HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-09-20Meridian City Council September 20, 2016
A meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:05 p.m., Tuesday,
September 20, 2016, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd.
Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, Joe Borton, Keith Bird, Genesis
Milam, Ty Palmer, Luke Cavener and Anne Little Roberts.
Others Present: Bill Nary, C.Jay Coles, Jaycee Holman, Bruce Chatterton, Sonya
Allen, Josh Beach, Warren Stewart, Tracy Basterrechea, Joe Bongiorno, and
Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll-call Attendance:
Roll call.
X_ Anne Little Roberts X _ _Joe Borton
X__ Ty Palmer X_ Keith Bird
__X__ Genesis Milam __X__ Lucas Cavener
_X Mayor Tammy de Weerd
De Weerd: Thank you for your patience. We are sorry that we are a few minutes
beyond 6:00, but welcome to Meridian City Council meeting. Thank you for
joining us. For the record it is Tuesday, September 20th. It's a few minutes after
6:00. We will start with roll call attendance, Mr. Clerk.
Item 2: Pledge of Allegiance by Cub Scout Troop #365
De Weerd: Item No. 2 is the Pledge of Allegiance. Tonight we will be led in our
pledge by Cub Scout Troop 365. If they would like to come forward.
(Pledge of Allegiance recited.)
De Weerd: If I could ask you Cub Scouts -- young men. I would like to give you
a City of Meridian Pin. Good job.
Item 3: Community Invocation by Pastor Troy Drake with Calvary
Chapel Meridian
De Weerd: Okay. Item No. 3 is our community invocation. Pastor Troy Drake is
here with us to lead us in the invocation. If you will all join us or take this as an
opportunity for a moment of reflection. Thank you for joining us.
Drake: Good evening. Thank you for having me. It's hard to follow the Cub
Scouts, but I will try. Lord God, thank you so much for this country that we live in
and the freedoms that we have to choose our representatives and to work where
we want to and live where we want to and -- and believe in serving -- serve you
Meridian City Council
September 20, 2016
Page 2 of 58
or not and -- and so we just appreciate this country and, God, we just pray for
safety over Meridian tonight and the rest of our country, Lord, just all the
craziness that has been happening, we just ask that you be with the families
elsewhere and, you know, just, God, we ask for you to be over our police officers
and firefighters and all those who protect us from harm and that yo u would keep
our city safe tonight and we do just consider those who have suffered recently in
our nation and, Lord, lastly, I also just pray for our City Council meeting here
tonight and these -- the Mayor and the Council Members, Lord, we are just so
thankful for them and pray that you would bless them, bless their lives for their
service to us all and -- and that you would give them wisdom here tonight in all
the affairs, the business of the city, and we just trust them with those things, God,
and pray that they would make good decisions and would do according to your
will and plan and so we honor you tonight, Lord, and it's in Jesus' name we pray,
amen. Thank you.
Item 4: Adoption of the Agenda
De Weerd: Thank you. Item No. 4 is adoption of the agenda.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: On the agenda under the Consent Agenda, 5 -R is -- the resolution number
is 16-1160. 5-S is resolution number 16-1161. Under 5-T the resolution number
is 16-1162. And under Department Reports, resolution number under 7-A is 16-
1163. 7-B is resolution number 16-1164. 7-C is resolution number 16-1165.
Item 7-D is reservation number 16-1166. Item 7-E is resolution number 16-1167.
And Item 7-F is 16-1168 resolution. Under Acton Items we have to add an 8-1,
which needs to be a resolution -- proposed resolution of 16-1169 and that is a
resolution adopting the annual rate adjustment for the solid waste collection. 9-A
the ordinance number is 16-1707. And with that I move we approve the
amended agenda.
Borton: Second.
De Weerd: Mr. Bird, will you restate that. I'm just kidding.
Bird: I know it.
De Weerd: Any questions? 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
Meridian City Council
September 20, 2016
Page 3 of 58
A. Approve Minutes of September 6, 2016 City Council
Meeting
B. Addendum No. 14 to Boise City Prosecutorial
Agreement
C. Final Order for Hill’s Century Farm No. 5 (H-2016-0103)
by Brighton Investments, LLC Located on the East Side
of S. Eagle Road, approximately ¼ Mile North of E. Lake
Hazel Road.
D. Final Order for Bainbridge Subdivision No. 4 (H-2016-
0094) by Brighton Investments, LLC Located East of N.
Black Cat Road, Midway Between W. Chinden Boulevard
and W. McMillan Road
E. Final Order for Decatur Estates Subdivision No. 2 (H-
2016-0101) by 4345 Linder Road, LLC Located 4345 N.
Linder Road
F. Final Order for Vicenza Subdivision No. 3 (H-2016-0096)
by Cottonwood Development, LLC Located North of W.
McMillan Road; Between N. Black Cat Road and N. Ten
Mile Road
G. Final Order for Vicenza Subdivision No. 4 (H-2016-0097)
by Cottonwood Development, LLC Located North of W.
McMillan Road, Between N. Black Cat Road and N. Ten
Mile Road
H. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law For Approval for
Twelve Oaks (H2016-0100) by Twelve Oaks, LLC Located
1845 W. Franklin Road
I. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Approval for
Roundtree Place Subdivision (H-2016-0081) by Trilogy
Development Located at 755 S Linder Road
J. Final Plat for Biltmore Estates Subdivision No. 3 (H-
2016-0086) by Oakwood Estates, LLC Located at W.
Victory Road and West of S. Meridian Road
K. Final Plat for Howry Lane Subdivision No 1 (H-2016-
0106) by M3 Acquisitions, LLC Located at 5220 S Howry
Lane
Meridian City Council
September 20, 2016
Page 4 of 58
L. Professional Service Agreement for Design,
Construction, and Installation of Credenza for Initial
Point Gallery for the Not-to-Exceed Amount of $2,300.00
M. Professional Services Agreement for Meridian Anti-Drug
Coalition Strategic Prevention Framework State
Incentive Grant (SPF/SIG) Program Evaluation Services
for the Not-to-Exceed Amount of $9,000.00
N. Release of Water Main Easement at Wahooz / Pinz
O. Acceptance Agreement - Meridian City Hall Plaza
Artwork: "Out on the Town"
P. Warranty Surety Waiver Agreement with West Ada
School District for Hillsdale Elementary School
Q. Warranty Surety Waiver with West Ada School District
for Victory Middle School
R. Resolution No. 16-1160: Resolution to Destroy
Semipermanent Records of the Community
Development Department, Building Services Division
S. Resolution No. 16-1161: A Resolution of the Mayor and
City Council of the City of Meridian to Amend the Future
Land Use Map of the 2002 Comprehensive Plan for 68.15
Acres known as Silverstone Apartments Generally
Located at 4225 E. Overland Road, in the NE ¼ of
Section 21, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Meridian,
Idaho; and Providing an Effective Date.
T. Resolution No. 16-1162: Resolution Signifying City's
Final Acceptance of Meridian City Hall Plaza Artwork
"Out on the Town" by Daniel Borup
U. Final Plat for Rainer Villas (H-2016-0107) by
Intermountain Pacific, LLC Located West of Meridian
Road and South of West Penwood Street and North of
West Corporate Drive. Request: A Final Plat of Fifteen
(15) Residential Lots and Five (5) Common Lots on 5.354
Acres in an Existing C-G Zoning District
De Weerd: Item 5 is our Consent Agenda.
Meridian City Council
September 20, 2016
Page 5 of 58
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Under the Consent Agenda earlier, the resolution numbers for R is 16 -
1160. S is 16-1161. And T is 16-1162. With that I move we approve the
Consent Agenda, the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest.
Borton: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda. Any
discussion from Council? Mr. Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll Call: Bird yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener, yea; Palmer, yea; Little
Roberts, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 6: Items Moved From the Consent Agenda
De Weerd: There were no items moved from the Consent Agenda.
Item 7: Department Reports
A. Mayor's Office: Resolution No. 16-1163: Resolution
Appointing Ella Kramer as the Youth Member of the
Meridian Historic Preservation Commission
B. Mayor's Office: Resolution No. 16-1164: Resolution
Appointing Lance Baumgartner as Youth Member to the
Meridian Transportation Commission
C. Mayor's Office: Resolution No. 16-1165: Resolution
Appointing Taylor Farmer as Youth Member to Meridian
Arts Commission
D. Mayor's Office: Resolution No. 16-1166: A Resolution
Ap pointing Kayla McNay as Youth Member to the
Meridian Parks and Recreation Commission
E. Mayor's Office: Resolution No. 16-1167: A Resolution
Appointing Victoriah Madrigal as Youth Member to
Meridian Solid Waste Advisory Commission
Meridian City Council
September 20, 2016
Page 6 of 58
De Weerd: Item 7-A is a proposed resolution on the appointment of our youth
member for the HPC. Ella Kramer -- actually, do I have any of my youth council
member appointees here? Awesome. I'm going to go ahead and ask for Council
action and, then, I will see if you -- either of you would like to make comment. I
will invite you up at that time. So, thank you for joining us tonight. You can go
ahead and sit down. I'll call on you in a moment. Council, the A through F --
actually A through E are appointments for our youth seats. They are effective for
one year. We conducted interviews last week -- seems like a long time ago. And
I can tell you that the -- we interviewed 13 youth members that were all interested
in these youth seats on our citizen commissions and they would knock your
socks off. So, I am really proud and I have already informed the chairs of each of
these commissions that they are going to be blown away by their newest
members and I'm really excited to have our youth voice on these various
commissions. So, I would ask your approval of these appointments of Ella
Kramer to the Historic Preservation Commission. Lance Baumgartner to the
Transportation Commission. And I will tell you that Lance is returning. He has
served one year on the Transportation Commission and was a very active
participant. I have Taylor Farmer on our Meridian Arts Commission. Kayla
McNay on our Parks Commission and Victoria Madrigal -- I worked on it. On our
Solid Waste Advisory Commission. So, once I have your approval I will -- I will
see if we have a comment.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: With your permission I would move that we approve resolutions number
16-1163, 16-1165, 16-1165, 16-1166 and 16-1167.
Milam: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve the appointments on
Items 7-A through E. Any discussion? Mr. Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll Call: Bird yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener, yea; Palmer, yea; Little
Roberts, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: And at this point I will ask Victoria if she would like to make
comments. You would need to come right up.
Madrigal: I'd like to thank you for offering me this position and I'm really proud to
say that I accepted it and I'm excited to see what I can help do this year.
Meridian City Council
September 20, 2016
Page 7 of 58
De Weerd: And I will tell you that she was very anxious to -- to be a youth
representative and to add her input into our process and so I'm excited to have
you. And -- okay. So, it is I think -- Taylor. Right?
Farmer: Um -- wow, that's really loud. I would like to thank you for honoring me
with this position and I really hope that with this position I can make a great
amount of change within the arts and culture within our city.
De Weerd: And so you want to tell us a little bit about your interest in the arts?
Farmer: I -- when I was younger was in the theater. I took art last year. Not my
biggest strong suit, but I learned a lot from it and I know that -- I know a lot of
great artists from my school by taking art and I was told about the youth exhibit of
art in my interview and I think that we could take a lot from those smaller schools
and really implement their ideas and their art and let them be heard through that
exhibit this year.
De Weerd: And I will tell you that our arts commissioner -- our youth
representative also is responsible for putting together an art exhibit for youth and
so we -- we made sure that we shared that. In the past those exhibits have been
phenomenal and -- and we are excited to work with you.
Farmer: Thank you.
De Weerd: Appreciate you being here. And proud parents as well. And I think if
-- did I see someone else stand up? Kayla. Right? Come one forward.
McNay: Well, I'm Kayla McNay and I'd like to thank you guys for this opportunity
to show that I can really affect the city and I can just -- I will try my hardest and
I'm really excited for this year. So thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. We are excited to have you as well and like I said on all
the other chairs of the various commissions , they have been warned about each
of your energy, your enthusiasm, and I'm looking forward to having you on board.
McNay: Thank you so much.
De Weerd: So thank you. I guess the third one we really got it right, so let's give
all three of them -- oh. And Ella. Now, I just want to tell you on Ella, she came
prepared with specific ideas and so she had done her homework and very
excited to have you introduce yourself.
Kramer: Well, I really love history so much. I'm so excited about this opportunity
and to see what I can learn and what I can do to make the city a better place.
Meridian City Council
September 20, 2016
Page 8 of 58
De Weerd: Thank you all for being here and for your interest in our history. It's --
it was very rewarding to have young members that had an interest in the history ,
the roots of our community, and we are excited to have you on board as well.
Kramer: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. The only one that isn't here is Lance and, again,
he is a returning commissioner. I think, Mr. Cavener, you have worked with
Lance and --
Cavener: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Cavener: If I may, Lance is a -- enthusiasm I think is an understatement. There
is a guy who is motivated and passionate about transportation. I don't think when
I was in high school I could maybe even spell transportation and let alone we
have got a great individual like Lance who is really committed to our community
and so I'm excited to see that he's being reappointed to this commission.
De Weerd: I would challenge you if you tied his hands to his side if he could still
talk.
Cavener: Not likely.
De Weerd: No. Again, thank you -- thank you all. You do not have to stay the
rest of the meeting. You're going to have your own meetings that you will get to it
-- to sit through. So, thank you for being here with us and we appreciate your
interest. Unless you're doing it for credit in government classes or anything else.
And I know you're not that age yet, so --
De Weerd: Okay. Item 8-A is a public hearing on Republic Services proposed
2017 fee schedule.
Milam: Madam Mayor?
Cavener: You got one more. Item F.
F. Mayor's Office: Resolution No. 16-1168: A
Resolution Appointing Mark Nelson to Seat 2 and
Reappointing Steven Cory to Seat 4 of the Solid
Waste Advisory Commission
De Weerd: Oh, I'm sorry. Yes. Is Mark here? I didn't see him. Okay. Item F is
resolution 16-1168. Mark Nelson is interested in serving on our Solid Waste
Advisory Commission. Probably ten years or more ago he served on our
Meridian City Council
September 20, 2016
Page 9 of 58
Planning and Zoning Commission and, then, he got very involved in work and
travel, so he's -- he's back homebound again -- not homebound, but he's at least
in town and ready to recommit to serving our citizens. As well as Steven Cory to
Seat 4. He is a returning commissioner. He's been the chair and he also
represents our commission and our city as well on the Ada County advisory
commission. So, both of these I enthusiastically bring for your approval tonight.
Milam: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Milam.
Milam: I move that we approve Resolution No. 16-1168.
Cavener: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 7-F. If there is no
discussion, Mr. Clerk.
Roll Call: Bird yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener, yea; Palmer, yea; Little
Roberts, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 8: Action Items
A. Public Hearing: Republic Services Proposed 2017 Fee
Schedule
De Weerd: Okay. I will now move to the public hearing on Republic Services
proposed 2017 fee schedule. I will open the public hearing with comments or
questions. I think we have already heard this. We heard this as we moved to put
it on the agenda. I would ask if there is anyone in our audience tonight who
would like to make comment on this item? Okay.
Milam: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Milam.
Milam: Seeing none, I move that we approve the proposed --
De Weerd: We need to close the public hearing.
Milam: Oh. Close the public hearing on 8-A.
Meridian City Council
September 20, 2016
Page 10 of 58
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: We have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on Item
8-A. All those in favor say aye. All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: And if the record will note that Mr. Cavener had to leave.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
I. Amended onto Agenda: Resolution No. 16-1169: A
Resolution Adopting the Annual Rate Adjustment for the
Solid Waste Collection Services by Republic Services,
Inc.; Authorizing the City of Meridian Utility Billing
Department to Collect Such Rate; and Providing an
Effective Date
Nary: I was just going to say Item I that was added is the resolution to approve
that. If you want to you can do that now.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Nary: Or you can wait until it comes up with the agenda.
Bird: Whatever you want to do.
Milam: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mrs. Milam.
Milam: I move to I. 8-I. Okay.
De Weerd: Appropriate.
Milam: Appropriate. I move that we approve Resolution No. 11 -- dash 1169,
adopting the annual rate adjustment for the solid waste collection services by
Republic Services, authorizing the City of Meridian Billing Department to collect
such rate and providing an effective date.
De Weerd: Okay. The motion was to approve Resolution 16-1169. Any
discussion from Council? Mr. Clerk, will you call roll.
Meridian City Council
September 20, 2016
Page 11 of 58
Roll Call: Bird yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener, absent; Palmer, yea; Little
Roberts, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
B. Public Hearing For Silverwater South (H-2016-0082) by
Trilogy Development Located at South of E. Victory
Road and West of S. Locust Grove Road
1. Request: Preliminary Plat Consisting of 48
Building lots and 4 (Four) Common Lots on 12.08
Acres of Land in an R-8 Zoning District
De Weerd: Item 8-B is a public hearing for H-2016-0082. I will open this public
hearing with staff comments.
Allen: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. The first application
before you tonight as a request for a preliminary plat . This site consists of 12.08
acres of land. It's zoned R-8 and located south of Victory Road and west of
South Locust Grove Road. A little history. This was annexed with a
development agreement and preliminary platted back in 2006 as part of Tanana
Valley Subdivision. In 2007 a new preliminary plat was approved for Cavanaugh
Subdivision, which included the subject property. Several time extensions have
been approved for the plat. Since approval of the plat individual parcels have
been sold off and are now under different ownerships and are being developed
separately, rather than as a single master planned project as originally intended.
The subject developer is developing all of the property north of the Ridenbaugh
Canal and east of Standing Timber Way. Standing Timber is the street right
here. And, then, the Ridenbaugh runs right along here. So, everything north of
that is under this developer's project. The original preliminary plat did include
land that's south of the Ridenbaugh also. Because the previous preliminary plat
depicted all of the site amenities for the overall development north and south of
the canal to be provided on the north side of the canal, staff didn't feel it was
reasonable to require this development to provide all of the amenities for the
overall subdivision.
De Weerd: Can you hear in the back of the room? Can you m ove your
microphone closer.
Allen: Therefore, at the last time extension staff required the remainder of the
property to be re-subdivided and meet current development standards. The
Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation for this property is --
approximately half of it is designated mixed-use neighborhood, with a
neighborhood center overlay and the other half is designated medium density
Meridian City Council
September 20, 2016
Page 12 of 58
residential. The applicant is proposing a new preliminary plat consisting of 48
building lots and four common area lots on 12.08 acres of land in the R-8 zoning
district in the same layout as shown on the previous preliminary plat. The
minimum lot size is 6,827 square feet, with the average lot size being 8,698
square feet. The proposed density is 3.97 units per acre, consistent with the
medium density residential future land use designation, but below the density
desired in the mixed-use neighborhood designated areas. Access is proposed
via internal local streets within the development. The applicant proposes .44 of
an acre or 3.65 percent of qualified open space consisting of a 50-by-100 open
space area, six foot wide parkways and micropath lots and a pathway as a site
amenity. In the overall development, which encompasses 54 acres of land, a
total of 7.38 acres or 13.63 percent of qualified open space and a gazebo,
basketball court, pathways and a tot lot will be provided as amenities. The
applicant requests the overall common area is allowed to count toward that
required with this development. Staff is amenable to this request. Conceptual
building elevations were submitted for the future homes within this development
as shown and building materials appear to consist of a mix of horizontal lap
siding and vertical board and batten siding, with stone veneer, brick accents.
The Commission did recommend approval on the subject application. Scott
Wonders, the applicant's representative, testified in favor. No one testified in
opposition. Nancy Buckley commented. And written testimony was received
from Scott Wonders, the applicant's representative, in agreement with the staff
report. Key issues of public testimony was concern of overdevelopment in
Meridian and of schools and roads not being able to support growth. There are
no outstanding issues for City Council and no written testimony has been
received since the Commission hearing. Staff will stand for any questions.
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Is the applicant here? Good evening. If you will, please,
state your name and address for the record.
Wonders: Yes. It's Scott Wonders with JUB Engineers. 250 South Beechwood
in Boise. Thank you, Madam Mayor and Council Members. I'm here
representing the applicant for this project. The Silverwater South plat there
before you is basically the third phase of the project as a whole. It's about 54
acres. We just completed phase three this summer and this would be probably
slated, if approved, to be started next spring. So, all the site amenities will be
either constructed with phase two or phase three. So, just to the north. And you
will see on the subsequent application for north there is an exhibit that will show
where the common open space is for this side of the development where all the
tot lot and the basketball court were installed -- or should be installed this
summer before -- before the completion of phase three. We are in agreement
Meridian City Council
September 20, 2016
Page 13 of 58
with all of the staff recommendations and the conditions of approval and I am
here to answer any questions that you might have.
De Weerd: Thank you. Is there a reason we are not hearing both of these at the
same time, so we can see it?
Allen: We certainly can. They are two separate preliminary plat applications.
But we certainly can.
De Weerd: Council, if you wouldn't mind, I think it would be appropriate, since
they are adjoining and, then, we can take comment on both the phases.
Allen: So, would you like me to present the other preliminary plat?
De Weerd: Yeah. If -- if you wouldn't mind.
Allen: Would you like to officially open that?
C. Public Hearing for Silverwater North (H-2016-0083) by
Trilogy Development Located at South Side of E. Victory
Road and West of S. Locust Grove Road Approved
1. Request: Preliminary Plat Consisting of 13
Building Lots and 1 (One) Common Lot on 4.12
Acres of Land in an R-8 Zoning District
De Weerd: Yes. I will open the public hearing for H-2016-0083.
Allen: Okay. This is the second primary plat in this general area for Silverwater
North. This site is 4.12 acres of land. It's also zoned R-8, located on the south
side of East Victory Road, west of South Locust Grove. This preliminary plat
consists of 13 building lots and one common area lot on 4.12 acres of land in the
R-8 zoning district. Here is just a general -- general area here where this plat lies
and, then, the preliminary plat. The minimum lot size in this phase is -- or in this
subdivision I should say is 8,295 square feet, with an average lot size of 11,218
square feet. Density is 3.16 units per acre. Access to this development is
proposed on the plat from East Springwood Drive, an internal local street
proposed to be constructed with phase three of Silverwater Subdivision by way of
South Mesa Road via East Victory. Mesa runs along the east side of the
property and, then, this is Victory right here along the north. And, then, again,
conceptual building elevations are the same as previously shown . Scott
Wonders, the applicant's representative, testified in favor at the Commission
hearing. No one testified in opposition or commented. The applicant submitted
written testimony in agreement with the staff report. And that is all staff has to
offer on that.
Meridian City Council
September 20, 2016
Page 14 of 58
De Weerd: Is there anything that shows those two together in relation to --
Allen: This is the area -- so, this is the Silverwater North here. It does not show
the preliminary plat overlay on it. This is south right here.
De Weerd: Okay.
Allen: Yes.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: While we are doing that, Scott, is this -- was this property back in the
Cavanaugh time, did it have a school site on it in that location?
Wonders: That's correct. On the north -- on what we are calling Silverwater
North -- basically the reason why we have two preliminary plats is they are not
contiguous, so now we have to have two preliminary plats. So, that's the North
and South. So, the north was proposed to be a school site, however, the school
has declined that site in recent years and so they don't need any more, so we are
just converting it into two cul-de-sacs to be incorporated into the development.
So, phase one and two are to the west and once Sonya gets it up you will have a
better concept of where it's at. And, then, phase three is kind of in the middle of
North and South and so with those three we had a park area where we
constructed a basketball court, kind of a gazebo -- or not a gazebo, but like a
sitting area and some trails and north is just to the north of this park area and,
then, Silverwater South is on the bottom end of the subdivision. So, you can see
in blue is what is constructed or being currently being completed this year and in
yellow, obviously, to the north is -- is Silverwater North and, then, the larger 12
acres to the south of Silverwater South. So, we have a micropath that connects
up to the common area space. It's just below Silverwater North that has all those
amenities in it and, then, for the eastern portion, phases one and two, they were
more off of Standing Timber. There is an open space over there for those
residents on that side. So, overall, even though these are less than the ten
percent, combined with the overall development it's -- we are a little over 13 and
a half percent open space. And we are also in agreement with the staff report
and conditions of approval for Silverwater North as well.
De Weerd: Thank you. This is helpful.
Wonders: Yeah.
De Weerd: I could not envision what we were talking about, so I appreciate that.
Meridian City Council
September 20, 2016
Page 15 of 58
Wonders: So, yeah, Cavanaugh was a much larger development and in the
downturn it was pretty much divided up into like 20 different owners and , then,
this developer purchased this 54 acres. So, we are just kind of cleaning up some
development agreement and conditions that don't really apply to this parcel with
these last two phases.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Wonders: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. We have two public hearings open, Item 8-B and C. Is there
anyone who would like to provide testimony on this? On either of these?
Council, any questions for staff or the applicant?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Seeing none, I move we close the public hearings on H-2016-0082 and H-
2016-0083.
Milam: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing -- hearings
on Items 8-B and C. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Okay. We can consider Item 8-B.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve H-2016-0082. Include all staff, applicant and public
testimony.
Milam: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 8-B. Any discussion
from Council? Mr. Clerk, will you call roll.
Meridian City Council
September 20, 2016
Page 16 of 58
Roll Call: Bird yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener, absent; Palmer, yea; Little
Roberts, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Item 8-C.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve H-2016-0083 and to include all staff, applicant, and
public testimony.
Mila: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 8-C. Any discussion
from Council? Mr. Clerk.
Roll Call: Bird yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener, absent; Palmer, yea; Little
Roberts, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
D. Public Hearing for Little Creek Subdivision (H-2016-
0076) by David Alexander Located 1470 N. Locust Grove
Road
1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of Seventeen
(17) Acres of Land with an R-40 Zoning District
2. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a Multi-
Family Development Consisting of 204 Dwelling
Units in an R-40 Zoning District
3. Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of
Fifty-One (51) Building Lots and Three (3)
Common Lots on 15.85 Acres of Land
De Weerd: Item 8-D is a public hearing for item H-2016-0076. I will open this
public hearing with staff comments.
Meridian City Council
September 20, 2016
Page 17 of 58
Allen: One moment here. All right. The next application before you is a request
for annexation and zoning, conditional use permit, and preliminary plat. This site
consists of 17 acres of land, zoned R-40, located at 1470 North Locust Grove
Road. It's just southeast of the Locust Grove-Fairview intersection. This
property was previously platted as lots in Pleasant Valley Subdivision. The
Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation is high density residential.
The applicant proposes to annex 17 acres of land with an R-40 zoning district,
consistent with the high-density residential future land use map designation for
this site. The proposed zoning and multi-family residential use of the property is
consistent with the multiple -- excuse me -- multi-family residential property to the
east, which is also zoned R-40, and provides a transition between the
commercial uses to the north and the future mixed use development to the south.
A conditional use permit is requested for a multi-family residential development,
consisting of 51 four-plex structures containing a total of 240 -- 204 dwelling units
in a proposed R-40 zoning district. A gross density of 12.87 units per acre, with a
net density of 16.68 units per acre, is proposed, which falls within the density
range desired in medium high density residential designated areas at eight to 15
units per acre, which is below that of 15 units per acre desired in high density
residential designated areas. The proposed density will require approval of a
step down in density from high density residential to medium high density
residential by City County. The units consist of a mix of two and three bedroom
units. Parking is provided on the site in excess of UDC standards. One building
elevation was submitted for the proposed multi -family structures. Staff
recommends additional building types with a mix of colors and materials are
provided for variety within the development as set forth in the architectural
standards manual. A preliminary plat is proposed consisting of 51 building lots
and three common area lots on 15.85 acres of land. A phasing plan was
submitted that shows two phases of development starting on the eastern portion
of the site as shown on the left there. The plat submitted with this application
depicts two accesses -- and this is the original -- excuse me -- plat right here --
depicted two access via Wilson Lane at the north boundary of the site with no
access via Locust Grove. Because congestion is currently a problem at this
intersection for traffic accessing Locust Grove via Wilson, ACHD's traffic
engineers determined a full access via Locust Grove would help to improve the
situation, rather than having all of the traffic flowing through Wilson. A traffic
impact study was submitted to ACHD for this project. A revised plat was
submitted based on ACHD's requirements. Staff supports the proposed
accesses shown on the revised plat if Council approves the waiver to UDC 11-
3A-3 for an access by an arterial street. A 25 foot wide landscape buffer is
required along Locust Grove Road. A total of 3.07 acres or 19.36 percent of
qualified open space and site amenities, consisting of half the street buffer along
Locust Grove Road, a 20 foot linear open space area on Wilson Lane, common
area where the clubhouse, swimming pool, and tot lot is located, miscellaneous
open grassy areas that are a minimum of 20 by 20 in area -- is proposed with this
development, which complies with UDC standards. A ten foot wide multi-use
pathway is also proposed in accord with the pathways master plan along the
Meridian City Council
September 20, 2016
Page 18 of 58
Settlers Canal, which is along the southern boundary of the site. Because there
is an existing common area that abuts the east boundary of this site and the
adjacent multi-family development -- and that is in this area right here -- staff is
recommending the open space, which is labeled as a dog park right here where
my pointer is -- proposed along the south side of Lots 20 and 21 to the north side
of these lots, which will provide a view corridor to the existing common area,
instead of walling it off with buildings. The Settlers Canal, Jackson Drain, runs
along the southern boundary of this site. Because it is a large facility the
applicant is requesting a waiver to UDC 11-3A-6A3 from City Council for the
waterway to remain open and not be piped . The Commission did recommend
approval of the subject applications. Scott Wonders, the applicant's
representative, testified in favor. No one testified in opposition. Nancy Buckley
commented. And written testimony was received from Greg Ramp from Aire
Incorporated, a business to the east of this property, and Scott Wonders, the
applicant's representative, in agreement with the staff report. Key issues of
public testimony was concerned of overdevelopment in Meridian and of schools
and roads not being able to support growth. Traffic concerns at the Wilson Lane-
Locust Grove Road intersection until Wilson is extended to the east in the future.
Key issues of discussion by the Commission was relocating the common area
along the east boundary to the north side of the four residential structures, so
that it aligns better with the common area to the east . So, that is taking this area
right here and moving it to the north side of these four structures here . Direct
access via Locust Grove and traffic and congestion at the Wilson -Locust Grove
Road intersection. The pinwheel design of the structures with only one building
type and footprint. And, lastly, the Commission was in support of the applicant's
request for a waiver to UDC 11-3A6 to allow the Settlers Canal, Jackson Drain to
remain open along the southern boundary of the site and not be piped. The
Commission did change a couple of items from the staff's recommendation.
They modified development agreement provision 1.1.1B to not require more than
one building type provided the structures are offset 90 degrees from each other
and a variety of at least three different color pallets are used . And to modify
condition 1.1.3E require the dog park open space to be relocated to the north
side of Lots 18 and 19, Block 1, which is actually shown as Lots 19 and 20, Block
1, on the revised plat. Outstanding issues for City Council is the applicant
requests a waiver to allow the Settlers Canal to remain open and not be piped
along the south boundary of the site. No written testimony has been received
since the Commission hearing. Staff will stand for the questions.
De Weerd: Council, any questions at this time for staff?
Milam: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Milam.
Milam: Sonya, if it's a -- all the R-15 qualifications, why are we -- why are we
annexing at R-40 instead of R-15? Was it just the density?
Meridian City Council
September 20, 2016
Page 19 of 58
Allen: Councilman, Mayor, they could. You could zone R-15 instead. They are
asking for R-40 because it's consistent with the high-density residential future
land use designation for the site and that's a maxim of 40 units per acres. You
could certainly down zone it to R-15 with a step down in the density designation
on the Comprehensive Plan. Either way.
Milam: Thank you.
De Weerd: So, it meets the R-15, they were just requesting R-40 to meet -- to
comply with the Comp Plan?
Allen: I believe so, Madam Mayor. The density is within that. It's at 12.87 units
per acre. I'm not absolutely positive about the dimensional standards without
looking at it. I think it would meet, but I'm not absolutely positive.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any further questions at this point? Is the applicant
here? Thank you for joining us. If you would state your name and address for
the record.
Wonders: Scott Wonders with JUB. 250 South Beechwood Avenue in Boise,
here representing the applicant on this project. Let's see. We are requesting the
annexation rezone to R-40 with the CUP in the preliminary plat and the R-40
zoning was really just to stay consistent with what was labeled on the Comp
Plan. I think it does meet most of the R-15 criteria. We wouldn't have any issue
with having it zoned R-15, just as long as the dimensional standard are -- we are
not restricted in any way between the R-15 and R-40. We are requesting 204
units on 51 buildings. We have a little over three acres of open space, which is
roughly 19 percent. A couple of the key items. The required parking on this site
is 408 spaces. A lot of issues with parking in a lot of these areas is there is never
enough and we are actually providing 489. So, we are over parked by 80 space
or 81 spaces. We are including amenities that would include two gazebos, as
swimming pool with a club -- with a 5,800 square foot clubhouse. A large open
space area with a tot lot, a dog park, and a ten foot pathway along the Jackson
Drain and the Settlers Canal that abuts us on the south property line. We don't
have any issues with relocating the dog park and shifting those four buildings
south and, then, just flip-flopping the dog park to the north. That is not an issue
for us. To clarify the waiver request for the open ditch, the Jackson Drain is
actually a very large drain on the south and our property line only goes to the
center line. That is what we are requesting the waiver to leave that open . The
Settlers Canal is a much smaller ditch. It's probably going to require a 24 or 30
inch pipe, but we are willing to pipe that and actually are going to pipe that
portion of it. It's piped to the east and, obviously, it's piped to the west, so we will
make that pipe connection for that. Our waiver request is specifically for the
Jackson Drain. We did some hoop jumping I think right before Planning and
Zoning when we got our staff report from ACHD when they asked us to eliminate
Meridian City Council
September 20, 2016
Page 20 of 58
one of our lane connections and make it on out to Locust Grove. So, we are
requesting that entrance be approved as well as a full access. So, what ACHD
was contemplating when they asked us to do this was to alleviate the left -turn
delays off of Wilson Lane onto Locust Grove. So, we are requesting that full
access and, hopefully, in the future when Locust Grove is widened and improved
that that probably may get restricted in the future, but I would assume that
there will be some kind of U-turn capability at Fairview at that time and, hopefully,
Wilson Lane will go through to the east, but -- and, then, we are requesting the
condition that was accepted by the Planning and Zoning for the one building
type, this is kind of a pinwheel design where this is a four-plex unit and each side
has its own entrance, so for each unit they have their own separate entrance on
each side and, then, with the -- I guess a variation in the elevations and the color
palettes is what we are proposing to mix that up and, then, with the building
orientation -- if Sonya could actually run that -- we have a fly through that kind of
shows a visual 3D rendering of what it would look like that might help. And so
this would be looking east on Wilson Lane and, then, here shortly we will be
turning into what would be the -- the single entrance on Wilson Lane. I think part
of their conditions as well -- while this is playing I will kind of go through a couple
other items. We were requested to put 20 bike racks in -- or spaces for 20 bikes,
which we will add and disperse through the development as well. So, this is
looking back to the west. A lot of the -- the actual landscaping that you see here
is actually rendered to -- to actually emulate the actual landscape plan that's
been prepared for this project, so, basically, what you see is what's going to be
actually planted on the project. And, then, I think one other item that was pointed
out in the staff report was providing a safe pick up point for school students and
we will work with the school district on where ever the school will end up picking
up students from this facility, we will make sure that there is a -- a sufficient area
for the students to wait while they are waiting for the bus. Next you will see this
is the back of the clubhouse with the pool. A two-story clubhouse. This would be
built with phase one. And, then, you can kind of see beyond the pool. There is
the -- actually, a parking area. That -- that parking we have actually eliminated
and we added a tot lot into that area. So, since we were so overparked we
thought the city staff had requested that we add a little more open space where
we added the tot lot and you will see that here in the next slide. Other than that
we are in agreement with the staff report and if you have any questions I will
stand for any questions you might have.
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Palmer: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Palmer.
Meridian City Council
September 20, 2016
Page 21 of 58
Palmer: Madam Mayor. Not really a question for you, just wanted to thank you
for bringing us this with the pinwheel design. I think it looks so much better. It's
like bigger houses rather than just a stacked apartment that a lot of citizens come
to us with heartburn over. So, thank you for investing in that style instead.
Wonders: All right. I will make sure I pass it on.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions or comments?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: One question, Scott. If the school district's recommendation is that there
is a recessed nook on Wilson for some school bus, I can envision them, if asked,
make that recommendation.
Wonders: So, what we are envisioning, where ever they decide -- if it's on
Wilson, which I -- it's either going to be somewhere internally and there is a spot
right in front of the clubhouse that would be a perfect spot for buses to pick them
up. But if it's going to end up being on Wilson -- I would hope it wouldn't be on -
- on Locust Grove, but what we would do is provide like a widened sidewalk area,
maybe like ten-by-ten area, so they don't -- so you don't have a large number of
students that they spill out onto the street. So, we will just make it an extra wide
standing area for them. That's what we are proposing. We haven't -- I haven't
discussed it with the school district, but we will certainly be amenable to whatever
they would like to see.
Borton: Okay. Madam Mayor? One other question -- and ACHD -- was there
discussion on any conflicting traffic movements with the proposed development
across the street and folks exiting directly onto Locust Grove, you know, heading
north and, then, trying to turn west there and vice-versa?
Wonders: Yeah. So, their main concern is, obviously, Wilson. They understand
that there is a huge issue that -- anywhere on Locust Grove south of Fairview, so
they are just trying to find a way to alleviate the left -turn conflicts. Now, there is
an entrance probably about 250 feet south of where our proposed entrance will
be on the opposite side, but they are proposing to do some kind of land
delineation or kind of a lane split to -- so that there aren't any left turn conflicts in
that location. ACHD at the time we got our staff report said they were going to
still work with their traffic engineers to figure out how they were going to delineate
Locust Grove in order to accommodate this entrance. I haven't gotten any
feedback from them on that at that time, but --
Borton: Okay.
Meridian City Council
September 20, 2016
Page 22 of 58
De Weerd: And so what has the conversation been about the stacking at that
intersection? Because it stacks back quite a distance.
Wonders: Yes. You know, they didn't really have a solution and I think this was
their -- their solution with the -- with the Locust Grove was at least providing a
second opportunity. I think one thing that this does do, it alleviates the cut-
through traffic through like the D&B parking lot and a few others to get out to
Fairview. So, I think in the end it's probably not the perfect solution , but I think
this is probably the best solution at this time . We are -- you know, there is a
small gap on Wilson Lane to the east before you get to the Pinebridge
development and I don't know when and if that will ever get extended through,
but we are providing an additional 11 feet along Locust Grove for the future lane
widening and from what I understand that's coming up on the next five-year plan,
if I'm -- if I'm correct on that. So, hopefully, this is a short-term issue once Locust
Grove gets widened -- hopefully within the next five years at that location.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, any other questions? Thank you.
Wonders: Thank you.
Bongiorno: Madam Mayor, may I ask a question?
De Weerd: Yes.
Bongiorno: Sonya, can you bring up the phasing plan, please? Scott, how many
apartment buildings are in the -- how many dwelling units do we have in phase
one?
Wonders: It's -- it would be roughly half. So, it's 104 units, so that would be 26
buildings. And they are sprinklered, so --
Bongiorno: Okay. Perfect. And, then, the other question is the access road out
to Locust Grove will be built with phase two?
Wonders: Correct. And we would -- we could look at providing an emergency
access to that location with phase one, like an all-weather access if needed.
Bongiorno: Okay. I just wanted to verify that, what was going on.
Wonders: Yeah. We checked with Perry this last week on what the criteria was
and I think we are well under the maximum.
Bongiorno: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Meridian City Council
September 20, 2016
Page 23 of 58
Wonders: Thank you.
De Weerd: This is a public hearing on Item 8-D. Is there anyone who wishes to
provide testimony on this item? Yes, ma'am. Please come forward. Thank you
for joining us. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record.
Resman: Debra Resman. 11303 West Hickory Nut Street in Boise, Idaho.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Resman: And I own the --
De Weerd: Could you pull the microphone a little closer. Thank you.
Resman: I own a couple of the four-plexes right next door on Wilson Lane and
I'm real excited about this new project. It will just continue to bring the value up
and I love the plan. I do have to ask a question about the dog park area , like,
basically, what is going to separate the current four-plexes that are there now
with the new -- with the new subdivision? Is there going to be a fence there?
Would the dogs be allowed to -- you know, to wander over into -- into the other
area, that sort of thing? And the other question and concern I had was with that
Canal that is open currently the way I understand it h alf of it is owned by this
group and when you walk by there it really looks like it's a dangerous place for
people, you know, to fall into or whatever. You can't see them. There is a lot of
brush in there. There is a lot of barbed wire fence just stuck in there. It's really a
mess and I just didn't know who was really responsible for cleaning that up .
De Weerd: Thank you. Two good questions and we will ask the applicant in his
closing remarks to address those. Thank you. Any other testimony? Okay.
Wonders: Scott Wonders. JUB. 250 South Beechwood. For the record. We
are proposing to put a fence around the entire development and, then, as well for
the dog park it would have a four foot kind of like an open wrought iron type
fencing around the dog park, so -- there was an existing tenant on the property
that had been leasing that property for a number of years. That's in the process
of being cleaned up. So, once -- I guess once we move to the next step that all
will be cleaned up here in the next probably six months I would believe, to get
ready for construction. So, all the barbed wire and miscellaneous stuff that's
been laying around there for probably a number of years will all be cleaned up.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Council, any additional questions for the
applicant or staff?
Milam: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Milam.
Meridian City Council
September 20, 2016
Page 24 of 58
Milam: Are we ready to close this? Rather than ask him a question.
De Weerd: I thought you were going ask him a question. Thank you.
Wonders: All right. Thank you.
Milam: I move that we close the public hearing of H-2016-0076.
Palmer: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on Item 8 -
D. All those in favor say aye. All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Milam: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Milam.
Milam: Just a comment to Scott. This is a -- this is a very nice apartment project
and I appreciate all the amenities and putting everything in with phase one, so
kudos to you guys, so -- I move that we approve H-2016-0076 with all staff,
applicant, and public testimony.
Palmer: And waivers?
Milam: And what?
De Weerd: The waiver that was requested on tiling.
Milam: Oh, yes. A waiver allowing the Jackson Drain to remain open and not --
yeah, not piped along the southern boundary.
Palmer: And entrance to Locust Grove?
Milam: The what?
Palmer: The entrance to Locust Grove.
Milam: Oh. And allowing the entrance directly to Locust Grove.
Palmer: Second.
De Weerd: Nice job, Mr. Palmer. I have a motion and a second. Any
discussion?
Meridian City Council
September 20, 2016
Page 25 of 58
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: We are leaving the Jackson Drain open; right?
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Bird: And he's already said they are going to take the Settlers Canal and tiling it.
Okay.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions or comments from Council? Mr. Clerk,
will you call roll.
Roll Call: Bird yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener, absen t; Palmer, yea; Little
Roberts, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
E. Public Hearing for T-Mobile (H-2016-0091) by T-Mobile
Located at 1855 N. Black Cat Road
1. Request: Modify the Development Agreement for
the Site to Allow for a Telecommunications Tower
as an Allowed Use
De Weerd: Item 8-E is a public hearing on H-2016-0091. I will open this public
hearing with staff comments.
Beach: Good evening, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Get the slide
where it needs to go here. Before you first is an application for a development
agreement modification. The site consists of 4.642 acres, zoned L-O, located at
1855 North Black Cat Road. In 2005 this property was extended and zoned with
the development agreement. The recorded development currently restricts the
use of this site for a church, so the applicant is requesting to modify the existing
development agreement that was approved with the annexation for this property
to allow for a telecommunications facility. The current development agreement is
explicit in only a church use being allowed and so in interpreting that staff has
asked the applicant to come forward with a develop ment agreement modification
to modify that. So, this is the current site plan. The tower that they are
proposing would be located in this area here. I have also included an elevation
for that tower. So, the applicant proposes to modify Section 5 under conditions
governing development of subject property of the development agreement to
Meridian City Council
September 20, 2016
Page 26 of 58
allow the construction of a wireless communication facility. So, the applicant, as I
said, has provided the site plan and the elevation for the slimline tower they are
proposing. In the L-O district a wireless communication facility is a principally
permitted use if it falls into one of several categories of which I saw slimline
facility is included. So, this facility is subject to the specific use standards of the
UDC and final design of the facility in compliance with the se standards that we
verify with a certificate of zoning compliance application . Staff did not receive
any written testimony as of the writing of this staff report. I believe you have
been given comments from an adjoining neighbor -- a neighbor to the west of this
property had sent in -- about 4:30 this afternoon. So, hopefully, you have
received that. Staff is recommending approval of this application and I would
stand for any questions you have.
Bird: Council, any questions of staff at this point? Seeing none, is the applicant
here? Please state your name and address if you would.
Cox: Caleb Cox with T-Mobile. Address is 121 West Election Road, Draper,
Utah. Good evening, City Council. I guess the Mayor stepped out for a second,
but -- so, as the staff report has said, T-Mobile has been trying to get a
telecommunications tower in this area for several years. We have worked with
the Planning Commission ostensibly to try to find the right place for it and the -- a
number of the planning commission -- a planner that's not in that department
anymore actually directed us to this location. Because of the way the zoning
ordinances are written it's -- you know, it's difficult in a residential area. So, this
particular area is zoned and it is a permitted use and we are prepared to build
and construct this tower, you know, with all the -- all the qualifications needed for
that permitted use. The tower we are proposing is going to be slimline, meaning
the antennas will be flush. It will be 60 feet high, which is shorter than, you know,
the -- actually, the telephone poles that run along Black Cat. So, I mean it's
pretty straight forward. All the setbacks and height requirements will be met.
Other than that I'm available for any questions.
Bird: Council, any questions for the applicant?
Borton: Mr. President?
Bird: Mr. Borton.
Borton: Did you have discussions with the neighbor directly to the west about the
tower?
Cox: I -- I don't know if I have directly -- he may have come to the neighborhood
meeting. I'm not a hundred percent sure who that would be, but I haven't, no.
Borton: Mr. President? Has the company that you're working for heard from
him? Do you know if anyone else has had those conversations?
Meridian City Council
September 20, 2016
Page 27 of 58
Cox: Not that I have -- I work for T-Mobile, not that I -- no, we haven't been
reached out to. We had a neighborhood meeting and there was one of the
residents that came by and had some clarifying questions, but that was about it
as far as I know.
Bird: Any other questions for the applicant? Thank you. Okay. We had some
people signed up. Samantha Lapoint is against and she would like to testify. If
she would come forward. Please state your name and address.
Lapoint: My name is Samantha Lapoint. 6145 West Economy Drive, Boise,
Idaho. 83714. Thank you for letting me speak today. Dear City Council
Members, it's come to my attention just recently that my neighbor, the church
there, is requesting a permit to install a T-Mobile cellular tower adjacent to a ten
acre property that own. I'm voicing my objection to this change in the
development agreement for the following reasons : My property has a signed
development agreement with the city and it was for a 20 acre residential project
and it had at the time an approved preliminary plat call Incline Village. I think
there were about 51 lots that were on that Incline Village. I, myself, and three
other property owners who make up the properties within Incline Village are in
negotiations with a developer who is interested in purchasing that 20 acres and
an additional I think four acres right next door to develop and, let's face it, cellular
towers aren't maybe a necessity, but they are a bit of an eyesore and none of us
would really choose to live next to one if we had the choice . There is also a
perception that there are unknown health risks associated with living near cellular
towers. Although undocumented the perception still exists. If the cellular tower
is approved the developer's representative has stated that they would likely
terminate their negotiations with us due to these concerns. Meridian is a family
centered city and locating a cellular tower within a residential area with this
density would seem to conflict with that objective. I and many people feel cellular
towers belong in a nonresidential area and I think it is prudent -- I believe it is
prudent to postpone the approval of this tower to consider how this tower might
negatively affect the city's Comprehensive Plan for quality, family, friendly
neighborhood here, the development agreement goals and how it might damage
my -- and my property -- excuse me -- my and my neighbors potential sale -- our
property values and the marketability of our projects should this tower be built --
approved. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Bird: Thank you very much. Okay. Dr. Michael Pearson is for, but he don't want
to testify. Phil Lanson is for, but didn't want to testify. Ken Motley is for. Randy
Rogers. And Hudson Logan is for. This is a public hearing. Is there anybody
that would like to testify on this item? Okay. come forward.
Motley: My name is Keri Motley and I live at 1817 North Tessa Avenue,
Meridian. My backyard actually is with -- right across Black Cat from this
proposed cell tower. As a neighbor I don't oppose -- I actually approve having
Meridian City Council
September 20, 2016
Page 28 of 58
this tower being built. It's been a known problem that T-Mobile has had poor
service in the area and with the growth of the community I feel that it's important
that they keep up with the communications of those who live in the area . I know
-- I am also -- I have to say I am also a T-Mobile customer and I have terrible
service in that area and I would love to be able to have good service at an
affordable cost for my family. We have looked at other options and they cost
more money. And so being able to stick with the current carrier and having
better service would be a huge benefit. I don't feel that it would be an eyesore.
We already have power lines directly behind our home running along Black Cat
and so I do not feel it would impact any further , since we already have those
power lines right behind our house.
De Weerd: Thank you, Keri. And I do have -- they have all -- okay. Is there
anyone else who would like to provide testimony on the item? Okay. Seeing
none, Council?
Milam: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Milam.
Milam: I have a -- well, I guess the applicant will come back up anyways. I have
a question -- I have a question for the applicant. Thank you. My question is
about being an eyesore, that that does seem to be somewhat of a -- I know it's
similar to a telephone pole, but it's -- it's a little bit more than that. Are there any
other designs? I know like at Eagle Hills Golf Course somebody put in a cell
tower up there, they made it look like a big tree and so you -- you know, are there
any other designs or something that maybe that doesn't just look like a big cell
tower?
Cox: You know, it actually comes up a lot and there are and we do palm trees
and we do pine trees and we do flag poles and things, but I would s ay you
remember that tower, but you probably don't remember the others you pass by,
you know, because you're like, oh, that's a funny looking tree. So, I mean , yeah,
there are -- we have had some cities have us paint them sky blue, thinking it
would blend in and, to be honest, the slim -- it just kind of ends up blending into
the skyline like a power pole would or, you know, like anything else. I mean --
but we do have that option, you know, if the city wanted to entertain that, but I
think, you know, those fit a little better in areas with, you know, densely tall trees
of the same height kind of thing. Palm trees actually work really well, but that
would probably look a little funny. But they are -- you know, that's pretty well --
but we can look at that and we can perhaps bring some renderings, but in my
personal opinion having just the same color as the power poles and everything
else tends to be less noticeable in the long run.
Meridian City Council
September 20, 2016
Page 29 of 58
Milam: Madam Mayor? So, there was no other more nonresidential area in this
vicinity that you could find to place this? I can tend to agree there really shouldn't
be -- I wouldn't want it next to my house.
Cox: Right. And we have actually been looking a lot. The closest we have is at
a -- at a retail store in Meridian, like a shopping complex, but, unfortunately,
because it's such a densely populated residential area -- I agree nobody wants
them there. Everyone wants them on the outside kind of pointing in, but the
nature of the beast is it has become a necessity, a utility just like almost anything
else. Just like a telephone service or electricity. And because, you know, they
are getting so densely populated, these residential areas, we have to start putting
them in and we try to make them as -- you know, as little invasive as we possibly
can, you know, and the reason we picked this area is because it is a little more
rural, but we -- we have had a lot of complaints in this area from T-Mobile
customers over the years, we have lost a lot of customers, and, you know, it --
and I sympathize for the -- the individual -- they oppose this and -- and her -- the
neighbors, but, you know, the more residential houses that are going to go in, as
she pointed out, the more there will be a need for this and, unfortu nately, we also
have a responsibility to allow people to have emergency services, be able to call
911 in basements and things like that , and when we are farther away it
penetrates less and, unfortunately, it's just kind of the nature of the way things
are going with the industry.
Milam: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? Thank you. Council,
any additional information needed from the applicant or staff ?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: Quick question for staff. If approved is the language for the modification
broad to permit a wireless communication facility or is it more narrowly tailored to
fit what is the slimline design, which may be more narrow?
Beach: We can entertain that option. How it's written, as you see on the slide up
here, it's -- right now it says it's -- the only allowed use in the area are churches
and that's it. We have added their associated uses and wireless communication
facilities. If you want to you can tailor that to be more specific to a slimline tower
or however you would like to do that. That's within your purview.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Meridian City Council
September 20, 2016
Page 30 of 58
Borton: It seems appropriate, if it's possible -- I guess I can ask the applicant.
They might not care about having that restriction, but if that confirms and assures
that the specific style and matrix of the tower as presented tonight -- I don't know
how you add that language to address that.
Beach: Associated uses and slimline wireless communication towers. Seems
pretty straight forward.
Milam: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Milam.
Milam: Along those lines, another -- I guess another concern if I was a neighbor
would be if -- and this is just kind of general language that what's going to stop
another carrier from putting one on the other side -- you know, right next door.
Just kind of general language that was going to stop another carrier from putting
one on the other side, other -- you know right next door where this all of a sudden
becomes cell towerville. So, maybe even just limiting it to one.
Borton: Madam Mayor? If I heard Council Woman Milam, it's a DA modification
and associated uses with a single slimline wireless communication facility? It
would be worth having the applicant at least nod affirmatively or --
De Weerd: Well, I'm sure T-Mobile would like be the only one on it. I need you
to speak into the microphone.
Cox: I think the zoning ordinances take care of a lot for that for that location and
I don't think they can be as close together as that, just -- the zoning ordinances
might take care of that, but --
Borton: Okay.
De Weerd: And maybe Josh can comment to that.
Beach: Madam Mayor, I don't believe our zoning ordinance has a minimum
distance between cellphone facilities as you -- if you go around the city you will
notice on the top of various buildings in town there are multiple -- they are not
towers, but they are wireless facilities that are constructed on top of taller
buildings throughout town and we -- we don't have a -- we don't have a minimum
spacing between them, so --
De Weerd: But you probably won't see a number of cell towers in -- in the same
vicinity.
Beach: Madam Mayor, from my experience what -- what happens is they tend to
co-locate, which means multiple carriers will use an existing --
Meridian City Council
September 20, 2016
Page 31 of 58
De Weerd: On one pole.
Beach: -- pole and have other facilities on that. I'm not sure how T-Mobile does
that necessarily, but I have seen that in the past, so -- we are not always going to
put five towers up when you have got one. You can always just put your facilities
on there, so --
De Weerd: Okay.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: If there is not additional public comment, I would move we close the
public hearing on item -- oh.
De Weerd: Council, I apologize I had to step out. Would you like additional
testimony? Okay. Yes, ma'am.
Lapoint: Want me to state my name?
De Weerd: Thank you. Yes, please.
Lapoint: Okay. Samantha Lapoint again. Okay. A couple other considerations
are -- what you guys are considering, there is also another church just adjacent
to this church. If you allow a cellular tower on this church would the church that's
right adjacent, then, also have the right to install another cellular tower and, then,
we are talking about multiple towers in the area?
De Weerd: I would imagine they would have that same opportunity to come in
for the same public hearings that this one would, so you would be notified if that
were to happen.
Beach: Madam Mayor, just to -- just to clarify that --
De Weerd: No?
Beach: It's a principally permitted use. The only reason this applicant is having
to come forward is their development agreement specifically allows for churches
and their associated uses, which we did not interpret a wireless communication
facility would be an associated use for a church. So, current ordinance allows for
wireless communication facilities in the L-O district.
De Weerd: And towers?
Meridian City Council
September 20, 2016
Page 32 of 58
Beach: Correct.
Lapoint: Is it a possibility of even smaller? You know, height restriction on that?
I know it's -- 60 feet seems like a lot, but --
De Weerd: You know, our ordinance does define where they are allowed and
the specific -- specific -- that's easy for me to say -- the specifics.
Lapoint: Okay. I guess that's all I have to say.
De Weerd: Yeah. Thank you, Samantha.
Lapoint: Thank you.
De Weerd: And would the applicant have any additional comment? We always
allow you the last word.
Cox: Yeah. Just in closing --
De Weerd: State your name again for the record.
Cox: Oh, again. Caleb Cox.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Cox: My address, too?
De Weerd: No.
Cox: The pastor of the church actually just came and spoke with me and said
they would have the say if other carriers were to co-locate on that tower and they
are not interested in that. So, I don't have a co-location on that tower -- I don't
think it would be high enough for one and I don't -- and as the ground they
wouldn't be interested in that, so I think -- hopefully that might help it rest a little
easier. But other than that that is a necessity, it's necessary in our society and,
unfortunately, with the more people that are moving in in Meridian it seems like a
terrific place, we need to be able to provide emergency services and utilities of
their phone, so -- any other questions?
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Anything further from Council? Okay. Thank
you. Okay. Council, any further information needed from staff or the applicant or
any of those that provided testimony? If not, I would entertain a motion to close.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Meridian City Council
September 20, 2016
Page 33 of 58
Borton: Move that we close Item 8-E, H-2016-0091.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on Item 8-
E. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: I'd move that we approve Item H-2016-0091 to allow the modification of
Development Agreement Section 5.1.1 to read that the following be the only
allowed uses on the property, churches, their associated uses, comma, and a
single slimline designed wireless communication facility.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 8-E as stated. Any
discussion? Mr. Clerk.
Roll Call: Bird yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener, absent; Palmer, yea; Little
Roberts, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
F. Public Hearing for Knightsbridge Subdivision (H-2016-
0088) by Schultz Development Located 3870 E. Victory
Road
1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 5.15 Acres of
Land with an R-4 Zoning District
2. Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of
Seventeen (17) Building Lots and Two (2)
Common Lots on 5.15 Acres of Land in the R-4
Zoning District
De Weerd: Item 8-F is a public hearing on H-2016-0088. I will open this public
hearing with staff comments.
Meridian City Council
September 20, 2016
Page 34 of 58
Beach: This is an application for annexation and zoning and for preliminary plat.
This site consists of approximately 5.15 acres of land, which is currently zoned
RUT in Ada County. It's located at 3870 East Victory Road. The adjacent land
use and zoning. To the north is single family residential property in the
Sutherland Farms Subdivision, which is zoned R-4. To the east is single family
residential zoned property zoned RUT also in Ada county. To the south is East
Victory Road and single family residential property zoned RUT in Ada county.
And to the west is also single family residential properties zoned RUT in Ada
county. As I said, this is an annexation, so there is no current history on this
property. The future land use map designation for this piece is medium density
residential. The applicant has applied for annexation and zoning, as I said, 5.15
acres of land with an R-4 zoning district. Staff believes the proposed zoning
intensity is consistent with the vision of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed
plat consists of 17 building lots and two common lots on 5.15 acres of land. The
R-4 zoning district is proposed for the developments , with a gross density of 3.3
dwelling units per acre, with an average lot size of 9,218 square feet, which is
consistent with medium density residential Comprehensive Plan designation.
There is an existing single family home on the site that will be demolished as part
of his project and the home must be removed prior to obtaining city engineer's
signature on the final plat. The master street map -- going back to the vicinity
map here. As you can see there is a large -- it's indicated as a roundabout. The
master street map indicates a roundabout located at the intersection of South
Terri Drive and East Victory Road. The highway district has indicated that they
are in support of removing that from the master street map, but in order to do so
the applicant will need to request that from them -- from the ACHD commission at
a hearing to be scheduled that some date in the future. ACHD is requesting that
the applicant construct South Proud Way as one half -- sorry. For references
sake this is Proud Way here. As one half of a 36-foot street section with curb,
gutter, and five foot wide concrete sidewalk within 50 feet of right of way, plus 12
feet of additional payment beyond the centerline and three foot wide gravel
shoulder beyond the existing terminated roadway to the Proud Way-Moon Dipper
Street intersection. Sidewalks are required along all public streets. The
applicant proposes to construct five foot wide detached sidewalk throughout the
development and a five foot wide detached sidewalk adjacent to East Victory
Road. The eight foot parkways are required to comply with the UDC. As
admitted the applicant has not provided the require d trees per the UDC. With the
submittal of the final plat the applicant must submit a revised landscape plan that
meets those standards. A 20 foot wide -- 25 foot wide street buffer is required
along East Victory Road, which is considered an arterial street and is required to
be landscaped in accord with -- with the UDC. The buffer shown on the
landscape plan meets the requirements, however, because there are single
common lots and fencing along, the sidewalk will have to be placed along the
interior edge of the lots in accord with the UDC. Based on the aerial, the
preliminary plat, which is approximately 5.15 acres, a minimum of ten percent or
in this case .51 acres of qualified usable open space is required to be provided.
Based on the preliminary plat the applicant is proposing .53, which is
Meridian City Council
September 20, 2016
Page 35 of 58
approximately 10.2 percent of the proposed development as open space. The
open space consists of eight foot parkways and two pathway open space lots
that are at least 50 by 100, that include the required street buffer adjacent to -- to
Victory Road. So, located here. Staff is concerned about the location of the
proposed open space for the development. The majority of the proposed open
space is adjacent to a busy arterial roadway that will be widened in the future and
will become busier with future development in the area . The applicant is
proposing what is, essentially, an extra wide landscape buffer along East Victory
Road. The fencing requirements in the UDC require that fencing, as I said, be
installed on the interior edge of the common lot , which would, essentially, be
here. The proposal by the applicant will essentially require anyone who uses the
open space to recreate along the arterial roadway. In addition to the open space
provided for the development, the applicant requests this property be allowed to
be included in the open space and site amenity calculations for the Sutherland
Farm development. I did not have an aerial, but this is the Sullivan Farm
Subdivision here. So, they are proposing to -- and applicant is working with that
HOA to be included within their HOA, so that this property be included in their
required open space, as well as their amenities calculations. A total of 13.24
acres or 11.3 percent qualified open space has already been constructed within
the Southern Farm development, along with the following site amenities. A
three-quarter mile regional pathway along the Ridenbaugh Canal, a 5.9 acre
park, a 2.5 acre park, tot lot, gazebo, swing set and horseshoe pits. The
applicant has discussed incorporating the subject property, as I said, with their
HOA and the applicant may have made some progress since the Planning
Commission. I have not spoken with him regarding this since then. So, he may
have some additional insight. The applicant is proposing to provide a future --
what he's calling a future large amenity within the Sutherland Farm existing 5.9
acre park and at this time the applicant has not provided details of what that
future large amenity would be. So, because the applicant is proposing to be
included in that Sutherland Farm HOA and subject to their CC&Rs, staff supports
the applicant's request provided that the Sutherland Farm HOA agrees to allow
this property to be incorporated and, if not, staff recommends that the plat is
revised to provide the full ten percent qualified open space and one site amenity
on this subject property. If an agreement cannot be reached between the two
parties, staff recommends that the applicant separate the landscape buffer and
passive open space and include an open space somewhere else on the property
so that it's more usable and so it will create a more central open space. The
applicant is proposing to construct detached single family homes. The applicant
has submitted conceptual sample elevations. This is the overall Sutherland Farm
Subdivision just for references sake. The applicant did something similar with
the Bancroft Square Subdivision if you remember and got that included within the
Sutherland Farm Subdivision recently and that's what they are proposing to do
here. As I said, there are some sample elevations that were submitted by the
applicant. Written testimony since the Commission hearing is from the applicant
Matt Schultz. The Commission did recommend approval. Summary of the
Commission public hearing. Matt Schultz, the applicant's representative, was in
Meridian City Council
September 20, 2016
Page 36 of 58
favor. There was none in opposition. William Bollar commented. Written
testimony, as I said, was received from the applicant. I presented that
application. Bill Parsons also commented. Key issues of public testing were the
location of sewer and water as it relates to this development. Key issues of
discussion by the Commission were amenities for the development if included in
the Sutherland Farms HOA, as well as amenities if not included in the Sutherland
Farm HOA and location of the open space might not be appropriate.
Commission changes to the staff recommendations are -- they modified
Condition 1.1.1C as follows: If an agreement cannot be reached with the
Sutherland Farm homeowners association to allow the subject property to be
incorporated into the Sutherland Farm HOA, that prior to submitting a final plat
application the applicant shall separate the landscape buffer from the passive
open space, which is Lot 1, Block 1, and Lot 7, Block 3, and create a more
central open space lot and include one site amenity in accord with the standards
of the UDC. There are no outstanding issues for City Council and I did
recommend approval, as I said. Stand for any questions you may have.
De Weerd: Thank you, Josh. Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Would the applicant like to make comment? If you will,
please, state your name and address for the record.
Schultz: Thank you, Mayor Tammy, Council. Matt Schultz. 8421 South Ten
Mile in Meridian. Here on behalf of Schultz Development. We have endeavored
to do something similar to Bancroft Square, if you remember, which is right
around the corner on Eagle Road, with the exception that we felt that this location
was more appropriate to be R-4, instead of R-8. So, whereas -- you know, just --
we thought that was the best thing to do to blend in with the neighborhood. The
big picture -- the overall picture that you're shown here I prepared when I
measured everything and came up with the open space and, yeah, we -- we do
meet the open space on our own, the two percent. What we are asking for is we
would like to do an extra wide buffer on the road. It does count in the ordinance
towards qualified open space. People are going to recreate in the big park in
Sutherland Farm, which is very close. It's within 800 feet. It's closer to our
subdivision than a lot of people that live in Sutherland Farm. Now, we would like
to recreate in there with their full approval as being part of their HOA, paying
dues, and being subject to their ACC guidelines as to what gets built. We are
offering all that control to them and to pay 10,000 dollars towards a large amenity
in the park that would use the Brancroft Square money that Berkeley homes is
doing, with our money, use some of the other two hundred and some residents'
money to do something bigger. As it stands today, they already have enough
amenities in the overall subdivision to exceed your current ordinance, even
though it was done ten years ago with the big pond that's stocked with fish in the
middle, the regional pathway -- it's a great -- it's a great open space, it's centrally
Meridian City Council
September 20, 2016
Page 37 of 58
located, we would contribute to that. The reason Bancroft Square worked was
prior to submitting the final plat we had to have that agreement in place and that
all happened, it all came. We are still working through ours. Very positive so far.
And I mean just takes a while for those wheels to turn when you're dealing with
that many residents and you need to take it to a vote and all that and so we
would like to have this approval in place subject to getting their -- their approval
and if we can't get that approval, then, our final plat won't be able to be submitted
like we submitted here, we would have to move the open space a couple lots in
and put, you know, I don't know if it's a little playground or a gazebo or some
amenity. We are right on the edge of needing an amenity, 4.99 acres, we
wouldn't need one, we are at 5.1. Anything between five and 20 needs one
amenity. We are right there on the edge. We would rather contribute to a bigger
amenity in the park. Connectivity, it's a pretty simply layout in terms that we have
to line up with Terri across Victory, we have to line up connecting to Sutherland
Farm, we have to provide connections to the east and west. It is what it is and
we decided to go with the deeper lots. I don't know that these lots are deeper
than Sutherland Farm. They are not as wide, but they do meet that 8,000
minimum in the R-4, which is considered a larger lot in the City of Meridian,
which we were going for. It will allow a three car garage. We want to, like I said,
hand over the architectural control to their ACC board and do something that
blends in with them and we just want to be one big happy neighborhood. So,
with that we would stand for any questions and ask that you approve it with staff
conditions that we agree with. Thank you.
De Weerd: So, Matt, do you have the agreement with the Sutherland Farms
HOA?
Schultz: We have presented them -- we presented them here for them to sign. It
outlines the contribution, the fact that we give them control. All of the things. It
hasn't been signed yet, but that would be -- after this approval that would be a
condition of being able to submit a final plat is having that agreement in place
and it just takes time for that to work through. Bancroft Square, that just got done
and that plat was approved a couple months ago. So, it's going to probably lag a
month or two behind to get through the -- the process in dealing with those many
homeowners. They have to vote on it -- they have to concur with a 66 percent
supermajority. So, it's a high bar we have to meet. We think we are going to hit
it. Like I said, we are doing big lots, we are giving them control, we are giving
them money, just be one big happy family. So, it's going to take time, though.
So, in the meantime, we are just going to take our approval forward to the board
and say this is what got approved, will you, please, accept this and they will take
it to a vote, so -- thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Meridian City Council
September 20, 2016
Page 38 of 58
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. There were several that did sign up. If when I
call your name you would like to provide testimony, please, step forward. Donna
Reese signed up against. Mike Devine signed up as neutral or for. I would need
you to come forward, please. If you will, please, state your name and address for
the record.
Devine: It's Mike Devine. I'm 3730 East McKay Drive.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Devine: I just live kind of at the intersection we are talking about poking -- just
Proud through and connecting to Sutherland Farm. If they do go ahead and
Sutherland Farm does approve all of this, who would we talk to -- or I guess
maybe it's a development issue or a city issue or what have you, but that area --
that intersection there is already quite a bit of traffic that comes -- I guess would
be west to east coming down McKay where it would join in with the new property.
If there would possibly be a way to put like some kind of a stop sign, either just to
-- I guess do I have a way to show you on this map where I 'm talking about or --
following their plat going from west to east --
De Weerd: Yeah. Right where the arrow is. Where the cursor is.
Devine: Yes. Right. I just live I guess kitty-corner to that and that road going
west to east is McKay and there already is problems with teenage drivers kind of
just ripping through there and, then, they turn and go north up Proud. If that were
to go through, which I'm in favor of, I'm not -- not in favor of, I think the
development is great. But that's going to get, you know, access from people
going down Victory to turn to go north up to our subdivision. We talked a month
ago about the Bancroft Square and we were worried about people coming out of
there and, you know, cutting through our neighborhood to head east and get
back out to Victory. This is kind of giving another avenue for people to come
from Victory through our subdivision and even cut over to Eagle Road. So, who
would we talk to about putting -- like just putting a stop sign, just to -- just to slow
traffic down at that internal intersection?
De Weerd: That guy. Justin is with ACHD and I don't know if that can -- because
it's not on this particular plat, it would need to be in the subdivision. ACHD does
have a process of doing that, but maybe Justin can talk with you offline or we can
ask him to come up and outline what that process is.
Devine: Sure. Something as simple as that, just to deter people from blowing
through there, because it already happens within the subdivi sion, that just gives
them another avenue to do it and that really -- that's the only concern that I have.
I mean I'm all for development in that area, I would even buy a lot in that area,
but living where we live, I mean it happens all the time, especial ly on Friday and
Saturdays, but that's about -- that's a question I had and I was just curious about
Meridian City Council
September 20, 2016
Page 39 of 58
if it were to go through and were to get approved from Sutherland Farms, who
would we talk to about possibly in the stop sign there?
De Weerd: Well -- and, actually, that would be -- make sense with the north-
south as more of a -- a through road. But we don't do roads, so pass the buck to
ACHD.
Devine: Okay.
De Weerd: We will ask him to comment.
Devine: Okay. Perfect. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you for your comments. Brian Barker signed up as neutral
and for. And Jenny Staples as well. Thank you. Okay. Justin, can you make
comment on -- on that last request on the stop sign? If you will, please, state
your name and address for the record.
Lucas: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the City Council. My name is
Justin Lucas, I'm here representing the Ada County Highway District and the
business address is 3775 Adams Street in Garden City, Idaho.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Lucas: I can't speak specifically to this location. Obviously, this is a developing
area and when this does go through it is certainly possible a stop sign would be
an appropriate solution for that intersection. It's not uncommon for -- in areas like
this where the streets are kind of built as we go for ACHD to come in and
retroactively install stop signs. We have a policy related to this -- not only stop
signs, but also a traffic calming policy and the -- the way to get that initiated is
through contacting the Ada County Highway District. We have a very easy
interface and response to these types of requests relatively quickly. There is
some science behind the placement of stop signs and a stop sign alone -- it's
been proven that if it's located in a place wher e it's not warranted, where the
traffic or geometry or whatever doesn’t warrant it, that it doesn't do anything. So,
I'm not going to promise we are going to put a stop sign anywhere without the
analysis that is required through our -- through our policy, but that being said we
do have a core process to do that analysis. We will respond. We do -- we go out
and do traffic counts and monitoring and all those kinds of things before we make
those decisions, but it's hard in this situation, because the street isn't there yet.
Typically I'm talking about streets that are there. This one it's not there. When it
does go in I think the point the gentleman made is -- is good and it's likely we will
be able to do an analysis and provide him an answer at that time.
De Weerd: Okay. If you will give him your -- your contact information after this
that would be awesome.
Meridian City Council
September 20, 2016
Page 40 of 58
Lucas: Certainly. I certainly can. Thank you, Madam Mayor.
De Weerd: Thank you, Justin. And we have it as well, so -- any other public
testimony on this item? Okay. Any other comment? Okay. Council, any
additional questions?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Seeing none, I move we close the pub lic hearing on H-2016-0088.
Milam: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on this
item. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve H-2016-0088 and to include all staff, applicant, and
public testimony. Pending the HOA, which is part of the statement.
Milam: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 8 -F. Any discussion?
Mr. Clerk.
Roll Call: Bird yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener, absent; Palmer, yea; Little
Roberts, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
G. Public Hearing for Paisley Meadows (H-2016-0089) by
Hayden Homes Idaho, LLC Located at 2180 East Amity
Road
1. Request: Preliminary Plat Consisting of 75
Building Lots and Six (6) Common Lots on 20.18
Acres of Land in an R-4 Zoning District
Meridian City Council
September 20, 2016
Page 41 of 58
De Weerd: Item 8-G is a public hearing on H-2016-0089. I will open this public
hearing with staff comments.
Beach: Thank you, Madam Mayor. This is an application for a preliminary plat.
The site consists of approximately 20.18 acres of land, which is currently zoned
R-4, located at 2180 East Amity Road. To the north of this property we have
residential property in Bellingham Park Subdivision, which is zone R-8. To the
east we have rural residential or agricultural property zoned RUT within Ada
county. To the south we have East Amity Road and rural residential or
agricultural property zoned RUT also within Ada county. And to the west we
have single family residential properties in the Estancia Subdivision, which is
zoned R-4. In 2006 this property was granted annexation and zoning and a
preliminary plat for 62 single family lots and nine common lots on 20.18 acres of
land in the R-8 zoning district for what was called Cotswold Village. In 2009 the
property was granted final plat approval of -- for 19 single family residential lots
and seven common lots on 6.78 acres of land in the R-8 zoning district and the
plat was subsequently -- has subsequently expired. The Comprehensive Plan
future land use map designation for this property is low density residential. This
proposed plan consists of 75 single family residential building lots and six
common lots and the plat is proposed to development in two phases. As you can
see here the phasing line runs approximately where my cursor is here. As I said,
the property is designated as low density residential on the Comprehensive Plan
future land use map. Low density residential areas are anticipated to contain
single family residences at densities up to three dwelling units per acre. The
proposed preliminary plat includes 75 residential building lots on 20.18 acres of
land for a gross density of 3.72 dwelling units per acre. The gross density is
slightly above density outlined in the Comprehensive Plan, but it comports with
the maximum density requirements of the R-4 district. The average lot size
within the development 8,408 square feet. The applicant indicated in the
application that the minimum home size for the development would be 1,200
square feet. However, the zoning designation they are asking for requires a
minimum of 1,400 square feet. There is an existing home and outbuildings on
this site. The home is supposed to be removed. Development of this site is
required to comply with the dimension standards set forth in UDC for the R-4
district and staff has reviewed the proposed plat and found it to be in compliance
with those standards. The highway district did not require a traffic impact study
for this development. Access to the site is currently provided via East Amity
Road, which is considered an arterial street. This access would be terminated
with the development of the proposed subdivision. The plat as submitted does
not -- does not depict direct lot access in accord with the UDC. Access is
proposed from South Rangewood Way on the north and East Nova Street on the
east, which are both considered local residential streets. The Ada County
Highway District in an e-mail received on August 17th indicated that there is
potential to allow for construction access to enter the site from Amity. The
applicant has worked with ACHD and has some additional information to share in
Meridian City Council
September 20, 2016
Page 42 of 58
that regard. I will let the applicant discuss that as part of his presentation. East
Miller Street and South Rangewood Way are stubbed to this site. The applicant
is proposing to stub to the property to the east as well, as staff is supportive of
the street layout proposed for the development. A 25 foot wide street landscape
buffer should measure from the back of curb is required along East Amity Road,
which is considered a residential arterial street per the UDC and shows the
landscape is in accord with the standards also set forth in the UDC. The
applicant is proposing a 35 -- plus or minus 35 foot wide landscape buffer
adjacent -- adjacent to East Amity Road. A ten foot wide compacted gravel
shoulder meeting the construction standards of the transportation authority and
landscaping, which is either lawn or other vegetative ground cover is required
along East Amity Road. A minimum of ten percent qualified open space is
required to be provided for this development based on the area of the preliminary
plat, which is approximately 20.18 acres and, then, 2.01 acres of qualified open
space is required to be provided as set forth in the UDC. A total of 10.01 percent
of qualified open space is proposed consisting of half the street buffer along East
Amity Road. A micropath lot, a drainage lot, an internal common open space.
The applicant proposes to provide a tot lot within the central common ar ea
located at Lot 16, Block 2. So, if you look at the landscape plan -- and if I can
find my cursor -- in this location here. And, as I said, we worked with the
applicant and -- I apologize, this isn't actually what they are proposing, they are
proposing this pathway here and this will actually be a street connection,
because we have some issues with the block length on the south here, which we
have since resolved. Sidewalks are required along all public streets and a
minimum of five foot detached sidewalk is required along East Amity Road as
depicted in the landscape plan. Because homes on lots that back up to East
Amity Road will be highly visible, staff recommends the rear or sides of those
structures that face East Amity Road incorporate articulation through changes in
material, color, modulation and architectural elements to break up those
monotonous wall plains and roof lines. Staff did receive some additional
testimony since the Commission hearing from Jerry T eibel, Amity Shinsel, and
also from Ross Erickson, the applicant's representative. Based on the
Commission public hearing the applicant's representative Ross Erickson was in
forever and there was several comments that were in opposition were Crystal
Dickerson, Amy Shinsel, Jared Perry, John W alker, Earl Griffin, Clarissa Amos,
Annie Moore, Michael Thompson, Peter Thompson, Laura Dahl, Russ Damyan.
Written testimony was received from Ross Erickson. I represented the staff in
this presentation. Bill Parsons and Ted Baird also commented on the
application. Key issues of public testimony were the lack of direct access to
Amity Road. Safety of children on Wrightwood Drive with the increased traffic
from the proposed development. Concerns over lack of amenities. Why a traffic
impact study was not required for the proposed development. Where
construction traffic will be directed. Public notification -- or feelings that the public
notification was inadequate based on the impact to the surrounding
neighborhoods. Timing of the construction entrance off of Amity Road. Key
issues of discussion by the Commission were traffic on Wrightwood and the
Meridian City Council
September 20, 2016
Page 43 of 58
speed of cars on that road. Direct access to Amity Road from the parcel to the
east once it develops. The additional homes might make W rightwood eligible for
some traffic calming measures. Designated signs that require construction to
use a construction entrance off of Amity Road. Timing of the removal of the
construction entrance and who would use the entrance . There were several
changes to the conditions from the Commission. First is the addition of condition
1.1.8 as follows: That pending the approval of the -- of Ada County Highway
District, a sign saying, quote, no construction traffic, be placed at the corner of
Locust Grove and Wrightwood at the dead end of Rangewood and at the
entrance to Estancia off of Amity Road. Add Condition 1.1.9 as follows: Pending
approval of Ada County Highway District, a temporary construction access shall
be built off of Amity Road and that all construction vehicles shall use the
temporary construction access. Add Condition 1.1.10 to read as follows:
Landscape surety shall be put in place for removal of the construction entrance
and the temporary construction entrance shall be removed prior to signature on
the final plat for phase two of the proposed development . Add Condition 1.1.11
to read as follows: Prior to the City Council hearing the applicant shall provide
details of the location of the temporary access, as well as have final information
from the highway district as far as any conditions for use of the temporary
access. So, in that regard the applicant did provide staff with proposed locations
of signs for emergency and construction traffic only, as well as the location for a
proposed temporary direct access to Amity Road. With that the Commission did
recommend approval and I will stand for any questions you have.
De Weerd: Thank you, Josh. Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none at this time.
De Weerd: Okay. Is the applicant here? If you will, please, state your name and
address for the record.
Erickson: Madam Mayor, Council Members, Ross Erickson. 6213 North
Cloverdale Road, Boise. I'm here tonight representing the applicant. First off,
Josh, thanks for the thorough staff report and all of your efforts to get us to this
point. As Josh mentioned, we are here to request approval of a preliminary plat
for six -- or 75 single family detached building units on a parcel just over 20 acres
that's currently zoned R-4. We feel it's compatible with the surrounding area.
Directly to the west is the Estancia Subdivision that's also zoned R-4. To the
north is Bellingham, which is zoned R-8. To the northeast is Messina Meadows,
which is also zoned R-8. And to the -- directly to the east is a vacant parcel that's
still in the county that's RUT. And to the east of that parcel there is a parcel
zoned R-8. So, from a bird's eye we are, basically, an R-4 parcel surrounded by
R-8s and R-4s. So, we think it's a good fit for this proposed development with
regards to density and use. The access for the site was, basically,
predetermined by the adjacent developments , through Bellingham and through
Estancia. Estancia provided the Melwood stub street to the west property
Meridian City Council
September 20, 2016
Page 44 of 58
boundary and Bellingham provided the Rangewood stub street to the north
property. So, basically, our layout utilizes those two stub streets for our internal
network of streets and we also provide a stub street to the west to provide
access to the undeveloped parcel to the east. We do not provide direct access
to Amity, nor would it be approved by ACHD in accordance with their policy, due
to the successive driveway spacing from the approach to the west that goes into
Estancia to the north and, then, there is another approach to Amity Road to the
east that goes to White Bark. There is about 1,200 feet between those two
driveways and they require 660 feet of successive spacing between driveways.
So, it physically wouldn't fit to try to get another access to this property directly to
Amity, nor do we think it makes sense, simply because we are providing a stub
street to the east and the next property over to the east when it develops would
have the ability to construct a driveway that aligns with the approach for White
Bark, which provides another access out to Amity Road for the Paisley Meadows
development. The internal streets are 34 foot wide. Will accommodate parking
on both sides. We are proposing eight foot planter strip parkways. It will be
landscaped with trees, sprinklers, and grass. The development includes just
over ten percent open space in accordance with the city's code. At the northeast
corner of the project we have a detention pond for storm water. It's actually the
low point of the site, so it makes sense to put it there. The area -- around the
detention pond will be landscaped. To the extent ACC will provide some spacing
requirements for trees and things, but we can do -- we have some flexibility with
grass and shrubs, so we are going to dress it up, so it looks nice. Centrally
located in the project is more of a park-type setting for our open space. That
location will include a tot lot, some benches for a sitting area, and also like a pet
station that will include some bags and refuse for disposal and we have also got -
- this landscape plan isn't quite accurate, as Josh just mentioned, the pedestrian
connection on the west side is actually a through street now, but we do have a
mid-block pedestrian connection for access right where the cursor is and, then,
also we provide two pedestrian connections off the -- the terminus of the -- the
bulbs on this portion of phase two. We provided a 37 foot landscape buffer along
Amity Road. A 25-foot buffer is required. W e think it's -- it's a good measure just
to provide a little bit of separation for most homes to the arterial roadway and
also improve the streetscape I guess looking in. The utilities are readily available
to the site. We have got water and sewer on three sides, the northwest and the
south. So, the site is easily serviceable. Our plan is to bring sewer from the
south, run it through the internal streets and provide a stub to the east for that
parcel for future development. Same goes with water. We wi ll connect on the
northwest and the south and provide a stub to the east. The construction issue
came up at a Planning and Zoning meeting. It was kind of a -- and I couldn't
quite address, because we didn't have enough information and we didn't answer
that question to ACHD in time, so we since had to go back and follow up with
them to develop the temporary access plan that you see on the screen right now.
Basically, what this plan shows is it shows a temporary gravel access road from
the southerly boundary of phase two that connects directly out to Amity Road.
This access will be limited to construction traffic and that will include all the folks
Meridian City Council
September 20, 2016
Page 45 of 58
working on the home construction within phase one. It will include trades, the
roofer, the painters, all the guys that their trucks or cars or vehicles coming to
work on those homes. It's the intent in providing this road that, you know, we can
see if those folks actually use that access and not go through the local streets
and burden them with undue construction traffic, since the neighbors were really
concerned about that. The sign -- the signage proposal we have actually
included it on this plan. The condition of approval that is included in the staff
report is a little bit different from what we are showing here. It was drafted prior
to us working out the details with ACHD. So, what we would like to do is -- I have
a proposal I sent Josh, an e-mail with some suggested language to change that
condition to align with our proposed temporary access plan with regards to some
of these items. So, do you guys want me to read those proposed modifications
into the record? Josh, do you want me to do that? Okay. So, the Commission
added Condition 1.1.8 and, basically, to back up, through one of the -- the no
construction traffic signs posted out on Amity and, then, also out on Locust
Grove. After meeting with ACHD we didn't think that was quite the right location
for those signs, we thought it would be better to put it at the boundary of the
project, so it was clear as far as what traffic we are trying to control and that is
the project coming to and from the Paisley Meadows Development. So, I
propose Condition 1.1.8 be modified to read: Pending approval of ACHD, that
sign saying no construction access permitted be placed along East Melwood
Street and South Rangewood Way at the subdivision boundary and that's exactly
what's shown on this plan here. The second modification would be to condition
1.1.10. There was a -- more for the notice with regards to a landscape surety
and it's really unnecessary to have that in the condition, simply because this
temporary access will remain in place until probably about halfway through the
infrastructure construction of phase two, which we just got halfway through the
infrastructure construction in phase two, it's going to be a safety hazard to have
people driving through there, we are going to be cutting roads in, putting road
base down and preparing for concrete. So, we would anticipate t hat the
temporary access would be removed at the point in time when we have to start
prepping for the road and for the concrete for phase two. So, basically, what I
did is I struck this portion from the condition. A landscape surety shall be put into
place for removal of the construction entrance and -- basically I crossed that part
out. I don't know if that makes sense. I was just reading it from the -- but the
remaining portion could read like these. The temporary construction entrance
shall be removed prior to signature on the final plat of phase two of the proposed
development. And Josh has this e-mail. He has these in writing. I don't know if
you guys would like a copy of those or not, so -- so, that pretty much sums it up.
With that we will ask for your approval tonight and I will stand for any questions.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Milam: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
September 20, 2016
Page 46 of 58
De Weerd: Mrs. Milam.
Milam: There seems to be a lot of contention about traffic. Was getting direct
access to Amity Road something that you tried to do? Did you ask them? Was
that ever a part of the plan?
Erickson: Madam Mayor, Councilman -- is it Milam?
Milam: Yeah.
Erickson: No, we didn't propose it, because it doesn't meet policy. So, we went
in and met with the highway district. Looking at the overall plan, it's pretty clear
that the parcel to the east will have an access to Amity that will align with White
Bark and it just -- it seems for a planning perspective to be a much more suitable
location for the access. So, given the fact that access on the parcel to the east
will align with White Bark, ACHD policy won't allow it due to the driveway spacing
in our project, it just makes sense to put it on the parcel to the east to align with
White Bark.
Milam: Madam Mayor? Also our policy is a minimum of 1,400 square feet, not
1,200 square feet, but you're asking us, so I'm just, you know, like it would just be
a lot -- it would be a lot less issues with your neighbors -- and maybe they may
even say, no, it doesn't work and, then, you go on from there, but I was curious.
Erickson: Madam Mayor, Councilman Milam, we are actually -- we put the 1,200
square foot on the application in error. Fourteen hundred square foot minimum is
fine for what we are proposing to do. I forgot to mention that, but thanks for --
Milam: Thank you for mentioning that.
Erickson: But with regards to the -- to the driveway spacing, one of the
Comprehensive Plan goals is to minimize driveway access to arterial streets. So,
I mean that's taking everything in and kind of thinking about what makes sense
for this area with the parcel being undeveloped to the east. I think from a
planning perspective it makes sense for how we are approaching this. We did
talk to ACHD about a direct access and they said that it doesn't meet their policy
for spacing.
Milam: Thank you.
De Weerd: So, Josh, can you show how -- how -- you can't overlay it --
Beach: This doesn't have White Bark Subdivision on there. This must be an old
aerial photograph, but we will go back to my -- we will go back to my PowerPoint
and I can show you where the -- I believe the vicinity map will show -- so, if you
Meridian City Council
September 20, 2016
Page 47 of 58
look -- this is the White Bark Subdivision here. The road lines up -- or it's further
over. This east -- property to the east -- let me pull the aerial back over so you
can kind of see what we are talking about. So, it's approximately in this location
where the White Bark access to Amity Road is and my understanding is that it
makes sense to line up the access so you're not off-setting multiple access points
and, again, it doesn't meet the separation standards. I know Mr. Lucas is here
and he can kind of explain the highway district's reasoning for that, but that's my
understanding is that with a proposed future access to Amity in approximately
this location, it didn't make sense to have another one here with -- the intent is
to limit those direct access points to Amity Road.
De Weerd: So, if the access is on Melwood Street --
Beach: So, Melwood is the street here that runs east-west, so that would be an
access to the subdivision, as well as to Rangewood here, which brings it out to
Locust Grove.
De Weerd: So, that cul-de-sac is a through street.
Beach: It is.
De Weerd: Council, any other questions at this point?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: I'd like to hear Josh's response to the requested removal of the surety
portion of 1.1.10. Give us the other side of what can occur.
Beach: Sure. The discussion at Planning and Zoning was some way of trying to
get the applicant to -- because typically we required the -- the landscape
improvements along the -- along the street with the first phase; right? If you're
going to put a construction entrance through that , you're obviously not going to
build that portion of it. So, I think the thought was to get some money so that
when that is removed we have got some -- some -- some surety or some -- some
way of enforcing that that gets constructed with the removal of the access. I
don't know that we necessarily need to do that. Maybe Mr. Nary can elaborate a
little bit more on that. But from my perspective it doesn't make a whole lot of
sense. We are going to require that they do that. A surety for this -- so, I guess
that's my two cents.
Borton: Madam Mayor, I didn't catch the last part. You're not sure why it's -- why
we would require the surety?
Beach: A surety in addition to what we would already require?
Meridian City Council
September 20, 2016
Page 48 of 58
Borton: Right. Wasn't that in our language initially though? The addition of -- of
-- the language that Ross wanted stricken, is that --
Beach: The language from -- Planning and Zoning added that language.
Borton: Okay.
Beach: Yes. Staff didn't add that language, it was something that --
Borton: Okay.
Beach: -- it was discussed at the Planning and Zoning.
Borton: Okay. Got you.
Erickson: I should clarify that just one more time for you, Councilman Borton, if
you would like. Because the -- the driveway approach -- or excuse me. Because
the temporary access road is going to be removed probably halfway through the
phase two infrastructure construction, it's kind of a moot point. What's the point
of putting the surety language in there if it's going to be removed and you're
going to construct your landscaping for phase two along the frontage along with
Amity Road widening, it doesn't make any sense. I mean we can leave it in
there, but it's just extra -- extra language that doesn't really mean anything. It's
kind of out of place.
Borton: Okay.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions? Thank you.
Erickson: Thanks.
De Weerd: I had several people sign up and, hopefully, we didn't chase them off
because of the lateness, but Collin Whitlock signed up against. Majo -- Meso -- I
don't know -- Whitlock also signed up against. Michelle Sorensen signed up
against, as well as neutral. Christian Sorenson same. And John Walker signed
as neutral. Thank you for sticking with us. If you will, please, state our name and
address for the record.
Walker: John Walker. 4592 South Glenmere Way in Meridian, Idaho. Madam
Mayor and Council Members, appreciate the time. I sit on the board for the HOA
for Estancia. We have had a lot of banter on this project, if you will, from our
neighborhood, as well as the neighbors to the north Bellingham Estates. And I
just have a few questions that I would like clarified, as well as our board, and a
couple of them offer solutions to, so it's a question -- a solution posed in the form
of a question, if you will. The first question is the roads through Estancia -- and
Meridian City Council
September 20, 2016
Page 49 of 58
this is more probably a question for Josh than ACHD, you know, were these
roads designed for the type of traffic. Proposing 75 homes. Originally it was 62
or so. You know, 75 homes on an average of two cars per home on two trips per
day, that's 300 trips to the new neighborhood. So, that's one of the big concerns
of -- of the neighbors in my neighborhood. Again, I'm neutral to the -- to the
situation here. I do promote development in the area. It helps with home values.
It helps bring good quality people into our town . But I do have concerns for
safety for the kids in my neighborhood, as long as my -- my own, seeings as how
-- right where Josh's cursor is where my house is on that corner. That is
Melwood, which is a proposed entrance to the new neighborhood, which isn't
even a through street from Amity. So, to use that, you know, people would
actually have to come in -- can I write on this?
Beach: Select a color at the very top. The top of the -- there is a button.
Walker: Sorry. Oh. So, those would be the three m ain entrances to get into the
new subdivision. Again, that's the concern. So, were the roads meant for the
type of traffic that's going to be using these roadways. Wrightwood on the north
side there, that's already being used by two different subdivisio ns. Some would
argue three, because up in here there are new homes that are already there. So,
again, traffic. My second question is -- and this is more posing a solution -- could
this project wait until the new road from White Bark -- I think that land there has
to be annexed into Meridian, but would that be a possible solution? Why put
three different neighborhoods at unrest when we could just hold off on a project
until the roadways are there to meet the needs of the neighborhood? And,
finally, even if the project is approved, what kind of traffic controls could be put in
place? You know, speed bumps through these neighborhoods. A lot of, you
know, community members have already stated about people speeding through
the neighborhood, mainly on W rightwood, but also through -- down Glenmere
Way. So, those are big concerns that I'm seeing from my fellow neighbors.
Again, you know, I'm not opposed to the -- to the homes going in, I think it's a
good thing for the city, but, you know, there are much larger neighborhoods, such
as Tuscany right to the north of us that have hundreds of homes. You know, we
are only talking -- we are dealing with a few hundred homes right here in my two
neighborhoods, but they have, you know, residential collector street s, so vehicles
that are traveling on actual residential -- pure residential roads where homes and
children are, is minimal, because it kicks them out on these residential collectors
streets that, then, kicks out on the arterial roadways, so there is not so many
people playing on those and we don't have those in our particular situation. So,
you know, with that I would hope to be able to answer some of those questions
and if it's okay with you I would like to come up and -- if I have any more
questions after he comes up. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. So, Justin. You're earning your keep tonight. We do
appreciate you being here.
Meridian City Council
September 20, 2016
Page 50 of 58
Lucas: I have attended many of these meetings and I always find it enjoyable , so
-- I do. It's, you know, kind of a weird thing, but I enjoy these -- the public
process. My name is Justin Lucas. I represent the Ada County Highway District.
Business address is 3775 Adams Street, Garden City, Idaho. As you are aware,
you know, ACHD provides a written staff report on the applications for
development and I will always guide you to that staff report for ACHD's official
comment on any application. I can try to add some thoughts behind why,
number one, we do not want an access to Amity Road through the subdivision
and we would prefer it line up in the future with that White Bark access. I think
Ross touched on this a little bit, but the idea behind that is safety. When you
have offset streets across the street from each other and they are just a little bit
offset, it's the left-turn movement that will get you, because the left -- the people
turning left, if they are lined up and can see each other across the way, then,
they have a better chance of not running into each other. So, if they are o ffset a
little bit and they turn into that center lane and when they see the person is when
they are looking straight at them in the center lane. So, that's the primary
reason behind why they are so concerned with intersection offset. The second
concern brought up by the HOA board member was about the volume of traffic
going through these streets. I don't -- I looked at the staff report. I don't have all
the numbers for the volumes on these streets, but based on my experience I'm
99 percent positive that the volumes on his local roadways do not exceed ACHD
standards. You can see here -- Eagle, Amity, and Locust Grove, typically we call
out the major streets and we will only call out the minor streets if there is an issue
and so here where there is these low volume local streets, there was no issue
identified. I understand the concern of each different subdivision being
concerned about a new subdivision passing through those roads, but that is very
typical. It happens all the time. And the roads are public. There is not -- they
don't belong to any specific subdivision, unless they are private streets. So,
public roads are meant for the use of the public, regardless of the subdivision
that you -- that you live in. Looking at this area, it's -- it's -- it's likely that if this
developed all as one subdivision it would have a very similar street layout and
accesses to Amity and Locust Grove would be basically what -- what was
presented and so I don't know if that helps solve all those issues, but certainly if -
- after this development goes in and there is a problem on one of these roads ,
once again, you can contact the highway district. There are traffic calming
policies that -- speed bumps, whatever they may be -- it's surprising, though, how
many people don't want speed bumps when we actually go out and talk to the
neighborhoods and so it's interesting how that plays out through traffic calming.
So, that said, I don't know if I clearly answered every question, but I hope I
addressed the major concerns.
De Weerd: Council, any questions for Justin?
Bird: Thank you.
De Weerd: I think you addressed the overarching concerns.
Meridian City Council
September 20, 2016
Page 51 of 58
Lucas: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Is there any further testimony? Yes. Thank you for being
here. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record.
Sorensen: My name is Michelle Sorensen and I live at 1915 East Melwood
Street. We thank you for an opportunity to speak. We just purchased our home
in June and we have five small children -- well, my oldest probably isn't so small,
but I have five children and one of the biggest selling points for our home was
how quiet the neighborhood was and how it felt. We felt safe with our children
being on this -- being able to go out and play. We live right across the street
from the park in Estancia and we live about 200 feet from where the subdivisions
will join and I feel -- I'm not opposed to the development, I'm only opposed to the
way that the traffic needs to be handled. I understand wanting the Amity
entrances to line up at the White Bark and Twin Star, but I would agree with them
possibly holding off on the project until we can get that White Bark entrance
there. We do have a lot of subdivisions in that area. It's not just the two
subdivisions. There is a whole lot of the subdivisions that do interlink and there
are no streets, except for the ones that drive all along houses and there are cars
that go through there quickly already. If you add another 75 homes there will be
a lot more cars that go through there quickly and not just by the houses, but
close to the park where the kids do play. I feel that this causes increased risks to
our children and not just to my children, but to all of the children in the
neighborhood, both in Estancia and in Bellingham Park and the other
neighborhoods that have just gone back in around Rangewood. I would ask that
we wait on this project until the White Bark entrance can be constructed to help
keep traffic at safe levels for our children in the neighborhoods. I know that the
development needs to happen. I get that. But I am concerned that there was no
traffic study completed on this, because it is going to impact traffic in those
neighborhoods and I don't want to have to wait for a problem to occur before we
address the issues that we can already see that are coming . And I think that's all
I have to say.
De Weerd: Thank you very much. Okay. Any further comments? Okay. Would
the applicant like to respond?
Erickson: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Ross Erickson again
representing the applicant. Thank you, Justin, for your testimony and clarification
on -- on the traffic issues. I don't have too much to add there, other than I didn't
see anything in the ACHD staff report that said that there is any undue burden on
any of the adjacent local streets that will service this project. We think the right
thing is to align the future access to Amity with the White Bark access and that's
why our proposal is as it is. So, I really don't have much more to add, unless you
guys have any additional questions for me.
Meridian City Council
September 20, 2016
Page 52 of 58
De Weerd: Council, any questions for the applicant? Thank you.
Milam: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Milam.
Milam: We don't even have an application on the neighboring property; right?
So, that could be ten years out, there is nothing -- we don't know? There is
nothing planned right there?
Beach: We have had some interest over the recen t years, but currently there is
no application.
Milam: Thanks.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions for staff, the applicant, or any of the
neighbors?
Bird: Hearing none, Mayor, I move we close the public hearing on H-2016-0089.
Little Roberts: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on Item 8 -
G. All those in favor say aye. All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: A statement first. While I sympathize with the subdivisions that are already
there, I think if we look back through the minutes when their subdivision was --
application was here we had people from Tuscany and stuff testifying that they
were going to bring too much traffic through their subdivisions and stuff and on
Locust Grove, so while we want all our roads to be safe and stuff, I -- I personally
think that this developer -- he showed his thoughtfulness by going to an R-4,
getting larger lots, less houses, and I appreciate that. And with that if we have no
more discussion, I move that we approve H-2016-0089 and to include all
applicant, staff, and public comment.
Little Roberts: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 8-H -- I mean 8-G.
Sorry. I would just say that I understand the concern , too, and -- and the --
probably the local collector just north of that will probably be the -- the main route
Meridian City Council
September 20, 2016
Page 53 of 58
out, but the developer did do less density, it was actually low density. It's
exceedingly three per acre in low density, so just wanted to make sure that that --
that was noted. They did -- did adhere to the minimum square footage for the
low density however. Any discussion from Council?
Milam: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Milam.
Milam: I have discussion, I just had a comment, too, because I do sympathize
with you guys. We just approved a 200 home subdivision across from my
subdivision that's going to drive all that traffic right down my street taking their
kids to school, so I feel the pain. Unfortunately, we can't make emotional
decisions like that, so -- just facts and findings.
De Weerd: Mr. Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll Call: Bird yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener, absent; Palmer, yea; Little
Roberts, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
H. Public Hearing for 2016 City Initiated Annexation (H-
2016-0093) by City of Meridian
ACHD Properties - Generally Located Near the
Northeast Corner of S. Eagle Road and E. Amity
Road, Southeast Corner of N. Meridian Road and E.
Carmel Drive, East Side of N. Ten Mile Road, North of
W. Ustick Road, 3955 E. Ustick Road, 2910 W.
Franklin Road and 6175 N. Linder Road
Idaho Power Properties - Located at 3275 E. Amity
Road, 1635 S. Stoddard Road and 3539 N. Ten Mile
Road
Blackrock Subdivision - Generally Located North of
E. Lake Hazel Road, Between S. Locust Grove Road
and S. Eagle Road
City of Meridian Property - Located 3064 W. Malta
Drive
1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of
Approximately 67.50 Acres of Land with R-4 (53.25
Acres), R-8 (11.64 Acres), R-15 (30.10 Acres) and
C-C (2.61 Acres) Zoning Designations
Meridian City Council
September 20, 2016
Page 54 of 58
De Weerd: Item 8-H is a public hearing for H-2016-0093. I will ask for staff
comments as I open the public hearing. Hi, Brian.
McClure: Madam Mayor.
De Weerd: Thanks for sticking with us.
McClure: You guys get me two weeks in a row. Good evening. I'm here to
present and review an application for a city-initiated annexation. Last year City
Council approved a small budget for the city initiated project. Part of this was a
request to -- and direction for staff to clean up enclaves and the other was to
close the loop on a 2005 agreement for services and annexation. That
agreement allowed the Blackrock Subdivision to develop in the county with city
services, even though it was not contiguou s at the time. This application is for a
Category A annexation. All of these properties are now contiguous with the city
and they have all provided some type of consent . These properties include six
Ada County Highway District properties, one City of Meridian property, three
Idaho Power properties and the Blackrock Subdivision. ACHD has indicated they
will not contest annexation. Idaho Power has provided signed consent for their
agreement to the City of Meridian and wishes for its property to be part of the
city. The Blackrock Subdivision was allowed to develop in the county with city
services under an agreement that it would be annexed when it became
contiguous to city limits. This agreement was recorded at the county,
memorialized in individual titles, and referenced in their CC&Rs. With the Sky
Mesa development Blackrock became contiguous to the city. Blackrock is also
contiguous to the southwest and now it's part of the south Meridian annexation.
This area has development into the north, east and south, including schools,
residential, a regional park, YMCA and others. Total acreage for the annexation
is approximately 67 acres. Land uses for these properties include low density
residential, medium density residential, and mixed-use commercial, commercial
and civic. These properties are consistent with the future land use map and
include 53 acres of R-4, 11 acres of R-8 and 2.68 acres of C-C. For the ACHD,
Idaho Power, and City of Meridian. There are no real impacts as a result of this
annexation, but there may be some opportunities for expansion on some of these
properties, the Idaho Power and ACHD sites are existing storm water -- are for
the most part existing storm water or power substations. The City of Meridian
property is a small strip of land that connects -- it's a pathway connection
between Harris Park and Ten Mile Road. In terms of service and assessment
impacts, utility, roads, schools and services remain unchanged. Fire service will
remain the same, since Meridian Fire provides the rural fire service. There are,
however -- there will, however, no longer be an assessed tax value for the fire
district. Trash service will remain with Republic, but there are some differences
between the city account and the county account. Police services will now be
Meridian Police, instead of the Ada County Sheriff. In terms of the outreach and
coordination -- I think I skipped one. In terms of the outreach and coordination,
Meridian City Council
September 20, 2016
Page 55 of 58
city staff held an open house for Blackrock residents on May 23rd, 2016.
Planning, Code Enforcement, Legal and Republic Public Services were present
to answer any questions or address any concerns. Tim Foster, the Blackrock
HOA president at the time, was the only person to attend. He indicated that he
would take this information back to their HOA two weeks later at the -- their
annual meeting. Code enforcement also mentioned they would be attending
that, but I have not heard any feedback from them. Staff sent courtesy mailers to
Blackrock property owners for both the P&Z and City Council meetings. Lastly,
trash service has been coordinated under the city contract will not change for
Blackrock residence until the start of the new year, if they are annexed. On
August 18th the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended this application
to City Council for approval and tonight city staff are requesting approval of this
annexation and zoning application. I do have maps for each one of these
properties if you would like me to go through those, but, otherwise, I will stand for
questions.
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Palmer: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Palmer.
Palmer: Madam Mayor, so to date we have had no objection whatsoever from
any residents in Blackrock?
McClure: Not one.
Palmer: Cool.
De Weerd: Any other questions? Thank you, Brian. I don't see anyone beating
down the door. It looks like our -- our team answered questions. It was a
thoughtful approach and, hopefully, was able to put the questions to rest and we
appreciate all of your efforts. Any questions for Brian? Okay. Okay. Council, if
there is no questions I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing on
Item 8-H.
Palmer: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Palmer.
Palmer: Maybe one more question. Just looking at the agenda, so it says 67.5
acres, but, then, the breakdown of the different zonings acreages adds up to way
more than that. Is there a typo or am I just -- don't understand it? Or is it 67?
McClure: Bear with me for one second here.
Meridian City Council
September 20, 2016
Page 56 of 58
Palmer: The breakdown doesn't really matter if it is 67. I'm just curious if it's a lot
more than 67.
McClure: Council Palmer -- or, Madam Mayor, Councilman Palmer, I know the
67.5 is accurate. There must be a typo on the other ones there. I'm not sure
which one it is without pulling it up, which I could do if you're interested.
Palmer: No. No. That's fine. I just was curious if the 67 was accurate or if it
was --
McClure: The 67 is accurate. Yes.
Palmer: Okay. Thanks.
De Weerd: It was a test. Good job. Okay. Council, anything further on this
item?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we close the public hearing on H-2016-0093.
Little Roberts: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on Item 8 -
H. All those in favor say aye. All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve H-2016-0093 and let it be shown that it is on 67.5 acres
of land.
Little Roberts: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 8 -H. If there is no
discussion, Mr. Clerk.
Roll Call: Bird yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener, absent; Palmer, yea; Little
Roberts, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
Meridian City Council
September 20, 2016
Page 57 of 58
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 9: Ordinances
A. Ordinance No. 16-1707: An Ordinance Repealing And
Replacing Meridian City Code Section 9-1-16, Regarding
Connection To City Water System Outside City Limits;
Repealing And Replacing Meridian City Code Section 9-
4-26(A), Regarding Connection To City Sewer System
Outside City Limits; Adopting A Savings Clause; And
Providing An Effective Date
De Weerd: We already acted on Item 8-I. 9-A is Ordinance 16-1707. Mr. Clerk,
will you, please, read this by title.
Coles: Thank you, Madam Mayor. City of Meridian Ordinance No. 16-1707, an
ordinance repealing and replacing Meridian City Code Section 9-1-16 regarding
connection to city water system outside city limits, repealing and replacing
Meridian City Code Section 9-4-26A regarding connection to city sewer system
outside city limits. Adopting a savings clause and providing an effective date.
De Weerd: Council, you have heard this read by title. Do I have a motion?
Milam: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Milam.
Milam: I move that we approve Ordinance No. 16-1707 with suspension of rules.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 9 -A. Mr. Clerk, will
you call roll.
Roll Call: Bird yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener, absent ; Palmer, yea; Little
Roberts, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 10: Future Meeting Topics
De Weerd: Council, any topics for our future meeting agendas? Hearing none, I
do have -- we have a couple of items coming up this week. The Chamber's
Meridian City Council
September 20, 2016
Page 58 of 58
send-off summer is on Thursday evening out in the City Hall Plaza from 5:00 to
8:30. 8:30. They are going to have food trucks and all kinds of activities, so,
please, join Chamber members for the send-off to summer. I guess that's kind of
sad, but it's going to be a nice activity in our downtown. The Treasure Valley
Youth Summit -- Safety Summit is on Friday. If you want to experience the
energy and enthusiasm and questions of 200 teens, we invite you down to
Wahooz to hang out with us and 200 teens, so 8:00 to -- 8:00 to 3:00, 3:30, 1
believe. And, then, finally our final Youth Farmers Market is on Saturday. Would
love to see your smiley faces down there and -- and thank the youth that hung in
there to the last event and thank them for participating and encourage them to
come back next year. So, with that said, I would entertain a motion to adjourn.
Bird: So moved.
Milam: Second.
De Weerd: No second? I have a motion and a second to adjourn. All those in
favor say aye. All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:40 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
MAYO MM DE WEERD DATE APPROVED
�QORHI CU.4
ATTE T:
w
C. 6AY CUE , CITY CLERK m E jD1gN
0ov
SEAL ; /