Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-03-04E IDIAN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR ~~ MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Tuesday, March 04, 2014 at 6:00 PM 1. Roll-Call Attendance X David Zaremba X Joe Borton X Charlie Rountree X Keith Bird X Genesis Milam X Luke Cavener X Mayor Tammy de Weerd 2. Pledge of Allegiance by Jordan Mowery 3. Community Invocation by Larry Woodard of Ten Mile Christian Church 4. Adoption of the Agenda Adopted 5. Consent Agenda Approved (Pg 3-4) A. Approve Minutes of February 4, 2014 City Council Meeting B. Approve Minutes of February 11, 2014 City Council Workshop Meeting C. Approve Minutes of February 18, 2014 City Council PreCouncil Meeting D. Approve Minutes of February 18, 2014 City Council Meeting E. Approve Minutes of February 25, 2014 City Council Meeting F. Approval of Street Light Maintenance Agreement with Traditions by Amyx II for Zebulon Commons Subdivision G. Approval of Professional Services Agreement to JUB Engineers, Inc. for "Meridian Heights -Kentucky Ridge Program Management" for the Not-To- Exceed Amount of $89,000.00 Moved off of Consent to Item 7 H. Approval of purchase of a Pierce Arrow UC-06 Fire Engine from Hughes Fire Equipment for the Not-To-Exceed amount of $499,926.00, to sign the Interlocal Contract for Cooperative Purchasing and authorize the Purchasing Manager to issue and sign the purchase order. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda -Tuesday, March 04, 2014 Page 1 of 4 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. I. CableONE Movie Night in Meridian 2014 Single-Night Sponsorship Agreement Between Westside Body Works and the City of Meridian for a Not-to-Exceed Amount of $350.00 J. CableONE Movie Night in Meridian 2014 Presenting Sponsorship Agreement Between Carrington College and the City of Meridian for aNot- to-Exceed Amount of $2,000.00 K. Temporary Construction Easement, Sundance Investments LLLP, Grantor L. Final Order for Approval: FP 14-002 Three Corners No. 2 by David Dean Located Southeast Corner of N. Locust Grove Road and Chinden Boulevard Request: Final Plat Approval Consisting of Twenty-Eight (28) Single Family Residential Building Lots and Four (4) Common Lots on Approximately 15.24 Acres of Land in the R-4 Zoning District M. Final Order for Approval: FP 14-004 Hacienda Subdivision No. 4 by Jayo Investments, Inc. Located East Side of N. Meridian Road, Midway Between Chinden Boulevard and E. McMillan Road Request: Final Plat Approval Consisting of Forty-Four (44) Residential Lots and Ten (10) Common Lots on Approximately 10.11 Acres of Land in an R-8 Zoning District N. Final Order for Approval: FP 14-003 Canterbury Commons No. 2 by Heartland Homes, LLC Located South Side of W. Pine Avenue, East of N. Ten Mile Road Request: Final Plat Approval Consisting of Fifty-Seven (57) Single Family Residential Building Lots and Nine (9) Common Lots on Approximately 11.06 Acres of Land in an R-15 Zoning District 6. Community Items/Presentations A. Transportation Commission: Annual Report Presentation (Pg 4-6) 7. Items Moved From Consent Agenda - 5G Moved Here -Approved (Pg 7-10) 8. Action Items A. Continued from February 18, 2014: Public Hearing: PP 13-039 Falconers Place by Falcon Drive Meridian, LLC Located Southeast Corner of E. Falcon Drive and S. Eagle Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Two (2) Residential Lots and One (1) Common Lot on Approximately 4.69 Acres in an R-8 Zoning District Denied (Pg 11-35) B. Continued from February 18, 2014: Public Hearing: MDA 13-024 Falconers Place by Falcon Drive Meridian, LLC Located Southeast Corner of E. Falcon Drive and S. Eagle Road Request: Amend the Recorded Development Agreement (Inst#105152708) to Change the Development Plan from a Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda -Tuesday, March 04, 2014 Page 2 of 4 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. Retirement Community to a Townhome Community for the Proposed Falconers Place Subdivision Denied (Pg 11-35) C. Continued from February 4, 2014: Consolidated Public Hearing on the Update to the Development Impact Fee Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) and the Revisions to Impact Fee Ordinance Approved w/ Effective Date of May 1, 2014 (Pg 35-46) D. Continued from February 4, 2014: Ordinance No. 14-1596: An Ordinance Amending Title 10, Chapter 7, Section 12, Meridian City Code, known as the Meridian Impact Fee Ordinance Schedule; to Provide for an Amendment to the Police, Fire and Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Schedules Second Reading Only (Pg 46) E. Continued From February 25, 2014: To Review the Terms and Conditions of the Real Property Exchange between the Meridian Dairy and Stock Shows and the City of Meridian at Storey Park (Pg 46-47) F. Second and Third Reading of Ordinance No. 14-1599: Authorizing the Conveyance of Certain City Owned Real Property to the Meridian Dairy and Stock Shows, Inc. Located at Storey Park in the City of Meridian Approved (Pg 46-47) G. Public Hearing: TEC 14-001 Olivetree at Spurwing Subdivision by Spurwing Limited Partnership Located North of W. Chinden Boulevard and West of Spurwing Way Request: Two (2) Year Time Extension on the Preliminary Plat in Order to Obtain the City Engineer's Signature on a Final Plat (Pg 47- 51) H. Hearing on an Appeal of an Impact Fee Administrator's Decision on an Impact Fee Individual Assessment Appeal Granted (Pg 51-57) I. Public Hearing: TEC 14-002 Centrepointe North by Jonathan Seel Located West Side of N. Eagle Road, Approximately a 1/4 Mile North of E. Ustick Road Request: Two (2) Year Time Extension on the Preliminary Plat in order to Obtain the City Engineer's Signature on a Final Plat Approved (Pg 57-59) J. FP 14-007 Spurwing Orchard No. 3 by Brighton Investments, LLC Located North Side of Chinden Boulevard, West of N. Ten Mile Road Request: Final Plat Approval Consisting of Sixty-Three (63) Single Family Residential Lots and Four (4) Common Lots on Approximately 25.85 Acres in the R-4 Zoning District Continued to March 18, 2014 (Pg 59-60) 9. Department Reports Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda -Tuesday, March 04, 2014 Page 3 of 4 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. A. Community Development Report Budget Amendment for City-Wide Economic Development Audit for the Not-to-Exceed Amount of $45,000.00 Approved (Pg 60-62) 10. Future Meeting Topics None (Pg 62) 11. Executive Session Per Idaho State Code 67-2345 (1)(c)(f): (c) To Conduct Deliberations Concerning Labor Negotiations or to Acquire an Interest in Real Property, Which is Not Owned by a Public Agency, and (f) To Consider and Advise Its Legal Representatives in Pending Litigation (Pg 62-65) Into Executive Session at 8:59 p.m. Out of Executive Session at 10:23 p.m. Amended onto the Agenda: Purchase/Sale Agreement and Contract for Subject Property -Approved Adjourned at 10:23 p.m. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda -Tuesday, March 04, 2014 Page 4 of 4 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 A meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:00 p.m., Tuesday, March 4, 2014, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd. Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, Keith Bird, Charlie Rountree, David Zaremba Joe Borton, Genesis Milam and Luke Cavener. Others Present: Bill Nary, Ted Baird, Jaycee Holman, Bruce Chatterton, Tom Barry, Kyle Radek, Bill Parsons, Sonya Watters, Rita Cunningham, Todd Lavoie, Jamie Leslie, Perry Palmer, Steve Siddoway, and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-call Attendance: Roll call. X David Zaremba X Joe Borton X Charlie Rountree X Keith Bird X Genesis Milam X Luke Cavener X Mayor Tammy de Weerd De Weerd: I would like to welcome all of you for -- to our City Council meeting tonight and thank you for joining us. For the record it is Tuesday, March 4th. It's a little bit after 6:00. We will start with roll call attendance, Madam Clerk. Item 2: Pledge of Allegiance by Jordan Mowery De Weerd: Item No. 2 is the Pledge of Allegiance. Tonight we will be led by Jordan Mowery and if Jordan would like to come forward he will lead us in the pledge. (Pledge of Allegiance recited.) De Weerd: Jordan, I would like to offer you a City of Meridian pin. That's for joining us. Item 3: Community Invocation by Larry Woodard of Ten Mile Christian Church De Weerd: Item No. 3 is our community invocation. Tonight we will be led by Larry Woodard. He's with Ten Mile Christian Church, formerly Cherry Lane Christian Church. I keep referring it to Cherry Lane, so I thought I had to bring that up, Larry. Woodard: Yes. I know. De Weerd: Please join us in the invocation or take this as an opportunity for a moment of reflection. Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 2 of 64 Woodard: You know, it's always a pleasure to come and pray before your weekly meetings, but I'm also reminded that there is a Supreme Court case pending that might kill the idea of prayer before City Council meetings. But I have to believe that the prayers over the years have helped our city and you folks as we move forward. So -- De Weerd: You know, Larry, we will just call them moments of reflection. Woodard: Okay. Let's pray. Our dear Heavenly Father, we come to you this spring evening thanking you for the moisture this winter that will allow our farmers and water users to irrigate as usual. We thank you for this Council who oversees a growing community in the middle of a historic farming area. I ask that you bless each of the Council members and our Mayor. May their decisions continue to have the best interest in our city in mind. Another major road project is beginning over I-84 and I ask for safety for the drivers and those working on the new Meridian exit. I pray for health for each Council Member and the Mayor. They put in long hours and their decisions affect this entire community for years to come. With the increase in drug use in our community I pray for families trying to raise their children today. Be with the teachers, the counselors, the youth ministers and police who try to stem this problem for our youth. One particular group of young people in Meridian that I pray for are the 200 homeless kids. It's hard to believe that that many kids do not have a place to live and sleep in cars at night. Collectively I pray that this community can figure out a way to help this group in the next year or two. We have a fine group of people who work for the city, planners, police, firemen, City Hall, legal staff, EMTs and I know I have missed some, but I ask your blessing on them and their families. Lastly tonight I pray for our nation and its leaders. We have lived through an era where the U.S. was respected and our nation was blessed. I pray that strong leadership once again can be exhibited and our faith in you would be an important first step, in Jesus' name, amen. De Weerd: Thank you, Larry. Woodard: You bet. Thank you. Item 4: Adoption of the Agenda De Weerd: Item No. 4 is adoption of the agenda. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move that we adopt the agenda with the following corrections. Item 5-G has been requested to be moved to Item 7 and Item 8-J, the applicant has requested a continuance of that item and with those changes I ask for a second to the motion. Bird: Second. Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 3 of 64 De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve the agenda as changed. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 5: Consent Agenda A. Approve Minutes of February 4, 2014 City Council Meeting B. Approve Minutes of February 11, 2014 City Council Workshop Meeting C. Approve Minutes of February 18, 2014 City Council PreCouncil Meeting D. Approve Minutes of February 18, 2014 City Council Meeting E. Approve Minutes of February 25, 2014 City Council Meeting F. Approval of Street Light Maintenance Agreement with Traditions by Amyx II for Zebulon Commons Subdivision H. Approval of purchase of a Pierce Arrow UC-06 Fire Engine from Hughes Fire Equipment for the Not-To-Exceed amount of $499,926.00, to sign the Interlocal Contract for Cooperative Purchasing and authorize the Purchasing Manager to issue and sign the purchase order. CableONE Movie Night in Meridian 2014 Single-Night Sponsorship Agreement Between Westside Body Works and the City of Meridian for aNot-to-Exceed Amount of $350.00 J. CableONE Movie Night in Meridian 2014 Presenting Sponsorship Agreement Between Carrington College and the City of Meridian for aNot-to-Exceed Amount of $2,000.00 K. Temporary Construction Easement, Sundance Investments LLLP, Grantor L. Final Order for Approval: FP 14-002 Three Corners No. 2 by David Dean Located Southeast Corner of N. Locust Grove Road and Chinden Boulevard Request: Final Plat Approval Consisting of Twenty-Eight (28) Single Family Residential Building Lots and Four (4) Common Lots on Approximately 15.24 Acres of Land in the R-4 Zoning District Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 4 of 64 M. Final Order for Approval: FP 14-004 Hacienda Subdivision No. 4 by Jayo Investments, Inc. Located East Side of N. Meridian Road, Midway Between Chinden Boulevard and E. McMillan Road Request: Final Plat Approval Consisting of Forty-Four (44) Residential Lots and Ten (10) Common Lots on Approximately 10.11 Acres of Land in an R-8 Zoning District N. Final Order for Approval: FP 14-003 Canterbury Commons No. 2 by Heartland Homes, LLC Located South Side of W. Pine Avenue, East of N. Ten Mile Road Request: Final Plat Approval Consisting of Fifty-Seven (57) Single Family Residential Building Lots and Nine (9) Common Lots on Approximately 11.06 Acres of Land in an R-15 Zoning District De Weerd: Item 5 is our Consent Agenda. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move that we adopt the Consent Agenda as published with the changes approved previously. Bird: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda as changed. Madam Clerk, will you call roll. Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener; yea. De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 6: Community Items/Presentations A. Transportation Commission: Annual Report Presentation De Weerd: Item 6 is our Transportation Commission annual report. Our chair Ryan Lancaster is here. We appreciate you joining us tonight, Ryan, and certainly we thank you and the committee for your service to our community. Lancaster: Thank you, Madam Mayor and Council Members. So, a year ago it was my pleasure to be here and give the last Traffic Safety Commission annual report and this year it's my pleasure to be here and give you the first annual Transportation Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 5 of 64 Commission report. So, it's been a big year for the Transportation Commission, because its been the only year that the Transportation Commission existed. So, you know -- so, last February the Traffic Safety Commission and the Transportation Task Force were both dissolved and by ordinance of this Council this Transportation Commission was formed. So, it wasn't until June of last year that we were able to finally have a commission and meet and so I will try to make my -- my annual report commensurate with the amount of work that we did. Here is just a reminder of who the commissioners are, as well as -- we have nine commissioners, as well as six ex-officio members of the commission representing various transportation agencies in the valley, as well as Councilman Zaremba and we regularly have the participation of two staff members from planning and from legal, as well as we have staff support from various city departments, including police, planning -- in addition to Caleb that is. Parks and probably some others. So, we appreciate their -- their assistance and their involvement. So, the ordinance is written so the membership is made up of citizens, business interests, and technical experts. While we don't necessarily have, you know, names or seats assigned to those -- those positions, our commission is made up of that -- that base. I thought right now would be the appropriate time to mention as well that in addition to their -- their membership on our commission, two of the commissioners are also participating in a project team with Valley Regional Transit, along with Councilman Zaremba and Caleb Hood from planning. Their involvement, you know, extends past just our commission. Because this was our first year a lot of -- of what the commission did was sort of introductory and building the commission, if you will. So, we selected our officers, adopted bylaws, so our commission has bylaws. Some regular topics that -- that were on our agenda was a monthly project update from the city staff. We were provided with updates from -- on ongoing construction projects, as well as planned projects, the biggest one being Meridian split corridor phase two. You might have heard of that before. I anticipate in the future, you know, a big project that we will be receiving updates on is Meridian interchange and the mainline construction on I-84, which did bid today, by the way. I was there, so -- we also were given monthly updates on staff communications or communications that either came through the Mayor's office or to planning or somehow came through the city that was handled on a staff level, so we were provided updates on that. Sometimes we gave input, sometimes it was just for your information. We had presentations from each of the -- the agencies or -- yeah, from the agency that make up our ex-officio members, if you will. So, from Valley Regional Transit, Ada County Highway District, COMPASS, the Idaho Transportation Department District Three, which covers this part of the state, as well as the school district. So, we -- we can better understand the needs and the desires and work that these various agencies do, what they do for our city, what we can do to help them and whatnot. So, the commission was involved with -- well, this combined commission -- we cover both planning, as well as safety issues are sort of the pinpoint issues, more planning issues. We were involved with the Ada County Highway District's five year work plan. We had some input and communication on VRT bus routes, COMPASS's regional long range transportation plan. We had discussions about transportation alternative programs here in the city, as well as new signs that ACHD put up, their way finding signs around the city and this is more of the -- the pinpointed issues in the city. We discussed all of these to some extent. Some of these came before you in one form Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 6 of 64 or another. I understand that at least one occasion we increased your City Council meeting membership -- or attendance by just a little bit. You're welcome. But we talked about golf carts on public streets. Speed and safety. Potential concerns on State Highway 55 or Eagle Road. Pedestrian safety on the -- near the Scentsy -- the new Scentsy complex. Neighborhood cut-through traffic always seems to be a recurring theme at various points in the city. Raised medians seemed to be a hot topic for a couple of months and the Ada County Highway District brought to us their ideas of -- of -- of their crosswalks on Main Street and the removal of one of them, which has since happened, so -- you know, these -- these topics come to us from city staff. A couple of these came from police and some come from citizen concerns. You know, they come to us through avary -- a variety of -- of sources. And that's -- the concludes my presentation. I would be happy to answer any questions you might have about any of that. It's a pleasure for our -- our commission to serve as commissioners. We do have a large group. We have nine commissioners and seven ex-officio members and staff, so we pretty well fill all this area up quite well and we even have to bring in a chair at times, so -- but it's a pleasure to serve our city. You know, we -- we have the good fortune of being able to make nonpolitical recommendations to you. We don't have to worry about getting reelected, so, you know, we can be a little bit removed from that and, like I say, it's a pleasure to serve, so -- De Weerd: Thank you, Ryan. Council, do you have any questions? Bird: Thank you for your service. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: It's not a question, but I just wanted to agree and reconfirm that this is a group that is very well qualified and very thoughtful and they have some very good discussions and I will look forward to their developing even more as they -- as we go along. It's a good start and thank you for your leadership of it. Lancaster: Thank you. De Weerd: And I would, too, like to add our thanks for your leadership, both on the Safety -- Transportation Safety Commission, as well as this newly formed commission. We appreciate that you were able to seamlessly merge the two together, giving a venue for our citizens to be heard for the issues they feel are extremely important in their neighborhoods, as well as looking and giving a citizen perspective on our long term transportation challenges as well. So, thank you, Ryan. And thank you, too. I was going to call you your brother's name again, David, but we appreciate you being here tonight as well. So, thank you. Lancaster: Thank you. Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 7 of 64 Item 7: Items Moved From Consent Agenda G. Approval of Professional Services Agreement to JUB Engineers, Inc. for "Meridian Heights -Kentucky Ridge Program Management" for the Not-To-Exceed Amount of $89,000.00 De Weerd: Okay. So, we did move an item from the Consent Agenda. Item G. So, we will go ahead and hear that item at this point. Barry: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this issue tonight. What we have before you is a task order for your consideration and approval. It involves moving some professional services funds and allocating those funds to a task order to be issued by the city to JUB Engineers to cover the program management components of the transition period in bringing about services to the Meridian Heights Water and Sewer District patrons who, as you already know, are residents now of the City of Meridian. I wanted to give you a little perspective and background on this. You recall that the last several months leading up to the agreement that we developed -- as we contemplated the three-party agreement, which laid out a course and obligated the three parties of that agreement to that course to meet certain milestones, we had contemplated at that point in time a number of transitionary activities that would need to be undertaken in order to allow for this transition to occur smoothly and timely. Once the district fulfills its obligation in taking to a vote of their residents, their patrons, the dissolution question, which as you all know, was -- was favorable for dissolution. We, then, began working very diligently to get to the very details of transitioning this particular area for the services that it's going to be receiving by the City of Meridian. That list of about 40 tasks that we identified initially in the three-party agreement that was negotiated back in the early fall has now grown and I wanted to share with you what the work breakdown structure currently looks like and give you some background as for need for this particular program management piece. Since about November time we have been meeting with staff from multiple departments inside the city, as well as the property owner -- the dominant property owner who is a party of the three-party agreement and the district representative and we have developed a list now of things that need to occur in order to facilitate the transition of the Meridian Heights -- De Weerd: You're such an engineer. I mean -- Barry: It is my point, actually. So, what you will notice is this list of -- Zaremba: Small type. Barry: It is very small type and I'm happy to pass it around. But the point to this is to show you that the items we originally contemplated, which were big items, 40 major items, have grown to 400 now and we do not have the staff resources to actually carry out this kind of work that is going to be needed over the ten to 12 month period, which Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 8 of 64 has facilitated our need to come before you this evening and ask for assistance. That assistance, as I mentioned, is in the form of a task order which we would like to execute with JUB Engineering to designate a professional project manager to continue to refine this list and to allow us to move forward in the execution or implementation of this particular project to fulfill the obligations we have in the three-party agreement and, in addition, to make sure that we have a smooth transition. So, JUB Engineers is on the city's roster list and we have interviewed them and brought them in to talk about this particular project. They have on their own accord attended one or two meetings now and have expressed interest in the position. They are certainly qualified for the work. The contract itself would be for a not to exceed amount of 90,000 dollars. That includes 1,000 dollars for contingency and most of this amount, about 80,000, is for program management, about 3,000 is for project administration and the remainder of close to 6,000 dollars is to help us develop a public outreach and education campaign. We were currently anticipating the hiring of a communications manager for the city and as that position gets filled it is our expectation that we would turn that communications plan over to the communications manager and, thus, we are not asking for significant funds on the project -- or, excuse me, the communications management piece. So, the consulting money that we have already identified in the Public Works budget is -- about 20,000 dollars of this funding would come from the wastewater consulting professional services account and 70,000 would come from the water professional services account. This does not require a budget amendment, which is why originally it was placed on the Consent Agenda for your consideration. Although we do understand and it does make sense for us to have the dialogue about this particular request since this particular issue has gotten a lot of attention over the last six or so months. So, in any event, I will stop there and pause for any questions that you might have and, then, ask for your favorable consideration of the proposal. De Weerd: Tom, I think you need to read into the record all the tasks on that list. Barry: We will be here a long time, but -- and maybe I can pass it around or give it to the clerk to enter if that's all right. De Weerd: Council, any questions? Rountree: I have none. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: Tom, thanks for the -- for the background. One of the reasons that I thought it made sense was not only to just identify that -- the diligence you have uncovered 40 has become 400 different tasks to insure that this is done properly, but also to get a sense that the expenditure, while not a budget amendment, it's expending funds that were originally allocated into a line item that now is depleted to an extent that you can't spend those monies on other professional services. So, is there any anticipated Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 9 of 64 expense that you had originally budgeted that you're now not going to be able to do because it's being spent here? Barry: Councilman Borton, it's a great question and it's a little bit complex, but I can say at the moment no. So -- let me qualify that a little bit if you don't mind. So, 20,000 dollars of the professional services money comes from the wastewater professional services fund in, actually, just depleting that fund. We usually budget with some contingency or undesignated funds for these types of projects. As you know, Public Works is a very complex and dynamic operation and we constantly get challenged by various programs and projects and services and those type of things throughout the year. So, in our budgeting process we budget some undesignated professional consulting services money in our project budget to allow for this exact type of thing. So, although a budget amendment isn't needed, we are going to be pulling from those undesignated consulting funds to allow for this type of activity to occur. Now, this happens all the time in Public Works. The reason this one is unique is because the Meridian Heights Water and Sewer project is a big one and it is one that has consumed a lot of our time and has been one that's been fairly complex. So, to keep us all in the know, it does make sense for us to have this conversation. But, essentially, at this point there is nothing in wastewater professional consulting services that will be -- we will have to avoid or not do. On the water side, which is 70,000 of the dollars that we are going to be utilizing for this, if you may recall that a large portion of this particular project involved water services. It involved putting in meter pits and setters, meters, abandoning some wells and doing a lot of water work, which is why most of those funds are coming from water. So, it's completely reasonable that those professional services funds, which are designated for these types of un -- unplanned, if you will -- and, again, I will remind you that this budget was set, essentially, back to July of last year, far before we had athree-party agreement and far before we had the district election and far before we knew that we would be at this particular juncture in the road. So, at this point in time we are able to utilize those undesignated funds, as they were programmed in the budget, to accomplish this work without sacrificing any current or anticipated projects going forward. However, as I just mentioned earlier, because Public Works is dynamic I can't tell you that something crazy isn't going to happen or unanticipated in nature isn't going to happen, you know, in the remainder of the six months of the fiscal year of 2014. Borton: Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I would just add a piece. For the benefit of the public that's here, when you say that it's common in Public Works to provide your budget with some contingency funds, that is common all over the place and part of the reason is that much of Public Works' work is underground and you can plan a project as tight as you can plan it and, then, you start digging and discover something's different. So, it's not any kind of a Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 10 of 64 slush fund, it is a fund to cover things you just can't know when you start to dig. So, I just wanted to make sure that the public wasn't disturbed by a contingency fund. Barry: Thank you, Councilman Zaremba. De Weerd: Contingency is much better than slush fund. Zaremba: Correct. It's not a slush fund. De Weerd: It's not a slush fund. Oh, my gosh. Any other questions from Council? Rountree: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: Despite the absence of a known crazy guarantee, which is concerning, I like your no crazy things are going to happen guarantee in the future, I would move to approve the contract with JUB for the Kentucky Ridge program management in an amount not to exceed 90,000 dollars. Rountree: Second. Zaremba: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 6 -- Rountree: Seven -- De Weerd: Well, 5-G that was moved to seven. Any discussion from Council? Rountree: I have none. De Weerd: Madam Clerk, will you call roll. Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener; yea. De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Thank you, Tom. Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 11 of 64 Barry: Thank you. Item 8: Action Items A. Continued from February 18, 2014: Public Hearing: PP 13-039 Falconers Place by Falcon Drive Meridian, LLC Located Southeast Corner of E. Falcon Drive and S. Eagle Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Two (2) Residential Lots and One (1) Common Lot on Approximately 4.69 Acres in an R-8 Zoning District Denied B. Continued from February 18, 2014: Public Hearing: MDA 13- 024 Falconers Place by Falcon Drive Meridian, LLC Located Southeast Corner of E. Falcon Drive and S. Eagle Road Request: Amend the Recorded Development Agreement (Inst#105152708) to Change the Development Plan from a Retirement Community to a Townhome Community for the Proposed Falconers Place Subdivision De Weerd: So, we are under Action Items. Item 8-A and B are continued public hearings on PP 13-039 and MDA 13-024. I will turn this over to staff at this time for their remarks. Parsons: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. The first action item on this evening's agenda is the Falconers Place Subdivision. A development agreement modification. I did want to go first on the record this evening and say that this project has come to you with a recommendation for denial from the Planning and Zoning Commission. Their preface for the denial was they didn't feel that the density of the project was appropriate given the low density residential land use designation on the property. And also they felt based on the requirements stipulated in the recorded development agreement they didn't feel comfortable that the proposed townhome development was appropriate or -- because it wasn't part of their purview during the public hearing. They didn't feel prudent that it would come forth -- they should come forth with a recommendation on the plat. So, in my presentation to you this evening I want to make sure and focus on the development agreement first, if that's okay with you, and, then, go into the merits of the preliminary plat. One other item that I mentioned before -- that I forgot to mention that when my revs came out before -- when I sent my recs out last week staff was under the impression that the Mowerys who own the existing -- the single family home in the development, they have actually rescinded their consent to be part of the application. Well, prior to tonight's hearing staff did receive a new affidavit of legal interest and they have committed to being part of the preliminary plat. So, that issue that I have called out in the staff report as far as the Commission recs has been resolved. So, tonight before is really the Commission's recommendation for denial and, then, how we act on the development agreement and, then, move forward through the preliminary plat. This property is currently R-8 in the Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 12 of 64 city. It consists of 4.69 acres and it was annexed in 2005 with the R-8 zoning designation based on what the applicant or the developer at that time had presented to you. The previous developer envisioned an assisted living facility on the site. In our request to you, as I mentioned to you, it was -- the property is currently low density residential in the city's Comprehensive Plan and under that plan the City Council at your discretion can approve a step up in density to allow an increase in density. For example, in this case with the LDR designation, that basically means three units or less to the acre for residential development. When the applicant came before you in 2005 and proposed an assisted living facility, they could not go with the R-2 or the R-4 zone or that use was not allowed in those zoning districts, so they came forth with the R-8 zone and with that annexation and platting and conditional use process the Council did recommend -- or require a development agreement that restricted the use of the property to four -- to five retirement homes and one clubhouse. And so moving forward tonight, in order for the applicant to develop the townhomes as presented -- as I will present to you as part of the preliminary plat application, the amended development agreement needs to be corrected or at least the Council should find that the use is appropriate for the site based on what has occurred in 2005. So, as staff's recommended provisions and, of course, new provisions moving forward, this is what we are presenting to you this evening. Currently 6.1.1 in the recorded development agreement, as I stated, does restrict the use of the site to the five retirement homes and one clubhouse building. If it's your pleasure this evening staff is recommending that you amend that language and allow the site to develop with 36 townhomes and the existing single family residences. DA provision 6.1.2 was a requirement back in 2005 as well and that was a requirement that the existing residence that was the remaining part of this project was to hook up to sewer and water with the first phase of development. Staff has no changes to that DA provision moving forward. The additional items that I have pointed out to you in underlined format here are the new DA provisions that we are recommending with the development of the townhome project. The first one will require the applicant to condo the townhome units prior to occupancy. The second would require that they comply with their preliminary plat, the landscape plan, and the elevations that I will present to you a little later on in the presentation. The third will have -- will require them to comply with any future ordinances in effect at the time of development. The fifth bullet point requires that they obtain certificate of zoning compliance and design -- design review approval for each townhome structure and record the final plat prior to the issuance of a building permit and the final and last bullet point that we are recommending tonight is that the townhome portion, excluding the single family home, consist of approximately 2.74 acres of open space and the two site amenities as represented on the landscape plan. So, if you will allow me to indulge and move into the preliminary plat. The applicant is proposing a two lot subdivision. The plat will -- the first lot will consist of the existing single family residence located here on Lot 1, Block 1, and there is -- 36 units are planned -- 36 unit townhomes are planned on one single lot with access coming from aprivate -- or, excuse me, a new local street with access for those townhomes will be provided to a reciprocal cross-access agreement as well. The one thing I would mention to you -- in order to get that open space that I have mentioned to you as far as my DA provision -- DA modification presentation, applicant has requested alternative compliance to reduce the amount of Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 13 of 64 parking required under ordinance to increase their open space. So, typically under the UDC when there is a townhome development, the UDC would require four parking stalls per unit, two in a garage and two in a 20-by-20 parking pad. In this design the applicant's providing the two car garage, but they had requested alternative compliance not to provide the 20-by-20 parking pad and have provided some overflow parking for each pod of townhomes here as represented. During the Planning and Zoning Commission staff had concerns with the parking ratio for the pod configuration in the southeast corner of the development and that's what the graphics on the right depicts on how they were going to mitigate staff's concerns. The Planning and Zoning Commission did support the revised change that you see here on the right-hand side. So, our staff believes they have provided adequate parking for the development and we have -- we are in support of the alternative compliance request as well. As I mentioned to you, the applicant is proposing 2.74 acres of open space for the site, primarily situated around the townhome development. The two amenities that I would mention to you is a seated gazebo area, covered picnic area up here in the northwest corner of the development and, then, also located here along the east boundary for the amenities moving forward. Details of those amenities are not provided for you tonight, but a condition of the final plat requires those details to be provided. And, then, here on the proposed townhome elevations, again, all of the units are to be similar in design and construction materials, with three distinct color schemes as part of our recommended provision in the DA and also the provisions of the preliminary plat staff is recommending that they provide a minimum three color schemes as -- three color schemes as presented this evening and we wanted to make sure that they -- the elevations are consistent with these design concepts that are presented to you this evening. So, again, as I mentioned to you they will have to go through staff level approval for placement of the structure and also the site design. As I mentioned to you earlier in my presentation, the Planning and Zoning Commission did recommend denial at their January 16th hearing. This property had quite a bit of public testimony on it during that hearing and I have highlighted that in the hearing outline for you this evening. Speaking in favor we had Laren Bailey and David Alexander, who is the applicant's representative and the developer on the project. Speaking in opposition we had Teresa Turner, Tammy Cook, and Lindell Timothy. Commenting on the application in opposition was Bob Aldridge, Rex Cook, Chantelle Krasinski, Holly Thomas Mowery and Jordan Mowery. And, then, prior to the Commission hearing staff did receive written testimony in opposition from Ronald Mowery, Brady and Teresa Turner, and Rich and Michelle Stott. As I mentioned to you earlier, the Planning and Zoning Commission did not feel that this -- the density of this project -- the one thing I did fail to mention that the number of units proposed for this site, the density for this project would be at 7.87 dwelling units to the acre, which is pretty close to the maximum of what is allowed in the R-8 zone. As I mentioned to you, because there was a step up in that density allowed, the R-8 zoning was in place. So, the zoning -- the proposed density for the project does comply with the R-8 zoning district and it does comply with the Comprehensive Plan as allowed in that step up that the Council granted in 2005. So, actually, the key items of discussion for you this evening and the one thing I also failed to mention to you was that this site may not have water rights for irrigation water and so the applicant is requesting your approval to use city water to irrigate the 2.74 acres of open space for the development, Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 14 of 64 which could be quite burdensome to those homeowners in the future as water prices increase. I know at the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing it was discussed that they are still exploring other avenues, but they still want to have that on the table for your approval this evening. One last item to mention to you. The applicant did submit written testimony after the P&Z hearing. They actually hired an independent traffic engineer to go out and do a traffic study. The public testimony presented at the Commission hearing had to do with the density and traffic, of course, related to the proposed townhome development. The applicant's actually provided a letter from their traffic engineer comparing the then assisted living use with the townhome use. So, that should be in your packet as well for your review. And, then, late this evening prior to Council hearing this evening I did receive additional testimony from Greg Goins in opposition of the project as well and he's -- that should be in front of you this evening as part of your packet as well. Other than the published testimony and now that we have the Mowerys as part of this preliminary plat. Staff feels there aren't any other outstanding issues for you this evening and I will stand for any questions you may have. De Weerd: Thank you, Bill. Council, any questions for staff at this time? Bird: Not at this time, Mayor. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: Thank you. Thank you, Bill. I have a couple of questions, one which is from deep memory. When the project across the street from this on the west side of Eagle Road came in their original plan aligned their entry road with East Falcon Drive from -- from this side of the road and ACHD required them to move their entrance south, because it was too close to Victory Road according to ACHD and the discussion at the time from ACHD was that when any property on this side of the road developed they would require Falcon Drive to be moved to align with the other one. Did ACHD bring any of that up this time or has that been discussed anywhere? Parsons: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilman Zaremba, as the -- as the plat is presented to you this evening as -- as a recommendation from ACHD they -- they have not waivered on that. I know the applicant during -- I know some of the neighbors were there testifying at ACHD about concerns of that intersection and even based on that testimony at that hearing ACHD staff still held with their recommendation that Falcon Drive would be the access and there would be no alignment with -- with the street across -- with the -- with the roadway adjacent, the opposite side of -- the west side of Eagle Road I guess. Zaremba: Okay. And, then, the other comment -- and I'm sure we will discuss this later, but -- actually I will hold that for later. Sorry. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Any further questions? Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 15 of 64 Rountree: Not at this point. De Weerd: Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward? Good evening. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Nelson: Good evening, Madam Mayor, Members of the City Council. My name is Deborah Nelson, I'm an attorney with Givens Pursley. My office address is 601 West Bannock in Boise. I am here tonight on behalf of the applicant. I'd like to offer just a little bit of background about the applications and the property and, then, our planner Laren Bailey of LEI is going to take over the applicant's presentation this evening and provide some more details about the project. First a little background. In 2005 the owner of this property wanted to develop an assisted living facility and they requested and the city approved based on that specific request annexation and R-8 zoning. It was accompanied with a development agreement that limited the use to the existing single family residence and the new requested assisted living facility. Less than a month later the residential portion of the property was sold, but no subdivision process was followed and that created the illegal split that you heard about from Bill tonight. Eight and a half years later the property is still vacant, no assisted living facility was built. That owner that requested that particular use no longer owns the property or is associated with the project. Neither of the parcels have been improved to city standards from street improvements or a sewer and water hook-up standpoint. My client has how acquired that vacant parcel and they are here tonight about the two applications that Bill has outlined for you. There seems to have been some confusion about these at the P&Z Commission from our perspective and I just want to walk through each of them quickly. The subdivision application is intended to remedy that illegal split. It's also intended to comply with the city's ordinances about what happens when you have a subdivision to make these improvements happen to facilitate the connection to sewer and water. When the staff report was issued following -- before the P&Z hearing following submittal of that application it recommended approval of that subdivision and noted that it complied with the ordinance. It seemed that the P&Z Commission in recommending denial conflated the application and was thinking into the future about the use that was contemplated that is requested as part of the DA modification application that only comes before the City Council. They were looking at the density as was mentioned. They were hung up on the fact that the very requested use was prohibited by the current in effect development agreement. Of course they don't have any authority to review development agreement modifications and so that created a problem with their approval and it seemed to us that they seemed to get hung up on those points, rather than the standards in your ordinance that apply to preliminary plat approval. So, we just ask you tonight to consider the subdivision application based on the standards in your ordinance and not conflate it with the other application before you. On the second application the development agreement modification, as we just mentioned, the recommending body under your ordinance is the planning director, not the P&Z. So, their recommendation of denial in that application does not apply. Your planning director has recommended approval, both originally and again tonight of that application. So, we ask that you consider that tonight and we'd like to give you some Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 16 of 64 more information now from Laren to support our request for that. I would stand for more questions -- for questions now or wait until you hear more testimony from him and come back up if necessary at your -- at your wish. De Weerd: Probably to stay within your time it would be good to have him come up and do questions afterwards. Nelson: Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. And, Laren, if you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Bailey: Thank you, Mayor and Commissioners. My name is Laren Bailey, I'm a planner with LEI Engineers and Surveyors. Our address is 3023 East Copperpoint Drive, Meridian, Idaho. 83642. De Weerd: Thank you. Bailey: Thank you again for hearing our application tonight. Bill has done a good job of outlining this for you and I just want to walk through it quickly and explain some of the specifics. Let's see. Bill, actually, could you help me get to the building renderings, please. Thank you. I'm going to start with the buildings themselves, the houses, and move to the site and, then, to the comp plan portions. Real quickly we are proposing 12 tri-plex buildings and as you can see in the architecture, each one of these will have three units that could be -- we are going to come back with a condominium plat, so each one of these could be owned individually. Each building is designed to mimic the relative size and shape of a single family home similar to those in the area, you know, these are meant to fit in with the neighborhood and not stand out like afour-flex or, you know, a larger multi-family development would -- would stick out. These are meant to fit in. The facades of the buildings are -- are markedly craftsman in design, long sloping roofs, the use of dormers and mixed materials. The upper floors are set back from the ground and where the roof continues to slope beyond brings the scale of the buildings down. The roof lines are composed of upper and lower gable roof, long sloping plains, and thick eaves. Dormers are centered in the front and backs of the building. The roof slope on the front of the building will create a nice covered entry porch. Again, the building materials we are using are distinctly craftsman in style, cultured stone will be found throughout, as well as the -- at least the minimum of three different color schemes. We may have more than that, but the three you see here are the ones proposed tonight. Again, each -- each residence itself will have its own two car garage, so -- and those garages will face each other and I will get to that in a minute when I get to the site plan. So, there was some question about building heights from the neighbors and these aren't going to be any taller than any other, you know, two story home, they are roughly 25 to 27 feet in height. Bill, if we could go to the site rendering, please. It's a little hard to see here, but as you can see the buildings -- the garages all -- the garages all face each other on the common drive, so those garages aren't going to be facing the street, they won't be facing Eagle Road or Falcon Drive and so it will create a Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 17 of 64 nice little community where you will just see the fronts and side facades of those homes. Okay. I want to move on to the site itself. The site -- the idea here was to create as much open space as possible to minimize the impact of these homes in the neighborhood and to create buffers from the neighboring property owners. If you -- when we -- we will get to the assisted living center when I get a little further along, but those buildings were in some instances only five feet off the neighboring properties and they were much larger buildings. Impact to the neighbors was much greater than -- than we feel this is. As you can see we have got a lot of landscaping here, you know, a lot of open space to -- you know, to create a good feel here. The landscaped area -- they are not going to have individual yards here. It's all going to be owned and maintained by the homeowners association. So, all the watering, maintenance, mowing will be conducted by the HOA. So, you will have a very clean look to the development. There won't be any trampolines in the backyard or hot tubs or things of that nature, it will be very clean and taken care of. We are showing pathways that will connect all the units to both Falconers and Falcon Drive, as well as to sidewalk that we will be placing along Eagle Road. There will be landscape amenities. There will be some seating areas, some little trellis landscaped areas where people can sit and reflect. Okay. On to municipal utilities, water and sewer services are available to the site. As Bill indicated, we will be extending those to the single family home -- existing home connecting that to water and sewer, as well as widening Falcon Drive per ACHD's requirement and adding for better sidewalk and driveway approaches. The storm drainage will all be maintained on site infiltrated. Onto traffic and roadways. ACRD approved the plans two weeks ago. The staff -- ACHD's staff report indicated that the amount of traffic that this development will add will not significantly impact the traffic in the area. It's our understanding that ACHD met with some of the neighboring -- or some of the neighboring property owners and discussed some of the issues with tight -- or site distances and turning radiuses internally on Eagle Road itself. Staff's comment -- and I believe Meridian staff has received a letter from them that any of those improvements that are needed on Eagle Road would be ACHD's responsibility and not the responsibility of this development. ACHD also indicated that the widening of Eagle Road is in their plans. I can't tell you a specific date, but they are looking at widening that in the near future. Okay. Under the Comprehensive Plan -- and, Bill, maybe if you could look at the vicinity of the -- larger vicinity map. Thank you. This may be larger than we really need here, but I just wanted to show the proximity to Eagle Road and Eagle interchange at the freeway. We are just over a mile from the interchange at this location. We are very close -- within a half mile, three-quarters of a mile of major employment centers at Silverado and -- or excuse me. I mixed those up. At Silverstone and EI Dorado business park. We are very close to Overland Road. Bill, if we could look at -- back to the zoning map. Thank you. So, as we zoom in a little closer here, you can see the intersection of Victory Road. We have got commercial designation out on the corner. And, then, across the road from this project we have an R-8 zoned project as well that has multi-family development. So, looking at this, you know, how it fits into the neighborhood and into the densities here we feel that this is a good fit that we have tried to limit the amount of impact a density like this might have on the neighbors and provide a good project that will be a good project, not just today, but down the road ten, 20, 30 years from now this will fit in with the densities in the area and Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 18 of 64 be a good project. I want to point out again that the open space on this project that we have more than 50 percent of the site in open areas and when we look back to -- if we could -- Bill, could you bring up the assisted living. Thank you. The assisted living plan they had just -- just over 18 percent open space. As you can see these are large buildings, again, we will get some of these areas up against the neighbors, some of these areas were -- sorry -- were five feet or -- five to ten feet the building was separated from the neighboring property owner and we wanted to move buildings away from that, give them some space and so that's, you know, providing for that. We have got over 50 percent open space. As Bill indicated we also hired Kittleson and Associates to do a traffic comparison between the assisted living center with 75 beds and a clubhouse and this development and what they came up with -- and this was also verified by ACHD, they did their own independent report and they basically came up the same. This development on the weekly trips per day, if you add those up Monday through Friday, we are about ten trips per week over the assisted living. However, on the weekends the assisted living makes up for those and so it's roughly a wash in the average week. The one major difference was that on the assisted living they have got about ten percent truck deliveries per week, whereas we are not going to have that in the -- in this development. So, with that we think this project will be a great asset to the City of Meridian and we ask for your approval and I will stand for any questions. De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions? Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: Thank you. At this point I will bring up one of the things I was thinking of earlier. Let's see. Bill, I think I would like to see the elevations, if we could go to those. One of the things that's being asked for -- okay. I guess we are not seeing the garage side of these, but is not to provide the 20-by-20 pad at each of the garages and we have actually had experience with that before. There was a time somewhere around ten years ago where the requirement was that the pad was the width of the garage, usually 20 feet, and it could only -- it could be ten feet in depth. After a few of those were built the fire department discovered that people were parking there anyhow and the fire department was -- it was difficult having access to places and sometimes somebody would pull a car in and park right against their garage and that wasn't quite so bad, but a number of people would park face onto the garage and, then, they were hanging over a sidewalk or out into a driveway. The ones that come to mind actually were alleys where they didn't have sufficient pad, but it was applied on the front as well and I -- at some point -- again, at the request of the fire department that we considered it, we went back to the 20-by-20 pad, because it just -- human nature is if somebody is going into their house they are going to park there and if it's not big enough to hold a couple cars they are going to park there anyhow and it creates a problem thinking down the line for trash trucks and other stuff as well -- bigger vehicles that need to come through there. So, I would ask you to defend having that pad smaller. Why does that create a problem for you guys? Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 19 of 64 Bailey: Mayor and Commissioner Zaremba, I think there is several issues here. The first one being if we were to create those parking spots behind this, we are going to have 60 foot wide paved areas between each building. We -- we wanted to have more landscape, rather than a whole bunch of -- of a sea of asphalt like you have in a traditional four-plex development, so we tried to minimize those widths in the hope that -- two fold. One, with them being minimized that there wouldn't be room for people to do that. One, they are going to -- they are going to affect their neighbors and so we are not going to be able to do that, because their neighbors aren't going to be able to get in and out. But, two, because this is going to be managed by an HOA, all of the common areas -- these stripes will be common areas as well -- we are going to have management be able to take care of and address the situation and keep that from happening. We have also provided additional parking at the end of each drive, as well as the street -- Falconers Drive has a 50 foot ACHD right of way which provides for parking on both side of the street. So, we feel that -- that there is plenty of room for parking, there is plenty of extra parking for this type of development and the size of homes that are going to be here. We are not -- you know, we are not expecting to have a family with five kids and four cars and a boat and jet skis and the whole nine yards, this is going to be, you know, for, you know, the target audiences are going to be young professionals and maybe empty nesters that aren't going to have as many vehicles and as many toys as we would recognize in a traditional single family neighborhood. But I hope that answers your question. Oh -- Zaremba: It helps. Bailey: -- we have worked with the fire department and talked it over with them and they -- my understanding is they feel comfortable with it, so -- Zaremba: All right. Thank you. And another spot -- and this is something I need to ask Bill. Somewhere in the rules in multi-family dwellings -- and I'm not sure where they are cut off, whether it's a triplex or more multiple than that -- are that each unit has to have a hundred square feet of private space, which could either be a patio on a ground level unit or a balcony on an upper level unit and I don't see that in these elevations. Is this within whatever group that would require that or am I thinking of the wrong rules? Parsons: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilman Zaremba, yes, these are townhomes, so, therefore, those multi-family standards do not apply to the development, nor does the open space requirement under the UDC. So, what the developer is proposing here is actually in excess of what we could get if we had a single family home. Really, the only required open space for the development is the 25 foot landscape buffer along Eagle Road. The rest is a bonus with this development. So, it's something to think about and because the applicant proposed it and we felt it was technically an amenity for this development to have that much open space, that's why we required it in the -- recommended the requirement in the development agreement for you to take action on this evening. Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 20 of 64 Zaremba: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions for --from the Council at this time? Rountree: Not right now. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you Bailey: Thank you. De Weerd: This is a public hearing. I have several people who have signed up. When I call your name, if you would like to provide testimony at that time I would invite you forward. Bob Aldridge signed up against. Thank you for being here. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Aldridge: Yes. Bob Aldridge. 3300 Falcon Drive. If you can go back to the plat area map, I'm directly across the street from this development. I have lived there now almost 30 years. Over that time period I have been before this Council a number of times on various developments and always working with them to come up in support and to answer the one question that was asked on that road change, that was my suggestion and we went to ACHD and agreed, because of the huge traffic problems that it would have created at Falcon Drive and Falcon Drive directly across from each other. The thing that came out of the P&Z denial of this, which was unanimous, was that this is, quote, not in the right place. That was said a number of times in that meeting and that's correct. This is a neighborhood that consists of single family homes on acreages. Mine is five acres and similar around that area and the surrounding subdivisions are all single family dwellings on large lots. That's what this is. The project itself is both visually dense and practically dense. When they came forward we supported that, because for one thing their buildings were one story and so they were not a big visual impact. These are two story. They are 27 feet tall and that's going to make a huge comparison to the wide open spaces. I'm going to be looking at this as I'm out stomping gophers and running my six inch gated irrigation. It's a huge comparison. The development agreement is something that we are also very unhappy about. When that was originally brought up that was negotiated and as it says in part 1-10 on page two, that was done based on the neighborhood input and on the strict application of the conditions that were put in there and we felt that those were relatively low buildings and the lots -- I have been around a lot of nursing homes and assisted livings and I know how the traffic works in those. Staff comes in early. They come in usually at 6:00 o'clock shifts and so they are not there at rush hour. Most of the parents -- or, excuse me, the parents are there, the children come to visit them during the day or at night, they are not coming at rush hour. As a matter of fact, they are very careful not to be there at rush hour. So, the development agreement -- the conditions that were put in because this was assisted living, they had to create what I regard and I think that should be regarded as an artificial R-8. It was not in compliance with the then Comprehensive Plan, nor what this property really is designed for. It's a small piece with only one access sitting on a very busy area and the R-8 was done to allow that. We are now attempting to piggy back Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 21 of 64 and leap frog that into R-8 in the traditional sense with seven point something units per acre. The traffic situation -- we did have discussion with ACHD and that vote was not unanimous, by the way. One of the commissioners voted against approval and the problem is very simple. I take my life in my hands when I try to, number one, turn in. When you were there we had that area on top. We crest over it full speed through that stop light and when you do that at full speed you have got 4.5 seconds -- I measured it -- before you're there where I'm parked. There is no center lane, no turn lane, none in prospects. The time period that I was told by ACHD for widening is 2027 to 2030. So, very long term. They are simply not going to be widening Eagle Road anytime in the near future. The other problem is -- and if I could have my wife's time to talk to you, she would like me to do her three minutes, if that's allowed. De Weerd: Okay. Aldridge: The other problem is that in addition to that slope and coming over the top from the north to the south there is a dip and that's why we moved that road south from the other subdivision. They are right at that dip. When you are there at Falcon looking south -- I was there at 7:20 a couple days ago, there is a solid line of lights going clear out of sight. The roundabout down at Amity means that is continuous traffic coming to the north and you have all the subdivisions to the south that feed in where ever the holes are and you literally wait and wait and wait and, then, you finally get a small hole and you jump on your accelerator and jump in. That's not a good situation. In addition to that, that's going to increase. There are more and more subdivisions going into the south. From the north the problem is that when you come over the visual lines may be fine if there is no traffic there. The problem is that -- and I see this all the time -- that when you come over and you have got traffic in front of you you can't see that stopped car and there is no turn lane, so cars are going around. Well, there is a nice telephone pole there that has almost been hit on a number of occasions. It's a traffic nightmare and it's something that has been created. Trying to go out through the subdivision that is now on the other end, you just saw your report, we have been talking about capturing neighborhoods. That's not doable. Plus you're coming now onto Victory Road, which is extremely high traffic and very difficult to get on, especially if you're trying to get back to Eagle Road and cut left, you're going across two lanes of Victory and you're also battling the Sutherland Farms Subdivision, which empties at that point. So, you have real problems no matter how you get out of here. This is going to be over 200 traffic trips per day. That's what the figures were that came from ACRD. That's a huge impact and what we see is something that's going to create danger and problems and so we feel that we need to solve the problem, we need to get that illegal split corrected, but you don't correct that problem by creating a new problem. There are much better uses for this property. There are other places that this project could go. P&Z was exactly right when they said it's not in the right place. So, we would ask that you deny this project and that this be redesigned into something that actually fits with the neighborhood and will not have the impact. De Weerd: Thank you, Bob. Council, any questions? Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 22 of 64 Rountree: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Aldridge: Thank you. De Weerd: Just for the record, Kim Aldridge did also sign up against. Sorry. I'm reading someone's printing. Mrs. Krasinski. She signed up against. And, then, Harold signed up against as well. Is that maybe Charlene or -- Krasinski: Chantelle. De Weerd: Chantelle. Thank you. If you will -- Krasinski: Chantelle Krasinski. De Weerd: Thank you. Krasinski: 3475 East Falcon Drive. De Weerd: Thank you. Krasinski: Madam Mayor and Commissioners, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak. We live at the very end of the cul-de-sac. The property that we are talking about is right as you turn into our road that we are at the end of. So, essentially, we are not very far from the intersection of Eagle and Victory. Essentially what they did was they widened that intersection and, then, it snakes down right where you turn into Falcon Drive. So, so many times I have been stopped getting ready to turn and because there is a lot of traffic now people are just right on my tail and they trying to go around and there is a telephone pole that kind of got moved and somebody's going to hit that telephone pole. We just can't do more traffic right there. I mean we are -- we are like maybe 100, 200 feet from the intersection and when we bought into that property we were five -- five acre properties on that street that was it and now they are thinking of putting that in and when we supported the assisted living, you know, I mean it's an assisted living facility, people aren't going to be coming and going during rush hour, just like Mr. Aldridge, who has already testified. But now they are thinking of putting in something with that high of density? It's not a good location. Planning and Zoning was exactly right in denying this and I would just ask you to deny it as well. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Mr. Krasinski is also signed up in opposition. Thank you for being here. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. H.Krasinski: My name is Harold Krasinski. 3475 East Falcon -- De Weerd: Thank you. Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 23 of 64 H.Kraskinski: -- in Meridian. And, Madam Mayor and Council Members, I am also in opposition for many of the same reasons that have already been stated. We are going to be sort of blocked in at the end of the street there with all of the other traffic. I think perhaps even the -- the original R-8 zoning that was amended so that we could have the assisted living was a mistake also, which didn't really want that to go in either, but it did go in and that, if I am correct, was 2005 with a two year developer's agreement was going to expire, which we assumed meant would go back to the previous zoning and, then they got an extension for a couple years -- I believe somewhere around 2009 is when the developer's agreement should have expired. So, we are talking about amending an agreement that's really been -- should have expired already several years ago. So, as Bob Aldridge stated, it's sort of an artificial R-8 and it doesn't seem to me, according to the original spirit of that agreement, that it should be any R-8 at this point, because that original developer's agreement, you know, as a lay person assuming that means it's null and void. The original property owner never went ahead -- never built the development that it was intended for, so it seems to me that it should be null and void and if that were the case -- I don't see how you could amend an agreement that expired four or five years ago. So, we as citizens would assume that that is the proper recourse for that kind of an agreement as best as, you know, we understand it. So, we would certainly hope that you would deny this particular development and if -- if anything goes in there hopefully a lower density, a few single family homes, as opposed to the tri-plexes that are going to -- have been proposed for this development. So, I thank you all for your time and letting me speak. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. H.Krasinski: All right. Thank you. De Weerd: Lindell Timothy. Good evening. Timothy: Good evening. My name is Lindell Timothy. I reside at 3467 Falcon Drive. All I have to say is I want to reiterate everything that my neighbors have said and go on record as being in opposition. I really have nothing more to add to what they have already said. De Weerd: Well, thank you for being here. Helen -- so I can't read your last name, so I'm anxiously for you to come forward, so we can figure it out. Thank you for being here. Lawler: Madam Mayor and City Council, my name is Helen Lawler. My address is 3467 Falcon Drive. Lindell and my property is adjacent to the east side of the proposed development. I want to, for the record, make it known that I am also in opposition to this. I know ACHD and the transportation -- new transportation commission -- ACHD may have signed off on this and they have done their study. However, those are usually theoretical. You can't propose what's going to happen down the road. I drive that every day getting out and coming in and I agree with what Bob says, there is times Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 24 of 64 when you will sit there for five minutes trying to get out. People don't let you in. You have to be assertive or you will sit there all day and if you're fortunate a school bus might come along picking up kids and that's your opportunity to get out. I also have a special needs son who has transportation that comes in. I will leave sometimes, I will be waiting there for five minutes to get out and my driver that picks him up is waiting to turn in for that same five minutes. I think his proposal for the project is beautiful. I don't think it is in the right location. Theoretically they may say the traffic will not be that impactive. In reality we drive it every day and I would encourage anyone to sit at that intersection for those five minutes and watch traffic. We are -- if you add another 200 vehicle commutes per day there are going to be accidents. It's too close to Eagle Road. Coming home at the end of the day trying to get off there is no turn lane. You have got one eye looking forward, because there is oncoming traffic, your vision is obscured by the hill and retro -- behind you you're trying to keep one eye watching people barrel down hoping they are watching for you and cutting around you versus rear ending you. So, I would like it known that I oppose this and I do also concur with everything that Bob Aldridge has said. De Weerd: Thank you. Lawler: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. David Hendrickson signed up against. Okay. Holly Thomas Mowery signed up as neutral. Bird: You got this guy that -- De Weerd: Oh, I'm sorry. Would he like to provide testimony? Okay. Thank you for joining us. Holly Thomas Mowery. Okay. Brady Turner signed up against. Turner: Good evening, Madam Mayor -- De Weerd: Good evening. Turner: -- Members of the Council. My name is Brady Turner. I live at 3678 South Caleb Place. De Weerd: Thank you. Turner: The original nursing home facility that was proposed for this area, as Bob Aldridge has already stated, was single story family -- or single story homes, single story buildings, so the visual impact looking uphill at this property from my property would be minimized. The proposed condos that are before you now are two stories, so there is going to be a much larger impact from a visual standpoint, providing a much clearer visual density in the development. When the nursing home was originally proposed we were somewhat reluctantly in support of the R-8 zoning, understanding that R-8 was the only zoning that would allow the nursing home development to be built Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 25 of 64 in this area, we were given assurances -- and this is part of the reason why the development language was proposed was that if that development fell through that this property would revert back to the original low density R-2, R-4 zoning. That development has fallen through. We have the DA in place and stipulate that requirement and we fail to understand now why we are trying to move forward with an R-8 project in this area. It's not consistent with the comp plan. We have worked very hard over the past ten years or more -- I have been before this Council multiple times trying to work with developers of Kingsbridge, Sutherland Farms, excuse me, Napoli Subdivision -- several divisions trying to keep this area of the -- of Meridian as a transitional zone between the City of Meridian and the city of Boise. It's one of the few areas left where we have low density between the two cities to create a transitory area within the community. As also stated multiple times by several folks, the traffic study, while, yes, the total vehicle impact per day is probably consistent with that of the nursing home facility, the timing of those vehicle trips will be as for the proposed development in front of you now would be during peak rush hour versus off hours for the nursing home facility. So, for those reasons and as well as the reasons very well articulated by Bob Aldridge, I would request that the Council deny this petition and the revert the zoning back to the original R-2, R-4 zone. Thank you for your time. De Weerd: Thank you. Turner: Questions? Rountree: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, sir. And Teresa Turner also signed up in opposition. Okay. Thank you. Those were the people that have signed up on the sign-up sheet. Is there anyone who would like to -- yes, please. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Cook: Rex Cook. 3691 South Caleb Place. I'm in the Dartmore Subdivision there just in that cul-de-sac that's going to be kind of butting up to the -- the proposed development there and as you look at that map it's interesting to see -- you got these nice one acre lots and the five acre lots and were talked about earlier and, then, all of a sudden you're transitioning to a much smaller proposed density and as it's been proposed or expressed before, that wonderful development idea it's just not in the right spot. So, if I could be put down as being against this proposal I'd appreciate it and I don't know if I can speak for my wife, but she wasn't able to be here, but she was also against it. Like I said, I don't know if we can -- De Weerd: It's always dangerous to speak for your wife. Cook: You know, that's correct. De Weerd: We so note that. Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 26 of 64 Cook: Thank you. De Weerd: Council, any questions? Thank you. Cook: Thank you. De Weerd: Any further testimony? Okay. Would the applicant like to respond? If you will state your name once again for the record. Bailey: Sure. Ms. Mayor, Commissioners, again, my name is Laren Bailey with LEI Engineers. De Weerd: Thank you. Bailey: Our address is 3023 East Copperpoint Drive. I was hurriedly scratching down remarks and comments, so hopefully, I cover everything. To begin with, again, I just wanted to reiterate, you know, the Comprehensive Plan, which was brought up by staff in the staff report and this is Section 3.7.1. It says support a variety of residential categories for the purpose of providing a range of affordable -- affordable housing opportunities. Our belief in -- I believe in the city's Comprehensive Plan is that the idea is to have a mix of uses within -- within each area, so that -- so we don't just have one type of housing or one size of product, that we can have integrated neighborhoods with a diversity of people living there. To go back to the traffic discussion, again, you know, we have met with ACHD, we have also hired an independent traffic firm to look at, you know, the traffic in this area and, yes, you know, I'm not going to discount the folks who live there. They live it every day. The fact of the matter is that ACHD plans to widen this portion of Eagle Road in the near future and, hopefully, that will alleviate some of those issues. But, again, you know, this is Eagle Road, it's one of the heaviest traveled roads in -- in the county and, you know, there is going to be some waits and some traffic issues from time to time. You know, our hope is not to make those worse, but -- but we feel we shouldn't be held up form developing because other developments may make traffic as well. To talk about the building heights. One of the issues here -- I think if you look at our plan, you know, trying to pull those buildings away from the perimeter of the property -- most folks vision probably won't really be affected, because those buildings will be pulled away from the property, they won't have this large building -- even though the assisted living maybe would have been slightly shorter, you got to remember commercial buildings are usually taller than a single story house. So, right up against the property line that probably would have actually impacted their vision more than this development. You know, the development agreement and the condition that this be an assisted living, surely the city didn't envision this being assisted living forever and that's the only use -- only use that you ever built here. We have seen that that -- you know, the market hasn't been able to produce an assisted living facility and so we are hopeful that, you know, you can see the way to allow different use on this property. And, again, you know -- and I'm sure -- I'm not trying to talk down the Council, I know you know this, but, you know, we are looking at density today, but also down in the future -- in the future down the road, ten years from now, 20 years, 30 years, whatever this area is Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 27 of 64 going to look like and, yes, today there are five acre lots. You know, we have a lot of this issue around when cities transition into those -- those urban areas -- or not urban, those rural areas when the building fringe moves into those areas and we have this as properties develop and, you know, that's -- it's just -- it's just -- I guess what I'm trying to say it's par for the course, it's part of the way this happens and, unfortunately, people are affected in the near term, but in the long term as the city grows these properties are going to be developed -- they will most likely be developed. With that I guess I will stand -- well -- yeah. With that I will stand for any additional questions. De Weerd: Council, any questions? Bird: I have none. Rountree: I have none. DE Weerd: Okay. Bailey: Thank you. De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba? Zaremba: I have a question that I would like to pose to ACRD and I -- one of the things that is concerning me very much is the alignment of this entrance road and where it meets Eagle and its relationship to the entrance road to the subdivision across the street from it. And, actually, I have a two part question. One is the discussion of the safety of this location for this entrance and the other is -- we have had a couple of different comments of different times frames for the widening of Eagle and if you -- if you have that knowledge at the top of your head of what is the target for widening that would help, but I'm really more concerned about the location of the entrance. But both those things. And thank you for being here. Head: No problem. Ryan Head, Ada County Highway District, 3775 Adams Street in Garden City. I wish I could answer your question as far as the alignment of the roadway and, I apologize, I don't have the history there. But having attended the hearing in which ACHD heard this, that did not come up as a topic in that hearing. As far as the plan for widening Eagle Road, currently design is set to start in 2018. The preliminary -- the right of ways and preliminary developments probably 2019. Construction is listed as unfunded, which likely would be in 2020, 2021, in that time frame. It's currently listed as the 37th priority in our prioritization process, so -- Zaremba: Thank you. De Weerd: Mr. Borton, did you have a question? Borton: Madam Mayor, just for Laren. Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 28 of 64 De Weerd: Thank you, Ryan. Borton: Thanks, Laren. Sorry, I missed you before. You might have said something earlier that I missed as well, but I can't get my head around the alternative compliance with the parking. I think Councilman Zaremba brought up a great question. The report, unless I'm reading it wrong, there is an original requirement of 144 spaces, it had designed 87 and, then, what you showed looked like it might have added ten spaces to 97? But there is a big gap. And when I read the findings for alternative compliance there is a reference to open space, but there is a disconnect on -- and I must have missed something, so help me understand the basis for that. Bailey: Correct. I believe we are at 97 spaces today Borton: Okay. Bailey: Two things -- or another thing I wanted to bring up that I -- that I didn't bring up before. The developer wants to -- you know, he understands this is an issue and the city's concerned about it and something that will be addressed in the CC&Rs, so that it can be taken care of by the management team and make sure that people are -- they will be required to park in their garages or in a designated space. But, again, you know, I think the problem is -- we are in a -- this product is a little bit in between your standard four-plex or apartment complex and your single family residence. So, we are kind of in between. If we were apartments we would be providing two -- or 1.5 per unit. Single family we have two in the garage and two in the driveway. So, we feel size of -- of units and also the type of development, that -- that we are somewhere in between that and that's why we asked for the alternative compliance to allow for more open space, instead of having a sea of asphalt behind each one of these buildings that may or may not really get used. Does that answer your question or am I not getting there? Borton: Madam Mayor? I recall you saying that, so I didn't miss it. But I don't know if you answered -- I don't know if there is an answer -- at least the way I see it. I look at alternate compliance in that there is a requirement for, in this example, 144 stalls and you're going to short that by almost 50 stalls, that there is an alternative means to address what would otherwise have been a need for a lot of parking spaces and the provision of open space, which is great, doesn't create an alternate form of compliance of that requirement and -- and that's a big gap for this project that, again, Councilman Zaremba sort of pointed out what seems to be the realty and we all know if three is a two car garage that has two cars in it that would be the first time you ever see it. I mean people -- and that's not your responsibility -- I understand that. That's why I don't know if there is an answer to my question. Bailey: Mayor, Commissioner Borton, again, we want to take care of that in the CC&Rs and require people to use their garage for a car, not for the storage unit. We feel, again, if these are going to be smaller house sizes, they are not going to have, you know, as much -- hopefully not as many material items as a lot of us do. but, you know, in different types of housing we are going to see different demographics living there and I Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 29 of 64 think that's a place where -- not to -- I mean not to drive your code or anything, but I think your code looks at -- we have got an either or an or, we don't have anything in between, we don't have adifferent -- a varying degree of, you know, how much parking we need to provide. So, if we are looking at strictly single family with 144, if we were at multi-family, then, we have got more parking than we need and so, unfortunately, there is not a middle ground in your code and so that's why we are asking for the alternative compliance. And Iknow -- I think you brought up some good points about where people are going to park and I think the best we can do or what we are trying to do is say, well, we are going to control that with CC&Rs and a management team and say, you know, people have to park in their garage, not -- not in -- you know, not in the private drive area. De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: Madam Mayor. I would ask another question that has been brought up a couple times and that's building height. You said they would be limited to or around 27 feet. Is that measuring to the peak or is that measuring the way the builder builds it, which is about halfway up the slope and it's --the peak is considerably higher than that? Bailey: Well, I think there is a couple things going on here. One, the site does have some topography to it. There is about a ten foot drop from Falcon Drive all the way down to the south property line and so my understanding -- and I looked at this when I got back to my notes. Actually 28 feet to the peak of the roof are the architectural plans that have been submitted to staff. This will be up slope and so, you know, I'm sure you're going to have a little bit of variation here and there. But I think that slope also benefits us in that we are not looking at one -- you know, one house, we are going to have them stepping down this hill and so, you know, as people look up we have got a separation to the building from the property line that's going to help, because your sight vision triangle is not going to -- you're not going to see over those. And, yes, you know, you're going to see the peaks of those, but not a solid roof all the way across your property line. So, we don't feel it's going to be a lot different from any other single family residential subdivision and looking over your neighbor's fence at their home. Zaremba: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Any further questions? Bird: I have none. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I have a question for Bill. Bill, it's been mentioned a couple times and inferred that with the development agreement that the understanding was the R-8 was a compromise and that if it didn't -- if the project didn't move forward over a certain degree Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 30 of 64 or a certain period of time, then, there is some reversionary aspect in that agreement. I don't know as I see that, but I don't see all of that stuff, so help me out. Is that in fact or is that -- Parsons: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I think I will defer to our -- to Bill Nary on this -- on the counsel, but typically we -- we do have some of that language in our development agreement. However, I have been here with the city for almost seven years and never seen a property reverted back to the original zoning. Rountree: Okay. Parsons: That it was to the previous zoning it was before they requested annexation. But I will go ahead and defer to Mr. Nary. Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Rountree, there is reversionary language in all of our DAs. It is standard language. It does require that we go through a due process to do that. So, it's not automatic and that it will revert. We had an exercise about five years ago, we had a number of outstanding development agreements and had never been signed and some that had been signed, but had expired, and the prior planning director had, basically, categorized all of those and we brought a bunch of them in front of you for that direction and we did actually terminate some of those development agreements. But the decision was also made on some of those that what was -- what was provided in the development agreement -- if we never took action and we never went through the due process to terminate it, then, it still is existing, it's still a valid development agreement. So, it's still -- it's still able to be amended as proposed here. This was one of those. So, we terminated some that we felt were -- either had not been signed or had zoning that was -- or projects on them that there was a concern from planning and the Council at the time to not allow those to continue on and we terminated those. But we left a few of those in place, like this one, because, again, the concern was that what's proposed there is not problematic. So, it's still within your purview, again, to not grant the requested change or to grant the change, but it was felt at the time that those that were left were ones that did not have any other problematic issue of leaving them in place. So, again, the language that I think -- and the folks that have testified is correct, there are -- there is language like that, but it does require action on the city's part to terminate them before they become extinguished. Rountree: Thank you, Bill. Nelson: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the City Council. I just wanted to follow up. I agreed with -- De Weerd: Deborah, if you can state your name again for the record. Nelson: Deborah Nelson, 601 West Bannock. Thank you. Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 31 of 64 De Weerd: Thank you Nelson: I do agree with Bill Nary's comments, but I just also wanted to add, in case that wasn't clear, that in addition to due process, which he properly points out would be required for reversion, we also have to be in default of the agreement and our request to change a limitation within a development agreement does not constitute default. You retain that regulatory authority under the state statutes and under your own ordinance to modify agreements when they no longer make sense as you see fit. So, I just wanted to make sure that was clear, that it has not reverted, we are not in default. The zoning is in place. We are asking for a change in a use limitation. De Weerd: Okay. Nelson: Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Anything further from Council? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Thank you. Nelson: Thanks. De Weerd: Council, anything further from the staff, applicant, or any of those that testified? Rountree: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Zaremba? Zaremba: No. I thought Councilman Rountree wanted to say something Rountree: No. I'm through with my questions. Zaremba: Not just this development, but this is maybe the third or the fourth time in the last few years that somebody several years ago planned to have a retirement or assisted living home in an area that was originally R-2 or R-4 -- the intention it would be R-2 or R-4 and in order to do the assisted living, which is not allowed in the R-2 and R-4, they were given an R-8 and a development agreement. So, this was not unusual. this has happened before. But as I say, this is the third or fourth time where that property has changed hands and the new owner said, okay, well, assisted living isn't right anymore, we want to do something else and we feel we are entitled to the R-8 that is the designated zone without the development agreement. I personally don't agree with that. I -- the development agreement is what made it an R-8 and I struggle with the ability to say that it wasn't that. So, I guess the piece of it that we are not going to resolve tonight, but I know we look at the UDC all the time to say is there something we Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 32 of 64 need to fix in the UDC and I would like to put on the list some future time to discuss maybe allowing assisted livings in R-4s, so that we don't have to do an R-8 and a development agreement and there is no further discussion about it needing to revert. Just a thought, because I -- I struggle with this. I have been trying to avoid using the words bait and switch, because it isn't usually the same owner that does the switch, but, as I say, this has come up several times recently and I throw that in for future discussion. De Weerd: Thank you. We will definitely put it out for an additional discussion. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I agree with Councilman Zaremba. I have a real hard time on this, because the simple fact is is we -- they got an R-8 for one purpose only and that was for assisted living and I'm sure that the applicants today would not be involved with this property if it hadn't of had an R-8 zoning on it. I don't think it's fair -- the five acre lots are nice, but if R-8 is allowed in here -- money talks and you can probably see one or two of them go into the R-8 deal, too. If the over developments around there -- and I realize that across the street there is a lot of R-8s, but we do have Eagle Road to add to the buffer there. I cannot support this. The only -- that property, unless it gets an assisted living, facility and traffic in condos or townhouses, whatever you want to call them and assisted living is a big difference. I don't care what anybody says. You're not going to have the traffic in an assisted living, because most of the people in assisted living -- the only traffic you're going to have is the employees and once in awhile people being ran in a van to doctors. I just can't support this as a townhouse development, because I think we are opening up a real big can of worms and it isn't fair to all those R-4 developments and subdivisions around that property. So, I just can't support it. I mean it was passed for one reason as an R-8 and I just won't be able to support it. De Weerd: Okay. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Who just said that? Oh. Mr. Zaremba. It's like where did that come from Zaremba: I'm sorry. My lips didn't move. De Weerd: I know it. I'm looking at -- Zaremba: I appreciate Councilman Bird's comments and I have two major issues here. One is the roadway access remaining where it is as we add density. That seems to be a serious problem to me and the other is the issue of why it is an R-8 for assisted living and I guess I would suggest that we actually, when we do get to voting, that we vote on B before we vote on A. B is the modified development agreement and the sense of Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 33 of 64 Council on whether that's going to happen or not really answers the question about the preliminary plat. So, I would just suggest -- my question would be can we take these out of order when we vote? Rountree: Sure. De Weerd: Yes. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I move we close the public hearing on PP 13-039 and MDA 13-024. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearings on Items 8-A and 8-B. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I just a comment. This area has been a difficult area for the residents in the area, for the developers and those folks that have property that they want to do something different with, as well as the city it's been ongoing for a number of years. One of the things that was done by the City Council and a previous developer and neighbors was to come to some consensus on the R-8 and R-8 for the retirement senior care facility and as you have already heard from the other sage councilmen up here, it was done for that purpose and that purpose only, not to be left by a current developer or somebody in the future to allow a higher density. For that reason I'm not particularly inclined to support the DA modifications. We do DAs now. We have this on record in an agreement with property owners that this is what our intent was and certainly the process allows them an opportunity to visit that. We have had that and we will soon find out how that outcome is. What I really wanted to say is that kudos to both groups. It's always been a tough area to work with. I think those that have testified and provided information have been sincere, you have been respectful and with a high degree of civility, something that we don't see too often when we have some contentious issues before us, so I appreciate and applaud all of you and respect that. I hope we all can walk out of here and say, well, at least I have had a fair opportunity and whatever the decision might be. And having said that, Madam Mayor, I'll let anybody else make a comment. Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 34 of 64 De Weerd: I think that it's probably all been said. I, too, appreciate the civility of the topic. I would echo what many of the residents in that area said, this is an attractive development and I think it's also in the wrong place. You know, it's -- I think that the city is committed to a diversity in housing product, but you can't fit around -- or a square peg in a round hole and even though it is a transitional area what really concerns me is there is -- we fought for that traffic light out there and it was delayed and it was delayed from -- it was infuriating, actually, and, Ryan, I'm not going to kill the messenger tonight. But it is disappointing to hear that that road improvement is -- is in design in 2018 and it's unfunded. What do we need to do to get the attention of ACHD in needed road improvements out in south Meridian. It is really frustrating. I was looking at the map that we got from Ada County Highway District and I don't think there is another city in this county that has as many red lines and orange lines on it than Meridian does and that needs to be addressed and it can't be everyone has his turn. It has to be we need to start addressing where those trips are and where those red lines are and those orange lines and to start getting some traffic relief and I think the residents really explained it today, it is frustrating out there and if you're sitting out there waiting to turn or even waiting for that intersection light, it is infuriating and I hope that our residents in south Meridian find their voice, because that voice needs to be heard. We need to start seeing some improvements out in that area and you heard from our Transportation Commission chair tonight. There is a venue to come to and we would invite you to add your voice to that process. So, Council, sorry, I did have to add that it is a good project, it's just not in the right place. That the reason that is R-8 was for a whole different reason, other than the density desired out in that particular piece of property and there are some serious traffic concerns in that as well. Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: I will be brief, because you took some of my thoughts, but one thing that I wanted to reiterate is I personally really liked this project and -- thought it was well designed and hope that projects like this are brought back into our community, because I do think that it is a -- a middle ground between some of those larger density apartments and some of the homes that many of our young families find and so I appreciate bringing forth this project. I agree with the Mayor, I thought it was well designed and would have met the needs of a lot of those in our community. However, I have to agree with what -- the comments that we have also heard tonight, it's just not the right location to meet the needs of our citizens in that area. De Weerd: And I did like the reduction -- less pavement, more open space. I would also say that this is a product that's needed in our community. It really is. People are looking for those condominiums or the townhouses that as they downsize it's -- but it's not the right place, so -- Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: Madam Mayor, as an introduction to the motion, I will repeat what's already been said. I do think it was an attractive project and in general I'm in favor of greater Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 35 of 64 densities. They make city infrastructure more effective and certainly if we are ever going to have public transportation it will depend on higher density populations. So, it pains me to say I don't feel this is the right location for that, but I support what has been said. That said, Madam Mayor, I move that we deny MDA 13-024. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second on Item 8-B. Any discussion from Council? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Madam Clerk. Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener; yea. De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Item 8-A. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I move we deny PP 13-039. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to deny Item 8-A. Any discussion from Council? Madam Clerk. Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener; yea. De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. C. Continued from February 4, 2014: Consolidated Public Hearing on the Update to the Development Impact Fee Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) and the Revisions to Impact Fee Ordinance Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 36 of 64 De Weerd: Item 8-C is continued from February 4th. It's the consolidated public hearing on the update to our development impact fee CIP and the revisions to the impact fee ordinance. I will turn this over to staff. I would just note for the record that there is an updated document from when we heard this on February 4th and it is -- Rountree: It's attached to the ordinance. Bird: It's attached to the ordinance. Before the ordinance. Baird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Baird. Baird: Thank you. For anyone in the audience who hasn't already received one, we do have a stack of them in the back of the room. De Weerd: Thank you for that clarification. I was hoping someone would. Wow, looks like a popular topic. Rountree: You guys could get a little closer together now. Cunningham: Okay. Good evening, Mayor, Members of Council. Stacy actually went home sick today. I teased her that that was because of this presentation, but she assured me it's not. De Weerd: Now I will assure you it does make people sick. Cunningham: Yeah. She's been a little bit stressed. But we actually have prepared a very short agenda. So, we are just going to talk about the five requests that you made from the February meeting. We are going to give you an updated impact eligible CIP and, then, we are going to give you the updated fee. Okay. The first thing that you actually -- what we had written down was you wanted to see if we could split the residential fee between single and multi-family. In order to do that we needed two factors, the growth and the demand. We were able to obtain both of those. CBC helped us get the actual demand. We took the person per household by the residential type from the 2010 census. So, you will see when we have updated the fee that we have split the park between single family and multi-family. The commercial, the next item you actually asked if we could do the same, could we look at splitting industrial versus nonindustrial. Again we needed two factors, the growth and the demand. We were able to obtain the growth, but not the demand. When I actually did talk to the police department they don't keep stats on what type of a call they have per building type. Also I had checked with Nampa and Boise and they only have one commercial fee. They don't split it between commercial and non -- or industrial versus nonindustrial. Then you also asked us if we would place acap -- or could we place a cap on the commercial fee. Again, I could find no data to support the demand on the police by the size of the building. Also Stacy wanted to note that there is --the actual commercial fee Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 37 of 64 is only eight percent of the needed CIP. Okay. The fourth item you asked could we come back to you with no increase of current fee. Our departments have gone to work with Stacy and Todd and reduced their capital requests and so this naturally drops the fee. So, you will find a lower fee. And, then, also one of the items that was asked if you adopted a lower fee than what we suggest today how would it affect our CIP. The General Fund would have to make up the difference as we grow or we would actually decrease our current level of service. And now we go into the actual -- the updated CIP and this is the fire impact eligible CIP. So, the total need for the fire department in the next ten years from growth is 5.4 million. This one is the parks. Their eligible CIP has dropped to 8.2 million. And for the police department their eligible impact CIP has dropped to 1.3. This gives us a total of about 15 million that we are going to need to collect from growth to maintain the current level of service. So, we take that 15 million, we divide it by the number of permits that's actually been projected and here is your new revised fee. You can see the single family has gone down to 17.67. The multi- family down to 14.54. And the commercial actually went up to 36 cents a square foot. And now here is an actual comparison from today's current fees. You can see the fee dropped on the residential for the single family 78 dollars. The multi-family will go down 391 dollars. And, then, the commercial fee goes up a nickel from today's rate. And at this time that's the presentation. If you want more detail we do have some detail of the actual changes of the CIP, but we stand here ready for questions. De Weerd: Or sit there. Cunningham: Or sit here De Weerd: Council, do you have questions? First, I would like to thank Rita and Todd -- certainly our finance department, but also each of our departments. I know there was a lot of blood, sweat and tears as part of this, but they really sharpened their pencils and went to work. What we didn't want to do was compromise that level of service. That is what our current residents expect and do appreciate what the team has done to bring this back to you. So, I would ask Council if you have any questions. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I appreciate all the work that has gone into it and as you said, a lot of people participated. This was true of the previous version as well, but the park impact fee was going down a little bit and I guess I would like to ask Director Siddoway just to comment on what this means to him. He is being very cooperative -- De Weerd: His were the tears I think. Zaremba: You know, I think we should have on the public record what this impacts. Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 38 of 64 Siddoway: Sure. Yeah. Mine were the tears. It is difficult to see it go down, you know, almost 400 dollars from where it -- where it was as a flat fee. Now only three dollars of the split fee for single family, further than that on the multi-family. But I have been through the methodology multiple times. I believe that what we have in there is justifiable as what we need for growth. Part of the reason it goes down is that we have been collecting funds -- impact fees that are currently unspent and that gets subtracted off at the end. So, I am comfortable that the methodology is sound and represents the impact fee eligible portion of our CIP and so, therefore, I can't argue for it to go up from there. Zaremba: Thank you. Siddoway: Yeah. Thanks. Any other questions for me? Rountree: Well, Madam Mayor, just a reminder everyone -- and I'm sure Steve can do this as well -- is that we have a measure to strive for with the impact fees in terms of acreage per individual and a significant portion of that was accomplished with the Kleiner Park donation resulting in the ability to lower the amount of funds we need in the future to reach that goal of two acres per thousand or something like that. Siddoway: Our current acres per thousand is at approximately three. Rountree: Three. Siddoway: And our goal is four. Rountree: Four. Siddoway: The difference, though, you know, would have to come from General Fund, partnerships or other sources. The impact fees can only maintain our existing level of service and our existing level of service is only as high as it is because of donations like Kleiner Park. Rountree: Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone who would like to provide testimony on this item? Good evening. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Yorgason: Certainly. My name is Dave Yorgason. My address is 14254 West Battenburg Drive in Boise, Idaho. And at this moment in time I'm standing here representing myself as a local developer and contractor, but also as the representative for the Building Contractors Association of Southwest Idaho. De Weerd: Thank you. Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 39 of 64 Yorgason: Thank you so much for listening to our comments. We know that the original study was aggressive and we appreciate your listening to our comments and concerns. Some of the members wished they could have been here tonight. Some had other testimony at other hearings in another city, so they couldn't be here, but we recognize and appreciate your comments. For those who may not know, I serve on the Boise city park impact fee and I'm learning quite a bit through our process. I have only been serving on that committee for a few months. Boise has been doing the same analysis that Meridian has been going through here as well. So, I won't spend a lot of time talking about that. I could answer any questions you may have on that. But we recognize the desire to maintain the existing level of service. Growth should pay for its fair share, but not pay for more than its fair share. We are concerned about affordability of housing. We can talk about how much Meridian has grown relative to the county. Meridian has grown alot -- approximately 40 percent of last year's growth in residential housing in Ada County was just here in Meridian city and that does equate and come into play with regard to how the COMPASS numbers may or may not be accurate. Putting that aside, in concluding comments we wish to thank you for your consideration in lowering the fee. I was not aware of how much the fee would change until I walked through the door here tonight. We appreciate what you have offered to us and thank you for that. De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions? Rountree: No. Thank you for your comments. Bird: Thank you, David. De Weerd: We appreciate you being here. Yorgason: You're welcome. Thank you. De Weerd: Additional testimony? Okay. Council? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Just a statement. I appreciate what staff -- what staff and the committee has done. I believe, though, that this is from 2006 to 2014. It's a few years. I think we need to -- I know we have got legal and finance involved on the committee. I think we need to have economic development, Bruce Chatterton's group, have a representative on that, plus our committee, our citizens, and I think we need to -- I think we need to meet quarterly with this group and have, if we can, a citizen as a chairman of it, not one of the staff or anything, but work together, so that we are not eight years down the line changing impact fees. So, that's just something to throw out. I'd like to see Bill and Ted and them figure out some resolution that would take care of this. Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 40 of 64 De Weerd: They are already working on it. So, what a great idea. We anticipated exactly what you would say and tried to be one step ahead, but thank you. I think staff agrees with you and has been working on kind of an updated charter of what the impact fee committee will do and how we can better utilize the citizens' time and their expertise on there. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I just wanted to take an opportunity to thank staff for the work they did. I know they went into this with a great amount of angst trying to read our mind. We sat down together and drew some things on their white board and kind of came out with this direction. I think it -- I think they have addressed the concerns that we have brought forward when we talked about this. I hope it's clear to everybody -- certainly if it isn't let's get it out now. But, again, I appreciate Todd and Rita and Stacy for the time that they spent trying to weave this into something that was understandable. I think you have done a great job. Cunningham: Thanks. De Weerd: Uh-huh. Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: And we will ask Ted and Mark and -- Rountree: Yeah. They are in the background, but -- De Weerd: Oh, but they -- they were the ones that were sweating. Who just said Madam Mayor? Okay. Mr. Cavener. Cavener: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Rita, maybe you can just provide just a little bit of clarification for me. Residential, multi-family versus residential single family, if six years out because of maybe we see an uptick in multi-family, what does that do, then, to our projections and do we at that point come back and reassess multi-family or do we just pull dollars from the General Fund to -- to meet the dollar projection? Cunningham: As we -- if we actually grow more in multi-family, the demand actually increases, we have more revenues coming in and so as we bring in more revenue we will be updating you with fund balance, we will be updating the departments and they will be constantly looking at that growth and how they need to expand and keep up with the current level of service. Cavener: Okay. Thank you. Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 41 of 64 Cunningham: So, we will have some years, but, you know, one's going to be up, one's going to be down. That's what we have found. De Weerd: And this is certainly something that as we look at refining the charter of the impact fee committee these updates will be provided and discussed and so there will be greater monitoring of this. Cavener: That's good to hear. Thank you, Mayor. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: Yes. I had one question on it. De Weerd: You know, that mike will not bite you Borton: So, just one question, because we have gone through lots of different versions of this that -- and I love this, this is really fun in a real weird kind of way. I enjoy the impact fee analysis. But the one thing that I saw in different versions that it may be a question for Rita and, Jamie, it may be a question for you -- is the training center phase two. That component of the police impact -- Cunningham: Yes. Borton: I thought it was -- I have seen figures where it was 2.2. This one says 1.6. Is that -- Cunningham: Todd, do you have that comparison? Borton: But there was a higher figure of revenue derived from phase two. Cunningham: Hang on just a second. Do you have that handout? Because I thought it was still the same amount. Okay. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Borton: To follow up on the question, I guess would that have aconsequence -- if there was a change it would have been a change in the size or the anticipated cost of the overall project? Cunningham: Yes. Borton: A change or am I recalling -- Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 42 of 64 Cunningham: Actually, when we were looking back at the first draft that the BBC presented last year, it was 1,672,484 dollars that's actually impact fee eligible. So, that amount has stayed the same. So, the original construction, the CIP value, is 7.5 million. Twenty-two percent of it could be attributed to growth and so left it the same. 1.6 million. Borton: Okay. Okay. Cunningham: Does that help? Borton: It does help. It makes me wonder where Iwas -- where I saw something different. De Weerd: On Jamie's wish list. Borton: As long as it wasn't a change in the cost -- the budgeted cost over this amount. Leslie: Madam Mayor, Councilman Borton, Idon't -- I know there was some discussion over a 2.4 number that was in one of the projections. I don't know where that -- that number came from. I think Rita is correct in that what was presented to the committee when we talked about the overall cost, it was 7.5 million dollars for both phases of the project originally and there was 800,000 dollars for the remodel, which -- and we withdrew the 3.6 million that was scheduled for the remodel. So, I know that those two numbers were on the sheet that I seen of 7.5 million and 800,000. One of the documents I seen from the General Fund balance forecast from the workshop that they did had second phase listed at 2.4 million dollars. That did raise a little bit of concern on our perspective from the police department where second phase -- I think that is a math error in which they took 7.5 million -- they subtracted 5,052,000, which included the 800,000 from it, and that will give you that rough 2.4 million dollar number. So, I think perhaps in this forecast that number may have been misrepresented, but in what Rita has in the documentation I seen that 7.5 million is accurate and the 800,000. I hope that clarifies that a little bit. Borton: It does. So, I did see it. Good. Leslie: It was the 2.4. De Weerd: So, you're not crazy. Rountree: It always makes you feel good when you can figure out what you were thinking. Cunningham: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Rita. Yes. Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 43 of 64 Cunningham: Councilman Borton, I actually did find -- the 2.2 was actually the eligible CIP for the police department. The total in BBC's draft. Borton: Okay. Cunningham: So, it was the bottom number. Borton: Okay. That was the only question. De Weerd: Okay. Borton: Thank you. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Any questions? Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: Madam Mayor, I actually have a procedural question, I believe, that would be directed to Mr. Nary. The ordinance we are about to discuss -- I guess I was thinking that this would be the second reading of it and that's not indicated here, but -- so, I could be wrong about that. But just as a general procedure, if there were -- if this were the second reading and we had had a first reading, but now we have changed the numbers, in the vast scheme of things is that okay or does the motion have to be made in such a way that -- Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Zaremba, I'm going to let Mr. Baird answer. I think our intent was to bring back a final ordinance to you next week anyway for approval, but I may have misunderstood it, but Iwanted -- Ted can answer that better. Baird: Thank you. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Zaremba. The ordinance that you have in front of you is capable of being passed tonight. It incorporates the changes -- there is an addendum that has all of the new numbers, which, in effect, amend the report that is also incorporated into this. So, in one motion you can approve the revised CIP and we have also carried forward the revised fees on page four of the ordinance, those blanks are filled in, so if you're going to accept those, that work has been done. The only thing that needs to be added to this ordinance is an effective date and that might be an item of discussion before you close the hearing. The effective date needs to be at least 30 days from publication, so you would be looking at a date 30 days from this Monday. That's the one last factor to consider. And, then, also involved with your question I think was -- there has been a change to what was originally proposed. The impact fee statute requires that if the change is so significant that the public would be surprised, then, you have to go through a renoticing. We made the determination in this case that anyone who was here and witnessed that public hearing wouldn't be surprised at what we come up with, because as you have Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 44 of 64 already testified, we took your suggestions and we came back in an attempt to fulfill your wishes. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I have a question for Ted. Ted, do you see a necessity to include for an appropriate name -- Exhibit A, those five tables? It seems to me that that -- that's, obviously, backup information, but I don't know that that's necessarily ordinance material. Baird: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Rountree, I thought it was important to at least include it in what was in the packet and what was available today, because it does amend the study. The third whereas clause incorporates that as part of the ordinance. It also incorporates that 75 page study that you have all reviewed. Historically we have attached all that to what's on the laser fiche, because that's what makes up the methodology. Rountree: Okay. Baird: It is a little bit unusual, but we feel it's required by the impact fee statute. The only thing that goes to Sterling is set forth in section three of the ordinance, it repeals and replaces City Code 10-7-12, so that's -- that's the only change you're going to see online and, again, we are looking for direction with regards to an effective date. Rountree: Okay. Baird: And just one last thing. Atone point looking at the former agenda, I thought this was identified as second and third readings. I might just hand this back to Bill. He's the ordinance king about whether we need to come back next week. It really wouldn't hurt anything and if you have heard all you need to hear you don't have to -- you can conclude the public hearing tonight, so that I'll ask Mr. Nary's opinion of how to handle the second and third readings. Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I think we announced that on the record last week that we did a first reading and it was intended for second reading and third reading tonight as a possibility. We didn't publish it that way. It's probably safer -- impact fees are one of those areas that, you know, sometimes can be very vulnerable for people to -- if there is an issue that they haven't raised it probably would be safe to do tonight as a second reading. We will put in on for third reading with your direction, we can put in the date of effectiveness and get it published and, then, have it read as third reading next week and published. So, it probably would be safer to do it that way. Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 45 of 64 De Weerd: Okay. Any problems with -- with that? I don't see any. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I don't see any problems, but I think we ought to make an effective date of the 1st of May 2014. That gives plenty of time, gives us our 30 days and gets it published and everything. De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: Ditto. That's exactly what I was going to say. De Weerd: Another mind reading opportunity. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: If there is no further questions or discussion, I move that we close the public hearing on Item 8-C. Bird: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on Item 8-C. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Item 8-D is an ordinance 14 -- Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Rountree: I would like to make a motion on Item 8-C that we approve the capital improvement plan for the develop -- for the impact eligible CIP and the revised impact fee -- impact fees established by the presentation that staff has presented us tonight to be incorporated in the ordinance. Bird: Second. De Weerd: That is about to be read, so -- Baird: With an effective date of -- Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 46 of 64 Rountree: And the effective date would be May 1st, 2014. De Weerd: Okay. Second agree? Bird: Second agrees. De Weerd: Okay. Motion and a second. I will ask for roll call. Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener; yea. De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. D. Continued from February 4, 2014: Ordinance No. 14-1596: An Ordinance Amending Title 10, Chapter 7, Section 12, Meridian City Code, known as the Meridian Impact Fee Ordinance Schedule; to Provide for an Amendment to the Police, Fire and Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Schedules De Weerd: That's a lot of ayes. Okay. Madam Clerk, will you, please, read Ordinance 14-1596 by title only. Holman: Thank you, Madam Mayor. City of Meridian Ordinance No. 14-1596 second reading. An ordinance to amend the municipal code of the City of Meridian, county of Ada, state of Idaho, amending Title 10, Chapter 7, Section 12, Meridian City Code, known as the Meridian Impact Fee Ordinance Fee Schedule, to provide for an amendment to the police, fire, and parks and recreation impact fee schedules and providing an effective date. De Weerd: You have heard this ordinance read by title only. It will be read in its final form next week with expected Council action at that time. E. Continued From February 25, 2014: To Review the Terms and Conditions of the Real Property Exchange between the Meridian Dairy and Stock Shows and the City of Meridian at Storey Park F. Second and Third Reading of Ordinance No. 14-1599: Authorizing the Conveyance of Certain City Owned Real Property to the Meridian Dairy and Stock Shows, Inc. Located at Storey Park in the City of Meridian De Weerd: Item 8-E and 8-F are both related. We will turn this over to Mr. Nary Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 47 of 64 Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, after our discussions last week on the land exchange all those terms and conditions have been accepted, so the agreement that's in front of you is ready for approval. De Weerd: Thank you. Any further question on Item 8-E? If not we will go into the second and third reading of Ordinance 14-1599. Madam Clerk, will you, please, read this ordinance by title only. Holman: Thank you, Madam Mayor. City of Meridian Ordinance No. 14-1599, an ordinance authorizing the conveyance of certain city owned real property to the Meridian Dairy and Stock Shows, Inc., located at Storey Park in the City of Meridian, legally described as Lot 3, Block 1, of the pending Storey Park Subdivision. Authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute and attest on behalf of the City of Meridian the exchange agreement, access easement deed and other documents necessary to completed the transaction. Providing for a waiver of the reading rules and providing an effective date. De Weerd: You have heard this ordinance read by title only. Is there anyone who would like to hear it read in its entirety? Thank you. Council, any -- I would entertain a motion. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move we approve Ordinance 14-1599 with suspension of rules. Bird: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 8-F. Madam Clerk, will you call roll. Roll Call: Bird, abstain; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener; yea. De Weerd: All ayes with one abstention. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSTAIN. G. Public Hearing: TEC 14-001 Olivetree at Spurwing Subdivision by Spurwing Limited Partnership Located North of W. Chinden Boulevard and West of Spurwing Way Request: Two (2) Year Time Extension on the Preliminary Plat in Order to Obtain the City Engineer's Signature on a Final Plat Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 48 of 64 De Weerd: Item 8-G is a public hearing TEC 14-001. I will open this public hearing with staff comments. Parsons: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. The next item on the agenda is a preliminary plat time extension for the Olivetree at Spurwing Subdivision. This property was annexed and zoned in 2006 and final platted in 2007, I believe, and is currently zoned R-4 and R-8. This is the fourth time extension before you at this time. Because this is a time extension, staff -- or the ordinance allows you to impose new conditions consistent with current ordinances and so as part of staff's recommendation to you this evening staff is recommending that you approve the time extensions with two conditions. The first condition is for the requirement that the subdivision comply with the current street lighting standards that we have under the Public Works Department and, then, also when the applicant comes in and actually submits construction documents -- or construction drawings for the subdivisions we ask that they come in under the 2013 edition of the supplemental specifications and drawings to the Idaho standards for pubic works construction documents we have adopted. The applicant has agreed to the recommended conditions that I have presented to you this evening and I'd stand for any questions you have. De Weerd: Council, any question? Bird: I have none. Rountree: I have none. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: This is, again, a way back thing, but when this originally came through there was a requirement for a second access to this and the attempt was to connect the west end of this to Ten Mile Road at Chinden. At the time that condition was waived or removed, because this property only owned what would be half of the right of way needed to make that access happen at Chinden and Ten Mile. Since then ITD has presented their plan for the -- that whole Chinden corridor and they are intending to buy the right of way to make that intersection a full intersection. That's the drawings that they are showing and I feel we need to resurrect the idea of having that access. What ended up being provided was an emergency access that would carry a fire truck, but it would not carry traffic, it would be close off, and as many of the residents of the rest of this subdivision testified, that puts an awful lot of traffic winding around back through the west of the rest of this development if this continues to be a dead end without a second access and I know I'm bringing up something that was way in the past, but can we make that a condition that -- they haven't started building yet, so this is all on paper and my question is can we make that a condition of approval of the extension. Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 49 of 64 Parsons: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I am filling in for Ms. Watters this evening, but I do recall the condition that that be a fire department access only at that point. If you recall, back in 2011 or so staff did process a development agreement modification -- I guess it was 2010 for the Jaykers Subdivision or what's known as Spurwing Greens to the west and now we do have some connectivity through this development other than through the Spurwing development. So, that's something that's changed since this has come through. Without knowing what ACHD's take is on that roadway and having that private golf course there, I mean there is other property owners involved here for getting that condition in place. Maybe the applicant can shed some light on that, but to my knowledge -- I don't have a specific answer to -- I don't have anything to say yes or no to at this point, so -- all I know is at this point it's been approved with the emergency access point and additional connectivity has been provided to that gated driveway with the tennis facility and Spurwing and, then, Spurwing Greens. So, it's not -- it's not only -- it's not landlocked with one access point at this point. So, things have changed over time since 2007. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. De Weerd: Any other questions or comments? Would the applicant like to make any comment? Rountree: Way to go, Shari. De Weerd: Hi, Shari. Stiles: Good evening, Madam Mayor and Council Members. Shari Stiles, Engineering Solutions, 1029 Rosario in Meridian. De Weerd: Nice to see you. Stiles: Good to see you, too. New faces and cleared the place out De Weerd: It was the impact fee discussion. Stiles: Madam Mayor and Council, there could be a possibility in the future that they may want to redesign that to have some kind of access, but they were approved with the emergency access only. It was a point of contention with the neighborhood to actually have a full bore access there. I don't know what it would go to, because there is just more golf course if it continued any -- in depth into the property -- if it went any depth into the property it would just have to, basically, dead end. The only other person that has some kind of access is Rod Wagner there. He would be on the northwest corner. He's trying to get some kind of access, because they told him he was going to keep his own driveway just little distance. So, they are still in design. As far as I am concerned they don't know finally what they are going to do with that intersection. I think it's maybe 90 percent, is that what you understand, Councilman Zaremba? Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 50 of 64 Zaremba: The -- the drawing of it that they were showing at an open house that handled -- happened -- this is maybe months, nine months ago now, maybe as much as a year, but I don't think so -- showed that to be a five lane by seven lane intersection, that they were going to -- for what looked like a hundred or so feet north of Chinden, have a five lane access signalized -- full access intersection that was five lanes on Ten Mile continuing some distance north of Chinden, plus whatever was going to be on Chinden, which is seven lanes or something like that and -- Stiles: I apologize. I -- Zaremba: -- that was the drawing that was showing -- Stiles: -- wasn't aware of that and I know that Rod Wagner was just fighting for some kind of access to his property that would line up with Ten Mile, instead of using his existing access, which could have been maybe 50 feet from the intersection. Zaremba: Well -- and the fact that they were showing it as a possibility doesn't mean it's funded or going to happen, but if there is the opportunity to have the other -- and you make -- or I think Bill made the point that there is another nearby access that didn't used to exist where Spurwing was connected to Spurwing West or whatever it is. But that would be an attractive access if it could happen, but I understand that may be difficult. Stiles: Madam Mayor, Councilman Zaremba, it would significantly change -- I mean the entire -- they would have to change the whole design of the project to make it a collector easily and you wouldn't want any front-on housing on that, so I think they are just wanting to keep this alive and the market really isn't there right today with these patio home products, they are concentrating more on those large lots and while the prices are so low and people can afford the large lots, but they want to keep this project alive and that's why I'm here tonight requesting a time extension. Zaremba: Okay. Thanks. De Weerd: Any other questions for the applicant? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Thank you, Shari. Stiles: Thank you. De Weerd: This is a public hearing. Is there anyone who would like to offer testimony on this item? Okay. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 51 of 64 Rountree: Seeing none, I move that we close the public hearing to TEC 14-001. Bird: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on this item. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move that we approve the continuation and time extension for Item 8-G. Bird: Second. Zaremba: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 8-G. If there is no discussion, Madam Clerk. Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener; yea. De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. H. Hearing on an Appeal of an Impact Fee Administrator's Decision on an Impact Fee Individual Assessment De Weerd: Item 8-H is a hearing on an appeal. I will turn this over to -- is this Bruce Chatterton's? Rountree: Everybody is pointing. De Weerd: Fingers point to Mr. Nary. Congratulations. Nary: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. What's in front of you is a continuation of the appeal hearing that was held in December, a request from W.H. Moore in regards to impact fees. It's only focused on one of your impact fees, just the park impact fee. As you recall from the hearing or if you reviewed the hearing for the Council Members that weren't in office at the time, the basis of the request was that there was no differential between multi-family and single family. In your current fee you Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 52 of 64 have now determined to create a separate category for those different types of housing types. So, what's in front of you today -- Mr. Moore's company -- Mr. Seel is here representing them -- has been paying the fee -- they made a proper appeal timely. They have been properly heard. They have been paying the fees as required by statute, under protest. If you grant them relief they would be entitled to a rebate or a reimbursement of the fees in excess of whatever relief you grant. You have the ability to grant relief based on the evidence that they presented. The only issue or caution or concern you may have is that whatever relief you grant there is -- if there are any other applicants that apply for permits between now and the effective date of your new ordinance, they would also have the ability to request the same relief. I don't know if that's a dozen, a thousand, or five. I have no idea. But that's your only concern -- that would be your only issue is whatever relief you grant for multi -- in my opinion isn't just for multi-family. If you were to apply -- for example, if you were to say that you're going to grant relief based on your new fee for multi-family, then, a new applicant for a different type of permit -- for a building permit could request the same rationale that the new fee should apply to them as well. So, that's -- that's the risk you have, but you have the ability under the statute to grant relief if you wish. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I'm sure you said this, but help me understand. This would apply -- the scenario that you're suggesting would apply to anybody that -- that applied now for a permit. It would not apply retroactively to all the people that have built multi-family in the last year, because they never filed any kind of an appeal or -- how -- how at risk are we for a hundred existing developers to come in and say, hey, I want my money back, too? Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Zaremba, your risk for those is zero. They have -- they had an opportunity to appeal, as Mr. Moore's company did, they chose not to appeal and pay the fee. So, you are not at risk for anybody who has already paid it, you're only -- again, risk is probably a -- maybe a bigger word than a concern here. You're only concern is anybody else that were to apply for a permit between today and when your new fee goes into effect May 1st. Zaremba: Thank you. Milam: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Ms. Milam. Milam: Bill, my question is, basically, what are we -- are they wanting us to change all of the fees to be what the current fees are, because not only do we have two different numbers for multi-family homes, but also the park's fees were reduced. But other -- the police and the fire were increased. So, are we looking at the whole package as current Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 53 of 64 fees or are we looking at a specific reduction based on just the difference between single family and multi-family or all the parts, including the dropped fees? Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Milam, we are -- they did not appeal the police or fire impact fees, so that's not an issue in front of you. All that's requested is parks. What was requested by the applicant in their appeal testimony was simply that a differential be created between multi-family and single family. In the prior formula there was no difference created. So, it's anecdotal, it's not binding upon you, but you now have a methodology creating that difference. If you wish to apply that to the applicant -- again, you're not bound to do it, but it's certainly -- it's evidence you can use, because you found that to be relevant now. That's all they were simply asking was that they believe it was relevant to be considered in the prior one, it just never was, no one had asked for it, they did. So, again, you don't have to follow the same methodology, but you can, because at least something that has been vetted and has been accepted by the Council. Milam: So, to reduce it on the multi-family by 312 dollars or roughly this Nary: Within your discretion however you want to apply that. Milam: Okay. Rountree: Are you going to ask for testimony? De Weerd: Would the appellant like to comment? Good evening Seel: Good evening, Madam Mayor, Council Members. Jonathan Seel. W.H. Moore Company, 1940 Bonito. You know, I was just going to say first in my younger days I ran four marathons and they are 26 miles, 385 yards, and I kind of feel like I'm at that 385 yard point right now and I'm really waiting for that finish line. As I mentioned, as Mr. Nary mentioned in the testimony, our argument was that multi-family should not be charged the same as single family and I think in my documentation and my support I think I substantiated that. I believe tonight what -- what staff has come up with is a recommendation acknowledging the fact that there is a difference between the two. What we would simply ask for and which I believe is fair, is that the new impact fee, which reduces the --the existing impact fee by 616 dollars, apply not only to the permits that we have already paid, but the permits that we would pay going forward until I believe -- and, Mr. Nary, you can correct me -- until May 1st or -- well, I guess for all that continuing on, so that we would get a reimbursement for those permits that we paid to date and that we would get a reduction in the permit fees for parks only going forward on our project. And, again, I would like to thank staff and the Councilmen and the Mayor for all the hard work that everybody has put in this. I know it's been a challenge for all of us. So, anyway, that's my request. De Weerd: Thank you, Jonathan. Any question from Council? Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 54 of 64 Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: Have you calculated what that grand total fee is? What would we owe you back? Seel: I calculate it's approximately 135,000 dollars. I figured if I'm doing my math right, 616 dollars times 220. So, it's approximately 135,000. So, needless to say, it -- when you put it in the total I think we estimated our fees on this project over a million and a half dollars, so it's still certainly a nice reduction in there. But, yeah, we are still certainly paying substantial fees and we are not complaining about those. At least not here. Zaremba: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Any further questions -- Bird: I have none. De Weerd: --from Council? Rountree: I have none. De Weerd: Thank you, Jonathan. Seel: Thank you very much. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: If we are discussing, I'm inclined to allow the refund under the protest. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: If we have no other deals, I think I got a motion here. I move that we -- Rountree: Excuse me, Mr. Bird. Do we want to close the hearing? Bird: It isn't a public. Rountree: Well, it's a hearing. Bird: Do we have -- Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 55 of 64 Rountree: I don't -- De Weerd: No. Nary: You have an open hearing. Bird: Okay. I move that we close -- Nary: It's an appeal hearing. Rountree: All right. Bird: I move we close the appeal on the impact fees administrator's decision. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the hearing an appeal. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Madam Mayor. Bill, if I don't get this right let me know. I move that we allow the appeal and to return 616 dollars per unit that has already been -- the applicant has already there applied and paid and to continue this through May 1st and at which time applicant will pay new administration fees or fees. Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: What I -- I guess I just want to make clear, so -- for the people that have to collect it, the 616 dollars per permit per unit is a rebate of what's already been applied -- what has already been granted. What you're requesting is they pay the -- your new fee -- yourmulti-family fee on the future permits between now and May 1st. Bird: These -- those can't go in until -- he's going to -- I know it's paperwork, but he's going to have to pay the 1,384 between now and -- and May 1st and, then, we will give him back 616. And, then, May 1st when this comes into effect, then, he starts paying the 767. Do you guys -- is that -- is that clear? Nary: Uh-huh. Yes, I think that's clear. Bird: Is that okay, Bill? Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 56 of 64 Nary: Yes, that's okay. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Is that what the second was seconding? Rountree: I don't know that it got a second, did it? Bird: It hasn't got a second. De Weerd: Oh, no, it didn't. We can't have discussion until I have a second. Zaremba: I will second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second and discussion by Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: Discussion on the motion if I may. We actually didn't discuss this, whether we -- the motion includes, essentially, paying a check to them and I would ask whether we would consider -- that's a credit and say, okay, the next time you pay we will start working this credit down and rather than us writing a check to them we -- they now have a credit with the city. Can we do it that way? De Weerd: Mr. Baird. Baird: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, thank you. I'm looking at it through the shoes of the person at the desk when someone comes to pay a permit. It's all computerized. So, the easiest thing to do is to follow the motion and that way the accounting department can -- or the Finance Department can verify how many permits have been paid, what the amount of the refund would be. So, it just seems to be the -- the best way to keep track of it and not mess up the counter permit system. Zaremba: Just a thought. So, the second stands with the original motion. De Weerd: Okay. Any additional discussion? Mr. Borton. Borton: Madam Mayor. Mr. Nary, is it -- the motion sounds like it's two things. There is granting the requested relief to refund past paid impact fees with relation to fire -- or fire -- excuse me. Parks. But it's a different animal to -- to go from now to May 1 and prospectively apply the new impact fee rate prior to it being paid, but prior to an ordinance being changed -- I mean is it -- am I getting wound around the actual -- you have to actually, between now and May 1st, pay the current existing fee, then, appeal that and, then, come back and we refund it? It would be nice to skip that step, but -- can we? Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 57 of 64 Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I think you can, Council Member Borton. I think the way Council Member Bird's motion is is the only way you can do it, because you're not changing your existing ordinance until May 1st. So, what -- I think what -- if I understand Council Member Bird's motion, what he's saying is is rather than requiring the applicant reapply and reappeal every time they bring in a payment, they have to go through the exercise of paying the accurate fee by ordinance -- or we are going to predetermine to apply the same reasoning and decision to their -- to their future permit fee on May 1st and reimburse them the same amount. Borton: Okay. Nary: So, I think statutorily you're allowed to do it and by ordinance I think you have to do it that way. Borton: Okay. De Weerd: And that all is under this current appeal perspective; right. Okay. Any further questions or discussion? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Madam Clerk. Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener; yea. De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Public Hearing: TEC 14-002 Centrepointe North by Jonathan Seel Located West Side of N. Eagle Road, Approximately a 1/4 Mile North of E. Ustick Road Request: Two (2) Year Time Extension on the Preliminary Plat in order to Obtain the City Engineer's Signature on a Final Plat De Weerd: Item 8-I is a public hearing on TEC 14-002. I will open this public hearing with staff comments. Parsons: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Next item on the agenda is the Centrepointe North time extension. The applicant is here to discuss with you extending his preliminary plat up to two years. Currently his reasoning for the request is the fact that we have a pretty large commercial property on the northeast corner of Eagle Road and Fairview Avenue currently absorbing the retail market out there -- the current market -- or economic conditions that are out there. So, they don't foresee this as a long-term issue, but they certainly recognize that it's difficult to get tenants in place Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 58 of 64 with that project going on. So, they are, again, seeking your approval. During the previous time extensions -- again, this would be the fourth time extension requested by the applicant. During those previous time extension reviews staff did require appropriate conditions to comply with the city's ordinance -- current ordinances in effect. So, as part of this time extension staff has not recommended any new conditions as part of the time extension. Staff did receive written testimony from Jonathan Seel in agreement with the staff report and as a condition of the time extension we have required the applicant to comply with all approvals through the city, including past time extensions. Because we do have the necessary -- necessary conditions in place and there is a development agreement on the site, staff is recommending approval of the time extension before you this evening. I stand for any questions you have. De Weerd: Council, any questions? Rountree: No. Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Does the applicant have any comment? Seel: Good evening once again. Jonathan Seel, W.H. Moore Company, 1940 Bonito. I'm in agreement with the staff report. I think, as Bill said, with the Village project it's basically sucked the air out of the room, so to speak, and we hope that that's a temporary situation. So, it's gone from a bad economy to a good economy with too much retail development. So, we would simply ask for the two year extension at this point and, hopefully, we won't be back here in two more years. So, unless you have any questions I will sit down. De Weerd: Thank you. It looks like you can sit down. Seel: Thank you. De Weerd: It doesn't look like there is anyone here to provide public comment on this. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: Seeing nobody coming forward to comment, I move we close the public hearing on TEC 14-002. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on Item 8-I. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 59 of 64 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I move we approve TEC 14-002. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve the Item 8-I. If there is no discussion, Madam Clerk. Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener; yea. De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. J. FP 14-007 Spurwing Orchard No. 3 by Brighton Investments, LLC Located North Side of Chinden Boulevard, West of N. Ten Mile Road Request: Final Plat Approval Consisting of Sixty-Three (63) Single Family Residential Lots and Four (4) Common Lots on Approximately 25.85 Acres in the R-4 Zoning District De Weerd: Item 8-J has been requested to continue to another date due to a scheduling conflict. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: These are usually noncontroversial. Do we have the applicant here? Can we deal with this? De Weerd: I don't know if he agrees -- Zaremba: Or is that just too unusual? De Weerd: -- with everything or not. Zaremba: We have a staff report. Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 60 of 64 De Weerd: There is a -- the applicant is asking the Council to modify a condition. I guess if you want to discuss this without the applicant here to talk about why -- Zaremba: Staff was recommending approval and I'm -- I'm just asking. De Weerd: The staff is -- Zaremba: Do we need to put it off? De Weerd: -- is amenable to condition number four. I don't know about condition number 6-A. I guess if we want to discuss it we can. The applicant is asking it to be continued. Zaremba: And I'm okay with that. I just thought we are here and it would take five minutes. De Weerd: So -- Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: -- do I have a motion? Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we continue FP 14-007 to March 18th. 2014. Milam: Second. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to continue this item to March 18th. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 9: Department Reports A. Community Development Report Budget Amendment for City- Wide Economic Development Audit for the Not-to-Exceed Amount of $45,000.00 De Weerd: And under Department Reports I will turn this over to our community development director. Chatterton: Madam Mayor, Council Members, I'm happy to report that this is the first budget amendment I have brought to you all in two years. Not going to make a habit out of it, though. Not a good thing. The request tonight is for 45,000 dollars to complete Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 61 of 64 a city wide economic development plan. Of this total 45,000 dollars, 23,000 dollars we are requesting from the General Fund and 22,000 dollars from the Enterprise Fund. Talk a little bit -- just a second about why the Enterprise Fund would be involved with this. Before I talk about the reasons for this, some of the good news is that most of this work -- a good part of it has already been done through the work that we have been doing with the Fields District study. The Fields District, of course, involved looking at industry clusters around agriculture, around higher education, around tourism, several things that we are interested in. So, in the course of doing that study the consultants, Pegasus Group, actually bid and collected much of the data that we would need for a city wide economic development plan and they have also done some of the analysis. So, while the 45,000 dollars certainly is a significant amount of money, that's probably less than half what it would be to do this if we were starting just from scratch. The other good thing is -- and you talk about efficiencies, is that as we complete the Fields District study, the consultants will be in town and working on them at the same time, because they are closely related. So, I'm very happy that we have been able to find an efficiency here and really, you know, some serendipity when it comes to -- to being able to complete these studies at the same time and get -- and really have some cost savings. So, it's a bit of a bargain in my view. Why do we need a city wide economic development plan? The first and foremost reason is we don't have one. Think about it for a second. We have an economic development program and, of course, that's a bigger program than simply is represented by Brenda Sherwood. You know, the Mayor is heavily involved with it. You all are heavily involved with economic development. Many of the department heads and other members of staff are involved with it. But why do we have one? What targets are we shooting for? It really is sort of remarkable when we stop and realize that we don't have the analysis, the overall plan that would inform what our efforts are. How are we going to be spending our -- our scarce resources in the future? Do we need additional resources? Do we need a different approach to things? So, first and foremost that's -- that's a compelling reason. Second, several of the department heads came to the realization at the same time that as we move forward to a strategic plan for the city -- for the various departments of the city, that needs to be informed by an economic development plan as well. Without that really what is the strategic plan for? ED, economic development, would be a big part of that. And, finally, getting back to why we are proposing the Enterprise Fund monies here, Public Works feels that they would like to have their infrastructure development program, water, sewer, and other infrastructure be better informed by economic development targets. Again, a big reason for having infrastructure is economic development and so the feeling there is that if we know what those targets are -- for instance, if we are going to be doing more or less industrial, if we are going to be doing commercial in a different way, if we are going to be going after different types of employers and manufacturers, they are going to have an impact both in the type of industry and where they are located on -- on how we extend infrastructure and how we plan it. And if you have any questions about that -- that interface, which I think is an important one, Tom's here to address that in addition to the possible use of Enterprise Funds. In a nutshell that's what this is all about. We have had good results so far with the consultant group, they are highly qualified to do this type of work and love to have your concurrence on this project. Happy to answer any questions. Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 62 of 64 De Weerd: Thank you, Bruce. Council, any questions? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: Madam Mayor, I move we approve the community development report budget amendment for city wide economic development audit for the not to exceed amount of 45,000 dollars. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 9-A. Any discussion from Council? Madam Clerk. Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener; yea. De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Thank you, Bruce. Chatterton: Thank you. We are excited to be reporting back to you on this. De Weerd: Okay. Rountree: Thanks, Bruce. Item 10: Future Meeting Topics De Weerd: Council, are there any items to consider under Future Meeting Topics? Item 11: Executive Session Per Idaho State Code 67-2345 (1)(c)(f): (c) To Conduct Deliberations Concerning Labor Negotiations or to Acquire an Interest in Real Property, Which is Not Owned by a Public Agency, and (f) To Consider and Advise Its Legal Representatives in Pending Litigation De Weerd: Okay. I would entertain a motion, then, to adjourn into Executive Session. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 63 of 64 Bird: I move we go into Executive Session as per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1)(c) and (1)(f). Rountree: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to adjourn into Executive Session. Madam Clerk, will you, please, call roll. Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener; yea. De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. EXECUTIVE SESSION. (8:59 p.m. to 10:23 p.m.) De Weerd: I would entertain a motion to come out of Executive Session. Rountree: So moved. Bird: Second. De Weerd: All those in favor say aye. All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Amended onto the Agenda: Purchase/Sale Agreement and Contract for Subject Property Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: I would move to amend the agenda to address the real estate purchase matter that was recently presented, not otherwise available for the Council's consideration when the agenda was originally established. Zaremba: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to amend the agenda. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 64 of 64 Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. would move for the a royal directed to the Mayor and Clerk to sign the Borton. I pp urchase and sale agreement for the subject real property. p Zaremba: Second. Borton: That's the motion. David seconded. Zaremba: Second. De Weerd: Oka .Motion and a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, Madam Clerk. y Roll Call: Bird, ea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener; Y yea. De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Council, do I have a motion to adjourn? Rountree: So moved. Bird: Second. De Weerd: All those in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:23 P.M. (AUD~CORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) 3~~~~~ MAYOR ~~ERD DATE APPROVED