HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-12-17 Regular MinutesMeridian City Council December 17, 2019.
A Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:05 p.m., Tuesday,
December 17, 2019, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd.
Members Present: Tammy de Weerd, Joe Borton, Luke Cavener, Genesis Milam, Ty
Palmer, Anne Little Roberts and Treg Bernt.
Also Present: Chris Johnson, Bill Nary, Caleb Hood, Brian McClure, Clint Dolsby, Jeff
Lavey, Joe Bongiorno and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll-call Attendance:
X__ Anne Little Roberts X_ _ Joe Borton
X__ Ty Palmer X__ Treg Bernt
_ X___Genesis Milam _X___Lucas Cavener
__X__ Mayor Tammy de Weerd
De Weerd: Well, I would like to thank you all for joining us this evening. There is going
to be a little background noise going on, because we had a fire alarm today and it kind of
shut off all our central air and heating, so they brought in fans to kind of cool down the
temperature. But thank you for bearing with us and, again, thank you for joining us this
evening. For the record it is Tuesday, December 17th. It's five minutes after 6:00. We
will start with roll call attendance, Mr. Clerk.
Item 2:. Pledge of Allegiance
De Weerd: Thank you. And feel free to get up and grab a piece of cake if you guys get
hungry. We would love to see the cake disappear. Item No. 2 is the Pledge of Allegiance.
If you will all rise and join us in the pledge to our flag.
(Pledge of Allegiance recited.)
Item 3: Community Invocation by Larry Woodard of Ten Mile Christian Church
De Weerd: So, Item 3 is our community invocation. Larry Woodard is with Ten Mile
Christian Church and Larry has been leading us in the invocation for the last 16 years.
Woodard: Yeah.
De Weerd: Larry, we sure appreciate you being here and joining us for many of our last
invocations and I would invite all of those in our Council Chambers to join us in the
community invocation or take this as an opportunity for a moment of reflection. Larry,
thank you.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 7, 2020 – Page 80 of 552
Meridian City Council Work Session
December 17, 2019
Page 2 of 50
Woodard: Thank you. Our Dear Heavenly Father, we come to you tonight and thank you
for this Mayor, Tammy, and the Council that has worked so hard over the past year to
make Meridian such a great place to live and work. Keep them healthy and rested as
they conclude another successful year. We always pray for our police, firemen, and
ambulance drivers. Keep them safe and protected as they assist our growing city. When
the sirens wail in Meridian we know that someone is running out to protect us and we
thank you for their dedication. This next year will be a time of change as we witness new
apartments, home, schools, et cetera, being built. This community was chartered back
in the early 1900s and was comprised of primarily apple growers. Fruit was shipped all
over the nation. Now the people are coming here in their thousands and may they find
the same peace and enjoyment that marks Meridian as a top place to retire. I worry about
the crowding of our schools and pray that steps are being taken to house a growing
number of students. Lastly, a personal note for Tammy and those going off the Council,
may they retire comfortably, get to enjoy their families and may they know we appreciate
all they have done for this community, in Christ's name, amen.
Item 4: Adoption of Agenda
De Weerd: Thank you, Larry. Item 4 is adoption of the agenda.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: There were no changes to the agenda. Item 7-A is going to be continued when
we get to it. There are no changes, so I move we adopt the agenda as published.
Milam: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve the agenda as noted. All
those in favor say aye. All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 5: Announcements
De Weerd: Item 5, announcements. We don't have any official announcements, other
than to wish everyone a Merry Christmas and certainly a safe and healthy 2020. Thank
you for joining us. Earlier in our work session we had the opportunity to recognize two of
the three City Council Members that are stepping out of office. Genesis Milam and Anne
Little Roberts. Certainly noted Ms. Milam for her authenticity, for the dedication and focus
that she has brought into her office and in terms of her financial scrutiny and as well as
her -- her focus on the family. Certainly her legacy will be a number of our new
subdivisions with tot lots and that are family focused and Mrs. Little Roberts for her
genuine community service and -- and certainly her champion and -- her champion heart
for our city employees and always being someone that graciously compliments and -- and
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 7, 2020 – Page 81 of 552
Meridian City Council Work Session
December 17, 2019
Page 3 of 50
makes people feel welcome in this Council Chambers. Who wasn't here was Councilman
Ty Palmer and so in my bah humbug hat, because he was gone, I do have a plaque. I
do want to thank Ty. He has stayed focused on the principles on which he ran for office
and being a representative for our taxpayers and -- and really focused on -- on things that
are meaningful to him, focus on the family and with this I would like to present this plaque.
It says presented in appreciation for your contribution and service to the City of Meridian
from January 2016 to December 2019 and thank you for your service, Ty. And certainly
we -- we try to make these not -- oh. And so I'm going to embarrass my daughter and I'm
not going to cry. But my daughter just flew in from the Netherlands and she's here for
Christmas and -- hi, Janelle. Okay. Everyone, that's what it's all about. It's about family.
And my husband is also in the back of the room and that's why I'm stepping out of office
and -- and I know that that's why Ms. Milam is -- focused on the family. I know Mr. Palmer
is doing the same. He's got a lot of little ones in his house that demand his attention. So,
it's -- it's lovely to see people who put the priorities in the right spot and, Mrs. Little Roberts,
we have already challenged her to continue her service to this community and -- and,
who knows, we will all be sitting at that front desk ready to greet you as you come into
City Hall. Right? Right, Ty? Council, any comments?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: Just briefly. Ty, just -- I appreciate serving with you. You are -- you say what you
mean, you mean what you say. You're a man of conviction. We have had great -- some
debates and arguments and I admire someone who sticks to what they believe to be core
principles and I know our community recognizes that, too. So, it's been great serving with
you when you serve in that manner. Appreciate it.
Bernt: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bernt.
Bernt: Echo the comments of Mr. Borton and I also -- if there is one thing I have learned
from Mr. Palmer in the last couple of years serving on Council is that of consistency. If
there is one member of our Council that you always know how he is going to vote or what
he is going to say, it's Ty Palmer and I respect that, because as our customers, those that
care about city business, that's what you expect, that you expect consistency and
ultimately that's what I appreciate about you most, Ty. Thank you so much.
Milam: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Milam.
Milam: Ty, it's been fun. I know we don't always agree -- well, most of the time we don't
agree. It's been really -- it's been a pleasure working with you and -- and having those
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 7, 2020 – Page 82 of 552
Meridian City Council Work Session
December 17, 2019
Page 4 of 50
discussions and -- and you have changed my mind a time or two. So, thank you for your
service and take care of your wonderful family.
De Weerd: Mrs. Little Roberts.
Little Roberts: Madam Mayor. It has been great to serve with you. We have had some
very very interesting discussions. Sometimes we have been on opposite sides,
sometimes we have been on the same side, but it always is good dialogue to get to the
end result and I really appreciate it, because I think out of all of us we are all busy, but I
think you have had the biggest sacrifice with the smallest children at home and so thank
you for still giving your time and attention to this city that we all know you love so much.
Bernt: That's true. Thank you for saying that.
De Weerd: Okay. So, we are not going to get him to cry, so I guess we will move on. I
guess I would note -- we don't all agree up here and that's what makes this a solid Council,
is it's important to bring different perspectives to the dialogue and it certainly is sometimes
gotten to have a real robust conversation and that's how public policy is formed, trying to
look at it from as many different angles as possible. So, this -- this Council will be missed
and -- and we certainly give congratulations to the Council elect and the Mayor elect to
continue that tradition of dialogue and you won't always agree and that's good, but you
need to present the different opinions from the dais and -- and that way you have a more
informed decision.
Item 6: Future Meeting Topics - Public Forum (Up to 30 Minutes Maximum )
De Weerd: Okay. Item 6 under future meeting topics. I waited until our clerk was in the
back of the room to get to this item.
Johnson: Madam Mayor, there are two sign-ins. First is Susan Karnes.
De Weerd: Okay. Good evening, Susan.
Karnes: Good evening.
De Weerd: If you will, please, state your name and address for the record.
Karnes: My name is Susan Karnes. I live at 5556 South Graphite Way and I don't know
if this is a future meeting topic or maybe there is a lack of clarity, but on November 26
when I would dearly would have liked to have been here for City Council meeting, I was
at a veterinarian hospital. My dog was undergoing emergency surgery. She had been
attacked by another dog that somehow got away from whoever was walking in her. She
was on a leash. Crossed a road, attacked my dog, pinned her to the ground, grabbed
her by the throat, thrashed her around, missed her juggler vein by a fraction of an inch
and I was told that it would have killed any smaller dog. I have a 95 pound German
Shepherd that was attacked by a dog of more than a hundred pounds. I called the vet
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 7, 2020 – Page 83 of 552
Meridian City Council Work Session
December 17, 2019
Page 5 of 50
afterwards to ask if they are required to report it to animal control. He said no. The owner
claimed the dog had never been aggressive before. Thank you for increasing fees on the
leash by the way. Called animal control and animal control said, well, if I wanted to they
would let the City of Meridian police know and, then, I called the Police Department today
and found out there is a vicious dog ordinance, which I wasn't aware of. So, where I lived
before it has always been required that attacks like this be reported. I'm not sure if it's
required or discretionary. I am doubly concerned because the concerned owner met us
at the hospital on -- and proceeded to tell us how her dog is growling, bearing teeth,
raising the fur on its back every time children go by on scooters and there was a four foot
fence around her backyard. I'm concerned this dog may be a threat. So, I'm just asking
for some clarity or maybe some more teeth in the ordinance. I don't know. But I wanted
to share our experience with you and leave it at that. I know you can't really comment
too much, but --
De Weerd: Thank you, Susan. I will ask the chief to step out into the lobby with you
and --
Karnes: Okay.
De Weerd: -- and kind of share with you perhaps what we do have on the books and
maybe have -- have some dialogue.
Karnes: Okay. Thank you so much. Merry Christmas.
De Weerd: Thank you. Thank you, chief.
Johnson: Madam Mayor, I want to correct myself. There are additional sign-ins. One,
though, referenced a project that's being heard tonight, but the one did not. It's Denise
LaFever.
De Weerd: Good evening, Denise. If you will, please, state your name and address for
the record.
LaFever: My name is Denise LaFever and I'm at 6706 North Salvia Way and I want to
talk to you about a way forward. It's really exciting to see the existing City Council and
Mayor and three -- at least three of the upcoming City Council members in the audience.
What I want to talk to you tonight about is -- Luke's not here, but he came up with a really
good idea and I just want to expand upon his idea that he came up with and that's the
UDC review committee in which Logan Simpson would be at the -- at the head of that and
that's easy, because, hopefully, you can just do that with a contract amendment and,
hopefully, you can get some ideas from the Urban Land Institute and some other areas.
But I would like to expand upon that and go back and talk about setting up three separate
groups. A development community group, which would have your developers, your land
-- your land usage engineers, your real estate agents, all of the people that have to do
with development. The government and quasi-government group. And a residence
group, which would not include any of the other two groups. Out of those groups and the
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 7, 2020 – Page 84 of 552
Meridian City Council Work Session
December 17, 2019
Page 6 of 50
development group I would like to pick -- you know, have it pick from the steering
committee would be a recommendation and you would use David Turnbull or a designee
as the person in charge of that group. Robert Simison or a designee in charge of that
group. And Susan Karnes or a designee in charge of the residence group. The city would
go back through and do a recruitment for the residents to attract residents to that
committee. It would be a brainstorming -- those three would get together and brainstorm
about subjects that are very endearing and coming up forward with a comp plan, things
like open space, buffers, transitions, the specific area plans and take on those subjects
to begin with -- probably the first two to begin with open space and buffers and transitions,
and out of those groups you would have that brainstorming and Logan Simpson could go
back and do that via web, you know, so he doesn't have to necessarily fly here, come up
with some really great brainstorming ideas, bubble that group down to a group of three.
On that one would be David Turnbull and his designee and two of the selections out of
that group. Out of the government or quasi-group would be Robert Simison, Brian and
Caleb and, then, over out of the residence group would be Susan Karnes or the designee
and two others of her picks on that group and that would be the nine panel that would get
together and take on these subjects and -- in which Bruce with Logan Simpson would
come back and work with that nine person panel. I think that would give some really good
breadth of a balance, so you can get a really good balance between the government, the
development community and the residents and come up with some new exciting ideas
and have some really thoughtful planning and that. Just an idea I would like to throw out
there. I would be happy to work with somebody to come up -- to map out some of the
ideas, but you could go back through and you share a point and share the documents
with everybody and I think it would be a really fun way -- or a good way -- a good way to
include balance to make sure that you get some really good solid community input,
so --
De Weerd: Thank you, Ms. LaFever. And certainly after Mr. Simison is sworn in he will
work with staff and see what the best path forward is and -- and certainly will share your
remarks and -- and see how he wants to move forward.
LaFever: Great.
De Weerd: But thank you --
LaFever: Thank you for taking the time to listen.
De Weerd: Appreciate you thinking that through.
LaFever: I would just love to think it was something that might be a win-win in how we
wrap it all together. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Johnson: Madam Mayor, Council Member Cavener is joining us by phone. If it's okay I
have to pause to call him.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 7, 2020 – Page 85 of 552
Meridian City Council Work Session
December 17, 2019
Page 7 of 50
Cavener: Hello.
De Weerd: Thank you for joining us, Mr. Cavener.
Cavener: Thank you. I will be on mute.
Item 7: Action Items
A. Final Plat for Rapid Creek Subdivision No. 2 (H-2019-0116) by
Trilogy Idaho, Located at 4435 N. Black Cat Rd .
De Weerd: Okay. Item 7 under Action Items, 7-A is a final plat for H-2019-0116. This
item, as staff has noted, needs to be continued and I think I will turn this over to staff
comments on the request for continuation.
Hood: So, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, there was some information that staff
requested of the applicant and that information did not arrive on time, so we need to
continue this out until the next available meeting.
De Weerd: So, you have not had a chance to review the information and --
Hood: As of around 8:30 this morning we hadn't received the information to even review
it yet. So, I know Sonya was talking, trying to get ahold of the applicant and get that
required information, but as of earlier this morning had yet not received that.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Council?
Bernt: Continue it to when?
De Weerd: Did they state when they wanted -- or what is your recommendation on a date
to continue to?
Hood: Madam Mayor, on January 6th or 7th, I can't remember which one is the first
Tuesday. If --
De Weerd: The 7th.
Hood: -- I don't know what that agenda looks like, so looking at the clerk, but the next
available agenda would probably be preferred.
De Weerd: Okay.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 7, 2020 – Page 86 of 552
Meridian City Council Work Session
December 17, 2019
Page 8 of 50
Borton: I move -- I move we move Item 7-A to January 7th, 2020.
Milam: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to continue this item to January 7th, 2020. All
those in favor say aye. All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
B. Public Hearing Continued from November 26, 2019 for New
Comprehensive Plan (H-2019-0101 CPAT & CPAM) by Meridian
Planning Department
1. Request: To replace the existing Comprehensive Plan (the
Plan) for the City with a new long-range planning document.
The application includes but is not limited to the following: 1)
approval of new text, both background and policies; 2)
adoption of a new Future Land Use Map of the City, including
Area of City Impact boundary changes; and 3) accepting new
goals, objectives and action items of the Plan, by Meridian
Planning Department.
De Weerd: Item 7-B is a public hearing continued from November 26th on H-2019-0101.
This is on our Comprehensive Plan. This public hearing was continued on specific items
that staff will -- will note in their comments. So, I will turn this over to Caleb.
Hood: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Madam Mayor has just
mentioned this -- this project, the new Comprehensive Plan has been on your agenda
twice previous. Most recently on November 26th. That meeting was not a public hearing,
it was more public discussion about what we had heard at the first public hearing that was
on November 19th. Staff has summarized the changes from that initial draft that went
through the Planning and Zoning Commission and the steering committee before them.
What you see on the screen were the topics of discussion and changes made since the
-- the meeting on the 19th and, again, discussed on the 26th. It is interesting to note that
everything that is sort of outstanding, if you will -- again, you have before you the entire
Comprehensive Plan, but these are the items that -- that remain outstanding or require a
little extra touch this evening from you all. But they all -- they all are in the evolving
community chapter in Chapter 3 of the Comprehensive Plan, including the map changes.
So, it's all about land use; right. That's a big topic and a big thing for our community going
forward. So, the motion made on the 26th was to limit tonight's testimony to these things
that you see on the screen here and both at the 4:30 meeting, too. So, we had a handful
of folks that signed up at the 4:30 meeting and, then, tonight. And just, again, a quick
note of regarding process. We have met all of the requirements of both state statute and
city processes and codes for development and adoption of a Comprehensive Plan. So,
here are the text changes that -- this is really the first opportunity -- or over the past week
or so is the first opportunity for the community to digest these potential changes and
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 7, 2020 – Page 87 of 552
Meridian City Council Work Session
December 17, 2019
Page 9 of 50
comment on -- on them before you this evening. So, what you see on the first one there
in underline is new text and the strike through as well. That was at your discretion from
last -- the last meeting to remove sample zoning from the residential definitions. The
underlying text is something that at this point I don't really remember, but Brian and I kind
of co-wrote -- co-drafted both the things you see on the screen, actually, based on, again,
some of that feedback we were hearing both from you, but also the public during those
-- that first meeting in particular, but further direction on the 19th. Just a reminder that
both the policy that you see at the bottom of the screen and the -- and the definition are
both within the Comprehensive Plan, which is, again, a guide, it's not our code and, then,
policies and it's not shalls, it's shoulds and when appropriate we apply them. It does
direct growth and development, but doesn't -- again, doesn't dictate standards. It isn't a
one size fits all document. So, you take a lot of things into consideration and in the context
when looking at proposed change of our community. So, again, we drafted these in
response to largely the public testimony. We thought that what we had there and
underlined helped in the -- the low density residential definition didn't seem to go far
enough, at least that's kind of the vibe we were getting, if you will, from Council, that you
wanted a little bit more, that that wasn't quite enough and so we drafted the policy again
that you see on the bottom of the screen. But as I mentioned in the 4:30 vision -- or
version of this presentation, it's a guide and some of the things are subjective in the -- in
the proposed policy. For example, five acres doesn't mean 5.00 acres is the only time we
apply that; right? It can be applicable. If it's a four acre parcel we are going to still want
to see a transition. In fact, we had testimony earlier that talked about that very thing. You
know, sometimes we will -- a seven acre lot, we look at the redevelopment potential and
the appropriateness of applying this policy. But it is a guide and we do have to look at it
and touch it and go is it appropriate, then, to apply this standard, requiring a one acre
minimum lot next to this five acre rural estate property and, again, what does rural estate
mean. I think for me I know what that generally means. I think Stetson Estates and
Rustler are great examples of what that means. There are other five acre parcels, though,
where you look at it and you go this -- there is real redevelopment potential here and to
require this one acre lot, when that property owner may not want to be buffered with one
acre lots, because they are next to develop, may not be appropriate. Linear open space.
You have got some other testimony in the record about that's not defined. So, if -- you
know, five foot, can you get away with five feet or is it 50 foot. Case by case basis. As is
the case for a lot of the policies and the plan, it isn't a one size fits all. You got to take it
with the other policies together in the context of what's being proposed and the adjacent
land uses and designations and determine as staff, as elected officials, as the community,
is it appropriate or not. It's a touch point and you are here to make those decisions.
Sometimes a one acre lot may not be enough. I mean there is -- there is -- you know, we
try to make it as black and white as possible, but it's not -- the comp plan cannot be in all
cases apply this every single time. And, honestly, that's why you are elected is to figure
out what is in the best interest of the community. This is a guide to help you with that,
but it's not going to -- you don't just get a kickback and say, oh, there is a policy there, go
do it. Our code should be clear. Yes, you have to do code. Policies? Hey, let's ponder
that. Is it appropriate in this case to apply this policy or not. And this is rural estate
residential property. So, again, I think that applies to me -- the way I interpret this would
be in the county -- Ada county properties where really redevelopment potential is
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 7, 2020 – Page 88 of 552
Meridian City Council Work Session
December 17, 2019
Page 10 of 50
lessened. There is not a real likelihood of those structures that use that existing rural
estate residential home being razed and apartments going up or some other
redevelopment. Could it be split? Yeah. I think most five acre parcels will someday turn
into two or three lots. But that's really the intent here is to say is it appropriate or not. Is
there that redevelopment potential. What is going on on that property and, again,
adjacent properties and in context. So, again, just look at that as a guide. It's not code.
And I will just restate we do have other policies already before this to talk about.
Appropriate transition, use of buffers and streets, alleys, and roadways to provide a
transition, to recognize and respect those adjacent properties when new development is
proposed adjacent and that goes across the board, not just for rural estate properties, but
everywhere we have properties, make sure that whatever development is proposed
adjacent isn't infringing on the existing lifestyle, essentially, that -- that's going on adjacent.
So, we do that for all properties all the time everywhere. So, I guess with that being said,
that policy we drafted, again, we thought as staff we were responding to some of that
direction we were hearing. I don't know if I should say take it or leave it, but we are really
sort of agnostic on this policy. We drafted it because we thought that's what we were
hearing, but we have 500 other policies we think that are solid and I just would encourage
you not to get too caught up on this one and delay the adoption of the other 500 and the
rest of the plan. So, please, ponder it, think about it, let's do the right thing here, whatever
that may be. That's -- that's on the table. Then the map changes. So, there was an error
and I do apologize for that. We at the -- at the meeting on the 19th you directed some
additional change to the parcel that's highlighted in this inset. We colored it red on the
version that went into your packets and on the website this last week for the public to
review. Red is a commercial. You can't really see that in the legend here. But red is
commercial and you directed us to change this parcel that previously had a mixed use
interchange designation, to mixed use regional and we inadvertently colored that the
wrong -- the wrong shade. So, what you see there is the mixed use regional designation.
So, would request that you acknowledge that change tonight and the other handful of
changes are also enumerated and underneath that final bullet on this slide. I can run
through them if you would like. I see some familiar faces in the audience, so I'm not
planning on running through them, they are all -- not self-explanatory. So, maybe just the
Magic Bridge one that is Locust Grove, I-84, Eagle Road area and making some changes
that have -- with some commercial along the frontage, basically, of Locust Grove Road,
mixed use neighborhood kind of along I-84 and back in through Magic View Subdivision
and, then, some medium density residential basically around Woodbridge Subdivision or
Snorting Bull. The other ones do you have a designation there, a general description of
where the location of that property is. So, in conclusion, those are the items that are
before you, again, in the larger context of the plan and we look forward to implementation
of the plan and just to echo what Ms. LaFever said, open space amenities -- I mean that
is -- as has been stated before, something we are ready to jump on and get -- get to work
on answering that question with the community, with stakeholders -- identified
stakeholders to figure out what is appropriate for some of our code changes that, then,
strengthen and take the Comprehensive Plan and make it come to life. So, with that,
Madam Mayor, I would stand for any questions you may have.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 7, 2020 – Page 89 of 552
Meridian City Council Work Session
December 17, 2019
Page 11 of 50
De Weerd: Thank you, Caleb. Council, any questions? Okay. Mr. Clerk, I will open the
public comment period and just to remind those that signed up to testify to stay -- Caleb,
can you pull the -- the four areas that we are -- thank you -- taking comment on. Mr. Clerk.
Johnson: Thank you, Madam Mayor. First is Susan Karnes.
Karnes: Good evening.
De Weerd: Good evening.
Karnes: I feel like I won the lottery. Susan Karnes. 5556 South Graphite Way and I'm
here speaking on behalf of the Meridian Southern Rim Coalition.
De Weerd: Susan, can you pull that closer. Yes. Thank you.
Karnes: I'm here on behalf of the Meridian Southern Rim Coalition. I will ask for ten
minutes, but I have tried to keep it under three out of respect for your time. Confining my
remarks to what's still on the table. The LDR designation, our concern is density bonuses
and the deletion of sample zoning and LDR skirts dangerously close to step-ups being
embedded in the new Comprehensive Plan, even if unintentionally. The LDR language
is now too broad and invites abuse of the LDR designation. For example, R-8 dimensional
standards, if permitted in an LDR zone, would allow 4,000 square foot lots where R-4 is
8,000, has been the accepted cap. To complicate matters, density bonuses are not clearly
defined and their parameters are unclear. Theoretically we fear a developer could set
aside land for a school and with generous density bonuses, build an R-15 community in
an LDR district. That's a scenario for very unhappy nearby residents, who have placed
faith in the city's declared plan for a low density district. We have a few ideas. The
integrity of this plan is paramount. We have been promised no step-ups. We have been
promised a plan that reflects the stakeholders' wishes. As Councilman Borton would say,
we need more robust language, so residents and developers alike have clarity on this
question. We would suggest that you keep the sample zoning and review the
accompanying text for clarity, since there is so much confusion about designations and
zoning. Additionally, to address another area that's frequently misunderstood, we
recommend a sidebar in the comp plan regarding annexation, which would consolidate
the basic information about annexation that's now scattered under various headings
throughout the comp plan. Policy 3.07.01F, which Caleb just reviewed, we thank staff for
their intent to create a policy that's sensitive to our rural and estate enclaves. I cannot
express how many times in the last few weeks I have heard our members remark they
heard us. That just makes residents feel so valued and we thank you for that. While we
appreciate the proposed policy, we do believe some of its language is overly specific, like
five acres, while other language is too vague. Roadways. Due to time limitations I'm
going to defer to our Stetson Estates HOA's submitted testimony and testimony this
evening for their intelligent and more expanded discussion of that topic. Ultra-low density
residential designation. The concern, as you well know, has been sensitive and
appropriate development adjacent to districts like El Gato, Rustler Lane, and numerous
other existing neighborhoods that, A, cannot be subdivided or, B, are unlikely to be
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 7, 2020 – Page 90 of 552
Meridian City Council Work Session
December 17, 2019
Page 12 of 50
redeveloped during the lifespan of this comp plan, if ever. As a 30 year resident in Texas
I can attest that many of Austin, Dallas and Fort Worth's most desirable properties are
those owner expansive lots and acreage. Both former Presidents Bush lived in two of
them. The city simply developed denser, more urban neighborhoods around them. Our
thought -- the City of Meridian has an existing rural slash estate residential designation.
Apply it to the existing uses on the FLUM. It's not codified. Where it can serve as a flag
to adjacent applicants that these existing ag rural estate uses require especially respectful
and sensitive transitions. Regarding next steps as you go forward. As you well know, we
are concerned about the gap time between the adoption of this plan and the necessary
needed UDC changes. In addition to the requests I have just outlined, we respectfully
request that Council include the following in any motion to adopt this plan. Place on the
public record your acknowledgement that it is the intent of this plan to set a higher bar for
transitions, open space, amenities and gathering spaces. Direct staff to work with a
consultant to draft supporting UDC for those aspects. Provide to residents and
developers clarity about the FLUM and comp plan amendments, the frequency, timing,
whether there is a moratorium on such, et cetera. And prioritize and expedite all
necessary UDC work, for in the UDC that supports this plan residents will find confidence
and your true support for this plan's vision for a premier community. I will stand for
questions.
De Weerd: Council, any questions? Mr. Bernt.
Bernt: Thank you. Susan, I appreciate your testimony. I'm trying to wrap my arms around
the density bonus concern part. I spoke with Caleb earlier and wanted to get some clarity
as well. I don't believe in the history -- at least for a very very long time that anyone's
ever taken advantage according to Caleb in our Planning Department this provision ever
and so I'm just wondering why you are concerned.
Karnes: Because no one's ever taken advantage of it and the language is in there and
it's not defined. I just -- I think it needs a little more clarity. We think it needs a little more
clarity. I mean how far can density be bonused or increased, assuming there is land set
aside for a school? Is it ten percent? Fifty percent? I mean it would be nice to have a
general idea. I'm sure developers would like to know, too, when they are trying to pencil
a project. I mean what does that mean to them.
De Weerd: Any follow up?
Bernt: Thank you.
Karnes: Thank you.
De Weerd: Any other questions? Thank you.
Karnes: Thank you.
Johnson: Madam Mayor, Deborah Nelson. You want to hear from her again?
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 7, 2020 – Page 91 of 552
Meridian City Council Work Session
December 17, 2019
Page 13 of 50
Nelson: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, that sign up was from earlier and you
have heard from me this evening, so I will -- I don't need to present to you again, unless
you want something else for this particular record or hearing time.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any -- any questions for Deborah? Thank you.
Nelson: Thank you.
Johnson: Madam Mayor, next is Jane Byam.
De Weerd: And, Jane, I understand you are the HOA president?
Byam: No, but I represent the residents on El Gato and Pine Lanes.
De Weerd: Okay.
Byam: Here representing the neighborhood.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Byam: So, Jane Byam, 6050 El Gato Lane, Meridian.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Byam: Thank you, Madam Mayor and City Council Members and staff, for giving me the
opportunity to address you this evening. On behalf of the residents of El Gato and Pine
and Puma Lanes, I wish to express gratitude for the efforts of the steering committee, the
staff, city planners, Mayor and City Council Members for carrying out the research for the
proposed Comprehensive Plan and the future land use map and for preparing documents
and spending hours listening to the residents of Meridian as we have addressed you and
-- and made recommendations for our neighborhoods. In response to the revised FLUM
dated 12/5/2019, we are in total support of Purdam Drain being the northern boundary of
the area zoned for future industrial development. We appreciate that the concerns of the
current residents in this area were considered in this proposed change and we
respectfully request that the members of Meridian City Council vote to accept this change.
In respect to the recommended future zoning designation of low density for El Gato, I am
in agreement with many other residents whose properties are currently zoned by Ada
county as RUT. Several have sent letters to the city supporting the addition of 3.7.1F and
other new wording in Chapter 3 of the Comprehensive Plan, but have requested further
clarification. Our current zoning allows for a single family dwelling on a minimum of five
acres. The recommended future city zoning for our properties of low density allows for
up to three homes per acre and is no longer rural. Losing the word rural from our property
designation runs the risk of us losing the protection of the required transition of one acre
minimum lots adjacent to rural properties as required in the policy 3.07.01F, which states:
Provide a minimum one acre lot when proposing residential development adjacent to
existing rural estate residential properties that are five acres and where transitional
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 7, 2020 – Page 92 of 552
Meridian City Council Work Session
December 17, 2019
Page 14 of 50
buffers, such as roadways or linear open space does not exist. I'm in agreement with
Susan Karnes and the Southern Rim Coalition and I respectfully request that a rural
designation remain in the proposed Comprehensive Plan on the -- and on the future land
use map for our properties along El Gato, Pine Lanes, and other properties currently
zoned rural in the area of city -- pardon me -- area city in -- area of city impact. Doing so
will help preserve and protect the agricultural heritage valued by so many residents in
Meridian and offer a variety of housing opportunities and choices to current and future
residents of the City of Meridian. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: Is it Byam? Mrs. Byam?
Byam: Byam. Yes.
Borton: You're one of the more -- one of the last letters that came in, a letter from today.
So, thank you for sending that in. So, Caleb, if you can put back up the four points -- or,
excuse me, the definition -- that one right there. Yeah. Right there. So, amongst some
of the more recent comments, what you have described -- we have heard from -- from
several and I wonder if -- if the title of this paragraph read rural slash low density, would
that satisfy the concern? The reason I ask that is a good chunk of the language which --
which has been added to this is pulled -- I noticed word for word from the previous rural
designation and the existing comp plan. So, if the point of the comp plan is to provide
that general contextual example of what's intended there and if we have captured that in
this proposed language that the rural concept is now just placed under a low density
residential title, the only missing part it sounds like might be just putting the word rural up
top, but I don't know if that's necessary, because you really have the -- what you are really
asking for it sounds like is what's in the underlying paragraph, which comes from the
previous rural designation, so --
Byam: The concern is that by losing that word rural and, then, being classified underneath
low density residential -- because low density residential is up to three dwellings per acre,
that there is the potential within our neighborhood for future development of smaller
parcels, which, then, we lose that -- that -- I would call it a guarantee of -- of a barrier or
a transition from the rural lifestyle that we are used to, to higher density. It's considered
low density within the Comprehensive Plan, but three homes per acre, in my opinion, is
not rural, it's a higher density. It may be low, because it's not medium, but it's still much
higher than a rural density would be considered.
Borton: Madam Mayor. And I think that's some of the disconnect that happens in this
discussion is, you know, what the -- what the comp plan language can't do is -- by design
it can't provide that certainty. It's not intended to create the certainty, so one of the
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 7, 2020 – Page 93 of 552
Meridian City Council Work Session
December 17, 2019
Page 15 of 50
challenges we are -- we are going to resolve and address tonight is 3.07.01F down below,
which -- in an effort to provide -- or try to provide maybe some certainty, it actually is doing
just the opposite of what it's supposed to do and can create challenges when you create
a singular solution to a -- to a problem. For example, transitional -- trying to address the
transitional concerns with rural lifestyle, the underlying language gives that general
direction to the decision makers on how that can be done and what we are trying to
preserve, which I think tried to capture that rural concept.
Byam: I -- I personally like the wording of 3.07.01F, because it includes the word rural,
whereas the low density designation doesn't.
Borton: I think I track you.
Byam: Okay.
Borton: Thank you. Thanks, Madam Mayor.
Johnson: And just for the record, Councilman Cavener is no longer on the phone, he is
here with us in person. Thank you for joining us. Any further questions? Okay. Thank
you.
Johnson: Next is Geoffrey Wardle.
De Weerd: Good evening. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record.
Wardle: Madam Mayor, Members of Council, Geoffrey Wardle. My address is 251 East
Front, here on behalf of a variety of clients. We appreciate the effort that has gone in on
this. We appreciate the consideration that you have given to our clients' request with
respect to the property at Locust Grove and McMillan. Thank you. And we recognize this
has been a really detailed comprehensive process that you have gone through. We are
also here because as we indicated in our -- our letter, we have serious concerns about
this policy and its submission at this point. I think the testimony that you heard earlier
from Ms. Nelson and, then, also from my father Mike Wardle on this is on point as to what
the concerns are and I think the citizens that are clearly concerned by it have also
articulated why this language is problematic. We think that the comp plan already
addresses the issue of transitions and that the proposed text change here starts to be
very close to ordinance and code and expectation as to dimensional standards that are
not consistent with the current code. We think that you have long conveyed to the
development community the importance of transitions and ensuring that those transitions
are met, but when we look at this language -- as you know, the -- the bulk of the time I'm
here in front of you is on commercial projects and my colleagues, however -- we have a
variety of residential clients as well and as we look at how Meridian has developed and
how areas have redeveloped, we think it is important that you not shackle yourself and
create the type of density that is not consistent with the historic planning that you have
done for the provision of public municipal services as directed by the Idaho Code. That
is the fundamental concern that we have. We understand completely the concerns of
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 7, 2020 – Page 94 of 552
Meridian City Council Work Session
December 17, 2019
Page 16 of 50
those that currently live in county zoned RUT lots, but the reality is you have developed
plans related to the delivery of public services that are based upon densities that are set
in plans and code that you have long had and this inclusion of language specifically about
one acre lots is problematic for that, because that has not been a concept by code that
you have had in the past and it's certainly not been a concept that's in your urban service
planning. With that what we would do is we would encourage that you adopt the plan
tonight as written, with the exclusion of this policy. This policy is not necessary as has
been discussed. The reality is this policy is reflective of other language that you have and
it's approaching that line that comprehensive plans were not intended to do. And with
that I would stand for any questions.
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Wardle: Thank you.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: Not going to let you go without a question, but -- although it sounds like you --
you disagree with the policy, I think what I also hear you saying -- and this came up at
4:30 -- was that the policy is actually -- by its removal is one of what may be many
solutions to accomplish the transition goal, meaning -- meaning in a certain circumstance
a one acre or two acre lot adjacent may be what's appropriate, in other circumstances
there might be an alternative solution, but what you are asking by removing 3.07, is not
to say that that's never the solution, but that's not the singular solution. Is that fair?
Wardle: Madam Mayor, Council Member Borton, I think that's fair. I think we know that
when applications come in you are going to have to look at this on a case-by-case basis,
but our concern is the way this is written is you are mandating one acre lots adjacent to
five acre lots without any thought to how your plans and how the Comprehensive Plan
envisions the future development of those areas and that will result in the loss of density
that you have planned for.
Borton: Madam Mayor. And to that -- I guess the -- the -- one of the reasons this has
raised its head is -- is we have had lots of great feedback, as you are aware of, from our
community members and -- and the directive that is above that comes from the rural
designation that's now going to be in the low density is something that clearly is going to
help guide a future Council in trying to make that transition decision and make a
determination what's most appropriate. So, now adding in this agricultural heritage and
open space and overall atmosphere, I think that maybe does a better job of providing that
direction.
Wardle: I -- Madam Mayor, Council Member Borton, I don't have any concerns at all with
the language that you have in the description there of low density residential, because I
think you're right, I think it restates other concepts that we have all historically worked with
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 7, 2020 – Page 95 of 552
Meridian City Council Work Session
December 17, 2019
Page 17 of 50
in this jurisdiction. The issue is the new policy. The new policy is fundamentally -- it --
there may be those that disagree, but I think it's a fundamentally different policy than the
transition policies that have already existed in your Comprehensive Plan.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Wardle: Thank you.
Johnson: Madam Mayor, next is Cody Stoker.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, sir.
Johnson: The next is Max Steinbach.
De Weerd: Good evening. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record.
Steinbach: Yes, ma'am. My name is Max Steinbach. My address is 4924 North Black
Cat Road in Meridian.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Steinbach: It looks like I may be in the minority here looking at low density, but we came
to talk to you just about the adoption of the plan. We live in an area also there in the
Black Cat corridor that is heavily impacted. We are right across from Jump Creek, which,
as you know, has many more houses than three per acre. As you come down McMillan
Road the same thing is happening on the west -- or the south side of McMillan Road. Our
subdivision is listed, paperwork wise, as five acres. We are not. Most of us are under
five, anywhere from 4.5 to 4.8. I would just like to say that when you reach my age five
acres becomes a real pain and that becomes your retirement, you would like to sell that
and the best opportunity is for development. Very few people really want to take on the
responsibility of irrigation and all the things that run along with five acres. So, as far as
the plan goes, our subdivision has signed off as far as covenant and -- and those types
of things, so that we could move forward in that direction. I would like to encourage you
when you do look at your Comprehensive Plan to consider our area as more than just low
density and also give us the opportunity to sell to someone that could develop the property
and make it fit within the bounds of what is already there. As you well know, Jump Creek
is fairly dense and, then, as you travel further north there are two very large subdivisions
there and a new grade school. So, that's all I wanted to say. I would like for you to
consider our plea and I thank you for the opportunity to speak.
De Weerd: Thank you for joining us.
Johnson: Mayor, next is Sally Reynolds.
De Weerd: Thank you for being here. If you will, please, state your name and address
for the record.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 7, 2020 – Page 96 of 552
Meridian City Council Work Session
December 17, 2019
Page 18 of 50
Reynolds: Sure. Sally Reynolds. 1166 West Bacall Street, Meridian, Idaho. And Merry
Christmas and a Happy New Year to you all. At the first public hearing on the plan I stood
and said that it was almost there, considering the stakeholders input. Unfortunately,
without a low intensity land use, eliminating the sample zoning and the residential
designations, and adding the wording density bonuses in another step section, I feel like
that takes a few step backwards. One of the things I was most important -- or most proud
of in this new plan was that we weren't allowing step-ups anymore. Now, density bonuses
was in the old plan and the wording can be there in new plan, but it opens up a can of
worms for -- since we don't have step-ups to use that wording as leverage to get step-
ups in the new comp plan. So, we would respectfully ask that density bonuses language
be removed or at least defined and if density bonuses can't be defined, then, we would
ask that amenities be defined and which amenities qualify as amenities. As you know, I
have asked for my name to be removed from the comp plan steering committee. I wanted
to publicly state that my reasons for doing this was that I don't believe that the FLUM
process was transparent to the public. There are no area specific plans in this comp plan.
There is no low intensity residential land use designation and there is still no language
clarifying how designations are commonly floated for when the residents look at the
FLUM. Personally I think that this approach will produce a homogenous looking city
without very much interest or charm and it will turn into a type of unsustainable and
unsupported suburban sprawl. Earlier I submitted the final signatures on a petition to
create the lower intensity of land use. There are about 450 signatures on it. For the
record, it is the fifth to seventh petition that I have submitted to this Council in over three
years. So far none of my petitions have been successful at getting any changes made,
which is disheartening. So, I really hope that this one will be different. I would respectfully
ask that you at least keep 3.07.1F as it is written out of respect for the people who have
testified and who have signed petitions. The legal community has reminded us time and
time again when I'm up here saying some things in the comp plan, that the comp plan is
not a legally binding document and it's not. Only the code is. So, where it may come
close to talking about code, it's -- it's not code and we all know that there is no legal basis
for it just being in the comp plan. This is a state mandated document, but it's not the
code. So, I would, on behalf of those residents, encourage you to keep that in the current
comment. I will stand for questions.
De Weerd: Perfect timing, Sally. Council, any questions?
Bernt: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bernt.
Bernt: Thank you. Thank you, Sally. Good to see you. One question. I read your e-mail
that was sent recently with all the signatures in the Excel format. Remind -- remind me
of the specifics that you wanted the highlights in that e-mail one more time.
Reynolds: So, we strongly believe, has been testified here over and over again, is that
there should be a lower intensity land use designation below LDR.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 7, 2020 – Page 97 of 552
Meridian City Council Work Session
December 17, 2019
Page 19 of 50
Bernt: Okay.
Reynolds: So -- and we understand there is transition language in the comp plan, but it
is so subjective that we feel like those enclaves really need their own designation to reflect
what's really there.
Bernt: To piggyback on that, I have a quick -- one more question. Follow up, Madam
Mayor, to the staff. It seems like this evening there has been a lot of talk about this density
bonus. The last sentence in this definition of low density residential -- is there the same
-- I don't remember reading -- is -- in the medium density residential, the MDR definition,
is that same sentence in that -- in that -- I think it is; right? To confirm.
Hood: So, Madam Mayor, Council Member Bernt, yeah, medium for sure. We are going
to check the other residential designations and see if it talks about that in the other ones
just to confirm. The low and -- low and medium.
De Weerd: Any other questions from Council? Mr. Cavener.
Cavener: Thank you. Merry Christmas, Sally.
Reynolds: Thank you.
Cavener: I'm curious, because your -- your comments about the concern for community
if this is adopted and -- you are somebody whose opinion I hold -- hold in high regard,
which is why I want to drill a little deeper into this. I know you are here because you love
our community and so when you -- when you bring up those concerns they -- they ring
loud to me. But I guess -- I think that we are in agreement that this proposed
Comprehensive Plan is an improvement over what we have had.
Reynold: Yes. With 3.07.01F, I believe that there is a definite improvement in trying to
respect those rural properties.
Cavener: So, help me understand if -- if we are in agreement that this Comprehensive
Plan is superior to what we currently have, why you feel that our community would take
a step backwards if adopted?
Reynolds: Well, I think that, you know, the current -- I guess taking a step backwards
because density bonuses was added. So, we said no step-ups at all and now we are
introducing density bonuses in residential areas. So, we feel like that is a loophole that
will be exploited to get step-ups in these different areas. So, that kind of opens up a
whole other can of worms that wasn't in the previous version.
Cavener: Madam Mayor, if I may. I appreciate your comments, but we have heard time
and time again from citizen groups to encourage the Council to improve creativity and
density bonuses are a mechanism to allow that type of creativity to exist and for me I trust
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 7, 2020 – Page 98 of 552
Meridian City Council Work Session
December 17, 2019
Page 20 of 50
our staff and I trust our Council. So, help me understand why you think it would be a
loophole that would be exploited?
Reynolds: So, I think that density bonuses can have their place if a development comes
in against a large acreage lot and it shows that, you know, they are going to put one acre
lots at the edges and, then, they are going to slowly feather to R-8, you know, R-15, R-
40, going more towards arterials, that's great and if they have amenities that actually
qualify as amenities, which we don't have defined right now, then, maybe those density
bonuses would be appropriate for that area to get, as Mr. Wardle said, up to those required
thresholds for our public services. However, what I have seen over the last three years
is not -- that -- that is not what happens. I have seen applications push the envelope time
and time and time again and my concern is that if this language isn't in there protecting
it, as these applications come before Council piecemeal, there will just be exception after
exception made that it's okay and -- and slowly we will end up with a much higher density
than even we had planned previously.
De Weerd: Any other questions for Sally?
Reynolds: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Johnson: Madam Mayor, next is Julie Langlois.
De Weerd: Thank you for joining us. If you will, please, state your name and address for
the record.
Langlois: Julie Langlois. 355 -- or 3556 Rustler and I'm here representing Stetson
Estates and Rock Ranch Estates.
De Weerd: Okay.
Langlois: And I apologize in advance. I'm getting over a cold, so we will see how it goes.
Bernt: Doing great so far.
Langlois: Thank you for giving us --
De Weerd: Pull -- if I can ask you to pull the mic a little closer.
Langlois: Thank you for giving us the opportunity to comment on the final policy changes
being considered for the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. Of course we are disappointed
that the City Council is considering removing the rural estate designation and that the low
density designation will so nearly resemble medium density, thanks to R-8 dimensional
standards and density bonuses. It is discouraging that the city has added density
bonuses in order to encourage what? More homes per acre? Is that what the residents
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 7, 2020 – Page 99 of 552
Meridian City Council Work Session
December 17, 2019
Page 21 of 50
of Meridian are asking for? We believe the plan to transition our properties with one acre
lots could be a fair compromise, but we are concerned that the wording of a new policy
will actually discourage one acre lots and encourage collectors or narrow linear parks,
leading to even worse transitions. The new policy states: Provide a minimum one acre
lot when proposing residential development adjacent to existing rural estate residential
properties that are five acres and where transitional buffers, such as roadways and linear
open space do not exist. When Caleb spoke about this he used the term existing
roadways, but the text just states roadways. Because ACHD is planning a collector road
running north to south, you would not want the developers to circumvent the one acre
policy by putting the collector road on our eastern border. We would consider that zero
transition. One of the homes in Stetson Estates sits less than ten feet from that eastern
border. We also assume that developers will utilize the least costly design that the city
allows to avoid putting in those one acre parcels. It will be cheaper for them to put in a
transitional buffer and we are back to defining what is an appropriate transition between
existing rural properties and medium density or multi-use residential. This is why we are
asking for a sub plan for southwest Meridian with a specialized FLUM. This would protect
our community identity and give specific direction to developers. Unfortunately, with so
much medium density currently planned in southwest Meridian, we are becoming just
another crowded area of the city limits amidst cookie cutter neighborhoods, with minimal
open space and amenities, no distinctive identity and a loss of something that we can
never get back. At the November 26 meeting there was a concern as to whether we
understood the difference between zoning and annexation. I have not seen the letters
you have received, but I would imagine that some of our residents were concerned after
seeing the proposed maps of our area with the medium density designations for our
subdivisions, collector roads bisecting our subdivisions, multi-use paths planned
diagonally across some properties, the multi-use designation on our western border and
an e-mail received by one of our residents asking them to sign, have notarized, and send
back an easement agreement running through their property. It's a lot for us county folk.
There is something that we do find difficult to understand, though. If the future land use
map designates an area low density, why is the city allowing such an expansive definition
for this designation? Hundreds of residents have petitioned to retain a rural estate
designation, but the one the city has is being eliminated and LDR is going to include
density bonuses in R-8 dimensional standards. That does not seem to be a stakeholder
driven decision. From the very beginning residents were promised there would be no
step-ups in zoning. Where is that language? Instead, based on the proposed expanded
low density to include R-8 dimensional standards and density bonuses, the new comp
plan will, in essence, have built-in step-ups when we were promised the city would not
allow them. Thus, it appears that the city only wants medium density developments and
this we do not understand. Our residents, along with so many other residents of Meridian,
feel we have not been heard. We hope that with more discussion we can agree upon
appropriate transitions from our county rural properties to the city's medium density and
multi-use plans surrounding our subdivisions. It was stated in the draft Comprehensive
Plan that future land use in Meridian was going to be stakeholder driven, giving greater
sensitivity to our rural neighborhoods, open spaces, and our unique agricultural heritage
-- agricultural heritage. We believe that intent will be diluted by adding language about
density bonuses, higher dimensional standards for the low density designation, the
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 7, 2020 – Page 100 of 552
Meridian City Council Work Session
December 17, 2019
Page 22 of 50
possibility of collector roads for transitional space and the vague language of linear open
space. On behalf of my group and our fellow southwest Meridian neighbors, I respectfully
request that these proposed revisions be more stringently defined to better ensure
sensitive and appropriate transitions, premier neighborhoods, and to ensure that the
inevitable growth ahead protects and compliments our wonderful way of life. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any comments or questions?
Borton: Madam Mayor? Just a comment. I appreciate your testimony. Your -- your letter
of the 16th? Yesterday? You sent a letter in as well. So, I appreciate that. That -- just
because it came up, it just sounds like there is confusion. The -- the density bonus,
whether it's good or bad, but the sentence density bonuses may be considered isn't new.
It wasn't added in. It might be -- it might not be something that you like --
Langlois: Maybe that's my error.
Borton: And that's fine. I just wanted to make sure and if anyone in the public, for what
it's worth, the density bonus sentence in low density here on the screen is identical to
what exists -- it has existed for well over ten plus years, so -- so that was just helpful to
point out. Thanks.
Langlois: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Johnson: Madam Mayor, next is Greg Oyama. Okay. Next is Ken Arendse.
De Weerd: Good evening, Ken. If you will, please, state your name and address for the
record.
Arendse: My name is Ken Arendse. I live at 4644 Daphne Street, Meridian.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Arendse: Madam Mayor and Members of Council, thank you for hearing me speak. I am
a member to Mr. Steinbach, who spoke four turns ago. Also part of the Black Cat Estates,
but on the other side of Daphne Street. He mentioned the density of the subdivisions that
are directly to the west of us on Black Cat Road and the density of the subdivisions that
are behind us. There is also -- there are also two other five acre parcels that are on the
other end of Daphne Street -- the corner of Daphne and Joy that are currently being
developed also high density. I'm not sure what that is, but I think probably close to eight
homes per acre and so I am speaking in favor of allowing us, my wife and I, to -- we have
that same opportunity, so our four'ish, five acre piece for potential development. Like Mr.
Steinbach, I'm ready to downsize and it's an opportunity for us to do so and to be able to
have a little cash. I think the density is already around us and so in some ways it would
almost -- I'm not sure if -- I would think for consistency sake it would be best to go and
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 7, 2020 – Page 101 of 552
Meridian City Council Work Session
December 17, 2019
Page 23 of 50
approve to a medium density in the spots that we are in on the Black Cat Estates. So, I
thank you for your time.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions? Thank you.
Johnson: Madam Mayor, there were 26 individual sign-ins and that was the last that
indicated they wished to testify.
De Weerd: This is a public comment. Is there anyone who -- yes. We will get Denise
first and, then, Jon.
LaFever: Hi. My name is Denise LaFever. 6706 North Salvia Way.
De Weerd: Thank you.
LaFever: I guess the whole issue with the future land use map has been really weighing
heavy on my mind. It was one of the considerations that I didn't want my name attached
to the comp plan because of the issue and I couldn't quite wrap my head around how to
explain it to -- to people what it was that -- that I had objections to. I think the -- I think a
letter did a pretty good job of doing it. Clark-Wardle wrote -- and he wrote in on the
McMillan and Locust Grove and I'm going to read a couple of highlights out of it. Parcels
we wanted redesignated as commercial. That's what he put in here. City staff reiterated
it believes that our clients could develop this property simply by submitting an application
to amend the existing development agreement. No development agreement,
amendment, or zoning change can meet the in accordance with, compliance with, or in
conformity with requirements so long as the use designation remains mixed use
neighborhood. The use designation first must be changed to commercial. Our client will
remain stuck in circular problem without a viable pathway forward at this site. Why do I
read that? I read that because the FLUM is important. It is the first step forward to getting
your zoning. It's not just something that you just throw aside and -- and it's just something
that you can just say, hey, it doesn't really matter. It matters a lot and the fact that we
went back through and had the property owners put in their requests on how they like
their -- their land developed -- this is a piecemeal approach that's reactionary to those
that are savvy enough to contact the city and lobby on behalf of individual interests. This
plan falls short. We had an exciting opportunity to go back through and actually develop
a specific area plan, especially for The Fields and southwest -- southwest Meridian, which
is low density, which we know is not going to stay that way and so we have these exciting
opportunities that we are not bracing with the new generation going forward. We have all
these great tools out there, the predictive tools that can actually go through and show
where the roof tops are going to be based on a lot of criteria. Walmart, like them or not,
they are really good at site selection and these tools are out there. We are not living back
in -- ten years ago, we can actually go back and project things. I say this, because it
really falls short in the areas of commercial. We have a great opportunity to actually come
up with commercial designation, light it up red, so that way we can actually plan for on
and off ramps, backage and frontage roads, and left-hand turns. A big sticking point,
especially out to Chinden for Fred Meyers with those left-hand turns and I know that's
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 7, 2020 – Page 102 of 552
Meridian City Council Work Session
December 17, 2019
Page 24 of 50
Eagle, Mayor Tammy, I understand that, but still we have this exciting opportunity to be
able to go back through and plan these commercial developments. North -- northwest
Meridian is needing commercial development and, to be honest, right over by the high
school high school that they are going to build, that's going to light up commercial. It's
realistic that that will be commercial. As well as we have an exciting opportunity to go
back through a plan where our apartments and multi-families are, so they appropriately
get the services they need to support those kinds of developments and actually drive
density into specific areas. So, with this said --
De Weerd: Denise, can you --
LaFever: I'm wrapping it up right now. With this said I would really like us to go back
through and spend a little more thoughtful time coming up with specific area plans, come
up and go back through and really give it a good shot at doing some really good
commercial development within this FLUM.
Bernt: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bernt.
Bernt: I -- I couldn't agree with you more in regard to the specific area plan information.
As you know from the steering committee meetings I was your biggest advocate when it
came to keeping the character and, you know, different feel in certain parts of our city
and I think that is incredibly important and I think that there is -- every person that's sitting
in this dais I think feels the same way. But my question to you, Denise, is do you -- do
you not feel that the FLUM or this -- or this Comprehensive Plan -- do you feel like it's
incomplete without all of these area specific details -- for example, like in downtown and
details in south Meridian, different areas, maybe The Fields district?
LaFever: I feel that we are going to end up getting a hodgepodge of developments, unless
you're lucky enough that you have the -- over by Eagle Crossing where, you know,
Brighton and Tommy Ahlquist are going to go buy all that up and develop that. You know,
if you -- if you don't have one developer going back in there, yeah, you are going to end
up with a hodgepodge and a mishmash of development, instead of a really thoughtful
plan and -- and I would really like to see a really thoughtful plan. You have these open
acreages with farms that you could really do some really good planning at.
Bernt: And follow up. I think we are in agreement, Denise. Honestly. Like I think we are
in agreement. I think that what you are saying definitely makes sense. I just don't know
if right now we have the resources in which to create these area specific plans that you
are wanting. Like right now at this second. I think that if we would -- do you agree that if
we were to designate some of these areas as area -- specific areas, you know, like maybe
that that would be sufficient enough until we have the resources in our Planning
Department to come up with the type of specifics that you are asking for?
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 7, 2020 – Page 103 of 552
Meridian City Council Work Session
December 17, 2019
Page 25 of 50
LaFever: As I have stated once before, I think if you could go back and hashmark those
areas, that this is designated for future specific areas and that be something that a focus
group works on, like -- kind of like what I laid out in the beginning, but I still think it falls
short for commercial development and I think that's a struggle for our developers over
here that want commercial. We want commercial --
Bernt: You are getting in the weeds. That was not my question. My question is in regard
to commercial development. That's a completely different conversation. I'm talking about
these area specific plans that you talk about and I think that I -- you know, I -- if we can
come up with, you know, specific areas, like The Fields and other areas, I don't think we
have come up with a specific area in south Meridian, so it may be difficult to come up with
the hashmarked area right now as we speak, but, you know, I -- I hear this time and time
again and I'm thinking in my mind you think we are liars? Like I -- seriously. Like have
we done anything to you to like make it sound like what -- when I tell you as long as I'm
sitting in the seat that those areas will be -- will have area specific plan. They may not be
like right now, but like -- I guess I have a hard time wrapping my --
LaFever: Here -- here is the answer to your question. Okay? I think the intent --
De Weerd: Can I interrupt? I do run this meeting and I -- you know, I would like it to be
directed through me. I love your conversation going on, but if we can limit this and -- go
ahead.
LaFever: I just say open -- open space is a big deal and the can has been kicked down
the road many, many, many months and many, many, many times. I just don't want to
see this specific area plan be kicked down the road. The intentions are good. The staff
gets busy. You know, I would just like to see more clarity, more -- a little more assurance.
Bernt: I have been put in my place and so I -- I'm done talking.
LaFever: So have I. So, I'm out of time as well.
De Weerd: I didn't mean to put anyone in their place. It does go through me, though.
And I -- I do think that the steering committee was explained what the progression of the
comprehensive plan and the next steps and these are next steps and the incoming City
Council will be the ones that prioritize what those next steps are with the dialogue that the
public has -- has offered through testimony and I have seen nothing but a dedication to
following up on that, both from the staff, who have already come and identified some of
those areas that will need a budget amendment to, and from the current and incoming
City Council. So, I can't give you any guarantees, but I do know that there is a determined
incoming City Council and a committed outgoing City Council and a continuing City
Council. So, those are next steps.
LaFever: Well, thank you, Mayor Tammy, for leading that charge and transitioning that
over. I appreciate it.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 7, 2020 – Page 104 of 552
Meridian City Council Work Session
December 17, 2019
Page 26 of 50
De Weerd: Thank you.
Milam: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Milam.
Milam: So, I appreciate what you have all had to say tonight and I really -- I put a lot of
stock in -- in the homework that you have done and the work that you have put into this.
I guess the -- my question is -- I mean are you suggesting that we pause the
Comprehensive Plan completely. We are still on the old one, which is going to put off
open space, it's going to put off amenities, kicking that tire -- that can down the road until
we do what you're talking about with area specific or we adopt the plan and, then, have
the team take the further steps and, you know, solidify it the way it -- the best way it
should?
LaFever: The current plan -- the new plan, potato-potato, without the UDC changes I just
don't see that as a really good thing moving forward. I really think -- and like I have
expressed once before, I really feel that the UDC changes need to come forward with the
plan, especially on open space, amenities, transitions and buffers, so --
Milam: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Milam.
Milam: And I am with you. I want that to happen yesterday, so -- but I'm under the
understanding that this is -- that there are steps and this is a step -- that is the next step.
So, we can't take that step until we finish this step.
LaFever: To answer your question, I think with what was laid out by Susan in her
testimony where she went back through and did those steps, if you amended that to the
approval of the new Comprehensive Plan, I think that would go a long ways.
De Weerd: And I -- I think staff can detail out what next steps are and possible -- you
can't have an interim UDC code, but I -- I do agree with Mrs. Karnes that you can be
specific and I think Mr. Palmer has been saying this for a couple years -- just the
development community in the city, our citizens, what we expect and staff can share that
with the -- the applications that are coming in, but you do have to go -- there is a process
for it. But, certainly, this Council and the new Council coming in can reiterate when they
are sworn in that they agree with that direction. Thank you.
LaFever: Thank you.
De Weerd: Good evening.
J.Wardle: Madam Mayor, good evening. For the record my name is Jon Wardle. 2929
West Navigator, Meridian, Idaho. Appreciate the opportunity to just share a couple brief
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 7, 2020 – Page 105 of 552
Meridian City Council Work Session
December 17, 2019
Page 27 of 50
comments tonight. The draft plan as it's currently written states that the plan is not a set
of standards or a means to enforce city code, instead, it indicates in a general way how
the community should develop. The -- the item that's been added, which is 3.07.01F,
actually is a zoning specific standard. You are saying in this Comprehensive Plan that
there is a specific standard that has happened. Let's not forget you already have a
condition or a policy in the Comprehensive Plan, which is 3.07.01A. So, the very first
policy in the section states require all new developments to create site design compatible
with surrounding uses through buffering, screening, transitional densities and other best
site practices. It's already there. We don't need to dictate that it needs to be one acre
against five acre lots, which were subdivided in the county. Just one final comment as it
relates to RUT zones. The county anticipated that these RUT designations of the five
acre lots were a transitional zone or use in and of itself. The Ada county zone -- zoning
ordinance says the purpose of this article is to implement the applicable comprehensive
plans within the areas of city impact. These base districts are intended to provide
appropriate density for residential development based on the availability of urban public
facilities. Rural to urban transition district provide standards and regulations for the
development of property within areas of city impact consistent with the goals and policies
of applicable city comprehensive plan. Two. Allow agriculture rural uses to continue
within areas of city impact until urban public facilities are extended. The city is -- is making
large financial contributions to those urban services. I know there was a reference made
to a certain five acre subdivision earlier tonight. If you go back through Google Earth and
look at that, in 1995, '96, about that time they were 40 acre, 80 acre, 120 acre parcels
and they were able to subdivide those down to five acre parcels, because that was the
maximum allowed rezone within the county. I think that the policy and the standards that
are written, while may not be perfect, I think you have already addressed that transition
question with 3.07.01A. We are just asking that this new one, F, be deleted from the
Comprehensive Plan. We think it's too specific. It doesn't provide the opportunities as
designated in .01A for us to look at solutions, because a one size fits all may not be
appropriate. Thank you very much.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. The gentleman in the back. And, then, we will get -- good
evening.
Connelly: Good evening, Madam Mayor, Council Members. Paula Connelly. 3878 South
Rustler Lane from Stetson Estates. Don't -- I'm not going to show any of my pictures
tonight. Didn't bring them. I would like to argue, however, that 3.07.01F is needed. When
-- on the old comprehensive plan -- and I know that it's not the map that we are supposed
to be using, but it is what everybody looks at first, because it's visual. Okay? And when
you have rural estates, ten acres, five acres and those areas have cows and other things
and all the agricultural product -- practices that go with it, it's -- it's important that there is
a transition. A very good transition. And the reason that's needed is because if we take
that rural designation off of that map, then, that puts us in low density, which we would
still fall under with the three to zero -- or zero to three homes per acre. But that doesn't
-- there was a big difference between ten acres -- one home for ten acres versus three
for one acre and if you have the very minimal transition up against it -- and we have seen
three applications from a developer come in and not once has that met that and I
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 7, 2020 – Page 106 of 552
Meridian City Council Work Session
December 17, 2019
Page 28 of 50
appreciate that our planning staff over here has said, no, none of those would be
acceptable in the planning stage. It's about having -- not just the rural practices that we
already have, but it's about how to -- how to buffer -- not just us, but them. People are
going to move into those homes and they are not going to want to see what I do on my
property. I promise you. I don't want a kid standing on some play structure screaming
because I have slaughtered a cow out there. It is needed. And so when -- on your map
you put medium density up next to that ten acre home, which falls into the low residential
district or area, it is needed. A road doesn't cut it. A 50 foot property -- or zoning -- linear
open space probably isn't going to cut it. We just want appropriate transition and when
we talk about appropriate transition, that means feathering it in and you are not going to
fit three homes per acre next to ten acres and it's not going to look appropriate. Thank
you.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Rennison: Hi.
De Weerd: Hi.
Rennison: I'm Pat Rennison at 990 Mustang Street in Locust Grove Heights.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Rennison: And I just -- since we are on the board there, I just wanted to make a couple
of comments that around this that the steering committee did support us to remain R-1,
resident zoning, and our people over here changed it to -- multiple use or multiple use
and that was kind of an arbitrary thing on their behalf, because 96 percent of the people
in our neighborhood have written letters. We have written letters for different times and
we have the support of 40 different families in the neighborhood -- neighborhood and yet
nobody has paid any attention to that. They decided to go ahead and change it to multiple
use -- that we also have taxation without representation. You had an election last week
where you people -- we had one thing on our ballot that we could vote, because we are
county and yet for 50 years we pay taxes for the library, the cemetery, the schools and
everything, except the police department, the fire department, everything else and yet we
are not being listened to. We are not being represented. We have brought people in.
We have come to the front. Where do we go from here is my question? When and where
will this decision be made to be changed? Since they said we are going to be changed
to multiple use, when will that take place?
De Weerd: That doesn't take place unless you come to the city and ask for it. So this is
just a future land use plan that doesn't change anything for the residents in your
subdivision unless they come in and ask for that change.
Rennison: Okay.
De Weerd: We are not going to come and redesignate your land.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 7, 2020 – Page 107 of 552
Meridian City Council Work Session
December 17, 2019
Page 29 of 50
Rennison: Okay. So, we are still R-1 and so --
De Weerd: You are R-1 as long as you are in the county and we won't come and ask you
or force annexation. That only happens when the citizen comes and says I want into the
city.
Rennison: Okay. Thank you very much for clearing that up, because a lot of the facts
that we were given in multiple meetings -- when we went to the health department and to
different -- Senator Crapo and other people, the facts that we were given here were not
real facts, they were disputed and -- and changed -- different and so that relieves a lot of
stress. Thank you very much.
De Weerd: You bet. Good evening.
McKay: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Becky McKay. I will give
my home address. 1100 East Valli-Hi, Eagle. And that's a five acre lot. Not my choice.
Married into it. And so I, obviously, recognize the comments, the concerns. I have had
the mobile butcher come to my place. Not a good scene. Did that once. Never do it
again. There is a significant amount of expense and effort that is taken to maintain that
type of property. You have no idea. If my husband weren't retired I don't know what I
would do, because there is no way I could even begin to keep up with it. The county -- I
worked in the county. Started in 1990. Five acre lots. That was the way to go. All cities
had the same concerns. Meridian, Boise city, you know, you are allowing these five acre
lots, what are we going to do when we extend services? How are these going to
redevelop? It was a significant concern. The county allowed it. We have it and now we
have to, obviously, be sensitive to it, but deal with the fact that those five acre lots are not
the highest and best use of the property as we extend very expensive sewer and water
services to these areas. I sent a letter in today stating that I have concerns about a one
acre mandate, because we -- when we develop properties I meet with the neighbors, I
have had five acre lots, I have had one acre lots, six acre lots -- everybody has a different
approach to how they do it. You know, some say do cul-de-sacs, so that you fan the lots
out. So, if I have one and a half lots, I'm okay. Some of them say, well, do -- you know,
if you could do 12 -- the 15,000 or 20,000 square feet, I'm okay. Others say, you know
what, I don't want to live here forever. This is my investment. I want to redevelop this
five acre lot. I want a stub street. I want Meridian sewer. I want Meridian water. I want
-- can we hook to your pressurized irrigation system, so we can redevelop. So, every
situation has a different approach and so I think the one acre lot just is -- you know, it's
one acre or nothing I don't think is the right approach. Every situation -- every piece of
property has its own configuration characteristics and the neighbors that I adjoin have
different goals. That five acres may be their retirement and they want to develop it. So,
I asked the Council to allow us just the -- the flexibility. I am a proponent of trying to
transition -- appropriate transition.
De Weerd: Becky, can you summarize?
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 7, 2020 – Page 108 of 552
Meridian City Council Work Session
December 17, 2019
Page 30 of 50
McKay: Yeah. And I rely on this body, this one, the next one to determine what that
transition should be. But don't set it at one acre and that's it. You have got a good plan.
I think you got to move forward and, then, we go to the UDC, we upgrade it --
De Weerd: Thank you.
McKay: -- to implement it. Thank you very much.
Borton: Madam Mayor? Just a comment, not a question, Becky, but you also raised in
your letter, which I thought was important to note, in the considerations of how to
determine the appropriate transition is asking the neighbors --
McKay: That's right.
Borton: -- in reference to having them be an active participant in that process, which is
important for us to see as well, so --
McKay: Madam Mayor, Councilman Borton, that is absolutely true. Yes, sir. That -- that
is critical to making this work for those people, so that if they want to -- if they want to live
in that environment and -- and, then, we do what we can to transition and we make it work
and come before you and say, hey, we have got a solution. That's -- the responsibility is
upon us to make that work. Yes, sir.
De Weerd: And I had a hand over there and, then, a hand over here. Yes, ma'am. And,
then, a hand right there.
Fishburn: Madam Mayor, I'm Gennie Fishburn and I live at 4000 McDermott. I'm a real
estate agent and I work -- I work with developers and I work on land and so I'm knocking
on doors and talking to people who are property owners and I -- I think I see both sides
of it. When I heard Becky talking about the -- maybe common sense transition, I think
your job would be hard. Maybe you -- it's hard to please everybody. You know, you have
-- you have got people on both sides that are going to be unhappy, so -- because I have
owned land and I have had to do the irrigating and that kind of thing as well and, then, I
have worked in real estate on the -- on the side of development, I think a lot about both
sides of it and so there are people who are really disappointed that growth has come to
our area and I really can sympathize with them. They -- maybe they have been there 35
years and they really didn't realize how much growth was going to come and it's
disappointing, but it did come. Idaho got discovered and here it is and so when I talk with
people -- and a couple of the people that have testified are people that I -- that I'm working
with now, but they would prefer the growth didn't come either, but now that it has and they
are surrounded by growth, but -- and they have gotten a little bit older and they are looking
to retire, that's exactly what many, many people have said to me, is that this is my
retirement. We actually need to sell it for development, so we can get the highest amount
of money that we can get for it and one acre lots are very difficult to transition to, because
one acre lots in our market are very expensive. They really are. It's very expensive to
develop it, because of the cost of bringing the infrastructure. So, it's -- it's almost a Catch
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 7, 2020 – Page 109 of 552
Meridian City Council Work Session
December 17, 2019
Page 31 of 50
22 and -- and it falls on your shoulders to decide that, but common sense transition is
what I would stand for. You know, I think that balances both sides. I will just say very
quickly that I'm working on a little seven -- seven acre piece and it backs up to the five
acre lots and so we have had that going on right now -- is that when we annex into the
city and we comply with what the Comprehensive Plan says, we are -- seven acres you
can't transition in one acre lots. It doesn't -- it doesn't work and so I guess we are going
to come up against that in a couple of months with the Council and so thinking about the
density bonuses that maybe have to come into play once in a while or just common sense
transitioning, because every piece of property is different once again and so I guess I feel
like I'm in the middle on that, that you have got to consider both of the -- both of the
components, but that common sense transition has to take place. So, thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Jessica.
Perrault: Good evening, Madam Mayor and Council Members. So, I officially resigned
my position on Planning and Zoning and not yet sworn in.
De Weerd: Do you want to say your name and address first.
Perreault: Oh, I should do that. Jessica Perreault: 4337 Newland Street, Meridian.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Perreault: So, yes, I am here just as a resident now in between the Planning and Zoning
and -- and City Council. Mrs. Fishburn stated a lot of what I was going to bring up. I'm a
residential associate, real estate broker, and do see challenges with -- especially the
smaller acreage properties. We are going to start seeing a lot more in-fill properties, just
like Boise has done, as our growth expands and to require one acre transition on a ten
acre piece, it's going to force that developer, then, to have to put greater density on
another area of that property and I think it's going to become very lopsided from a real
estate value standpoint. So, if I'm a buyer and I'm buying a one acre piece of property,
my -- my value is not going to retain if in my -- in the ten acre section that was developed
I now, two streets down, have a townhome that is -- or a patio home. Now that has
happened in some of our developments in Meridian, but that -- that transition is not as --
it's not going from one acre to a townhome, it's going from a quarter acre to a townhome.
So, I'm concerned as a resident and as a real estate broker that we will create value
issues on some of these larger in-fill projects if we are forcing developers to do that. So,
Councilman Cavener brought that up in the last presentation and, then, I also wanted to
speak to -- the El Gato-Black Cat area. So, I live just to the east of that intersection and
I'm down there on a regular basis and it is a fantastic beautiful area. I didn't get to say
this on Planning and Zoning, because I didn't want to make it specific to me, but I would
really like to see the industrial kept south of the railroad tracks in that area. I know it very
well. There is some fantastic wildlife there and what has been created in terms of their
-- their lots and the agricultural uses are -- is fantastic and I would like to see some of that
protected on the north side of the track. Also not just because of the homes on El Gato,
but because there are some -- some more dense residential that -- that has come in on
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 7, 2020 – Page 110 of 552
Meridian City Council Work Session
December 17, 2019
Page 32 of 50
the north side and I think that if -- if we don't keep some larger lots in between the more
dense residential on the north side and that really heavy industrial use south of the track,
that -- that we are going to be back here having these similar conversations again. So, I
just want to speak specifically to that, because I know that area so well. As a resident I
would like to see that industrial kept south of the track. And there are more things I would
like to say, but in the possibility that I will be a decision maker on this, if you don't pass
this tonight, I will leave the rest of my comments for a later time potentially. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Perreault: Any questions for me? Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Good evening. Thank you for your patience.
Conger: Oh, my pleasure.
De Weerd: If you will, please, state your name and address for the record.
Conger: Good evening, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Jim Conger. 4824 West
Fairview Avenue. Good evening again and thank you for letting me speak in front of you.
My -- my speaking points are going to be on not adding the one acre buffer lot, of course.
3.07.01F. I will focus more on really the hands-on approach, picking a couple
neighborhoods and trying to understand why -- why this actually would -- would disrupt
city planning and, as important, the Public Works policies. A handful of slides that -- that
affect future development, as well as how they would have affected the developments
that are already in place following, you know, the planning policies. Here Wainwright,
Centrepoint Way, which is actually a five acre Ada county subdivision. I guess I would
call that estate and rural and we will talk about the definition of rural later. This particular
area -- actually, one slide almost produces every possible challenge that would come up
with the one acre language. As you can see Alpine Point to the north, Champion Park to
the west, would not have occurred in the development pattern that you see today,
because they would have been against the one acres and would have -- or against the
five acres and would have had the one acre requirements. The apartments to the south
would, then, again, be against these same five acre estate parcels, where they would not
have occurred and that is a mixed use comp plan. So, I guess we would be putting one
acre lots in a mixed use comp plan environment, which, again, I don't think would fall in
line. And, then, of course, none of the five acres could redevelop by themselves, because
if you took one of the five acres it would be adjacent to five acres. So, that five acre in-fill
piece would -- would -- would really need to be one acre buffer lots, which you might get
three or four of them on a five acre parcel. In that case this is medium density, which
envisioned, you know, a little bit higher density than three or so units on the entire five
acres. I think the other -- last item -- as I said, this one challenged almost every -- the 8.2
acre guy would feel left out, because we said it's only buffering five acre parcels. So, the
it -- believe the 8.2 acre individual would possibly be in front of you, the Council, with any
development, which had been Champion Park complaining why are the five acres getting
buffered and me at 8.2 is not getting buffered. So, it's the perfect slide. I actually had
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 7, 2020 – Page 111 of 552
Meridian City Council Work Session
December 17, 2019
Page 33 of 50
three or four more of these. I am going to skip them on the favor of time and -- and run
through them -- they all have the same thing. I did challenge my office -- you have one
hour to produce as many locations as possible between five and six acre lot -- Ada county
parcels. I don't call them lots, but Ada county parcels and that was one hour's worth of
work, one individual. Definition. And, then, I had some discussions a little bit and, then,
I was assured that, hey, you know, the definition of rule will probably set us all straight
where these one acre buffers will be. I pulled the definition of rural and next to Eagle
Road you could have five acre parcels that you do that actually have a cow or two. They
would be very easy -- everything is rural, if you go the definition of rural where you just
have to have it agricultural or something of that nature. I think in closing it's worth noting
that I was on the steering committee. Much to what Jon Wardle said, there are -- we went
through numerous -- two, three, four comp plan items that address transition and I think
it's already well covered. I'm not going to go into those. And my last word is I was a
stakeholder. I was very grateful to be on that. I am proud of what we did and we spent
over 12 months doing it. I would say your staff was amazing. Your consultant was off the
charts as well. There was a ton of public outreach and I would stand for any questions
that you may have.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions?
Conger: Thank you very much.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any further testimony?
C.Langlois: Good evening. I wasn't planning on getting up here, so --
De Weerd: If you would state your --
C.Langlois: My name is Cliff Langlois. 3556 South Rustler Place. That's in the Stetson
Estates area. Your last slide that was shown of the five acre parcels with the
developments around them was a perfect slide why we need to have one acre transition
lots. I think on the one eight acre parcel there was 20 homes ringed around it. Just the
-- the poor -- poor little farm there that just got engulfed by -- by this development around
it. There is no transition there at all. They just had lots of stacked up against them and
that's what we are trying to avoid. I would like to compliment the City Council and staff
on coming up with seven point yadda yadda -- too late for my brain. I think it is a good
step in the right direction. I know it doesn't make all of our developer friends here tonight
very happy apparently, but -- and it's going to make their life a little more difficult, but at
some point I think there is going to be a vision of more transition and less just sprawling
up against things. I think that would do a real good job of it and I think the vision that you
have had with -- for it is a good one. Buffers, transitions are great, but I even think just
the one acre lots is even better. It -- it provides for that buffer transition all on its own
without doing something different and with that I will answer any questions.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions?
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 7, 2020 – Page 112 of 552
Meridian City Council Work Session
December 17, 2019
Page 34 of 50
Cavener: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Cavener.
Cavener: Caleb, do you have access to Mr. Conger's slide that was just referenced?
This I think will help me, because if I'm not mistaken I think that slide depicted a
development along Eagle Road and so your comments about this is the reason why we
need transition just -- it -- it struck me as kind of surprising, because to me I think Eagle
Road, state highway, busiest intersection of the state is just south of there that are large
land masses that aren't developed actually make sense alongside a state highway and
so help me understand your thought process about --
C.Langlois: There are people that have homes that have been living there, they are
existing, and now they have a development just ringed around them without any really
regard to transition there. I mean they are -- it would help me if you would -- to tell me
where the transition is. I don't see any. And a one acre lot would be great. Now, we are
not asking for the whole development to be one acre lots, but along the edge of those
existing large lots would be a great transition.
Cavener: And, Madam Mayor, I guess alongside a state highway I don't think that acre
lots make sense along Eagle Road. I think that you want your density --
C.Langlois: Eagle -- Eagle Road is way to the east of that -- that property.
Cavener: Well, no, it's -- I mean -- Madam Mayor. My apologies. You are chairing the
meeting. My apologies. So, Madam Mayor -- and, sir, I apologize. I didn't get your name.
I think it's just, then, a -- it's a difference of opinion. I think that where our roads are often
do help make -- at least for me as a Council Member what I support in terms of
development and what I don't and you mentioned sprawl and if we had sprawl like what
is in front of us alongside Eagle Road, our city would be really really challenged to provide
police services and fire services and clean water. Density helps to offset that. Also having
vehicles alongside a state highway is much better than to have it alongside Black Cat at
Ustick where the lanes are small. So, I appreciate your input. I think it's just a matter of
opinion, but I -- I'm one who does think that sometimes where land is matters and this is
the future land use map. So, this isn't going to be -- I don't think it will be five acre farms
forever. It -- it may be and as the Mayor educated a couple of folks earlier, if those five
landowners want to keep their land the way it is they can, but to tell the neighbors you
can't develop your land the way you want, because I don't want more people living next
to me alongside of a state highway is a really hard piece for me to wrap my head around.
C.Langlois: Not -- I don't think anybody was going there. I think we were talking about
transitions and buffers and I think the one acre lots are a good transition, It's a good
utilization of the space and using your logic would you consider the Rustler Lane and
Rock Ridge -- those are fairly remote areas. Good areas for the one acre transitions.
De Weerd: I think that -- that -- that's inappropriate.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 7, 2020 – Page 113 of 552
Meridian City Council Work Session
December 17, 2019
Page 35 of 50
Cavener: Yeah. Madam Mayor, it's okay. And, sir, I would be happy to -- because I
appreciate this and you, obviously, care about your part of the community. It's a
conversation I think to the Mayor's point that I would love to have out in lobby or over a
cup of coffee --
C.Langlois: I understand.
Cavener: -- and -- and engage in a healthy debate. So, I appreciate -- I appreciate your
insight a lot. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Mayor.
De Weerd: And I guess it lends to the argument that there is a case by case basis. The
lots to the north of these five acre lots are half acre. There was an interest in transition
and those are the transition. The landowners there -- I have been here long enough --
they didn't come and testify against it. They wanted a transitional and half acre was
satisfactory and I think it really doubles down to what staff has said in terms of no one
situation is similar and in this regard, to Councilman Cavener's point, is it has -- it is along
a very busy road and the densities make greater sense. But there was an effort for the
transition and now those five acre landowners are coming in wanting to subdivide as well.
But thank you for your testimony.
C.Langlois: I appreciate that. But I reiterate I do think the policy is a good one. I would
keep it.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Any other testimony? Wow, we haven't even asked ACHD
to weigh in.
Cavener: It's voluntary.
Lucas: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is unique, because I am not here to
testify on behalf of Ada County Highway District. I am a resident of Meridian. I care about
our city. The comp plan is really nothing to do with what I do professionally at the highway
district directly, so I feel it's appropriate I can provide a personal comment. My name is
Justin Lucas. I live at 1922 West Pachino Street, Meridian, Idaho. Bridgetower
Subdivision. Proud of it. Love it there. Really nice subdivision. I will be brief. I think the
policy in question tonight is just too specific for a comprehensive plan. That's my opinion.
It's too specific. The comp plan is about high level guidance. It's about policy. It's about
vision. This city, since I moved here, has grown from 50 to over 100,000. It's going to
grow a lot more and so I think we need to be careful with these types of policies and that's
just my opinion on the matter and, Madam Mayor, it's been a pleasure to work with you.
I have worked for you, I have worked with you, it's been fun. So, thank you very much.
De Weerd: Thank you, Justin. And I can say it's been a pleasure working with you as
well, both as an employee and as a colleague. So, we appreciate that you are with us
every week and I will miss this.
Lucas: I will see you at Albertson's.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 7, 2020 – Page 114 of 552
Meridian City Council Work Session
December 17, 2019
Page 36 of 50
De Weerd: You will. Any further testimony? I'm going to take a ten minute recess.
(Recess: 8:06 p.m. to 8:19 p.m.)
De Weerd: I will go ahead and ask that people take their seats. We are going to get
started again. So, Council, I would ask if you have any further questions for staff at this
point. If not, you have one of two choices. You can have discussion before you close the
public hearing or you can close the public hearing and have discussion. Okay. Does
anyone want to initiate discussion?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: I will -- I will kick some of the comments off. So, if assuming public comment is
closing or soon to close, some of the thoughts gathered from all of this process. First off,
thank you to the public who has spent 12 plus months -- the steering committee in
particular, but also all of the public who has provided input, come down to these meetings,
hung around and watched us make things muddy and with good intentions to try and
improve this Comprehensive Plan. So, hats off to the committee and their good work, as
well as the public and -- and -- and to our staff as well for spending all the time gathering
all this input. I think I mentioned it before. The process is one -- I'm comfortable making
-- taking action today and one of the reasons that I have made that decision to -- to commit
to try and take action when it was ready is the genesis of all of this is the community. It's
the community's plan and it was intended to be developed that way with stakeholder input
and we saw Caleb and Brian at every event, weekends and weekdays, gathering input.
Lots of people. No people. Just everywhere. And for us to stay out of it, because it's not
a plan from the top down, it's not one that the six or seven of us -- the intention isn't for
us to draw a map and color things, it's to try and be quiet and see what the community
tells us. I feel comfortable that that's what this plan is and the vast majority of input -- 500
policies that Caleb talks about, a lot of good work and change came into it and there is --
there is consensus on the lion's share of all of this, which speaks to the community having
worked with that committee and formed consensus to and make this plan better. So, I
was comfortable understanding the process would be to sit back and try and let this thing
develop. The other part of it is a commitment that whenever action is taken that the very
next day there is more action to be taken. There is a commitment that the comp plan will
be addressed within eight years. It's not going to take so long and we are going to be a
little more diligent and making sure this document lives. If that's through sub area plans,
if it's through a defined process to make UDC amendments to capture the intent of these
changes, then, that's going to happen. So, whenever action happens on this plan we
know the very next day more action is to follow and I think that's our commitment. I think
that's got to be our commitment to the public to make sure that teeth go into what's
intended here. So, with that, all of that process coming from the public and now down --
drill down to these summary remaining issues, from my perspective -- and I didn't know
what to expect when we started getting public testimony -- I can say to the public in
particular that I think we hear you. I know I hear you. And some of the overriding
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 7, 2020 – Page 115 of 552
Meridian City Council Work Session
December 17, 2019
Page 37 of 50
principles, which were louder now than ever before, is the concept of acknowledging,
recognizing and in protecting rural heritage and agricultural principles. That is loud and
clear and I think the language that's proposed in these changes before us I'm supportive
of. I understand the Comprehensive Plan is not going to be perfect and it's not going to
be the singular document which defines and answers every question. What I like about
this amended comp plan -- and, Madam Mayor, I'm going to go on a little bit, because this
is a very big process and big decision, but -- but for me one of the great values of this
Comprehensive Plan is -- is understanding the intent of its language. So, the language
added, this 3.07.01F I thought that made great sense, because I was thinking about the
intent of what it's trying to capture. The problem I see with the language -- and I think it
needs to come out, because the language itself isn't -- of that policy isn't necessarily what
-- it doesn't capture what its true intent is. I think the intent with the added language and
the low density above is what's truly to be captured. So, what I hear and my commitment
going forward in applying this Comprehensive Plan principle and in trying to guide the
immediate action steps that are to follow once it's ever passed, is to promote that
language that's on the screen right now and the policy below -- it might, quite frankly,
hamstring an ability to meet those needs. So, I -- I think the 3.07.01F comes out, the
language of it. I think the intent and the purpose stays in. We have heard loud and clear
that transition is critical, that there is going to be a more focused attempt to acknowledge
and promote what's underlined on the screen. I think our public has asked for that and,
quite frankly, I think the development community hasn't necessarily opposed it. What we
have heard is the policy provision by itself hamstrings probably in a way it wasn't intended.
So, by removing it it's not as though we are removing the goal of promoting appropriate
transition. I just think we have heard just the opposite. So, the Council is going to have
a heightened scrutiny on those types of projects. I think it's going to help define UDC text
changes that are going to follow to capture that intent. So, I -- after receiving all the public
input from the development community and from all of the citizens in writing and verbally,
I think that's the best way to go forward on this last remaining issue with the low density
residential. So, I know open space is a big part of what's going to follow. If it takes time
for UDC to formally mandate any change in open space, I know that Council has heard it
and when the Council is exercising discretion, the fact that something might be code
compliant does not mandate its approval or acceptance. I think the development
community who has participated in this process understands and has listened to the
community and understands that a focused eye on open space and if that's to be
enhanced that the development community can be partners in trying to promote that goal.
I know our public has given us that direction and we can apply those principles we have
heard immediately, because that's what our community has asked us to do while the work
is going on with the UDC. So, those are some of those broader principles. The transitions
issue. The open space in the rural context of southern Meridian in particular, while still
affording the developer the flexibility in some circumstances to provide an appropriate
transition in a different means and in some circumstances it very well may be a one acre
lot or two acre lot is the transition. It's a case-by-case basis. One acre might be too small
for a transition. We just don't know that, so -- those are -- those are my thoughts. I think
the rest of the plan -- I don't think there were any other really unresolved issues. There
wasn't any new testimony today on -- or most of it was related to these and I think that's
-- that's where I fall on -- on -- I take an initial comfort in -- in taking some action tonight
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 7, 2020 – Page 116 of 552
Meridian City Council Work Session
December 17, 2019
Page 38 of 50
and, then, I think any action should follow through with some direction or
recommendations to staff to -- in January let's set the timetable for knocking out action
and moving. The community's asked for that as well and I think we can rise to the
occasion and do that. So, just initial thoughts for discussion.
De Weerd: I think Caleb has certainly put a list together that I would like him to get out
and at the first week or two of January that the Council has an opportunity to discuss that,
weigh in on priorities and, then, set that in motion through budget amendments, as well
as direction to staff on what Council envisions the priorities of next steps to be. Additional
comments?
Bernt: Madam Mayor, real quick.
De Weerd: Mr. Bernt.
Bernt: Just a couple things along to piggyback with what Mr. Borton's talked about. I --
again, I can't focus -- or I mean I can't say enough about prioritizing the UDC changes as
swiftly and as quickly as possible. I feel like there is some distrust in our audience and
those who are close -- who attend meetings and who pay close attention and were
engaged in this process, I feel that there is some distrust and -- and that this will not
happen and I can promise you that it will happen and that as long as I'm here I will fight
for these changes as swiftly as possible, but I -- with that said, I also want to get it right
and I love Denise's recommendation in regard to involving members of the development
community and members of city staff and also, you know, residents who are engaged,
who understand the process, get -- I thought that was a great idea and I think that that's
worth a definite discussion. Let me think. Let me look at my notes. I'm also a big believer
in the area specific plans. I wish we could have been able to speak more specific in
regard to those issues during this Comprehensive Plan. I understand why we can't, but I
challenged staff to -- let's also talk about this. Where are these area specific plans and
what these area specific plans are going to be, whether we call them districts or whatever,
I think it's important to keep the heritage of our great city alive and to celebrate that and
create gathering spaces, like Susan Karnes mentioned earlier, I think that's extremely
important and be creative in that development process and be upfront about it, so that
when we get to those areas, the expectation has been met and so I think that discussing
those area specific plans sooner than later and starting that process, understanding that
it's going to be a long process that's going to cost the city money to accomplish, I think
it's well worth it and I think that the discussion needs to happen as well. I have more
thoughts, but I just need to put them together maybe a little bit later, but those are what I
have right now.
De Weerd: Okay.
Cavener: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Cavener.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 7, 2020 – Page 117 of 552
Meridian City Council Work Session
December 17, 2019
Page 39 of 50
Cavener: I'm happy to go. First off, Caleb, Brian -- Caleb turned this around in three
weeks with everything else you guys got going on. I really -- I mean I appreciate it and I
think it's great when you hear both citizen groups, development groups, just lapping on
the praise for you guys, for your willingness to be flexible and to work through this, to all
the other, you know, critical issues that you guys have faced in your department. Madam
Mayor, a couple of thoughts. You know, when -- when we began this process -- and
Council Member Borton alluded to it earlier, that we wanted this to be a stakeholder,
citizen driven, staff managed -- Council didn't want to put our noses in it and for the most
part with -- I think the suggested change of removing 3-7-1F, I think for the most part it's
not going to be the plan that I love, but it could be one that I could support, with -- with
one caveat. I feel like after our meeting three weeks ago we shifted away from that
citizen-stakeholder driven process and that we said, oh, we are not -- we are not going to
go back to that and, you know, I said, then, and I believe it still now, that some of these
changes should have went back to the stakeholder group first before we saw it, because
that's the process that we laid out from the beginning and when it's at the finish line we
don't, then, change the rules to make it work. I recognize that there are -- there are folks
that have a lot of motivation to get this passed tonight or the first part of the year before
the new Council comes on and everyone has their own reasons for that. Part of me feels
like that we have spent so much time and so much money on this that to abandon the
values and the process that we have said we were going to follow from the get go, doesn't
feel -- like if I was a citizen that we followed the process that we laid out. The result may
come back the same, but I feel like that we have said that's the process that we have
wanted to follow and I still think that we should. That said, should we move forward tonight
a thought for us to discuss for staff to maybe include is in the executive summary to maybe
add a paragraph or add a piece that talks about the things that we have discussed tonight,
where we want to go, so that our citizens, the development community can hear over the
next 12 months that Council wants to look at UDC changes that maybe involves area
specific plans or neighborhood districts. That gives some weight and some
acknowledgement to our citizens who want to maintain -- at least acknowledgement about
the rural part of our town where they didn't move to Meridian, Meridian has been moving
to them and that this Council is committed to looking as a way to address that via code.
I think that that -- if I was a citizen and I said, okay, I have learned a lot about the process
and the way, you know, comprehensive plans work, I have heard from the Council that
these are the things that they are committed -- I mean, Council Member Bernt, you said
it clearer than anybody, as long as you are here these are things you are going to be
working on, which I applaud. But that we can commit that to paper so that's in our plan
as we look to UDC and as we look to create policy around that, that those values that we
have been talking about or at least captured in a document. So, that would be something
that I would suggest that we work to include.
De Weerd: Mrs. Little Roberts?
Little Roberts: Madam Mayor, I agree with -- both what Councilman Borton and Cavener
have covered. I think that it really has been from the citizens up, which has been great
that we have been so removed until the discussions have started months ago, though,
that we have been going over it, but it's -- it is a real difficult situation where we have got
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 7, 2020 – Page 118 of 552
Meridian City Council Work Session
December 17, 2019
Page 40 of 50
one paragraph in there that has great potential to do some really good things, but some
potentially unintended consequences that could cause harm to people's retirement and
so for that I would agree with removing the 3.7.1F -- to exclude it, but to really focus on
what we have talked about, those transitional areas and we definitely task the Council
moving forward that that is a focus, along with getting the districts or the areas designated
and set up and so I feel like this really is good progress and that we are in a situation
where we can proceed and keep this going and get the plan in place and let the -- the
next process start and kudos to staff, who have worked so hard and so long at getting all
of those done. Thank you.
Bernt: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bernt.
Bernt: Like what's been said, I think the vast majority of what we have been talking about
I think in this plan is -- I think we are in consensus. I think we agree. What about -- just
one question. It's hypothetical. But what if we were just to reword that -- because I think
we are all in agreement that what's stated in the policy in 3.07.01F isn't -- the intent behind
it didn't quite meet the mark. What if we were to reword the policy, so that it can still say,
you know, one acre lots, but also give other options in regard to, you know, other in-fill
projects where other solutions may be more appropriate. Just a thought.
Little Roberts: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Little Roberts.
Little Roberts: Madam Mayor, I believe someone testified that we already had things in
that would cover it. Bill -- could we ask Bill to address that?
De Weerd: Bill.
Nary: So, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Little Roberts and
Bernt, I would agree, there are a number of policies that you already have that will address
what they are asking for here. The devil is in the details, right, is the term we use a lot.
And, really, the next phase, which is the UDC code that has to come to support these
policies that you have, can address all of these types of concerns. So, it exists. So, I
would be more hesitant to recommend that you reward this than to delete it. I think if you
delete it you still have the ability to do all of these types of changes, to look at the varieties
of places -- as you have heard from testimony tonight, one size does not fit all and -- and
there is the ability in the -- in the way that's currently crafted to create the necessity for
areas that really warrant better transition, larger -- different -- difficult -- difficult places to
transition with larger lots and also places that really want to have the greater densities
and the abilities to subdivide and move on with a retirement or whatever. So, I think you
have it and trying to reword its structure I think is more problematic than leaving it.
Bernt: Thank you for clarifying.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 7, 2020 – Page 119 of 552
Meridian City Council Work Session
December 17, 2019
Page 41 of 50
De Weerd: You know, I guess I would just weigh in to say this plan has gotten to this point
through collaborative efforts. It's not staff's plan, it's not the steering committee's plan, it's
not the development community's plan, it is an accumulation of testimony taken that has
gotten it to this point. That is a public plan. It goes through a public process and -- and I
think it's been very thorough. I do, too, want to thank staff. They have gone to
extraordinary measures to reach out to the community to get comments and I think that
this is has gotten more interest and input on people's radars because of that. People
have had an opportunity to have comment about the things they are passionate about
and not all of it is about the FLUM, but one common thing is the open space and so to
our newly electeds that will take -- take the lead next January, in just three weeks, if
anything, to give strong advice or direction to staff, so that the public and the development
community knows the intention and certainly those will be refined as it goes through the
public process, but I do think that there is probably a number that -- that can be agreed
on to give direction. It won't be policy right away, but I think staff will carry the torch in --
in communicating that. So, open space is probably one of those areas that -- and
preservation, that transition between land uses -- I sometimes get concerned when you
start hearing one property right is more important than another property right. It is a
balance and it's trying to find what -- what you can do to -- to mitigate impacts and to find
true transitions. The districts -- while it needs transitioning, I heard a new term feathering.
That was kind of fun. The feathering is -- is certainly one of those, but the district is to
encourage something innovative, something creative and -- and working with the -- the
impacted citizens and the development community to -- to look at that, to look at identities
in parts of our community, to discuss design standards and also to discuss protection of
estate lots, as that one other area of housing options and densities, where do densities
belong that we can support through city services, infrastructure, and public -- eventually
public transportation. Those all need to be a consideration. But those estate lots become
very important, too, as we continue to bring those family wage jobs and not all executives
should have to live in Eagle and right now you see a lot of people that are making those
choices, because they do have greater protections of their investment and they know
what's going to go in next to them. All those need to be a part of those discussions. I
think those are -- are some of the higher priorities and I look forward to turning this over
to the newly elected and -- and seeing how they -- they pick this up and carry the torch
forward and I would ask that the other outgoing Council Members also weigh in. If there
are things that you feel are a priority for discussion by our next electeds, to, please, weigh
in and to share your thoughts, either on the record or individually one on one, because
you have been living and breathing this for the last 18 months and -- and maybe as a --
as a -- as observer, but going through the public process, looking at the large number of
public testimony and people that weighed in, it's -- it's pretty incredible to see how people
have stepped up and wanted to be a part of this. I look forward to -- to hopefully being a
part of the next steps, because certainly, like we said earlier in the -- the work session,
we are not going anywhere and -- and as we weighed in we continue to care and -- and
this is our community as well and we want to see it move forward in the right direction.
Bernt: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bernt.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 7, 2020 – Page 120 of 552
Meridian City Council Work Session
December 17, 2019
Page 42 of 50
Bernt: Caleb, can you put it back to the -- the page that talked about -- the one on the
left. That one. Thank you.
De Weerd: Any further discussion? If not, do I have a motion to close the public hearing?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: If discussion is over, I will move we close the public hearing on Item 7-B.
Little Roberts: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All those in favor
say aye. Any opposed? Okay. All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: I will make a motion to get some discussion going. Whether or not there is going
to be action tonight. I move we approve Item 7-B, H-2019-0101 as amended and
presented at tonight's City Council meeting and to exclude Policy 3.07.01F and include
all of the other language that's been incorporated and to have staff bring to the January
14th City Council meeting as an agenda item an action plan and timetable for exactly
what the initial priority steps will be for UDC text changes, specific area plan next steps
or swift implementation of the next stages. So, it's -- it would be an approval, but it's got
some -- some action that has to follow quickly.
Little Roberts: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second. I think the -- the direct staff is not
necessarily part of the motion, just to be clear in your intent of the appropriate follow up.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Because those findings would be really interesting.
Borton: If it's -- if it's excluded from the motion, which I totally appreciate, but it's such a
critical part if there is to be action that -- I mean it's predicated on us following through
and holding ourselves accountable and I know staff is ready, willing, and able to do so.
You have indicated mid-January we will go and we will do it publicly and we will do it
thoroughly to implement and nothing prevents us from personally applying some of these
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 7, 2020 – Page 121 of 552
Meridian City Council Work Session
December 17, 2019
Page 43 of 50
standards ourselves if we deem it appropriate, but an approval of the plan I think
necessitates that. So, it's not part of the motion itself, but it's part of the intent behind it.
Bernt: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bernt.
Bernt: I guess does the second agree to --
Little Roberts: Second agrees.
Bernt: All right. Just to make sure that that -- that the UDC changes coming up address
open space, transitions, gathering spaces, districts, all of the things that were mentioned
before -- amenities, et cetera.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other discussion? I have a motion and a second.
Milam: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Cavener.
Cavener: I appreciate the work with his body. I'm not going to support the motion, but I
think it's important to note that should this pass as we begin moving forward on UDC code
changes, I will be here arm in arm with everybody. It's not my opposition to what we are
trying to accomplish. My observation is twofold. One, again, from the process standpoint.
I think we are -- we are skipping a step. Two, I would still like to see some commitment
in paper on our Comprehensive Plan that articulates what the Council is going to achieve
and once that's achieved and we have a revision to the plan we can remove that out, but
I think that it is a -- a declarative statement to our community about these values that we
have said we want to work on. So, without that being added into, again, the opening of
the text of the comp plan is not something I can be supportive of.
Borton: Madam Mayor? I hate to see you oppose the plan in that regard. If you are
supportive of the plan itself, but would like Council to articulate -- which maybe that
happens in a separate -- I mean we can pass a resolution, quite frankly, in -- in mid-
January, for example, that says we are resolved to do one through seven for these
reasons in furtherance of the plan we have adopted. That might be another means of
doing it. It still gets you -- and it might satisfy your concern.
Cavener: And Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Cavener.
Cavener: A little playing tennis with Council Member Borton. If -- if we are in agreement
that those are the things that we want to address, why -- why would we omit including
that in the plan to our community. It's -- it's six of one and half a dozen of the other. One,
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 7, 2020 – Page 122 of 552
Meridian City Council Work Session
December 17, 2019
Page 44 of 50
though, goes into our plan and one is the resolution that goes alongside our plan and if
we get -- if we -- if we get to the finished line the same way, then, let's include it in the
plan. That's just my -- my take. And I think that if -- again, if I'm a citizen member, this
plan that we are going to -- it sounds like approve, I take some relief in knowing that the
things that we heard from our community from tonight are included in a declarative
statement that these are the things that Council is going to work on in UDC code that
addresses the concerns we heard tonight. That's all.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Just to I guess give another point that you can consider. Your next item on the
agenda is an amendment to the code to actually update and correct the code in regard to
the Comprehensive Plan that's in a different portion of the code in the UDC and it really
was intended as a cleanup, because it makes a reference to the Comprehensive Plan
that was adopted in 1990. So, it's never been cleaned up when we passed the new
Comprehensive Plan in 2002 -- the city attorney, who wasn't me, didn't notice that was
there, so that it never got changed. You could consider adding what Council Member
Cavener is suggesting into that code and, then, it is in your code as to what is important
and so if you want to do that we can continue this item from tonight on the code change
and add that language into that very section and it will highlight and it is in code and it
highlights what the Council wants and, then, if at some point it becomes outdated, like it
is now, you can always amend it.
Borton: One way to get there.
De Weerd: I think that's a good route to -- to achieve That kind of the declaratory content.
Cavener: Madam Mayor? Agreed. And I think that feels really good and is a way for us
to achieve it. I just don't know if -- we hear all the time from our citizens that apparently
go through our Comprehensive Plan with great detail before they move here, before they
buy a house. That's what I hear week in and week out it seems. Right here. So, if that's
the case, including that in our plan makes sense and maybe it's both. Again, I hate being
a squeaky wheel on this, I just think that it -- I just think that if I was a citizen it would give
me greater comfort knowing that -- and, again, this body changes in three weeks, but at
least this Council has said these are the things that we are committed to working on as a
body and hope -- and I believe that wholeheartedly that the new council and the new
mayor would embrace that as well. I just don't understand what we lose or what an
unintended consequence is by adding some of that in the executive summary of the
Comprehensive Plan. If there is, great, let's talk about that. If not --
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 7, 2020 – Page 123 of 552
Meridian City Council Work Session
December 17, 2019
Page 45 of 50
Borton: Being one who loves consensus, I will take the bait and continue the discussion.
If -- if we were to go down that path would -- would one option be envisioning sort of that
executive summary letter that perhaps is even signed by Council that outlines those
principles, right, a single short executive summary, compiled from what's been discussed
here today, could be acted on I guess in the -- in the old business on the 7th of January.
Cavener: Uh-huh.
Borton: Having now until then to craft that letter and language, we don't -- we have
gathered and discussed it, so we can compile it from the information we have to provide
that clear direction of our unanimous commitment and support of the plan and the actions
which will soon follow, is that what you're trying to bring us all together to do? I get it. I
understand what you --
Cavener: Madam Mayor. I appreciate your -- making me sound so much smarter, more
articulate, when you -- when you speak, Council Member Borton. Yes, I think you -- you
articulated well what I would hope for us to achieve and I think that it gives all of us as
Council Members that one kind of last opportunity to have our fingerprints on this that
takes into the feedback that we have been given and we are not saying we are going to
change open space or we are going to create districts, because this body ends in -- in
three weeks, but to summarize that as a body of work committed to looking at and
directing the feedback that we heard from our community on these items.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: We are all supportive of that. I -- it sounds like.
Cavener: I would assume so. Sorry.
Borton: If that -- if that is -- if it's important to you, it's -- it's important to me.
Cavener: I appreciate that.
Borton: Because the Council as a whole, we want to be together on this to make it
successful going forward, so -- I don't know how the rest of the Council feels.
Cavener: I don't either.
Borton: Sorry.
De Weerd: What do you want it to say? I just thought I would ask for staff, who is going
to write it.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 7, 2020 – Page 124 of 552
Meridian City Council Work Session
December 17, 2019
Page 46 of 50
Cavener: Sorry. Madam Mayor, I didn't know if you were looking to me. It looks like you
were looking at Mr. Nary and I'm like I don't know what Mr. Nary wants.
De Weerd: No. He -- he probably will have to write it, but I'm sure he would like direction.
Cavener: So --
De Weerd: Because I'm feeling the love, you know, but that doesn't give me details.
Cavener: So -- Madam Mayor. And -- and this was not something that I had considered
before I showed up here tonight, so I am kind of, you know, shooting by the seat of my
pants, but within the executive summary that's already developed now comes the plan
development and to me it is a separate category, a look to the future, and it is something
along the lines of in an effort to respond to the feedback, suggestions, concerns from our
community, as part of this Comprehensive Plan the City Council will work over X amount
of time that -- that we are asking for staff to bring us on January the 14th to discuss or
address the following items. I think we all touched on those tonight and if we need to kind
of summarize what we would want included we can do that, but that's to me what it would
say. It's something that, again, as a citizen can say, hey, there is things that we wanted
to be including in the Comprehensive Plan that really don't fit within the Comprehensive
Plan, they come in relation to code, but I at least have memorialized in the Comprehensive
Plan that these issues that are concerns of mine are going to be looked at by the new
council.
Palmer: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Palmer.
Palmer: Well, the reason I haven't said much is as was stated at the beginning of the
meeting, there is never any question where I stand and so there -- there really hasn't been
any question where I stand on this. I have spoken until I'm blue in the face over the
Comprehensive Plan, but I -- I -- I don't understand where this new delay is coming from,
because the reality is if we do that what is actually accomplished? What -- who is bound
by some new handcuffs to do something different than what exists under Councilman
Borton's motion. We have an opportunity right now to wrap this sucker up in 2019. There
-- the fact that there -- they were able to put in such large font the few number of items
that needed Council to just make decisions on is so mind blowing and impressive. To
back up Caleb's point, there is 500 other policies that are not even necessary to discuss
in Council meeting. There were these issues before us. We made the decision last week
to bring -- to make these adjustments and bring them this week. We have heard the
testimony. Let's make the decision and be done with this and --
Bernt: Madam Mayor?
Palmer: -- let everybody have a Merry Christmas and go into the new year working on
the UDC.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 7, 2020 – Page 125 of 552
Meridian City Council Work Session
December 17, 2019
Page 47 of 50
Bernt: Madam Mayor? I wanted --
De Weerd: Mr. Bernt.
Bernt: I want it to be known on the public record that the last thing that we voted upon is
something I agree with Councilman Palmer.
De Weerd: Me, too.
Palmer: Madam Mayor? Can we call the question and vote on the motion?
De Weerd: We do have an active motion. If there is no further discussion we certainly
can. Mr. Clerk.
Roll call: Borton, yea; Milam, absent; Cavener, nay; Palmer, yea; Little Roberts, yea;
Bernt, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Hey, whoa. Mr. Palmer.
Borton: What a legacy.
Palmer: Madam Mayor? While I'm on roll, can we adjust the budget?
De Weerd: I would need a motion and a second. It's not on the agenda. Sorry.
C. Resolution No. 19-2179: A Resolution Of The Mayor And City
Council Of The City Of Meridian Adopting The Meridian
Comprehensive Plan For The City Of Meridian; And Providing
An Effective Date
De Weerd: Okay. Item 7-C is Resolution 19-2179. So, Council, this resolution is an
opportunity to do whatever was last talked about.
Bernt: Now is your chance.
Cavener: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Cavener.
Cavener: I appreciate Council Member Bernt saying this is my chance. Our comp plan
is a visioning document. It's not -- it doesn't handcuff anybody to anything. It wouldn't if
we included the things I thought were important as we cast a vision. You as a body are
free to make a motion and a second. I think it was important that we included it in our
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 7, 2020 – Page 126 of 552
Meridian City Council Work Session
December 17, 2019
Page 48 of 50
visioning document. It's fine if this body wants to add it here, but I will leave it to you as
a body to make the decision.
Nary: Madam Mayor? Can I ask -- I thought you said you were on -- are you on C or are
you on 8-A? I just want --
De Weerd: No. I'm on C.
Nary: So, I thought Council Member Borton's resolution -- or motion was to approve that.
That is the resolution that adopts the comp plan. So, I thought that's what you just did.
So, I think you were on 8-A, unless I misunderstood the motion. But then you moved to
adopt the comp plan and that's what that resolution is.
Borton: Madam Mayor, the motion failed to cite the resolution.
De Weerd: The motion didn't cite the resolution.
Nary: Oh. Okay. I see what you're saying.
Borton: Do we need to do that again?
Nary: You can. When you approved that -- that's the same effect as --
Borton: That was the intent.
Nary: So, I don't see a necessity to do it again, but it might be cleaner if you did, since
you didn't talk about the resolution. All this resolution does is refer back to the things that
you already said.
De Weerd: But the revolution I think didn't cite the changes, so -- I don't know. I felt that
the motion made it clear for the intent for the resolution.
Nary: Okay. Then that's fine.
De Weerd: So, yes, Mr. Borton, I would need a motion.
Borton: Okay. Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: I move we approve Resolution No. 19-2179.
Bernt: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 7-C with the -- the content of
the previous motion.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 7, 2020 – Page 127 of 552
Meridian City Council Work Session
December 17, 2019
Page 49 of 50
Borton: Correct.
De Weerd: Okay. Any -- any discussion? Mr. Clerk.
Roll call: Borton, yea; Milam, absent; Cavener, nay; Palmer, yea; Little Roberts, yea;
Bernt, yea.
De Weerd: Okay. The ayes have it.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT.
Item 8: Ordinances
A. Ordinance No. 19-1867: An Ordinance Amending Meridian City
Code Section 1-11-5(A), Regarding Application of the
Comprehensive Plan to the Meridian Area of City Impact; And
Providing An Effective Date
De Weerd: Item 8-A is Ordinance 19-1867. Mr. Clerk, will you, please, read this by title.
Johnson: Thank you, Madam Mayor. This is an ordinance amending Meridian City Code
Section 1-11-5(A), regarding application of the Comprehensive Plan to the Meridian Area
of City Impact and providing an effective date.
De Weerd: You have heard this ordinance read by title. Is there anyone who would like
to hear it read in its entirety? Okay. Council, do I have a motion?
Bernt: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bernt.
Bernt: I move that we approve Ordinance No. 19-1867 with suspension of rules.
Little Roberts: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 8-A. Mr. Clerk, will you call
roll.
Roll call: Borton, yea; Milam, absent; Cavener, aye; Palmer, yea; Little Roberts, yea;
Bernt, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 9: Future Meeting Topics
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 7, 2020 – Page 128 of 552
Meridian City Council Work Session
December 17, 2019
Page 50 of 50
De Weerd: Anything under Item 9? If not, I would entertain a motion to adjourn.
Cavener: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Cavener.
Cavener: Just -- I know that this is a -- a future future meeting topic, but I don't know who
is capturing it for discussion -- is maybe a follow-up conversation on our -- our workshop
agendas. I feel like the last month we have been going up until 6:00 o'clock and, then,
we start late, so that Council can have a quick bite to eat and so we may need to have a
conversation with the new council and new mayor about what that agenda looks like, so
that we are starting on time at 6:00 o'clock and meeting kind of the -- the goal of this
workshop, which was to let us take care of some internal City Hall things in a short amount
of time, make space, if needed, for an Executive Session, so that we can start again at
6:00 o'clock for our general meetings.
De Weerd: Okay. Do I have a motion to adjourn? Mr. Palmer.
Palmer: Madam Mayor, I move we adjourn.
Cavener: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second and if you all vote aye we will once again agree
with Mr. Palmer. All those in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:06 P.M.
(AUDIO RF��ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
MAYOR TAMMY DE WEERD
ATTEST:
p AUGUS�
moo.
v
DATE APPROVED
G c;ty „ r
z E IDIAN�
/1, � p A"o
w
F� K SEAL tee%
ofthe