2013-12-03E IDIAN~ CITY COUNCIL REGULAR
I D A H O MEETING AGENDA
City Council Chambers
33 East Broadway Avenue
Meridian, Idaho
Tuesday, December 03, 2013 at 6:00 PM
1. Roll-Call Attendance
X David Zaremba X Brad Hoaglun
X Charlie Rountree X Keith Bird
X Mayor Tammy de Weerd
2. Pledge of Allegiance and Posting the Flag by Tuscany Scout Troop 260
3. Community Invocation by Tom Katsma w/ Valley Life Community Church
4. Adoption of the Agenda Adopted
5. Consent Agenda Approved
A. Final Order for Approval: FP 13-035 Bainbridge Subdivision No. 1 by
Brighton Development Located East Side of N. Black Cat Road,
Approximately 1/4 Mile South of W. Chinden Boulevard Request: Final Plat
Approval Consisting of Forty-Two (42) Single-Family Residential Building
Lots and Two (2) Common/Other Lots on 13.71 Acres of Land in an R-8
Zoning District
B. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order for Approval: RZ 13-011
Crimson Maple by Crimson Maple Townhomes, LLC Located on the East
Side of NW 4th Street, North of W. Maple Avenue Request: Rezone 1.59
Acres from the R-8 (Medium-Density Residential) Zoning District to the R-
15Zoning District (Medium High-Density Residential).
C. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order for Approval: CUP 13-011
Crimson Maple by Crimson Maple Townhomes, LLC Located on the East
Side of NW 4th Street, North of W. Maple Avenue Request: Conditional Use
Permit to Construct a Multi-Family Development Consisting of 12
Residential Units in a Proposed R-15 Zoning District
D. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order for Approval: AZ 13-012
Sagewood Subdivision by Sagewood Overland„ LLC Located on the South
Side of W. Overland .Road Approximately 650 Feet West of S. Stoddard
Road. Request: Annexation of Approximately 16.34 Acres from R1 and RUT
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda -Tuesday, December 03, 2013 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.
in Ada County to the L-O (Limited Office)(5.02 acres) and R-8 (Medium-
Density Residential)(11.32 acres) Zoning Districts.
E. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order for Approval: PP 13-026
Sagewood Subdivision by Sagewood Overland„ LLC Located on the South
Side of W. Overland Road Approximately 650 Feet West of S. Stoddard
Road. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of two(2) office lots, forty-five
(45) residential lots, and Eight (8) Common Lots on Approximately 15.62
Acres in the Proposed L-O and R-8 Zoning Districts.
F. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order for Approval: AZ 13-009
Spurwing Orchard East Subdivision by Brighton Investments, LLC Located
North Side of Chinden Boulevard and West of N. Ten Mile Road Request:
Annexation of 26.53 Acres from RUT in Ada County to the R-4 (Medium-
Low Density Residential) Zoning District
G. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order for Approval: PP 13-021
Spurwing Orchard East Subdivision by Brighton Investments, LLC Located
North Side of Chinden Boulevard, West of N. Ten Mile Road Request:
Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Sixty-Three (63)Single Family
Residential Lots and Four (4) Common Lots on Approximately 25.85 Acres
in the Proposed R-4 Zoning District
H. License Agreement Between the Nampa and Meridian Irrigation District and
the City of Meridian Regarding Multi-Use Pathway Along the North Bank of
Five Mile Creek Between Linder and Ten Mile Roads
I. Approval of Contract Amendment No. 1 for "Safety Consulting and Training
Services" to Northwest Safety and Risk Services, Inc. for the Not-To-
Exceed Amount of $53,680.00
6. Items Moved From Consent Agenda None
7. Action Items
A. Public Hearing: AZ 13-014 Victory South by City of Meridian Located South
of W. Victory Road, East of S. Linder Road and West of S. Meridian Road
Request: Annexation of 310.20 Acres of Land from RUT, R1, R4 and R6 in
Ada County to the R-4 (Medium Low-Density Residential) (221.94 Acres)
and R-8 (Medium-Density Residential) (88.14 Acres) Zoning Districts
Approved w/ Conditions
B. Public Hearing: PFP 13-001 Twelve Oaks by JLJ, Inc. Located at 1845 W.
Franklin Road Request: Preliminary and Final Plat Approval Consisting of
Two (2) Building Lots on 9.43 Acres of Land in the TN-R and C-C Zoning
Districts Approved w/Conditions
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda -Tuesday, December 03, 2013 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.
C. Public Hearing: RZ 13-012 Raisin' Angels by Engineered Structures, Inc.
Located Northwest Corner of E. Pine Avenue and N. Nola Road Request:
Rezone of 1.54 Acres of Land from the I-L (Light Industrial) Zoning District
to the L-O (Limited Office) Zoning District Approved
D. Public Hearing: AZ 13-013 Creekstone Subdivision by Boslau Family Trust
Located North Side of W. Pine Avenue; Midway Between N. Black Cat Road
and N. Ten Mile Road Request: Annexation of 6.92 Acres from RUT in Ada
County to the R-8 (Medium-Density Residential) Zoning District Approved
E. Public Hearing: PP 13-029 Creekstone Subdivision by Boslau Family Trust
Located North Side of W. Pine Avenue; Midway Between N. Black Cat Road
and N. Ten Mile Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of
Thirty-Two (32) Residential Lots and Six (6) Common Lots on
Approximately 6.92 Acres in the Proposed R-8 Zoning District Approved
F. Public Hearing: ZOA 13-003 UDC Text Amendment by City of Meridian
Planning Division Request: Text Amendment to the Unified Development
Code (UDC) in Regard to Fencing Adjacent to Pathways and Open Space;
Common Driveways; Irrigation Easements; Off-Street Parking; Home
Occupations; Definitions for Vehicles; Vehicle Sales or Rental
Landscaping; Public Hearing Notice Signs; and Allowed Uses in the
Industrial Districts Continued to December 17, 2013
8. Department Reports
A. Public Works: Engineering Capital Improvement Plan
9. Ordinances
A. Amended to Read: Public Hearing and Second Reading of Ordinance No.
13-1582: Adoption of 2012 International Building Code, 2009 International
Residential Code, 2009 International Energy Conservation Code, and local
amendments (Title 10, Chapter 1, Meridian City Code)
B. Amended to Read: Public Hearing and Second Reading of Ordinance No.
13-1583: Adoption of 2012 International Fire Code and local amendments
(Title 10, Chapter 4, Meridian City Code)
C. Amended to Read: Public Hearing and Second Reading of Ordinance No.
13-1584: Updates to Meridian Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance (Title
10, Chapter 6, Meridian City Code)
D. First Reading of Ordinance No. Impact Fee
Update Vacated
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda -Tuesday, December 03, 2013 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.
10. Future Meeting Topics
Adjourned at 10:17 p.m.
Meridian City Council Meeting, Agenda -Tuesday, December 03, 2013 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 December 3, 2013
A meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:00 p.m., Tuesday,
December 3, 2013, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd.
Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, Charlie Rountree, Brad Hoaglun, David
Zaremba, and Keith Bird.
Others Present: Ted Baird, Jaycee Holman, Caleb Hood, Bill Parsons, Justin Lucas,
Tom Barry, Warren Stewart, Jeff Lavey, Perry Palmer, and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll-call Attendance:
Roll call.
X David Zaremba X Brad Hoaglun
X Charlie Rountree X Keith Bird
X Mayor Tammy de Weerd
De Weerd: Good evening. I would like to welcome you all to our City Council meeting.
We always appreciate seeing faces in our audience, so thank you for being with us. For
the record it is Tuesday, December 3rd. It's 6:00 p.m. We will start with roll call
attendance, Madam Clerk.
Item 2: Pledge of Allegiance and Posting the Flag by Tuscany Scout Troop
260
De Weerd: Item No. 2 is our Pledge of Allegiance. If you will all join us in the pledge to
our flag.
(Pledge of Allegiance recited.)
De Weerd: Now, isn't that how timing goes? We say the pledge and our Boy Scouts
then walk in the door. Sorry we missed, boys. Yeah. Well, I have been with kids
before. I know how some of those go and with cars, too. So, welcome to our City
Council members to our -- Troop 260.
Item 3: Community Invocation by Tom Katsma w/ Valley Life Community
Church
De Weerd: Item No. 3 is our community invocation and tonight we will be led by Pastor
Tom Katsma. He's with Valley Life Community Church. If you will all join us in the
community invocation or take this as an opportunity for a moment of reflection. Pastor.
If you will come up to the microphone.
Katsma: On behalf of us I think I would just express thanks in this season for all your
fine work as Council and as Mayor, as well as for our civil servants and first responders.
Meridian City Council
December 3, 2013
Page 2 of 85
We probably don't say it enough, but thank you for your service and it's a great place to
live and to work and I'm privileged to be able to offer the prayer. So, would you join me
as we pray. Our Father we thank you tonight for the privilege that we have to live and to
work in this great city. We thank you, Lord, for your blessings upon us in this season.
We reflect on so many ways that you have been good and faithful to us as people, as
families, as a city. We are grateful, too, for those who defend our freedoms and tonight
we offer up a prayer of blessing and remembrance for each of them from this city and
from our families and our friends. Most of all, Lord, as we come tonight to this Council
meeting we would pray for your blessing for concise, for fair, for equitable discussion
and that your blessing might rest upon these proceedings tonight. We give you the
honor and the praise in your name we ask it, amen.
De Weerd: Thank you. Pastor Katsma, I would like to offer you a City of Meridian pin
for joining us today. Thank you.
Item 4: Adoption of the Agenda
De Weerd: Item No. 4 is adoption of the agenda
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: A couple items -- some changes on tonight's agenda. Under Ordinances, No.
9-A, we need to amend the agenda to read public hearing and second reading of
ordinance and same for 9-B, add on the words public hearing, along with second
reading, as well as 9-C public hearing, second reading. And Item 9-D we need to
remove that item from the agenda, since it was not published. So, with that, Madam
Mayor, I move adoption of the agenda as amended.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda as amended. All those
in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 5: Consent Agenda
A. Final Order for Approval: FP 13-035 Bainbridge Subdivision
No. 1 by Brighton Development Located East Side of N. Black
Cat Road, Approximately 1/4 Mile South of W. Chinden
Boulevard Request: Final Plat Approval Consisting of Forty-
Two (42) Single-Family Residential Building Lots and Two (2)
Common/Other Lots on 13.71 Acres of Land in an R-8 Zoning
District
Meridian City Council
December 3, 2013
Page 3 of 85
B. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order for Approval:
RZ 13-011 Crimson Maple by Crimson Maple Townhomes, LLC
Located on the East Side of NW 4th Street, North of W. Maple
Avenue Request: Rezone 1.59 Acres from the R-8 (Medium-
Density Residential) Zoning District to the R-15 Zoning District
(Medium High-Density Residential).
C. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order for Approval:
CUP 13-011 Crimson Maple by Crimson Maple Townhomes,
LLC Located on the East Side of NW 4th Street, North of W.
Maple Avenue Request: Conditional Use Permit to Construct a
Multi-Family Development Consisting of 12 Residential Units
in a Proposed R-15 Zoning District
D. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order for Approval:
AZ 13-012 Sagewood Subdivision by Sagewood Overland„
LLC Located on the South Side of W. Overland Road
Approximately 650 Feet West of S. Stoddard Road. Request:
Annexation of Approximately 16.34 Acres from R1 and RUT
in Ada County to the L-O (Limited Office)(5.02 acres) and R-8
(Medium-Density Residential)(11.32 acres) Zoning Districts.
E. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order for Approval:
PP 13-026 Sagewood Subdivision by Sagewood Overland„
LLC Located on the South Side of W. Overland Road
Approximately 650 Feet West of S. Stoddard Road. Request:
Preliminary Plat consisting of two(2) office lots, forty-five (45)
residential lots, and Eight (8) Common Lots on Approximately
15.62 Acres in the Proposed L-O and R-8 Zoning Districts.
F. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order for Approval:
AZ 13-009 Spurwing Orchard East Subdivision by Brighton
Investments, LLC Located North Side of Chinden Boulevard
and West of N. Ten Mile Road Request: Annexation of 26.53
Acres from RUT in Ada County to the R-4 (Medium-Low
Density Residential) Zoning District
G. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order for Approval:
PP 13-021 Spurwing Orchard East Subdivision by Brighton
Investments, LLC Located North Side of Chinden Boulevard,
West of N. Ten Mile Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval
Consisting of Sixty-Three (63)Single Family Residential Lots
and Four (4) Common Lots on Approximately 25.85 Acres in
the Proposed R-4 Zoning District
Meridian City Council
December 3, 2013
Page 4 of 85
H. License Agreement Between the Nampa and Meridian
Irrigation District and the City of Meridian Regarding Multi-Use
Pathway Along the North Bank of Five Mile Creek Between
Linder and Ten Mile Roads
I. Approval of Contract Amendment No. 1 for "Safety Consulting
and Training Services" to Northwest Safety and Risk Services,
Inc. for the Not-To-Exceed Amount of $53,680.00
De Weerd: Item 5 is our Consent Agenda.
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: There were no changes to our Consent Agenda, so I would move approval of
the Consent Agenda and the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda. Madam
Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 6: Items Moved From Consent Agenda
De Weerd: There were no items moved from the Consent Agenda.
Item 7: Action Items
A. Public Hearing: AZ 13-014 Victory South by City of Meridian
Located South of W. Victory Road, East of S. Linder Road and
West of S. Meridian Road Request: Annexation of 310.20 Acres
of Land from RUT, R1, R4 and R6 in Ada County to the R-4
(Medium Low-Density Residential) (221.94 Acres) and R-8
(Medium-Density Residential) (88.14 Acres) Zoning Districts
De Weerd: So, we will move right into our Action Items under Item 7. 7-A is a public
hearing on AZ 13-014. I will open this public hearing with staff comments.
Meridian City Council
December 3, 2013
Page5of85
Hood: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Here to present Victory
South annexation. The City of Meridian has applied for annexation of 310.08 acres of
land currently zoned RUT, R-1, R-4 and R-6 in Ada County. The properties are
generally located south of West Victory Road and east of South Linder Road on the
west side of Meridian Road between Meridian and Linder. The proposed annexation is
comprised of lots in Meridian Heights Subdivision, the lots in Kentucky Ridge Estates
Subdivision, the lands owned by the Meridian Heights Sewer and Water District and
multiple other parcels owned by Hansen, Tewalt and Centers. This application is
moving forward based on a vote that happened on November 5th from the properties
that are encumbered by the Meridian Heights Water and Sewer District. Of those that
voted approximately 85 percent voted to go forward with dissolution of that water and
sewer district and so this application is before you tonight, basically, because the
constituents in that area voted to move forward with dissolution of that water and sewer
district. The proposed zoning districts for the area are R-4 and R-8, which are
consistent with the future land use map. Sorry, I got those backwards. So, there is the
future land use map. The green color is our low density residential designation and the
yellow is medium density residential. And here are the proposed boundaries for the R-4
and the R-8 zoning districts. The slide on the left shows that the Kentucky Ridge --
existing lots in Kentucky Ridge Estates and, then, a majority of the Centers' property --
or all the Centers' property is zoned R-4 and, then, the Meridian Heights Subdivision,
the lagoon properties that the water and sewer district owns, the Tewalt and Hansen
properties proposed for R-8 zoning. But the proposed zoning designations are based
on the Comprehensive Plan future land use map designations and the current densities
and lot sizes within those two existing subdivisions, zoning of other properties in the
area and probable suitable future uses and densities. There is no new development
proposed with the subject annexation application, it is simply an annexation request
only. Any future proposed development on the underdeveloped properties or
undeveloped properties that are subject to this annexation will have to come back
through the city's public hearing process for city review and approval. The proposed
annexation was prepared and submitted by the City of Meridian and is subject to the
state of Idaho's rules and requirements for a Category B annexation. Category B
annexations require the city to prepare an annexation plan, which was done and
includes the state required elements, which are the manner of which tax supported
municipal services will be provided, changes in taxation and other costs, the means of
providing fee supported municipal service, analysis on the potential effects of
annexation upon other units of local government and the proposed future land use
planning and zoning designations and subject to this public hearing, as well as the
Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing. The city did prepare that annexation
plan as required under state statute, provided the information to property owners in this
area, as well as anyone else that may have contacted the city clerk and asked for a
copy of that. At this point I'm going to turn the presentation over to -- to Tom Barry, the
Public Works Director, for a little more presentation and, then, I will have some closing
remarks before opening it up for public comment.
De Weerd: Thank you, Caleb.
Meridian City Council
December 3, 2013
Page6of85
Barry: Good evening, Madam Mayor, Council Members. This day has been a long time
coming and I'm pleased to have it in front of you tonight. As you know the Meridian
Heights and Kentucky Ridge Subdivisions are two Ada County subdivisions that have
been getting services from the Meridian Heights Water and Sewer District, which used
to be an association not too long ago. Those subdivisions comprise about 287 homes
and represent a population of close to 1,000 residents and they are currently served by
this district. The district, along with several neighboring property owners, primarily
those who have undeveloped properties in the surrounding area, petitioned the city to
annex their properties and connect them to the city's water and sewer system, as a
result the district would dissolve and the water and sewer services, as well as all other
municipal services would be extended by the city to annexing parcels as this particular
application goes through. Much time and resources have been spent and dedicated to
developing this particular possibility, the results of which have been formalized into a
three-party agreement, which was presented in draft form to the Planning and Zoning
Commission and also to the City Council on September 10th and which was
subsequently signed and executed by all the parties shortly thereafter. Now, that
particular agreement was developed and was conditioned by two essential actions. The
first action required the district to pose the question to its patrons regarding their interest
and commitment in connecting to the City of Meridian's water and sewer services and,
thus, resultantly, dissolving their district. This question did appear on a ballot measure
in November and the result of the election revealed that 85 percent of those voting
approved this particular ballot measure. I would like to add also that there were about
67 percent of the residences that participated in that election, which is more than three
times the number of participants on a percentage basis that participated in the City
Council election. So, not only was there a super majority that actually participated in the
election, there was a greater than super majority of those that agreed with the actual
proposal. Secondarily, the three-party agreement conditioned one other -- was
conditioned by one other action and that is the one that is before you tonight and that's
the action of a successful annexation of the City of Meridian of these 310 or so acres.
Furthermore, the agreement also guided the process and timing of the utility
connections, the transfer and dissolution of the district property and assets, the
abandonment of a 40 acre sewage effluent land application site and the
decommissioning of about 12 acres or so of sewer lagoons. Now, the agreement also
settles a longstanding dispute between the district and a neighboring property owner
and brings to a close that particular dispute and keeps it out of the courts. Additionally,
an annexation plan, as Caleb has mentioned to you, has been developed by the city
and it is in compliance with the state law, which details and guides the city's intentions,
its processes and its impacts regarding the proposed annexation. After closing the
public hearing the Planning Commission did vote unanimously to approve the
annexation application on November 7th of this year. Time is of the essence in this
particular action. We do have a number of actions or activities that need to take place
in order for this particular process to move forward in a timely manner. There is
construction of the water and sewer line infrastructure that is anticipated and planned
for construction early -- well, later this month or early in January if possible. So, as such
staff -- well, I agree with staff's recommendations and concur with the recommendation
as well and with that I'd stand for any questions that you might have.
Meridian City Council
December 3, 2013
Page7of85
De Weerd: Thank you, Tom. Council, any questions?
Rountree: I have none at this time.
Bird: Not at this time.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Tom.
Barry: Thank you.
Hood: Madam Mayor, I'd just like to wrap up this presentation with a quick summary of
the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting that Tom mentioned a couple times
there. Planning and Zoning Commission did meet on November 7th. Testifying in favor
of the application -- at least checking the box and the sign-up sheet in favor of the
application were Public Works Merle Hansen, Christie Rye, and Becky McKay. Gordon
Hamilton signed up as neutral. And in opposition were Connie Tewalt, Curtis Hoagland
and Steve Sager. Did not receive any written testimony prior to or during the Planning
and Zoning Commission meeting. I have since received a letter addressed to the city
from Mr. Ron Able in opposition to the -- the application and you should have that in
your packet tonight. Key issues of discussion by the Commission were future water
quality, questions and concerns. Code violations and nonconforming structure uses in
the existing subdivisions and maybe just a side note on that. There are likely uses and
structures within the proposed annexation that don't comply with current City of Meridian
code. Some of them including violations like accessory structures, so if someone has
constructed a shed in their front yard we don't allow that in -- by city ordinance, but that
may exist out there. Inoperable or unregistered vehicles. RVs parked on driveways
and in front of structures or fencing that may be in disrepair. The approach that we
have discussed internally is any existing structure or activity that is being conducted on
property within the proposed annexation area that is legal under Ada County code will
be deemed nonconforming, if not outright allowed under city code as an existing,
nonconforming use or nonconforming structure provided there is not a life safety or
hazard issue with that continued use. Upon annexation all existing nonconforming uses
and structures will need to be documented to form a baseline of what exists today so
code enforcement can address any new complaints that may be directed at them in the
future, so they will form a baseline, so that we can know anything that's constructed or
in use that begins after annexation will need to comply with current city code. So, that
was discussed a little bit by the Commission during that meeting on the 7th. Timing and
integration of the Meridian Heights Water and Sewer District's infrastructure with the
city's water and sewer infrastructure also came up as a topic of discussion. The city
service connection versus existing well and septic for the McNish property, timing and
requirements for the decommissioning of the sewer lagoons, use of the existing wells
and septic systems remaining until development is proposed or those private systems
fall. So, that's apretty -- pretty quick summary of the discussions from the Planning and
Zoning Commission, but I think those were the key issues. They did recommend,
again, approval to the City Council tonight with one sort of administrative change to -- to
Meridian City Council
December 3, 2013
Page 8 of 85
provision 1.1.1. I inadvertently left out the Meridian Heights Water and Sewer District
from the original provision and asked them to include it and they did, so with that,
Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I will stand for any questions you may have.
De Weerd: Thank you, Caleb. Council, any questions for staff at this time?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: I have none.
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: I just want to make certain I heard correctly. Caleb, you said that if there is a
structure that is currently allowed by the county, but not allowed under city code -- if it's
allowed by the county, then, it can be grandfathered in.
Hood: I did not use -- Madam Mayor, Councilman Hoaglun, I did not use the term
grandfathered in.
Hoaglun: Okay.
Hood: But, essentially, if there is not a life safety issue with that structure in your
hypothetical situation, it does not need to conform to city code.
Hoaglun: Okay. But if there was something that was illegal, but -- and just hadn't been
reported or the county hadn't caught it, that is not allowed under any scenario; is that
correct? If a neighbor would -- would call up and say, hey, this -- this structure in this
situation, you know, is -- something's wrong and it's causing a problem and it truly was
illegal under the county ordinance, is there something that code enforcement could do
in that situation?
Hood: Madam Mayor, Councilman Hoaglun, the -- and I may need to defer this to
Chief Lavey, but let me give a little bit of a shot at my understanding of how this will
work. The city does not and really cannot enforce county code. So, if something is a
violation of the county it's -- a violation in county that's not our issue necessarily, but --
because we can't make them conform or work with them to conform to a code that we
don't have any jurisdiction over. Anything constructed after annexation, though, does
need to conform to city code. So, if we get phone calls -- that's why the baseline is so
important, but, essentially, to use layman's terms, your grandfather terms, if something
exists today that isn't a life safety issue, like it or not, essentially, we will accept it in --
Hoaglun: Okay.
Meridian City Council
December 3, 2013
Page 9 of 85
Hood: -- under this scenario. Now, if there is -- again, if there is a life safety issue,
that's another -- we have got to take a different approach with that, but that's my
understanding of how any violations or calls or complaints will be handled moving
forward.
Hoaglun: Okay. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Thank you, Caleb
De Weerd: Okay. Chief, do you want to anything?
Lavey: Madam Mayor and Council, I think Caleb answered this, but I just have -- I
guess I have a few comments. Ideally we would like everyone to be up to date on the
county codes prior to annexation, but realistically, because of the time frame, that's not
going to happen. We can't enforce county codes, so once we do that annexation we
can't hold them to that -- to those county codes. One of the things that we have
proposed is a proactive approach on life safety issues and, then, a complaint based
approach on nonconformity issues, like commercial businesses in a residential area.
All other issues we would encourage self policing on the part of the homeowners during
the transitional period. Of course, we will defer to any direction Council gives us tonight
and, then, one thing that should be noted is that all knew modifications or changes of
ownership we have the -- the new owners would have to immediately comply with all
Meridian City Code ordinances. So, this would -- whatever we decide tonight would
only apply to the residences that are currently there. And, then, as Caleb said, we will
need to document and benchmark, so we know what's present at the time of annexation
and any changes that occur afterwards. So, hopefully, that answers the question for not
only Council, but residents in the audience as well.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, chief. I will open this public comment period. I do have
a number of people who signed up on this sign-up sheet. If, when I call your name you
would like to come forward and offer verbal testimony I would invite you forward at that
time. If not, I will just read your name into the record and what you indicated on the
sign-up sheet, if you were for or against or neutral. So, the first to sign up is Jack
Dawson. He signed up for. Okay. Would you like to -- okay. Robert Gamble. Signed
up for. Okay. Thank you, sir. Colleen Cole signed up against. Okay. Thank you.
Michael Cole signed up against. Thank you. Tony Arambru --
Bird: Arambru
De Weerd: Arambru. Thank you. What you said. Signed up against. Please come
forward. And so will apologize if I mess your name up, so --thank you for being here.
Arambru: Madam Mayor. City Council.
De Weerd: If you will, please, state your name and address for the record.
Arambru: Tony Arambru. 691 West Hardtack Court.
Meridian City Council
December 3, 2013
Page 10 of 85
De Weerd: Thank you.
Arambru: And the only thing I am against is the R-8 zoning that is on the bottom where
the sewer ponds are at. If you take a look at that piece of property, it will not allow for
high traffic area. It sits at the bottom -- if you know where the snake is in that area. So,
it's a hillside. Plus it will be going into -- into a subdivision that's -- that's old and
probably does not have the roads to handle any high capacity, I would ask that when
you -- when you look at the R-8 zoning for that piece of property that you take it to R-4.
And that's my only concern with that.
De Weerd: Okay.
Arambru: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you so much. Becky McKay signed up for. Okay. Good evening. If
you will, please, state your name and address for the record.
McKay: Becky McKay. Engineering Solution. 1029 North Rosario, Meridian
De Weerd: Thank you.
McKay: Sorry, Madam Mayor. I was talking to the Public Works Director, just giving
him an update. Members of the Council and Madam Mayor, appreciate this opportunity
that we are finally here this evening. As you well know, I represent Mr. and Mrs.
Centers, who own 192 acres and their home also exists on the property and we have
worked a long time with the Meridian Heights Sewer and Water District board and your
staff on this particular project and would like to thank everybody, because we -- we
really made leaps and bounds. We had moments that it looked like everything was
going to fall apart and, then, we would find something to grasp and everybody would
come back together and we have come to this point and it's nice to finally be at the
finish line. I worked with the Hansen family. I'd like to thank them. Obviously, without
the Hansens this wouldn't be possible, because they are granting the sewer and water
easement up through their property from Victory Road, which will facilitate, obviously,
taking these ponds offline and connecting to Meridian's central sewer and water
facilities. The Hansen family is -- it is their intent -- as you well know, Merle Hansen is
94 years old and it's his desire to be annexed into the city, to cooperate fully and grant
these easements that are required. His only desire was that his property be annexed as
R-8 and when -- when we look at the combination on the comp plan, the medium
density, the low density residential, this particular application before you has about 71
and a half percent R-4 and only 28 percent R-8. The R-8 -- a majority of it is Meridian
Heights, which is -- which is existing and, then, the ponds and, then, Mr. Hansen. Due
to the location of Mr. Hansen next to the ponds, which it is the intent that those will be
developed in the future and Victory Road, I think the R-8 from a land planning
perspective is appropriate and as my firm designed the sewer and water through the
Hansen property we looked at transitional lot sizes adjacent to Meridian Heights and I,
obviously, believe that when applications were to come in in the future on the Hansen
Meridian City Council
December 3, 2013
Page 1 1 of 85
property that the Council would be looking at some transitional lot sizes and Idid slot --
or alot layout for the Hansen's, because we are going to be studying that street with the
sewer and the water. I looked at maximizing the depth of the lots between Kentucky
Ridge and the Hansen lots and we were ranging up -- well over 10,000 square feet and
so I think the R-8 is appropriate. Obviously, with the understanding when that comes
through the Council will review it as far as transitioning. Do you have any questions?
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
McKay: Thank you.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Becky, what was the density projection on the layout you put? Somewhere
around three?
McKay: Around -- around three. Yeah. The Hansen property is kind of an unusual
shape, so there is not alot -- a lot of different ways you can do it. The small lots were,
obviously, oriented to the east side of the road, toward the ponds, and, then, I had, you
know, average lots were up over 10,000 square feet, which is consistent with what
Kentucky Ridge is, is about 10,000 square feet. So, trying to make them deeper and,
obviously, minimize -- you know, try to match them one for one if at all possible. And I
will be turning that over to the Hansen family that -- that layout, so that when it does sell
in the future that someone will already have that and the street alignments and
everything.
Rountree: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: Any other questions from Council?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Thank you.
McKay: Thank you.
De Weerd: Tamara Hamilton signed up against. Good evening. If you will, please,
state your name and address for the record.
T.Hamilton: Tamara Hamilton. 3496 South Arcaro Avenue, Meridian.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Meridian City Council
December 3, 2013
Page 12 of 85
T.Hamilton: Madam Mayor and Members of Council, I have a couple of concerns that
are a little bit into the future. Right now I live in the Kentucky Ridge Estates Subdivision
and currently the president of our association and we have talked to 95 of our neighbors
out of our subdivision and we feel that it's vital that the roads that are going to be built in
the future actually take place before the subdivisions begin, to ease the impact that our
subdivision will incur once the adjoining roads will be open and, then, we are concerned
about the excessive traffic, since we have only one road in and out of our properties.
So, we would really -- are concerned that the roads and infrastructure are built before
any subdivisions begin. And the second concern is regarding water conservation.
Currently we are using potable water to water our lawns and we do have irrigation rights
to irrigate our lawn and property and so we would really encourage any developers to
work with us on developing that ability to conserve drinkable water and that's all I have
right now.
De Weerd: Thank you, Tamara. Any questions from Council? Okay.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: I'm sorry, Tamara. Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Just to specify your last comment, you're interested in exploring pressurized
irrigation?
T.Hamilton: Yes.
Rountree: Okay. With nonpotable --
T.Hamilton: Yes.
Rountree: Okay.
T.Hamilton: We currently have water rights that we have maintained this entire time.
Rountree: Very good.
De Weerd: Thank you. Charlene Fish signed up against. Good evening. If you will,
please, state your name and address for the record.
Fish: My name is Charlene Fish and I live at 3278 South Kentucky Way.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Fish: So, Madam Mayor and Members of the City Council, I -- last week a petition was
sent in from the Kentucky Ridge homeowners in request for a zoning change of the
Hansen-Tewalt property from -- and I just wondered if you received that?
Meridian City Council
December 3, 2013
Page 13 of 85
De Weerd: Madam Clerk? Madam Clerk?
Holman: Sorry. I would have that as part of the record in our laser fiche, so let me look
really quick.
De Weerd: Okay. We will take a look as you make comment.
Fish: Okay.
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor, that -- that petition is in our packet.
Bird: Yeah, it's in our packet.
Fish: Is it? Okay. Because I had copies in case -- we had a petition sent around and it
was signed by almost a hundred percent of our homeowners in a request for a zoning
change of the Hansen-Tewalt property from R-8 to R-2 and R-4. And I have a map that
I just wanted to --
De Weerd: If you want to get it to our staff -- to Caleb, he can put it up on -- on the
screen.
Fish: Okay. Okay. So, the request -- the zoning request for -- R-2 is for this little piece
of -- can you see it? Land just one lot deep on the western most boundary of Hansen's
property and the reason for that is this borders property on Kentucky Ridge that are
zoned R-1 and the request for the remaining Hansen property would be R-4. Again, it
wraps around Kentucky Ridge and in a manner that any -- without any divisions from
roads or -- or any natural separations and so any future subdivisions in this area would
appear to be, you know, part of Kentucky Ridge and it would also be consistent with the
zoning of Kentucky Ridge and the future zoning of Centers property behind us where it
meets and also Bear Creek across the street -- you can see where at least Bear Creek
and that's kind of their community right across the street from Hansen and also we just
found out that the property on our western most boundary -- there is 20 acres on the
western most boundary of Kentucky Ridge -- you can see that right here. It has just
been sold and also it is planned to be zoned R-4 for that, too. During the annexation
process there was a lot of concern from our homeowners about the R-8 zoning of the
Hansen property and the effect that may have on our some of property values and so
we were told at that time that we would have an input into that zoning request and so
our petition -- we have a petition with 95 signatures from homeowners from -- it's almost
a hundred percent of our homeowners, so that represents the voice of -- of all the
homeowners in Kentucky Ridge that are in favor of this zone. Okay?
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Council, questions?
Bird: I have none.
Meridian City Council
December 3, 2013
Page 14 of 85
Rountree: I have none.
De Weerd: Thank you so much.
Fish: Yes.
De Weerd: Curtis Hoagland signed up against. Good evening.
Hoagland: Good evening, Madam Mayor, Members of the City Council, I appreciate the
opportunity to be here and to say a few words and I apologize, I don't spell my name the
same way you do.
De Weerd: If you can state your name and address.
Hoagland: Yes. My name is Curtis Hoagland. 3483 South Kentucky Way.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Hoagland: I do have just one request for point of clarification. As we look at the maps
earlier, the future usage map -- if you don't mind putting that back up, please. If I may, I
may have misunderstood this, Madam Mayor and Members of the City Council, but
green section, the green shaded section is low density and yellow is medium density or
high density? It seems to be a bit of a contradiction there, because everything south of
Kentucky Ridge Estates is zoned R-4, but, yet, part of that is showing as high density
and part of that is showing as low density. So, I'm not sure how the density would
change in the same zoning. So, is this just a typo on the map or are you -- or is there
some plan to increase the density within the zoning?
De Weerd: Caleb, would you like to answer that?
Hood: Sure. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Mr. Hoagland, the map that's
before you, the future land use map, is a guide for zoning. It doesn't correspond directly
with our zoning designations, so it's a little confusing, but low density -- the green is low
and the yellow is medium. We have R-2, R-4, R-8, R-15 zoning districts. Low, medium
low, medium high and high. I mean we have different ones. So, it's not cone-to-one
correlation. This is a general guide for densities, not a -- this isn't the exact zoning you
need to zone the property to. So, you can see Mr. Centers' property has a mix of both,
about 50-50 with medium and low. Part of it's R-4. Some of what we do is analyze the
proposed zoning to make sure it's consistent with the -- the plan, the vision plan. It
doesn't always match up exactly with the density ranges that are color coded here.
There is a little bit of interpretation to that. So, you can't use this necessarily as a parcel
specific, you know, blueprint for the zoning that's -- that's appropriate and it's more of a
higher level and the difference between the green and the yellow in this case -- there
isn't much and you can ask for a step up or down where you have got either one of
those designations. So, I hope -- I hope that helps a little bit with this guiding document
for -- for zoning.
Meridian City Council
December 3, 2013
Page 15 of 85
Hoagland: Okay. I'm not quite sure I completely understand, but I appreciate the
information and I appreciate the answer. It sounds like, though, from a residential
perspective as somebody who lives in Kentucky Ridge Estates that I would not be able
to look at this map and, then, know the density of the population of the houses that are
going to be developed in land just south of the Kentucky Ridge Estate property. Is that
-- is that correct in being able to say that?
De Weerd: That -- until there is an application you're correct.
Hoagland: Really have no idea.
De Weerd: Yeah.
Hoagland: Okay. Okay. I have one other question if I have time to hear me out,
please.
De Weerd: Okay
Hoagland: There has been mention of roads structure -- infrastructure being put in, but
I don't see that on the map, so it's hard for me to know where that's going. Is there any
indication at this time where the roads would be added to allow for ingress and egress
of this property that's being annexed?
De Weerd: That, again, would be denoted when there is a plat that comes for a public
hearing.
Hoagland: Okay. So, at this time it might be a long jump and an assumption to say that
if any -- anything that was to be opened -- and this could be an Ada County Highway
District -- but Kentucky Ridge -- Kentucky Way is really the only road right now in and
out of that proposed annexation property. So, all of the traffic flow would be right
through the middle of Kentucky Ridge Estates; is that correct?
De Weerd: Okay. Caleb, I'm going to bat that to you.
Hood: So, Madam Mayor, Mr. Hoagland, Ican -- some of that is speculation, because
we don't know exactly what's going to be proposed and when and where. There
certainly is potential for say this property to develop and there are two stub streets in
Kentucky Ridge and as this develops we probably aren't looking for another roadway to
come in within a couple hundred feet of the existing entrance to Victory, so it is true that
these properties, until this develops, probably will use Kentucky Way and the local
streets here to -- to come in and out. But there is potential connectivity with Meridian
Heights as well. So, longer term you will have several points of ingress and egress to
the subdivision. So, it's a matter of how quickly some of these properties redevelop with
subdivisions and the streets, you know, are improved. It is true that there may be a time
where the additional, you know, homes that come in here may solely take access off of
Meridian City Council
December 3, 2013
Page 16 of 85
here, but, again, once a road is punched through to the south down through Mr.
Centers' property and connects here, well, then, everyone can get out to the state
highway as well. So, you know, I don't have a crystal ball to know when all those roads
are going to be built, but bigger picture, we are looking for several roads and ways of
ingress and egress throughout here and that Kentucky Way will not be the only -- the
sole access forever.
Hoagland: I appreciate that information. Knowing that that's down the road aways --
so, again, without a crystal ball we don't know what the final outcome will be, but in the
meantime I would really urge Madam Mayor and City Council to consider not going
forward with this, because of the traffic flow that will be produced on Kentucky Way.
There is a small small community park at the very entrance to this subdivision where a
lot of children use that road to cross in and out of that park. Another 300 acres, even if
it was R-4, 150 houses, two cars per house, 300 extra cars going in and out of Kentucky
Way, I'm not sure there has been any traffic study to determine if that one stop sign at
Victory can handle the traffic flow from this additional annexation and development
property without the roads from other areas being prime roads or being at least
developed before anything is being pushed through on Kentucky Way. I do fear for the
safety of the children playing in that neighborhood.
De Weerd: So, sir, if you can tell me how many homes are in Kentucky Ridge.
Hoagland: I think there is 61, but the homeowners association president would be able
to give you an exact answer.
De Weerd: Well, I believe that when -- a second access would be required before
additional homes could be built in that area, because there is only one access --
Hoagland: From what lunderstand --
De Weerd: Is that correct?
Hood: Madam Mayor, Mr. Palmer may be able to address that a little bit better than I.
We don't have any -- we do have, you know, a maximum of 50 homes on a single
access I believe in the fire code. But that can just be an emergency only access as
their secondary access to meet that. We don't have anything in the UDC that says, you
know, maximum number of homes on one entrance.
De Weerd: Okay.
Hood: What will happen or what can happen is ACHD could look at future
developments and analyze and anticipate 9.6 trips for a single family home and make a
new traffic count and see what the impacts -- estimated impact would be on Kentucky
Way with any new projects, but if there is 61 homes -- again, ten homes, you're looking
at 610 vehicle trips per day is what they would guesstimate. I don't know how many
Meridian City Council
December 3, 2013
Page 17 of 85
homes you may see on that -- any other parcels and how that flows, but up to 2,000
you're allowed on a -- on a residential street just as a point of reference.
Hoagland: I do know that just to the west of Kentucky Way there is an additional
development already planned for 64 additional homes, which will also use Kentucky
Way as their only ingress and egress from that development that's already under plan.
So, we are already adding an additional 64 houses -- two houses -- you know, average
two cars per house, another 120 cars again right through Kentucky Way at this point,
including an intersection that does not even have a stop sign within the subdivision. So,
I think there is a lot of traffic flow issues that probably have not been fully analyzed to
determine can we handle the traffic through the subdivision. The other part that we
probably haven't looked at -- and I don't know for certain, obviously, is the traffic flow
from Victory onto Meridian. There is a single stop light there at this point. That is the
main access onto Meridian Road. So, Victory at this point does back up quite a bit into
the Strada Bellisima Subdivision, heavy flow and by adding an extra 120 vehicles there
to and from work, I don't know that that's even big enough to handle the traffic flow on
Victory. So, I would really appreciate consideration of those items before moving
forward with the final approval of the project.
De Weerd: Thank you, sir.
Hoagland; Any questions?
De Weerd: Any questions from Council?
Rountree: I have none.
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Hoagland: Thank you.
De Weerd: Fred Tillman. I'm sorry. Commissioner Tillman.
Tillman: No. Thank you. Fred Tillman. 3592 South Arcaro and I'm here this evening
to, first of all, thank you folks for literally stepping up to the plate, helping us in that
comment resolve what has been an ongoing issue between sewer and water. Looking
to the future -- and I appreciate everybody has been working on it. I think from what I
have understood about the agreement it certainly does offer a very good, long-term
solution for everybody involved in that whole area. The only thing I'm here tonight --
and on my sheet my question was whether or not they would be in favor of this
annexation or not, would be the R-8 zoning. I'm opposed to that. I would support the
annexation if that R-8 was changed to R-4. I think -- I think looking at the surrounding
areas it would be very very appropriate to do an R-4, instead of an R-8, and I appreciate
the young lady that was up here earlier saying that if -- if it's R-8, in the future somebody
Meridian City Council
December 3, 2013
Page 18 of 85
would be looking at some buffer zoning and some -- on the preliminary plats, but you
folks may not be here and so I think that issue needs to be resolved tonight on this
application and I would really strongly support having you consider changing that from
R-8 to R-4, so that these annexations would be considered to be R-4. I think that would
be very appropriate for the surrounding area that is already there and it would be a very
good development proposal for anyone in the future that might want to use that and so
that would be my request today.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions from Council? Now is your opportunity.
Rountree: We had them before.
De Weerd: Alex McNish signed up against. Good evening. If you will, please, state
your name and address for the record.
McNish: Good evening, Madam Mayor and Council Members. My name is Alex
McNish and I'm the homeowner at 835 West Victory and I'm the unique piece in the
puzzle. I have concerns about a number of things and you have heard -- I will be
repeating many of the same things with the density issues. According to the map that
Charlene Fish brought, I would be the property just west of Hansen's that the petition is
requesting that be an R-2. I would be in favor of that. That's right next door to me, so if
possible that would be something that would be helpful and I'm looking at the Meridian
Heights sewer and water people being included in the developer paying for the
connection fees for sewer and water and I'm wondering how I was excluded from that in
that should my septic tank fail that would be quite expensive of a cost to incur and so
I'm wondering if I could be somehow included in that offer and, then, my understanding
is my property would be grandfathered in for I had been in the county and I'm wondering
would that apply if -- the grandfather clause still apply if I was to sell my property? It
seems that that would be an issue for someone interested in purchasing it. I moved
there particularly because of the open spaces and the size of the lot. I have a 1.24 acre
lot. I'm also interested in the part of the grandfather clause on animals, if I would wish
to have horses or llamas -- that's adream -- chickens, you know, how that would fit into
being grandfathered in and, then, I have also irrigation concerns. Hansen has been
very generous with allowing me to partake in the irrigation and I have a number of trees
that -- that would be very expensive to water on city water. Let's see. And I can attest
to the traffic concerns of the light at Victory and Meridian Road. From my bedroom
window upstairs I can see the traffic backed up to my house in the morning and my mail
box is across the street and I will quite often have to spend a lot of times just counting
cars both ways before I can cross to pick up my mail and I believe that's about it. Any
questions?
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Meridian City Council
December 3, 2013
Page 19 of 85
Rountree: You were, then, not a part of the sewer district?
McNish: Thank you, Madam Mayor and Councilman Rountree. I had been levied as a
part of the Meridian Heights Sewer and Water District for the past two years. However,
they have reimbursed me that levy in that I do not take any water or sewer from the
district. I have a septic tank and a well.
Rountree: But you're included in their boundary.
McNish: I have been included, yes. I --
Rountree: Thank you.
McNish: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Any further questions? Thank you so much
McNish: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: Those are the folks that had signed up. Is there anyone else who would like
to provide testimony on this item? Yes, please, come forward. If you can, please, state
your name and address for the record.
Lynch: My name is Darlene Lynch. I live at 3598 South Springfield Avenue in Meridian
Heights.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Lynch: My concern -- and everyone seems to have been talking about the zoning what
they are going to get out of it. My concern is the quantity of the water. We have had
boil orders and I have a grandchild and I believe my daughter was pregnant at the time
of the boil order, so I don't understand how anyone cannot want to partake of the
annexation, even though the zoning may not be exactly to their liking, I think the quality
of water is of utmost concern. Thank you, Madam Mayor.
De Weerd: Thank you. Is there anyone who would like to provide testimony? Hold on,
Walt. Thank you.
Jones: Hi. I'm Brenda Jones. I live at 659 West Blue Downs in Meridian. So, I'm in
Kentucky Ridge.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Jones: I am just -- and maybe there is a future plan, but as a mother and a parent I
have a child who attends an elementary school that is 50 years old and I have a
Meridian City Council
December 3, 2013
Page 20 of 85
daughter in high school that attends a high school that happens to make the news all
the time because it's overcrowded. So, as a parent and a taxpayer I'm concerned that
we don't have adequate school system, elementary, middle or high schools in the
Meridian district on that side of the interstate to give our children the education that they
need. When my husband and I chose to move to Meridian and start our family that was
one of our concerns and at that time things were great. It has really digressed. My
daughter was one of the ones that made the news that had 17 kids sitting on the floor,
no textbooks, waiting for desks for two and a half weeks. So, I would, please, ask that
before we move forward and do all the zoning and all of the subdivisions -- as I drive
around on this -- on that side of the interstate and look at development that's already
happening, where are these children going to go to school? What kind of education are
they going to receive? I think -- I understand growth, but I also understand that we have
the diligence to do for our children and I know that as, you know, the founders and the
people behind the City of Meridian you would want the best for your grandchildren and
their children and I'm asking you as a parent to, please, take into forethought of what's
already being constructed and where those kids go to school. Because right now there
are no buildings for a lot of these subdivisions that are already -- broken ground, have
their infrastructure in, already are building homes, there is not schools for these kids to
go to without continuing to overcrowd, so -- and I just filled out a district survey, which
very much spoke to -- and I'm sure that you work with the district and you have probably
seen the results, but the emphasis was -- is as taxpayers people are no longer to have
our taxes go up to continue to fund education. I don't know that a bond would pass.
So, I think that it's important to maybe step back a little bit and see where -- I don't know
if other funding comes in, I have no idea if these developers are looked to help fund
schools that are adequate for our children, but I do think -- I think it's a large concern
and if you look at that survey it will show you that your Meridian parents are very
concerned about that. So, thank you for your time.
De Weerd: Thank you. Yes, sir. Hi.
Hill: Madam Mayor. Hi. Council Members. My name is Val Hill. I live on 686 West
Blue Downs in Kentucky Ridge. I think some of you will recognize me. I have been
here before you several times before. I -- I would like to first of all express my
appreciation for those who have worked with the Meridian Heights and with the sewer
and water district to help resolve the issues here. I just want the Council and I want
everyone here to understand the concerns with my constituents, my neighbors. As was
just stated there is always a concern about schooling, but our -- many of the concerns
they have is the traffic that will increase as the Centers property is developed and those
around us, we would just advocate that the City Council and everyone involved -- and I
know this involves the ACHD, because they are the ones who make a lot of the
decisions for the roadways, that they consider the increased traffic that would take place
in the Kentucky Ridge and in the Meridian Heights Subdivision and work to eliminate as
much as possible from going through those narrow roads and as they are developed
there is going to be a need for additional infrastructure and, again, one of the issues that
was brought up was the pressurized irrigation. We would just ask that when those new
plots are made available that they be asked to include perimeter irrigation to those
Meridian City Council
December 3, 2013
Page 21 of 85
properties which border them. They will have to put in pressurized irrigation for their
properties anyway from what I understand from the codes and everything that's out
there, that they just consider making that available to those properties around and, then,
let them work out the details monetarily those things that need to be adjusted. Those
are just some of the concerns that I have. But, again, I do express my appreciation to
those who have worked so long and hard on this. As you know, Mayor de Weerd, I
served for nearly ten years on the board with the sewer and water association and,
then, district and we worked with your people in the city trying to get things resolved and
we felt like it was not going to happen and I appreciate those who have come forward
and helped this come to fruition. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Hill. Any questions from Council?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: I have none.
De Weerd: Thank you so much. Is there any further testimony? Okay. I would ask
staff to respond to some of the questions and concerns that were -- were raised.
Hood: Madam Mayor, I have just a short list of things that I think I can address. The
first one would be -- Mr. Tillman brought up a request -- and you heard this throughout
from a couple of other folks that testified about the proposed zoning district. So, the R-8
that's proposed for the Meridian Heights, as well as the lagoon properties that the water
and sewer district owns, the Hansen property and the Tewalt property are all proposed
for R-8 zoning. I will just quickly just flip back to the future land use map. It does show
it as medium. However, you know, staff -- this is one of those words -- it's a judgment
call. I certainly can see an R-2, an R-4. I would just point out a couple of things. One,
when we looked at the proposed zoning designations we did take into account the
existing lot size of Meridian Heights and those do not conform to the R-4 standards.
They are smaller than an R-4, so I would at least request that the R-8 stay for the
Meridian Heights lots because of their existing lot sizes or else we are annexing a whole
bunch of nonconforming lots. Other than that, though, I think you can make a case
either way for these properties to be a lesser zoning designation. The other point that I
wanted to make to that end was with the annexation ordinance it requires whoever and
whenever these properties develop to come back to the city and enter into a
development agreement. So, at that time zoning designation, transitions, all those
things will have to be proposed and be acceptable to the Council at that point in time.
So, I could see an R-2 for all of this, just as a holding zone, if you will, until there is a
development proposed. Likewise, the R-8, there is no real entitlements given, because
we have that safeguard, if you will, that a development agreement is required. If you
look at the way they have transitioned the lots here in the R-8 and you think they need
to be bigger than 10,000 or 12,000 square feet, there is some discretion in there. We
don't have to run it in through that development agreement contract with whoever is
proposing that development, so -- and, again, I could see it either way. I think there are
some safeguards in place with the R-8, but for piece of mind I certainly understand
Meridian City Council
December 3, 2013
Page 22 of 85
where a lot of the neighbors in Kentucky Ridge are coming from and staff could go
either way with any change -- proposed change. The one thing I would point out if you
do change the boundary and make some or all of this R-4, we do not have a surveyor
on staff at City of Meridian, so we would have to either contract out that work to have a
new survey, legal description, metes and bounds description done for those properties
or -- you can't really see it here, but Engineering Solutions and Becky and Lee Centers
have donated that to the city. With her testimony tonight I don't know that they would be
willing to provide revised legal descriptions for any change in zoning. So, I just want to
point that out. I'm not quite sure how that gets funded for a change in the boundary. I
don't think that should be a major deterrent to your direction, I just wanted to point that
out that there may need to be a budget amendment or something for a thousand bucks
-- a few hundred dollars if we need to -- the city has to find a way to prepare a legal
description. So, the other thing that I just quickly wanted to address was apologies to
Ms. McNish. I did not mention her as being present at the Planning and Zoning
Commission meeting in my original presentation. She did participate, so I'm sorry I
missed that in my presentation. And, finally, just another comment. You know, no new
development is proposed with this. Roads aren't proposed. No new traffic is proposed.
All of that will have to come back through a process. So, I certainly heard, you know,
the concerns tonight. That will be analyzed when we see a subdivision proposed or
subdivisions proposed out here and I can't really answer that. A lot of it is speculation at
this point, but whatever is proposed we will analyze and bring recommendations back to
the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council for consistency with, you know,
existing subdivisions, homes, and a future vision document, our Comprehensive Plan.
So, I think those are the few things that I have written down that Planning can address.
I don't know if there is any follow-up needed on those.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Councilman Rountree.
Rountree: Yeah. A couple items. Ms. McNish, mentioned grandfathering with respect
to specifically animals and use on the property. Was that topic discussed during
Planning and Zoning or discussed with her individually?
Hood: Madam Mayor, Councilman Rountree, I don't remember animals, livestock
coming up at P&Z. No, I guess is the -- I do not recall that discussion.
Rountree: And what's -- what have we done in those situations in the past where we
have annexed larger parcels? My recollection is is I don't know whether it was
grandfathered or it was just allowed until the property sold.
Hood: Madam Mayor, Councilman Rountree, I'm strictly going off of memory here. The
one -- the one that I can think of we actually allowed -- I believe there were horses and
we actually allowed the horses that were there to stay, but as that -- the horses were
sold or died or what have you, you couldn't replace that head with a new horse or
whatever. So, we, basically, did -- and I may use the wrong terminology, Ted, so don't
Meridian City Council
December 3, 2013
Page 23 of 85
-- grandfather in that use at that time, but there was a point in time after that -- again,
that livestock for whatever reason, diminished in size you couldn't replenish that. I don't
know -- I'm not sure in this case if that's what we are going to do. This isn't a typical
case. Typically we have someone applying to us to annex and in this case the city is
the applicant, so we can't condition anyone to really do anything, because we are the
applicant and we don't hold a hammer over or a stick, if you will, to make sure that that
happens. So, I think that the livestock would fall under the same, you know, use and
structure that I mentioned previously. If it's out there now, we are accepting it. We want
these people to be in the city. We are welcoming them. We are not saying you have to
change your lifestyle overnight because you're now in the city limits. It was brought up
that the property -- if the property sells -- we don't know when a home sells. So,
enforcement at that point in time is -- you know, it's nearly impossible to, because we
don't get that information on when a property changes hands. What we -- with
resubdivision, obviously, and redevelopment that is when we typically get those
properties to conform to -- to city code. That's the best I can do to answer that. Sorry,
it's not a typical situation.
De Weerd: Thank you, Caleb. Any other questions from Council? So, Caleb, in
essence, any -- any development application would come back through a public hearing
process and with the appropriate notification. The agencies -- both the schools and Ada
County Highway District would be asked to comment on -- if they can accommodate
both traffic and the additional students when they have something to analyze. Is that
correct?
Hood: Madam Mayor, that is correct.
De Weerd: Okay.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I have a question for Mr. Barry. I think he's hiding back there.
Barry: Yes, sir.
Rountree: Well, as all of these things have their little details and this one seems to have
maybe fallen through cracks, but the question on the MclVish property with respect to
hookup, them being in the boundary and there is either a misunderstanding or
understanding that they are not included or they will be included -- I don't know what is
the situation, so if you can help me with that.
Barry: I might be able to help a little bit, but I might not have a full answer, I might need
help from the representative of the water and sewer district, but here is -- here is how
we are handling it on other properties. So, if the district is not including that particular
property in the financials for the hook-up fees, meaning the water and sewer hook-up
Meridian City Council
December 3, 2013
Page 24 of 85
fees, because that particular property does not receive services -- and I understand Ms.
McNish's property does not receive services from the district and, therefore, although
she is in the district boundary and has to pay the assessment to the district, it is fully
reimbursed back to her -- that's because she doesn't receive the services. So, if the
district's position is going to be that because she doesn't receive services, although she
is in the district, they will not cover in their financials the hook up charge for the water
and sewer connection, then, at some future time when Mrs. McNish or a future property
owner would like to receive those services from the city, they would be responsible for
paying the full water and sewer assessments at the time that connection is made.
Alternatively, if the district has included that particular parcel or property into the
financials under which would be covered or for which would be covered, the water and
sewer assessment, then, Ms. McNish or any future property owner would -- would have
already paid into the cost for the hook-up charges and, therefore, would not be charged
a secondary charge at some point in the future. So, the question I answered in
reference to process, but I have not been able to answer it definitively, because we
don't know where the district stands on whether it is intending cover Ms. McNish's
property or others in similar situation. So, I would have to default to a representative of
the water and sewer district to refine that answer. Would you be interested in hearing
from a representative?
Rountree: Certainly.
Bird: We would.
De Weerd: Yes, but before we ask, is there any other questions for Mr. Barry?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: Madam Mayor, just on the point of irrigation, just state for the record that
irrigation is handled -- not the pressurized, but the existing --
Barry: The district -- yeah. The district patrons currently receive their irrigation water
from one of three wells that the district owns and operates through, essentially, a
commingled or individual non-isolated system, meaning that there is no separation
between pressurized irrigation and potable water. It's one and the same currently inside
the district.
Rountree: I guess the point I wanted to make is the current irrigation -- not from potable
or well, but from the irrigation district, whichever one serves there, has to be maintained
by whatever development that occurs out there. So, if somebody's receiving water from
a ditch or out of a drain they will continue to receive that.
Barry: Current. Yeah. There is no intent to change that.
De Weerd: Any other questions for Mr. Barry?
Meridian City Council
December 3, 2013
Page 25 of 85
Rountree: That's all I have.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Barry: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: Is there someone from the district that could address -- and you thought you
would get away with not speaking tonight; right?
Hamilton: I did. Gordon Hamilton. 3496 South Arcaro. And the current president of
the board for the Meridian Heights Water and Sewer District. When we were involved in
the three-party negotiations we addressed direct charges that we were aware of. There
would be more than -- more than just this property that -- where we have a property
within the district which does not currently have a house on it, where we had not given
consideration in the negotiation and previous discussion about paying for sewer hook-
up fees on those properties. So, I don't quite know how to address it and I would have
to take it back to the board first off and possibly back to the other parties in the
agreement to resolve that. Typically these sewer hook-up fees are paid at the time that
the sewer is actually hooked up, is that correct? I'm not even familiar with how -- how
you do that. So, as I said, there were other properties within the boundaries of the
district that have a septic that they use and, then, there are other properties that simply
don't even have a house or any structure built on the parcel. So, we are going to have
to give that some consideration and we will.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council -- oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Hamilton.
Hamilton: No. That's fine.
De Weerd: Any questions from Council?
Rountree: Madam Mayor. Just as a topic for your board for discussion in the near
future I hope.
Hamilton: Yes.
Rountree: Thank you.
Hamilton: It will be. We will put it on the agenda for our next meeting. And since I'm up
here I do want to express my thanks to the city for the diligent efforts toward helping us
to resolve the issues that we had with our easements and coming to the point of the
agreement on the water and sewer. I, too -- I think it is an important -- important for the
orderly growth of the city and for the security of our water and sewer systems into the
future and I really appreciate all the effort that's been made on our behalf.
De Weerd: Thank you. I think there were a lot of people who did a lot of hard work on
this and we thank all of you, too.
Meridian City Council
December 3, 2013
Page 26 of 85
Hamilton: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, any further questions?
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor, quick question for Caleb. If you might, Caleb. On the R-8
designation, someone could come in with a plat and -- with the R-8 and they could have
less density on that than what's allowed, they just can't exceed the R-8; is that correct?
Hood: Correct. They are maximums, not minimums.
Hoaglun: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: Council, do you want to discuss this before closing the public hearings in
case you need to ask any further questions?
Rountree: I have a question for Ted, Madam Mayor.
De Weerd: Okay.
Rountree: Ted, on an annexation can we identify issues or concerns that need to be
considered as the property moves forward with respect to whatever zoning it is,
something similar to a DA? I know we usually do a DA when we have a plat at hand
and I don't recall that we have ever done an annexation that way. I can remember
several that we probably should have.
Bird: Should have.
Baird: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Rountree, I will
probably be calling on Caleb to help me with the answer, but I believe that it was
anticipated that if the R-8 zoning was, indeed, included as part of this annexation that a
DA would be required. I will look to Caleb to confirm that. And if it's not the R-8, then, it
just comes in as -- that the R-4 would come in without a DA. That's my recollection of --
of those meetings.
Hood: Madam Mayor, Councilman Rountree, Ted's right, I mean that is how this is
structured is that -- well, I will just -- Provision 1.1.1 on page ten of the staff report, it's
the first annexation comment -- it says: The ordinance of annexation and zoning shall
contain a provision prohibiting any development approvals on the Hansen, Tewalt,
Centers and Meridian Heights Water and Sewer District properties until such time as the
property owners and the city execute a development agreement. To your point,
Councilman Rountree, a question. I think you could expand on that if you said: And
any such future development agreement should address things such as transitional
densities or fencing or livestock or -- I don't know where you're going, but I don't know
how we enforce it necessarily, but it's part of the record, so we can bring that back up
when these properties do develop or redevelop and make note at the time of annexation
Meridian City Council
December 3, 2013
Page 27 of 85
this was a concern and put the developer at that time on notice that this needs to be
addressed with the development agreement. I don't know why we couldn't, again, add
to that provision, if you do have some thoughts on some points you'd like to see in
future development agreements.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Follow up on Charlie's question. Caleb, in other words, is there any way that we
can make sure that the Hansen's west side has the 10,000 foot lots like had been
designed by Becky in this annexation that will hold true? As Mr. Tillman said, the four of
us might not be sitting up here when that comes through or something, but we need to
have it -- if we are going to do it we need to have it so that it's noted in every -- and
whoever buys that property or whoever starts to develop that property understands that
those are going to be 10,000 square foot lots that back up to Kentucky Ridge.
Hood: Madam Mayor, Councilman Bird, I'm going to kind of ping-pong this back to Ted
a little bit, but let me start. I don't see -- again, I don't see any reason why you couldn't
put some language like that in here. The thing I'm struggling with a little bit is
enforcement of that, because we aren't doing a development agreement tonight, so I
don't know how we -- we could certainly say -- you know, intent language that a
developer must, you know, look to transition the lots away from Kentucky Ridge Estates
e.g., minimum 10,000 square foot lots or whatever. But I just don't know how we can
truly enforce that to the letter of whatever condition you put in here tonight, because
there isn't that document that they are bound by. But it would be in the record and we,
as staff, when those properties redevelop, this is the first place we go, we go look at the
staff report for when it was annexed and we say, hey, this is an issue, how are you
going to address that, developer, and so we would have that bullet point of saying that
they need to be looked at. But we will condition annexations. So, I don't know if Ted
wants to clarify that, but I'm not quite sure that it can be as -- as fool proof as you and I
would probably like it to be with this, because the city is the applicant.
Baird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Baird.
Baird: Members of the Council and Council Member Bird. I would agree with what
Caleb has just said and what it really looks to me like is you're trying to take an R-8
zone and make it act like a R-4 zone, so if it's not an R-4 zone is -- you think is more
appropriate, then -- like Caleb said, we may be in a position where we are getting some
legal surveys and defining where those boundaries are, but now is the time to do that
before you pass the annexation ordinance.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
December 3, 2013
Page 28 of 85
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I guess where I'm trying to go is to get this on the record now, as opposed to
some point in time in the future and it could very well be the distant future, but the idea
of annexation of what we already have is principle in our development agreement
process and that's -- we provide for transition between different zoning areas and, then,
in most cases between R-4 and an R-8 a lot of times we will limit elevations, we will
have lot sizes transition from the 8,000 to 6,500 incrementally. So, as this develops the
folks who start putting ink on paper understand that as it comes in here it better have
that, because that was -- that was what the annexation was based on.
Baird: Madam Mayor?
Rountree: And I don't know if that's -- I don't see that as a development agreement, but
I think it could be added to that particular ordinance language, something to the effect
that the future development on the R-8 zone will provide a buffer between Kentucky
Ridge, either by space or lot size.
Baird: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I think it's -- it's within you purview to
put that on the record. While we have been discussing this, I noticed that Caleb is
having a conversation over there with someone who may have an idea on that and how
to do this, am I reading too much into that?
Hood: No. Madam Mayor, Council -- or Madam Mayor, Council Members, Becky
McKay was just -- you know, she -- she would prefer the R-8 zoning with a condition
provision on the record, whatever, 10,000 minimum. She's drawn up -- she alluded to in
her public testimony tonight that her firm has drawn up a site plan that she will be
turning over to the Hansen family for potential development of that property. What they
have laid out is right at 10,000 square foot lots along there, so that's what they have
already got sort of cooking is a 10,000 square foot minimum along that -- the west
boundary of that property. So, that's -- I think she testified to that previously. The R-8 is
something that the Hansen family is expecting, is looking for. With that being said there
is some willingness to, you know, recognize that there is existing lots and homes in
Kentucky Ridge Estates and, you know, 10,000 square feet is a magic number, it
sounds like that's something that is definitely doable. That was the gist of our sidebar
conversation, so --
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: I will weigh in. We have closed the public hearing and to continue this
dialogue I think it's very helpful. It's been stated by several people that have been
involved in this whole process, that it was very long and very tenuous at times and I
think all parties at one point or another were ready to walk away and say we got to do
something else, this is not going to happen. But it did happen. Everyone stayed with it
Meridian City Council
December 3, 2013
Page 29 of 85
and did a lot of hard work and -- and one of the conditions I recall was that Mr. Hansen
wanted the R-8 zoning and that was something that to make the deal happen my
recollection was, okay, if he -- he was a key piece of this whole thing. I completely
understand where the folks from Kentucky Ridge are coming from. When I look at that
property I -- I don't see higher densities up against them, just the way it slopes, the
different things, I just don't think you can put more homes on there. It is going to be a
lower density location. It's just -- and that's probably why Mrs. McKay drew it to up that
way. But I don't mind putting in some language in this annexation process that says for
a future Council that they need to look at transition zones, however we word that, but I
do want to honor what in my mind was an agreement with Mr. Hansen that this would
come in at R-8. We went back and forth on this and understand that there is going to
be a transition and with the DA process, a developer's agreement process, the city does
have -- have a leverage on that developer and there is a public process. So, if that
developer comes in, purchases it from Mr. Hansen, he will bring forward a proposal, it
will show the roads, connectivity, it will show lot sizes and those types of things and
that's where the folks can come in and speak to the specifics and I know it was hard
tonight, because we really can't speak to the specifics, we can speculate, but until
something's on paper and brought before us we really don't know what that's going to
be, so -- and I know this Council has been and I think future Councils will pay attention
to the transition zones. We do it now and it will be done in the future, because people
are concerned about their impacts and their property values and in some way we all are
concerned about. So, I -- I wouldn't mind seeing if there is some sort of language we
can put to that. I -- I hesitate to change if you want to do R-4, I just think we are -- we
are kind of going against our word that we gave to Mr. Hansen, but that's just one
person's opinion.
De Weerd: Any other comments, questions from Council?
Rountree: I have none.
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Hearing none, do I have a motion to close?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we close the public hearing on Item 7-A, AZ 13-014.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on Item 7-A. All
those in favor say aye. All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian City Council
December 3, 2013
Page 30 of 85
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Somewhere here. I move that we approve Item 7-A, AZ 13-014 with the
subject change to the ordinance statement as to the -- read by Caleb during the
discussion, adding to that a buffer between Kentucky Ridge -- excuse me. That the
future development in the R-8 zone will be done in such a way as to provide a buffer
between Kentucky Ridge, either by a common lot space or by 10,000 square foot lots at
a minimum.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second. Any discussion from Council? Okay.
Madam Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Again, I would like to thank the -- certainly the district for all the hard work
and Mr. Barry certainly for his leadership and -- and all the parties involved and I thank
all of the citizens that came here tonight and this will be brought back to your attention
when there is a plat. It will be up for a public hearing and many of the concerns and
issues that were raised tonight will be more evident and visible and that's something
that we can specifically comment on. So, thank you for joining us. When we get
something in front of us to -- for a plat we will -- we will have that information. We will
better -- I think all of us are very familiar with -- with that area. We have been talking
about it for years now. But when there is something that can be commented on it will be
easier to have a dialogue and make sure that the concerns are addressed. So, thank
you for being here tonight.
B. Public Hearing: PFP 13-001 Twelve Oaks by JLJ, Inc. Located
at 1845 W. Franklin Road Request: Preliminary and Final Plat
Approval Consisting of Two (2) Building Lots on 9.43 Acres of
Land in the TN-R and C-C Zoning Districts
De Weerd: Okay. Item 7-B is a public hearing on PFP 13-001. I will open this public
hearing with staff comments.
Lucas: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Before you is the Twelve
Oaks Subdivision, which is a preliminary and final plat combined. The site consists of
9.43 acres of land and is currently zoned TN-R and C-C, located at 1845 West Franklin
Meridian City Council
December 3, 2013
Page 31 of 85
Road, just west of Linder Road. The property was annexed in 2005 with a DA and a
concept plan, along with a conditional use permit for a mixed use development. A
preliminary plat was also approved, but has since expired. Tonight before you the
applicant is proposing a preliminary slash final plat. It consists of two building lots on
9.43 acres of land with the zoning districts I mentioned. The plat will subdivide one
parcel into two lots and will divide the majority of the commercial property from the
residential property. Of note the applicant, after -- after approval of this plat, if that is the
Council's direction tonight. The applicant does intended to further resubdivide both of
these lots. One of them, the commercial lot, which is lot one, would come in with a
short plat application and be subdivided into four additional lots and the residential
portion would eventually come in with a full preliminary plat and final plat application to
further resubdivide that portion. You can see those on -- the two lots there. The smaller
lot, Lot 1, is a commercial portion I mentioned. The larger lot, which is Lot 2, Block 1,
is the future residential portion. The summary of the Commission public hearing. In
favor was Carl Porter. Since the public hearing we did receive one item of public
testimony by -- by e-mail from Jim Jewett, who is the applicant. He had requested that
you look at Condition 1.1.6, which references the tiling of the Vaughan Lateral, which
runs basically right here along the western and northern portion of the site. After
speaking with -- with Mr. Jewett the intention is to first work on this portion of the site
and create a small commercial subdivision, as I stated. And his plan would be to, then,
resubdivide this larger lot and his preference would be at the time of resubdivision of the
larger lot that that would be a better time to the this -- to the this ditch. After looking at
this and talking to representatives from our land development team and due to some
uncertainty with sewer and how it's going to connect to this larger lot, we were
amenable to the applicant's request to wait to the that ditch until he resubdivides that --
that Lot 2, Block 1. So, staff in the hearing outline has presented a new Condition 1.1.6,
which would, basically, strike the existing condition and include the following, which
reads: The piping of the Vaughan Lateral shall occur with the resubdivision of Lot 2,
Block 1. No building permits will be issued for Lot 2, Block 1, prior to the lot being
resubdivided and the lateral being piped in accordance with the UDC 11.A-6. Those are
the only items that staff had -- outstanding items that staff had tonight and I can
certainly stand for any questions.
De Weerd: Thank you, Justin. Council, any questions?
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I -- for some reason it sticks in my mind the previous discussion and -- even
though, as you pointed out, this has expired, but there was discussion about fencing
with the property owner to the west. Apparently that person has animals and fencing
was an issue and access or not access to the neighboring parcel. That was all
appropriate for what was proposed for the previous development, but does the
requirement to provide some kind of a fence between the neighborhood properties still
Meridian City Council
December 3, 2013
Page 32 of 85
-- does it survive the expiration of that, because that was something that was worked
out with a lot of anguish as I recall.
Lucas: Well, Madam Mayor, Councilman Zaremba, I actually -- I spoke with that
gentleman this morning on the phone, the neighboring property owner to the -- to the
west. He did raise some concerns with me about livestock and other things like that
that you had just mentioned. Certainly you can add that as a -- as a provision to this
preliminary/final plat application. I don't know if it's completely necessary, though,
because, as I stated, when this larger lot redevelops and it will have to redevelop and
resubdivide, that would be an appropriate time to put a condition like that through that
preliminary plat process for the subdivision of this lot -- of the future subdivision of Lot 2,
Block 1. You could certainly do it tonight, but I don't think that this is our last bite at the
apple when it comes to that issue.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Hoaglun:
Hoaglun: Justin, what were the sewer issues that you had mentioned that led to the
decision not to require piping at this stage; do you recall?
Lucas: Madam Mayor, Councilman Hoaglun, there was some discussion of the best
place to sewer up. You know, the Franklin Road project, which is completed, and I
believe there is a couple stubs located to this property and at this point there is -- I don't
have all the detail, I'm certainly not a civil engineer, but did speak with Bruce Freckleton,
who was directly in contact with Mr. Jewett, there is just some issues about the best
location to connect to Franklin Road. It might be at the property line, it might be further
down. If it is at the property line it might affect the tiling of that ditch and if it's required
to be tiled now, but, then, the sewer has to go in near it, it may have to be torn out and
that was Mr. Freckleton's comment was he was okay with leaving the ditch open now
due to the uncertainty of how exactly that sewer would connect to Franklin Road. I don't
think it was a capacity issue or an issue of any significance, more of -- it's more of just a
best fit location for that future preliminary plat that will happen on Lot 2, Block 1.
Hoaglun: Thank you, Justin. Madam Mayor, I think Mr. Stewart would be able to --
De Weerd: Please.
Stewart: Madam Mayor, Councilman Hoaglun, Members of the Council. The issue
really -- well, it's kind of a long story and I will try to make it as short as possible. But we
had -- when we did the Franklin Road project there was a plan to run a sewer line down
the -- essentially, west property line that would actually take the Whitestone and
Landing lift stations off line. During that process we had to negotiate easements with
the property owners on -- on the west side and that process took some time. Ultimately
Meridian City Council
December 3, 2013
Page 33 of 85
one of those property owners declined to give the city an easement and by the time that
all took place the opportunity to extend, essentially, a sewer service stub to the larger of
these two parcels was gone, but there is an existing stub just across the boundary line
to the south. We also have -- when this was originally contemplated there is an access
or an easement that allows us to go through the south portion of this property and stuff
into a sewer line that's in the back of the existing subdivision immediately to the south.
We are in the process of having some modeling done and some analysis done. We had
to get some flow monitoring done to determine which of those two options makes the
most sense for serving this in the future. So, we are not sure whether the -- the sewer
service for that parcel will be best served through the south or going immediately to the
west through the adjacent property. So, as soon as we get that information we will
communicate that with the applicant and, then, he can draw up plans for his
development accordingly.
Hoaglun: So, Madam Mayor, if I might continue. I don't know if this might be Warren or
Justin. And if it's coming from the south there is no reason to wait on tiling the ditch; is
that -- once you know he doesn't have to come across from the west side and it's
coming from the south side, then, that ditch can be tiled?
Stewart: I would say that, yes, that would be correct. If it is determined that that's the
most effective way for sewer service to be provided, then, certainly I would agree.
Hoaglun: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions for staff at this time?
Rountree: No questions.
De Weerd: Okay. Is the applicant here? Good evening. If you will, please, state your
name and address for the record.
Porter: Good evening, Madam Mayor, Councilmen. My name is Carl Porter with
Sawtooth Land Surveying. 101 Canal Street, Emmett, Idaho. I'm here representing Mr.
Jewett tonight, JLJ, Inc. I agree with staff's report. The only request that Mr. Jewett had
was that the ditch not be tiled at this time and be tiled when we come in for application
for Lot 2. That being said, if you have any questions I'll stand for those, otherwise, we
agree with staff's report.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone who like to
offer testimony on item? Okay. Seeing none.
Meridian City Council
December 3, 2013
Page 34 of 85
Rountree: Madam Mayor, just a comment.
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I'm not opposed to deferring the tiling, but I think we need some kind of a
bond or a surety posted to the city to cover the cost of that. It's going to have to be
done either now or at some point in time when the sewer is put in there. I want some
assurance that it gets done and I would request that we include that in our decision.
Bird: Beat me to it.
De Weerd: Okay.
Rountree: And I don't know what that would be. Ted?
Baird: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Rountree, I just
suggest that you include that in your motion that it be in the form of a surety that is
acceptable to the city, which would be cash, letter of credit, certified funds.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Council, if there is no further information needed, I
would entertain a motion to close the public hearing on this item.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we close public hearing PFP 13-001.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on Item 7-B. All
those in favor say aye. All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve public hearing -- or public hearing -- PFP 13-001, include staff
and applicant comments and also include that while we are delaying the tiling of the
ditch, the applicant will bring forward surety acceptable to the city, Public Works, that
will cover the cost of tiling that ditch.
Rountree: Second.
Meridian City Council
December 3, 2013
Page 35 of 85
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 7-B with the conditions as
stated. Mr. Zaremba?
Zaremba: Madam Mayor, I just wanted to make sure that we are adding that condition
in addition to the modified 1.1.6 that --
Bird: Yes. That was part of the testimony.
Zaremba: Yeah. Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thanks for the clarification.
Bird: You bet. Thank you, David.
De Weerd: Okay. Madam Clerk.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
C. Public Hearing: RZ 13-012 Raisin' Angels by Engineered
Structures, Inc. Located Northwest Corner of E. Pine Avenue
and N. Nola Road Request: Rezone of 1.54 Acres of Land from
the I-L (Light Industrial) Zoning District to the L-O (Limited
Office) Zoning District
De Weerd: Okay. Item No. 7-C is a public hearing on RZ 13-012. 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 Raising Angels rezone application. The site consists of 1.5 acres of land. It's
currently zoned I-L and is located at 1771 East Pine Avenue. As you can see in the
exhibit before you I have the property highlighted here. In 2004 this property received
preliminary/final plat approval from City Council for a four lot industrial subdivision. As
you can seen in the aerial here one of the lots has developed and these three parcels
are currently vacant that are fronting along Pine Avenue. The applicant is here this
evening to discuss the rezone of this property to the L-O district in order to develop the
property with a daycare facility. If Council recalls, back in 2010 the same applicant was
before you and -- about a quarter mile down the road there they actually converted an
existing home into a daycare center. This is the same applicant. Because of the
expanse of the Scentsy campus, PKG, Blue Cross -- you can see there is quite a bit of
employment happening in the area and so they feel there is a need for additional
daycare centers in the area as well. I'd also mentioned to you that this area under the
Meridian City Council
December 3, 2013
Page 36 of 85
Comprehensive Plan is designated within the city's core area, so we anticipate multiple
employment centers happening here in the future, multi-family, a mix of commercial and
office opportunities moving forward. And so in our justification in our staff report and our
report to Commission, we reported to them that this area is part of a larger area under
the comp plan and as you can see here in the future land use map that's before you this
evening there certainly is a large mixed use area to the east, which would allow staff to
float that designation to allow that property to rezone to the L-O designation. As I
mentioned to you -- or one thing I failed to mention to you is under the I-L district a
daycare use is an accessory use. That means it has to be subordinate to a primary use
and so in that case it's not allowed as a principally permitted use. Our recommendation
tonight, since the future daycare use will happen at some day with CZC and design
review and it is principally permitted of the requested L-O zoning district, staff is not
recommending a DA provision -- or recommending a DA with a rezone. Want to just go
ahead and let the UDC and design manual control the use and the design of the site.
But per the application submittal the applicant did provide a concept plan, a landscape
plan, and building elevations for you to review tonight. We have done a cursory review
of those applications -- or those site plans. We concur that they are in alignment with
what the current UDC requires. I would mention to you that when this plat did come
through in 2004 the city -- both the city and ACHD did approve aright-in, right-out onto
Pine Avenue here, which is the access that this property will use in the future. There is
a note on the plat that requires cross-access through all three parcels, so this is the only
access and that cross-access is in place moving forward. Here is the landscape plan.
With the subdivision improvements all of the landscape -- landscaping has been
installed and signed off for the -- by the city. The applicant is proposing a 5,000 square
foot facility, so moving forward as they come through with their CZC and design review
we will certainly take into account the parking ratio, the play areas, and hold them to
those design -- specific use standards tied to the daycare facility use. One thing I do
want to mention, just because the rezone happens, there is -- there is nothing here that
implies that the daycare use is established on the property. Again, the applicant will
have to come forward with a certificate of zoning compliance and design review
application. Here are the conceptual elevations that the applicant submitted. Again,
they are in alignment, pretty consistent to what's developed in the area. Most of the
area -- most of the properties in the area are developed with industrial type buildings, so
this is a typical office zoning that we see designed in Meridian. Moving forward staff will
insure compliance with the design standards in the UDC as well. As I mentioned to you,
the Planning and Zoning Commission did recommend approval at their hearing on
November 7th. Laren Bailey, Alicia Parker, and Jane spoke in favor of -- or, actually,
were in favor of the application. No one testified in opposition and no one commented
on the application and no other written testimony was provided. Key issues of
discussion at the Commission. There weren't any at the Planning and Zoning
Commission. Again staff felt it was an appropriate use for the site or future use. Since
the Planning and Zoning Commission staff has not received any additional testimony on
this application and to staff's knowledge there aren't any other outstanding issues
before you. This concludes my presentation and I will stand for any questions.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Council, any questions?
Meridian City Council
December 3, 2013
Page 37 of 85
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Bill, go back to the landscape plan, would you, please. I don't see any
indication of any kind of buffer screen, whatever, between this property and a future
light industrial property to the west and I'm a little concerned about that. What's going
on here?
Parsons: Madam Mayor, Councilman Rountree, as I mentioned to you, there currently
is a 20 foot landscape buffer along Pine and a ten foot is required along Nola and, then,
with the development of that industrial property to the south there was -- or is currently
an existing five foot landscape buffer between this L-O property and industrial property.
Really, under the Unified Development Code industrial property needs to provide the
buffer, not office property providing the buffer. So, in this instance, because there was
an adjacent drive aisle to the industrial property, the minimum required by ordinance is
five feet.
Rountree: How about to the west?
Parsons: Again, the same situation. That property owner, through the public hearing
process -- let me look at the code real quick. I know we had some provisions. We
changed that recently or a few years back to allow some leniency. Let me see how it
currently reads and get back to you on that.
Lucas: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I can also add -- the outdoor play areas
for daycares are required to be screened by a solid six foot fence. So, that any outdoor
play would have screening per our code and that's not strictly called out in the staff
report, but that would be a condition of approval for any certificate of zoning compliance
associated with a daycare on this site. It would have to have some type of screening
between the two uses.
Rountree: Is that area to the west, then, considered -- the whole area considered play
area?
Lucas: We could have the applicant speak to their designation of play area. We don't
have that detail associated with this specific application at this time.
Rountree: My concern is that it is a light industrial area now. I'm not sure why a change
in use would require a buffer on the part of the neighbor now, as opposed to -- with this
change as opposed to just leaving the way it is.
Meridian City Council
December 3, 2013
Page 38 of 85
Parsons: Councilman Rountree, I have got the code open and currently the way it
reads under the ordinance -- our dimensional standards there would not be a buffer
required when L-L is up against nonresidential uses, which the daycare use would be
and as Justin mentioned, on the submitted sight plan the applicant did show fencing for
that area. So, that play area will be fenced off.
Rountree: Okay.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: Two questions. My first is to make sure I'm understanding what Councilman
Rountree was trying to get out of you guys. My feeling is if this is currently -- if all three
or all four of these properties are currently I-L, if there isn't any kind of buffer or
screening required between an I-L and a different use, that should not be the
responsibility of the property owner to the west of this. If there needs to be a buffer or
screening, the desire to change the classification of this property should leave that
responsibility to this property and not force it on the --
Rountree: You got my point.
Zaremba: Okay. So -- and I am agreeing with your point and I'm not sure that I have
heard that answer necessarily.
Parsons: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, certainly if that's your desire to
create a buffer with this property you could ask the applicant to enter into a
development agreement and provide that.
Zaremba: Well, if it isn't going to be necessary I don't I have a problem with it. I just
want to make sure it doesn't fall as a burden on the --
Parsons: At this point it isn't
Zaremba: Yeah. Okay. Thank you. So, then, my second question was -- and this is
not necessarily specific to this property, it's more general. We don't have a real surplus
of industrial property in our future land use map and our planning and it's very popular to
chip away at even what we have and I guess can you give me a sense of how we are
doing on the balance? Are we looking for other properties to convert in reverse into --
into I-L that might be something else now or are we trying to maintain a balance that's
sufficient?
Parsons: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilman Zaremba, to your point
-- you stated that correctly and I think Justin will allude to some of that in his UDC text
amendment comments to you this evening. But as I mentioned to you, we are starting
to track our industrial a little bit more. We anticipate that large mixed use area that you
Meridian City Council
December 3, 2013
Page 39 of 85
see here on the comp plan, even under the mixed use standards we still allow industrial
uses or industrial zoning within those designations. So, yes, we are losing a little sliver
here, but in the future, based on the concept plan, based on what we envision as far as
our core area in the Comprehensive Plan, we see some of that developing back in this
area. It's a judgment call at this point on your part, but in our justification we felt it was
appropriate, Commission felt it was appropriate, and that's why we brought forth the
recommendation for approval.
Zaremba: Thank you.
De Weerd: Well, I personally think that if it's very compatible and this does have a good
degree of -- of industrial and its a needed service to service the employment in that
area, so -- is the applicant here this evening? Good evening. If you will state your
name and address for the record.
Sherrown: My name is Scott Sherrown with LEI Engineering and Surveying at 3023
East Copperpoint Drive in Meridian.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Sherrown: Thank you very much for -- Council and Madam Mayor, for hearing us
tonight and to Bill and his staff providing the summary of the project. We are in
concurrence with the conditions -- or at least the items within the staff report. We don't
take an exception to that. In terms of the buffer that we are discussing here tonight, we
would certainly be willing to work with staff and engineering to work out a buffer that
would be appropriate and on our property to make this a compatible use. We are
excited about -- or Raising Angels is excited about expanding their daycare facility in
this area to serve Meridian and so we will do what it takes to make Council and
engineering and planning satisfied with our proposal. So, with that I will take any
questions that you may have and we have members of our team here as well to help
answer any questions you may have.
De Weerd: Any questions from Council?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: I have none.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I would just comment that I -- I think it's marvelous that you're anticipating the
need and getting out in front of it and good for you.
De Weerd: We have nothing further.
Meridian City Council
December 3, 2013
Page 40 of 85
Sherrown: Okay. Thank you for your time
De Weerd: Thank you. I did have a couple of people that signed up to show their
support. Alicia Parker signed up for. And I notice, Bill, that you didn't say Jane's last
name, which I was looking forward to hearing, because I didn't want to do something to
it that -- so, Jane, how do you say your last name? Sacatay. Okay. See, I would have
guessed it wrong. But Jane also signed up in favor. Is there anyone who would like to
provide testimony on this item? Okay. Hearing none, Council?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we close the pubic hearing on RZ 13-012.
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the pubic hearing on this item. All
those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve RZ 13-012 and include all applicant and staff comments.
Rountree: Second.
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and several seconds to approve Item 7-C. If there is no
discussion, Madam Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
D. Public Hearing: AZ 13-013 Creekstone Subdivision by Boslau
Family Trust Located North Side of W. Pine Avenue; Midway
Between N. Black Cat Road and N. Ten Mile Road Request:
Meridian City Council
December 3, 2013
Page 41 of 85
Annexation of 6.92 Acres from RUT in Ada County to the R-8
(Medium-Density Residential) Zoning District
E. Public Hearing: PP 13-029 Creekstone Subdivision by Boslau
Family Trust Located North Side of W. Pine Avenue; Midway
Between N. Black Cat Road and N. Ten Mile Road Request:
Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Thirty-Two (32)
Residential Lots and Six (6) Common Lots on Approximately
6.92 Acres in the Proposed R-8 Zoning District
De Weerd: Items 7-D and E are public hearings an AZ 13-013 and PP 13-029. I will
open these two public hearing with staff comments.
Parsons: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Next item is the
Creekstone Subdivision. The applicant is here tonight to discuss annexation and
rezone -- or annexation and preliminary plat of 6.92 acres of land, which is currently
zoned RUT in Ada County. It's located on the north side of Pine -- West Pine Avenue in
between Black -- North Black Cat and Ten Mile Road. If you recall in 2011 Council did
approve a new preliminary plat and rezone application for the Chesterfield Subdivision,
which is south of this parcel here at this time -- or south of this parcel. You can see
surrounding this property are residential subdivisions currently zoned R-8, which is also
consistent to what the applicant is proposing this evening. Here is the Comprehensive
Plan. It does designate the property as medium density residential. The
Comprehensive Plan anticipates density between three and eight dwelling units to the
acre. The subdivision that is before you this evening is approximately 4.69 dwelling
units to the acre, which falls within the density range of not only the mixed -- medium
density residential designation, but also the R-8 zoning designation. As I mentioned to
you, here is the proposed plat. The applicant is proposing 32 residential lots and six
common lots. Primary access to this development will be along Pine Avenue, which the
applicant will be required to do their street frontage improvements and expand that or
extend that street to their east boundary. Their main internal connectivity will be by a
new local street that will bring -- will connect into a stub street, which is Dover Drive that
was constructed with the Castlebury -- or Castlebrook Subdivision to the west. Open
space consists of approximately 1.01 acres of land, which is approximately 14 percent.
The primary open space is, basically, a linear open space along the Ten Mile Drain.
The applicant -- as an amenity the applicant is proposing a five foot pedestrian pathway
that ties into the pathway system constructed within the Castlebrook Subdivision to the
west and, then, also the applicant is proposing a micropath lot internally into the
subdivision and also proposing -- the applicant also gets to count the 25 foot landscape
buffer along Pine Avenue. I would mention to Council that this portion of Pine is
currently designated a collector with ACHD. Again, here is the landscape plan that the
applicant is proposing. Four of the lots within the cul-de-sac do not comply with the
dimensional standards of the R-8 district and a condition of the staff report required the
applicant to provide 30 feet of frontage along the cul-de-sac here. The applicant did
testify at the Commission in agreement to that condition as well. So, we will have that
worked out at final plat. Here are the proposed elevations. Again, you can see there
Meridian City Council
December 3, 2013
Page 42 of 85
are a mix of materials and a variety of styles in the homes. Staff feels they are
consistent with the adjacent subdivisions in the area. Because this is such a low impact
development and it's surrounded by other R-8 density development, staff is not
recommending, nor did Commission recommend a development agreement with the
annexation this evening. Planning and Zoning Commission did recommend approval at
their Commission hearing. Speaking in favor was Mr. Dave Yorgason. Neutral parties
-- some of the adjacent neighbors in Castlebrook came out and testified. Those being
Richard Davies, Lindsay Filmore, Joanne Aslett, James Miller, Tristen and Ben Taylor.
Commenting on the application we had Richard Davies, Ben Taylor and James Miller.
Mr. Dave Yorgason did submit written testimony in agreement with the conditions in the
staff report. Key items of discussion at the Commission hearing were restricting certain
lots to single story homes on the west boundary. The extension of Dover Street into the
proposed development. Construction traffic to the Castlebrook Subdivision.
Transitional lots along the west boundary and, then, some of the neighbors had concern
with how the street lighting along Pine Avenue and how dark that corridor is at this time.
So, the recommendation from the Commission. They did not change any conditions in
the staff report based on the public testimony or staff's recommendation. Staff is asking
that the Council one condition of approval and that references, basically, the five foot
walkway along the Ten Mile Creek or Ten Mile Drain. Basically, what we want
Commission to add -- or staff is recommending that the Council add a condition that
states that the applicant record a pedestrian easement over that pathway system, that
way in the future if the city has a desire to incorporate that as part of our pathway
network, we will have that easement in place to go in there and widen that to ten feet.
At this point in time the city's master pathway plan envisions the pathway on the
opposite side of the creek. So, this walkway will be a private amenity at this point, but
the city envisions something -- maybe something in the future, just don't know at this
time, we will have to -- time will tell how the other property to the east develops, but at
this point we want to make sure and get that easement in place. So, that's the only
outstanding issue before you this evening and I would stand for any questions you
have.
De Weerd: Thanks, Bill. Any questions from Council?
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: Two things. One of them is the last one, the pathway. There was some new
construction out in that area and along the major portion of the creek that runs along the
park and it looks to me like it's going to make sense for the city's pathway to be on -- I
guess we are calling that the east side. I would have called it the south side, but the
water feature. So, I do support the -- very much support this requirement for the
easement. I'm very much in favor of that. One other thought comes to mind. When the
subdivision to the south of this was being discussed, my recollection is that they were
required to make some contribution -- that the eastern boundary of the property that we
are talking about, as well as the one south of it, is a water feature that at some point will
Meridian City Council
December 3, 2013
Page 43 of 85
have to be bridged when Pine Avenue is put across and my recollection is that the
subdivision to the south had to make some contribution, whether it was a bond or a --
something that ACHD hold to pay for a portion of -- a relational proportion of that bridge
and I'm just wondering if that was considered on this property as well.
Parsons: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilman Zaremba, I did the
Chesterfield Subdivision, so I'm very familiar with that one. When the project was
annexed in 2003 ACHD I believe had that requirement. When it came back through in
2011 they did not require half the cost of the bridge across the Ten Mile Creek. I know
early discussions with ACHD, the applicant -- ACHD was contemplating requesting a
portion of this property put up a share towards that bridge. They have since backed off
on that recommendation, so their staff report does not require any contribution across
that waterway with its application either. So, to answer your question simply, no, there
aren't any funds out there for a bridge across that waterway.
Zaremba: Thank you for your answer, but that's disturbing
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Bill, thank you for the answer about the pathways, because I was thinking that
was on that side, but it is on the opposite side and our pathways are ten foot if it's a city
path; is that correct? So, this one is going to be five foot, but it is a private amenity, so
-- okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: So, Bill, I know you're not ACHD and maybe I should be asking Ryan this,
but on the Chesterfield and this, Pine needs to connect and so has ACHD indicated
what plan there is to get a bridge built? I was always under the assumption that ACHD
doesn't like to fund bridges, so they ask development to, but it looks like they are
missing the boat on this. Yes, Ryan. Either that or I will have Bill stipulate and ask him
to be honest.
Head: Well, there would be a small amount of speculation in my response, but I will do
my best.
De Weerd: Okay. If you will first state your name for the record.
Head: Ryan Head. 3775 Adams Street, Garden City.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Head: Ada County Highway District. The -- there is a few unique things going on with
this particular crossing. The -- the canal, as it states -- or as it sits now directly to the
west of this parcel, is owned by a separate company, not by the canal company. It's
held in -- as a separate parcel and because of that typically our -- our response is the
Meridian City Council
December 3, 2013
Page 44 of 85
parcel is to the center line -- or the center of the canal we will require that they provide
for half of the -- the bridge crossing, but because of this particular circumstance and
with the Chesterfield to the south -- I'm pointing at the screen, which does not help you
in any way. The parcel to the east of Chesterfield contains the entire right of way for the
--the easement for the canal, so at the time that those two parcels do develop we would
expect from them half of the bond or the surety for the crossing and ACHD commission
did accept as part of that the approval here that we would be responsible in the future to
pay for half of that bridge and that crossing at that time. So, I guess this is just a little bit
different than -- than our standard practice in that we did -- it was acknowledged by the
commission that that would be part of our responsibility and that we were taking that on.
De Weerd: Okay. Ryan, so let me understand this.
Head: Okay.
De Weerd: That little -- little piece of property has to pay for half the bridge?
Head: The two parcels together. So, I'd imagine it would come in probably at a --
De Weerd: Those two little pieces of property have to pay for half the bridge.
Head: That's how it was presented to our commission.
De Weerd: So, basically, they will never develop. I can't even see how those two little
pieces of property could even fund -- it would kill any development to put that kind of
stipulation on it. And I know, don't kill the messenger. But I'm baffled. I will just leave it
at that. Okay. Thank you. Hi, Justin.
Lucas: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, there might be another option here,
too, and this is something we can look at in the future for Pine Avenue. Pine Avenue is
actually listed as a minor arterial from Ten Mile Road heading in towards downtown and
if it was connected it might make sense to have Pine Avenue listed as a minor arterial
all the way out to Black Cat Road. Now, if it's listed as a minor arterial ACHD is, then,
responsible for the construction of -- and improvements associated with arterial streets.
So, after looking at a chart as to function classification within the City of Meridian, that's
one we might look at, because we could, then, put it on our -- our request list and say,
you know, we want ACHD to connect Pine. We would prefer development even come
through out there. Maybe it's such an important connection that they would, then, make
it a priority and one way to do that would be to upgrade it, potentially, to a high level of
street, which it already is all the way, you know, from downtown Boise all the way down
into Meridian, it's listed as an arterial. And so getting that all the way out to Black Cat
might make some sense. So, there are other options when it comes to funding. I'm
glad that Ryan stated -- I think the commission recognizes the issue and is willing to at
least pay for half. But per the discussions we can make a case that Pine is so important
they should --they should do more than that.
Meridian City Council
December 3, 2013
Page 45 of 85
De Weerd: Thank you. And I know this is unrelated, apparently, to this development,
but it truly is baffling, so -- would the applicant like to make comment? Good evening.
Yorgason: Good evening. For the record, my name is Dave Yorgason with Tall Timber
Consulting. I'm here representing the applicant -- or representing the owner of the
property, which is the Boslau Family Trust. Rod and Nancy Boslau live on this property
in this location at 3800 Pine. They have lived there for approximately 20 years or so. I
will address the ACHD comment later if you'd like. I will just highlight a few points real
quickly. I appreciate staff's thorough analysis of this property. The area is surrounded
by a few subdivisions. They are zoned R-8 and we are requesting the same zone of
R-8. The Comprehensive Plan map for this area is medium density residential, which is
between three and eight units per acre and our request for annexation zoned to R-8 are
consistent with those, as well as we are requesting preliminary plat with no -- no
variances or no -- no unique requests there. So, we are requesting just a standard
subdivision in the R-8 zone. Bill, if you could change to our color plan -- or that would
be fine, too. Do you have the color plan, possibly? If not we could go with that. That's
okay. As staff has identified, there are a few points I would like to address. There is a
couple connecting streets. One is Dover on our western boundary and, then, Pine
Street along our southern boundary. We are connecting to the pathway in Castlebrook.
We believe that is a nice continuation. The pathway which we will be building along the
entire creek border of the Ten Mile Drain will continue all the way down to Pine Street
along our south boundary there, as well as adding a micropath along the internal
network of the neighborhood, which we think will be a nice little loop system for our
small -- you know, our small little community of neighbors. It will also be used by the
surrounding neighbors, which we anticipate. We are not putting fences to signs to say
don't come here. We know naturally pathways are used by surrounding neighbors and
we accept that and welcome that. We also know this is a short connection to the Fuller
Park on the other side of the creek. If you go further to the west there is a bridge there
across the Ten Mile Drain, which this will continue and add to the access of that.
Regardless of the timing of when that pathway for the city pathway, which was on the
east or the west side is regardless, I think this will be used. The common areas will be
maintained by the Creekstone homeowners association. A small portion of the site
along the eastern boundary is -- was identified on a map to potentially be in a flood
plain. Since, then, we have done a flood plain study, a flood plain development
application was submitted and approved by Dave Miles here at the City of Meridian and
all of the flood plain and flood way is contained within the channel. The ACHD --
excuse me. I will come back to that later. Fourteen percent of the site is open space,
which is significantly more than the minimum ten percent required for the site. The staff
has identified -- we have four lots that were slightly under the frontage requirements and
we do apologize for that. I think it's a rounding error. We had them at 30 feet of
frontage and, then, we made a slight alteration. We can make that change back, so we
are not concerned about meeting the minimum frontage requirements for lots in the cul-
de-sac. That will be met as the condition states. Pine Avenue. We have a couple of
unique things with Pine Avenue. First of all, along our southern boundary where we will
be extending right of way, not only will we be required to put in curb, gutter, and
sidewalk and asphalt to the center of the road, but, actually, the way the property
Meridian City Council
December 3, 2013
Page 46 of 85
boundaries line up with Pine Avenue, this application will be required to put in pretty
much all the asphalt, because the way that the road aligns we won't be putting in just
improvements to the center of the road, but, actually, all the improvements, except curb,
gutter and sidewalk on the other side of the road. So, this site already has some heavy
burdens with regard to the Pine Street improvements. Secondly, this site does not have
any ownership of property along the Ten Mile Drain, which is unique. Usually when
properties border against a drain they do go to the center of the ditch, but there is a
separate parcel here. There is a significant analysis done not only at staff for ACHD,
ACHD's attorney, but, then, also at the commission level and they did make the
determination -- and just for the record I would like to read into the record -- in the staff
report it says the following -- ACHD's staff report it says the following: On page three,
Section C, number one at the end of the paragraph -- third paragraph. Extend Pine
Avenue east over the Ten Mile Drain. In the future ACHD will need to acquire right of
way from Prudential Insurance Company and pay for half of the bridge crossing and
through the action of the ACHD commission in approving this, they acknowledged they
will be paying for at least half of the bridge crossing at that time. The last point I'd like to
raise and that's regarding the pathway easement. We have had some discussion with
Nampa Irrigation District -- I will leave it at that. With several plats in -- in the area,
including here in the City of Meridian and we have run into several challenges and we
feel like including -- and we offered to and we appreciate staff and talking to the parks
department, we offered to have apathway -- over this pathway, which we would be
including, which provides for the flexibility that we believe we will need to get a license
agreement approved by Nampa Irrigation District, so we can have a pathway through
here in their easement area. The games we get to play sometimes are quite frustrating.
Nonetheless, we agree with the addition of the staff recommended condition to the staff
report. We agree with the staff report as approved by Planning and Zoning Commission
and by the staff and stand for any questions you may have at this time.
De Weerd: Thank you, Dave. Any question from Council?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Dave, what's going on in the northwest corner? I see some -- a couple really
long skinny lots. I assume they are common lots for a driveway, but there is one really
skinny one in there. What's -- is it a buffer or --
Yorgason: Madam Mayor and Councilman Rountree, thank you for bringing that up. I
should have brought that up to you previously. We actually provided one and, then, we
changed and now provided this, which this layout to you is what we are requesting
tonight. There is a -- if you count lots from the west, one, two -- there is a really skinny
three and, then, number four, is a common lot, which will serve as a common driveway
to two lots in the back. Thank you, Bill, for pointing to the two lots. The city is going
through the process now of changing your code. We are flexible going either direction,
but we believe the better alternative is to have common driveways in common lots and
Meridian City Council
December 3, 2013
Page 47 of 85
so our proposal tonight is to have a common driveway in a common lot for those two
lots that are back in the back northwest corner of the plat. The two other lots -- there is
one real skinny -- I think it's five foot wide. That's a landscape strip as would be
required for a buffer between the resident to the left, as well as to the right would be the
micropath. So, we would have landscaping on both sides of the common driveway.
Rountree: And that's held by the homeowners association?
Yorgason: Madam Mayor and Councilman Rountree. Yes. And that we believe is
better for maintenance and overall burden and protection.
De Weerd: Anything further from Council?
Rountree: Madam Mayor, just one point.
De Weerd: Okay.
Rountree: Dave's comment about that piece of property that's owned by the Prudential
Insurance Company, that is an impossible task to get them to respond, having dealt with
that piece of property in the past. They have no contact.
Bird: No.
Rountree: They return no letters, phone calls, from anybody, including lawyers, so I'm
not sure they even exist or know they own the property. And it is difficult and it's going
to be a challenge for you. And ACHD at some point in time. Just a point of interest.
De Weerd: Okay. You could always do something real crazy and get their attention.
Rountree: No.
De Weerd: No?
Rountree: No.
Yorgason: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I don't have any experience with
that insurance company, I just imagine they will be going through the eminent domain
process and they would not burden the insurance company, but, rather, ACHD will take
on that share for that portion.
De Weerd: Any further questions for Dave?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Meridian City Council
December 3, 2013
Page 48 of 85
Yorgason: Thank you.
De Weerd: This is a public hearing. Is there anyone who would like to provide
testimony on this item? Okay. Council?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we close the public hearings on Item 7-D and E.
Hoaglun: Second.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and, a second to close the public hearings on Item 7-D and
E. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Move we approve Item 7-D, AZ 13-013, subject to staff and applicant
comments.
Hoaglun: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 7-D. Madam Clerk, will you
call roll.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we approve Item 7-E, PP 13-029, subject to staff's comments
and the commitment to resolve issues with lot frontages with staff.
Hoaglun: Second.
Meridian City Council
December 3, 2013
Page 49 of 85
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 7-E. Any discussion from
Council? Madam Clerk.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: It wasn't part of that issue, but I would like to appreciate Justin's suggestion
that we look into designating Pine as a minor arterial, as opposed to just a collector
street. I think that's an excellent suggestion. Whether or not it results in a bridge, it's a
good idea anyhow. So, hopefully, that would help the bridge happen as well. So, thank
you for the suggestion. Let's pursue it.
De Weerd: I certainly think that Pine will be an important facility to connect our
community. So -- okay. Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you.
F. Public Hearing: ZOA 13-003 UDC Text Amendment by City of
Meridian Planning Division Request: Text Amendment to the
Unified Development Code (UDC) in Regard to Fencing
Adjacent to Pathways and Open Space; Common Driveways;
Irrigation Easements; Off-Street Parking; Home Occupations;
Definitions for Vehicles; Vehicle Sales or Rental Landscaping;
Public Hearing Notice Signs; and Allowed Uses in the
Industrial Districts
De Weerd: Item 8-F is a public hearing on ZOA 13-003. I will open this public hearing
with staff comments.
Lucas: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Tonight before you is the
-- a group of UDC text amendments. Occasionally staff will bring these forward for
Planning and Zoning Commission review and recommendation and onto the City
Council for final approval. I did have achange -- I don't know if you recall -- I gave a
quite long presentation about two months ago related to these same -- most of these
same changes. I will try to keep it much briefer tonight, since you already have a
knowledge, I think, on most of the -- of the proposals. What I'd like to do is just do a
brief summary of what happened at the Planning and Zoning Commission and, then,
move through each of the proposed changes and I will be pausing quite often just
Meridian City Council
December 3, 2013
Page 50 of 85
waiting for you to jump in and provide comment or questions as you have them, rather
than give the entire presentation and wait for questions at the end. I think it's a little bit
easier at least for me to take notes if we talk about them section by section. After the --
following the Commission public hearing we did have -- commenting was Dave
Yorgason. We did receive some written testimony from Brad Miller representing Van
Auker Companies. And also Michael Wardle represented the application and, then,
Caleb did make some comments on the application. Key issues of discussion by the
Commission included -- they were -- they discussed at length changes to the common
driveway standards and the effects on site design and density. They discussed removal
of the changes to irrigation easements to give staff more time to work with the
development community and there was some significant discussion regarding the
proposed changes to -- this is allowed within the industrial areas and preservation of our
industrial areas, as was a topic of one of our discussions tonight also. The primary and
key change that was made to staff's recommendation was removal of the changes to
UDC 11-3A-6 related to irrigation easements, which -- to give staff more time to work
with the development community on -- on implications of that change and work with
them on finding some common ground there. Staff reached out to the development
community prior to the application and did our best to work with them, but as is often the
case sometimes when the rubber hits the road is when it got -- they wanted to wait and
we were -- and we think it's appropriate to be accommodating and work with them as
much as possible, so that all of the implications of changes like that are understood.
With that said, I can go ahead and move into the -- the sections of the code -- you have
a table in your -- in your packet and I will just move through these as quickly as
possible. The first one related to fencing. I don't know if you remember this. The city
has been challenged with double fencing issues. I showed pictures and graphics and
things like that at our workshop and I have not made any changes from the original
proposal at the workshop and if I could just pause. If you have further questions about
this I'd certainly like to take them now or any discussion you might have.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any comments at this point?
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor, just to refresh my memory. That -- that would do away with
the double fencing and it would go to the four foot height.
Lucas: Madam Mayor, Members of Council, yes, the primary -- the primary change
here is that -- that four foot, which is required -- which is required next to interior open
spaces and micropaths, as you can see here, was a requirement. If you want another
fence in your backyard and you want to put it kind of parallel to that four foot fence, it
has to be setback a minimum of eight feet. You can't put afence -- a four foot fence
and a six foot fence right behind it. So, if you want to build a dog run and you want it --
let's say in your backyard, you would be able to do that, you just couldn't build that dog
run directly adjacent to the required four foot fence. This change is only for fences
adjacent to common lots and micropaths. Other fences they can be six feet and there is
no -- there is no issue with that. So, that's aprimary -- the primary change there.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
December 3, 2013
Page 51 of 85
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Add to that. You say a dog run, but most dog runs are chain link. Is that going to
-- which is very visible. Does that change? I mean would that change it or --
Lucas: Madam Mayor, Councilman Bird, no, this -- this specific section of code does
not state the type of fencing for dog runs and the city does not regulate type of fencing
for dog runs. If it's a fence within the rear yard we don't have a standard for --
Bird: But you're -- excuse me. Madam Mayor.
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Bird: Justin -- but what you said that if -- if -- you couldn't put this unless it was eight
foot in the backyard, but I know we can't say what it is, but it -- chain link is very visible.
Is it allowed?
Lucas: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Yes.
Bird: Okay.
Lucas: It's allowed now, yes. Yes, it is.
Bird: I misunderstood you. I'm sorry.
Lucas: Yes, it is.
Hoaglun: So, Madam Mayor, Justin, have you had any comments from developers on
this? I mean Mr. Yorgason's development that was just up here has a micropath going
to the greenbelt and that lot to the east would definitely -- instead of a six foot fence it
will only be a four foot fence and I know there is some people that -- I would not buy a
house on a micropath with a four foot fence. Just want -- I want the privacy. That's --
it's my backyard, so -- maybe it's just me, but did developers weigh in at all on this
issue?
Lucas: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, on this specific issue I didn't receive a
lot of development feedback. The four foot closed vision, which is like a -- like a vinyl
fence requirement or a six foot solid -- six foot open vision, like wrought iron, has been
in place for a long time adjacent to micropaths and common interior open spaces. This
doesn't change that. And so the development community to my knowledge has become
pretty familiar with that standards and most -- and the plats we see come in do follow
that standard and so we haven't had a lot of negative feedback from the development
community. I think there are certain homeowners that when they buy the house
probably take that into account, but those fences that are placed adjacent to common --
common areas and micropaths, almost all the time are placed prior to the house being
Meridian City Council
December 3, 2013
Page 52 of 85
built, so the homeowners know what they are getting into in the situation. The history
behind that -- and I could go into all kinds of detail on why it's important to have open
vision adjacent to these areas, but the primary reason is to get eyes on these areas
where you could have negative activities happen and having the lower fence, based on
a lot of research, helps to prevent those types of activities.
Hoaglun: Thank you, Jason -- or Justin. I appreciate that. Yeah. That eyes on, that's
-- that's where my paranoia comes in. It's eyes on me, not the other way around. But
anyway.
Rountree: Quit doing that stuff
Bird: Yeah.
Lucas: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the next section is related to common
driveways. Also a topic of discussion tonight. Primary changes here is basically when
moving the street frontage requirement to access off of a common driveway, the current
-- the current standard requires, basically, flags to come out from each property and
connect to the street and, then, there is an easement that's placed across those flags
allowing the homeowners to access their property, which is a flag lot. What this does is
it requires -- instead of having a flag lot it requires a common lot that meets our common
driveway standards and the residential lots have been -- they can abut that common lot
and take access directly from the common lot. We also allowed for more than -- from
four to six dwelling units to be allowed to take access from a common lot. I think I had a
graphic. This graphic kind of represents how that -- how that would work. Once again,
the common lot still has to meet the fire department's standards. It cannot be longer
than 150 feet. We are not changing any of the -- the technical standards related to the
common lot, we are just changing the ability of the developer to use a common
driveway. We are changing the ability of a developer to use a common lot as a
common driveway, rather than the actual flag, which is currently in the code, but we are
proposing to change. So, I will certainly pause for any questions on these standards
that we are proposing.
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Zaremba: Madam Mayor, just a comment. I just -- from way back there was a time
when we tried to solve the issue of, essentially, landlocked properties by having
easements and, then, what evolved after that was the flag lots. The purpose is to find
some mechanism -- and I think maybe we have -- you have finally found it -- where a
nonlandlocked property owner can't -- if they get mad at the property owner behind
them can't close off their access and I -- I think like this solution making it a common lot.
Everybody has to care for it, but nobody has the right to close it. So, that works for me.
Lucas: Yeah. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, one of the nice things about
common lots is you can specifically describe what they are for on the face of the plat.
So, you can call out Lot 1, Block 2, is a common lot and it's meant to be a common
Meridian City Council
December 3, 2013
Page 53 of 85
driveway, so access by these properties it's very clear on the plat what the purpose of
that lot is. If it's recorded by separate easement that's when there can be maybe a little
bit of confusion and the development community has -- as here tonight, really likes this
solution, because it's a little simpler for everyone to understand, especially the property
owners that live around those common driveways.
De Weerd: Anything further? Okay. Thank you.
Lucas: Moving on. The next -- the section, which relates to ditches, laterals, and
canals and easements, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended to the
Council at this point strike any changes to that section and move on and give staff some
time to work with the development community. I have tentatively set up some time after
the new year to sit down with the BCA and discuss this and get -- better understand
their concerns and, hopefully, describe staff's position on why we are proposing this --
this change to irrigation easements and why we feel it's important that they be located
within common lots. That's the direction I'm headed. I certainly can pause now and if
you have anything to add to that I would be glad to hear it. If not, we can -- we can
move to the next -- next section.
De Weerd: Council, any comments?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay.
Rountree: None.
Lucas: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the next several sections relate to
parking requirements within the Unified Development Code. I should point out just to
start, you have not seen these before and they were not a topic of -- at least -- well,
maybe you have seen them before, but they weren't a topic of my workshop that I had
with you on the original Unified Development Code. I believe Caleb brought these to
you in a separate -- separate occasion and discussed these changes. I will try to hit the
highlights and certainly if you have any comments just let me know. 11-3-C-6B, which
talks about vehicle parking for nonresidential uses, the key change here is that in
traditional neighborhood districts, which includes the Old Town District and some other
districts, it will have parking less restrictive. It's going to move from one parking stall for
every 500 square feet to one parking stall for every thousand square feet. So,
essentially, reducing it by half the number of parking stalls required in traditional
neighborhood districts. This isn't in our standard commercial districts or office districts
or in our traditional neighborhood. It's basically to have design elements to support less
parking. So, that's one of the key changes in that section and I can certainly pause if
you have questions there.
De Weerd: No.
Meridian City Council
December 3, 2013
Page 54 of 85
Lucas: The next -- the next key change is in 11-3-C7, which talks about alternatives --
alternatives to kind of our standard parking requirements and this is a key change
primarily relating to alternatives within the Old Town District and this is a section that
Caleb put together describing several different things within Old Town only that will give
a developer flexibility and give staff the option to look at a project and try to find more
creative ways to make parking work, not only for the developer who might be on the
constrained site in the downtown, but for the city also. As you're -- as you're aware, the
in lieu of parking fee, which used to be kind of covered by the Meridian Development
Corporation and was referenced in our -- not officially referenced, but it was something
we had in place. It was recently removed and our thought is to, basically, replace that
with some of these alternatives that would be available to developers to make parking
more -- I would say easier to deal with in the downtown area. I could pause on that.
We have Caleb here, obviously, if there is specific questions on that one.
De Weerd: Okay. I don't see any questions, Justin.
Lucas: The next section, moving on, is changes to home occupation standards. The
only change here was, basically, recognizing that online sales and people do it in a
home-based business and recognizing that in our code and allowing that to happen.
We didn't change any of the other home occupation standards, there are still restrictions
on the number of outgoing pickups and things like that. It's just a matter of allowing
products to be sold online that are delivered to customers by mail. So, we can't have
sell it online and, then, have people come and pick it up as a major business, but you
can certainly produce it at our house, sell it for sale online, and, then, deliver it to them
by mail. It's a relatively straight forward change. It seems to be appropriate just in the
times that we live now.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Does that allow employees to come and go?
Lucas: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the -- the home occupation standards
do speak to employees and we are going to change that section. It says -- I'm looking
here. I think it's just one -- two outgoing pick ups. Somewhere. Oh, here we go. A
home occupation shall not serve as a headquarters or main office where employees
come to the site and are dispatched to other locations. The one where it's discussed. A
home occupation shall be conducted by the inhabitants of the dwelling and no more
than one nonresident employee shall be permitted. And that's not a proposed change
to it, that's what the code currently says and we not proposing a change to that. The
next section, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, relates to the definition of
vehicles. This is 11-1A-1. This is something that has been brought to us by legal and
code enforcement in an effort to more clearly define how vehicles are described within
our code and gives our code enforcement officers a little bit of a -- give them help as
they are out enforcing the code, determining where vehicles have been parked, if they
Meridian City Council
December 3, 2013
Page 55 of 85
can be parked in front of the house, what type of vehicle, if it's a trailer or is it -- is it a
recreational vehicle. All these nuances. I know that legal has worked very closely with
Idaho Code and looked at their definitions of a vehicle in state code and tried to align
our definitions more closely as possible with state code just to make it clear that what is
a vehicle and how they are described. Moving on. 11-4-3-38 is -- talks about vehicle
sales or rental. I did have a little bit of discussion about this at our -- at our -- at our
workshop and we -- staff went away and we proved this and brought something back
which we think is, hopefully, a compromise and something that makes sense to -- to
developers of vehicle sales areas or -- and car dealerships and also to the city. One
specific thing we did do was remove a section which required one tree for every 200
square feet of parking area. Staff, as we have tried to apply that section of code over
the years has never really understood how to do that and it sure seemed like a lot of
trees. If it's a vehicle display area and you require one tree for every 200 square feet,
that, basically, almost one tree for every couple parking stalls. You would have a forest
and not a car dealership. And so we struck that section, but we did leave in the extra
landscaping that is required and has been required for many years and I added one
section that, basically, states that vehicle display areas shall incorporate design
features, including, but not limited to landscape islands, curbing, and walkways that
define the main driver aisle and internal circulation patterns. That's been staff's biggest
struggle as we have dealt with vehicle display areas, is trying to understand the
circulation patterns and making it safe for people to drive through, because if we just get
a giant expanse of asphalt it's hard to see exactly how that's going to operate. What
this section of code would allow us to do is work with the applicant to say how is this
going to work and maybe require things like curbing, sidewalks, and other things that we
feel are appropriate to make the vehicle display area safe. So, that's this section. This
is your first time tonight seeing that and I would certainly taken any feedback or
questions you might have.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I know we have had in the discussion about allowing display of for sale
vehicles on a required landscape buffer and I don't remember how we resolved all that.
Are we prohibiting that somehow?
Lucas: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilman Zaremba, yeah, item --
Section E in this very section of code clearly states vehicle display pads are prohibited
in required landscape buffers. So, we do not allow them to drive up the big truck along
the landscaping and park it there for display.
De Weerd: Anything further on that item? Okay.
Bird: I have none.
Meridian City Council
December 3, 2013
Page 56 of 85
Lucas: The next item -- this one actually has come out of some of the meetings we
have had with the public. What we have heard is we don't understand your public
hearing signs, we can't read them and we don't -- the important information is not
legible. So, what we have done here is try to change the graphic within our code that
gives the sign company standards for how to put those signs together. What we have
heard is people most want to know is what date the hearing is, because oftentimes they
will drive by and it was two weeks ago, but they don't know that, because the sign is still
up. This makes the date as prominent as any other section of the title, six inches, which
when you're driving by is probably one of the only things you probably would be able to
read would be the date. And that's another thing we did. And tried a few other things
and added the phone number and some other things about how to contact staff a little
bit more clearly. So, this was -- you could see that graphic in our packet. That's our
proposed change to the public hearing signs. Still we follow state code, it's still the
same big sign, just made -- basically makes the date required a lot bigger.
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor, Justin. But we didn't make any changes to when those signs
are supposed to come down?
Lucas: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, no, they are still supposed to come
down -- I believe it's a couple days after the public hearing. Our track record on that is
probably -- one, it never happens. I know actually we did it with our public hearing and
that came up in our meeting today for Victory South and we actually removed it within
three days, but it's -- it's difficult. We'd have code enforcement out there full time
bringing those signs down. If you see one and you don't like it up, call code
enforcement, they will go get it down. But it's a tough thing to enforce. But it is in the
code.
Hoaglun: Okay.
De Weerd: But -- so, Justin, who is responsible for taking it down?
Lucas: Madam Mayor, the applicant.
De Weerd: Okay. So, why would we send code enforcement out there?
Lucas: Well, code enforcement could contact the applicant and require them to take it
down. Yeah, they wouldn't chain saw it down necessarily, but they could contact the
applicant and require them to take it down.
De Weerd: Can there be some penalty if they don't? I mean it's really not our job to
babysit and make sure these signs come down, but if there is a little bit of pain if they
don't, because they do know they are supposed to, wouldn't that be an incentive to
actually do what you're supposed to do?
Lucas: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, certainly something to consider. I don't
know if it would be appropriate for UDC, but it might be something appropriate within
Meridian City Council
December 3, 2013
Page 57 of 85
another section of city code relating to fines, something identified as a ticketable offense
something like that. I don't know if I can speak to that more tonight.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I would certainly support exploring something along those lines. I -- to me it
diminishes the value of the signs if there are dozens of them up for an extra year or so.
I mean if we start having them all over the place, then, people aren't going to notice the
new ones or the ones that we want them to see. So, I know there are a few that have
been up for a long time and can't even read them anymore, they have deteriorated to
that point and it's just -- to me it diminishes the value of putting a sign up where you
need people to see, that, hey, this is something I need to notice, so -- just a thought.
Hood: Madam Mayor? I told Justin I was going to sit on my hands, because he's fully
capable of tackling this, but this isn't something that we contemplated coming up
tonight, so I wasn't going to --
De Weerd: See, we really try and throw you a curve ball every once in awhile.
Hood: No. It's a good thought and I'm going to ask Ted, maybe, to listen here -- this is
brainstorming, we can bring it back at a future workshop, whatever. But all of these --
we are talking about public hearing notice signs. All of them are going to have some
document, a findings document, an ordinance, something that comes back before you
on the Consent Agenda usually, we could as just part of our process that the applicant
sign a letter similar to the one they sign now saying I posted the property, saying I took
the sign down on the party and if we don't have that in our possession before the
findings document or the ordinance is up, it doesn't get approved. I'm not -- we could
do that, we could certainly make it part of our process and just say -- because usually
there is at least a two week window in there, if not more, which is plenty -- that's
certainly longer than the three days that are ordinance says you need to take it down,
there is our stick, you don't get your -- there is probably something in state code that
would prohibit us from conditioning it as such, but if we made that part of the UDC,
unlike what Justin was just saying, maybe, but -- because just brainstorming to me that
would -- that would bring that to closure and there still is some incentive, because
usually a developer leaves it up because they are done and they don't care if the sign
stays up. So, anyway, just -- I wasn't meaning to point to Dave necessarily, but he is
the developer in our audience, so -- it's just a thought that that may be something that
we -- you know, there may be a way that we can get better --abetter track record of
enforcement of taking those signs down.
De Weerd: I think that's an excellent idea, Caleb. I -- it does diminish the effectiveness
or -- or the reason we put them up to begin with. People stop noticing them, because
they see it in the same place all the time and so it's kind of like any sign, once it's there
for any length of time we just -- it's invisible. Is Caleb's -- Ted, does that work?
Meridian City Council
December 3, 2013
Page 58 of 85
Baird: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, that is certainly a possibility. I would
like to take this back to our legal team, look at the alternatives, and bring back -- bring
back a specific proposal to you, but I think we can certainly do something. So, we will
put that for future follow up.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Lucas: The next discussion is one that -- you know, we touched on a little bit of it
tonight. There was some discussion about industrial areas, erosion of the city's
industrial areas. One thing that staff, through this specific text amendment, has
proposed is removing several uses from the allowed uses within the industrial district's
table, which is located in 11-2C-2. Currently there is several principal permitted uses
within the I-L and I-H zones and there is also many conditionally permitted uses within
the I-L and I-H zones and those are the ones that staff focused on as we have made our
recommendation to you tonight of -- this is the -- historically it's been allowed within the
City of Meridian within industrial zones, but as we have -- as we have looked at these
and as there has been quite a bit of -- you know, mostly -- I would say mostly anecdotal
evidence about the erosion of our -- of our industrial areas, I don't know if we have done
a city wide analysis kind of from an economic development perspective related to
industrial uses at least within the last many years. That is something we have on our
plate and are interested in doing probably within the next fiscal year, but we haven't
done it. So, this is kind of staff's preemptive measure to -- potentially to move some --
some uses from the table that wouldn't be allowed as conditional uses. Those include --
and Iwill just kind of go through them real quickly. Entertainment recreation facilities
indoors. So, that's your gymnastics facilities, karate, some of those types of facilities
that we see in industrial -- going to industrial buildings. Arts, entertainment, and
recreation facility, outdoor stage or music venue. I don't know if I can think of one like
that within an industrial area within the City of Meridian and, then, arts or entertainment
and recreation facility outdoors. Also on that list that we have -- we are looking to
remove would be a creational vehicle park, an RV park and I think that's the -- the
majority of them. No. And there is one I'm missing, which is church or place of religious
worship and we have seen that happen on occasion, a church going to an existing
industrial -- an existing industrial building. Several issues came up at the Planning and
Zoning Commission about this specific topic and we also received written testimony
from Brad Miller representing Van Auker Companies related to this -- related to this
issue. I want to stop specifically to Brad. They hold a lot of industrial ground, the Van
Auker Companies, in the City of Meridian and I thought they would be a good kind of
litmus test for the developer on a perspective to see what -- what they thought. His
response -- I don't know if you had a chance to read it, I can certainly summarize --
summarize it as I remember it. But his response is, basically, he kind of sees the point,
but didn't see any good reason to do it. I means that's kind of the gist of what he said.
You can take that for what -- how you would like to take it. He's not here tonight. I did
invite him. He got a specific invitation. He chose not to come and he didn't provide any
further testimony than that original letter that was submitted by e-mail to me probably
about a month ago. So, the issues that were brought up by the Planning and Zoning
Meridian City Council
December 3, 2013
Page 59 of 85
Commission were -- number one was parking for city type of uses and how -- when you
get -- our industrial parking standards are relatively light. It's about one per 1,000
square feet, and some of the uses that go into these buildings, the parking lots are not
designed to accommodate the park demand, so let's say a large gymnastics studio
where you have lots of parents coming and going all day long, lots of turnover, and the
parking lot wasn't necessarily designed for that use. So, that was one thing that came
up at the Planning and Zoning Commission. Another thing, too, that came up
nonconforming uses and how by changing our code we will have a lot of conditional
uses out there that will become nonconforming, which we would have to deal with. I
mean if there is a church in an industrial property now and it's a conditional permitted
and we make it not permitted at all, if that church were to burn to the ground they would
have to get another conditional use permit to build it. So, they would be allowed to
rebuild, but they would have to go through the conditional use permit process again,
because it would be a nonconforming structure. There is some other issues related to
nonconforming structures and uses. We did get some feedback at our workshop.
Oftentimes we get requests from banks to write what they call a burn down letter and it's
basically a zoning verification letter that says this is allowed and if it would have burned
down what would happen and we do this all the time for nonconforming structures and
we basically apply those same standards to any of these uses that are out there within
the industrial districts. Usually that suffices to help the business gain financing, but
there may be issues related to that that could come up when it comes to the
nonconforming. So, that is one thing that the Commission had some discussion about
and I can certainly answer more questions about that. Compatibility was a big
discussion. Compatibility between the industrial use and let's say a gymnastics studio
or something like that and how those uses work together. And, then, there was just a
general discussion about loss of industrial parks and erosion of industrial areas and how
that -- how the city can monitor that and track that and how we deal with that. So, that
being said, staff has some recommendations for -- for things to remove from the table.
You have some testimony from -- some written testimony and staff can certainly pause
here and answer questions or help add to any discussion you might want to have.
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Yeah. I have seen Brad Miller's comments and I got thinking about that,
some of these recreational facilities and he mentioned the go cart, which is in Boise, but
also an indoor soccer center, the gymnastics, these are uses that take very large
spaces and they have to be big and lots of room and I thought, you know, if we take
them out of industrial and put them in commercial, the standards change for how that
building looks and it becomes much more expensive -- in fact, it doesn't work from a
cost basis I would think to have a large indoor structure for soccer that looks like a very
nice office building. It -- and it's one of those balancing acts that -- how do you allow
that activity, but make it so it's not cost prohibitive and I can see the light industrial
application working there, because they need a very large building. Same with
gymnastics centers and even the go cart type thing, very loud, very noisy, would you
Meridian City Council
December 3, 2013
Page 60 of 85
want them in a commercial location, as opposed to industrial and I didn't know if there
was a way to do that with -- with changes in parking requirements or some other things,
even though they are in the industrial zone. So, it's one of those that -- if we make
those changes we are basically saying you can't be here in the city, because what we
are saying you can be approved for is too cost prohibitive. That's just my thinking
about --
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: On that same subject, the first thing I thought is not only did they need big
spaces, but they need big spaces without pillars and that's typically an industrial-type
building where you can have a large unencumbered or unobstructed space. So, I do
think we kind of need to reconsider the recreational uses possibly, think about that. The
other thing that comes to mind is -- is the discussion about the churches and I may have
said this before, but on the committee when we were writing the UDC it was the
consensus of the group first that the proper zone for a church is L-O and the places
where an L-O can be and the uses of an L-O just -- that's church to most of us and,
then, somebody brought up the point, well, you really can't deny a church to go almost
anywhere they want and we ended up allowing them as uses in almost every zone,
except a few residential zones where we thought we could defend not having a church.
But we -- I don't know if you would call it caved or what, but the discussion turned to
how would you argue with a church if they said they wanted to be in this zone, are you
-- are you being unfair religiously if you tell them no? So, how do we resolve that?
Lucas: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I can certainly -- I did quite a bit of
research looking into RLUIPA -- I have the actual -- the Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act. It is federal law. As I did my research into that I looked at
how cities restricted churches in industrial areas and came across quite a bit of
information that said some cities have chosen to do that. Included in that law is that
churches have to be reasonably accommodated within the city and most -- most cities
have found that restricting them to one zoning designation -- they have been challenged
by that. In the City of Meridian they are basically allowed in all zoning designations,
even industrial, so they are allowed by condition within the residential districts, they are
allowed by condition within our commercial districts. And in L-O they are principally
permitted uses and so as I looked at this I felt pretty confident that restricting churches
within the I-L based on I-L ground we have in Meridian it wasn't an unreasonable thing
to do and that we could reasonably accommodate churches in all parts of the city, even
if we were to restrict them in I-L. It could be challenged at some point, but after looking
at it and looking at other -- other cities and what they have done and where they have
been challenged I felt like we would be able to do that if the Council decided to do that.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
December 3, 2013
Page 61 of 85
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Justin, a little follow up. I don't have any problem keeping these in conditional
CUPs, because at that point if we -- if we get a gymnasium or something -- or
something and we need more parking, we can put that in there. I think Councilman
Hoaglun hit right upon it. What we are going to do -- by the time you get design and
review and all this kind of stuff you're going to put so much cost on a property they are
going to go somewhere else and -- because agym -- I mean I invite you to go over to
the Home Court where four games are going every Saturday morning and stuff and on
that building there and it isn't -- I mean it's something you wouldn't want sticking out in a
nice commercial development, but, man, I will tell you what, it runs a lot a young kids
and people through there. It's a great entertainment place for them. I have no problem
with keeping it in a CUP, but I can't vote to take this stuff out and the church is the same
way.
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Justin, I was trying to think. We don't have that many churches moving into
the industrial areas. I mean there is some lease, you know, some space, but I -- there
is on Eagle Road. I think they purchased that building. That was industrial. That's my
only recollection, other than others leasing, until -- and some of those are just
temporary, but do we have any documentation what our trend is on that?
Lucas: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I don't know if we have a database of
where all the churches are located within the City of Meridian. I think the one you
mentioned on Eagle Road is probably one of the -- one of the significant kind of
industrial buildings that has a rail spur that went and turned into a church and, then, I
guess some thought at least among staff and maybe among others that, you know, was
that the best use for that property. Certainly it went through the process and was
approved and we are not questioning that, it's just that that was probably one of those
that we looked at and thought, you know, I wonder if that was the -- the -- when you look
at our industrial land and we hear about, you know, we are losing our industrial land, it
is that balance and certainly staff, through the conditional use permit process, can
provide more analysis related to this specific issue, if that's the Council direction.
Conditional use permits, as you know, go to the Planning and Zoning Commission and
are approved at that point and you don't -- you don't see them. But what staff can do,
based on your direction, is maybe take a closer look at those and maybe look at some
of these other issues related to industrial land, especially if we had a study completed
that talks about that, there might be some more things we could include in our analysis
that would help make maybe a different recommendation. Maybe it will be the same
recommendation. But discussion tonight is very helpful for us to kind of understand.
We hear a lot of we want to preserve industrial and, then, we go back and, well, how
can we do that, how do we actually preserve industrial and make it happen and this is
Meridian City Council
December 3, 2013
Page 62 of 85
one way, potentially, but not the only way. There is other ways to do it also, so that's
the purpose of this -- of this discussion tonight and we are certainly here to get your
direction.
Hoaglun: In some ways, Madam Mayor and Justin, it's an issue of is it a use that's
going to purchase and the changes -- the land use or is it a use that's going to lease
and it can revert back to that particular use. So, whether it's a church or indoor soccer
facility, if they lease that building and use it for that use of indoor soccer or for a church
for a period of time, it can revert to industrial, he will lease it to whomever wants to lease
it, but if they purchase it then it becomes the issue of, gee, you know, is that the best
use of that particular piece of property and that's what you folks are paid to think about
and I guess that's what we are elected to think about, but -- you know. So, those are
the things that we have to weigh and it's not an easy answer, because when they lease
we approve that use and that parking goes along with it and if that use changes, even
though it's in industrial, we don't -- I don't think we have the ability to go back in and --
unless it's a conditional use process that is required, so -- there is a lot of -- a lot of
moving parts on that to think about, so -- somehow I think it would be good if -- if staff
took a look at some of those things, like churches and recreational facilities. I don't
know if we can do an inventory, but at the same time you want to move this UDC text
amendment forward, you know, so how -- do you have any suggestions on how that
might work?
Lucas: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, on this specific discussion, you know, I
think staff had a lot of internal discussions about it also and I think it is -- it is a difficult --
it is a difficult question and I'm not really bringing a lot of data to you tonight and that's a
fair criticism of what we are doing is we are working on changes to our code, we are not
necessarily bringing a lot of data and we don't have the data to give you, we need to do
more analysis and research and potentially hire a consultant to really look at our
industrial land and provide us with an economic development perspective on what -- are
we okay, are we not okay, where do we need to go in the future, should we be looking
at these kind of changes. So, if Council's uncomfortable making changes based on
what staff is proposing tonight, that's certainly fine, we are not looking to push forward
any amendment that you're not comfortable with and I don't know if this is extremely
time sensitive either. I think that's probably a fair assessment. On the discussion
tonight we certainly can be careful in our analysis of conditional uses within the
industrial zone. We can certainly do that. And maybe take extra care in how we make
recommendations to our -- to the Planning and Zoning Commission. That's one thing
we can do without even changing the code. Another thing we can do moving forward is
make that industrial land use analysis a priority for the department. That's something
we can also do based on your direction as we look for -- as we look at projects within
our department I think that's something we can -- we can bring up and say this is
something we really should do. So, I don't know that this has to happen, because staff,
to be honest, we are proposing something, we have looked at it, we think there is some
justification for this, but if you're not comfortable with it, you know, that's certainly okay
and we can move forward. If that is the case staff had certain recommendations in
here. If you want to strike those changes, we would like you to do that specifically. The
Meridian City Council
December 3, 2013
Page 63 of 85
public hearing is still open, we do have opportunity for public comment. I could pause
now and we can discuss this issue more or I could just -- there is just one more item on
the table that I wanted to hit, it will be very brief and, then, obviously, time for public
testimony and any final discussion you might have.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I just have one comment on this as you look and analyze -- and I appreciate
your offer to get us some more information -- but I think you need to prioritize industrial
area. We only have one railroad. We only have three connections -- major connections
to the interstate. Those are prime areas for industrial complexes and I firmly believe we
ought to do everything we can to develop those to create jobs. I don't like the word
preserve for industry, we need the industry and we need them in those corridors and I
don't -- I'm not hesitant about trying to make everything possible to get those areas to
the point where people are encouraged to utilize them. I very much agree with what
Brad brought up about commercial uses in industrial areas. We have a lot of
commercial areas -- commercial uses, leased uses, or owned uses in industrial areas in
the city and I don't have problems with those, but I -- those are somewhat removed from
those corridors. So, I think there is a layer of how you -- how you can use industrialized
slash kind of interim commercial -- where you have got big open spaces that could be
utilized if there is an employer -- an industry that comes to town and says do you have a
50,000 square foot building that could accommodate so much of this kind of an industry
that's available at some point in time in the near future, as opposed to can you build me
one. Or do you have rail access where I can build a spur line and -- we need the space
and we need that property out there to accommodate those kinds of things. I don't think
Scentsy would be where they were if they didn't have rail access and I think that there is
other things like that that the community needs and we need space to provide for that.
So, I just say -- to me there is a layer of -- of how you administer that or encourage the
uses or discourage the uses for something other than industrial, as analyze, as you do
your study.
De Weerd: And I guess I thought we had some money for professional services in
industrial in -- in evaluating our industrial properties. No?
Rountree: Not this year. Maybe we should find some.
De Weerd: Yeah. I know it's been an item of discussion.
Hood: Yeah. Madam Mayor, we have talked about that. We did not put that in as an
enhancement for FY-14. But it's penciled in for'15. So, that is something that's on our
-- after fields district that is our next top priority to do a specific study to look at industrial
districts.
Meridian City Council
December 3, 2013
Page 64 of 85
De Weerd: I guess I would agree with the discussion there is -- in terms of prioritization
in those important industrial corridors to -- to have some kind of a priority to look at
bringing the suggestion back to Council regarding how to -- if preserve is not the right
word, to protect or incentify -- I don't know. But if we can prioritize looking into at least
that aspect of it. Maybe not the total inventory, but identifying those -- those key
corridors and seeing what we can do to -- to -- I can't use protect, so --
Rountree: You can't.
De Weerd: Let me see. To address the concerns of Council.
Lucas: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I think that's good direction and the last
-- the last section of code that we propose to change tonight is just related to how we
define a daycare facility and we are trying to make our definition line up exactly with
how the state does it, because the state has licensing requirements and our code was --
we have changed it before and we are having to change it again, because we get calls
all the time about this and it's something we want to make we are in line with the state
on, so we don't have some -- you know, a different standard. And simply, basically, as
you can see in that change, it just says that it's all around the -- how many children at
the facility at one time and whether you include the parents children or not -- our effort
here was to just make it very clear that in defining a daycare facility, the total number of
children at the facility at one time, including the operator's children, is the determining
factor and that's about as clear as we can make it and that's, basically, exactly how the
state defines it. So, that's -- we just want to make a change. And that was the last
change I had for you tonight. I know we have had quite a discussion. I just want to
remind you the public hearing is still open and that we haven't received any public
testimony at this point.
De Weerd: Thank you. I would invite anyone with public comment at this time.
Thank you for sticking with us tonight.
Yorgason: You're welcome. Good evening, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council.
My name is Dave Yorgason and in this chair or situation I will stand here as the
government affairs representative of the Building Contractors Association. Thank you
for the time and, staff, thank you for your consideration of our comments. Just a couple
of quick items. First of all, we thank the staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission
for their recommendation to pull the item referring to the irrigation and the common lot.
We have spoken to -- I have had several developers and engineers address concerns
of how that might affect layouts and future design and look forward to talking with staff
and listening to their concerns and how else we might find a common ground to make
sure that works for all parties. Secondly, I think just a few other items. There are a lot
of items on industrial, which don't really apply much to us, but fencing we are fine with
those comments there. We really, truly, do support the change to common driveway
and appreciate the direction there and I have a to do at 8:00 o'clock tomorrow morning
to call and have my signs removed at the Creekstone Subdivision. I have already sent
myself an a-mail text and I will get that done tomorrow morning.
Meridian City Council
December 3, 2013
Page 65 of 85
Rountree: Good for you.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Yorgason: Lastly, I do highly respect Brad Miller with Van Auker Companies. They do
have a lot industrial property and I hope you do consider his comments. I have not read
his letter, I don't even know what it says, I just have a lot of respect for them and their
expertise in industrial and I do recognize and I fully agree with Councilman Rountree's
comments with regard to the rail spur and your three freeway access points in trying to
preserve the best you can your industrial uses in those locations. Just want to stand
and express our support for those changes to your code and comments that have been
given tonight and stand for any questions you have.
De Weerd: Thank you, Dave. Council, any questions?
Rountree: No, but I appreciate you being here and speaking for your organization.
Yorgason: You're welcome.
De Weerd: Yes.
Mr. Bird. Thank you very much, David.
Yorgason: You're welcome. Thanks.
Zaremba: Very helpful. Thank you.
Yorgason: Sure. Thank you very much.
De Weerd: Any other testimony? Okay. Council, what's your direction on this item?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Discussion. I -- we have the public hearing. I'd like to see it stay open at least for
another week, if that's okay with Justin and the staff and see if we should -- I mean I
realize the public testimony stinks. I mean we should have more now on something --
when you're changing -- you're changing --
De Weerd: I don't think that came out right, but --
Bird: Yeah, it did.
De Weerd: But understand what you meant.
Meridian City Council
December 3, 2013
Page 66 of 85
Bird: But anyway -- we are changing the way they do business or looking at doing it.
You would think -- you publicize it enough and -- you know, and we only get -- we get
one public testimony from David, we get one letter from Mike Wardle from Brighton and
one letter from Brad Miller from -- I mean are they the only builders in the valley -- in
Meridian, Idaho? I don't think so. Anyway, I -- if -- Council, I'd like to see it stay open
one more week and see if we can, by chance, could get some organizations looking at
how this affects them or if it's a good idea or what -- what it is.
De Weerd: Well, Caleb, perhaps you can talk through your process of developing these
recommendations and --
Hood: Madam Mayor and Councilman Bird, I guess. We certainly can leave it open,
but we have reached out, tried to get the word out. I kind of -- in situations like this, you
know, no news is good news type thing. We don't usually get a lot of people that really
like your comments. If they didn't you would probably have more letters and more
testimony to that effect saying -- and there are a few that we have proposed originally
where we said, hey, you know, we don't like this, can we talk about it some more and,
again, we can delay it a week or two. I'm not quite sure that we will really get anymore
participation, though, because we have tried to notice --Justin, you know, made some --
you know, specifically reached out to a couple of individuals that we regularly do
business with and say, hey, you know, this may be a significant change, would you
review it and let us know if you think it's significant or not. I guess I'm comfortable with
the outreach we have done. I always like to have more feedback and more
participation, but, you know, things are busy right now and we aren't getting a lot of
engagement from the development community. You know, what I would propose kind
of as an alternative would be -- we do this twice a year. Let's go -- you know, it sounds
like just from the discussion, you know, 11-3A-6 is already kind of off the table, the
irrigation easements being in a common lot discussion and, then, your 11-2C-2, which is
industrial district allowed uses or prohibited, conditionally allowed uses and just kind of
leave the code in place so we currently have it on the books regarding those things. I
will reengage with the development community on those and, then, we already have a
couple of other ones that actually replied over the past couple of days and we will --
BCA, we will engage them. You know, again, we work with them and we aren't hearing
a bunch of things. You may not have a bunch of written testimony in front of you, but
when you don't get comments we look at that as a win, because they aren't complaining
about what we are proposing, so -- and this is my thinking a little on our process.
Bird: Madam Mayor? And I appreciate that and I know you guys have been out and
done it, but the only problem is it's when they -- it hits them and they realize who gets
the calls. I think we get more either -- or at least I get more complaints on our UDC than
I do on our codes, you know.
De Weerd: That's why they are trying to clean them up.
Meridian City Council
December 3, 2013
Page 67 of 85
Bird: Well, I understand that, but -- and I understand that developers, business,
everything should pay more attention, but -- appreciate what -- but you like what Bruce
does with the codes -- changing of the codes, he goes out -- you know, he makes sure
that realtors get it, the -- you know. And you talk -- there is another group, the realtors,
have a lot to do with industrial, commercial, and whatever, they are out there selling it.
Your commercial realtors. Do we reach out to them? I don't know. And I'm not
complaining the way we do anything, but Ijust -- I want to make sure that we cover our
bases pretty good and as far as industrial land, we do need more industrial land and
stuff and it's nice to be on a railroad spur, but I can guarantee you more freight goes by
truck than railroad spurs. We spent hundreds of thousands of dollars getting a railroad
spur at Nampa and we used it twice.
De Weerd: Well, a lot of that is the dependability and the timeliness.
Bird: You hit it right there.
De Weerd: Because they do sit in the rail yard and wait until they get enough to --
Bird: We can't afford --
De Weerd: -- move it. Uh-huh.
Bird: They can't afford to go with 40,000 pounds like a truck can.
Hoaglun: So, Madam Mayor, Caleb, do I hear you suggesting that with the irrigation
easement issue and the industrial land we just go forward with the rest of it? Because
I'm good with that.
Hood: That's kind of what I heard from the discussion.
De Weerd: And the signage. I guess just removing of signs. So, someone can be just
as timely and diligent as Mr. Yorgason.
Hoaglun: I would see that, Madam Mayor, as through code enforcement or some other
process. I don't know if it would be through our text amendment -- UDC text
amendment, unless whoever comes up with some fantastic --
De Weerd: I think legal is going to talk about Caleb's idea in terms of the signed letter
and that sort of thing, so --
Hoaglun: Okay.
De Weerd: -- we can bring that back. Okay. Anything further from Council?
Rountree: I'm okay with that approach.
Meridian City Council
December 3, 2013
Page 68 of 85
Bird: Close the public hearing.
De Weerd: Would you like to, as suggested, keep it open one more week, maybe give
staff a week to -- at least the signage -- the posting signs and anything else we might
have forgotten.
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor, next week is our workshop. Is that going to pose a problem?
I mean we can take written testimony, of course, but do we want to take testimony next
week?
De Weerd: That's true.
Hoaglun: We have three -- Madam Mayor, it looks like three department reports right
now, but it's still early.
De Weerd: If Council doesn't have an issue with putting this on next week's agenda, I
don't think it's out of place.
Bird: I have no problem with it.
Rountree: I'm fine with that. I don't see that the changes are that big and we can move
forward fairly rapidly I think with understanding what might happen with the signs and
with the pulling of the two issues. To me everything else is pretty -- pretty clean.
Bird: I'm fine with that.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: Would we want to discuss maybe splitting this into two amendments? I
mean there is -- it seems like 75, 80 percent of it is slam dunk agreeable and we are
only discussing a few of the items. Do we want to separate them and ask the easy
ones just to get it done or should we keep them all waiting for the discussions? Does
that question make sense?
Rountree: I think what we are saying is we will move forward with the stuff that's
straight forward and take the two issues that we want further discussion and those can
show up at the next UDC amendments.
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Bird: Yeah.
De Weerd: And so the only thing you're really holding it up for is the -- the posting of the
site -- or the removal of the sign and see if we can come back with something so we can
Meridian City Council
December 3, 2013
Page 69 of 85
get the UDC cleaned up all at one time. Take the more weighty issues and bring those
back under other consideration. I guess, Justin, one more thing in terms of -- as we do
these UDC codes if you -- you take notes in terms of each item, who you go out to get
feedback from or who might have helped you develop the recommendation and that
shows Council what -- what eyes have been on it, what kind of feedback we have and
maybe who has -- I agree with Caleb in terms of no news is good news. It's been
changed as part of the process and that desired change is what's coming forward in
front of Planning and Zoning and Council. But it would help to see what set of eyes or
how many set of eyes have -- have been looking at it and who they were. Would that
help, Mr. Bird?
Bird: That's tremendous and if -- and if they are in favor of it, Madam Mayor, I think that
should be noted, too. If they think it's a good idea to note it.
De Weerd: I think the in favor is no news is good news.
Bird: Well, yeah.
De Weerd: Unfortunately
Bird: It's just like -- it's just like you can do this, but not in my backyard and that's what
happens with these people is they don't take a look at it until it hits them and they come
in and Justin has to tell them, well, you can't do this or can't do that. What? When did
that change, you know.
Hood: Madam Mayor, if I can, I know Councilman Bird has received a phone call or two
on the back end of that saying when did you change this code. We get those phone
calls, too, though, and so we do up front want to make sure that we are forthcoming,
here is the proposed change, let's talk about it before it becomes law. I mean I don't --
you know, so we do try to get the word out and -- but we can in the future -- we will
document better how we reach out to the various organizations. This one -- you know,
besides the industrial uses, the one was kind of -- you know, there is some controversy
maybe there and the irrigation easements. A lot of these -- I mean daycares, who are
we going to reach out to? I mean the current daycare use facilities? Really, that's just
kind of a clarification, kind of an administrative function. The sign posting, we just think
it's meant to help, you know, the general public. The developer shouldn't care that, you
know -- I mean if we look at a lot of these, like Councilman Zaremba pointed out, 95
percent of them are just sort of clean up process improvement, pretty minor things. The
bigger ticket items, industrial zoning, the tiling of ditches or making them common lots,
we want to be proactive in that, because it comes back on us, too. You're not the only
ones getting those calls.
Bird: We know that
Hood: And so we want to make sure we have it right, too. Or at least have all the
information and you can make an informed decision. So, just if I can real quick while I
Meridian City Council
December 3, 2013
Page 70 of 85
have the floor, because -- to run the sign posting, taking the sign down by other folks in
legal, I don't know that a week is enough time to do that, so -- yeah. So, that's my
concern with the week.
Baird: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I have that same concern and, then, I
also have the additional concern that -- depending on what recommendation we come
up with it may be the type of change that requires us to get input from the constituents.
So, at a minimum I would want to bring this back to you on the 17th, but if it's -- if it's of
a nature of a major change you might want to at that point separate that section out and
direct it to come back in six months. But I think of the 17th we can at least have a path
forward to propose to planning if you want that.
De Weerd: I think that's very reasonable and, Caleb, while I agree with what you
mentioned that a lot of this is just clean up, it's removing any ambiguities or what have
you, but sometimes what we think is simple clean up, some else's set of eyes that, oh,
my God, are you kidding me. Have you considered the impact if its this and so it's just
having that process in place to -- to make sure that our -- our interpretation is -- is
agreed on and -- and I can't tell you what specific group that is, other than we are
coming up with a UDC code, these are the different areas. This is our mailing list. You
guys are great at -- at getting that out, you and the building department and getting it to
some other eyes. They may also say, yeah, this is -- this is not applicable to our -- our
interest and, then, you have that.
Hood: Madam Mayor, the point well taken and, again, with future UDC amendments we
can do a better job of documenting who we have talked to and any feedback we have
received. I would just hate to set up a -- necessarily a process for every one of these,
you have to go talk to X, Y and Z every time, because you may have things that they
don't care about. But what we will report back to you is who we did reach out to and
you can say, well, did you talk to them and we could say, oh, no, we didn't, we forgot
about them. But we -- you know, the Old Town parking, I was at BCA, I told BCA,
because I thought they would care and they do. But most everything else in here, they
-- you know, their participation and, then, the fingers that go out from -- from MDC, you
know, to get the word out to businesses in downtown, hey, there is a proposed change
to parking, that's a big deal and we try to get the word out and get feedback, but next
time there may not be anything we are proposing where they care. So, MDC may not
be in that feedback loop, we may not specifically reach out to them, but point well taken,
I mean we never know who may -- who may care about some of the changes we are
proposing to make and we may think they are minor and it's a huge change to their
business model or whatever, so we will -- we will come up with a system to -- to reach
out to known organizations and business that we think would care and, then, hopefully,
they can share that, too.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. So, Council, I would entertain a motion to continue this
public hearing to the 17th of December.
Hoaglun: So move.
Meridian City Council
December 3, 2013
Page 71 of 85
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 8: Department Reports
A. Public Works: Engineering Capital Improvement Plan
De Weerd: Okay.
Rountree: Hopefully he doesn't go through it page by page.
De Weerd: You're not going through it page by page, right?
Stewart: Yeah. No, I was going to say, I only have about 15, 20 slides to go through.
No. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, by now you're probably getting used to the
fact that once a year we bring the revised five year CIP plan, which we have now titled
the Engineering Capital and Enhancement Plan, because it's got a little bit more than
capital projects in it and last year I brought this document to you and we talked a little bit
about it. I'm going to go through tonight -- I don't intend to go through the specific
projects in there. If you have questions on any specific project feel free to ask those.
I'm not going to -- I'm not going to go through those in detail. What I'm really going to
highlight is, essentially, some additions and some changes that we made and, then, sort
of talk just briefly about it. Of course, the reason we put this -- this document together is
it's, essentially, a strategic document that we use for planning the work that we do for
the next five years. Last year when I presented the book -- or presented the plan there
were a few requests. One of those was a definition of terms. There are many terms
and acronyms that we in the Public Works Department use that are not necessarily
familiar to everyone, so we have added a section to this to try and put definitions to
some of those acronyms and some of those terms that may not be familiar -- as familiar
to some other folks. We also included a user guide. That was another one of the
requests that we had, which was simply to explain what the document is, how it's laid
out, how each section -- what's contained in each section and why it's valuable and
useful. We added that in this particular version. We also added a little piece in there
about project scoring. We had some questions about the scoring and there is a part in
there about that. The purpose for '13 and the detail sheets for each project we added a
section where we can initiate or talk about the purpose of each project. Let me go
through these real briefly. Again, the definition of terms. This is what it looks like.
Simply allows folks both internally and externally to be able to view the document and
understand some of the terminology that we use. User guide goes through section by
section, talks about the -- you know, the general summary, the user guide, how it -- how
it can be used and how it can benefit someone to help find information within the
document. Scoring project guidelines. We talked a little bit about last year, how each
Meridian City Council
December 3, 2013
Page 72 of 85
one of the projects that we, essentially, put into the document, we have major and minor
drivers that we score each project against and the score, then, determines the ranking
of each project and each section or major section there is a -- essentially a summary
report and that summary report, the projects inside that summary report are actually in
that report from the highest to the lowest scores. So, if you are looking for how
important a project is relative to the other projects, that will help you determine that and
this is how we have come up with those scores. The purpose for the project field is,
essentially, to help us get little a bit better handle -- not only now, but as we move
forward and we look at things and how we finance a project with depreciation funds and
so on and so forth. We have added a purpose for projects category where we can add
-- where we can label whether it's capacity driven, whether it's a distribution system
improvement, maintenance, operations, regulatory or water quality or other, so that we
can, then, start categorizing these and determining what's the most appropriate
financing method for each one. And probably the best slide of the bunch -- I just want to
thank you for the opportunity to, essentially, you know, bring this over to you every year
to work with the members of the Public Works staff. We work closely with the operation
staff that put this together. In fact, we are in the process right now of putting the next
version of this together. We met today and talked about the 2015 to 2019 -- or '20. No.
It's supposed to be '15 to '19. We talked to -- we put that together and it's a long
process, because we start now in putting that together. It goes through the rate model
process, then, it goes through the budgeting process. Once it gets through the
budgeting process, then, we finalize the documents and bring them before you. So, this
should marry up well with the enhancements that were approved as far as -- as far as
the budgetary process was concerned. And with that I will stand for any questions that
you may have.
De Weerd: Thank you, Warren.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Not a question, but just a compliment on the book you put out and the way you
guys have done this and I certainly appreciate it. There is definitely no gray area and I
think that's very very good. Thank you very much, Warren. You and your staff.
De Weerd: Any other comments?
Rountree: Good job.
Stewart: Thanks. Thank you.
Item 9: Ordinances
A. Amended to Read: Public Hearing and Second Reading of
Ordinance No. 13-1582: Adoption of 2012 International
Meridian City Council
December 3, 2013
Page 73 of 85
Building Code, 2009 International Residential Code, 2009
International Energy Conservation Code, and local
amendments (Title 10, Chapter 1, Meridian City Code)
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. We will move to Item 9. This is a public hearing and
second reading of Ordinance 13-1582. Madam Clerk, will you, please, read this
ordinance by title only.
Holman: Thank you, Madam Mayor. City of Meridian Ordinance No. 13-1582, an
ordinance repealing and replacing Title 10, Chapter 1, Meridian City Code, adopting the
2012 International Building Code, 2009 International Residential Code and the 2009
International Energy Conservation Code and local amendments thereto. Adopting
savings clause, validity, and penalty sections and providing an effective date.
De Weerd: Okay. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone who would like to comment
on this item?
Yorgason: Good evening. For the record, Dave Yorgason, the government affairs
representative for the Building Contractors Association of Southwest Idaho. We,
actually, are very very involved at the state level with the state building code board in
working with the 2012 codes, including the 2009 Energy Conservation Code and we --
out of that collaborative effort, which include many -- many stakeholders and a
recommendation that is going to be going to the legislature to approve the 2012
Residential Code, which is before you tonight, with some amendments. It's my
understanding what's before you tonight is to approve 2012 Residential Code and
Energy Code -- 2009 code with the amendments that were approved or recommended
-- will be recommended to the legislature this coming session. Having said that, the
Building Contractors Association of Southwest Idaho supports these changes and these
approvals that you are going for tonight and stand for any questions you may have.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions?
Bird: No. Thank you very much.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I would comment, since you have been very faithful and stayed with us, that I
very much appreciate having your -- either validation or discussion if it goes the other
way of letting us know that you have thought through this and I appreciate your
comments and appreciate your hanging with us to make the comments.
Yorgason: Thank you.
Meridian City Council
December 3, 2013
Page 74 of 85
De Weerd: Well -- and, Council, I will tell you that our staff has discussed -- I know that
the BCA is looking at some proposals to the legislature as well to bring a state building
code, rather than adopting international codes, so that they are more applicable to what
we are seeing here in this state and our building department is very supportive of that
as well. So, I just wanted to note that to let you know what we are thinking of in this
upcoming legislative session, too. Thank you.
Yorgason: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Any further testimony on this item? Beings how I recognize most of
the faces left in the room, I don't think -- Ralph, do you have anything?
B. Amended to Read: Public Hearing and Second Reading of
Ordinance No. 13-1583: Adoption of 2012 International Fire
Code and local amendments (Title 10, Chapter 4, Meridian City
Code)
De Weerd: Item 9-B is a public hearing and second reading of Ordinance 13-1583. I
will ask Madam Clerk to read this by title only.
Holman: Thank you, Madam Mayor. City of Meridian Ordinance No. 13-1583, an
ordinance repealing and replacing Title 10, Chapter 4, Meridian City Code, adopting the
2012 International Fire Code and local amendments thereto and providing an effective
date.
De Weerd: Thank you. And just for the record, Councilman Hoaglun did have to leave
after the Department Report. So, this is a public hearing on Item 9-B. Is there anyone
who would like to provide testimony on this item?
Yorgason: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, again, Dave Yorgason, I represent
the Buildings Contractors Association of Southwest Idaho and we appreciate on one
occasion Perry came to the BCA and gave some advanced notice with regard to this
change and adoption of the new fire code. I would have made testimony last week
when this was before you, however, I had not been given formal instructions from our
BCA board to -- to make a statement. As I have such now I am speaking on behalf of
the BCA tonight. There is concern with at least one item of the fire code. We recognize
that in -- in the past -- and I cannot speak specifics today, because I'm not as familiar to
the history of the codes, but I believe it was many years ago of the which fire code
adopted a limit to the number of homes that could take access to a single access and
after -- I believe the number is 25 or 30 -- I think it's 30 is where the fire code is now
going to -- excuse me -- did go to, however, here in the City of Meridian for several
instances you have allowed 50 to be the limit for single access. With this adoption that's
before tonight it would revert to the 30 homes limited to a single access. We are not
aware of problems or concerns other than just the desire to match up to -- to this code.
Our request is that you keep it to the 50 homes limited as you currently have it today to
a single access. We recognize that in some instances -- and I can think of some of the
Meridian City Council
December 3, 2013
Page 75 of 85
developments that I have been working on recently where just by going and being the
first subdivision across the street would create some development challenges, as well
as in multi -- a very large multi-phased development where each phase may have to
comply with that limit. This will restrict some of the planning options which we currently
have as a development community. So, having said that, we are not aware of
challenges or great concerns, other than just the desire to make this change to 30 and
so our ask -- our request is that you make an amendment and keep it where you have it
today as 50 homes is the limit for single access. I will stand for any questions you may
have.
De Weerd: Thank you, Dave. Council?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Councilman Rountree.
Rountree: Dave, are you aware of any other city within your organization's span that
has adopted these rules as an amendment with the -- with the 30 home limitation on
access? Boise. Nampa. Caldwell. I assume they are all in the process of adopting
these for the new year.
Yorgason: Madam Mayor, Councilman Rountree, I do not know of all the cities.
However, I have talked to city of Boise, for example, and they have some in place now,
however, they also have some other differences in their land use planning. For
example, cul-de-sac lengths. As I talked to one of the gentlemen there at the -- the
deputy fire marshal at the city of Boise fire, their cul-de-sac length is longer, which is
typically more of the restriction than what we have here and so there are some
differences in land use planning across different cities, where here you have much
shorter cul-de-sac allowances and so by making this adoption or change at the City of
Meridian, you might become more in line with -- with Boise in that regard, however,
some of our other layouts would become more restrictive and I would be glad to do
some additional research to other cities and come back to you with that input if you
would like.
Bird: I would like.
Rountree: Well -- and, Madam Mayor, I -- I like consistency and it seem to me that we
are in a market -- a competitive market and we need to be consistent with what's going
on around us if it's reasonable. I hear we have cul-de-sac length differences and if we
have got that kind of flexibility at least we ought to take a look at what our market is and
see if we can draw some consistency from it and if it doesn't look like it's the wise thing
to do after we do that, then, we can -- we can start making our own way. But I think we
-- these things are so subjective to me that I have a hard time seeing, well, it's not good
for Meridian, but it's -- it's okay for Pocatello or it's okay for Boise or -- and it's a matter
of, you know, a couple hundred feet here or 20 homes there. I don't have any matrix to
go by other than somebody's opinion and I would like to see what the market says.
Meridian City Council
December 3, 2013
Page 76 of 85
De Weerd: Well -- and I guess I'm -- I'm more of the mind of -- we were Meridian and
before we get more restrictive than another city what is the problems we are trying to
solve and if we are changing code just to be consistent with code, it doesn't seem that
we want to be more restrictive that that's not a good reason. If we have a life safety
situation that came up and it would be easy to argue with the BCA to say, well, we've
had this incident and that incident and while we have been lenient in the past by
allowing the extra homes, we just can't substantiate that any longer, because these
things happened. But when we don't have those kind of reasons and it's just to be
consistent with some -- sometimes an arbitrary number that has never meant anything
to us until now, it doesn't make sense and I guess to me it doesn't matter what the other
cities are doing, it does matter is there a reason where -- are we finding -- are we
looking for a problem for our solution or is this a solution because we have had a
particular problem.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I agree with you a hundred percent and I think in the last thing you hit it on the
head. In the first place, this is an international code, which is being written for cities like
Los Angeles and New York and Chicago and all them. I -- I think it's time that -- that we
-- within the state get our state code, because we -- we are different than the big cities
and stuff in our -- if it's alife -- I'm like the Mayor, if it's a life safety issue let's do it, but I
haven't heard that. It's because the international code says we go from 30 to -- or we
go from 50 down to 30. They have never had 50, probably, in the international code, we
had it stuck in there somewhere. I think we look -- I think the Mayor was a hundred
percent right, we look at what's -- what's marketable for Meridian, Idaho, or Treasure
Valley. Mr. Rountree, you know, he's right there, but Icould -- I could care less what
Salt Lake City or what those -- because they are under different deals and the sooner
we get the state legislature to get these codes under the state instead of the
international the better off we will be. I agree with you a hundred percent. I think we
need to take a hard look at that before we even change it or buy it.
Yorgason: Thank you. Do you have any --
De Weerd: Chief, do you have any comments?
Bird: I was going to ask --
Palmer: I do, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. As I stated before, the -- the fire
code is a book of history, if you will, and in regards to Councilman Bird, fire doesn't
recognize that it burns different in Idaho than it does in LA or anywhere else for that
matter and they look at the issues on a totality. We may have a very limited fire
problem here compared to somewhere else in the country, but when you look at it as a
whole it does signify potentially large problems. An example I will give is dryer fires and
Meridian City Council
December 3, 2013
Page 77 of 85
I don't know if I shared this and I apologize if I bore you with it, but I had some repairs
done on my dryer. The gentleman that did the repair has been doing it for over 30
years and he said I don't know what the big deal is with these temperature limiting
controls. He says I have maybe seen four or five dryer fires in my entire career and I
got to thinking about my length of career, which is about the same and it was pretty
close to that as well, but you look at that on a national level and there is over 15,000
dryer fires every year, so when we look at it in those terms, you know, the fact that we
have had them signifies that there is a potential problem, so how do we correct that?
Do we get people to clean their dryers like they should? We can recommend that, but
we can't cause them to do that. So, what causes the fires, it's the excessive
temperatures that dryers create and the lint builds up. So, if we can limit the
temperature -- we can keep the temperature of ignition below the temperature of ignition
for the lint and that's what they chose to do. We kind of run into the same thing on the
fire code, they look at what our -- the causes for the fires. Some of the things that we
are up against as well that have promoted us to look at this more stringently is what's
happening with the building industry in general. We have lighter weight materials. We
have a lot of plastics in the residence, so fires burn faster. We are getting skinnier and
skinnier streets, which makes access in and out for us more difficult, as well as the
people trying to get out and we have a situation where even under our current rules we
had a proposal to add 25 homes. They were going to use the same access that was
already in existence for a subdivision that was supposed to be limited to 50 before they
put in the second access. When I went out there and looked there was 67 homes on
that single access. So, where the ball got dropped there I'm not real sure, but in
regards specifically to the 30, the state adopts the code first and that's why we are two
years behind, because they go through the process of adopting the code. Now, once
they adopt the code, the sections that they adopt we can only be equal to or more
stringent than and I haven't been able to find anybody so far that can tell me why the
reason was that we went to 50 homes with a single point of access. You know, if we
are willing to work under some different code that is our own, we can make it whatever
we want, but as long as we are going to adopt an existing code -- and I would defer to
Ted on this -- if the state has adopted, as I understand it, we can only amend it to equal
to or stricter than. If they have not adopted it, then, we have the ability to, essentially,
write it however we want to write it.
De Weerd: So, Dave, do you have any comment to that?
Yorgason: Sure, Madam Mayor.
De Weerd: Sure.
Yorgason: Madam Mayor, Members of Council, I heard a couple things there and I
surely appreciate the discussion. I stand here as one. I can assure you there are many
more than one that have equal opinions to what I have been expressing with you
tonight. Many in the development community are wondering why the change is
necessary. I recall it was about ten or 11 years ago, maybe a little bit longer ago, when
the 50 first came about. I was developing the Baldwin Park Subdivision and we had
Meridian City Council
December 3, 2013
Page 78 of 85
already put in the first phase and the city, then, asked us to put in a secondary
emergency access. Baldwin Park was on Linder Road, if you're not familiar, and it is
approximately 80 acres in size and in its time it could have one access, because it was
the only subdivision on that side of Linder and so we agreed -- even though it was not
agreed upon in the first phase, in the second phase we tried to find some way to take
out one lot and put in an emergency access to satisfy the city and, then, the city
imposed the 50 limit. The 50 was arbitrary, Councilman Rountree. There was a
discussion -- it was one hundred at one point and 50 was just splitting it down the
middle. I was not aware of any studies, but because we were anxious to keep the
subdivision moving forward, we agreed to 50. And so that's the history as I recall to the
50. Honestly, I don't think 30 is any different as far as any more arbitrary than 50. I
think there probably is maybe some savings there, so if you're going to slice it, let's go
to five. They are all arbitrary numbers. I heard Perry comment about how we are
correcting potential problems. I'm not sure how to solve all potential problems in the
world today, especially if it costs the development community more money, is that a
reasonable expense to take on and I -- the only comment I heard was skinnier and
skinnier streets. I don't know if that's -- that's factually true as well. I know that streets
have been wider and streets have been narrower. I can look at a lot of streets across
this nation and find streets a whole lot skinnier than what ACHD allows in our
communities today and so I struggle with standing in front of you tonight and fighting
with and complaining with the fire department, because we like those guys. We need
the first department. We need the --
De Weerd: Everyone likes that fire department
Yorgason: And I want them to know that.
Rountree: Except the police.
Yorgason: Not everyone gets along with the fire department. So, I also want that on
the record, to know that we really do try to work together and get along and we need
them, as, likewise, I'm sure they live in a subdivision, they live in a home that's built by
one of us and so we do try to work together and get along. But all these little things that
come in do add to the cost of development and that's why one of those is why we raised
concern tonight. That would be my response, Madam Mayor.
De Weerd: But I guess, Dave, a specific question to you in terms of something that the
chief mentioned is we -- we adopt the code because we have to and we can be more
restrictive, but I don't know where we can be less restrictive than the state. So -- and
that's -- and that's the chief's point and at this point, whether we want 50 or 100, the
state has adopted 30 and they have taken the discussion out of our hands.
Yorgason: Madam Mayor, if that's the case -- and I can't speak to that, but it might be
the case. I will do a little more research on my own. If that's the case I do understand.
Baird: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
December 3, 2013
Page 79 of 85
De Weerd: Mr. Baird.
Baird: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Emily Kane of our office has been
involved with getting this to this point and I just don't have the background to give you
an answer. But I would suggest that we hold the hearing open for the third reading and
we will bring you back that information and you can make your decision based --
because if she were here she would probably give it to you immediately. So, I
apologize not having that, we always like to be able to answer right away when we can,
but I think we do have the opportunity to bring you your options at the third reading.
De Weerd: Okay. And the third reading will be on the 17th, so that does give some
time on each -- for us to verify that or not, as well as you. Because we don't want to
adopt silly things that have no basis and, yeah, just like we discussed in the UDC code,
it is really helpful if we understand why things are the way they are, but -- what I do
understand, though, about building codes is there is flexibility that is built into the codes
and what I don't know is what is flexible and what isn't and that's maybe what we can
come back with and if you can do the research on your side and we can do the research
on our side.
Yorgason: Thank you very much. We agree with that.
De Weerd: Okay.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I would propose that research done on both sides includes two subjects that
are relevant to how many dwellings can be -- the two subjects are whether you're
looking at the street and how many -- how many dwellings can be on a single access
street, but we also have the water pipe issue of how many dwellings can be hooked up
to a dead end water pipe without the system being looped. So, I -- when we talk about
what is that right number for the limit -- we shouldn't have two separate standards, one
that's based on the water pipe and one that's based on the street. I think we need to
find a common number in there somewhere that satisfies both of those needs. Just a
personal opinion.
De Weerd: Yeah. And from what I understand on the -- the water hookups is other
communities certainly don't have the -- the low number that's being suggested to us and
that was my understanding. So, maybe you can comment on that as well when you
come back.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
Yorgason: Whenever you would like me to I would be glad to, Madam Mayor.
Meridian City Council
December 3, 2013
Page 80 of 85
De Weerd: Or you might be able to right now, but -- yes, Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: Well, I was just going to throw in another comment. You mentioned cul-de-
sac length and, again, this is something we discussed when we were writing this UDC
when it was new and as I recall it was -- the number that we came up with for cul-de-sac
length was provided the fire department by a calculation of how long it would take a
crew to drag a hose to its full length if they could only access a hydrant at the beginning
of the street, because the rest of the street was blocked and there was some calculation
about how far they could go in four minutes dragging a hose or something like that and
that's how we came -- there was a reason behind that number.
De Weerd: Well, I don't like that example at all, because now you're suggesting that
Boise drags a hose faster than we do.
Palmer: And that's not true.
De Weerd: And that couldn't be true.
Yorgason: That cannot be true.
Rountree: Do they have bigger guys?
Zaremba: At the time I don't believe we asked anybody else what any other city was
doing, we just took that number.
De Weerd: We need to get different guys dragging the hose.
Palmer: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, chief.
Palmer: In regards to that question on the cul-de-sacs, it's ironic that we just had a
discussion about that today. Bill is not here, but the code -- and I don't know how they
got to the number, quite honestly, but it does allow up to 750 feet and it does make
provisions for going beyond that length with approval and so what we talked about
today was the street width would be the accommodation for going over the 750 feet.
You know, it -- the code is an interpretive code and I tend to look at it as not a hard, fast,
black and white type of code. You know, there is certainly different desires at play. The
builders have their concerns and their desires. Mine is for public safety, for firefighter
safety, and for our ability to be effective in protecting the community and where we can
find that balance, that's what I try to do each and every time. Just real briefly, the
history on the 30 actually stemmed from back in 1961 the Bel-Air fire in LA where they
had these really long mountain roads, one way in, one way out, a lot of homes, you
know, conditions change and I don't know if the chief will want to speak to this, but we
have to be willing to look at more than just the fire problem, you know, our society is
Meridian City Council
December 3, 2013
Page 81 of 85
tending to become more violent, so it could be a hostage situation, it could be a bomb
threat, it could be a hazardous chemical release, something of that nature. So, it's not
just the fire that we look at anymore, we have to take other things into consideration.
We are doing that in the schools when we do our inspections -- you know, I think we
have to try to keep some of those thoughts in our mind as we are looking at these
issues, that it's not just solely a fire issue anymore, we have to be willing to look at --
there is other threats to the public and can we use that code to try to protect them in
other ways than just from fire.
De Weerd: And I think that's certainly a good discussion point, but as we look at being
more restrictive than surrounding cities or if we are -- we look to be more restrictive than
what we have practiced in the past, it's -- it's important to have the dialogue -- not just to
check something off on a sheet and say, well, I need to go and visit with the BCA, whoo
whoo. Sorry. But to have a good solid dialogue. Invite the police. Invite our building
inspectors and invite the BCA and other stakeholders and, then, have a discussion and
say, you know, this is -- this is an issue and we need to see -- we need to fully vet it out
and I know you can't make all decisions by committee, but there are so many different
angles to look at something and new technologies and new practices and -- it is true.
When I went through Fire Ops 101 and we were up on top of a roof, the -- the roof
systems of -- in commercial areas are much different now. They are not as sturdy and
you go put a firefighter up on that roof, you're risking their safety and so as we look at
building codes there is more to look at it and -- but it is -- it is a great process as we
make these -- these cost changes, that we invite stakeholders in and we are a
stakeholder, they are a stakeholder, and see what -- where the discussion goes and I
still will maintain is we need to understand what the issue is first. What is the problem
that we are trying to tackle and if it's something that came up in 1961, there has been a
lot of change since then and is that something that is still relevant today. That's my
soap box. Yeah. What he said. He could dunk a basketball in '61.
Bird: I was young.
De Weerd: So --
Yorgason: I have no other comments unless you have more questions for me, Madam
Mayor.
De Weerd: Just if -- you know, you know what the discussion has been and certainly as
-- as we look to adopt the code because we have to, those items that -- that where we
have -- in your opinion and we will bring our opinion, the flexibility and -- and where
there is truly that life safety issue that is the driving point, so --
Yorgason: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Yorgason: I took some notes and we will do a little bit of research.
Meridian City Council
December 3, 2013
Page 82 of 85
De Weerd: Okay. Very good. Thank you so much.
Yorgason: Thank you.
C. Amended to Read: Public Hearing and Second Reading of
Ordinance No. 13-1584: Updates to Meridian Flood Damage
Prevention Ordinance (Title 10, Chapter 6, Meridian City Code)
De Weerd: Okay. Madam Clerk, will you, please, read the second reading of 13-1584.
By title only, by the way.
Holman: Thank you, Madam Mayor. City of Meridian Ordinance No. 13-1584. An
ordinance repealing and replacing Title 10, Chapter 6, Meridian City Code, regarding
flood damage prevention. Findings of fact, purposes and objectives, definitions, general
provisions, administration, provisions for flood hazards, reduction, and providing an
effective date.
De Weerd: Thank you. That was the second reading of Ordinance 13-1584. This is a
public hearing, is there anyone who would like to provide testimony on this item? Hello
sir.
Yorgason: Hello. Madam Mayor, Members of Council, my name is Dave Yorgason for
the record. Building Contractors Association of Southwest Idaho, government affairs
representative. Dave Miles did come to the BCA and I had several conversations with
him regarding this code change. It looked to be a substantial change when you look at
it on paper. There are a lot of changes and most of which are required changes, as I
understand. As he's explained them to me and as I have chased them back through the
BCA, the BCA does support these changes and we will stand for any questions you
have.
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Rountree: No. Thank you.
Yorgason: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. We will put this for third reading on our December 17th
meeting.
D. First Reading of Ordinance No.
Impact Fee Update
De Weerd: Item 9-D staff has requested to vacate, as this was not properly noticed. So
-- so, Mr. Baird, I know we are limited in our meetings that we have this month, so is this
something that can be put on the first meeting of the month under old business?
Meridian City Council
December 3, 2013
Page 83 of 85
Baird: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, are you talking about for next year --
into the new year?
De Weerd: Yeah.
Baird: After the problem was discovered we had -- we are required by statute to notice
up a public hearing no less than 15 days before. So, that would have been Monday in
order to have a hearing on the 17th, which was when we had -- had it planned. Due to
some miscommunication with our newspaper it just -- you know, we sent it to them, it
didn't get published, so now we are trying to decide how fast to address this and in
talking with the administrator and her staff I think we are going to recommend that we
actually have the public hearing next year with the new Council, require the consultant
to come in -- we were trying to get it done this year just for efficiency. We were on a
pretty tight schedule and because of this publication issue it's not going to happen. So,
the question is did you want to try to go ahead with the presentation of the 17th and,
then, hold the public hearing after it, which doesn't make sense, because you want to
have the consultant there to answer questions that come up at the public hearing. So,
it's my suggestion that we have the first reading and the public hearing on the first
meeting of the year, if there is time on that meeting, and, then, statute also requires to
hold those second and third hearings -- you can adopt it on an emergency basis, so you
could either conclude the hearing on that first reading and, then, have the other two
readings and adopt it or of there are other issues you can continue the hearing. So, it
was a long way of saying, basically, we are just going to push the whole thing into next
year, but with the exception of having the public hearing on the first reading, if that's
acceptable. So, I'd take your direction in that regard.
De Weerd: Well, I think, Ted, I -- it makes more sense to have a public hearing on the
first reading to show the -- the justification, rationale about how you got to the point and
give the second and third reading people due process. I'm a processor, so I kind of like
that idea. Instead of doing the public hearing on the 3rd reading, which seems a little
awkward. So, I think I definitely like that better.
Baird: We were trying to accommodate the consultant's schedule and that's how we got
that backwards --
De Weerd: Oh.
Baird: -- but we will -- now he is at our mercy.
De Weerd: But I think if there is -- it's -- if we are going to do it with the new Council I do
think that, then, we can't do it on the first meeting of the month or -- that's when they are
sworn in and it's usually a short meeting. If it's not considered old business, then, we
will get it going -- we can present it at the workshop -- well, that's not good either. We
will have to wait until the third weekend in January.
Meridian City Council
December 3, 2013
Page 84 of 85
Baird: And, Madam Mayor, we will hope that that's available with the consultant. It
might have to be pushed back even further.
De Weerd: Okay.
Baird: But it does present a good opportunity to introduce the new Council Members to
the impact fee system. So, there might be a silver lining in that delay.
De Weerd: Okay.
Baird: Thank you.
De Weerd: Very good. Thank you. Any comments from the Council on that?
Rountree: No.
Item 10: Future Meeting Topics
De Weerd: Okay. Okay. Any items for consideration under Item 10 for Future Meeting
Topics?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Well, we have the Christmas Winterland Parade on Friday evening
and we will see you there. We are not making you wear any elf costumes or anything,
so --
Bird: I can guarantee you I'm not getting in those elf shoes.
Rountree: No, thank you.
De Weerd: I would entertain a motion to adjourn.
Rountree: So moved.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: All those in favor say aye. All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:17 P.M.
Meridian City Council
December 3, 2013
Page 85 of 85
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
____
~~ ~1~~ ~~ ~ r ~
~~~r l
MAYOR T WEERD DATE APPROVED
ATTEST:
JA~(CE~iOLMAN, CITY
~ ~^~
.~` ~;
`" Y``~~
'' ~ ~J
~y.
rte. ~~ ~
° ~~ ~ ~.~.
~n~~~a
.,~~~ ~.~
~,
~°1 ~~1~ Tli~'ASL4~
Changes to Agenda: None
Item #7A: Victory South Annexation (AZ-13-012)
Application(s): Annexation
Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 310.08 acres of land, is currently zoned RUT,
R1, R4 and R6 zoning districts in Ada County, and is generally located south of W. Victory Road, east of S. Linder
Road and west of S. Meridian Road.
Adjacent Land Use & Zoning:
North: Bear Creek and Strada Bellissima Subdivisions, zoned R-4 (City)
East: Future phases of the Cavanaugh Subdivision, zoned R-8 (City)
South: County residences and agricultural land, zoned RUT (Ada County)
West: County residences and agricultural land, zoned RUT (Ada County)
History: The Kentucky Ridge Estates Subdivision and the Meridian Heights Subdivision were approved through the
County. The Tewalt, Hansen and portions of the Centers properties were previously considered for development.
These projects were withdrawn by the applicant prior to Council action.
Summary of Request: The City of Meridian is proposing to annex 310.20 acres of land adjacent to the existing City
corporate boundaries and within Meridian's Area of City Impact (AOCI). The proposed annexation is comprised of the
lots in the Meridian Heights Subdivision, the lots in the Kentucky Ridge Estates Subdivision, lands owned by the
Meridian Heights Sewer and Water District, and multiple other parcels owned by Hansen, Tewalt and Centers.
The proposed zoning designations for the area are R-4 and R-8 which are consistent with the Future Land Use Map
designations. The proposed zoning designations are based on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map
designations, the current densities and lots sizes within the existing subdivisions, zoning of other properties in the
area, and probable suitable future uses and densities.
The proposed annexation is subject to the State of Idaho's rules and requirements of a Category B annexation; the
subject lands contain more than one hundred separate private ownerships and platted lots where landowners owning
more than fifty percent of the area have consented to the subject annexation. Category B annexations require the
City to prepare an Annexation Plan which includes, at a minimum, the following elements:
(A) The manner of providing tax-supported municipal services to the lands proposed to be annexed;
(B) The changes in taxation and other costs, using examples, which would result if the subject lands were to be
annexed;
(C) The means of providing fee-supported municipal services, if any, to the lands proposed to be annexed;
(D) A brief analysis of the potential effects of annexation upon other units of local government which currently
provide tax-supported orfee-supported services to the lands proposed to be annexed; and
(E) The proposed future land use plan and zoning designation or designations, subject to public hearing, for the
lands proposed to be annexed.
The City prepared an annexation plan as required under State Statute that provides information to property owners,
current and potentially future residents of the City of Meridian, and other interested parties about anticipated changes
in taxes, fees, zoning, and services should the subject properties be annexed into the City.
The main purpose of the annexation is to assist the Meridian Heights and Sewer District in the logical extension of
City utilities due to a public safety concerns with the existing private systems. There is an executed three-party
agreement that outlines the roles, responsibilities and timing of utility extension in this area. The existing residences
within the two (2) County subdivisions will connect to the City of Meridian's water and sewer systems. The remaining
properties being annexed (Hansen, Tewalt, Centers and the Meridian Heights Water & Sewer District properties) are
undeveloped or underdeveloped and will be reviewed with future development applications. In the interim, owners of
the vacant or underdeveloped properties have agreed to not develop the property until such time as the property
owners and the City execute a Development Agreement. The Annexation Ordinance will contain a provision
prohibiting any development approvals on the Hansen, Tewalt and Centers properties until such time as the property
owner(s) and the City execute a Development Agreement.
There are likely uses and structures within the proposed annexation area that do not comply with current Meridian
code. Code enforcement officers have patrolled the proposed developments and noted over 75 properties with code
violations. The primary City violations noted on the properties consisted of the following:
1) Accessory structures (e.g. -sheds) in the front and or side setbacks;
2) Inoperable and/or unregister vehicles;
3) Recreational vehicles parked on driveways and;
4) Fencing in disrepair.
Any existing structure or activity that is being conducted on properties within the proposed annexation area that is
legal under Ada County code will be "grandfathered", if not outright allowed, under City code as an existing non-
conforming use ornon-conforming structure provided there is not alife/safety hazard. Upon annexation, all existing
non-conforming uses and/or structures will need to be documented to form a baseline on what violations are
grandfathered so code enforcement can address any new violations that may come up in the future.
Post annexation all proposed building additions, expansions, subdivision and the establishment of new uses will
require application to the City's Community Development Department.
The Ordinance of Annexation and Zoning will contain a provision prohibiting any development approvals on the
Hansen, Tewalt. MHWSD and Centers properties until such time as the property owner(s) and the City execute a DA.
Commission Recommendation: Approval w/comments in Exhibit B of the staff report.
Summary of Commission Public Hearing:
i. In favor: Planning Division, Public Works, Merle Hansen, Christy Rye and Gordan Hamilton (Neutral)
and Becky McKay
ii. In opposition: Connie Tewalt, Curtis Hoagland and Steve Fager
iii. Commenting: Becky McKay
iv. Written testimony: None
Key Issue(s) of Discussion by Commission:
i. Future water quality.
ii. Code violations and non-conforming structures/uses in the existing subdivisions.
iii. Timing and integration of the Meridian Water and Sewer District's infrastructure with City's water and
sewer infrastructure.
iv. City service connections vs. existing well and septic for the McNish property.
v. Timing and requirements for the decommissioning of the sewer lagoons.
vi. Use of the existing wells and septic systems remaining until development is proposed or private
systems fail.
Key Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation:
i. Commission modified Planning Division's comment 1.1.1 to include the Meridian Heights Water and
Sewer District.
Written Testimony since the Commission Hearing: Ron Abel in opposition.
Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council:
Notes:
Item #7B: Twelve Oaks Subdivision (PFP-13.001)
Application(s):
- Preliminary/Final Plat (combined)
Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 9.43 acres of land, is currently zoned TN-R &
C-C, and is located at 1845 W. Franklin Road.
History: This property was annexed in 2005 w/a DA. A CUP for a mixed use development & a preliminary plat was
also approved but has since expired.
Summary of Request: The proposed preliminary/final plat consists of 2 building lots on 9.43 acres of land in the C-C
and TN-R zoning districts. The plat will subdivide one parcel into two lots and will divide the majority of the
commercial property from the residential property.
After recordation of the subject final plat, the applicant intends to submit a short plat application to re-subdivide Lot 1
into four lots for commercial pad sites; and eventually submit a new preliminary plat to re-subdivide Lot 2 for the
development of a residential care facility, an apartment complex, and single-family residential lots.
Commission Recommendation: Approval w/conditions in Exhibit B
Summary of Commission Public Hearing:
i. In favor: Carl Porter
ii. In opposition: None
iii. Commenting: None
iv. Written testimony: None
Key Issue(s) of Discussion by Commission: None
Key Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation: None
Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: The applicant is requesting removal of condition 1.1.6 related to the
covering of the Vaughan lateral. The applicant proposes to cover the Vaughan lateral with the future subdivision of
Lot 2 Block 1. Staff is amenable to the applicant's request but rather than striking the condition completely staff
recommends modifying the condition to read:
1.1.6 The piping of the Vaughn Lateral shall occur with the re-subdivision of Lot 2, Block 1. No building permits will
be issued for Lot 2, Block 1 prior to the lot being re-subdivided and the lateral being piped in accordance with UDC
11-3A-6.
Written Testimony since the Commission Hearing: Jim Jewett
Notes:
Item #7C: Raisin Angels Rezone (RZ-13.012)
Application(s): Rezone
Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 1.54 acres of land, is currently zoned I-L, and
is located at 1771 E. Pine Avenue.
Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: This property is surrounded by industrial and residential property (across Pine),
zoned I-Land RUT in Ada County; vacant and developed commercial properties, zoned C-G and L-0 (to the east)
and industrial properties (to the west and south), zoned I-L.
History: In 2004, the property received combined preliminary/final plat (PFP-04-008) approval to develop a four (4)
lot industrial subdivision on approximately 8.02 acres.
Summary of Request: The applicant has applied to rezone (RZ) 1.54 acres from the I-L (Light Industrial) zoning
district to the L-0 (Limited Office) zoning district for the purpose of developing the parcel with a daycare center. In the
I-L zone, daycare centers are listed as an accessory use in the I-L district. If the rezone is approved, the future
daycare center would be classified as a principally permitted use in the proposed L-0 zoning district; subject to the
specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-9 for daycare facilities.
Typically L-0 zoning is not recommended within "Industrial" designated areas on the FLUM. However, in reviewing
the surrounding land use designations, this property is situated adjacent to property (east) designated "Mixed-use
Community" on the FLUM which encourages a mix of uses and zoning designations including L-O. Staff recognizes
that FLUM designations are not parcel specific and sees merit in "floating" the adjacent Mixed-use Community
designation to cover this property which would support the applicants request for L-0 zoning.
As part of the rezone application submittal, the applicant provided a conceptual site plan, landscape plan and building
elevations. Staff has provided a cursory review of the submitted concept plans and finds the plans to be in general
compliance with the UDC. However, the future use of the property will not be established until the property obtains
CZC and DES from the Planning Division.
Commission Recommendation: Approval
Summary of Commission Public Hearing:
i. In favor: Laren Bailey, Alicia Parker and Jane Fekete
ii. In opposition: None
iii. Commenting: None
iv. Written testimony: None
Key Issue(s) of Discussion by Gommission: None
Written Testimony since the Commission Hearing: None
Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: None
Notes:
Item #7D & E: Creekstone Subdivision (AZ-13-013; PP-13-029)
Application(s): Annexation and Preliminary Plat
Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 6.92 acres of land, is currently zoned RUT,
and is located on the north side of W. Pine Avenue, midway between N. Ten Mile Road and N. Black Cat Road.
Adjacent Land Use & Zoning:
North: Fuller Park, zoned R-4
East: County residence, zoned RUT (Ada County)
South: Chesterfield Subdivision No. 2, zoned R-8
West: Castlebrook Subdivision, zoned R-8
Summary of Request: The applicant submitted a request for annexation of 6.92 acres with an R-8 zone consistent
with the MDR FLUM designation for the site. A preliminary plat is also proposed consisting of 32 building lots & 6
common/other lots. The gross density of the proposed subdivision is 4.62 dwelling units per acre consistent with the
desired density in MDR areas of 3 to 8 dwelling units to the acre. Since this is a low impact development and should
develop in similar fashion as the surrounding subdivisions, staff is not recommending a development agreement with
the annexation of the property.
Lot sizes range between 5,000 and 9,255 square feet. Four (4) of the lots do not meet the 30-foot frontage
requirement adjacent to the cul-de-sac. With the submittal of a final plat, these lots must meet the dimensional
standards of the UDC.
Access to this development is proposed from W. Pine Avenue via N. Clearstream Way. An existing stub street (W.
Dover Drive) is provided along the west boundary of the subdivision and will be extended with the development of the
site. The applicant will also be required to construct a portion of W. Pine Avenue along the south boundary of the
subdivision which will stub at the west boundary; eventually connecting to N. Ten Mile Road.
A total of 1.01 acres (or 14.06%) of open space is proposed with the plat, consisting of linear open space along Ten
Mile Creek, Pine Avenue street buffer and amicro-path lot. The proposed amenity is an integrated pathway system
that connects with the pathway system developed with the Castlebrook Subdivision to the west. The proposed
subdivision complies with the open space and site amenity requirements in the UDC.
Conceptual building elevations were submitted by the applicant. These elevations depict a variety of styles and
building materials consistent with existing homes in Castlebrook Subdivision to the west and Chesterfield Subdivision
to the south.
Commission Recommendation: Approval with conditions
Summary of Commission Public Hearing:
i. In favor: Dave Yorgason, Neutral Parties: Richard Davey, Lindsay Fulmore, Joanne Hazlett, James
Miller and tristin and Ben Taylor.
ii. In opposition: None
iii. Commenting: Richard Davey, Ben Taylor and James Miller
iv. Written testimony: Dave Yorgason, applicant's representative
Key Issue(s) of Discussion by Commission:
i. Restricting certain lots to single story homes on the west boundary.
ii. The extension of Dover Street into the proposed development.
iii. Construction traffic through the Castlebrook Subdivision.
iv. Transitional lots sizes along the west boundary.
v. Street lighting along Pine Avenue.
Key Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation: None
Written Testimony since the Commission Hearing: None
Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: Staff recommends the Council add a condition of approval requiring the
applicant submit and record a public use easement across Common Lot 21, Block 1 to allow the applicant flexibility to
work with the NMID on the construction of the 5-foot pathway.
NOTE: The proposed 5-foot pathway is a private amenity therefore it is not required to be 10 feet wide. The
Parks Department supports the new condition as it allows the City flexibility to widen the pathway if one is
not constructed on the east side of Ten Mile Creek.
Notes:
Item #7F: UDC Text Amendment (ZOA 13-003)
Application(s):
- Text amendment to the Unified Development Code
Size of property, existing zoning, and location: City Wide
Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: N/A
History: City staff periodically brings UDC Text Amendments forward to the Planning and Zoning Commission for
review and recommendation to the City Council.
Summary of Request: The Planning Division of the Community Development Department has applied for a Zoning
Ordinance Amendment (ZOA) to amend the text of certain sections of the Unified Development Code (UDC)
pertaining to fencing adjacent to pathways & open space; common driveways; irrigation easements; off-street
parking; home occupations; definitions for vehicles; vehicle sales or rental landscaping; public hearing notice signs;
allowed uses in the Industrial districts and other miscellaneous clean-up items.
Commission Recommendation: Approval with changes by the Commission
Summary of Commission Public Hearing:
i. In favor: Justin Lucas
ii. In opposition: None
iii. Commenting: Dave Yorgason
iv. Written testimony: Brad Miller, Michael Wardle
v. Staff presenting application: Justin Lucas
vi. Other staff commenting on application: Caleb Hood
Key Issue(s) of Discussion by Commission:
i. Changes to the common driveway standards and effects on site design and density;
ii. Removal of the changes to irrigation easements to give staff more time to work with development
community;
iii. Erosion of industrial areas and the need to preserve industrial space.
Key Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation:
i. Removed the changes to UDC 11-3A-6 and Table 11-5B-5 related to irrigation easements.
Written Testimony since the Commission Hearing: None
Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: None
Notes:
Meridian City Council Meeting
DATE: December 3, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 5A
.PROJECT NUMBER: FP 13-035
ITEM TITLE: BAINBRIDGE SUBDIVISION NO. 1
Final Order for Approval: FP 13-035 Bainbridge Subdivision No. 1 by Brighton
Development Located East Side of N. Black Cat Road, Approximately 1 /4 Mile South of
W. Chinden Boulevard Request: Final Plat Approval Consisting of Forty-Two (42) Single-
Family Residential Building Lots and Two (2) Common/Other Lots on 13.71 Acres of Land
in an R-8 Zoning District
MEETING NOTES
~a~ROUEo
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
Meridian City Council Meeting
DATE: December 3, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 5B
PROJECT NUMBER: RZ 13-011
ITEM TITLE: CRIMSON MAPLE
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order for Approval: RZ 13-011 Crimson Maple
by Crimson Maple Townhomes, LLC Located on the East Side of NW 4th Street, North of
W. Maple Avenue Request: Rezone 1.59 Acres from the R-8 (Medium-Density
Residential) Zoning District to the R-15 Zoning District (Medium High-Density Residential).
MEETING NOTES
~/i ~.80PED
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-NWILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
Meridian City Council Meeting
DATE: December 3, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 5C
PROJECT NUMBER: CUP 13-011
ITEM TITLE: CRIMSON MAPLE
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order-for Approval: CUP 13-011 Crimson
Maple by Crimson Maple Townhomes, LLC Located on the East Side of NW 4th Street,
North of W. Maple Avenue Request: Conditional Use Permit to Construct aMulti-Family
Development Consisting of 12 Residential Units in a Proposed R-15 Zoning District
MEETING NOTES
C/i ~F~FOVED
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
CLERKS OFFICE F/NAL ACTION
DATE: E-AAAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
Meridian City Ca~rncil Meeting
DATE: December 3, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 5D
PROJECT NUMBER: AZ 13-012
ITEM TITLE: SAGEWOOD SUBDIVISION
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order for Approval: AZ 13-012 Sagewood
Subdivision by Sagewood Overland„ LLC Located on the South Side of W. Overland
Road Approximately 650 Feet West of S. Stoddard Road. Request: Annexation of
Approximately 16.34 Acres from R 1 and RUT in Ada County to the L-O (Limited
Office) (5.02 acres) and R-8 (Medium-Density Residential) (11.32 acres) Zoning Districts.
MEETING NOTES
~ APPR6VE0
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-AAAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
Meridian City Council Meeting
DATE: December 3, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 5E
PROJECT NUMBER: pP 13-026
ITEM TITLE: SAGEWOOD SUBDIVISION
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order for Approval: PP 13-026 Sagewood
Subdivision by Sagewood Overland„ LLC Located on the South Side of W. Overland
Road Approximately 650 Feet West of S. Stoddard Road. Request: Preliminary Plat
consisting of two(2) office lots, forty-five (45) residential lots, and Eight (8) Common Lots
on Approximately 15.62 Acres in the Proposed L-O and R-8 Zoning Districts.
MEETING NOTES
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
CLERKS OFF/CE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-M/ULED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITWLS
Meridian City Council Meeting
DATE: December 3, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 5F
PROJECT NUMBER: AZ 13-009
ITEM TITLE: SPURWING ORCHARD EAST SUBDIVISION
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order for Approval: AZ 13-009 Spurwing
Orchard East Subdivision by Brighton Investments, LLC Located North Side of Chinden
Boulevard and West of N. Ten Mile Road Request: Annexation of 26.53 Acres from RUT in
Ada County to the R-4 (Medium-Low Density Residential) Zoning District
MEETING NOTES
~ a~rs~uEo
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF 8ENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES IN~Iq~
Meridian City Council Meeting
DATE: December 3, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 5G
PROJECT NUMBER: PP 13-021
ITEM TITLE: SPURWING ORCHARD EAST SUBDIVISION
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order for Approval: PP 13-021 Spurwing
Orchard East Subdivision by Brighton Investments, LLC Located North Side of Chinden
Boulevard, West of N. Ten Mile Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of
Sixty-Three (63)Single Family Residential Lots and Four (4) Common Lots on
Approximately 25.85 Acres in the Proposed R-4 Zoning District
MEETING NOTES
Ua ~; PROBED
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
Meridian City Council Meeting
DATE: December 3, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 5H
PROJECT NUMBER:
ITEM TITLE: LICENSE AGREEMENT NMID
License Agreement Between the Nampa and Meridian Irrigation District and the City of
Meridian Regarding Multi-Use Pathway Along the North Bank of Five Mile Creek
Between Linder and Ten Mile Roads
MEETING NOTES
hs-.~ rC9,
r-~' ~' '~
~~~ ~ t
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
CLERKS OFFICE F/NAL ACTION
DATE: E-MANED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
DATE: 23 December 2013
TO: Sawtooth Law Offices, PLLC
FROM: NAMPA & MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT
License Agreement(s) Approved
Board Meeting 17 December 2013
License Agreement 30 Pages
The City of Meridian
Five Mile Drain
Instrument #113135032
ADA COUNTY RECORDER Christopher 0. Rich AMOUNT .00 * �.l
BOISE IDAHO 12119113 09:12 AM ff
DEPUTY Nikola Olson III IIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIII lllll III
RECORDED -REQUEST OF 113135032
Nampa Meridian Irrilialian Disi
LICENSE AGREEMENT
LICENSE AGREEMENT, made and entered into this ill- day of �C�a��- , 2013, by and
between NAMPA & MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT, an irrigation district organized and existing
under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Idaho, party of the first party, hereinafter referred to as the
"District," and
THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, a political subdivision and
municipality of the State of Idaho,
33 East Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho 83642
party or parties of the second part, hereinafter referred to as the "Licensee,"
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the parties hereto entered into a Master Pathway Agreement For Developing and
Maintaining Pathways for public use along and across some of the District's ditches and within some of the
District's casements and fee title lands dated December 19, 2000, recorded as Instrument No. 100102999,
records of Ada County, Idaho, hereinafter referred to as the "Master Pathway Agreement;" and,
WHEREAS, the District and the Licensee intended by entering the Master Pathway Agreement to
accomplish the following in a manner that is consistent with their respective legal and fiduciary
responsibilities; to enhance the Licensee's pathway planning though early consultation between Licensee
and the District; to establish a process for the Licensee's submipsion of pathway requests and the District's
consideration of such requests; and to provide the general conditions for the District's approval and
authorization ofpathway requests affectingthe District's ditches, property, operations and maintenance; and,
WHEREAS, the District grants to Licensee the right develop pathways to encroach within the
District's easements along and across the District's ditches, canals and easements therefor upon the terms
and conditions of said Master Pathway Agreement and after the execution of a license agreement for each
proposed crossing and encroachment; and,
WHEREAS, the Licensee is the owner of the real property casement/ right of way (burdened with
the easementofthe District hereinafter mentioned) particularly described in the"Legal Description" attached
hereto as Exhibit A and by this reference made a part hereof; and,
WHEREAS, the District controls the irrigation/drainage ditch or drain known as the FIVE MILE
DRAIN (hereinafter referred to as "ditch or drain") together with the real property and/or easements to
convey irrigation and drainage water, to operate and mairitain the ditch or drain, and which crosses and
intersects said described real property of the Licensee as shown on Exhibit B attached hereto and by this
reference made a part hereof; and,
LICENSE AGREEMENT- Page I
WHEREAS, the Licensee desires a license to perform construction of a pedestrian pathway from
Pine Avenue to Bradley Avenue within the District's easement for the Five Mile Drain under the terms and
conditions of said Master Pathway Agreement and those hereinafter set forth,
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises and of the covenants, agreements and
conditions hereinafter set forth and those set forth in said Master Pathway Agreement, the parties hereto
agree as follows:
1. Licensee may perform construction involving: (a) a pedestrian pathway parallel to the Five
Mile Drain and within the District's easement between Linder Road and Ten Mile Road, north of Ustick
Road, within the District's real property and/or easement for said drain; and (b) gates and/or bollards across
or within the pathway to prevent the general public from driving down the pathway, and within the District's
real property and/or easement for the Five Mile Drain, all within Meridian, Ada County, Idaho.
2. Any construction or crossing of said ditch or drain shall be performed in accordance with
the "Special Conditions" stated in Exhibit C, attached hereto and by this reference made part thereof.
3. The permitted hours of use of the pathway shall be from one half hour before sunrise and
one half hour after sunset.
4. The parties hereto incorporate in and make part ofth is License Agreement al l the covenants,
conditions, and agreements of said Master Pathway Agreement unchanged except as the result of the
provisions of this License Agreement.
The covenants, conditions and agreements herein contained and incorporated by reference shall
constitute covenants to run with, and running with, ale of the lands of the Licensee described in said Exhibit
A, and shall be binding on each of the parties hereto and on all parties and all persons claiming under them
or either ofthem, and the advantages hereof shall inure to the benefit of each of the parties hereto and their
respective successors and assigns.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the District has hereunto caused its corporate name to be subscribed by
its officers first hereunto duly authorized by resolution of its Board of Directors and the Licensee has
hereunto subscribed its corporate name to be subscribed and its seat to be affixed thereto, all as of the day
and year herein first above written.
NAMPA & MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT
O`�P AL z BY
Jtlna. i Its President
ATTEST:
Its Secretary
LICENSE AGREEMENT - Page 2
THE CITY OF MERIDIAN
V �L
ATTEST: ., CRYOf '
r \\nnrso
7�/iir [ �.
/ � v
STATE OF IDAHO )
} ss:
County of Canyon }
On thisday of` ;-2013, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for
said State, personally appeared Graham Paterson and Daren R. Coon, known to me to be the President and
Secretary. respectively, of NAMPA & MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT, the irrigation district that
executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged to me that such irrigation district executed the same.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal, the day andyear
in this certificate first above molti'.en..,— _
STATE OF IDAHO
County of -Me,
•• Put%, 4
f V
DoesOp
/ '••.,,TATE.•,.
} ss;
}
Notary Public for Idaho
Residing at , Idaho
My Commission Expires: it
On this 3 day of 71 t.ccnnb -y 2013, before me, the undersigned, allotary Public in and for
said State personally appeared — rd\ and y �&jclee W^ Ma�known to me to be
the _ mgmy and . , respectively, of The CITY OF MERIDIAN, the
entity that executed the foregoing instnAnent and acknowledged to me that such entity executed the same.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto setmy hand and affixed my official seat, the day and year
in this certificate first above written.
a"
aO��o
oo.y r+ v
o>%rJTA''*. oaryub icfor
` iding at eirvol toun, I Q-
My Commission Expires.
vm��ggnD
LICENSE AGREEMENT - Page 3
ARA COUNTY RECORDER ChdsIn her R. Rich AIMOUNT .00 5
BOISE IDAHO ON9113 *29 AfA
111111man all
REPItTY wcky 14YMINNIE MW
RECORDED-REGST OF i 13L�50675
muldlan qH
RECREATIONAL I'A'111WAY EASEME 'I'
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this -1- day of Ha-�� 2013,
between Bridgetower Owners Association, hereinatiar referred to as "Grantor", acid the City of
Meridian, an Idaho municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Grantee";
WITNESSETH:
WHERCAS. Grantor is the owner of real property on portions of which the City of
Meridian desires to establish a public pathway; and
WHEREAS, the Grantee desires the Omntor•to grant an easement to cstablish thepathway
and provide connectivity to present and future portions of the pathway, and
WHEREAS. Grantee will constrict the pathway improvements upon the casement
described herein; and
NOVO', THEREFORI?, the Grantor does hereby grant unto the Grantee an easement on the
following property, described on Exhibi t "A" and depicted on Exhibit "B" attached hereto
and incorporated herein.
The easement leer-eby granted is for the purpose of providing a public recreational pathway
for multiple-usc non motorized recreation, with the freerightofac cess to such facilities at
any and all times.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the said easement unto the said Grantee, its successors and
assigns forever.
THE GRANTOR hereby covenants and gnees that it will not place or allow to be planed
any permanent structures, trees, brush, or perennial shrubs or flowers within the area
described for this casement, which would interfere with the use of said casement, for the
purposes stated herain.
IT IS EXPRESSLY [INDERSTOOD AND AGREED, by and betweon the parties hereto,
that Grantee shall repair and maintain thepathway improvements, howcver, Granteeshall
not be responsible for repairing; replacing or restoring anything, placed within the area
described in this easement that wits placed there in violation of this casement.
TFIE ORANTOR hereby covenants and agrees with the Grantee that should any part of
the casement hereby granted become part of, or lie within the boundaries of any public
street, then, to such extent such casement hereby granted which ties within such boundary
Exhibit A, page T
thereof or which is a part thereof, shall cease and become null and void and ofno further
effect and shall be completely relinquished.
THE GRANTOR does hereby covenant with the Grantee that it is lawfully seized and
possessed of the aforementioned and described tract of land, and that it has a good and
lawful right to convey said casement, and that it will warrant and foreverdefend the title
and quiet possession thereof against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Grantor has hereunto subscribed its signature the day
and year first hereinabove written.
GRANTOR:
Bridgetower Owners Association
Aasocia ion Munagemen Inc.
BY: Alana Walker
Its: Manager _ .sen10auai,..
siNie aor iy
°IAOTAIty b$
+a..
STATE OF IDAHO ) A G�1'
• a i18t,t d
} ss0.,.0•..�09
County of Ada ) �`'l+; ,. OF V9 #''�
On this a"� day of K�all � 2U13, bef re me, th undersigned, a
Notary Public in and for said State, persu ally 4ppcared ,� �.�'�
known or identified to nno to be the +�-•+t-- ..y that executed the within
instrument, and acknowledged to me that such company executed the same.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand
day and year fist above written.
NOTARY PUB
Residing at:
Commission Ex
Exhibit At page 2
affixed my official seal the
FOR
GRANTEE: CITY OF MERIDIAN
Tammy de t'Vc�u�sJ, Mayor n"`
4,—
�� ctyrr •
lr:l IID, IAN*•-
Attest byd. �cec: Holman, City Clerk "�
SLAC.
Approved By City Council On: #J
STATE OR IiDA110 )
. ss.
County of Ada )
On this day of _.. A��� _, 2013, before me, the widersigned, a Notary
Public in and for said State, personally appeared TAMMY DE WEERD and JAYCEE
HOLMAN, known to me to be the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of
Meridian, Idaho, and who executed the within instrurnant, and acknowledged to me that the
City of Meridian executed the same,
1N WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day
and year first above written.
Gtar1mrF
■{:.,:'fit'/` r% t��
,u,r
■ .
r. •
� 4
�rer■ICF
NOTARY 1'
Residing at:.
Commission
Exhibit A, page 3
lC
EXHIBIT A
City of Meridian
• Parrel 4 -
Permanent Easement Description
An easement for pathway and Utility purposes located in the SE 1 of Section 35, Township 4
Worth, Range I West, Boise Meridian, and being a part of Lot 1 of Block 1 of BRIDGETOW.1sR
CROSSW SUBDRIMON NO. I as shown in Book 84 of Pints at Page 9392 In tiro offico of tile
Recorder, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at a 5/8 inch diameter iron pin marking the southwesterly corner of said SFS '/,
from which a brass cap monument marking the southeasterly corner of said SE '/4 bears
S 89°14'59" E adistance of 2643,42 feet;
Thence N 0126'35" E along the westerly boundary of said SE i4 a distance of 255.75 feet to a
point on the southwesterly boundary of said Lot I;
Thence leaving said westerly boundary S 62°08'53" E along said southwesterly boundary a
distance of 359.50 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNIN0;
Thence continuing S 62°08'53" E a distance of 48,29 feet to a point;
Thence leaving said southeasterly boundary S 89°14'59" B a distance of 1012.92 feet to a point;
Thence N 85°02'23° E a distance of 110.55 feet to a point on the easterly boundary of said Lot 1;
Thence N 0026118" E along said easterly boundary a distance of 20.09 feet to a point;
Thence leaving said easterly boundary S 86'03'58" W a distance of 111,29 feet to a point;
Thence N 89°i 4'59" W a distance of 1054.87 feet to the POINT Or BEGIMVING.
This parcel contains 25,076 square feet (0.576 acres) and is subject to any other easements
existing or In use,
Propared by: Glenn K. Bennett, PLS
Civil Survey Consultants, Incorporated
December 11, 2012
Exhibit A. page 4
,•w
I
i
Exhibit A. page 5
to 7# 11• _/..0
RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN
RCCORDED RETURN TO:
Steven fl. titre
General Counsel
RECED
Ade Counly Highway Distcim
SEP 14 ;
3775 Adams Street
Garden City, }h 83714
CITY OFOV&
Parks & Recreat
('nlhtsgy I-Ilum al t.iuda Alefldlnn
ADI[ COM A M ON Wilyher 0 Rich AVOUirt .00 0
ROME IDAHO t>OI l 04:00100
WPIIIII Vlskl ft
11"01101-REOOE80 of l ie72se
EtAW
kATfflWAY EASEMENT
T Rcmda`s Use Only
�I
Q-411 tem u c.-- Ustick/Lii and
�,, TRIS J;I011,
WAY EASEMENT ("Easement'), is made and entered into this
day of by and between ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT, a
body politic and corporate of the state of Idaho ("Grantor'), and the City of MERIDIAN,
an Idaho municipal corporation, whose address is 33 East Broadway, Meridian, Idaho
83642 ("Grantee).
RECITALS
A. Grantor owns the real pr,�peri gg�enerally depicted on Exhibit A'and more
particularly described on Exhibit.B'dit� UITereto and by this reference incorporated
herein as if set forth in full ("Easement Property').
B. Grantor has agreed to grant to Grantee an appurtenant easement upon,
over, across, through and under the Easement Property for the purpose of pathway (as
defined in Meridian Pathways Master Plan, January 2010) maintenance and use by the
public.
AGREEMENT
I • Grant of Easement. On the terms and conditions set forth herein, Grantor
hereby grants to Grantee an appurtenant easement upon, over, across, through and under
the Easement Property for the purpose of Grantee maintaining a pathway on the
Easement Property, subject to the obligations of Grantee herein.
2. Term. The term of this Casement is perpetual.
3. Ease o
!Exclujive. This Easement does not extend to Grantee the
right to use the Easement Property to the exclusion of Grantor for any use within its
Jurisdiction, authority and discretion or of others to the extent authorized by law to use
public right-of-way to the extent that such other uses do not materially interfere with
Grantee's intended uses. if the Easement Property has been opened as a public highway
(as used herein the term "Highway" is as defined in Idaho Code Section 40-109(5))
PATHWAY EASEMENT -- I
Exhibit A, page 6
ihuhanp Law"Ient i order Meridims
Grantee's authorized use is subject to the rights of the public to use tate Easement
Property for llighway purposes.
4, ProRcrly for Hid ay _Purposes. Grantee's authorized use is also slibject
to the rights of holders of easements of record or obvious on inspection of the Easement
Property and statutory rights of utilities to use the public right-of-way, This Easement
is not intended to, and shall not, preclude or impede the ability of Grantor to enter into
other similar agreements in the future allowing third parties to also use its public rights-
of-way, or the ability of Grantor to redesign, reconstruct, relocate, maintain and improve
its public rights-ol+way and Migliways as authorized by law and as it determines, In its
sole discretion, is appropriate.
S. Repairs and M i tenan e, Any repairs or maintenance of Grantee's
pathway located on the Easement Property or the installation or construction of
improvements by Grantee on the Ensenaent Property, shall be accomplished in
accordance with all applicable laws, policies, and good engineering practices.
6. No F_ec. There is no fee for this Easement in accordance with that certain
Interagency Governmental Agreement for Waiver of Costs and Fees, dated June 9, 2010.
7. Maintenance Fail re to intain- Rei ca ion of Utilities.
7.1 At its sole cost and expense, Grantee shall maintain the pathway on
the Easement Property in good condition and repair and as required to satisfy applicable
laws and sound engineering practices. Grantee shall have access over, across and under
the Easement Property for the purpose of accomplishing such repair and maintenance.
7.2 1f the Highway and/or flood control structure on and/or adjacent to
the Easement Property is damaged as a result of the performance by Grantee of
Grantee's maintenance obligations, the failure or neglect to perform such maintenance,
and/or Grantee's use of the Easement Property, then Grantee shall, at Grantee's sole cost
and expense, correct such deficiency and restore the Highway and the surface of the
Easement Property to the same condition it was in prior thereto and, if Grantee shall fail
or neglect to commence such correction and restoration within seventy-two (72) hours of
Mlification therefor, Grantor may proceed to do so, in which event Grantee agrees to
reimburse Grantor for the costs and expenses thereof, including, without limitation,
reasonable compensation for the use of staff, materials, and equipment of Grantor,
7.3 Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 7.2, should an emergency
exist relisted to Grantee's rise of the Easement Property which threatens the stability or
function of the Highway on or adjacent to the Easement Property or the safety of the
Public use thereof, Grantor shall have the right to immediately perform, on behalf of,
and at the cost of Grantee, necessary emergency repairs,
13. Eermit. if any proposed reconstruction, relocation or maintenance of the
Easement Properly requires Grantee to obtain a permit under Grantor's policies, Grantee
PATHWAY EASEMENT -2
Exhibit: A, page 7
N1111ml) I:aumvN Limier m aldian
shall first obtain such permit from Grantor before commencing such work and otherwise
comply with the conditions set forth therein.
9. No Coals to—oranlor. Any nod all costs and expenses associated with
Grantee's authorized use of the Easement Property, or the repair and maintenance
thereof, shall be at the sole cost and expense of Grantee.
10. Indernnirication. Grantee hereby indemnifies and holds Urantor harmless
from and against any and all claims or actions for loss, injury, death, damages,
mechanics and other liens, arising out the failure or neglect of Grantee, Grantee's
employees, contractors and agents, to properly and reasonably make authorized use of
the Easement Property or properly repair or maintain the Easement Property, or that
otherwise result from the use and occupation of the Easement Properly by Grantee, and
including any attorneys' fees and costs that may be incurred by Grantor in defense of
such claims or actions indemnified against Grantee hereunder.
I I -Compliance with Law. In connection with Grantee's use of the Easement
Property, Grantee covenants and agrees to: (1) comply with the terms of any NPDES
permit associated with storm water runoff on the Easement Property; (ii) comply with
the Master Pathway Agreement between City of Meridian and Nampa & Meridian
Irrigation District, dated December 19, 2000, Ada County Recorder Instrument Number
#100102999 and is incorporated by reference (iii) obtain and comply with any and all
permits, licenses and approvals required by any unit of government; and (iv) commit no
waste or allow any nuisance on the Easement Property. Grantee hereby agrees to
indemnify, defend, and hold Grantor and Grantors' members, employees, agents,
contractors, successors and assigns harmless from and against any and all claims for
loss, injury, death and damage caused by or arising directly or indirectly out of the use
of the Easement Property by Grantee, its mayor and city council, employees, contractors
and agents, and including, without limitation, attorneys fees and costs incurred by
Grantors and/or Grantors' successors and assigns in defending any such claims.
12, Covenants Run with the Land. This Easement shall be a burden upon the
Easement Property and shall run with the land.
13, &1torney's Fees and Costs. In any suit, action or appeal therefrom to
enforce or interpret this Easement, the prevailing party shall be entitled 10 recover its
costs incurred therein, including reasonable attorneys' fees.
14.Suceessors and Assigns. This Easement and the covenants and agreements
herein contained shall inure to the benefit of, and be binding upon, the parties hereto
and their successors and assigns to the Easement Property, or any portion thereof.
15. Rgcording. This Easement shall be recorded in the real property records
of Ada County, Idaho.
Signature page follows.
PATHWAY EASEMENT -- 3
Exhibit.: A. page 8
ATTEST:
Step nBc'CSe�erciar�yfi�hr.
nftha Board
1,141h4 s) PhicluculIindetJ61cridrula
GRANTOR:
ADA COUN'T'Y I II H WAY DISTRICT,
a body polilio wi morale of the stole of Idaho
By.,
GRANTEE:
CITY OF MERIDIAN
President
Tammy 1y"a-,m-.y.,
ATT , ST:
ayeee Van, City Clerk
PA'T'HWAY EASEMENT --4
Exhibit A, page 9
Pathway Pas ant Linder WrWan
STATU Or wmio )
) FS:
County of Ada )
On ibis day of 2*,'02"011. before ate, the undersigned notary public,
Personally appeared Rebecca W. Arnold and Stephanie Blake, known or identified to ine
(or proven to me on the basin of satisfactory evidence) to be the President and Secretary
of the Board of the Acle County Highway District, and acknowledged to me that the
Board of Commissioners of the Ada County Highway District executed the seine,
IN WITNESS WREREOF, 1 have hereunto set any hand
seal the day and year in this certiFlcate first above written.
�yOT M �" Notary ublic
�°UBLir'.,•
Residing at
%
' Comm. Bxpireso
STATE OF IDAHO )
) ss;
County of Ada )
and affixed my official
On this day of 2011, before me, the undersigned notary public for
said state, personally appeared Tammy de Weerd and Jaycee Holman known or
identified to me (or proven on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the Mayor and
City Clerk of Meridian City, Idaho, and acknowledged to ane that Meridian City Council
executed the same.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have herounto act my hand and affixed my official
seal the day and year in this certificate first above written.
PA TIWAY EASBMENT -- 5
Exhibit A, page 10
Otivner of Record: Ada County HlghW4jy District
Parcel No.: 83193250010
ACRD Project: Storm Drain Pond, Ustlok![.lnder
S.35. T4 N., R. I W., B.M.
Psthwalk Easement
A parcel of land situated in the Southeast Quarter of lite Southeast Quarter (SEI 14
SEI/4) "Section 33, Township 4 North, Range I West, Boise Meridian, Ada County,
Idaho, said parcel also being a portion of that Warranty Deed, tiled as Instrument Number
103201122, records ofAda County, being more particularly described as follows:
Catnmenchl at the Southeast Comer ofsaid SEI/4 SE 1/4 of Section 35 from
which the West 114 comer of said Section 3S bear,: N 8942.39" W, 2643AO feet as
shown on that Record of Survey Number 6306, fled as Instrument Number 103176984,
records of Ada County, thence N 891142139" W, 390.01 feet along the South line ofsaid
SRI 14 561/4 and centerline of Uatick Road to the Southeast comer Warcel 2 as shown
on said Record of Survey; thence N 0° 12147' W, 44.09 feet along the East boundaryof
said Parcel 2 to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
Thence continuing along the said East boundary ofAarcel 2, N 0012147' W, 46.00
feet to a point,
Thence leaving said Enst boundary ofParcel 2, N 6200WOol W, 85.30 Fast;
Thence N 90900'00" W, 320.70 feet;
Thence S 84°00'00" W, 272.69 feet;
Thence N 90°00'00" W, 100.75 feet to the west boundary of sold Parcel;
Thence S 00"0l' i 5" E, 15.00 feet along said west boundary to a point;
Thence S 90000'00'' E, 101.57 feet;
Thence N 84°00100" E, 270.32 feet
Thence N 90°00'00" E, 318.98 feet;
'thence S 62000'00" E, 72.03 feet;
Thence S 09 12147" E, 36.90 feet,-
Thence
eet;Thence S 89942*39" E, 15.00 feet Io the Potnt of Beginning
Said described Sidewalk Easement contains 12,269 square feet or 0.28 acres.
Exhibit A, page 11
0.01'15' w J19.4J'
IR
Exhibit A, page 12
F ��' t i i` rr ,'i ��'7i"r`"`j'.u-'=�'�i�'d w7 i4�•.�y.�?.=�� �n li l €�r� ,��, .� ;.-.�' '�['r2� � � '�.,
ti .'+�y� .q�.' 1y � ,y,_��a,�3� �F I a(yG•.'�4YY t
�.5�+r� � : * y�".��T ii r•,�'� � d +�.' + 1 Ilr •r ��s � k �1� � '''�4 t-'' • �S• • r 1 . - s • 7�}� 'i' lu�', �- +.• •�
7{ +•r. +F, t"�. +v++. •7 ;'" 1'`r..P y
lik
JJ �! t.� EJ�S�iIT r illli �i st ly�;'
v
rs�"�.�a��Fi'`' 1•�, �� � r' Si�
Jrs.'
� � ay,,rJ��i J'''N t r t r +� ,py. � ' � i_� - � ��� �'14�pJ����•, �y � �'¢� � I` r .. z't�'�� i �� i a,.
yS �• j 7r G, � a I � t r r � �_ ,`.. _ ' Y� / "rf Y i Ji 11 `,�,• F � ,cif Y.+i.
,
xJ r{�,�«}� �. i 9 r iaSrl{ 3 .im" �'��r'�r� �/ �. yr� rx.�•,�"�` t., � � 7 3f ; �r�7 f;,•, :. �i� �' -r � •;
Ea1is;��triFTJ�j � _ti.} +�h n ,J'"}i �'•` �'�q�, � ;�y � y�`F_ t �1,
y{M Irl i h �-{ r t s y i1'r'� '•r+ : T r t'L .` "+� i<h i��.
Alt
'^Y . rvN • �, y {`' l �y�t' 1�.''C:� �; r`f5 '
r ll
Or
`r+�{ IFrF .'r 7 7 `,. i � y t�.f,'. r # Er �' i ti�f.�' •9 4t r .1
�S' Ij i�i��r�t.•tf .. J 6 fi 'i �g ` . a y � -i�� ��rfiiL rl' +! r � .. �t•��
y{i �h, r.l rxrt "plrr rl �6! rl •71 P.yi y ,4 �K*I;,f r%}Jr rV .>''. :�,.d E4: ,.i 1 I zy�r � 1 { n+� :I
—.r+ f
rJr rrI Ly +it' r. ft rr
iiLi� 11 �,*���t.�y �'��l'��7� � �'!l ♦ .�`� }�� ,a .' t�li .nrr , ��
i i S1{, i y • � �} ." a 7 '.-fT 57`Ki J••' � � Y1- 5 kl Itr. 5.� _ • � '4 1�
¢, 1 ,� r .d.J"` `} r r�L1 `T•�s+ ��° �'F.'• �7������'•kf��. 1 + � . ! i I� � i} ,c"�* i T# _
f� h��• YS +�� � �� s ��i d L) �_, 9jf' y jl ¢ u _,� , I
;:,` �', + l ilck � �• � 7 } il4W..
1 F �'y7{ • +i • � 'Y , � '�' �' FF + 7 : 11 • yl ,
.1}1�4sVAJ"4 J(3C1 r 4. i' 1� .E r� �• 'carr a..c,b, •I
�• 1�� fJ, i"_``.1/5'r4Ji1,�., ii � �*} .� �`' �J �` E:'. •j�-�i_ J-...�j.
'f! _ � ! J'�j.9=r• s �( �.tSr`SS��`IY� rlcr , � _ jE t Ji'E .....i �. I 1
a317 �.r�R ti � 7 r �x ti f y 1i A I..€! � • �r rr ��.- ,
• d,,rr
1' .�I Y'�S 9 J rel •1 �1 1� 1 ` 7+ r p r•! �.Ng - f t .
�.{h.Jr' • f• y, { }n, �f r �1 r'�r jai • ��
ur��jA�rl tIJ, nl �clri r Ik� IJ �f� .� .._ -.F \ it t i i !• �� .' i � 1 d
h _ r
_`•�y>>r-•r ' •i J l�r ��� t� iE°; 7�`,.' _•t,[ �,.:Z
�l. fj
rlr{` • � _ I� �� rkri}I}{I
!E
:.1.%•`y Y iL VA rt^ 1� `
1 s��'. i� �` I, n � -rI�• i[5c •i �-`�:i
N!
�
��., �: I, it j, 4 y• In 1 '1 L
r
3� f i
- • 7 r
n
Al
�,�`'�I�t-'n�^�'�1 l4bys n
IF
rc..w..e.._t 3Lr
u
,II
AON
,1 �11 �j''}' t � I , P. "_ �-l: I'6w�'E✓1 *iia" �
11
�•",�r .in
AL��� ' �F;' fl itl..�l''.i a ..4 i.•
1U, '�
m'ra.� J w "�T, ''j `. r ,r ms`s`,`, it.�: I apt tirl
'I*.°s�J n �,''I�,`F "I F...}. •.� +1+`�}FFi '` �: I .w.% � L t 6 �' ���}}l
• 4 r 1 > ,flE �L 1, • 1,
L1:44i t r.+ h:
w:+„�s,.,
j�.l • •,1 r •�.' f.
t` ;�”
1i +' i' �AJ
} ' �}'I�, �a�+^ffV�• '� �fi��` ,�J F'l fr+; t. FIS +�r� 'f r f,' '' '; —R i,
,1 � rt .1 �dI �. JI �,'• � ': r r. I�., 4 r I t�. • �_
oAr
T lip
p� l� �•_ I
fly
Cr *t
t- r
ri lr •.
f I a•F�;9
�+=Liti r �.• f �' , •,1i.� __ ���� -r'I , r I w� '�!„ t ._A "�
J,.'.3 -j, w:v � _` +� :N{,..r" ; �`• � �t '_ � ;�,�'•p ltd �irdf, � #�,�� � •�
I w
t4.1`'',
r. r *�.' .�,{!�VtI'i :'�~ �L. p�G yR1�.01 �r �? W'I �Q`r! ✓' r� y{f, e#e�4at ,
`�a'
Y.,��a<.+
• , �� ,I155 )iP � 41�t X }'iZ [� t ' �rti�i.r�•'�" .t�v �.
1 r to y
,}� �' 1 �' � _ j 3.`.�-•; + 5.21 •.,,! • C 0 F r �� a
yid +i,
+ �t���`I
�7
tF� 7 sx�I p Y1if 1rL&•` ,t-1 !nll 141 I J'.T� j,i. �5`I'fll [
S', {I�iF
7r ��. E L� t 's �-r4..+11vF r 'L`• i 1+.•S- �IEt ff i -'f
4r 1 7a,{'4 I, i• i�'Io 'e 1�1 ,, trl i1 it ', �FI'i l,,l rf i�,t'i rid I1 IIGi� 6eg
r�
.�_' � 5`r�� J,Jjry[rr1� w �'. � �{ w t.,l � mm �{ — � �yr _ I+ � ILr dr{ I�•l t'�iaF
gp;r
i '3; ��f: �� � I� ! i„7 �1 �iil aw 1 •r } 9 fr`7;fj!.. ,_ 7 f I �,T,j�fi
Sa ?
I
�t�;
4 I { A}
L ry i, �• yY_ i Ji � I :,� 1 .,�1 �f f,�. + r - d..
f y�1 i�`� -'n, t s 4`' � , n � , 1 1 }rj � _ lam' � r. � �'►
.�}vp
I.t11:1.
b �(�1. a r� .� l t •t.',t .` C..�r gr<r f�rt �}"Z{�� _
J I '•r� l Ii Y � .f•�,��,i �. �� t ,�+� �-^••,��i¢',ff .P� � i 1i
1aXHIBIT C
Special Conditions
a. Construction of the pathway shall be in accordance with Exhibit C- I, attached hereto and
by this reference made a part hereof. Any gates installed by Licensee shall have interlocks for the District's
access. Additionally, any silt fences installed as part of the construction of the pathway or crossing shall
be removed from the District's easement upon completion of construction of the pathway or crossing.
b. Licensee shal i notify tile water superintendent of the District prior to and immediately after
construction so that he or the District's engineer's may inspect and approve the construction.
C. Licensee acknowledged and confirms that the District's easement along this section of the
Five Mile Drain includes a sufficient area of land to convey irrigation and drainage water, to operate, clean,
maintain and repair the Five Mile Drain, and to access the Five Mile Drain for said purposes and is a minium
of 100 feet, SO feet to either side of the centerline.
d. Construction shall be completed one year from the date of this agreement. Time if of the
essence.
LICENSE AGREEMENT - Page 4
MuW
c
W m
w�3
hod
CAa
N� G
°�i
0
tz
a` a
�LHI
919
24--16
O G
ywyvO:'
W
NC
1 I
11l
�Y
b
J
��� i -j
Aldula
I
a r
Ei
°
r
C
bl
p
n
e i
z
c
W m
w�3
hod
CAa
N� G
°�i
0
tz
a` a
�LHI
919
24--16
O G
ywyvO:'
W
NC
1 I
11l
�Y
b
J
��� i -j
Aldula
I
Exhibit C-1, page 1
�/e
0
it �p il•. a
} ff l(�iWrt1 °
.B 1-
2 -
rypi9
lips
1,11 i 9
Exhibit C-1, page 2
t
1
M
y
zl�
FF3
{
8�
l
o o a n
lips
1,11 i 9
Exhibit C-1, page 2
t
1
M
y
zl�
FF3
{
8�
:.Q
w
lips
1,11 i 9
Exhibit C-1, page 2
t
1
9
Asa
IN
e
� �ppd
I grr
t C-1, page 3
e
kR
t C-1, page 3
V 4
v
f+tnry
Y! y 16
f.l1 i
r
y
N
F{jh'
'F
Y . j
ir
{,...y+1d'aI�-
Exhibit c -i a page 4
D
w
46
z F
GAS 4
w w,r •q ra,.w 8^ � rr% n h � n i. n � ff ,�,
h ArR,
u.. i .� 7. '? wu•ir ��
go
-?; n K �{.tee:,• ` ]] 7 a
i � !
��
r n1"" ��r }
'i3� 'moi � lr � � ! � :. • �f
t t �ti 3*�lrLs, a 'i
• 11 , t
} .sttir,
AV
5 777 � +I• 4,.�
G` �% R•'•.�•r,l � air° r� i� � I �� .:; '1
Exhibit C-1. oaa a 5
� �0' gilt
10 2A
e Nf fig
Urs is:r�f,Cl rws~n-- 14ar-')lf,
&i �• yrgs
U'
•• tiST& i� i i�,:•
4 L c
5 11 r C; tY N n
F.xh'i hi f- 0-9 rimer= 9
5
Yj
r
:,n•r, 7.1:
r.`
•• tiST& i� i i�,:•
4 L c
5 11 r C; tY N n
F.xh'i hi f- 0-9 rimer= 9
0
r
B
Z�� t
Ill •11 1.a,
u
Is
}` `L
'. ,` Iii � � •�1 .. •e:i �' �4, ,I i � A
40
r 111
,
a
r e�
•. /y�� 4 jV 1� 1 r'r • r • ll
1/ ,4 .• ilR. �f a S � \` ' .i 9 • � � 'er.PIH'.RY•
*NT''
7 1.+;r,t�?I�;. .,s'�.4 5,f' i � tarti�egr.P.-ry-._—•t
1
z-,--1 ` V. IV
r l Al
64.
yhr d
Y(
`ez!
Y 01
Exhibit C-1, page 8� �L
o
W_xR1y �I
o�
Z Ir H
rnl/V ws ..w rrrn ^ n r. y W
K� `•x4 �-;}'-� ! 'tri 4 \ ++ � it �i � . K
+
f7- frL
I,yyL n e
00
fill
4-1
;'•'' f
Oji ii r
I r!i' ir..Lt • .rte-"L�ii��:Y � 1 �' � �i
�r r#
AJ
Exhibit C-1, page 9
Meridian City Council Meeting
DATE: December 3, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 51
PROJECT NUMBER:
ITEM TITLE: CONTRACT AMENDMENT
Approval of Contract Amendment No. 1 for "Safety Consulting and Training Services" to
Northwest Safety and Risk Services, Inc. for the Not-To-Exceed Amount of $53,680.00
MEETING NOTES
'~ R9PROVER
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
City of Meridian
Purchasing Dept.
Memo
To: Jaycee L. Holman, City Clerk,
From: Keith Watts, Purchasing Manager
CC: Jacy Jones, Mike Barton
Date: 11/26!13
Re: December 3rd City Council Meeting Agenda Item
The Purchasing Department respectfully requests that the following item be placed on the
December 3rd City Council Consent Agenda for Council's consideration.
Approval of Contract Amendment No 1 for "Safety Consulting and Training Services"
to Northwest Safety and Risk Services Inc for the Not-To-Exceed amount of
53 680.00.
Recommended Council Action: Approval of Contract Amendment No.1 to
Northwest Safety and Risk Services, Inc. far the Not-Ta-Exceed amount of
$56,680.00. This is the first of 2 possible contract extensions.
Thank you for your consideration.
~~
s Page 1
~~E II~-IAI'~
~~~
CITY OF MERIDIAN
CONTRACT AMENDMENT No 1
NORTHWEST SAFETY AND RISK SERVICES, INC
c~
r
CONTRACTOR NAME: DEPARTMENT NAME:
.NORTHWEST SAFETY AND RISK SERVICES INC
Public Works
ADDRESS: ADDRESS:
7367 Bridgeport Dr. 33 E. Broadway
Nampa, ID 83887 Meridian, ID 83842
CURRENT CONTRACT INFO~jMAT10N:
Contract Name: Safety Consulting and Training Services
Previous Amendment Date: ~ Previous Amendments: ,~
Current Contract Dates:; START: .5-16-2013 COMPLETION: _ 09-30.2013
Current Contract Amount. pnciuslve of Prev/ous Amendments to Date): $28.200.00
CHOOSE ONE AMENDMENT COLUMN BELOW, either "STANQARD AMENDMENT" or "AMENDMENT TO EXERCISE
'OPTION TO RENEW' and check off arty applicable amendments under that column.
AMENDMENT TO EXERCISE QPTION TO RENEW
(Check a!I that AvoN~~
.,,~_ Amendment to Contract Performance
X Amendment to Contract t7ates
~_ Amendment to Contract Amount
,._ Other. (Explain}
DESCRIPTION OF REASON FOR AMENDMENT: (Attach a!i relevant documentation detafling amendment}:
See attached Scope of Work and Payment Schedule for FY2014
NEW CONTRACT INF R~MATI,~N~.
Amendment Date: 12-3-2013
New Contract Oates: START: 12-01-2013 COMPLETION: 09.30-2014
Amount of Amendment Change S 53.680.00
Current CantreCt Amount. (/ncluslve of Prevtous Amendments to Date): 581.880.00
ALL OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIQNS OF THE'ORIGINA~ CQNTRACT AND PREVIOUS
AMENDMENTS REMAIN UNCHANGED AND tN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT.
CITY OF MERIDI
T MMY de RD, MAYOR
Dated: ) ~" 3 -~ \~ .ar . , ',
.~°` = a
_ _ .~
,v
_3, ~€~13
Council. Apprpval Date:.
(_rtr i7£
A est: JI~iI~~1l~i
~9 tJ A pj (y
~' Sf .~-
JAYCE IMAN, CITY CLERK ~~ ,
''~~. ~ .
NORTHWE T SAFETY ISK SERVICES
BY:
MI/LLE
Dat /~/ L~~ 1J
--;r~---
Approved by City as to Content
BY: ~"`
KEITH A S, P RCHASING MANAGER
i"~''
Attachment A
Scope of Services
Northwest Safety and Risk Services, Inc. agrees that it will provide the following
professional safety consulting services to the City of Meridian Public Works Department #or
a period of 10 months between December 1st, 2013 to September 30th, 2014.
Safety Policies and Programs Assessment Finalization
The final assessment segments will focus on current strengths, weaknesses, opportunities,
and. threats. The City of Meridian Public Work Department has established a minimum
compliance in respect with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations.
The assessment process will review the following items:
Loss Prevention
d Substance Abuse
Accident Investigation
[~ Claims Management
Financial
The City of Meridian will provide employees who are known as professional experts that
can act as liaisons. Northwest Safety and Risk Services, (nc. estimates that the liaisons
will be needed for a tots[ of no more than 100 hours during the assessment. A written
report based on the assessment findings will be provided detailing Northwest Safety and
Risk Services' recommendations for safety program management in 2014-2015.
Facility. Safety.. inspection Reports
Northwest Safety and Risk Services, Inc: will provide 2 Facility Safety [nspections at the
Wastewater Treatment Plant and- Water Department Facility.
Northwest Safety and Risk Services, lnc. will provide 20 Wel! Site Safety Inspections., 9 Lift
Station Site Safety Inspections, 24 PRV Vault Site Safetyinspections, 1 Water Tower Site
Safety inspection, and 1 Water Reservoir Site Safety Inspection.
The purpose of these safety inspection reports are to present observations and recommend
interventions to resolve identified safety issues.
Jobsite Audit Reports
Northwest Safety and Risk:Services, Inc. will provide approximately 4 Construction Site
'~ Audits per month #or a total of 48 audits for Capital Projects at the request of the
Construction Division.
Northwest Safety. and Risk Services, Inc. will provide a combined total of 20 Job Hazard
Analyses or Ergonomic Assessments as requested by the Department.
~'\
Monthly-Safety Committee Meetings
The City of Meridian Public Works Deparhnent fiolds monthly safety committee meetings.
Northwest Safety and Risk Services, Inc. wilt be present for the meetings as advisors and
will provide assistance and recommendations for loss control
Training
Northwest Safety and Risk Services, Inc. will continue providing training. recommendations
for the Department and each of its Divisions. A training plan will be developed with the
assistance of the Safety Committee. and .included.. inte the Departments Training Matrix.
Northwest Safety and Risk Services, Inc.-will provide. approximately. 8 hours a month for a
total of 96 hours for the year of Task Speck safety training to Public Works employees.
Training will be held at City of Meridian facilities and scheduled in 2, 4 or 8 hour blocks.
Task Specific Training topics will be selected by the Public Works Department. Topics
available include but are not limited to: New Hire Training, Chemical Hygiene, Confined
Space, Personal Protective Equipment, Bloodbome Pathogens, Hazard Communication,
Energy Isolation Lockout!'Cagout, CPR with First-Aid and AED Certification, OSHA 10 Hour
~ Training, Competent Person Excavation and Trenching Safety, Forklift Operator Training,
and Customized Safety Training.
A Cert~cate of Completion will be provided for each attendee that. successfully completes a
safety training course. All classes requested more-than 45 days before date of training will
be submitted to the Idaho Bureau of Occupational Licenses Board for approval. There. is no
guarantee by Northwest Safety and Risk Services that classes will be approved far CEU's
(continued education units).
~` Attachment B
MILESTONE I PAYMENT SCHEDULE
A. Total and complete compensation. for this Agreement shall not exceed $5,368.00 per
month for a total of $53,680.OQ.
TASK QTY AMOUNT TOTAL
Monthly Safety.Services 10 Months $5,368.00 $53,680.00
TOTAL $53,680.00
ALLOWABLE REIMBURSABLES
The following reimbursable expenses will be allowed ONLY if addressed in any resulting
task order. Amounts wil! be reimbursed at cost.
Ex ease Rate
Outside: rinti w/Recei #s Cost
ALL OTHER EXPENSES ARE £ONSlDERED INCIDENTAL AND ARE NOT
RElMBUR~ABLE
Meridian City Council Meeting
DATE: December 3, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 6
PROJECT NUMBER:
ITEM TITLE:
Items Moved From Consent A ends ~~
9 ~,
MEETING NOTES
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
Meridian City Council Meeting
DATE: December 3, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 7A
PROJECT NUMBER: AZ 13-014
ITEM TITLE: VICTORY SOUTH
Public Hearing: AZ 13-014 Victory South by City of Meridian Located South of W. Victory
Road, East of S. Linder Road and West of S. Meridian .Road Request: Annexation of
310.20 Acres of Land from RUT, R 1, R4 and R6 in Ada County to the R-4 (Medium Low-
Density Residential) (221.94 Acres) and R-8 (Medium-Density Residential) (88.14 Acres)
Zoning Districts
MEETING NOTES
C/i APPR6BE~ w~ COQ
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
Meridian City Council Meeting
DATE: December 3, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 7B
PROJECT NUMBER: PFP 13-001
ITEM TITLE: TWELVE OAKS
Public Hearing: PFP 13-001 Twelve Oaks by JLJ, Inc. Located at 1845 W. Franklin Road
Request: Preliminary and Final Plat Approval Consisting of Two (2) Building Lots on 9.43
Acres of Land in the TN-R and C-C Zoning Districts
MEETING NOTES
~i GPPROYE~
W' lb+~ /`~ Sv~
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
Meridian City Council Meeting
DATE: December 3, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 7C
PROJECT NUMBER: RZ 13-012
ITEM TITLE: RAISIN' ANGELS
Public Hearing: RZ 13-012 Raisin' Angels by Engineered Structures, Inc. Located
Northwest Corner of E. Pine Avenue and N. Nola Road Request: Rezone of 1.54 Acres of
Land from the I-L (Light Industrial) Zoning District to the L-O (Limited Office) Zoning
District
MEETING NOTES
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
Meridian City Council Meeting
DATE: December 3, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 7D
PROJECT NUMBER: AZ 13-013
ITEM TITLE: CREEKSTONE SUBDIVISION
Public Hearing: AZ 13-013 Creekstone Subdivision by Boslau Family Trust Located North
Side of W. Pine Avenue; Midway Between N. Black Cat Road and N. Ten Mile Road
Request: Annexation of 6.92 Acres from RUT in Ada County to the R-8 (Medium-Density
Residential) Zoning District
MEETING NOTES
~i A~~POE'E
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
CLERKS OFFICE F/NAL ACTION
DATE: E-AAAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
Meridian City Council Meeting
DATE: December 3, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 7E
PROJECT NUMBER: PP 13-029
ITEM TITLE: CREEKSTONE SUBDIVISION
Public Hearing: PP 13-029 Creekstone Subdivision by Boslau Family Trust Located North
Side of W. Pine Avenue; Midway Between N. Black Cat Road and N. Ten Mile Road
Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Thirty-Two (32) Residential Lots and Six
(6) Common Lots on Approximately 6.92 Acres in the Proposed R-8 Zoning District
MEETING NOTES
,~ a~PAOU~o
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
Meridian City Cauncil Meeting
DATE: December. 3, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 7F
PROJECT NUMBER:. ZOA 13-003
ITEM TITLE: TEXT AMENDMENT
Public Hearing: ZOA 13-003 UDC Text Amendment by City of Meridian Planning Division
Request: Text Amendment to the Unified Development Code (UDCj in Regard to
Fencing Adjacent to Pathways and Open Space; Common Driveways; Irrigation
Easements; Off-Street Parking; Home Occupations; Definitions for Vehicles; Vehicle
Sales or Rental Landscaping; Public Hearing Notice Signs; and Allowed Uses in the
Industrial Districts
MEETING NOTES
~~ ~~
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-AAAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
Meridian City Council Meeting
DATE: December 3, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: $A
PROJECT NUMBER:
ITEM TITLE: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT REPORT
Public Works: Engineering Capital Improvement Plan
MEETING NOTES
~~t~
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
Meridian City Council Meeting
..DATE: December 3, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 9A
PROJECT NUMBER:
ITEM TITLE: ORDINANCE NO. 13-1582 -SECOND READING
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 13-1582: Adoption of 2012 International Building
Code, 2009 International Residential Code, 2009 International Energy Conservation
Code, and local amendments (Title 10, Chapter 1, Meridian City Code)
MEETING NOTES
z~
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
CLERKS OFFICE F/NAL ACTION
DATE: E-IYWLED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
Meridian City Council Meeting
DATE: December 3, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: JB
PROJECT NUMBER:
ITEM TITLE: ORDINANCE NO. 13-1583 -SECOND READING
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 13-1583: Adoption of 2012 International Fire Code
and local amendments (Title 10, Chapter 4, Meridian City Code)
MEETING NOTES
z,~ 2~~
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF ,SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
Meridian City Council Meeting
DATE: December 3, 2013 - ITEM NUMBER: 9C
PROJECT NUMBER:
ITEM TITLE: ORDINANCE NO. 13-1584 -SECOND READING
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 13-1584: Updates to Meridian Flood Damage
Prevention Ordinance (Title 10, Chapter 6, Meridian City Code)
MEETING NOTES
~ ~~
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
CLERKS OFFICE F/NAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
Meridian City Council Meeting
DATE: December 3, 2013 .ITEM NUMBER: 9D
PROJECT NUMBER:
ITEM TITLE: ORDINANCE NO.
First Reading of Ordinance No. :Impact Fee Update
MEETING NOTES
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
CLERKS OFF-CE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-~AAI~ED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
Meridian City Council Meeting
DATE: December 3, 2013. ITEM NUMBER: 10
PROJECT NUMBER
ITEM TITLE:
Future Meeting Topics
MEETING NOTES
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS