HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-01-21E IDIAN ~ CITY COUNCIL REGULAR
MEETING AGENDA
City Council Chambers
33 East Broadway Avenue
Meridian, Idaho
Tuesday, January 21, 2014 at 6:00 PM 6:09PM
1. Roll-Call Attendance
O David Zaremba X Joe Borton
O Charlie Rountree X Keith Bird by phone
X Genesis Milam X Luke Cavener
X Mayor Tammy de Weerd
2. Pledge of Allegiance
3. Community Invocation by Michael Pearson from the Seventh Day Adventist
Church
4. Adoption of the Agenda Adopted
5. Consent Agenda Approved (Pg 2-4)
A. Approve Minutes of December 17, 2013 City Council PreCouncil Meeting
B. Approve Minutes of January 7, 2014 City Council Meeting
C. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Approval: MDA 13-023
Connections Credit Union at Ten Mile by Connections Credit Union Located
Southeast Corner of W. Pine Avenue and N. Ten Mile Road Request:
Amend the Development Agreement (Instrument #110111935) for the
Purpose of Attaching a New Concept Plan and Building Elevations
D. Final Order for Approval: FP 13-046 Spurwing Rim Subdivision by The
Club at Spurwing, LLC Located North of Chinden Boulevard and East of N.
Jaykers Way Request: Final Plat Consisting of Seventeen (17) Single
Family Lots and Five (5) Common Lots on Approximately 12.24 Acres in an
R-8 Zoning District
E. FP 13-048 Baltic Place Addition by Cair Paravel, LLC Located South of E.
Franklin Road and West of E. Kalispell Street Request: Final Plat
Consisting of Two (2) Building Lots on Approximately 9.41 Acres of Land in
an I-L Zoning District
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda -Tuesday, January 21, 2014 Page 1 of 6
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing,
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
F. Bellingham Park #4 Pathway Easement
G. Bellingham Park #4 -Sewer Easement
H. Whitebark Subdivision Sewer and Water Main Easement
I. Recreational Pathway Easement for the Club at Spurwing
J. Acceptance Agreement: Display of Artwork of Gypsy Gallery in Initial Point
Gallery from February 28 to March 28, 2014
K. Acceptance Agreement: Display of Artwork of Sherri K. Young Stehle in
Initial Point Gallery from January 31 to February 28, 2014
L. Acceptance Agreement: Display of Artwork of Art Expressions in Initial
Point Gallery from May 2 to May 30, 2014
M. Acceptance Agreement: Display of Artwork of the New Group in Initial
Point Gallery from May 30 to June 27, 2014
N. Acceptance Agreement: Display of Artwork of Angela Kathleen Stout in
Initial Point Gallery from August 1 to August 29, 2014
O. Acceptance Agreement: Display of Artwork of Marianne Solberg in Initial
Point Gallery from August 1 to October 3, 2014
P. Acceptance Agreement: Display of Artwork of Laurel Lake McGuire in Initial
Point Gallery from August 29 to October 3, 2014
Q. Acceptance Agreement: Display of Artwork of Idaho Watercolor Society in
Initial Point Gallery from October 3 to October 31, 2014
R. Acceptance Agreement: Display of Artwork of Dwight and Barbara Williams
in Initial Point Gallery from October 31 to December 5, 2014
S. Acceptance Agreement: Display of Artwork of Cara Stone in Initial Point
Gallery from December 5 to January 2, 2015
T. Award of Bid and Approval of Agreement for "Black Cat Lift Stations PLC
Upgrades" project to Southern Idaho Electric, Inc. for the Not-To-Exceed
amount of $200,000.00.
U. License Agreement with Nampa & Meridian Irrigation Distract to Construct
a New Headgate on Creason Lateral to Improve the City's Wastewater
Treatment Plants Entrance Drive Approach
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda -Tuesday, January 21, 2014 Page 2 of 6
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing,
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
V. Temporary License Agreement Between the Ada County Highway District
and the City of Meridian for Pathway Distance Signage Markers on
Sidewalks and Multi-use Pathways Within the Right of Way
W. Memorandum of Agreement for Rental of Mountain View High School
Auditorium for aNot-to-Exceed Amount of $1,729.50
6. Community Items/Presentations
A. Hometown Hero Award to Rick Mills (Pg 4-6)
7. Items Moved From Consent Agenda None (Pg 6)
8. Action Items
A. Public Hearing: Request for Variance of City Addressing Standards by
Steve Judy, Director of Operations, Primary Health Medical Group Located
at 1623 S. Wells. Request Change of Address from 1623 S. Wells Avenue to
an Overland Road Address Motion approved to deny addressing variance
request (Pg 6-18)
B. Public Hearing: RZ 13-017 Sheryl 4-Plex by JTC Inc. or Assigns Located
3150 W. Sheryl Drive Request: Rezone of 0.54 of an Acre of Land from the
L-O to the TN-R Zoning District
Continued to January 28, 2014 (Pg 18-19)
C. Public Hearing: CPAM 13-003 Da Vinci Park by CS2, LLC Located
Southwest Corner of N. Locust Grove Road and E. McMillan Road Request:
Amend the Future Land Use Map Contained in the Comprehensive Plan to
Change the Future Land Use Designation on 7.76 Acres of Land from Low
Density Residential to Medium Density Residential (6.36 Acres) and Mixed
Use -Neighborhood (1.4 Acres) Approved (Pg 19-25)
D. Public Hearing: RZ 13-016 Da Vinci Park by CS2, LLC Located Southwest
Corner of N. Locust Grove Road and E. McMillan Road Request: Rezone of
2.65 Acres of Land from the R-4 and R-8 Zoning Districts to the C-N Zoning
District; and 6.3 Acres of Land from the R-4 Zoning District to the R-8
Zoning District Approved (Pg 19-25)
E. Public Hearing: PP 13-036 Da Vinci Park by CS2, LLC Located Southwest
Corner of N. Locust Grove Road and E. McMillan Road Request:
Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Thirty-Eight (38) Single Family
Residential Attached Building Lots, One (1) Commercial Building Lot and
Eight (8) Common/Other Lots on 7.76 Acres of Land in the Proposed R-8
and C-N Zoning Districts Approved (Pg 19-25)
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda -Tuesday, January 21, 2014 Page 3 of 6
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing,
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
F. Public Hearing: MDA 13-021 Da Vinci Park by CS2, LLC Located Southwest
Corner of N.Locust Grove Road and E. McMillan Road Request:
Modification to the Development Agreement to Change the Development
Plan from Single Family Residential to Mixed Use Approved (Pg 19-25)
G. FP 13-047 Baraya Subdivision No. 3 by CBH Homes Located at South Side
of W. Franklin Road, Midway Between Black Cat and Ten Mile Roads
Request: Final Plat Consisting of Forty-Seven (47) Single-Family
Residential Building Lots and Three (3) Common Lots on 11.05 Acres of
Land in the R-8 and R-15 Zoning Districts Continued to January 28, 2014
(Pg 25-26)
H. Public Hearing: CPAM 13-002 Solterra by Capital Christian Center Inc.
Located Northeast Corner of E. Fairview Avenue and N. Hickory Way
Request: Amend the Future Land Use Map Contained in the
Comprehensive Plan to Change the Land Use Designation on
Approximately 22.61 Acres from Office to Mixed Use-Regional Continued
to February 11, 2014 (Pg 26-45)
Public Hearing: RZ 13-015 Solterra by Capital Christian Center, Inc. Located
Northeast Corner of E. Fairview Avenue and N. Hickory Way Request:
Rezone of Approximately 22.61 Acres from the L-O (Limited Office) Zoning
District to the C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial) (2.39 acres); L-
O (Limited Office) (9.04 acres) and R-15 (Medium High Density Residential)
(11.18 Acres) Zoning Districts Continued to February 11, 2014 (Pg 26-45)
J. Public Hearing: PP 13-037 Solterra by Capital Christian Center Inc. Located
Northeast Corner of E. Fairview Avenue and N. Hickory Way Request:
Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Three (3) Commercial Lots, One (1)
Office Lot, Ninety-Three (93) Residential Lots and Eleven (11)
Common/Other Lots on Approximately 21.51 Acres in a Proposed C-G, L-O
and R-15 Zoning Districts Continued to February 11, 2014 (Pg 26-45)
K. Continued From December 17, 2013 Public Hearing: PP 13-031 Knighthill
Center by Mason and Stanfield Inc. Located Southwest Corner of N. Linder
Road and W. Chinden Boulevard Request: Preliminary Plat Approval of
Five (5) Commercial Lots and One (1) Common Lot on Approximately 9.11
Acres in the C-G Zoning District Approved with 25 foot landscape buffer
(Pg 45-51)
L. Continued From December 17, 2013 Public Hearing: MDA 13-019 Knighthill
Center by Mason and Stanfield, Inc. Located Southwest Corner of N. Linder
Road and W. Chinden Boulevard Request: Modify the Recorded
Development Agreement (Inst. #106122368) to Incorporate a New Concept
Plan and Update Certain Sections of the Development Agreement Pertinent
to the Proposed Knighthill Center Subdivision Approved (Pg 45-51)
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda -Tuesday, January 21, 2014 Page 4 of 6
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing,
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
M. Continued from January 7, 2014: Public Hearing: PP 13-034 Gramercy
Heights by Gramercy, LLC Located South of E. Overland Road and West of
S. Bonito Way Between E. Blue Horizon Drive Request: Preliminary Plat
Approval Consisting of Thirty-Seven (37)Residential Lots and One (1)
Common Lot on Approximately 5.59 Acres in an R-15 Zoning District
Approved (Pg 51-56)
N. Continued from January 7, 2014: Public Hearing: MDA 13-020 Gramercy
Heights by Gramercy, LLC Located South of E. Overland Road and West of
S. Bonito Way, Between E. Blue Horizon Drive and the Ridenbaugh Canal
Request: Amend the Recorded Development Agreement (Inst. #106141056)
for the Purpose of Attaching the New Home Elevations Proposed with the
Gramercy Heights Subdivision Approved (Pg 51-56)
O. FP 13-049 Hacienda Subdivision No. 4 by Jayo Investments, Inc. Located
East Side of N. Meridian Road, Midway Between Chinden Boulevard and E.
McMillan Road Request: Final Plat Consisting of Fifty-Three (53)
Residential Lots and Nine (9) Common Lots on Approximately Twelve (12)
Acres of Land in an R-8 Zoning District Motion approved to accept the
withdrawal of the application (Pg 56-57)
9. Ordinances
A. Ordinance No. 14-1592: ZOA 13-003 UDC Text Amendment by City of
Meridian Planning Division Request: Text Amendment to the Unified
Development Code (UDC) in Regard to Fencing Adjacent to Pathways and
Open Space; Common Driveways; Irrigation Easements; Off-Street Parking;
Home Occupations; Definitions for Vehicles; Vehicle Sales or Rental
Landscaping; Public Hearing Notice Signs; and Allowed Uses in the
Industrial Districts Approved (Pg 57-58)
B. Ordinance No. 14-1593: An Ordinance (RZ 13-011 -Crimson Maple) For
The Re-Zone Of A Parcel Of Land Situated In The Northeast Quarter Of The
Northeast Quarter Of Section 12, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise
Meridian, City Of Meridian, Ada County Idaho; Establishing And
Determining The Land Use Zoning Classification Of R-15 (Medium-High
Density Residential) Zoning Districts In The Meridian City Code; And
Providing For A Waiver Of The Reading Rules; And Providing An Effective
Date Approved (Pg 58-59}
10. Future Meeting Topics None (Pg 59)
Adjourned at 9:01PM
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda -Tuesday, January 21, 2014 Page 5 of 6
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing,
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda -Tuesday, January 21, 2014 Page 6 of 6
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing,
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
Meridian City Council January 21, 2014
A meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:00 p.m., Tuesday,
January 21, 2014, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd.
Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, Keith Bird (by phone), Joe Borton,
Genesis Milam and Luke Cavener.
Members Absent: Charlie Rountree and David Zaremba.
Others Present: Bill Nary, Jacy Jones, Caleb Hood, Bill Parsons, Sonya Watters, Clint
Dolsby, Tracy Basterrechea, Perry Palmer, Terri Ricks and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll-call Attendance:
Roll call.
David Zaremba X Joe Borton
Charlie Rountree X Keith Bird
X Genesis Milam X Luke Cavener
X Mayor Tammy de Weerd
De Weerd: Thank you for your patience. We apologize for starting a few minutes late,
but welcome to our Council meeting. It is Tuesday, January 21st. It's ten minutes after
6:00. We will start tonight's meeting with roll call attendance, Madam Clerk.
Item 2: Pledge of Allegiance
De Weerd: Item No. 2 is the Pledge of Allegiance and we have Boy Scout Troop 156
that is going to lead us in the pledge to our flag. If you will all rise.
(Pledge of Allegiance recited.)
De Weerd: Hey, boys, if I could, let me give you a City of Meridian pin for leading us
and thank you for joining us. We certainly always appreciate seeing our boy scouts in
the -- in the crowd and appreciate their leaders coming and exposing them to citizenship
and learning more about their local government. So, thank you to their leaders as well.
Item 3: Community Invocation by Michael Pearson from the Seventh Day
Adventist Church
De Weerd: Item No. 3 is our community invocation. Tonight is Pastor Pearson here? I
don't see him.
Item 4: Adoption of the Agenda
De Weerd: So, we will move to Item No. 4, which is adoption of the agenda.
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2014
Page 2 of 59
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: A couple of items are being amended from the agenda. Item 8-B, the
applicant's requested to continue that hearing to January 28th. And Item 8-G, the
applicant's also requested to continue that item to January 28th. And with those
changes I would move to -- no? Is there another one? Oh. 8-O. Another amendment
to the agenda. Item 8-O, the applicant has withdrawn that application. The ordinances
to be considered tonight -- in 9-A the ordinance number is 14-1592 and in 9-B ordinance
number is 14-1593. With those amendments I would move to adopt the amended
agenda.
Milam: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda as amended. All those
in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Item 5: Consent Agenda
A. Approve Minutes of December 17, 2013 City Council
PreCouncil Meeting
B. Approve Minutes of January 7, 2014 City Council Meeting
C. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Approval: MDA 13-
023 Connections Credit Union at Ten Mile by Connections
Credit Union Located Southeast Corner of W. Pine Avenue and
N. Ten Mile Road Request: Amend the Development
Agreement (Instrument #110111935) for the Purpose of
Attaching a New Concept Plan and Building Elevations
D. Final Order for Approval: FP 13-046 Spurwing Rim Subdivision
by The Club at Spurwing, LLC Located North of Chinden
Boulevard and East of N. Jaykers Way Request: Final Plat
Consisting of Seventeen (17) Single Family Lots and Five (5)
Common Lots on Approximately 12.24 Acres in an R-8 Zoning
District
E. FP 13-048 Baltic Place Addition by Cair Paravel, LLC Located
South of E. Franklin Road and West of E. Kalispell Street
Request: Final Plat Consisting of Two (2) Building Lots on
Approximately 9.41 Acres of Land in an I-L Zoning District
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2014
Page 3 of 59
F. Bellingham Park #4 Pathway Easement
G. Bellingham Park #4 -Sewer Easement
H. Whitebark Subdivision Sewer and Water Main Easement
Recreational Pathway Easement for the Club at Spurwing
J. Acceptance Agreement: Display of Artwork of Gypsy Gallery in
Initial Point Gallery from February 28 to March 28, 2014
K. Acceptance Agreement: Display of Artwork of Sherri K. Young
Stehle in Initial Point Gallery from January 31 to February 28,
2014
L. Acceptance Agreement: Display of Artwork of Art Expressions
in Initial Point Gallery from May 2 to May 30, 2014
M. Acceptance Agreement: Display of Artwork of the New Group
in Initial Point Gallery from May 30 to June 27, 2014
N. Acceptance Agreement: Display of Artwork of Angela Kathleen
Stout in Initial Point Gallery from August 1 to August 29, 2014
O. Acceptance Agreement: Display of Artwork of Marianne
Solberg in Initial Point Gallery from August 1 to October 3,
2014
P. Acceptance Agreement: Display of Artwork of Laurel Lake
McGuire in Initial Point Gallery from August 29 to October 3,
2014
Q. Acceptance Agreement: Display of Artwork of Idaho
Watercolor Society in Initial Point Gallery from October 3 to
October 31, 2014
R. Acceptance Agreement: Display of Artwork of Dwight and
Barbara Williams in Initial Point Gallery from October 31 to
December 5, 2014
S. Acceptance Agreement: Display of Artwork of Cara Stone in
Initial Point Gallery from December 5 to January 2, 2015
T. Award of Bid and Approval of Agreement for "Black Cat Lift
Stations PLC Upgrades" project to Southern Idaho Electric,
Inc. for the Not-To-Exceed amount of $200,000.00.
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2014
Page 4 of 59
U. License Agreement with Nampa & Meridian Irrigation Distract
to Construct a New Headgate on Creason Lateral to Improve
the City's Wastewater Treatment Plants Entrance Drive
Approach
V. Temporary License Agreement Between the Ada County
Highway District and the City of Meridian for Pathway Distance
Signage Markers on Sidewalks and Multi-use Pathways Within
the Right of Way
W. Memorandum of Agreement for Rental of Mountain View High
School Auditorium for aNot-to-Exceed Amount of $1,729.50
De Weerd: Okay. Item 5 is our Consent Agenda.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: I move we approve the Consent Agenda as published.
Milam: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve the Consent -- or Consent Agenda
and Mayor sign and Clerk attest?
Borton: Yes, Your Honor. Yes, Your Honor. Madam Mayor. It's been along --
De Weerd: Thank you. I like that. You can call me Your Honor anytime. Okay.
Madam Clerk, will you, please, all roll.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Zaremba, absent; Borton, yea; Milam, yea;
Cavener, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Item 6: Community Items/Presentations
A. Hometown Hero Award to Rick Mills
De Weerd: Thank you. Now we are at Item 6-A and I'm going to give you a little
overview on what this item is about, then, I have asked Councilman Borton if he would
go to the podium and present the awards. I'm a little bit under the weather this evening
and I really don't want to share my pain. So, I will just go ahead and give you a little bit
of background on this Hometown Hero Award. Certainly on occasion we do have the
privilege of honoring individuals in Meridian as hometown heroes. This award is
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2014
Page 5 of 59
presented to those who perform selfless acts of heroism, going above and beyond in
service to others here at home in our community, without regard of attention or personal
gain. Rick Mills and Dan Land each recently demonstrated themselves to be this type
of outstanding individual. So, here is the story behind this. On January 8th Rick Mills
was walking to a doctor's appointment when he saw smoke coming out of a house and
that was on 10th Avenue. He went over to the house and pounded on the front door to
see if anybody was inside and he did hear a voice from within the house calling out and
seeking assistance and help. Rick at that time entered the house. About the same time
a family friend Dan Land arrived at the home and saw what was going on. He entered
the burning house as well. Together Rick and Dan were able to bring a woman and her
adult daughter, Judy and Tara, to safety. The men said the room where the women
were found clinging to one another and suffering from smoke inhalation was filled with
flames to the ceiling by the time that they had arrived. The fire department believes that
if Rick and Dan had not gone into the house when they did, that both these ladies might
have perished. Judy and Tara were both taken to the hospital with injuries. The
Meridian firefighters and police officers at the scene also were able to rescue and
render aid to several of the pets that were also in the house at the time. It is a great
honor and privilege for us to recognize these individuals for their selfless acts of
heroism and give them our sincere thanks for what they have done on behalf both Judy
and Tara and this community. So, Councilman Borton, I will turn this over to you at the
front podium. So, Judy and Tara, if you would also come forward, we would love you to
be part of this presentation and I would ask Rick Mills and Dan Land, if you are here, to
also join us up here in the front.
Borton: It's our pleasure to present to you the Hometown Hero Award, as Mayor de
Weerd had described. It's a very special occasion to celebrate you and what you did for
our community. I will read this award to you. It's presented to Meridian residents who
perform selfless acts of heroism, going above and beyond the call of duty in service to
others in our community without regard for attention or personal gain. It's presented to
Rick Mills in recognition of your significant roll in saving the lives of two women by
entering their burning home and leading them to safety. We are blessed in this
community to have you here and to have you give selflessly of yourself for these fine
women and for our community. So, again, thank you very much. We have a similar
award for Dan Land, who is unable to be present tonight. Again, what a blessing.
Thank for sharing that with him. Thank you very much.
De Weerd: Rick, we would like to thank you for coming here tonight and -- and thank
you for -- for saving the lives of our community members, but this is -- this is something
that we celebrate with you and appreciate all you did. If you would like to make a
comment we would love that. You do have to do it into the microphone, though.
Mills: Okay. This was an ordinary response to an extraordinary even and I -- I can't
imagine that -- that anybody else would have done -- everybody else would have done
the same thing under those circumstances and by accepting this award hopefully I can
show that this is part of being a good citizen of Meridian and of Idaho and of the world,
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2014
Page 6 of 59
that we are all human, we are all here together to help each other out. So, thank you
very much.
De Weerd: Thank you. And, frankly, Rick, I would tell you that it's times like this that it's
certainly our honor to be involved with -- with this kind of celebration. So, thank you.
Item 7: Items Moved From Consent Agenda
De Weerd: Okay. There were no items moved from the Consent Agenda.
Item 8: Action Items
A. Public Hearing: Request for Variance of City Addressing
Standards by Steve Judy, Director of Operations, Primary
Health Medical Group Located at 1623 S. Wells. Request
Change of Address from 1623 S. Wells Avenue to an Overland
Road Address
De Weerd: So, we will move to Item 8-A, which is a public hearing on a request for a
variance. I will turn this over to staff at this time.
Cavener: Real quick, Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Cavener: If I may, just before we jump into staff comments, I just wanted to have it be
noted onto the record that until September of 2013 I was employed by Primary Health
Medical Group. I have spoken with the city attorney about this. I think I can be
impartial, but I also think it's important that it be on the -- on the record that I was
employed in their capacity until that time.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Councilman Cavener. I don't think there is any concern
from this Council or our attorney, so we will go ahead and turn this over to staff.
Ricks: Good evening, Madam Mayor and Members of the Council. Because this is a
unique situation -- I would say this is very unique in that it's not very often that you
would hear an addressing issue before Council and, then, I was thinking it actually may
be that never have you heard an addressing issue. So, before I begin I'd actually -- it's
regarding 1623 South Wells, I'd like to give you a little background, maybe shed a little
light on why we are here tonight. Within Ada County we have five separate address
grids. These are separate and distinct address grids. We have Meridian, Boise, Eagle,
Kuna and Ada County and while each city or county may have its own specific
ordinances pertaining to street naming and addressing, the reality is, as we have
doubled and tripled in population that we are all connected and interwoven more so now
than ever before. For these reasons and the fact of emergency services to all these
areas are centrally dispatched through the Ada County Emergency Communications
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2014
Page 7 of 59
Bureau or the 911 call center, as it used to be called, it's imperative that we work
together to provide consistency county wide with our addressing and street naming
practices. So, if you hear me later on reference standard addressing guidelines, this is
what I'm referring to. It's our effort to assign addresses and street names with two basic
goals in mind. One, and most importantly, to avoid potential delays in emergency
response time for our emergency response personnel and, two, to avoid potential way
finding and confusion for our residents. With that, just to give you a little background on
1623 South Wells Avenue, we were contacted in August 2013 regarding the new
Primary Health facility to be constructed at the southwest corner of East Overland Road
and South Wells Avenue. At that time Primary Health requested an East Overland
Road address, as opposed to be assigned a South Wells Avenue address. The
Overland Road address request was denied for two reasons. The structure will not face
Overland Road, nor will it receive it's main access from Overland Road. These are from
our standard addressing guidelines that I referenced earlier. In December of 2013 we
received a request to appeal this decision. The address for Lot 4, Block 1, which is
highlighted on your screen here -- was assigned -- was assigned in 2007 when the plat
was recorded. While it's common practice for -- to assign two temporary addresses to
residential and commercial lots until it's determined which way the structure will face
and where it will take its access from, this lot was assigned only one address due to the
access issue. Lot 4, Block 1, has across-access agreement for aright-in only Overland
Road address -- or access, which is located two lots to the west of the new structure.
As you can see here I have tried to identify this with some red arrows, so -- but if you're
traveling eastbound where the arrows aren't pointing, there is absolutely no problem
gaining access from this right-in only point from Overland Road, but as you see the red
arrows going westbound -- indicates that all vehicles traveling in that direction will be
prevented from using that access, because of the right only curb cut. The alternatives,
after they pass South Wells, which is a real possibility when it's an Overland address
they are looking for, will be to go beyond the curb cut, go down to South Celebration
Avenue, make a u-turn and come back on East Overland or to go down South
Celebration, head south, head east on East Gala and access the Primary Health facility
through the parking area. By contrast, as you can see, the South Wells access is -- is
right there by Primary Health. It's important to note that the South Wells access can
accommodate vehicles coming in either direction, north or southbound on Wells or east
and west on Overland. It's important to note, too, that the two businesses across the
street on South Wells, the Gramercy Building and the Bank of Wells -- or, excuse me,
and the Bank of the West, also have South Wells addresses for the same access
reasons. In an effort to avoid potential response delays for emergency personnel,
alleviate confusion for the general public and in order to provide addressing consistency
with our current standard addressing guidelines, that the structure face or receive its
main access off the street from which it's addressed. Addressing staff and the Meridian
Fire and Police Departments recommend that this lot be addressed as 1623 South
Wells Avenue and that completes my report and I will stand for any questions.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions at this time? Okay. Would the
applicant like to make comment? Good evening. If you will, please, state your name
and address for the record.
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2014
Page 8 of 59
Judy: Is this on? I can't tell.
De Weerd: Yes, it is.
Judy: All right. Steve Judy. 4078 North Breeze Creek Way in Meridian, Idaho.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Judy: I am the director of operations for Primary Health and we are trying to get a clinic
close to you, Mayor, so that maybe we can help you out with your --
De Weerd: That would be nice right now.
Judy: So, if I can, I have had a -- just had the opportunity to read the staff report and
also didn't really realize the gravity of the address issue, at least getting to the Council
level, and so I appreciate you being willing to hear us out on this issue. Basically -- a
little bit of background. We are currently constructing our 14th location in the valley.
This will be a 6,000 square foot combination urgent care, walk-in clinic, with trauma and
x-ray and lab services. We will also have family practice doctors available. We will be
open seven days a week at least initially 12 hours a day. We will employ four providers
and -- the providers and physicians in the Meridian community, as well as up to at
capacity at least 16 local staff people. The new location that's being referenced in the
staff report, as you heard, is on Overland between -- it's west of Eagle and east of
Locust Grove and, basically, I will only allude to this because of the county standards
that were mentioned, but we have a similar facility that's actually just down from the
Meridian-Boise border that's just past one of my streets. Five Mile. In that location and
we were actually able to get a Fairview address on it and it has very similar access
issues coming in off of a side street and I only mention that just because I -- I know the
consistency issue was brought up and we were able to work that and appeal through
staff and, actually, with the support of fire and police on that as well, just because of the
volume that tends to come to our clinic. So, a couple of things that I wanted to address
up front. One is sort of the reference to the address and GPS and I totally get that
nowadays. And it doesn't mean much when you're a mom or dad and your, you know,
young one is screaming and yellowing, because they have got a bad ear infection and
you just need to find the closest clinic and maybe you give us a call and we give you an
Overland address. You know, Overland, Franklin, Fairview, those were all streets we
quickly and easily identify them and that certainly makes it easy for a person, if you're
under a time stress, to identify with those addresses. Similar, you know, I cut my finger
when I'm carving the turkey and one of my boys has to run me to the clinic, if I give
them -- say it's up on Overland, it just makes it easier for them where Wells can be
confusing. And we have dealt with this many times over the years and we expect, you
know, up to 12 to 15 thousand patients per year in our urgent cares. When we open up
locations -- multiple times -- sometimes a day, sometimes a week, people seek us out
for a range of needs, whether it's something that -- that's minor or something that's
major and if it is major, if it's, God forbid, you know, a critical item, you know, at least we
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2014
Page 9 of 59
do have the facilities to stabilize someone and get them the proper transportation to the
hospital. So, finding us quickly and easily is really what this is about. I didn't realize it
would be as complicated as it appears to have been. That's -- that's basically our
simple approach to you is to consider giving us an address that, you know, a person off
the top of their head can quickly and easily identify with. And I'm willing to stand for any
other questions that you have.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: Mr. Judy, when -- when the property was being developed for this location was
the -- and it sounds like the Wells address as the only one assigned to it initially or did
this come as a surprise later on down the road for you?
Judy: A little bit of both. I think -- you know, honestly, when we look for a location we
are looking for something that is easily accessible and visible and so from that aspect,
you know, it wasn't really on the front of our mind this was going to be a Wells address.
We also had had some success, you know, previously, like I mentioned, with trying to
get easily -- easy identification with a main street. So, it wasn't really even a concern at
that point either.
Borton: Okay.
Milam: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Milam.
Milam: Mr. Judy, my question is regards to emergency services. So, according to staff,
a lot of the reports indicate that -- a lot of the problem would be emergency services --
people not being able to get to you fast enough. Are your clinics used and utilized for
that -- that type of emergency where a minute or two -- a couple of minutes out of their
way would really make that big of a difference or are they going to go to the hospital for
something that would be that much of an emergency?
Judy: So, are you talking about from the EMS side getting to us or from a patient
perspective? So, somebody having chest pain?
Milam: Either way.
Judy: Okay. And I -- so I don't know if I can answer the staff concerns fairly, even
though I can give you a little bit of history of what we dealt with before. But patients
seek us out, they see us as a medical center and we have our own trias system. We
don't handle heart attacks. We can stabilize someone and arrange transport. So, we
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2014
Page 10 of 59
call in, the ambulance comes and transports them to the nearest hospital. We can't --
yet we have to be prepared for that, we have to be ready for that, and it happens
frequently. Sometimes, you know, once a week, sometimes once a day, sometimes a
couple times a day. And it's not that we -- I don't know how to indicate better on -- on
the fact that we don't do that, but we are a medical place and we can stabilize and we
do quite often do that.
Milam: Okay. So, you do get people coming in for emergency situations?
Judy: All the time.
Milam: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: Any other questions from Council? Okay. Any further comments?
Judy: No. Thank you. Appreciate your consideration.
De Weerd: That's really loud.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: A question for staff. The orientation of the building, does it -- I presume it fronts
Wells?
Ricks: No. Councilman Borton -- it does feel really loud.
Borton: Does it front Wells or does it front Overland?
Ricks: Neither. Therein lies one of the problems. When we were contacted by a
representative of -- excuse me -- Primary Health in August, this was prior to their
submittal for this CZC application and they were inquiring, then, about the possibility of
a -- excuse me -- of an Overland Road address as opposed to South Wells, and at that
time I explained our standard addressing guidelines, which means that -- that the
building should either face that road or it should receive its access from -- in a perfect
world we would want both, but it -- you know, obviously, that doesn't happen all the time
and sometimes it happens, but where we can, you know, we want one of those to apply.
So, we gave them the option at that time that if they wanted to orient their building
facing Overland, that would at least, you know, provide one of the -- the criteria for
having an Overland Road address. So, it was known up front that we -- that we could
not change it or that we would recommend denial of that -- of the Overland Road
address. But, yes, it actually faces west. It doesn't even -- it doesn't face the street.
The front of the building faces west. The back of it is to -- to Wells and the side of it is --
is Overland.
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2014
Page 11 of 59
Borton: Okay.
Milam: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Milam.
Milam: I think my question is also for staff and Idon't -- I read through the reports, but
did anybody talk to the neighboring tenants or the neighbors? If we were to grant an
Overland address, how are the neighbors going to feel about that and is everybody
going to want to change their address to Overland, too, because I probably would if I
had a business there.
Ricks: Well, we didn't -- excuse me, I'm getting used to the new councilmen.
Milam: Milam.
Ricks: Councilman Milam. Thank you. I didn't actually speak specifically to those -- to
the neighbors out there. As I mentioned, though, they were -- I'm sure they would have
wanted -- it was before my time that those addresses for the neighbors were granted,
but I'm sure they would have preferred an Overland address as well. I mean they were
-- street name recognition, obviously, is important, but we have had many occasions in
the past -- some that have been drawn out for many months, but never brought to the
appeal stage where people want -- you know, they are on a corner lot, they want that
main street address. We had one specifically on Meridian, but it really -- it neither faced
Meridian, nor did it access from Meridian. So, we felt we needed to be consistent. One
of the things I -- I believe fire could speak more -- could speak better to this than -- than
I can, but I know that it is problematic for our emergency responders time and time
again, even when something has been in place over and over -- not in the same
emergency responders response every time and so it's just in our best interest we have
found, if we are proactive, and we try to avoid street naming or addressing issues that
we know will be problematic, if we could just avoid it in the first place we feel like we are
-- we are far better ahead.
Cavener: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Cavener.
Cavener: Maybe I'm -- I'd like to hear from both police and fire and Mr. Judy indicated
that they had support from the police and fire, to a location in Boise. Maybe you could
share a little bit where some of your concerns are on this particular location. I'm not
putting you on the spot --
Palmer: No, not at all. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilman Cavener.
The primary issue for us, again, is the consistency of the address. Not always do we
get a name with the address and if dispatch is particularly busy, maybe all we get is the
address and that's what we are looking for. So, the name recognition isn't always there.
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2014
Page 12 of 59
Certainly, I think Primary Health has the potential of creating enough responses over
the course of a year that it just ingrains the --the guys recognize the address to Primary
Health. I think the bigger issue -- and perhaps the deputy chief will speak to this a little
bit more -- is just the panic mode that people can be in and driving by it, looking for the
Overland address and seeing that it's right there, I just passed it and making that illegal
left-hand turn into aright-in only that could exacerbate the problem, because now we
have a car accident to deal with, besides a patient that potentially needs to have
immediate attention. So, you know, I guess our -- our big concern is -- we have a lot of
circumstances like this. I think Mr. Judy has it correct, there are certain streets within
our community that strike a cord with everybody that I know where that is, but once you
have figured out where the road is, there is a lot of dynamics that go with that as well as
to where specifically on that road is it. And, obviously, East Overland is a long road and
you have East Overland that are parts of Meridian, you have East Overland that's part
of Boise and we do run into those confusions, even in dispatch between the two
communities or any of the communities in the county. So, all that said, the consistency
of the addressing and how it gets into dispatch and how it gets to us is really a big
concern to us. So, with that I will let Tracy have his turn.
Basterrechea: I hate to agree with fire, but -- he summed it up perfectly for us. I mean
we talk about people in a state of panic and they start making those illegal left-hand
turns trying to get in there to Overland, believing that it is an Overland address, you're
going to exacerbate the problems that we already have as far as traffic collisions. The
other thing is the consistency. If you make this exception you had better be prepared to
make that exception for the other businesses along that corridor that are going to be
going up, because they are going to want that exception.
De Weerd: So, the -- the 1643 and the 1641, that looks like it might have aright-in? I
don't know what that is. But they are not designated to have an Overland address
either.
Ricks: No.
De Weerd: What address will they have?
Ricks: Well, the 16 -- yeah. Sixteen -- let's see. Yeah. The thing would apply -- this is
getting more difficult, because it's further away from Wells. It is more difficult. And
neutrality -- it might even have a Gala address. This is the difficulty. South Wells on
this one. It's a corner there -- it's right next to the building. It's a perfect address for this
one. As it gets further in does get alittle -- it does get a little fuzzier and we have
addresses like that along Eagle, too, where there might be a right-in only. Probably
have to take what we can get. So, this one (couldn't -- I couldn't just say off the bat, it
depends on how the -- the building's oriented and -- right now these are all empty lots
and so it's easy to see through that parking lot, you know, as it's gone through Wells or
Gala or access through the South Celebration. It might be that -- yeah. I really can't
say until the building is oriented. If it was facing Overland, the chance that it would have
-- it would have an Overland address. I'd prefer that it didn't. Right now these are all
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2014
Page 13 of 59
addressed off -- off South Wells. 1641 and 1643 right now are addressed off South
Wells.
De Weerd: I think it just made it a little bit murkier.
Ricks: Sorry. That was not my intent.
De Weerd: You know, frankly, what -- if they orient their building towards Overland and
they get an Overland address and next door to them they have a Wells and, then, on
the other side of them they have a Gala, that would be extremely confusing, I think, for
not only our public, but our emergency responders. So, I -- I guess I'm -- I'm just asking
whatever we do here I think we need to do for -- for all of them. These existing
buildings that are on Celebration Avenue, do those have a Celebration address or are
those Overland?
Ricks: You know, I -- I couldn't rightly say. I don't have those addresses in front of me.
I apologize.
Palmer: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Palmer: The buildings between the empty lots and Celebration have a Gala address
and I believe the credit union on the west side has a Celebration address.
De Weerd: Okay.
Ricks: Madam Mayor, I was just informed that those are South Celebration Avenue
addresses.
De Weerd: Well, Council, this is why you get the big bucks.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: One of my primary concerns with regard to the applicant goes back to the
question of when did they know of this particular concern early enough in the process --
obviously prior to any construction -- to provide the orientation of the building to
planning, have planning tell them -- the building department tell them what the address
would be and if they disagree with that early stage with what the designated address is
going to be in light of the orientation of the building, then, at that stage it gets -- if there
is an appeal it's brought before Council for us to address in these circumstances. So, if
the address in this context is Wells, that was made known prior to construction early on
when the orientation of the building was presented. It seems extremely late to appeal it
right now and try to make a change. If our policy provides any -- any potential
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2014
Page 14 of 59
confusion, which I -- gives me concern, I think it's best to address that much earlier in
the process. So, if this address was made early and the building was constructed and
completed with that knowledge, I'm not sure if the appeal in my eyes makes sense to --
to overturn the decision. But if that's not the case and the chronology, then, I may
revisit that. So, that's -- that's my perspective on it. It sounded like this was all made
known early in the process.
De Weerd: Well -- and I guess just -- and I might ask Mr. Judy if he has any comment
on that, but as he referenced, they have -- they deal with multiple municipalities and our
process might be different than those others where that was dealt with later on in the
game and they wouldn't have thought anything of it, so -- don't want to put words in your
mouth. Mr. Judy, yes, come on up. If you will just state your name again for the record.
Judy: Steve Judy. Thank you, Madam Mayor. If I may just address that. I -- we work
with a developer that sort of does all of our preconstruction stuff for us and as the lead
operations guy it's one of the many hats that I wear. You know, from -- from the
perspective of the identification of the site, originally I can tell you that, you know, we
knew it was in Gramercy and we knew it was on Wells. Was that a top priority
discussion item for us? No, it really wasn't. And so, you know, as we moved through
the planning process it really -- we were hoping to work it out through staff like we had
done with the city of Boise and it wasn't until, basically, the decision was communicated
that it was final that we, then, asked if there was a chance to appeal. So, it wasn't -- you
know, it wasn't sort of a preplanned thing, it was sort of something that we didn't realize
would the barrier that it is. If I may, Madam Mayor, can I address just a couple of things
that were in the staff report, is that appropriate?
De Weerd: Yes.
Judy: Okay. All I wanted to say -- and I totally understand the staff process and how
important those items are. I would say that in the public safety argument, even in the
staff report I think one of the -- the police lieutenant mentioned that, you know, possibly
there is an exception for public safety and I just want to point that out from the patient's
perspective. It goes back to the original argument. I mean this isn't -- our building --
and I do have a copy of that, too, I'd like to show you. I don't know if I can. But it
actually shows how our building is on the piece of property. But when it comes to that I
think that this is about, again, that sort of -- this is thinking about the patient and
somebody who is in a panic moment, who is looking for a location and -- and it's even
relative to sort of how we located the building. We -- we pushed the building up to
Overland, it is on the corner of Overland and corner of Wells and it sits right up on the
edge of both and it does have -- the main entrance faces west, you know, open towards
Overland, that's where the parking is. So, if I could show you that, at least it would sort
of -- I think answer the concern. And that -- that location was partly done for the
visibility factor, too. I mean just to be -- you know, make it known that that's where we
are at and so people could turn in that way. So, at the top of the screen, as fuzzy as
that is, is Overland Road and, then, the setbacks to the building, if -- as you're looking at
it, as long as it's presented to you in the same way it is to me, on the left-hand side is
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2014
Page 15 of 59
where the main entrance is that is facing west and, then, over on the right where you
sort of see the dotted line with a gap, is -- that's Wells Avenue. And I just wanted to
address that as well. I think if you're coming from the east going west with the way that
our building is situated, I think you're going to see our building, you're going to turn in on
Wells to get into our building, because that -- I mean it's just obvious that that's what
you do. But, again, you know, this is about identification in your mind to the patient and
I need to go to Overland where -- you know, no offense to Wells, I just don't think it's as
well known as -- and recognizable as it would be if it was Overland. So, that's all I had
to add.
Milam: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Milam.
Milam: Mr. Judy, so listening to --with regards to emergency services and people trying
to find your location, other than marketing, it seems like your biggest object would be --
people looking at the address and not being able to find it. Is that -- so how do most
people find you? Phone book? Website? What is the access?
Judy: Our marketing person is sitting back here. She could probably tell you that. I
think a lot of it's top of mind, recognizing where the clinic is. I know that there is a clinic
on Overland and Meridian, for example. I know there is one on Fairview -- or there is
several on Fairview. You know. I'm -- you know beyond how they look us up whether
it's phone or Internet or -- I don't
not sure. You know, the other
highly visible corners, we try
corners as we can on high trafi
the medical location is. It's mor
just my lay response. Sorry.
even think anybody uses the phone book anymore. I'm
is just top of mind placement and that's why we pick
nd place our building strategically as close to those
c streets, so that there is a recognition of that's where
about that and that's just -- I'm not a marketing, that's
Milam: Regardless of the address, though, people are going to know it's there.
Signage. Put a big sign on the back side of your building and everybody on Overland
will see it every time they drive by.
Judy: And we will have that and so if you were to identify it with -- I need to find the
closest clinic on Overland Road --
Milam: So, my only advise would -- you know, from a business perspective -- on the
other end, you know, would be anytime you list it you put Wells at Overland, just kind of
combine them in your address, if you are not able to get the address changed. Just a
thought.
Judy: Thank you.
Cavener: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2014
Page 16 of 59
De Weerd: Mr. Cavener.
Cavener: Mr. Judy, can you recall -- I can't remember -- your location on Fairview, are
there any -- can you turn left-in and left-out, right-in and right-out or do you have a
barrier at the Fairview location as well that prevents --
Judy: Almost exactly the same. Actually, it's not even exactly the same, honestly. It's
one more lot removed. So, the entrance street for -- if you look down at this with Wells,
we are actually one more lot over on our Fairview address. There is Dutch Brothers
that sits right on front of us and so --
Cavener: There is a barrier, then, that prevents people from turning -- if you're headed
on Fairview west from turning left at Wildwood?
Judy: No.
Cavener: So, there isn't a barrier like there is on -- currently on Overland?
Judy: Yeah. And there isn't a barrier on Overland either.
Basterrechea: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, one of the --
De Weerd: Yes, lieutenant.
Basterrechea: One of the issues that we may see here as well is the same issue that
we are seeing at the Chevron at Linder and Franklin, because if ACHD comes in and
puts those barriers in, as they have in other locations, because of the proximity to that
intersection, we are right back having the same discussion, asking them to remove
those barriers in the future.
De Weerd: Sorry, Tracy, I didn't mean to give you a demotion.
Basterrechea: That's all right. It's not the first time.
De Weerd: So, any other questions for Mr. Judy or staff?
Judy: Thank you very much for your time.
De Weerd: Any additional comments?
Judy: No. Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Council, in front of you is a request for a variance
and if there is no further questions from staff or the applicant -- this is a public hearing.
Is there anyone who would like to provide testimony on this item? Okay. Council, if you
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2014
Page 17 of 59
don't need any further information, I would entertain a motion to close the public
hearing.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: I move that we close the public hearing on Item 8-A.
Cavener: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on Item 8-A. All
those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: I appreciate Mr. Judy's request and his comments and information. From my
perspective, in light of staff comments, public safety's comments, and what's necessary
to support a variance request, I'm not inclined to support the change, but I do appreciate
the applicant bringing up what appears to be some opportunity for confusion in our
addressing with regards to street frontage and these types of circumstances. So, I'm
not supportive of the variance request, but I would like to explore further clarifying that,
so there is no future opportunities for confusion with addressing. That's my perspective
on it.
Cavener: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Cavener.
Cavener: This is definitely a sticky situation and I appreciate the predicament the staff
is in, the predicament the applicant is in, the predicament it puts our emergency
responders. It's six and a half dozen on the other. Is it more important it's as easy for
someone who is in need of our services -- or need of those services to get to the clinic
at the risk of potentially causing an accident at that intersection and it's -- it's definitely a
challenging issue at hand. For me I tend to lean towards what emergency responders
have to say and if they believe that it's a potential to cause more issues, I'm less
supportive of it.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, what we are looking for here is a determination on this
variance.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2014
Page 18 of 59
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Mr. Bird?
Bird: If we have no more discussion, I would make a motion that we deny the variance
on the city address standards for Primary Health Medical Group at 1623 South Wells.
Borton: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to deny the variance request on Item
8-A. Any discussion from Council? Madam Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Zaremba, absent; Borton, yea; Milam, yea;
Cavener, yea.
De Weerd: The motion carries. All in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT.
De Weerd: I guess I would ask staff to -- to seek some clarity in this area. I -- I don't
think that it would do our emergency responders any good if the remaining lots have an
option of Gala or Overland, depending on building orientation. We do need to seek
some consistency. It seems like that determination tonight has that consistency with
what is built on the ground as it is, both on Wells and on Celebration and we probably
should address the vacant lots as this item will be -- will come up again and there
should be some clarity to those looking to develop. Okay. Thank you for your help.
Thank you, Mr. Judy.
B. Located 3150 W. Sheryl Drive Request: Rezone of 0.54 of an
Acre of Land from the L-O to the TN-R Zoning District
De Weerd: Item 8-B has been requested to continue to January 28th. I will open the
public hearing on RZ 13-017 and ask Council for a motion to continue this item.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: I move that we continue Item 8-B, RZ 13-017, to the hearing on January 28th,
2014.
Milam: Second.
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2014
Page 19 of 59
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to continue Item 8-B to January 28th. All
those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT.
C. Public Hearing: CPAM 13-003 Da Vinci Park by CS2, LLC
Located Southwest Corner of N. Locust Grove Road and E.
McMillan Road Request: Amend the Future Land Use Map
Contained in the Comprehensive Plan to Change the Future
Land Use Designation on 7.76 Acres of Land from Low Density
Residential to Medium Density Residential (6.36 Acres) and
Mixed Use -Neighborhood (1.4 Acres)
D. Public Hearing: RZ 13-016 Da Vinci Park by CS2, LLC Located
Southwest Corner of N. Locust Grove Road and E. McMillan
Road Request: Rezone of 2.65 Acres of Land from the R-4 and
R-8 Zoning Districts to the C-N Zoning District; and 6.3 Acres
of Land from the R-4 Zoning District to the R-8 Zoning District
E. Public Hearing: PP 13-036 Da Vinci Park by CS2, LLC Located
Southwest Corner of N. Locust Grove Road and E. McMillan
Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Thirty-
Eight (38) Single Family Residential Attached Building Lots,
One (1) Commercial Building Lot and Eight (8) Common/Other
Lots on 7.76 Acres of Land in the Proposed R-8 and C-N
Zoning Districts
F. Public Hearing: MDA 13-021 Da Vinci Park by CS2, LLC
Located Southwest Corner of N.Locust Grove Road and E.
McMillan Road Request: Modification to the Development
Agreement to Change the Development Plan from Single
Family Residential to Mixed Use
De Weerd: Item 8-C, D, E and F are public hearings on CPAM 13-003, RZ 13-016, PP
13-036 and 13-021. I will open these four public hearings with staff comments.
Watters: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. The applications before
you are a request for a Comprehensive Plan map amendment, a rezone, preliminary
plat and development agreement modification. This site consists of 7.76 acres of land.
It's currently zoned R-4 and R-8 and it's located at the southwest corner of North Locust
Grove and East McMillan Roads. This site was annexed in 2006 with R-4 and R-8
zoning with the requirement of a development agreement. A plat was also approved,
Harpe Subdivision, but has since been expired. The applicant proposes to develop this
site with 38 single family residential attached homes with neighborhood commercial
uses on the corner. In order to develop the site as proposed, an amendment to the
future land use map contained in the Comprehensive Plan, is necessary to change the
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2014
Page 20 of 59
land use designation on 6.36 acres of land from low density residential to medium
density residential and 1.4 acres of land from low density residential to mixed use
neighborhood. A rezone of 2.65 acres of land from the R-8 -- R-4 and R-8 zoning
districts to the C-N neighborhood commercial zoning district, as shown there on the left-
hand side on the map, is consistent with the proposed mixed use neighborhood
designation and the rezone 6.3 acres from R-4 to R-8 is proposed consistent with the
proposed medium density residential designation. A concept plan is shown on the right.
It was submitted for the commercial portion that shows two building pads, one with a
drive-thru, and associated parking and drive aisles and common areas. An amendment
to the existing development agreement is proposed to change the development plan for
the site from 22 single family residential building lots to 38 attached residential lots and
one neighborhood commercial lot, consistent with the proposed concept plan. Staff has
recommended provisions be added to the development agreement. The required
development of the site to be consistent with the concept plan proposed with this
application and requirements pertaining to design of structures that back up to the
arterial streets and consistent design elements between the residential and commercial
structures. The preliminary plat as shown consisting of 38 single family residential
attached building lots, one 1.4 acre commercial building lot, and eight common other
lots on 7.76 acres of land is proposed to subdivide the property. One full access via
East McMillan Road, one right-out access via North Locust Grove Road, and extension
of the existing stub street at the south boundary of the site is proposed for access. A
stub street to the west is proposed for future extension. Because access is available to
the site via local street North Bright Angel Avenue to the south, the access via McMillan
and Locust Grove require a City Council waiver to the access provisions in UDC
11-3A-3. ACHD is recommending approval of the proposed accesses. A 25 foot wide
street buffer is required along McMillan and Locust Grove, both arterial streets. A 20
foot wide buffer is required on the commercial portion of the site to buffer the residential
property. A total of .74 of an acre of qualified open space is proposed, along with a
covered picnic area, playground equipment, pathway, picnic tables and benches in
accord with the open space and site amenity requirements in the UDC. Because there
is a large mixed use neighborhood center designated area to the south of this site, as
you can see here in the brown area labeled MC, that consists primarily of professional
office and healthcare uses, staff recommends those types of uses not be allowed on
this site. Other neighborhood friendly uses as allowed in the C-N district are
recommended instead. Business hours of operation in the C-N district are limited from
6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. per the UDC. Conceptual building elevations for the single
family homes -- attached homes have been submitted as shown. The Commission
recommended approval of the subject applications, the comp plan map amendment,
the rezone of the preliminary plat. Bob Unger testified in favor of the application. He is
the applicant's representative. He also submitted written testimony in agreement with
the staff report. Key issues of discussion by the Commission. They were in favor of the
transition and separation between residential and commercial uses as shown on the
concept plan. There were no changes to the staff recommendation. Since the
Commission hearing Bob Unger, the applicant, did submit additional written testimony in
agreement with the Commission recommendations to Council. There are no
outstanding issues for Council. Staff will stand for any questions Council may have.
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2014
Page 21 of 59
De Weerd: Council, any questions at this time? Okay. Is the applicant here? Good
evening. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record.
Unger: Madam Mayor and Council, my name is Bob Unger, I'm with ULC Management.
Our address is 6104 North Gary Lane, Boise. 83714. And I represent the applicant --
orthe developer on this, which is CS2, LLC.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Unger: You know, staff, as always, has done a great job of reviewing the application
presented before you this evening and considering the fact you have a very long
agenda, just a couple of quick comments. We feel that, you know, this is a fairly simple
project. I think it's where -- the product that we are going to put in there is going to
provide an excellent buffer to the single family development to the south and probably
future development to the west. So, it provides a nice buffer between the busy roads
and those developments. And considering -- the staff, ACHD, and Planning and Zoning
Commission unanimously had recommended approval and we are in total agreement
with the conditions of approval and the development agreement. Having stated all of
that, we ask for your approval and I will stand for any questions that you might have.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, do you have any questions for the applicant?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: I do have one. What was the discussion with regard to the access onto
McMillan? Was there any concern from a safety perspective or -- close to the
intersection?
Unger: Madam Mayor, Councilman Borton, we did a -- some short -- it was very short
discussions with ACHD and staff considering that -- the full access to McMillan and
ACHD felt that although we -- we weren't quite far enough west for a full access, that
future development to the west, if it were to happen, you know, they didn't feel it was
appropriate to prevent us from having full access at that location at this point in time. It
is possible that down the road and it's -- they even stated a slim possibility, but it is a
slim possibility that down the road if a new access were provided that would get to this
site, that that would -- that access would revert to a right-in, right-out.
Borton: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: Any further questions from Council? Okay. Thank you.
Unger: Thank you.
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2014
Page 22 of 59
De Weerd: This is a public hearing. Is there anyone who would like to provide
testimony on this item? Okay. Thank you. Council, any further questions for the
applicant or for staff?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: Two questions for planning staff that -- just to get me up to speed on a couple
of -- a couple of concerns. If we have got an access management plan, which would
restrict the full accesses close to the intersection unless it's waived, what types of
findings, from your perspective, support waiving that requirement here? And the
second question is -- if I recall the concept of the neighborhood center at the half mile
marks and how we are trying to break up the commercial -- the commercial layout of our
particular square mile to move it off the corner, is this inconsistent with that purpose of
the neighborhood center?
Watters: Madam Mayor, Councilman Borton, Members of the Council, the access has
been approved by ACHD. The UDC, when access is available from a local street,
access should be taken from that local street, not from the adjacent arterial streets. But
it does leave them an opportunity for approval of that should Council waive that
requirement. So, that is what the applicant's asking for. The accesses on McMillan and
Locust Grove do not specifically meet ACHD's policy. However, they are
recommending that the waiver be granted to their policy and are recommending
approval of those accesses. In regard to the second part of your question, the
neighborhood centers are typically planned for the mid mile section. As you can see
here it's a larger kind of pretty much half mile section centered on the half mile. That is
a larger area. That is the reason that I recommended that the uses be different from
those uses down there at the neighborhood center. Staff went out and visited the site.
Almost all of the uses out there are professional office and healthcare and social service
uses. That is why staff is recommending that those types of uses stay down in -- down
in the southern portion and that a different type of neighborhood commercial be allowed
on this site.
Borton: Okay.
Watters: Did I answer your question, Councilman Borton?
Borton: You did.
Watters: Okay.
Borton: Thank you. Thank you, Madam Mayor.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions? We have four open public hearings. Is there
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2014
Page 23 of 59
-- if there is no further questions, I would entertain a motion to close these public
hearings.
Cavener: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Cavener.
Cavener: I will try not to screw this up. I move that we close the public hearing -- on all
three items?
De Weerd: Four.
Cavener: Four. Excuse me. Close the public hearings on CPAM 13-003, RZ 13-016,
PP 13-036 and MDA 13-021.
Milam: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearings on Items 8-C, D,
E and F. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Cavener: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Cavener.
Cavener: After considering all staff, applicant and I guess no public testimony, I move
to recommend approval of file number CPAM 13-003, RZ 13 --
Bird: No. No. No.
Cavener: Do them one at a time?
De Weerd: Yes.
Bird: Do them separate.
Cavener: I didn't realize we had to do them all -- all right.
Bird: No. No. No. No.
De Weerd: Don't worry, Mr. Bird, I'm actually on top of it.
Bird: Okay. Thank you.
Cavener: I move that we approve CPAM 13-003.
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2014
Page 24 of 59
Milam: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 8-C. Is there any
discussion? Madam Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Zaremba, absent; Borton, yea; Milam, yea;
Cavener, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT.
De Weerd: Item 8-D.
Cavener: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Cavener.
Cavener: I move that we approve RZ 13-016.
Bird: And include what?
Cavener: Oh. And --
De Weerd: With all staff, applicant, and public testimony.
Bird: Got to get it --
De Weerd: Was that a second by you, Mr. Bird?
Bird: Yes.
De Weerd: Thank you. I have a motion and a second to approve Item 8-D. Any
discussion from Council? Madam Clerk, will you, please, call roll.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Zaremba, absent; Borton, yea; Milam, yea;
Cavener, yea.
De Weerd: Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT.
De Weerd: Item 8-E is on PP 13-036.
Milam: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Milam.
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2014
Page 25 of 59
Milam: I move that we approve PP 13-036, including all staff and applicant comments
and reports.
Cavener: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve Item 8-E. If there is no
discussion from Council, Madam Clerk.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Zaremba, absent; Borton, yea; Milam, yea;
Cavener, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT.
De Weerd: Item 8-F.
Milam: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Milam.
Milam: I move that we approve public hearing MDA 13-021, including all staff reports
and application testimony. Do we state that every time?
Cavener: Second.
De Weerd: That's all right. I have a motion and a second to approve Item 8-F. Madam
Clerk.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Zaremba, absent; Borton, yea; Milam, yea;
Cavener, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT.
G. South Side of W. Franklin Road, Midway Between Black Cat
and Ten Mile Roads Request: Final Plat Consisting of Forty-
Seven (47) Single-Family Residential Building Lots and Three
(3) Common Lots on 11.05 Acres of Land in the R-8 and R-15
Zoning Districts
De Weerd: Item No. 8-G is Final Plat 13-047. This applicant does request a
continuance of this item to January 28th. Council, I will need a motion.
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2014
Page 26 of 59
Milam: Madam Mayor?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we continue FP 13-047 to January 28th, 2014.
Cavener: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to continue Item 8-G to January 28th. All
those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT.
H. Center Inc. Located Northeast Corner of E. Fairview Avenue
and N. Hickory Way Request: Amend the Future Land Use Map
Contained in the Comprehensive Plan to Change the Land Use
Designation on Approximately 22.61 Acres from Office to
Mixed Use-Regional
Public Hearing: RZ 13-015 Solterra by Capital Christian Center,
Inc. Located Northeast Corner of E. Fairview Avenue and N.
Hickory Way Request: Rezone of Approximately 22.61 Acres
from the L-O (Limited Office) Zoning District to the C-G
(General Retail and Service Commercial) (2.39 acres); L-O
(Limited Office) (9.04 acres) and R-15 (Medium High Density
Residential) (11.18 Acres) Zoning Districts
J. Public Hearing: PP 13-037 Solterra by Capital Christian Center
Inc. Located Northeast Corner of E. Fairview Avenue and N.
Hickory Way Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of
Three (3) Commercial Lots, One (1) Office Lot, Ninety-Three
(93) Residential Lots and Eleven (11) Common/Other Lots on
Approximately 21.51 Acres in a Proposed C-G, L-O and R-15
Zoning Districts
De Weerd: Items 8-H, I and J on public hearing CPAM 13-002, public hearing on RZ
13-015 and public hearing on PP 13-037. I will open these three public hearings with
staff comments.
Parsons: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Next item on the agenda
is the Solterra Subdivision. The property is currently zoned L-O within the city. It's
located near the intersection of East Fairview Avenue and North Hickory Way. This
property was annexed and zoned into the city in 1992 and at the time that it came
forward there was no requirement for a development agreement. The church is here
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2014
Page 27 of 59
this evening -- at least the applicant is here this evening to discuss the Comprehensive
Plan map change from office to mixed use -- mixed use regional. Rezone from the L-O
zone to the R-15 zone and the C-G zone and, then, also a preliminary plat consisting of
94 residential lots, 11 common lots, one church lot and three commercial lots. You can
see here that currently the property is developed with an existing 40,000 square foot
church. It will remain as part of the project and it's currently hooked up to city services.
Surrounding this development we have two residential subdivisions, Dove Meadows
and, then, Packard Estates Subdivision. The Dove Meadows Subdivision is currently
zoned R-8 and the Packard Estates Subdivision to the north is zoned R-4 within the city
limits. Here, again, is the comp plan change that they are proposing this evening. You
can see the applicant is requesting the mixed use regional designation consistent to the
adjacent property to the east. This would allow a residential component and the
commercial component along Fairview Avenue and it also gets additional density in the
area to support the additional commercial employment and industrial uses occurring in
the area as well to the -- not only to the east, but also to the south. Here is the
proposed conceptual plan slash preliminary plat slash landscape plan before you this
evening. As I mentioned to you, the R-15 portion would affect the -- essentially the
north half of the property. It's approximately 11 acres in size. It consists of 94
residential lots with a residential mix of detached homes and attached homes to provide
a buffer not only from the church use, but also that vacant commercial to the east.
Open space for the northern portion of the site consist of approximately 1.21 acres and
is -- which is consistent with the ten percent required by the UDC and primary open
space will be a central open space located along the west boundary here, not only to
buffer against the adjacent residential, but also central -- would be central to the local
development. To tie into the church the applicant is proposing a micropath lot here to
allow these folks to enter into their church site. This not only serves as an amenity to
the development, but it also acts as a secondary access for emergency vehicles to
enter the residential portion of the development as well. As I mentioned to you, the
church will remain on the middle lots, which will remain L-O. That use is a principally
permitted use in that zoning district and will continue to function as such and, then, a
commercial portion -- again, there is three commercial lots proposed for that portion. At
this time only one lot will develop with a retail business and, then, that one owner will
control all three lots and hold one in its possession for future expansion. Another lot
would be used for future marketing of the property. I would point to the Council's
attention that currently the site has access from three points to North Hickory Way.
With the development of this subdivision the residential portion will have access from a
local street and, then, tie into the residential portion of the development, ultimately
stubbing to the commercial property to the east. There will be an existing central
access point that remains intact to provide access to the western parking lot of the
church property and, then, a commercial lot will have across-access agreement across
it. That will be shared between not only the church -- the three commercial lots, but
staff is also recommending that cross-access be granted to the parcel to the east for
future connectivity as well from Overland -- or, excuse me, from Fairview Avenue. Here
are the proposed elevations before you this evening. This is a typical elevation of what
we can anticipate for that commercial node. It's in alignment with the UDC and also the
design standards. For the residential portion of the development the applicant is
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2014
Page 28 of 59
proposing, as I mentioned to you, single family detached homes along the north
boundary and, then, transition to the single family attached as you move closer to the
church lots -- excuse me -- the church lot. So, here is a typical elevation for the single
family attached product as well. If I could draw your attention back to the plat really
quick -- because this is an in-fill project, the applicant is seeking Council's waiver for a
reduced buffer along the shared boundary between the residential portion of the
subdivision and the church lot. Currently in the unified development code the UDC
would typically require a 20 foot landscape buffer between commercial property and the
residential property. As I mentioned to you, because this is in-fill in nature and the
church will predate the residential development, staff has conditioned the applicant to
provide a minimum of a seven foot landscape buffer and that's the request this evening.
They are in agreement with the seven foot buffer. If you want something greater than
that it's certainly within your purview, but we support the reduced buffer along that
boundary moving forward. Because this site did not receive a development agreement
in 1992 and the applicant is proposing a substantial change that would impact the
surrounding development, staff is recommending a DA with the rezone of the property.
These are the recommended DA provisions that I have in the staff report for you. The
first one is -- requires the applicant to comply with not only the landscape plan, but the
plat, and the building elevations that I presented to you this evening. The second
portion ties them to their density, which is approximately 8.43 dwelling units to the acre.
Typically an R-15 zone would allow you to have a maximum zone -- or maximum
density of 15 units to the acre. So, this project does -- although it's denser than the
surrounding development, it does fall within the parameters of the requested R-15
zoning district and it also falls within the MUR designation of mixed use regional, which
anticipates densities between six and 40 units to the acre. So, it is typically on the low
side for what we see for that type of land use designation. Any expansion on the church
site or any development on the commercial lots would have to come back for staff level
approval for a certificate of zoning compliance and design review. A requirement that
would require them to comply with our design review standards and our design manual
as well. Provision number D is probably one of the most important coming from
Commission and staff, it's making sure that we get cross-access and a public street
connection to the large commercial property to the east. That certainly will set the tone
for the area. That recorded development agreement on that piece of property will allow
for up to a million square feet of retail on that site. So, certainly as that moves forward
and this property develops and that use develops it's certainly important to get that
cross-connection and so we wanted to make sure to have that in a development
agreement going forward, since this will run with the land as well. And, then, certainly
as ordinance changes and the city evolves, we occasionally change our -- we adopt
new ordinances, so we want the project to always meet current ordinances. And the
last item for you -- last provision in the development agreement is the requirement for
the multi-use pathway along Fairview Avenue. Currently there is no pedestrian
connection -- connectivity in front of the church property, so staff felt that was an
important connection at this point given the amount of cars that go up and down that
street and so we are requiring the ten foot pathway to be installed with the first phase of
development. As I mentioned to you, because there are multiple property owners that
we have -- we have a developer that wants to purchase the northern portion and we
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2014
Page 29 of 59
have a separate developer that wants to purchase the commercial lots, we anticipate
that this development will come in as a single phase with the final plat in the future.
P&Z did recommend approval at the December 19th hearing. Speaking in favor was
Jim Conger and Theresa Wingfield. Susan Kassee testified in opposition of the project
and she also commented on -- excuse me -- quite a bit of testimony was submitted prior
to the P&Z Commission on this hearing. The pastor of the church did submit written
testimony in support of the project and, then, as I mentioned to you, because this
project is adjacent to the Dove Meadows Subdivision and the Packard Estates
Subdivision, we did receive written testimony from 38 residents in the surrounding
development opposing the project. Their primary concerns had to do with the density
and additional traffic within the area. If you recall, you saw there was an elementary --
or, excuse me, an elementary school to the north and at this time all the traffic has to
either come from Eagle or funnel through residential subdivisions to the north to get to
that school site. So, the neighbors did have concerns about that. Probably the most --
the primary topic of discussion at the hearing for the Planning and Zoning Commission
was the transitional lot size. As I mentioned to you there are R-4 zoned lots along the
north boundary and they are larger than what the applicant is proposing. The average
lot size within the residential portion of the development is 3,600 square feet, they are
smaller lots, but in staff's analysis in the staff report we felt given the amount of
commercial that could develop in the area, that the residential would actually provide a
nice transition between not only the existing church and the adjacent commercial. So,
in our opinion all of the smaller lots and the density is higher than the surrounding
development, we felt that having a denser development -- a residential development up
against an existing residential development made more sense as far as a transition,
which we weren't going to occur in the future. And just -- no other additional testimony
was received -- or changes to the staff report. Commission did not have any. And I did
want to go on record that staff did receive an a-mail from ACHD staff this morning, they
are actually recommending that Council continue this item until their commission -- or
their -- yes, their commission has a chance to take action on this application. When we
met before P&Z Commission staff had only had draft conditions from ACHD. In order to
allow ACHD more time to at least analyze the traffic in the area ACHD has actually put
out traffic counters on Hickory Way to get that updated data, so that they can update
their staff report. Given the fact that it happened around the holiday season and we had
bad weather, they weren't able to get the counters out in time in order to have a final
staff report. Based on that -- that time delay that's why ACHD staff is recommending
that you continue this out. I would mention to you that this project is not scheduled for
their commission until February 5th. So, if it is your desire to continue this project as
requested by ACHD, more than likely staff would recommend that you continue this to
the February 18th hearing, that way it will give you enough time to have ACHD's
comments before you take action on it on the 18th. I would mention to you in the draft
comments that we did receive from ACHD, they had no concerns with the internal
circulation, the road layouts, or the cross-access with the property to the east and that's
why P&Z felt comfortable coming forward, bringing forth a recommendation for approval
to you. But I did want to go on the record and let you know that they would like you to
defer that. Other than that outstanding issue, staff, again, has not received any other
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2014
Page 30 of 59
additional comments from any of the adjacent neighbors and at this time I stand for any
questions you may have.
De Weerd: Thank you, Bill. Council, any questions? Okay. Would the applicant like to
make comment? Good evening. If you will, please, state your name and address for
the record.
Conger: Yes. Thank you. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Jim Conger, 1627
South Orchard Street in Boise.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Conger: First of all, we'd really like to thank staff and the neighborhood groups. We
have been on this project and in our design phase for, oh, coming up on a year here
very close. We have had many planning meetings with the city and in all aspects with
the P&Z Department, Public Works, and life safety. Many meetings with the fire
department. We have also had multiple neighborhood meetings to address the
concerns with the existing community regarding this project. We do agree with staff's
conditions of approval. We definitely agree with the development agreement, we think it
limits our project and to the right density and, basically, Mr. Parsons has done such a
great job with his presentation I do not plan to go into our three products on this mixed
use project, but I would like to touch quickly on the ACHD staff report issue. ACHD
initially provided that staff report on December 18th. This report acknowledged there
were no issues, as Bill said, with the site layout and the street connectivity in anything to
do, basically, with the subdivision on this internal. This leads, you know, however, to
two items that are standards of the project. ACHD is currently updating their traffic
counts. Traffic counts exist on those streets. There has not been a lot of residential
growth in that area, so we are not anticipating a great difference in what they have and
neither is ACHD. The real study that they wanted to do, which was the speed study.
So, that is what they want to have for their commission. There is really no conditions
ACHD can put on us if there is a speed issue on existing streets. Our existing -- or our
proposed neighborhood will not modify any -- any speed from outside influences. If
anything, we will probably slow it down. We are very sympathetic to the neighbors and
our future residents if there are traffic issues and those type of concerns, it's just
important to know that ACHD would need to work through those and those will all be
external items to our development. Hickory is a collector. It's also a signalized collector
at Fairview. This road has been on the maps to -- to flow traffic for quite sometime and
the signal would very much support that. You know, that's really it with ACHD. Any
delays, obviously, would be very costly. That would cost a month and we do not see
where it would at all affect the internal -- or the subdivision approval portion and with
that I will stand for any questions that you may have.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Conger. Council, any questions? Okay. Thank you.
Conger: Thank you.
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2014
Page 31 of 59
De Weerd: We did have several people that signed up. If I call your name and you
would like to provide comment, please, come forward at that time. Ryan Wingfield
signed up as neutral. Good evening.
Wingfield: Good evening, Madam Mayor.
De Weerd: If you will, please, state your name and address for the record
Wingfield: Yes, Madam Mayor. Ryan Wingfield. 2643 East Apricot Court. I'm in the
subdivision New Meadows directly to the -- I think it's the west of the proposed
development. First, a quick clerical correction. It was mentioned earlier that my wife
spoke at the Planning and Zoning in support of this. She actually was neutral, as I am
today --
De Weerd: Okay
Wingfield: -- just to clarify that minor point. And while we don't have any direct
opposition to the development, we did buy our house five years ago in part due to the
open area next to it and a view of the foothills and now that that's changed we just want
to bring some things to your attention. The first of which is the loss of our property
value. We have spoken to several real estate professionals that believe this will reduce
our property value by as much as ten percent. In addition, we are going to be right next
to a construction zone for the next three years, so our property value will not realize its
potential for at least three years. In addition to that, we are going to have to make slight
adjustments to our property, as we are to the direct east of the property. All of the traffic
that's going to be coming out of this subdivision will be shining headlights into our
windows, which at this point were designed to take advantage of the view of the
foothills. That is something that has been addressed by the developer, but it is a
concern of ours. As was also mentioned earlier, there is the issue of the traffic. We are
currently in a bit of a blind spot when we exit our subdivision. All the traffic that's going
to be going through this for the school for at least the first couple of years until the
commercial development is a concern for us. Also the length at Hickory is a -- is a pain
for a lot of us when we are trying to get out, especially during the morning commute for
rush hour. Adding an extra hundred cars to that every day is not going to make it any
easier for any of us. The main point is, you know, we choose to live in Meridian, instead
of Boise, for a reason and that's, in part, to the small town and a big city feel. We just
want to make sure that's not lost -- lost as you consider these new developments. And I
will take any questions you have.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions? Thank you so much. Deanna Smith
signed up for. Good evening. If you will, please, state your name and address for the
record.
Smith: Good evening, Mayor de Weerd and Council Members. My name is Deanna
Smith and I'm with Idaho Smart Growth and our address is 910 Main Street, Suite 314,
Boise, Idaho. 83702. Solterra Development contacted us last fall to review this
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2014
Page 32 of 59
development from a professional perspective. We did a number of things -- I did a
number of things. We ran it through our growth -- our Smart Growth Neighborhood
Development scorecard, which looks at 25 different elements and it scored quite high
on that. I also drove the neighborhood and looked at it, I looked at your Comprehensive
Plan and that and I spoke with Jay Gibbons, your Parks and Rec director. And based
on all of this it's our opinion that this project rated -- is very good to excellent and often
quite a challenge on smaller in-fill sites such as this. What makes any project smart
growth depends on a wide array of variables, such as location, community plans and
visions, surrounding land uses, et cetera. What makes Solterra a smart growth project
can be largely found in Meridian's Comprehensive Plan and your Comprehensive Plan
does a good job of planning for growth that works well for Meridian today and tomorrow.
The staff report does an excellent job of finding out how well this project responds to the
many Smart Growth elements in your plan. In-fill development utilizes existing
transportation and sewer infrastructure for a good return on city investments and that's
just one of the smart growth elements of this project. Your comp plan states the city
does not envision a drastic change in the housing stock. However, the city realizes that
the baby boomer generation is aging and there is an increased demand in non-single
family detached dwellings from the 55 plus age population group. This, coupled with
the fact that more young adults are not having children and do not want large homes on
large lots necessitates providing more diversity in housing choices. This development
does exactly that in a very sensitive way for the surrounding area. Solterra fulfills this
goal well with all the elements defined in Meridian's Comprehensive Plan for urban
character while fitting in well with the existing surrounding neighborhood. Urban
character, as defined in the comp plan, says that streets and other public spaces are
framed by buildings, having types ranging from small, narrow single lots, to attached
with reduced yard and -- with reduced yard and landscaped areas. Smaller front and
side setbacks with a tighter building spacing conducive for physical activities and higher
densities allow for additional amenities otherwise not cost effective in lower densities.
Again, Solterra does a good job of responding to this vision, as well as being sensitive
to the surrounding -- excuse me -- existing neighborhoods, with slightly less denser
family -- single family type housing adjacent to the existing single family detached and
moving -- sorry, ran out of time here. I will just wrap it up. I really wanted to point out a
couple of things that this project does really well. It has excellent connectivity and for
your future plan that show a -- a bicycle and pedestrian path along the irrigation canal to
the -- immediately to the east, which, eventually, will connect to the school, will provide
the only possibility that I can see for future safe routes to school for the children in the
area. And with that I will stand for questions.
De Weerd: Council, do you have any questions?
Smith: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Those were the two names that signed up to testify. Is
there anyone else who would like to provide testimony on this item -- on any of these
three items? Yes, please. Good evening. If you will, please, state your name and
address for the record.
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2014
Page 33 of 59
McDonald: My name is Dave McDonald. 2579 East Grapewood
De Weerd: Thank you.
McDonald: Represent the homeowners association for Dove Meadows. Again, I think it
has been fairly well stated much of the concerns, but as a representative of the
homeowners association I would ask you to defer to the ACHD study on safety. I have
a front row seat to the safety issues on the traffic of that street and they need to
adequately study the safety situation. It's not a matter of if, but when there will be a
serious accident on that street, equivalent to our homeowners association is what
Solterra Subdivision will add to that traffic and I ask you to defer to ACHD's study and
see if they can come up with a safe solution for speed issues on that street. And that's
all I have to say at this point.
De Weerd: Thank you.
McDonald: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Any further testimony? Thank you
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: I have one question of the applicant that I forgot to ask if that's --
De Weerd: Okay. If you will, please, restate your name for the record.
Conger: Yes. Jim Conger. 1627 South Orchard Street.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Borton: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Conger. You thought you were -- you had sat
down, but now you got to come back up. A lot of the -- the record reflects some pretty
strong opposition by the neighbors, primarily to the north and their concerns and the
record also reflects some concerns from the Kleiner Trust representative and I wanted
to know from your work through the project up to today have the concerns that are
expressed by both of those parties, have they been resolved or is it more an agree to
disagree on what should take place with this project?
Conger: Madam Mayor, Council Member Borton, that's an excellent question and I'd
like to address both of those separately. I will first take on the Kleiner -- Kleiner one.
We have had numerous discussions with -- with their -- I believe it's their legal counsel,
as well as possibly get their development representative out of the Seattle area. So,
with the Kleiners there -- in all our discussions I believe they are taking issue with the
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2014
Page 34 of 59
private access easement, which will be a public access easement, but in the private
commercial area up front. So, I mean that -- that is a City of Meridian condition. We
didn't ask for that condition. We are not opposing the city condition. So, there really is
not resolution with us and the Kleiners, it's really the Kleiners not liking the city
condition. We do not have a problem with the city condition and we have told the
Kleiners that. The other issue they potentially had would have been with the -- you
know, the public access road right there, clearly that's an ACHD requirement and a City
of Meridian policy and we think that future connection is positive for all of the community
and neighborhood. So, we are definitely probably not supportive of the Kleiners and I
don't see a way to work that out. Now, regarding neighborhood opposition, yes, there is
the letter from the neighborhood association with the signatures attached with it. We
have had not only the one required meeting, but after that meeting we went back, tried
to work on some things and had a second neighborhood meeting, did not have near the
same attendance as the first neighborhood meeting. It was quite a bit less. I would like
-- if Bill wouldn't mind pulling up slide eight for me. You know, what we heard loud and
clear was really the north boundary. We put the park against the west boundary, hoping
that would be a great buffer, as opposed to homes. Obviously, Wingfields, who testified
today, we have met with them numerous times and we will resolve their fencing issue
and such. But against the north boundary I think it's important -- we made those lots
deeper than -- we went back, readjusted and made those lots deeper than any of the
other lots on the -- inside the project. Currently Packard Estates -- those homes that
are -- that we are discussing that are on our north boundary are all at the 15 foot
required setback. There are none that are further away than 15 feet. We will have the
same 15 foot requirement, but right now we took property -- we took depth from other
lots, shoved the property to the south, basically, and we are committing to having
around that 35 foot of setback. So, we think we have gone above and beyond trying to
figure out a way to create atransition -- you know, it's residential to residential, so we
don't necessarily have a compatible issue, but the transition between their density and
our density we have accommodated with these deeper yards. And, again, the houses
across the fence are at 15, we are committing to be at 35. So, hopefully, that answers
it.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: That's a great point and did that, in fact, from our perspective --did it resolve it
by increasing the rear -- rear yard setback or -- it appears that -- and I might have read it
wrong, but some of the concern was -- was broader than that, that an R-15 adjacent to
an R-4 is too abrupt a transition in density that, for better or for worse, it wasn't -- didn't
seem to be the appropriate transition.
Conger: Madam Mayor, Council Member Borton, no, I agree, I think this is just one
item. I don't believe we have the neighbors, you know, in full support, so I'm not
representing that at all.
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2014
Page 35 of 59
Borton: Okay. I appreciate that.
Conger: We -- we have done -- to make this project function and bring the amenities we
are bringing and attempt to compete with the rental products that are out there and
other rental projects that actually had pre-application meetings on this same product,
our goal is to bring, you know, for sale single family homes and compete with the land
prices that these high intense uses demand and require and, then, this is the way we
can do it. We believe it is the right transition. As Mr. Parsons indicated, you will have
up to a million square feet coming. I mean you -- we have got a big corner right next to
us and we need to be the transition to that big, high intense corner or you're going to
have the same people in our homes complaining about the next level. So, at some
point we have to start transitioning and this seems like the perfect opportunity to do so.
We are at the 8.3, 8.4 units per acre, so we are R-15, but we are not taking advantage
of 15 units per acre and trying to put in an apartment type living. We need the for sale
product to make that work and I will use this also as, I guess, my rebuttal and I just have
one closing statement. It's important to understand -- and I commented on this housing
product of bringing high quality small lots like Harris Ranch in east. Both Conger
Management Group, which is my firm, and Tahoe Homes are heavily involved in Harris
Ranch in east Boise we have teamed up on this project to bring these small lot type
quality projects to Meridian and we are excited for this project and we have two or three
more that we are trying to get under contract and these high intense uses where we can
out compete the price of land of the rentals to build -- to bring this product to your city.
So, with that I stand for any further questions.
Borton: Thank you.
De Weerd: Now, some of the pictures were shown as the duplexes where you look like
you have a larger roof structure, which could look like a house from the back side, so
what is the transitional from the -- the housing to the west and north? Are you using this
kind of product or the tall -- tall skinny home?
Conger: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, our transition and what we heard loud
and clear in our neighborhood meetings is no attached housing to adjacent homes.
That came very clear in our first neighborhood meeting and we have adjusted our land
plan to where we are all detached product, which would be the two story as a detached.
The detached product commitment that we gave in our neighborhood meetings were to
the north and to the west. Now, the single level attached is adjacent to the church and
our goal -- anytime Tahoe Homes goes into project, whether -- no matter what city we
are in, our goal is to not also be obtrusive from the drives in, you know, corner lots, you
will never see Tahoe Homes typically put two stories on corner lots if they are a high
vision area coming in. Our concern in the original layout was from Fairview. If you look
across -- you know, that's a sea of parking at the existing church, you will see our
project from Fairview, our goal was not to have two story product, so Tahoe Homes --
you know, we don't do the market studies, Tahoe Homes does them. There is enough
market demand for these little bit smaller duplex, two attached, and we wanted that
buffer from -- it's really a visual buffer from Fairview. But, again, we could not attach --
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2014
Page 36 of 59
we gave the commitment to not attach on our north boundary and against the Packard
Homes. Which those homes -- and I have an exhibit if you care to see -- those homes
in Packard are all two story as well. The ones that are adjacent to us --directly adjacent
to us.
De Weerd: Well, I guess, Mr. Conger, on the northwest corner of your plat is there any
kind of buffering? Do those lots go clear up to the fence line?
Conger: Madam Mayor, that's another great question. No, they are very much similar
to the houses on the other side of the fence. There is no landscape buffer or anything
of that nature. They are what we would call fairly typical residential to residential. That
lot -- that lot is wider as you can maybe barely tell with the visual, but it has a bigger
side setback on that one side, but correct.
Milam: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Milam.
Milam: Mr. Conger. So, from the -- what I read from the complaints from the neighbors
was the height of the houses, was having the two story houses right directly behind
them, but what you're saying is they match the houses that -- that they touch or -- I'm
confused, because a few minutes ago I thought you said that you were going to
originally put the duplex houses back there and they complained to that and so they put
in the taller two story homes -- single residence homes, but the complaints that I read
had something to do with the height of the homes that they were complaining about.
Am I totally wrong?
Conger: Madam Mayor, Council Member Milam, no, I believe it's the two story homes
that was the issue. Our two story homes are not designed any taller than a typical
home. The homes that are adjacent on our north boundary are all two story homes.
They are 15 feet off their backyard fence line and that is every one of them.
Milam: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: Any further questions from Council? Thank you, Mr. Conger
Conger: Thank you for your time.
De Weerd: So, Council, I guess there has been a request from ACHD and one of the
HOA -- the spokesperson that represented the HOA, to continue this until ACHD
commission has had an opportunity to hear -- hear this and that they can provide
comments for your consideration.
Milam: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Milam.
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2014
Page 37 of 59
Milam: So, is there nothing that ACHD can tell us now regarding what they would be
able to do after their findings? Will they really -- are they only going to be able to
change speed limits or are they really looking at something that could change the
possibility of this development?
De Weerd: My crystal ball is not working tonight. But Ryan Head is here and he
probably can tell you exactly what his commission is going to do.
Head: I just -- I can give you the --
De Weerd: Mr. Head, if you could, please, state your name and address for the record
Head: I apologize. Ryan Head. Ada County Highway District planning. Pardon me.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Head: 3775 Adams Street. Yes, the -- our -- our staff's expectation is that it will not
change the layout of the subdivision, it's simply to provide our commission a complete
picture as they reply to the public comments that are expected. We did make the
request for -- for the data immediately upon hearing about the concerns it's just simply a
matter of timing in order to get accurate data. Weather is a condition for getting counts,
as well as school not being in session. It changes the traffic patterns on the roadways.
So, we just -- we are asking for that delay in order to respond and get accurate data to
our commission, as well as to you. So, we don't expect -- at least at a staff level expect
that we will change our recommendations. However, I do not presuppose the
commission.
Milam: Thank you.
Cavener: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Cavener.
Cavener: Ryan, you hopped up, so I'm going to ask the question.
Head: All right. Here we go.
Cavener: Do you have traffic counts in any form of -- you know, historical counts for
Hickory? I mean do you know when the last time counts that -- that street were done
and what they were? And if they were abnormally high, average, above average, below
average for what you expect? I wasn't going to ask, but you hopped up, so --
Head: There you go. I do not know when the last time we did counts. My
understanding, though, is we wouldn't have asked for new count if we felt like there was
--that they were current enough in order to provide an accurate picture, so --
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2014
Page 38 of 59
Cavener: Okay. Thanks.
De Weerd: Okay. Anything further from Council? Thank you, Ryan. Mr. Conger, did
you have any final comments? Okay.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: For Mr. Nary. From a procedural perspective, if there -- if one of the options is
to continue it, is it a matter of closing the public hearing on all three and, then,
continuing?
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Borton, you would just
continue all of them open and -- but you may want to put specifically what information
you're willing to take at the next hearing, so that you're not opening it or continuing it for
continued testimony, but just for the specific purpose of the evidence and, then, any
response, because, obviously, Mr. Conger may have a rebuttal response, as well as the
neighbors, since we don't know what that is. But limiting the scope of your future
testimony.
Borton: Thank you. Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: My perspective on these three applications, there is a lot to think about with the
issues that have been raised, both by the applicant and by the public in the written
testimony and some of the comments here today. My preference is to benefit from the
input from ACHD. Albeit it might not change, but it might and I think that to the extent
that the public has raised a concern that they'd like to have some questions answered
and ACHD's ready, willing, and able to answer those and they have, in fact, made a
request in deference to their involvement in our process to -- to provide some input, I'm
inclined to continue these to February 18th, but in doing so I'm extremely sensitive to
time for the applicant and if I were to make a motion to continue these three matters to
February 18th for the purpose of receiving ACHD's report and comment and allowing
the public and the applicant to provide testimony concerning ACHD's concerns, I would
also be curious to know, to the extent the applicant wants to even share it, let the
Council be aware of the cost that delay like that incurs. I don't -- I don't make the
request to continue lightly and I'm extremely sensitive to carrying costs and the
multitude of variables that an applicant goes through. So, I'm not asking the application
to share anything they wouldn't otherwise feel comfortable sharing, but I know time is
money and so I'm sensitive to that. So, I'm inclined to continue it, but not without
acknowledging that time is important.
De Weerd: I guess, Mr. Conger, I do hear a question in that statement.
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2014
Page 39 of 59
Conger: I did. Madam Mayor, Council Member Borton, I actually appreciate the
question, because it actually impacts several -- several people. It impacts the church,
who is, you know, liquidating this property for a specific reason. It's not because it's fun,
it's not because they want to lose soccer parks, it's because they need to. So, that
continues to put it -- our closing date is tied to City Council approval, so not only are you
impacting -- you know, it's not you, it's ACHD, but impacting us as the developer, you're
definitely impacting the church and the timelines that they are on. We have worked and
we -- you know, all the things we forget, you know, we paid our engineers overtime in
November, because we needed to catch the cut-off date, because we know how difficult
it is getting on P&Z around Christmas, so we go through this whole ordeal of paying our
engineer overtime to make cut-offs and in this case -- we don't always pay overtime. In
this case we did. We go through numerous meetings and pushing and we do have
carry. We have Smart Growth coming out. Will we need to bring them again? I mean it
is a public hearing and I think the biggest thing is -- is ACHD has had this a long time. I
know we have had snow, but the snow came after school was closed at Christmas, that
-- this project is not to a size that requires traffic studies and we are very sympathetic to
the neighbors and our future neighbors, so we understand the traffic counts. The speed
counts are new, we aren't really up to speed on -- no pun intended -- but speed counts
are new. Everybody from the neighborhood has complained to ACHD about the speed.
I have never been involved with a project that's done speed counts before. We have
done a lot of projects in both City of Meridian and Boise. So, what you're waiting on and
what you're now going to, basically, penalize the church and us as a developer from a
timing standpoint is speed, which is maybe police. It's not going to be speed bumps,
because ACHD doesn't allow them. And, again, I think it's very important to know that I
have facilitated several meetings with ACHD just to talk about existing conditions. None
of those would be triggered back to us, because we aren't big enough to -- to cause
what's going -- if there is anything that comes out of it it won't come back on us and I
think the last item is just -- it's a little bit maybe of tough love. ACHD continues to do
this in Boise and Meridian and it seems like we should not all be penalized every time
they cannot finish their staff reports. It doesn't seem quite right. And for that I will close.
And I'm sure I will be in trouble with that statement.
Milam: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Milam.
Milam: I have a question for Mr. Conger. So, you said that this was going to jeopardize
your closing date. Can you share that closing date with us? What is your scheduled
closing date at this time?
Conger: Yeah. Madam Mayor, Council Member Milam, typically speaking when we do
projects we try to bring decent projects, which always require a few give and takes by
the city and a few give and takes by us. So, they are projects that you can't buy the
land until you get your approval, so, typically, they are triggered at 30 days past closing
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2014
Page 40 of 59
or something of that nature. So, ours is at 30 days past -- past City Council approval
closing.
Milam: So, there is not a scheduled date.
Conger: No. Have no closing date.
Milam: It's based on approval of the --
Conger: Yeah. It does not force us to close any sooner than approval. It does impact
the church and what they are planning to do with their funds for sure.
Milam: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: Mr. Conger, I guess I understand your comments and I appreciate the
sensitivity to the impact a delay could have. The issues I think that ACHD needs to
really address -- many of them are already preexisting and what an additional amount of
traffic will do to a preexisting issue that currently exists right now. I think that's the
sensitivity that the neighbors are -- are concerned about is -- yes, you and I know that
the impact in -- in traffic will not be immediate, but if you have driven out in that area
there are some issues and I don't know what the commission can -- can do to mitigate
even existing conditions. I don't know that. But I think to make a decision you almost
have to have all of the points in order to make findings and to make sure that ACHD's
final reports are part of those findings. Now, Council, I guess one other action you can
take is action and final ACHD comments be part of the -- the final findings, but if they
change anything it opens it back up. So, it a conundrum. But I will say that as far as
the access or --that staff, not applicant, is asking for is essential. That's a huge piece of
property to the east. This area does need some additional options and that was shown
in that long range transportation study that was done that also looked at this area that
the church agreed to being a party to and making those connections as well. So, if
you're ready to take action tonight or if you continue it specifically for just the ACHD
aspect, that's certainly --the question's in front of you tonight to take action on.
Conger: Madam Mayor, did I hear a question to me on one of the ACHD things? Can I
respond back?
De Weerd: I don't think -- I think I made a statement, but if you heard a question there,
you bet. What question are you going to answer?
Conger: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I think just in response back to the
ACHD and maybe vital information, maybe not vital information that's forthcoming, I
think it's very important to note that ACHD did put out the -- I know it's a draft staff
report, but if we have a project that we are in the middle of where we are forced to do --
like right turn or center turn lanes of the existing roadways that we are tying onto, we
don't get draft staff reports. It is not released until it's a complete package. We are up
against Hickory, which is a 41 foot back of curb, back of curb. There are no possible
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2014
Page 41 of 59
improvements. Turn lanes. They all exist. I mean the elements that exist out there are
just such a -- I mean they are basically completed and I believe that's why ACHD issued
that draft staff report. And, again, speed, I don't know if you guys have been involved
with the speed studies, but to us I -- that may come down to City of Meridian and
policing items, but, again, that's it. I stand.
Milam: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Milam.
Milam: So, can we approve this with a contingency that -- that as long as ACHD's final
staff reports don't come back with different recommendations -- can you do that?
De Weerd: I think you probably could approve it with any recommendation included by
ACHD, but -- and that would be the developer's gamble. Is that correct, Mr. Nary?
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. No. You're correct. You can certainly
approve it with that. The problem is trying to define either different, as Council Member
Milam is trying to suggest, or like the Mayor said with the risk that they do make some
significant recommendations, which brings it back in front of you again. So, it is awfully
difficult if -- if the determination of the Council is that information is important enough
from both the public perspective or your perspective or both, it's pretty tough to want to
try to pass that with enough contingencies to make it practical that we won't be hearing
it again, so --
Milam: Well, except that they sound very confident that -- that the ACHD staff report
isn't going to change. ACHD sounds pretty confident that it probably won't change. But
we would still like to make an informed decision based on current facts, as opposed to,
you know, subjective reports.
De Weerd: Mr. Nary, there must be a question in whatever was just said.
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, you were correct, I mean, again, you
can -- you can certainly approve it based on the projected outcomes that have been
discussed, but, again, it's hard to determine if there are any variables and it puts staff in
a pretty awkward position that if they make the recommendation on something that Mr.
Conger has an objection to or the public feels you have a right to discuss further, it puts
staff in an awkward position and they are going -- in my opinion most of the time going
to -- it will come back in front of you again if there is any change. If there isn't any,
you're right, you're going to save a few weeks and Mr. Conger had made that clear what
that importance can be as well. But it's real tough from the staff's position to determine
what's different enough to not have you hear it again.
De Weerd: Mrs. Milam, did that help?
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2014
Page 42 of 59
Nary: Madam Mayor? And one more thing. The other problem you may have -- and
Mr. Conger would probably be more sympathetic to this -- if you have to contingent
upon that, then, you haven't set it for a date certain for final action, which means you're
going to have to renotice it to bring it back and which will take longer. So, you're better
off setting it for a date certain, at least to take final action, than the potential that you
may leave it open and have another date to have to bring it back with notice
requirements.
Milam: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: A third or fourth or fifth option may be -- and, Mr. Nary, correct me if I'm wrong
-- and it may only speed it up a week, but if -- are second Tuesday meetings non-public
hearings? So, one option would be to close the public hearing on all three hearings
before us now, receive the ACHD staff report, have it put on the second Tuesday. To
the extent an issue arises in the report, which, you know, knock on wood, there isn't and
we don't anticipate, if it's smooth sailing we can take action on the 11th and if there is a
concern it can, then, be set for the 18th for a continued hearing after that issue
regarding the ACHD report, if there is one. It's a procedural attempt to try and shorten --
shorten the continuation a week.
De Weerd: Well, it's typical that on the workshop week we do not have public hearings,
but I would suggest that if you wanted to continue this to that workshop, you continue
the public hearings until then and I believe we have had public hearings on a few
exceptions in the past where we have allowed that. My concern by closing the public
hearing and continuing this item to the 11th is if the report does come back different or if
there -- if the applicant or the homeowners at that point want to comment on just the
traffic aspect, if that's what you keep this open for, you would have to make the motion
to reopen and it's just good -- it's cleaner to keep it on an agenda as a continued public
hearing, rather than something that's closed.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Madam Mayor, Council Member Borton, on this -- in the ordinance that I was
pulling up as you were talking, the ordinance says land use hearing will not be held at
the workshop unless an urgent need exists to require it. So, as Madam Mayor stated,
we have on rare occasions allowed it for those very reasons. So, if your motion
includes that so the record's clear why you're moving it to a workshop for a hearing, you
can certainly do that.
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2014
Page 43 of 59
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: And I understand this and the confusion is the ACHD report?
De Weerd: Yes.
Bird: Is that, basically, the outstanding issue with the Council?
De Weerd: That's correct, Mr. Bird.
Bird: You know, I don't know what -- are we pretty filled on the 28th?
De Weerd: The commission does not hear this until February 5th.
Bird: Oh. Okay. Well, Idon't -- I don't -- I have never seen ACRD make big change to
something like this, but I would like to get it solved and get it on the agenda as fast as
we can. This is costing the developer and Capitol Christian some money, so whatever
we can come up with a fast date let's do it.
Hood: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Caleb.
Hood: If I may offer up a fourth or fifth or sixth option. This isn't typical, but if Council
directs, we can get it to the developer and get them back essentially on the same time
line and bring the draft Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and the ordinance to
that same meeting on the 18th, assuming that there is no changes and, then, you can
approve it in that order, close the public hearing, take action, approve the findings at the
end of the agenda and the ordinance and it's all done. Essentially, they would have to
come back in two weeks, even if you approved it tonight, for the finding and the
ordinance, so, essentially, you are back to the same timeline. It's a lot of work on staff's
side, but to me that is a cleaner process than the options that have been thrown out
here tonight. So, we don't like to do that very often because it's legal staff, it's our staff,
and I would look for some concurrence if that's even an option from legal staff, because,
again, Michelle is usually -- Michelle Albertson is usually a part of that, getting the
ordinance ready. But we can have that all drafted and ready for you to approve,
assuming there aren't some substantial changes, though we will have action already
rolled into a staff report and updated findings and conclusions. So, just as another
option. That kind of streamlines it all into one unified action at that meeting on the 18th.
So, just to throw that out there as a plan B or C or D. Does that make sense?
Nary: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2014
Page 44 of 59
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council -- because there isn't a development
agreement and there is just a rezone ordinance, it appears there is no development as
part of this, it wouldn't be a problem and since Caleb was trying to accelerate -- I mean
we can certainly have it for the 11th as well. If it isn't complete we can certainly let the
Council know. But if all if it's geared towards these are going to be done without much
change or whatever change happens on the 5th, we would know before publishing the
agenda for the 11th, we could probably have it all completed as well. So, free to take
action, because we are only preparing the ordinance, so --
Hood: Madam Mayor, just a point of clarification. Bill does have a development
agreement proposed for this project, but I heard the applicant testify they don't have any
issues with that. So, again, if we could get legal to work on drafting that and get it to the
applicant to work on and, then, potentially have that signed and on -- on the agenda as
well -- I mean we can condense our processes down. Everything has to fall in place to
make that happen, but committing staff to doing that in a timely manner with some
assumptions that approvals are made and whatnot, but I think we can still do it, even
though there is a development agreement.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, you have all kinds of choices here. What's your direction?
Actually, I think if staff can have all documents ready for a public hearing on February
11th to accept ACHD's direction that they take on February 5th, I -- this really doesn't
delay -- delay it if -- if you're ready to take action on the 5th of February, but Iwill --
Milam: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mrs. Milam
Milam: I move that we continue public hearings -- is that right?
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Milam: Okay. CPAM 13-002, RZ 13-015 and PP 13-037, to the February 11th hearing
where we will have all documents and development agreement available for signing in
the best interest of the city and the developer and Capital Christian. And the neighbors.
De Weerd: Do I have a second?
Borton: Second.
De Weerd: I have a second.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2014
Page 45 of 59
Borton: Just -- just for some -- some discussion on the motion, a couple of points.
Caleb, that's -- I love it. I love trying -- you trying to accelerate things, even though it's
difficult. I really really appreciate Caleb and Mr. Nary trying to accelerate that. This is
all relevant to the motion.
De Weerd: I'm glad you clarified that.
Borton: I'm going to get to the point. Because I'm not making a seventh option. And,
then, Mr. Conger for expressing the concern with the delay and everything is struggling
mightily to make this work, even if it saves a little bit of time. So, I appreciate all the
input. Having said that, I'm comfortable making these continuances. The motion made
reference to signing a development agreement and executing it. It's still a public
hearing. In my eyes there is not a decision made officially to approve or reject the
application. So, I wouldn't -- I don't want the motion created for all applicants.
Milam: Sorry, I -- yeah.
Borton: Okay. I'm comfortable with the --
Milam: It would be available for the assigning if approved
Borton: Correct. Okay. And -- that's what I thought you meant and just so the record's
clears, it's public -- who knows what may happen, but -- and I do appreciate everyone
working to accelerate this, as clumsily as we might get there. If that's a word, too. If
that's a word.
De Weerd: You can make up any word you want. Okay. The motion is to continue
these three items to February 11th and -- so that we can have the ACHD action, as well
as the documents to move this forward if it is the desire of City Council at that time. So,
that said, all those in favor, please, say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. If those of you who are here on this item don't
understand it, we will try and explain it afterwards.
K. Continued From December 17, 2013 Public Hearing: PP 13-031
Knighthill Center by Mason and Stanfield Inc. Located
Southwest Corner of N. Linder Road and W. Chinden
Boulevard Request: Preliminary Plat Approval of Five (5)
Commercial Lots and One (1) Common Lot on Approximately
9.11 Acres in the C-G Zoning District Approved with 25 foot
landscape buffer
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2014
Page 46 of 59
L. Continued From December 17, 2013 Public Hearing: MDA 13-
019 Knighthill Center by Mason and Stanfield, Inc. Located
Southwest Corner of N. Linder Road and W. Chinden
Boulevard Request: Modify the Recorded Development
Agreement (Inst. #106122368) to Incorporate a New Concept
Plan and Update Certain Sections of the Development
Agreement Pertinent to the Proposed Knighthill Center
Subdivision
De Weerd: Okay. Item 8-K and L are continued from December 7th, they are public
hearings on PP 13-031 and MDA 13-019. I will ask for staff comments for this public
hearing.
Parsons: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Next item on the agenda
is the Knighthill Center Subdivision. The property is located on the southwest corner of
Linder and Chinden Boulevard. It consists of approximately 9.11 acres and currently
zoned C-G or commercial within the city limits. This property was before you in 2005
and received annexation with the C-G zoning. At the time that they came forth it was
proposed to have a four lot subdivision and one common lot. The recorded
development agreement grants the right to the property to develop with 105,000 square
feet of retail uses on it. That concept plan was attached to the recorded development
agreement upon annexation of the property. Because there is a development
agreement placed the applicant has to amend that development agreement and swap
out, basically, the concept plan and present a new concept plan consistent to what they
are proposing this evening. So, leading into that, the applicant is proposing five
commercial lots and a common lot. The concept plan here depicts five building pads
ranging in square footage of between 4,800 square foot -- square feet for this building,
which is shown as a bank. The three buildings here moving to the east and heading
south are proposed as multi-tenant buildings ranging it sizes between 11,000 square
feet and 15,600 square feet and, then, along -- within the southwest quadrant of the
development the applicant is proposing a mid box store, roughly 30,400 square feet as
shown on this concept plan before you. Because this is a commercial development
landscaping is minimal. The only required landscaping is a 35 foot landscape buffer
adjacent to the roadway, which is Chinden and Linder, as I mentioned, and, then,
because of the C-G zoned property to the south -- or because this property is zoned
commercial and we have residential uses to the south, the applicant is required in the
ordinance to provide a 25 foot wide landscape buffer. As shown before you this
evening the applicant is proposing a 20 foot landscape buffer. At the P&Z hearing staff
had asked -- or, basically, in the staff report we have recommended that the applicant
be allowed to have a 20 foot buffer along the driveway from Linder Road here and, then,
along the adjacent residents to buffer the mid box from them we have required them to
provide the required 25 foot buffer and that's how it is currently conditioned in the staff
report. Access to this development will be provided from four different access points. In
2013 the City Council did grant a variance request to allow aright-in, right-out only
access to Chinden Boulevard located in the northwest section here. With that
requirement the applicant will have to comply with all ITD requirements as far as
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2014
Page 47 of 59
mitigation to the roadway as far as center medians, a decel lane and construction of that
curb cut. The staff report is conditioned to comply with those requirements as well. The
applicant does have a full access point to Linder Road at this point that was approved
with the development. North Gertie Place, which is a stub street that was provided with
the residential development to the south is stubbed to this property and will, essentially,
not be extended through as a stub -- as a public street, but will allow connection to the
adjacent subdivision by a commercial drive aisle and, then, West Everest Lane is a
private street that connects at the West Boundary and also ultimately goes to the
intersection -- the half intersection of North Long Lake Way and Chinden Boulevard.
It's, essentially, the backage road for this development. At the time that this project
came forward the applicant did provide staff a recorded cross-access agreement. They
have the right to use Everest, that private lane, and they also have to contribute cost
towards maintenance of that roadway as well. So, I did want to get that on the record
that that cross-access agreement is in place at this time. Here are the conceptual
elevations that the applicant proposed back to you in 2008. One depicts an office
building, multi-tenant building, and, then, a future bank branch. The applicant would like
the flexibility to just basically comply with our design standards in the UDC. A
recommended provision in the DA requires that general conformance with these
submitted elevations, but also requires them to comply the design standards from the
UDC as well. So, here are the recommended DA provision changes that I have before
you this evening. One -- one of the revisions to, basically, omit provision number six.
At the time that this project came before you there was a single family home that was
located in this general vicinity and in order to restrict access for that property in the
future the planning department had required that existing home to have access into this
development by across-access through here or a shared driveway here. Now that the
intersection has been rebuilt that home has now been demolished and this lot is,
basically, owned by ACHD and a detention pond for the intersection. So, that home no
longer exists, so there is no additional requirement for that cross-access moving
forward. Number seven requires compliance with the concept plan shown to you. The
second one -- the third bullet point requires compliance with their design standards in
our design manual. The interesting point here -- DA provision number four or bullet
number four here is staff had concerns with that large multi -- mid block building up
against the adjacent residences. So, because the applicant did show square footages
on the concept plan staff has tied them to the square footages as proposed on that
concept plan and because of the adjacent residence we want to insure that no
commercial building on that site exceeds a height limit of 35 feet and that is consistent
with our residential districts as well. So, that is something new that we are proposing.
Planning and Zoning Commission did support that DA provision as well. On the
concept plan they are showing a central plaza area, so we wanted to tie them to that as
well and, then, also as noted on the concept plan there are several drive-thru uses
depicted on there. I want to make it clear on the record that those uses are not
approved at this time. If they are within 300 feet of an existing residence or residential
zoning district or another drive-thru, they will have to go through the conditional use
process moving forward. So, Planning and Zoning Commission did recommend
approval to you from their November 21st hearing. Speaking in favor was Scott
Stanfield. Commenting on the application was Renny Wylie. The two issues of
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2014
Page 48 of 59
discussion talked about at the Commission hearing was proximity of the mid box to the
adjacent residences and, then, also the reduced landscape buffer along -- adjacent to
the mid box store. As I mentioned to you earlier, staff in both P&Z and staff is
recommending that Council require the 25 foot landscape buffer. I believe the applicant
would like to discuss your action in allowing the 20 foot buffer as depicted on the
concept plan. Key change to staff's recommendation. The Commission did not have
any. They supported what we have presented to you this evening and staff has not
received any additional testimony on this application. From staff's knowledge there
aren't any outstanding issues for you. This concludes my presentation. I'd stand for
any questions you have.
De Weerd: Thank you, Bill. Council, any questions at this point? Okay. Would the
applicant like to make comment.
Stanfield: Good evening, Mayor, Members of the Council. I'm Scott Stanfield with
Mason Stanfield Engineering, 826 3rd Street South in Nampa, Idaho.
De Weerd: Thank you, Scott.
Stanfield: Representing Renny Wylie. Thank you, Mayor. I will just cut to the chase.
First of all, thank Bill for all his help through this project. As usual he's a problem solver
and not a problem creator, so that's nice and refreshing. There is only one city that
does it better, but that's a city that I represent, so I'm partial to that city. Just some of
the items. Clarification on the DA modification regarding provisions for a minor increase
-- possible minor increases in the building sizes and Bill kind of talked about that in the
DA mod, but I'm wondering what code provisions, if any, exist that allow us these slight
increases and we accept that condition without any further discussion. So, again, that's
a question I ask for Bill. And, then, regarding the 20 foot buffer along the southwest
corner there, Mr. Wylie had talked to the neighbors at great length and I don't know if
any of them are here tonight and maybe they will testify to this or the opposite, we will
just see if that happens. But he's talked about a 20 foot buffer with the neighbors at
great length and there was no opposition to that 20 foot buffer. So, we would like you to
contemplate to consider allowing us to put in a 20 foot buffer at that point. And just a
clarification for the Public Works comments -- and I think this is just a general boilerplate
comment, but the sewer regarding the to and through, I would just like to note that we
are at the extreme limits of the sewer -- gravity sewer service and our lines are
extremely shallow and we really can't extend them any further. Again, I think that's just
a general boilerplate comment. And with that I would stand for questions.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions? Okay. Thank you
Stanfield: Thank you.
De Weerd: This is a public hearing. I would ask if there is anyone who would like to
provide testimony on this item? Mr. Wylie? If you will, please, state your name and
address for the record.
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2014
Page 49 of 59
Wylie: Thank you. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, my name is Renny Wylie,
1676 North Clarendon, Eagle, Idaho.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Wylie: Thank you. As you -- many of you are aware, this has been a long time --along
process getting to this point. Really, our only -- or one of our only points of concern or --
is the reduced buffer width. When we originally had this plan approved it was with 20
feet and we have always kind of gone on that premise it was going to be a 20 foot buffer
there on that southwest corner. We request for you to favorably look upon that. Aside
from that, I'm here to stand for any questions.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions?
Milam: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Milam.
Milam: Forgive me if I -- if I missed something, but the reason for the 20 foot buffer is
there is just no room? Is it possible to make it a 25 foot buffer?
Wylie: It is possible. This plan is laid out with a 20 foot buffer and originally it was 20
feet. In our second go around it was 20 feet and that's what we have always kind of
planned on.
De Weerd: Just a point of clarification. Did our ordinance change that it's -- it was 20
feet, now we are asking 25?
Parsons: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the ordinance has not changed, it's
always required a 25 foot landscape buffer. However, when Mr. Wylie came forward in
2008 he submitted a revised concept plan. At the time that you took action on that
concept plan he did depict six office buildings in that area instead of the large mid box.
So, at that point when we looked at the concept plan staff thought that would be a future
office use. The DA tied them to the office use in that corner, so, therefore, we felt that
the 20 foot buffer was appropriate because of the office use there. Now that there is a
mid box, a larger building up against the adjacent residences we feel it's more
appropriate for the 25 foot landscape buffer.
De Weerd: Thank you for that clarification. Okay. Anything further for Mr. Wylie?
Okay. Thank you.
Wylie: Thank you
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2014
Page 50 of 59
De Weerd: Okay. Is there anyone who would like to provide testimony -- any further
testimony on this? Okay. Council, seeing none, do you have any further questions for
applicant or staff?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Seeing no comment, I move we close PP 13-031 and MDA 13-019.
Borton: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearings on Items 8-K and
L. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve PP 13-031 and that's the preliminary plat, so it's -- okay. With
applicant, public and staff comments.
Borton: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 8-K. Now, Mr. Bird, did you
have any comment on the reduced buffer width? Is that -- would that come with the
PP?
Bird: That would come under MDA, Madam Mayor, I believe.
De Weerd: No, it --
Bird: That's why I kind of hesitated.
De Weerd: It comes with the preliminary plat.
Bird: It would be under the preliminary?
De Weerd: Yes.
Bird: Okay. If the second will agree I include the 25 foot buffer.
Borton: Second.
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2014
Page 51 of 59
De Weerd: Okay. I have clarification on that. Any further discussion on this item?
Okay. Madam Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Zaremba, absent; Borton, yea; Milam, yea;
Cavener, yea.
De Weerd: Okay. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve MDA 13-019 and include all staff, applicant, and public
testimony.
Borton: Second.
De Weerd: I have motion and a second to approve Item 8-L. If there is no discussion
from Council, Madam Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Zaremba, absent; Borton, yea; Milam, yea;
Cavener, yea.
De Weerd: Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT.
M. Continued from January 7, 2014: Public Hearing: PP 13-034
Gramercy Heights by Gramercy, LLC Located South of E.
Overland Road and West of S. Bonito Way Between E. Blue
Horizon Drive Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting
of Thirty-Seven (37)Residential Lots and One (1) Common Lot
on Approximately 5.59 Acres in an R-15 Zoning District
N. Continued from January 7, 2014: Public Hearing: MDA 13-020
Gramercy Heights by Gramercy, LLC Located South of E.
Overland Road and West of S. Bonito Way, Between E. Blue
Horizon Drive and the Ridenbaugh Canal Request: Amend the
Recorded Development Agreement (Inst. #106141056) for the
Purpose of Attaching the New Home Elevations Proposed with
the Gramercy Heights Subdivision
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2014
Page 52 of 59
De Weerd: Items 8-M and N were continued public -- or continued public hearings from
January 7th, PP 13-034 and MDA 13-020. I will open these public hearings with staff
comments.
Parsons: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. The last public hearing
item this evening is the Gramercy Heights Subdivision. It's currently a 5.59 acre
remnant parcel within the Gramercy development. It's just south of East Overland Road
and east -- or, excuse me, west of the Eldorado Subdivision here. This property was
before you as a preliminary plat in 2011. It was in conjunction with the multi-family
development that's currently being constructed just to the north of this and zoned R-40.
Now that the applicant has a different development plan for the site they want to come
back and preliminary plat this with 37 residential lots and a single common lot consistent
to what's occurring to the west of them. As you can here there is some platted lots to
the west that are developed with single family homes and, then, some auto court lots.
This is just an extension of that subdivision back in 2006. Here is the proposed
preliminary plat. As I mentioned to you, the property is currently zoned R-15, so
minimum lot sizes within that district are pretty minimal at 2,400 square feet. All the lots
proposed within this development do exceed -- or comply with those requirements in the
UDC. The applicant has shown here how they expand on -- or plan on expanding the
local street to serve this development and they have also gone as far as to show how
this would interact with the multi-family development to the north as well. Currently
that's 276 units that were -- that's currently under construction at this point. So, over the
years -- with the last several years this property has seen quite an up tick in multi-family
development. The developer wants to come back in and do more of -- get into that little
Hitch market and do more of what's currently to the west as I mentioned to you, which is
currently developed with single family homes there and, then, these auto court lots
where you'd have a shared driveway to serve access to four different homes and they
have shown how that -- how those common lots -- or those lots would function as far as
from placement of homes on that. So, one thing the applicant did receive was
alternative compliance requests from staff. The director to admit the requirement for the
25 -- or deviate from the requirement of a 25 -- 20 by 20 parking pad in front of the units.
Basically, our justification is -- or at least the director's justification for approving that
alternative compliance was the fact that this is meant to be an urban setting and
typically in the urban settings you don't have a lot of parking. You want people to get
out and walk to amenities, not sit there and get in their car and drive to those. So, in our
aspect, because Gramercy was always envisioned for multi -- or mixed use
development, walkability, you have a park in the area, you have schools, you have a
college, you have multi-family developments, you have employment centers
surrounding this development, it makes sense to come in with something new and
unique for the area and that's why we feel it's appropriate to deviate from the parking
standards. Some of the units will have tandem parking, so they will be three car
garages for some of those and, then, of course, along -- some of those lots will also
have two car garages. I would mention to you because of how this area should function
with vehicles entering and exiting these auto courts we have recommended condition
that these be restricted to no parking in that area so vehicles can maneuver in and out
of their garages. Here is the landscape plan. Because this is an in-fill development and
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2014
Page 53 of 59
a lot of the amenities and open space were constructed with the Gramercy
development, the applicant also contributed towards the city park at that time. They
have requested that they be allowed to use the existing amenities within that
development to count as their open space requirements and staff is amenable to that
and so was the Planning and Zoning Commission. The only open space that will be
added with the development of this site will be this micro path connection here and what
this allows the development to do is connect into the five foot pathway system
constructed within the EI Dorado development. So, as you can see here it's developing
as we envision the Comprehensive Plan creating that walkability, getting different
housing styles within the development, getting density in the area. So, based on the
proposal staff finds that this does comply with the mixed use regional standards of the
Comprehensive Plan moving forward and the existing amenities in here should be
adequate to suffice for the proposed development. So, moving forward, because there
is a development agreement in place for this site there are specific elevations that are
tied to the auto court elevations, so in order for this application -- applicant to move
forward as presented to you this evening, they do have to amend that development
agreement and attach the elevations into the subdivision -- looks like my slide got
omitted from the presentation, so I apologize for that. But they did show that all the
units would be attached with the auto court lots, which are located along the south
boundary of the subdivision. They are required to comply with those elevations and,
then, also during the P&Z hearings a few neighbors did testify. They were in support of
the project, but they wanted to -- they wanted assurances that the auto court lots would
be restricted to single story elevations. So, the developer and the adjacent
homeowners have worked together to come up with a condition and so as staff is
recommending to you tonight that you add DA provision number two here as presented
to you, that the auto court lots, which, basically, are Lots 1 through 16, Block 1, be
restricted to single story homes consistent with the submitted elevations. P&Z did
recommend approval from their December 5th hearing. Taylor Merrill did testify in
support of the application. Larry Kovarik submitted written testimony on the application
and also commented on the application. He was one of the adjacent property owners
that wanted the single story elevations on the auto court lots. The key issue items of
discussion at the hearing was the restriction of the single story levels within the
development. Since the P&Z hearing I did receive written testimony or e-mails from
both the developer and the Larry Kovarik in support of this recommended DA provision
as well, so I think everyone is on the same page at this point moving forward. And so
the only outstanding issue for you this evening -- really it's not an outstanding issue, we
just want to make sure that you're on the record supporting this DA provision. Other
than that staff and P&Z have recommended approval and I would stand for any
questions you have.
De Weerd: Thank you, Bill. Council, any questions? Okay. Would the applicant have
any comments? Good evening.
Merrill: Good evening, Mayor. My name is Taylor Merrill with Westpark Company. My
address is P.O. Box 344, Meridian, Idaho. 83642. We appreciate the opportunity to
present this plat to you, Mayor and Council Members. This plat -- first of all, thank you
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2014
Page 54 of 59
very much, again, to staff in the support in working through this project. Unlike the
previous applicant we think that Meridian city is the best city to do business in. It comes
with a lot of experience and appreciation. This plat is consistent with the Meridian city
Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with Gramercy district master plat mixed use
residential development that was approved in 2006. We are in agreement with the
modifications to put those perimeter lots at single level. These courtyard lots were a bit
of a challenge in our original design to get the density and whatnot and we appreciate
working with staff and their cooperation with those courtyard lots in getting this to work.
So, we feel comfortable as they will be single level homes and we do agree with that --
that condition. With that being said, we are excited to see this last component of
Gramercy come together. With the park system and the open space we are excited to
provide those amenities to prospective occupants of this area. That being said, I will
stand for questions and, again, really appreciate the opportunity to work with the city in
bringing this final component of Gramercy to you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: Taylor, there was -- there was public comment in the record about one issue
being single story and the second was with regard to pitch -- roof pitch?
Merrill: Uh-huh.
Borton: Was that -- tell me how that was resolved and addressed.
Merrill: We resolved that with single level that -- I think there was some concern from
the neighbors to the west -- or to the south in regards to the height and the design when
we originally designed that multi-tenant. It was the big buildings. They are quite a ways
away and in respecting their view corridor we think that this does that. We have not
really agreed on the -- the renderings that we have provided to the staff based on
compliance and design review. We feel they will be acceptable with them and their
review is what we will depend on, but we haven't agreed on a height limitation other
than they will be single level. That being said, Councilmen, there is about a 70 foot park
strip from our south property to the Ridenbaugh Canal, which is another 50 or 60 feet,
so there is really a nice gracious space between the communities.
Borton: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Anything further? Thank you.
Merrill: Thank you.
De Weerd: I did have one person signed up. Larry Kovarik. Kovarik?
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2014
Page 55 of 59
Kovarik: Kovarik.
De Weerd: Yeah. And I'm sorry if mutilated your name. I'm sure I'm not the first. You
should see what they do with de Weerd. If you will, please, state your name and
address for the record.
Kovarik: It's Larry Kovarik.
De Weerd: Kovarik.
Kovarik: 2686 East Green Canyon Drive, Meridian, Idaho.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Kovarik: Madam Mayor, new Members of Council and Councilman Bird, where ever
he's at out there in cyberspace. We have met several times with West Park. We are in
agreement with regard to dropping the roof pitch. The roof pitch is no longer an issue.
We resolved that with the revision that staff has made with regard to single. With that
we are in total support of the project and hope that West Park has a good project here.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions?
Cavener: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Cavener.
Cavener: Not a question, just a comment. I just wanted to thank you for your testimony
and for -- for sitting through this meeting tonight to provide your verbal testimony. We
sure appreciate it.
Kovarik: Okay. Thank you very much.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Any additional testimony on this item? Okay. Council,
hearing none, if there are no further questions for the applicant or for staff, I would
entertain a motion to close the public hearings on Items 8-M and N.
Milam: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Milam.
Milam: I move that we close public hearing PP 13-034 and MDA 13-020.
Borton: Second.
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2014
Page 56 of 59
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearings on Items 8-M and
N. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Milam: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Milam.
Milam: I move that we approve PP 13-034 with all applicant, staff, and public
comments.
Borton: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 8-M. Any discussion? Okay.
Madam Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Zaremba, absent; Borton, yea; Milam, yea;
Cavener, yea.
De Weerd: Thank you. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Milam: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Milam.
Milam: I move that we approve MDA 13-020 with all applicant, staff, and public
comments.
Cavener: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 8-N. If there is no discussion
from Council, Madam Clerk, roll call, please.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Zaremba, absent; Borton, yea; Milam, yea;
Cavener, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Q. FP 13-049 Hacienda Subdivision No. 4 by Jayo Investments,
Inc. Located East Side of N. Meridian Road, Midway Between
Chinden Boulevard and E. McMillan Road Request: Final Plat
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2014
Page 57 of 59
Consisting of Fifty-Three (53) Residential Lots and Nine (9)
Common Lots on Approximately Twelve (12) Acres of Land in
an R-8 Zoning District
De Weerd: Item 8-O, the applicant has requested -- or withdrawn this application. I do
need a motion to accept the withdrawal of this application.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we continue -- or we drop applicant request on FP 13-049.
Borton: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve the withdrawal of this application.
If there is no discussion, Madam Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Zaremba, absent; Borton, yea; Milam, yea;
Cavener, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Item 9: Ordinances
A. Ordinance No. 14-1592: ZOA 13-003 UDC Text Amendment by
City of Meridian Planning Division Request: Text Amendment
to the Unified Development Code (UDC) in Regard to Fencing
Adjacent to Pathways and Open Space; Common Driveways;
Irrigation Easements; Off-Street Parking; Home Occupations;
Definitions for Vehicles; Vehicle Sales or Rental Landscaping;
Public Hearing Notice Signs; and Allowed Uses in the
Industrial Districts
De Weerd: Item 9-A is Ordinance 14-1592. Madam Clerk, will you, please, read this
ordinance by title only.
Jones: Thank you, Madam Mayor. An ordinance amending Meridian City Code as
codified at Title 11, entitled the Unified Development Code of the Meridian City Code
pertaining to fencing adjacent to pathway and open space, common driveways,
irrigation easements, off-street parking, home occupations, definitions for vehicles,
vehicle sales or rental landscaping, public hearing noticing signs, allowed uses in the
industrial districts and other miscellaneous clean-up items and providing for a waiver of
the reading rules and providing an effective date.
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2014
Page 58 of 59
De Weerd: You have heard this ordinance read by title only. Is there anyone who
would like to hear it read in its entirety? Seeing none, Council, do I have a motion?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve Ordinance No. 14-1592 with suspension of rules.
Borton: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 9-A. Madam Clerk, will you
call roll.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Zaremba, absent; Borton, yea; Milam, yea;
Cavener, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT.
B. Ordinance No. 14-1593: An Ordinance (RZ 13-011 -Crimson
Maple) For The Re-Zone Of A Parcel Of Land Situated In The
Northeast Quarter Of The Northeast Quarter Of Section 12,
Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, City Of
Meridian, Ada County Idaho; Establishing And Determining
The Land Use Zoning Classification Of R-15 (Medium-High
Density Residential) Zoning Districts In The Meridian City
Code; And Providing For A Waiver Of The Reading Rules; And
Providing An Effective Date
De Weerd: Item 9-B is Ordinance 14-1593. Madam Clerk, will you read this by title
only.
Jones: Thank you, Madam Mayor. An ordinance amending Meridian City Code as
codified at Title 11 -- just kidding. I apologize. An ordinance RZ 13-011, Crimson
Maple, for the rezone of a parcel of land situated in the northeast quarter of the
northeast quarter of Section 12, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise meridian, City
of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, establishing and determining the land use zoning
classification of R-15, Medium High Density Residential Zoning District, in the Meridian
City Code, providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County
assessor, the Ada County recorder and the Idaho State Tax Commission as required by
law and providing for a summary of the ordinance and providing for a waiver of the
reading rules and providing an effective date.
Meridian City Council
January 21, 2014
Page 59 of 59
De Weerd: I know you were just seeing if we were paying attention. And you have
heard this ordinance read by title only. Is there anyone who would like to hear it read in
its entirety? Seeing none, Council.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve Ordinance No. 14-1593 with suspension of rules.
Borton: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 9-B. Madam Clerk, will you
call roll.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Zaremba, absent; Borton, yea; Milam, yea;
Cavener, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Item 10: Future Meeting Topics
De Weerd: Item 10 is Future Meeting Topics. Do I have any items for future agendas?
Okay. Hearing none, Council, do I have a motion to adjourn?
Bird: So moved.
Borton: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. All
ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:01 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FIL OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
/ ~/ ~~
MAYOR T~ MY DE WEERD DATE APPROVED
ATTEST:
Cam} HOLMAN, CITY CL
~. r:'
,~,~ ~ -
~. 3 ~
. ~_~,s
`f
iEf~..
J vA
~Fq
Qt.