things take time. That was three or four months ago now and we resubmitted that. The first one is to change all occurrences within the text and the policy statements from the wastewater treatment plant to the wastewater resource recovery facility. Does that makes sense to call it that if you're spending a lot of money on it, it's not just something you throw away, you try to use it. For policy item 50503A when I submitted this application originally Public Works had requested that we make the priority on this low. Subsequently and after we submitted the application, Legal and SWAC requested that we bumped that back up to medium. We got back to Public Works on it some more and they agreed. So, while the original application suggested putting that to low, we are asking that you leave it at medium, but you can keep the rest of the changes proposed there. Green underline is proposed and red strike through is removed. Lastly -- and I don't know if anyone ever actually noticed, but when I submitted the application, the day after parks gave us some additional acreage information. I have included that in the draft form of the existing conditions report. So, what you see is reflective of what we actually have, but I did change it from the first table when we actually submitted the application with that new information. So with, that I'd be happy to stand for any questions or conversation. I would love to hear some suggestions for improvement. Bird: Any questions for Brian? Thank you, Brian. Any other staff going to report? Hood: Mr. President, Members of the Council, Caleb Hood for part two, as Brain kind of presented in his opening remarks. Before I get into the details of my section of this report I just want to give you a little bit of background and history and how the -- how we kind of got to here, particularly, again, regarding my sections, the north and the south rims, that we are proposing for the Comprehensive Plan. So, as you all know, we were -- we were -- you have had the Southern Rim Coalition before you for various public hearings over the past several months this past year and the outcome of a lot of that was direction from you all to work with them on -- on considering some of their requests. So, we have done that in the past several months. Essentially, the heart of their -- and I know they are here, so they can tell you their real mission, but the way that I kind of understand it -- I'm going to couch it to you right now -- is at the heart of their request is to treat the rim as an asset and, therefore, then, my job would be to develop some policies around that that reflect that as an asset for the city. So, that's what we have tried to do in the subject text amendment. The text is a result of coordination, communication with coalition representatives. I put compromise in parenthesis there. I don't think this is the end game for the coalition. And, again, I know they are here. They can tell you for themselves what they think. But just based on that back and forth, if they had their druthers it wouldn't read the way it does now, it was finding that line of what we were comfortable with as staff proposing to you all and piggy backing it on everything Brian just told you. Those administrative type of changes. We don't want to cross that line of having to do public outreach and new policies that we thought were far reaching and, again, went to that level of really engaging stakeholders. Now, in retrospect, after receiving the letter from the BCA, should we have done that? Yeah, I think we probably should have done that. But that's what we were trying to do kind of initially with our -- in our working with the coalition is allow them to piggy back, instead of having them submit their own standalone application, and we did talk to them about that, we said this is what we are comfortable piggy backing on our application. If you want to do something on your behalf -- and that's still an option for them. Submit your own text and/or map amendment. So, just a little bit of that. And, then, just one other thing in the notes to some of that direction that are received and I -- it wasn't direct direction and it wasn't staff go and do this right now, but the feeling, the flavor I got from Council largely was we need more opportunities for more estate lots in Meridian and, again, particularly looking at the rim as asset where that would be appropriate to evaluate. So, again, that's what we tried to do. I also want to take just a minute and explain further what the comp plan is and does and largely how it works within the context of community development. So, I know you all know this, but I just want this to be on the record. The com plan is not code or blueprint, it is a guide. We use the comp plan as staff and as elected officials to determine appropriateness and intent of a project. Does a project comply with the intent of the land use plan , the applicable policies and what is going on in the area. It doesn't consider all cases. It is -- you know, the policies contained in the plan are vast, cover several different aspects, and are not parcel specific. So, why these policy statements we do believe have value and worth -- again, they are not code and they are not -- explicit compliance isn't required as we look at doing development review. So, just kind of that level. That's where we are at. I just want to keep you up there. You had discussions earlier this evening from Brighton about UDC text amendments. That is code. That is explicit compliance. Those are -- you know, again, black and white terms and need to be complied with through a process and the comp plan is our guide. So, with that being said I'm getting into what we are proposing. And I have a handout as well. It's not as pretty as Brian's 11 by 17 and I apologize for that. But I do want to just give you a summary -- I have got a handful. I don't want to say several and scare you. I have got a series of slides here, but I have copied three of my slides just so you can have them kind of there as we run through things, you can use this as a cross-reference. I'm going to give those to the clerk now. And, again, what you're going to have isn't anything new. It's a copy of those slides and this is the first one. So, you have it. So, these -- this is the first of two pages of what we are proposing as changes regarding to the rim properties. I think -- so, let me -- let me jump in. So, the first bullet -- this text removes the density step allowance within the rim areas. So, as you all know and are familiar with, we do allow a step up or down for most residentially designated properties within the city. So, you get requests for property sometime designated low density and they want to step up to a medium density or vice-versa. Maybe they are medium and they want to develop it low or medium to high, what we are proposing in this first bullet, in part, is that if you are within this area -- and I will show you a map here in a second -- if you are within this area you are not eligible for a step. If you're low, you're low. You can't ask for a medium. Just as a quick aside, I will be back before you here soon to talk about the new Comprehensive Plan for Meridian. A lot of the consternation we hear and frustration we hear from the general public or adjacent neighbors has to do with this step and I think we take a serious look at that. When we develop a new company do we continue to allow a step within our comp plan -- again, like I just mentioned, low to high, medium -- or low to medium, medium to high, high to medium, or not. I think that's something -- we can leave that in and I'm not saying let's change that now, I'm just -- again, a lot of the things that we hear people say is we looked at your map and it was low. We were expecting low. How are you allowing them to develop to medium? Well, we have this caveat in our comp plan that says that flexibility. Just another quick -- just to delve into that a little bit more. Low density residential -- and, again, I know you all know this, but if I can continue to be -- low, zero to three dwelling units per acre. That's a pretty good range. Zero dwelling units, which doesn't -- you don't do. To three. Pretty good range. The next step is three to eight. So, essentially, if you're low you can develop up to eight. Zero to eight is a huge raise. That's everything. You can do apartments largely. What kind of guarantee or assurance are there for neighbors that look at a map and wee low and somebody comes in with six dwelling units per acre? Again, I'm just -- I'm sort of reflecting what I'm hearing from our community, so -- but I should probably move on to this now and just with that thought here I think that was some of why we were comfortable saying, hey, in this area you can't step up or down, it's -- you are what you are on the map. Again, that needs to be vetted further. I will also just clarify, if approved the way we have got it tonight, nothing would prohibit a developer from requesting a map amendment. So, if you're low and you want medium, instead of a step you ask for a comp plan map change and you change the map to medium. So, nothing we do tonight would prohibit anybody from asking for a different designation. So, I just wanted that to be -- to be clear, too. So, to clarify, though, this change limits a step for all residentially designated properties and will get into that a little bit more and that's not to be confused with the third bullet on this, which only applies to low density. So, if you're medium -- again, the example of medium to high and you're on the rim and there is one example of that in the northern rim area -- and I will get to that in a second. I have a couple of exhibits that will show you that would apply, so -- and just one final thing on the step. It's not a given. We do request that the applicant provide justification for the step. If you're designated low on our map and you're wanting to develop at medium density, why? What is the reason that low doesn't work? Market forces. Adjacent properties. What's going on that says you got it wrong, city. It shouldn't be low, it should be medium. Or medium high, so -- and, again, you all have that discretion, too, and have to concur with that step, allowing that step, that it's appropriate on a case-by-case basis. So, that's really kind of the first -- oh, I guess I should point this out to you. The text -- it's the first time in the comp plan you see the words south rim and north rim, rather than just describing it there in your Spurwing north of Chinden as you see in the last bullet. So, really, the first bullet we have this new phrase called north -- new areas, north rim and south rim areas. So, that's the first bullet. Is there any questions on that one? I saw a move to a mic, so I thought maybe -- Palmer: Mr. President. Bird: Mr. Palmer. Palmer: Mr. President and Caleb, I notice in the second and third bullet point, going to your point that it's -- it's not code, that this is a -- a guide, that the softer language, such as the word should, are used in the second and third bullet point, but in the first the word no step up is allowed. I'm wondering if it would be better to soften that language to say where there should be no step up or no step up is recommended or -- instead of black and white to anybody who might read it and feel like it's code , where it's saying no, it says it's not allowed. Hood: Mr. President -- Palmer: Just something to think about and -- Hood: -- Councilman Palmer, I like it and I do think that is consisten t with, again, the intent of -- there aren't -- I didn't do research. I do not believe there are any shalls in the comp plan and that's right to my point. The comp plan is a guide and we -- and this would say you couldn't -- you couldn't apply and in your application don't even ask. So, I do like that. You know, to speak out of the other side of my mouth, I like -- I like where you're going with that, but this one -- to actually have it be black and white, that your -- the way to get there is to do a map amendment. It's not a step. We won't as staff -- there is no discretion in that. It's either -- this is either a -- you can or you can't. Some of other things that we -- and I will get into this a little bit, it's subjective. Some of these other things that we will talk about, do you comply or not, I may think you do, but the next person may think you don't. So, that's a lot of the policies we have in our comp plan are, again, subjective type of policies. But I'm open to what you suggested. Palmer: Mr. President? Bird: Mr. Palmer. Palmer: Mr. President, Caleb, so just sort of being as it is here and someone were to apply for a step up in the north or south rim area, would staff, then, say, no, you're not allowed to do that per the comp plan? Hood: Correct. Palmer: Don't bother. You're not allowed to apply to Council? Hood: Correct. Palmer: So, it's code, but it's not code. Hood: I don't know a better way to phrase it. It's not code, but -- Palmer: Essentially -- maybe clarify it this way. If we put that in there you're assuming that Council is saying don't let anybody bring that to us if they try. Even though it's not code, Council has told us through the comp plan you're not allowed to apply for a step up. Hood: Mr. President. Here is maybe a better way to put that. If someone applied in their application, even though maybe in their narrative they didn't mention it, but let's say they were low and we look at their project and they have four dwelling units per acre and we -- oh, you're essentially requesting a step up. We either condition it that they remove some lots to get below that or -- or not process the application if we found -- you know, we found that discrepancy in time. Largely what we would say -- in their application they said we are requesting to go from, you know, zero to three to five, we would probably push their application back and say we can't process that. If they really pressed it and said process our application, we would, but it probably be a recommendation for denial. Or, again, remove lots. So, yes, it's direction from Council and if you want to word that differently, but I would like -- this is one where less is -- less discretion is more. I don't want to be sometimes we will do a step and sometimes we won't. So, it is more clear. It's clear. Bird: Any other questions? Borton: Mr. President? Bird: Mr. Borton. Borton: There is a path to do what -- what Councilman Palmer is saying. If this change were to go forward the direction would be you remove lots or you add a comp plan amendment -- Hood: Right. Borton: -- to your application. Then rather than staff having the step up in-house discretion to process the application, it's a Council decision; right? Hood: Mr. President. That's a better way to state it. I think -- yes, there is a -- there is still a path forward to process that application. Can we still -- whether you call it a step or comp plan map change, you still have to justify it. There still has to be -- it's a little bit different process when you're proposing a map amendment, there is different findings we have to make. Borton: Right. Hood: But, yes, we can still get the right project -- if it's the right project we could still get them to yes. Nary: Mr. Bird? Mr. Bird? Bird: Mr. Nary. Nary: Mr. Bird, Members of the Council, I could also help provide maybe a little bit of context and why that was originally put into the comp plan back in 2001 and 2002. So, back then the state law did not allow the comp plan to be amended -- the text could be amended, but the map couldn't be amended except twice a year and so at the time the city would bundle all of those comp plan amendments to one -- one particular point in time, process through the Planning and Zoning Commission and, then, bring it to the Council and we felt it was a very cumbersome process to do when it was a change from a low to medium or medium to high and so that was the reason that was put in the comp plan originally was to allow that one step without requiring a comp plan amendment, which could potentially -- in theory we may have already just done a comp plan amendment, which means it would be six months until we could do it again. So, the code was very, very restrictive that way. So, that was the reason that was put in there. The state code is not as restrictive any longer to doing comp plan amendments, both text, as well as map amendments. So, you don't have that restriction that existed 15 years ago and that was the basis for the reason for that was -- that was allowed that way. So, again, I know that's not the focus of what you're talking about tonight, but I thought it would help provide a little context as to why did we -- why did we ever do that and if we want to change it what would that result . Again, we have a lot easier method to changing the comp plan today than we did 15 years ago and so that's really the context of why that code was written and the comp plan was written that way back then. Hood: Mr. President, moving right along then. To the second -- the second bullet real quick -- and, Councilman Palmer actually hit on it already and picked up on it. So, this statement really sets the context for the additional policy statements that you see in the second page of your -- the handout that I gave you and in two more slides. So, the goals and objectives, which I will get to in just a minute. So, this is meant -- this statement is meant to encourage developers to think about the rim as an asset and lay out their project appropriately. We don't have really any way to enforce this, but we will ask the developer to explain how they are complying or meeting the intent of this -- this policy statement. So, again, this is one of those maximized -- should be oriented in the -- okay. There is some subjectivity there. Finally, the third bullet then. Right now, again, all residential uses north of Chinden and within a quarter mile of the rim or the Phyllis Canal, are limited to one half to one acre lots. So, really a maximum of two dwelling units per acre, not -- you know, that excludes the roads and other things. So, really, for half acre lots you aren't getting, you know, two dwelling per acre, you got to cut out roads and if you have other amenities and things. So, it's really not a net to the half acre to one acre lots. Again, low density residential, zero to three dwelling units per acre. So, like bullet one there are real implications to real property. But I will show you the extent of the impacts as it applies to the number of properties this policy would apply to. Again, though, this is a should, not a shall type of statement. Staff evaluates projects for appropriateness on a case-by-case basis. If a lot or three were smaller than half acre were abutting urban lots, we might deem that design appropriate. But this is a good guiding statement for what we generally are expecting. So, again, case by case we want this to guide, be thinking about it, but it's not -- it's not -- it's not code. If you have one lot that's 21,000 square feet, just under a half acre, it doesn't mean we will deny the project necessarily. The zoning code will control. Okay. So, this is the -- the next exhibit. Sorry. This is meant just to show you what the text means or what it applies to and I have got several more -- several handful -- a couple few exhibits that show you more what this means, but I just want to kind of show you the extent. So, again, a quarter mile each side of the top of the rim, north and south. So, if you want to spend more time on that or come back we can. But I have got some more that kind of show it. This is the second page of what I just handed out to you, again, so you can have it for quick reference if you need it. What this is -- is what we typically use in the planning department when we are evaluating applications. What we looked at -- the first three bullets sets the stage for these policy statements. These are the ones we typically -- if you look at ID number those, ones you will see in your staff report. This is usually what we read and recite back to you and say does the development -- does the development comply with this objective or this action item. So, here are the new -- the first one is the objective and the other three, the A, B, C, are the action items that feed the objective. So, I'm not going to sit here to read them to you. They are on your screen. Hopefully you had a chance to read these beforehand. But these are, again, what staff will use -- aside from the guiding documents we just talked about and if someone applied for a step up we say you can't really do that here. But this is what we will cite in most of our staff reports when applicable for projects that are in the north rim, south rim and other notable vistas. We don't have any right now, but we just put that in there for other properties that may have similar -- could be deemed similar assets. These are things to consider. So, again, I don't view any of these as too onerous or -- it's something, again, really, the intent is to get the blood flowing of the property owner developer to say, hey, do we have something here we can maximize as an asset that can make -- that can preserve -- provide that view corridor going forward. So, these policies just boiled down encourage, but don't require preserving view sheds or any development to make use of us views using open space to benefit neighborhoods with views and encourage open vision fencing to limit obscuring views . These are all goals which we are seeking to achieve with lots of options and examples for a variety of development types from estate to high density apartments. Most cases are actually regulated or required in the UDC. Just to be clear there isn't any pending UDC application or effort to update that. So, it's already -- some of these things are already covered there. Unless there is any questions on that -- Cavener: Council Member Borton -- vice-president -- I don't know what we are calling you. Caleb, just a thought that has popped into my head as you presented some of this. At anyplace is it contemplated maybe a reduction in an open space requirement for these types of lots? I just -- it seems to me you have got large lots with lots of space built in, that's why we have open space and requiring a developer to come up with such a large requirement on top of that could be challenging. Just curious if that's been contemplated and your thoughts. Hood: Yeah. It's a good question, Councilman Cavener. And -- yes. So, we -- you may recall it's been maybe eighteen months ago or so we did do a UDC text amendment. I might get this slightly wrong, but I know I'm very, very close. For projects that have the average lot size of 16,000 square feet or more -- so, our current standard is ten percent open space requirements for subdivisions of five acres or more . If you're doing a subdivision that has the average lot size of 16,000 square feet, we drop that half to five percent. So, still some open space, but there is a significant reduction for larger estate lots and open space. Happy to think about that further, but that was predicated on the project of in north my Chinden, kind of -- so, anyways, yeah, that just fairly recently changing in our code. Little Roberts: Mr. President? Bird: Mrs. Little Roberts. Little Roberts: Caleb, do we have any developers that are currently working on anything that they are considering a step up or step down? Hood: Mr. President, Council Member Little Roberts, I'm not sure how to answer that question. Yes, they are in process all the time. I don't recall just off of your agenda tonight if anyone was asking for that, but we get that request quite frequently. As it relates to the north and south rim areas, though, I can't think of anybody that's requesting a step up right now. We have -- and I will get to this in a couple of slides. We have talked to a couple of property owners that have properties within that -- the south rim overlay area, but they aren't asking for a step. They are largely developing consistent with what we are proposing here. And I don't know if now is the right time, but I have a note about this to some degree talking about entitlements. If you have an application submitted right now and in process, these policies aren't retroactive to your application. It's what's on the books at the time of your application acceptance and processing. So, anything that's going through the process or recently improved or entitled, that's your entitlement. We don't say never mind, we changed the rules and now you have a new game to play, you got to develop to this. So, a little more on that later, but -- did I answer your question okay? Little Roberts: Thank you. Hood: Okay. So, here is -- here is the same exhibit that I showed after the first three bullets, but it's got our future land use map underneath it. So, lighter green color is our low density residential. The yellow is medium density residential. Again just largely shows the scope, to clarify, we aren't proposing to add this overlay on to the actual future land use map. This is just an exhibit to show, really, what that looks like. But this wouldn't be something that goes over the top of our future land use map as a base layer, so -- and I mentioned previously, but, really, the impacts in north Meridian are largely between State Highway 16 and a quarter mile west of Black Cat, because everything to the east of that is either Tree Farm, Spurwing, or already developed -- other county subdivisions. So, like we were just talking, this doesn't affect them. But there are a couple of properties in the low density there -- and the medium density wouldn't eligible for the step up -- so, they can ask for high. So, there are some real impacts in that area, but I don't envision somebody wanting to do more than what this would allow. But to be fair, I haven't knocked on those doors of those three or four property owners to say do you have any concerns. So, here it is with an aerial. Kind of describing what I said, but, again, Tree Farm is building out, so you don't see all their phases and the original development agreement and zoning that goes to the west of Black Cat. A lot of that -- Borton: Mr. President? Bird: Mr. Borton. Borton: Caleb, quick question. Looking at this map, what's the topographical reason to cover the area below the Phyllis Canal -- north of it that's literally not on the rim? Hood: So, Mr. President, Commissioner -- or Councilman Borton -- Mr. Nary helped me out on the last one with some of the history on the step and maybe he can -- so, if you reference what I handed out to you there, we are not proposing a new -- we are changing a name, but that's how it -- currently how it reads. Why, I don't really know. This dates back before my time. So, I don't really know why it was -- certainly the top of the rim I understand, but below it -- the river maybe. I really don't know. But this is -- just to be clear, this isn't new policy for them -- for the north rim, Spurwing, north of Chinden area. We are changing the name, but if you look at the text in that third -- oh, sorry, I'm on the wrong -- on that third bullet, it already says north of Chinden and within a quarter mile or less from the rim. So, sorry, I don't have the history on the why. And, then, the next in the series, then, would be the low density underneath the overlay. So, again, this would affect those properties -- instead of that range being from zero to three, they can only develop up to half acre lots in that area where we talked about entitlements. But, again, the underlying zoning controls. So, after we get -- after you get your annexation and zoning in the comp plan -- the comp plan largely goes out of play, it's no longer relevant. You have got your entitlements and the zoning code is what controls how that property develops and the development agreement typically. So, stated a little -- another way, but a little bit differently, the comp plan policies developed after property has developed don't really apply. So, again, that area -- there is three quarters of a mile or so area west of Black Cat, east of Highway 16, that doesn't have any entitlements in the city and below the rim. But the policy is the same, low density. I think I kind of covered this already in those slides. Just a blow up if you want to get into any more details of what that -- what that looks like on any in particular property or -- or areas. So, we will spend a little bit more time as you go through the south Meridian properties. Largely there is no -- no change here to the current practice and policies of the city there. The south rim -- here it is overlayed on a future land use map. Again, this isn't included on the map, but just to show you what that would look like. Here it is with the aerial version and, then, the aerial with the areas that we would say, no, you're not zero to three anymore, you're half -- that's a half acre lot would be your cap? So, I mentioned I had some blow ups in the south Meridian. I -- this isn't in my presentation, this is something I put together today, but I am going to -- I am going to hand it out to you. I don't know how much time I will actually spend on it, but I do want you to have it anyway. So, just one second. And I did take some liberties with this in the legend that you will see -- and I will even just explain so everybody can see on the screen here, the difference between some of the yellow properties that are highlighted here, which -- which, essentially, is meant to represent part -- are properties that aren't subdivided properties in the county -- largely carry high redevelopment potential, but they are -- I won't say they are prime, but they are, you know, fairly ready for -- for development and they would be -- they would be subject to these policies and, again, I could see them -- there being an impact to those properties. Now, that's not to say that the properties on Val Vista and Aspin Cove, Ariel Estates, some of these county subdivisions that are also on the screen wouldn't be impacted, but colored I have colored them on your map kind of a -- more of an orange color with limited redevelopment potential. Do I think that those county one, two and five acre parcels are redeveloping, yes. Do I think they are going to redevelop at medium density, though? No. I think they are in that range of half acre style -- largely because -- for multiple reasons. I have talked to a -- I have heard from a lot of those people, saying either our CC&Rs prohibit this, this is the way we want it to happen, but they see it happening over time that there will be lot splits or maybe even three or four lots out of that, but I don't see this -- you know, at least not in the 20 to 25 year horizon of the comp plan, transitioning to high density -- higher density residential in this area, just because of the nature of this area. It is -- there are several county subdivisions in the area and if any one person or one -- one property owner came in and said, hey, I want to do eight dwellings to the acre. I don't think that would ever fly, with you or the neighbors. So, that's why I -- is it possible, yeah, you could do a comp plan map amendment, though. I don't -- this is a largely developed, but with redevelopment potential in the city. So, again, take what I gave you with a grain of salt. That's just me. But it largely is also meant to show, you know, again other -- other properties that are already entire -- entitled or developed out to show the impacts. So, we have on the yellow are my interpretation of those properties are more impacted , if you will, or these policies apply more directly to them than other parcels. So, going forward that's kind of how you will see the -- the map. So, in this section everything except for the red piece -- and the red piece is highlight red not yellow, because that was part of the south Meridian annexation from a couple years ago. So, they have got zoning, but they don't really have any entitlements to develop. They are required to come back to you with their development plan. So, they have a little bit different story. But everything else on the screen here is either built or entitled or not a low density property. So, the redevelopment potential in this area for low density just doesn't -- it doesn't exist. And, then, this one -- as you move a little bit south and are certainly more and more larger parcels with more, in my opinion, redevelopment potential that would -- that are subject to -- to the changes in the area tonight. Again, the large -- larger properties that haven't been subdivided in the county. So, you can see I'm not going to call them all out there. You can see them -- again, there is a fair number of properties there that would be subject to changes . Also just to point out here, in the middle of the screen where Amity kind of gets bisected there, where a property is partially in and partially out, the future land use map is not parcel specific. That's stated directly -- like the guide, these designations don't follow property lines. They can float. I think you heard that term before. And they -- they aren't meant for one -- this is this property's designation on this one, but it's a general -- generalization of that -- that land use map. So, there wouldn't be a hard line there, you know, all of a sudden half acre lots and, then, you could ask for a step up and do eight dwelling units per acre. We look for that transition. So, I just wanted to call that out. Some properties are more impacted than others. You know, again, this one has a significant portion. Some of them only have a third or less of their land area that actually goes in that quarter mile defined area. So, here is the last aerial that kind of shows it. Again, as you get towards Meridian's portion of this rim, which, essentially, ends at Boise Ranch golf course, there certainly are some opportunities for redevelopment of properties out there where their designation is low density right now that, again, would be impacted by the changes. So, this is the other -- this is the third page, for those of you in the audience, this is the third page -- you have, essentially, seen everything they have seen, except for the 11 by 17, but this is the third page on your thing and it just summarizes for everybody what is proposed tonight. Removing a step for those areas. You can't go from -- you know, a lot of people talk about lower R- 4 or R-2 to apartments without doing that -- that map amendment that we discussed and, again, for areas that follow -- the following three bullets apply, that density range, it's further restricted from zero to 3, one to three, to one to half acre lots. So, that's it in a nutshell and I’m sorry it took a half hour or more to go to that one when I could summarize it in one slide, but I did feel it warranted just some explanation and the summary. So, in closing these changes were a collaboration back and forth with the coalition to plan -- to see you're given nod to this asset is the southern rim, at least that's kind of the vibe I was getting from -- from Council. And, again, staff's understanding that it doesn't accomplish the ultimate goals of the South Meridian Coalition, kind of more to come on that. More changes would be necessary to -- to truly preserve unique development opportunities in the south rim. Again, through o ur new comp plan or other direction you give tonight we would be happy to do that, but that does warrant more substantial stakeholder involvement, public involvement and staff having the resources to dedicate towards that effort. The other option -- I think I alluded to this earlier, but the coalition or anyone else always has the option to submit their own application and run it through the process and staff review it, so we are trying to do something we thought was helpful, you know, on our -- while we are going through the process you got something, okay, piggyback on. Again, in retrospect it doesn't seem like it was that simple. So, sorry, I just saw a typo, but we did have a couple of letters -- one a letter of support from the southern -- South Meridian Rim Coalition for the rim text. We did receive that letter prior to the P&Z meeting. Denise LeFever questioned at that - - at the P&Z meeting, the public outreach, particularly in the north rim area and, then, since the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting we received a letter from the Building Contractors Association of Southwest Idaho. You should have that letter in your packet from last week and, then, just maybe a minute on that before I allow Warren to speak for a second. Just in the letter -- and I hope that came clear in my presentation tonight. We aren't proposing any future land use map changes. It is a text change only. So, I just wanted to clarify that. And we didn't go to the BCA and I have -- I have already kind of fessed up to that, not that -- again, in retrospect we should have, probably, but -- but we haven't historically gone to them for these annual updates. I realize this isn't your typical annual update, there are real new policies in here, but if that's what you direct us to do I'm happy to work with them and explain this to them and we can -- we can play those scenarios out, so -- but I do want to just make it clear we weren't trying to screw with any requirements or do anything, you know, to try to slip anything by anyone, there was certainly nothing intentional -- yeah. So, just with that being said, so -- and, then, finally, in further conversation with Public Works, Warren wanted to just make a couple of comments tonight on -- on potential impacts if this is approved. Bird: Mr. Stewart. Stewart: Council President -- excuse me, Members of the Council, I just wanted to take a moment to talk about this potential -- the impact that this particular change might have and maybe some things that we might feel were -- are appropriate for a Public Works standpoint. So, we just completed a master plan -- a sewer master plan for the City of Meridian that just barely finished a few months ago and the densities that we used to develop that master plan, the size of the lines and everything else, were based on our -- our Comprehensive Plan, our previous -- you know, prior to these kind of changes or these densities. The densities that we utilize have a real impact on the viability of the sewer and water infrastructure in an area. It takes a certain number of connections per mile of pipe in order to pay for that infrastructure's maintenance and operation and ultimate replacement. If we don't have enough connections -- and that's generally speaking around three dwelling units per acre, then, you can end up with a situation where other ratepayers may subsidize these low density lots. We haven't really had a chance to analyze this in detail and determine what the impacts that might have and also maybe provide recommendations for mitigating those impacts to other ratepayers. So, I know that you -- you might be inclined to make a decision tonight, that's certainly your prerogative, but I think from our perspective we would appreciate just a little bit more time to -- to look at the impact that this may have on the Public Works Department and the infrastructure and make sure that we can make adjustments, either to our planning, maybe we don't need line sizes that are as big if the densities go down and so forth, before we -- we still haven't got comfortable with this yet. So, I would just leave that with you. Bird: Any questions for Warren? Any questions for Caleb? Hood: So, Mr. President, that ties right into last slide, which are your options. So, as Warren said, you -- you know, we have laid out the options and there may be sub options within this, but you can approve everything we have submitted, approve just what Brian presented to you tonight, kind of more the administrative changes, and table the rim changes. What the parentheses really means there is some direction from you . If you table it for three months what's the expectation or should we do this as a bigger comp plan update process and we have talked about that before, this being a specific subcommittee type of level thing in that new comp plan, one of the six or seven steering committee type things that look at their -- again, if -- that's if you choose Option B, some -- some suggestions or a date certain of when you expect us to come back with recommendations and kind of what you -- just some general guidance overall. C would be, again, approve proposed changes with any specific revisions. If we want to change a shall to a should or something like that or, again, you can delay or deny all changes. If -- certainly those options. So, we tried to kind of summarize your options at this point. The administrative changes, you know, as Brian presented them to you. We -- we can go on doing our business without those, but certainly it's cleaner and easier if we at least get the administrative changes approved this evening, so we can have the most, you know, accurate plan for the community going forward at least for another year or two, until we can get a new one. So, I'm sorry for the long presentation, but I think -- I wanted to make sure I covered everything. Bird: This is a public hearing. So, Council, what's your -- Cavener: Mr. President? Bird: Yes. Cavener: Questions for Caleb I guess before your -- so, Caleb, is this the first time that the city has proposed I guess not allowing a step change? It just seems a little bit like foreign territory, but I -- I guess I just don't know if I have -- I have missed, if we have done this in another part of town. Hood: No. I mean -- Mr. President and Councilman Cavener, not wholesale or any one specific area where we say, hey, all the rules apply, except for this one to you. I was just going to go back to the way the policy currently reads. So -- yeah. So, we have -- if you look on the first -- your first handout, the first bullet, we -- we -- it doesn't apply to the area bound by Can-Ada, Chinden, McDermott and Ustick Roads. The Fields area. Or within the Ten Mile interchange specific area. So, yes, we do have two other areas where a step -- we don't -- we wouldn't process an application without a comp plan map change. So, not new territory, it's the third territory. Bird: Any other questions? If you not, we will see if anybody from the public wanted to testify. Coles: Mr. President, we did have three sign ups. So, I will begin with Denise Hansen LeFever, who wishes to testify. LeFever: Denise Hansen LeFever at 6706 North Salvia Way. I'd like to address the Council concerning this. I did have a chance to spend time with Brian and I thought Caleb did a really good job on summarizing the north and the south rim. As far as the administrative changes, I'm okay with that. That's not even an issue. You know, that -- that's fine with me. I don't have anything to say about that. But the north and the south rim, I am very concerned about those changes, and I'd like to clarify that I'm not only just concerned about the north rim changes, I'm concerned about the south rim changes and I'd like to explain why. One is I think it's great that the South Meridian Coalition wants to preserve the rim and -- and that's wonderful, but what I'm concerned about is the level of outreach and the ability for the public to comment on these changes . This did have an -- this does have an impact on the ability to develop and the -- and the particular property owners rights and that's what it comes down to is property owners rights and, you know, living in the Spurwing area, this -- the changes here kind of water down what was there already. Before it was really clear that it was a quarter mile. There is nowhere in here that says those lines that are drawn on that map is a quarter mile. You know, it was really clear that we wanted to keep the -- from the east of the -- the compatibility to the east of this -- the Spurwing. That was clearly in there. You know, in here there was no shoulds. It was a half acre to an acre. There is not these shoulds that are in here. Throughout here now there is these shoulds in here. So, you know, I'd like to see either the changes for the north rim -- the language that was there that was developed -- and if it's my understanding -- I may be wrong, but, you know, this is a pretty lengthy process that they go through to develop the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan and this north rim was part of that and that's what the people decided. That's what a lot of people got together and a lot of input decided on that language. So, to go back and have a staff led objective without having the people make those decisions on that change, I'm just not comfortable with. And as far as the south rim goes, although I really do understand them wanting to keep their asset and preserve that, I'm very concerned that the property owners -- and it's right there in the staff area, that they are disallowing a step up, which impacts their ability to develop that land, and - - and those people that you could specifically identify on the map who they were, haven't had a chance to come forward through the process, through neighborhood meanings, postings, coming to testify, they haven't had that opportunity to either be okay with it or objective to it and same what the developers, not all the developers were contacted if they were okay with it or not okay with it. So, what I'm asking at this point is either deny it in total or go back through and set this aside and give it several months to go back through and get that outreach or to go back through and actually do it through the Comprehensive Plan adjustment. Thank you for your time. Bird: Thank you. Any questions? Thank you. Coles: Next on the list is Susan Karnes, who wished to testify. Baumgartner: Cathy Baumgartner. 2310 East Lake Hazel Road, Meridian. I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak today with regard to the Meridian Southern Rim Coalition, on behalf of them we want to express our support for staff's recommendation with respect to the administrative changes to the Comprehensive Plan as they pertain to the south rim that's before you tonight. I want to make one point that I think the Council needs to -- to be clear that this -- the changes to the -- the text changes that are proposed tonight are only applicable to low density, those that -- those areas that are already designated as low density. So, we are not taking away property owner rights, we are simply allowing the -- the property owners along the south rim to have the same type of protections that are in place for the -- for the north rim and it's only applicable to low density. It also does not apply to current applications. So, none of the developers that currently have applications in play will be affected and we believe that , you know, that the breadth of the proposed amendments that we had proposed to staff were substantially more significant than these and we had hoped to be able to -- to integrate those immediately, because of the -- the rapid development that's occurring right now and I understand from -- from the Council that there is an intent to -- to revisit the Comprehensive Plan and the FLUM, but that's, as we say, is a very lengthy process and in the meantime all of the land that is out there is being eaten up without any consideration whatsoever for the asset that that -- that particular southern rim represents for the city and so I think it's critical that -- that we make -- at least make an effort to recognize and acknowledge the fact that the south rim has not had any representation whatsoever with respect to the comp plan in the original -- in the -- when it was originally drafted. So, that's -- that was our effort. I think that staff has done a very good job to -- to be able to put some language in place that falls within the restricted -- within the restrictions and within the purview of -- of what can be changed in an annual review, without a lengthy comp plan change and there are -- you know, public hearing -- I'm sorry. Excuse me. Public notices have been sent out and we -- we believe that there has not been any other comment and BCA had an opportunity to provide comment prior to this and failed to do so, other than to -- to request a delay and we -- we would propose that these make -- the staff's recommend -- recommendation be approved and move forward and we look forward to , as the Southern Rim Coalition, look forward to the opportunity for you -- to come before you again with more substantial proposed amendments throughout the process -- through the appropriate process of a Comprehensive Plan change and the -- and addressing the FLUM issues. So, with that I propose you approve it and -- and if you have any questions I will stand for questions. Bird: Any questions? Palmer: Mr. President? Bird: Mr. Palmer. Palmer: Maybe not a question, maybe a couple corrections. There was a couple points where you used the words no consideration whatsoever has been given with regard to the -- the asset of the southern rim. The last two project that have been proposed and have been before us that your organization has come in protest of were denied. You had mentioned BCA and their not submitting comment. They weren't informed of tonight's issue until just recently. And so that's -- their request for the -- the months of delay I just kind of -- offer those couple of points that this Council has given extensive consideration to the asset of the southern rim in projects that have been brought before us over the last several months. Baumgartner: President Bird -- Bird: Yes. Baumgartner: -- Council Member Palmer, in response to that I -- my -- my intent was to say with respect to the Comprehensive Plan. There was -- there was specific -- the need -- or the -- the north rim was specifically addressed in the Comprehensive Plan and there was nothing in the Comprehensive plan specific to the south rim and that's what I was -- that's what I was referring to. I wasn't referring to any active applications, because that would be inappropriate for us to talk about it at this point. So, I -- and with respect to -- to public notice, you know, I -- I don't know what -- I guess I -- you know, I apologize if I -- if I'm not as well versed on what the public notice requirements are for -- for this annual text amendment change. My assumption is that -- that we have all as citizens and special interest groups have all had the same notice and the same opportunity to review those changes. So, I think it's -- it's equitable. I'm just not exactly sure what the process has been, but my assumption is that it's -- that special interest groups have gotten -- have not received any more notice than the general public. So, I think it's important that -- that staff -- you realize that staff has spent a certain amount of time on this and it is -- it isn't perfect. It doesn't ideal. It doesn't represent the desires or the needs of the citizens in south -- in the south rim, but it's a compromise and -- and I appreciate -- I appreciate staff's efforts on this to -- to come up with something that is a step in the right direction. It certainly does not -- certainly does not address the need and address the concerns that citizens have with respect to, you know, the -- the expectation that when they see a low-density designation on the map that there will be low density development and citizens are rising up and they are concerned, because they feel like they have been, you know, given a bait and switch with this -- this beautiful FLUM that designates low density in their areas and they are drawn to those and then -- then there is -- you know, a developer comes through and immediately requests a step up and the citizens are not -- are not -- are not -- are feeling that their -- their needs are not being addressed and -- and I believe that, you know, the one point in the amendment where it says that the north and south rims are not allowed a step up, I can see how that could be controversial, but at this point all the developer needs to do is simply ask for it and -- and in many, many cases it is approved and this allows for a little bit -- a little bit higher threshold with respect to a step up along the rim , which it represents a different type of a land, a different type of development is appropriate for that land when -- when we are talking about a rim. When we are talking about flat farmland without any views of the Boise foothills and you -- and the Owyhees, okay, a step -- a step up is most likely appropriate, but you have to take into consideration the asset that's before the city and if you don't protect it -- it's going to become just like every other piece of flat farmland with no -- with no differentiation and, therefore, no opportunity for diversity in housing that this particular piece of property allows the city to -- to enjoy and so that's what we are about. We are trying to protect the -- the asset the city has before them to enable the city to provide the kind of -- of diversity in housing that the citizens are clamoring for and we can't find , because there is such a -- a boom in development that developers want to have the opportunity to maximize their density without regard for the long-term impact that that's going to have on this city and the city's strength long term. So, I -- that's -- that's our motivation. That's our desire. And that's why we want to come before you in the full process of reviewing the comp plan and reviewing the FLUM and have these kinds of discussions in much more depth, which is appropriate. But at this point this was an opportunity to at least make one small step toward -- toward putting in place some language that would address the desires of the citizens of south Meridian and that's what we are after. You're giving me an awful long time to respond, so -- I hope that was, you know, appropriate in terms of the response to your question. Bird: Any other questions? Thank you very much. Baumgartner: Okay. Thanks so much. Coles: Finally on the list we have Dave Yorgason, who wishes to testify. Bird: Mr. Yorgason, welcome back. Yorgason: Thank you, Mr. President. Bird: It's been a long time since we have seen you here. Yorgason: Thank you. Good to see you tonight. For the record, my name is Dave Yorgason, the government affairs representative for the Building Contractors Association of Southwestern Idaho and my address is 14254 West Battenberg Drive in Boise and, again, thank you for the opportunity to be here. We did submit a letter for your packet for consideration. A quick summary and, then, I will answer any questions you have. But, first, as I had the opportunity to talk to Caleb yesterday late at the end of the day to have a little further understanding of what is being presented, we do not have any opposition to the administrative changes that are being brought forth to you. Our number one concern -- our primary concern is the addition of a south-north rim planning area to your Comprehensive Plan. The way I learned about it was at a builder developer council meeting not too many days ago -- couple weeks ago maybe, where one of our members brought it to my attention. This was recently gone forward and they said this going to affect them, their business and some application work that they are working on. I don't know if it's been submitted yet or not. I don't believe it is. I don't know that for sure, I just know that, as well as some other members of our association have also -- apparently own land and have expressed concern that it would also affect them in their ability to develop going forward. So, with these couple of members who have brought that concern, which is what precipitated the letter to -- that was brought forth to you. I have worked with numerous cities in the area. I have worked with the City of Meridian quite a bit. You have outstanding staff here and I think you know that. I think it might have just been a mistake and an oversight, maybe a realization that this was a larger policy change than what was maybe anticipated, but when you do add planning areas to your comp plan that is, in our opinion, a little more significant of a change. Having said that, as I try to dive in quickly and look at the policy statements and the goals that were written, based on my experience as a land developer in this valley, both in the Boise foothills, as well as throughout the city of Eagle with lots of large lot developments where large lots, large open spaces, transitional lots are all of concern at nearly every application ever done in the last 20 years I have been developing in Eagle, those are very contentious things and I'm aware of the issues or concerns that are brought forth on both sides, both existing residents, the opposition, as well as an applicant. So, as I read these policy statements I though t, well, I can see actually greater problems being created and maybe not so much solving some of the problems that the neighbors currently show and so our request is to table this portion of your application tonight, so they can be more thoroughly vetted. We are offering our assistance to work with staff to try to vet through those issues. So, that's our request tonight. I could go through more examples if you would like. it's a long night. I will stop there and stand for any questions you have. Bird: Any questions for David? Cavener: Mr. President? Bird: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: Mr. Yorgason, your organization is requesting a three month delay. BCA's is an organization with considerable means and talented individuals. Can you share why a request for 90 days is being requested? Yorgason: Mr. President, Council Member Cavener, we recognize the holidays are not very far away, so I'm not sure how long it would take to pull together some meetings, pull together some resource of not only staff, but the other landowners who may also may be participants. I think a proper vetting of just -- not just one shot out at it, but make sure there is a significant -- or a reasonable outreach to those landowners who are affected. So, having said that, primarily due to the holidays, make sure there is enough time and, then, renotice. I'm just taking a shot at it. I don't know if we will need that much time, frankly, but due to the holidays I think it would be appropriate to make sure it goes into next year. Bird: Any other questions? Thank you. Yorgason: Mr. President, if I could just add, it's not an intent to stall and delay. It really is intent to work through and work through some concerns. Thank you. Bird: David, thank you. Yorgason: Thank you. Bird: Is there anybody else? Anybody in the public like to testify? Mr. Turnbull. Turnbull: Mr. President, Members of the Council -- name and address or is that required? Okay. David Turnbull. 12601 West Explorer Drive in Boise. I came here for a little project about three hours ago, but, then, was apprised of this item on the agenda by David out in the hallway, so I thought it might not be a bad idea to -- to stay and listen to the presentation. It might come as a surprise to you that I may have property that affected by both of these rim designations. So, I do have some concerns and I do share the view that this needs to be at least deferred for some further vetting by the stakeholders involved. I do have -- and I don't need to go through all of these. I kind of agree with Warren, I don't know that a one acre designation -- half to one acre designation is really in the best interest of the city anywhere . Cities are built for, you know, providing urban services, so I think that's one of the things that -- the whole clause about the view sheds and planning to -- to retain view sheds to me seem very problematic. I don't even know what that means, to tell you the truth, and I think it's -- it's language that may just set up -- you know, be a recipe for argument and I'm not sure that I have ever experienced a city trying to put in a policy in place that gives a prescriptive easement or a prescriptive right for the benefit of one property owner over somebody else's property. So, I think that's problematic from our point of view. So, I don't want to go on and belabor that any further. I would just concur with Mr. Yorgason that I think this is at least prime for a deferral for three months and perhaps ought to be incorporated into a larger comp plan amendment that I understand is some -- somewhere in the works. So, I appreciate that. I will stand for any questions. Bird: Any questions for Mr. Turnbull? Thanks, David. Anybody else from the public like to testify? This is a public hearing. Hood: Mr. President, if I can, just to address some of the concerns that were brought up and certainly not all of them, but in particular the noticing. That was done for this project. It was done in accord with both city code and state code for applications of this type. When notice is required it's 200 or more property owners -- and, again, we are talking text that applies citywide. We don't send letters or postcards to 30,000 residents telling them this. However, that being said, we did do public service announcements and we did put it in the local newspaper, as well as C.Jay mentioned I think 19,000 people that are subscribed on Nextdoor. So, there was outreach done. Now, was it done to special interest groups and that -- no, we have already talked about that. But we did the notice that's required for an application of this type. Just another point of clarification and - and I will leave it at that. But I did talk to Jon Wardle about these as well, because I knew that Brighton had some properties -- particularly in the north and the south. We worked with them on that. So, I did discuss that with Mr. Wardle two or three weeks ago. So, just -- not saying that that doesn't mean we shouldn't continue this out, I just wanted to let you know that I did talk to Brighton Corporation about it. Not Mr. Turnbull in particular, but did do some reaching out and to that point, the Southern Rim Coalition brought up, we did provide them a little more notice, because they were part of this. So, we did tell, them, hey, we submitted the application, the P&Z hearing was this date, but did we go any farther than that -- well, might have to ask Brian, because I know he has been in contact. But, no, we didn't do really anything more than that, so -- again, just some clarification on what we did or didn't do in the -- in the last three or four months, so -- Bird: Any questions for staff or anybody? Little Roberts: Mr. President? Bird: Mrs. Little -- Little Roberts: Warren, what type of time period would you feel would be helpful to vet out regarding cost and estimates and things like that? Stewart: So, a number of years ago when we did the south Meridian plan for this area out here and we were talking about densities as we approached the city of Kuna and there was some designations out there for estate-type densities, we had -- we had a consultant look at -- for us the breakdown of costs for operation, maintenance, the ongoing replacement and so forth, that it would -- and we determined at that time that it was approximately three dwelling units per acre to break even. I think, you know, basically for people to support the infrastructure that it would take to serve that area at those kind of densities. We would have to go back and take another look at that. I -- I don't know exactly how long that would take. We would look at that and also look at the master plan, what the impacts are on the master plan, see if there is going to be any impacts on -- on sizes, capacity, things like that on the master plan. So, I'm thinking that by the time we work through all those issues and -- and also if we are to serve densities that are less than the three dwelling units per acre, say half or one acre lots, with city infrastructure, how do we mitigate for the fact that they really don't pay for the infrastructure that it takes to support them, unless we have some way of sharing that cost. The one thing that comes to mind -- and I'm not suggesting this is the most viable or the only one, but a tiered rate structure, something like that. But I don't know what those issues and solutions are without really looking into it. So, I think the, you know, three month time frame is not unrealistic, but -- Little Roberts: Thank you. Bird: Any other questions or statements? Borton: Mr. President? Bird: Mr. Borton. Borton: Just some statements. I think one of the many benefits of the Comprehensive Plan, map and text, is the -- the vetting and input that goes into making it and updating it. I think it's critical. I think what the Southern Rim Coalition has provided is invaluable as part of that puzzle and not only the homeowners want to be able to rely upon it and, you know, current and future ones be able to rely upon it, but our development community needs to know that as well, that it's a consistent message of what's expected, for better or for worse. So, they can, then, make their decision, then, everyone goes into these things with their eyes wide open. But it takes everybody providing input. I think that's critical and it doesn't -- for me it doesn't really matter who or why notice didn't -- or was or wasn't responded to as quick as it could have been or should have been, you know, we are all here now and we have got an opportunity to -- to continue this process. Input from the Coalition is -- I think is very valuable. I do want to hear what are our city staff is talking about, some service concerns that may or may not exist, but needs to be vetted. It seems wholly appropriate to get that information. It may or may not change any of these recommendations. Same with input from the BCA. Absolutely appropriate. It may or may not change any of the recommendations. But the value of this plan is when the input is gathered from all of these different components and it's all balanced against each other, then, we make a decision and everyone's participated and we can feel comfortable sticking to the plan. I know it's not necessarily binding, but I like the Comprehensive Plan, though not technically code, to really give a clear direction for the benefit of -- of our citizens and our builders and developers to know what's expected and if it -- and if it's the intent to make a change like this, then, let's let everybody know. But the first part is to get all the input from -- from all stakeholders and -- and I think it is -- I don't know how you do it before 90 days. I'd love to get an update on how that outreach and analysis is going in 60 days, 45 days, some sort of update. I don't anticipate you would have it finished, but you're probably well into mid to late January with the holidays, if not February 1, to really bring back the northern and southern rim proposals as they may be -- may be amended from that process. The administrative changes seem to make sense and are somewhat carved out in this presentation and -- and everyone has reviewed and seems to feel comfortable with those and we can act on those going forward. But to Caleb's presentation and kind of options of next steps, which are I think very helpful, it makes sense that as much value as we see from the input from the Southern Rim Coalition and -- and whoever else has had ample opportunity to participate, that our city staff and the BCA and -- and those developers and landowners we know for sure own property in these two areas, get some specific outreach and input. It may or may not change the recommendations come February 1, but with everyone having participation feel a lot more comfortable with it. Bird: Mr. Palmer. Palmer: Mr. President. A few comments and, then, I will make a motion. In addition to all the -- the reasons for several a month delay, I would add that here next month we have the potential for the replacement of a third of our -- our existing City Council and this is a large enough change that we are all going to be affected by that the next few years, that having the potential new councilmen's input into what's going to affect them doing their job I think would be valuable, in addition to the possibility, hopefully, of having a new director of Community Development, providing us additional opportunities for expertise. I think it makes sense for us to approve the changes that nobody is objecting to and table or continue the discussion on February 6th for the -- the rim issues. So, with that I would move -- I move that we approve -- Bird: We got to close the -- Palmer: Oh. Bird: We got to close the public hearing. Borton: Move we close the public hearing. Bird: Or you can continue it -- you can continue the public hearing to February 6th completely. Unless you want to specifically approve that one section and I -- I think if we are going to vet everything, I think we need to vet the whole application myself. Thank God I will be gone a month before February 6th. Cavener: Mr. President? Bird: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: I would agree with you. I would be favorable toward leaving the public hearing open for the entire piece, asking for feedback from stakeholders on the entire I guess application text amendment. I tend to agree with Council Member Palmer and Council Member Borton, on the necessity to continue this a little further. I guess I would also ask that perhaps maybe that last meeting of the year we be provided with a status update as to the progress that's being made. I know oftentimes, especially in the holidays, it's easy for this to be pushed back and can kicked down the road and at least a status update will ensure that we will be able to respond timely with a new Council, but I would also hope that new Council elect would be attending those meetings as well, so they could have a good understanding of that point as well. Palmer: Mr. President? Bird: Mr. Palmer. Palmer: Mr. President, I have no objection to that. I move we continue the public hearing on H-2017-0113 to February 6th. Bird: 2018. Palmer: 2018. Cavener: I will second with a question. Bird: Okay. Got a motion and a second to continue to February 6th, 2018, and is there any discussion? Cavener: Mr. President? Bird: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: Did the maker of the motion also contemplate the status update at the also meeting of the year? Palmer: I don't know if -- Cavener: Or the workshop. Either or. The December workshop is fine. Palmer: Yeah. I don't know if we can do it through a motion that the Mayor sticks that on the agenda, but I would hope that certainly that would happen. Bird: We see that that happens. Any other -- okay. Any other discussion? If not, Mr. Clerk. Roll call: Bird, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener, yea; Palmer, yea; Little Roberts, yea. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Hood: Mr. President? Just to continue on that, particularly to get even into the update at the end of the year, but even when we get to February I still don't know what the expectations are. How do I notice -- you said everybody affected there. Are we sending letters -- again, the notice is done. What -- what's the expectation from Council in the coming months? Am I to write letters to everybody noticing them all of this, inviting them to City Hall two, three, four times, like in the 2012 process where we had multiple open houses? Do we -- do we propose what we originally proposed as a starting point? Do we start from scratch? What -- I'm not quite sure what we are doing here. So, some direction certainly helps going forward. I got February, but I don't know what I'm doing in between necessarily, besides more outreach. Palmer: Mr. President? Bird: Mr. Palmer. Palmer: Mr. President, Caleb, my thought would be to work with those that are interested today to identify people that they -- people in organizations that they believe would be affected and interested in participating in the conversations in the meantime, so that when it comes back on February 6th we will have made sure that -- that anyone any of us can think would have a serious enough interest in it to -- to provide comment to either come or provide comment beforehand and, then, that -- that way it will be -- I feel like we will be a lot better position to actually make a decision. Cavener: Mr. President? I perhaps take it one step further. I would be supportive of a letter going out to any of the property owners that are affected in that area. Hood: So, again, just further clarification on that then. Is that everybody that's within the quarter mile area on north and south rims? I mean that's thousands of letters. And don't get me wrong, I don't mind doing that if that's what you want to do. It's going to create confusion I think or is it -- properties are low density within those areas or -- where is that line drawn? I just -- I just need to know what -- Cavener: Mr. President. I think for clarification the low density for me is where I would be supportive of. Again, I don't want to speak for the Council, but that would be the direction I would provide. Bird: Any other -- Little Roberts: Mr. President? Bird: Mrs. Little Roberts. Little Roberts: I agree. I think that would make the most sense, Caleb. Hood: And, then, again, just so I can kind of -- I will send a letter to everybody with help -- to help identify other interested parties that may be there. I will hold something here at City Hall. Am I, essentially, presenting what was presented to you in getting that feedback or are we starting from square one or what -- is there some generally direction on, yeah, the rim is something or do we start from should the rim be something? Borton: Mr. President? Bird: Mr. Borton. Borton: For a suggestion. I think it's fair to present the -- that a lot of work has been done to try and address some assets in the community that -- that are the front of our attention. No decisions have been made. This is language that tries to capture some of those desires to address those particular assets. But before this comes back to Council we want to get your input and thoughts or if you have got questions or concerns about the general intent of what the city is trying to -- trying to address and at the December workshop, if that large meeting doesn't -- hasn't occurred, at the very least hopefully Warren's had a chance to at least do some preliminary analysis on his concerns from a Public Works perspective and the BCA has had an opportunity -- or you have met with them and perhaps Dave's had some outreach to -- to the organization prior to December 8th and -- and the Rim Coalition is kept within the loop as well and is an active participant. Is that helpful? Hood: Yeah. Again, any -- I just don't want to come back in February and, no, you missed the mark. I need to know what -- what's expected here for December and February and if it's -- you want me to have three in-person meetings with people that are low density and anyone else identified, I will do it. Yeah. I -- then we don't have to design the whole program, you know what I'm saying? But just -- already this helps, so -- Bird: Caleb, I think -- I think that between the Building Contractors, the South Rim, and the north rim, it's up to them now to make sure that they get informed and stuff and I'm sure they will. The developers that's gotten ground out there, I'm sure they are going to be -- want to be informed and the residents will get their information through the -- the South Rim deal, which they -- which is a very -- those people -- basically two ladies have done a heck of a job getting that out there and getting that taken care of. So, we will see, C.Jay, that we get it on the workshop for an update for February and we invite everybody back. Bird: And with that we will move on to future meeting topics. Anybody got anything? Other than December workshop? Borton: Mr. President? Bird: Mr. Borton. Borton: Mr. President, if the December 8th workshop will be the one where we get an update on at least the first level of progress with -- with Public Works and the BCA, it might be a time to give us an update on the calendar of the -- of the broad brush comp plan amendment schedule, 18 month or -- kind of do both of those at the same time. Bird: Any other -- if not, Council, I would entertain a motion to adjourn. Nary: Mr. Bird? One last thing if you don't mind. You folks were handed a book by Commissioner Jones from the HPC. This is a combined walking tour book now. If -- if you recall in the past there were two, one for the north, one for the south. So, between the work of the Commission and Hillary and the clerk's office, they have been able to combine into one and President Johnson forgot to mention that when he handed those out tonight, that now we have it all in one -- one resource for the kids and for the public to use and are available through the clerk's office and out there on the sign there is actually a box that they try to keep stocked. So, anyway, I just wanted to let you know why they handed it out to you. Bird: Thank you. Okay. Anybody want to adjourn or -- we are going to go on the couch and go to sleep. Little Roberts: I move we adjourn. Borton: Second. Bird: Have a motion to adjourn and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Bird: See you guys. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:34pm (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) MAYbR TA DE WEERD DATE APPROVED ATTEST: — -PGo�QD�kp.TEDAIjo i C. JAY OLE CITY CU -R9 C;wur w 2 IDA" SEAL