HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-04-22E MAN-^., CITY COUNCIL REGULAR
MEETING AGENDA
City Council Chambers
33 East Broadway Avenue
Meridian, Idaho
Amended Agenda
Tuesday, April 22, 2014 at 6:00 PM
1. Roll -Call Attendance
X David Zaremba X Joe Borton
X_ Charlie Rountree X Keith Bird
X Genesis Milam Luke Cavener
Mayor Tammy de Weerd
2. Pledge of Allegiance by Carson Hart and Jacob Stott with Boy Scout Troop 144
3. Community Invocation by None
4. Adoption of the Agenda Adopted
5. Consent Agenda Approved (Pg 2-3)
A. Development Agreement for Approval: RZ 13-015 Oaks North and Oaks
South by Coleman Homes, LLC Located South Side of W. McMillan Road
Between N. McDermott Road and N. Black Cat Road (Oaks South) and
North Side of W. McMillan Road Between N. McDermott Road and N. Black
Cat Road (Oaks North) Request: Rezone Approximately 33.08 Acres from
the R-8 (Medium Density Residential) and R-15 (Medium -High Density
Residential) Zoning Districts to the R-4 (Medium -Low Density
Residential)(1.77 Acres), R-8 (Medium Density Residential) (7.43 Acres), R-
15 (Medium -High Density Residential) (18.34 Acres) and L -O (Limited
Office) (5.54 Acres) Zoning Districts for Oaks South Subdivision AND
Rezone Approximately 298.33 Acres from R-4, R-8 and R-15 Zoning
Districts to the R-4 (160.06 Acres), R-8 (104.56 Acres), R-15 (33.71 Acres)
Zoning Districts for Oaks North Subdivision
B. Development Agreement for Approval: AZ 13-008 Oaks South Subdivision
by Coleman Homes, LLC Located South Side of W. McMillan Road Between
N. McDermott Road and N. Black Cat Road Request: Annexation of
Approximately 103.04 Acres from the RUT Zoning District in Ada County to
the R-4 (Medium -Low Density Residential) and R-8 (Medium Density
Residential) Zoning Districts
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda — Tuesday, April 22, 2014 Page 1 of 4
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing,
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
C. Termination and Release of Development Agreement for Instrument No.
109009629 with Coleman Homes for MDA 13-015 (Oaks North and South)
D. License Agreement with Ada County Highway District for use of Fiber Optic
Conduit under Cherry/Meridian Road Intersection
E. Agreement with Idaho Power Regarding Use of Idaho Power Transmission
or Generation System Documentation
F. CableONE Movie Night in Meridian 2014 Single -Night Sponsorship
Agreement Between the Meridian United Sports Center Academy and the
City of Meridian for a Not -to -Exceed Amount of $350.00
G. Approval of, and Authorization for the Purchasing Manager to Sign
Contract Change Order No. 3 to the Existing Agreement for Independent
Contractor Services for the "WWTP Fermentation and Odor Control"
Project to Contractors Northwest for the Not -To -Exceed Amount of
$109,993.00. This Change Order Brings the Contract Total to $2,528,256.00
H. FP 14-016 Casa Bella Subdivision by Providence Properties, LLC Located
5555 N. Locust Grove Road Request: Final Plat Approval Consisting of
Twenty -One (21) Building Lots and Four (4) Common/Other Lots on 14.69
Acres of Land in the L -O and R-8 Zoning Districts
6. Items Moved From Consent Agenda None (Pg 3)
7. Action Items
A. Public Hearing Continued from April 15, 2014: TEC 14-004 Ambercreek by
Trilogy Idaho Located Southwest Corner of W. McMillan Road and N.
Meridian Road Request: One (1) Year Time Extension on the Preliminary
Plat in Order to Obtain the City Engineer's Signature on Final Plat
Approved (Pg 3-9)
B. Continued from April 15, 2014: FP 14-012 Ambercreek No. 2 by Trilogy
Idaho Located Southwest Corner of W. McMillan Road and N. Meridian
Road Request: Final Plat Approval Consisting of Fifty -Four (54) Single
Family Residential Building Lots and Two (2) Common Lots on 10.58 Acres
of Land in an R-8 Zoning District Approved (Pg 3-9)
C. FP 14-017 Gramercy Heights Subdivision No. 1 by The Westpark Company,
Inc. Located South of E. Overland Road and West of S. Eagle Road on E.
Griffon Street Request: Final Plat Approval Consisting of Six (6) Building
Lots on 1.01 Acres of Land in the R-15 Zoning District Approved (Pg 9-10)
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda — Tuesday, April 22, 2014 Page 2 of 4
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing,
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
D. Public Hearing: VAC 14-003 Jayker No. 1 (Lots 15 & 16, Block 11) by The
Club at Spurwing LLC Located North of Chinden Boulevard and East of N.
Jayker Way Request: Vacate a Portion of the 10 -Foot Wide Public Utility,
Drainage and Irrigation (PUDI) Easement Along the Shared Lot Lines of
Lots 15 and 16 AND Lots 16 and 17, Block 11 Platted with Jayker
Subdivision No. 1 Approved (Pg 10-13)
E. Public Hearing: MDA 14-005 Northpointe Commercial by
Blackhawk/Meridian, LLC Located Northwest Corner of W. McMillan Road
and N. Linder Road Request: Amend the Recorded Development
Agreement (Instr. #103181095) to Remove the Requirement of Obtaining
Detailed Conditional Use Permit for the Commercial Lots Approved (Pg 13-
16)
F. Public Hearing: RZ 14-002 Reardon Subdivision by CS2, LLC Located
Southwest Corner of W. Cherry Lane and N. Summertree Way Request:
Rezone Approximately 2.20 Acres from the R-4 (Medium -Low Density
Residential) Zoning District to the R-8 (Medium -Density Residential) Zoning
District Approved (Pg 16-28)
G. Public Hearing: PP 14-003 Reardon Subdivision by CS2, LLC Located
Southwest Corner of W. Cherry Lane and N. Summertree Way Request:
Preliminary Plat Approval of Ten (10) Single Family Residential Lots and
Four (4) Common/Other Lots on Approximately 1.96 Acres in a Proposed R-
8 Zoning District Approved with Conditions (Pg 16-28)
H. Public Hearing: VAC 14-002 Reardon Subdivision by CS2, LLC Located
Southwest Corner of W. Cherry Lane and N. Summertree Request: Vacate
the Private Drain Field Easement on Lot 2, Block 1 and Note #6 Platted with
the Hearthstone Subdivision Approved (Pg 16-28)
Public Hearing: AZ 14-004 Amberwave Subdivision by The Land Group, Inc.
Located Southwest Corner of W. McMillan Road and N. Meridian Road
Request: Annexation of Approximately 5.56 Acres from RUT in Ada County
to the R-15 (Medium High Density Residential) Zoning District Approved
(Pg 28-34)
J. Public Hearing: PP 14-002 Amberwave Subdivision by The Land Group, Inc.
Located Southwest Corner of W. McMillan Road and N. Meridian Road
Request: Preliminary Plat Approval of Twenty -Seven (27) Single Family
Residential Lots and Three (3) Common Lots on Approximately 4.70 Acres
in the Proposed R-15 Zoning District Approved (Pg 28-34)
8. Ordinances
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda — Tuesday, April 22, 2014 Page 3 of 4
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing,
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
9
A. Ordinance No. 14-1602: An Ordinance (AZ 13-008 & RZ 13-008 — Oaks
North And South Subdivision) for
Land Located in the North ' of S
West, and Annexing Certain La
Determining the Land Use Zoning
R-4, R-8 And R-15 To R-4 (Medium
Acres); R-8 (Medium Density Re
(Medium High Density Residential
Office District) (5.54 Acres) in The
Effective Date Approved (Pg 34-35)
/2
Future Meeting Topics None (Pg 35-36)
Adjourned at 7:32 p.m.
Annexation And Rezone of Parcels of
ection 33, Township 4 North, Range 1
nds and Territory, Establishing and
Classification of Said Lands From RUT,
Low Density Residential District) (221.55
sidential District) (155.31 Acres); R-15
District) (52.05 Acres) and L -O (Limited
Meridian City Code; and Providing An
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda — Tuesday, April 22, 2014 Page 4 of 4
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing,
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
Meridian City Council April 22, 2014
A meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:00 p.m., Tuesday, April
22, 2014, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd.
Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, Keith Bird, Charlie Rountree, David
Zaremba, Genesis Milam, Joe Borton and Luke Cavener.
Others Present: Jaycee Holman, Bill Nary, Bruce Chatterton, Bill Parsons, John
Overton, Mark Niemeyer, Warren Stewart and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll -call Attendance:
Roll call.
X David Zaremba X Joe Borton
X Charlie Rountree X Keith Bird
X Genesis Milam X Luke Cavener
X Mayor Tammy de Weerd
De Weerd: Good evening. I would like to welcome you to the City Council meeting. It's
always nice to see the room filled. For the record it is Tuesday, April 22nd. It's 6:00
p.m. We will start with roll call attendance, Madam Clerk.
Item 2: Pledge of Allegiance by Carson Hart and Jacob Stott with Boy Scout
Troop 144
De Weerd: Okay. I would like to thank our youth for being here. We always like to see
young faces in our crowd as well and this next item we have two of our Boy Scouts that
will be leading us in this Pledge of Allegiance. They are from Troop 414, which is the
Amity LDS Ward. Carson Hart and Jacob Stott. If you will, please, come forward and
lead us in the pledge to our flag. If you will all rise.
(Pledge of Allegiance recited.)
De Weerd: Carson and Jacob, if I could offer you these pins and thank you for leading
us.
Item 3: Community Invocation by
De Weerd: Item No. 3 is -- we will skip, because we don't have someone assigned.
Item 4: Adoption of the Agenda
De Weerd: So, we will skip to Item 4, adoption of the agenda.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
April 22, 2014
Page 2 of 36
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: On Item 8-A, the ordinance number is 14-1602. And with that addition I
move that we approve the agenda.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve the agenda. All those in favor say
aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 5: Consent Agenda
A. Development Agreement for Approval: RZ 13-015 Oaks North
and Oaks South by Coleman Homes, LLC Located South Side
of W. McMillan Road Between N. McDermott Road and N. Black
Cat Road (Oaks South) and North Side of W. McMillan Road
Between N. McDermott Road and N. Black Cat Road (Oaks
North) Request: Rezone Approximately 33.08 Acres from the
R-8 (Medium Density Residential) and R-15 (Medium -High
Density Residential) Zoning Districts to the R-4 (Medium -Low
Density Reside ntial)(1.77 Acres), R-8 (Medium Density
Residential) (7.43 Acres), R-15 (Medium -High Density
Residential) (18.34 Acres) and L -O (Limited Office) (5.54 Acres)
Zoning Districts for Oaks South Subdivision AND Rezone
Approximately 298.33 Acres from R-4, R-8 and R-15 Zoning
Districts to the R-4 (160.06 Acres), R-8 (104.56 Acres), R-15
(33.71 Acres) Zoning Districts for Oaks North Subdivision
B. Development Agreement for Approval: AZ 13-008 Oaks South
Subdivision by Coleman Homes, LLC Located South Side of
W. McMillan Road Between N. McDermott Road and N. Black
Cat Road Request: Annexation of Approximately 103.04 Acres
from the RUT Zoning District in Ada County to the R-4
(Medium -Low Density Residential) and R-8 (Medium Density
Residential) Zoning Districts
C. Termination and Release of Development Agreement for
Instrument No. 109009629 with Coleman Homes for MDA 13-
015 (Oaks North and South)
D. License Agreement with Ada County Highway District for use
of Fiber Optic Conduit under Cherry/Meridian Road
Intersection
Meridian City Council
April 22, 2014
Page 3 of 36
E. Agreement with Idaho Power Regarding Use of Idaho Power
Transmission or Generation System Documentation
F. CableONE Movie Night in Meridian 2014 Single -Night
Sponsorship Agreement Between the Meridian United Sports
Center Academy and the City of Meridian for a Not -to -Exceed
Amount of $350.00
G. Approval of, and Authorization for the Purchasing Manager to
Sign Contract Change Order No. 3 to the Existing Agreement
for Independent Contractor Services for the "WWTP
Fermentation and Odor Control" Project to Contractors
Northwest for the Not -To -Exceed Amount of $109,993.00. This
Change Order Brings the Contract Total to $2,528,256.00
H. FP 14-016 Casa Bella Subdivision by Providence Properties,
LLC Located 5555 N. Locust Grove Road Request: Final Plat
Approval Consisting of Twenty -One (21) Building Lots and
Four (4) Common/Other Lots on 14.69 Acres of Land in the L -O
and R-8 Zoning Districts
De Weerd: Item 5 is our Consent Agenda.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we approve the Consent Agenda as published and authorize the
Clerk to attest and the Mayor to sign.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda as printed. If
there is no discussion, Madam Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener,
yea.
De Weerd: All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 6: Items Moved From Consent Agenda
De Weerd: There were not items moved from the Consent Agenda.
Meridian City Council
April 22, 2014
Page 4 of 36
Item 7: Action Items
A. Public Hearing Continued from April 15, 2014: TEC 14-004
Ambercreek by Trilogy Idaho Located Southwest Corner of W.
McMillan Road and N. Meridian Road Request: One (1) Year
Time Extension on the Preliminary Plat in Order to Obtain the
City Engineer's Signature on Final Plat
B. Continued from April 15, 2014: FP 14-012 Ambercreek No. 2 by
Trilogy Idaho Located Southwest Corner of W. McMillan Road
and N. Meridian Road Request: Final Plat Approval Consisting
of Fifty -Four (54) Single Family Residential Building Lots and
Two (2) Common Lots on 10.58 Acres of Land in an R-8 Zoning
District
De Weerd: So, we will move right into our Action Items. 7-A and B are public hearings
on TEC 14-004 for Ambercreek and FP 14-012 also of Ambercreek. I will open these
public hearings with staff comments.
Parsons: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. These items were
continued from the April 15th hearing. During that hearing if you recall there were some
neighbors that came out and testified that the property needed to be cleaned up and as
Council always acts in those requests, the applicant has actually gone out to that site,
met with our code enforcement officers. I have even gone out to the site this afternoon
to verify that the property is, indeed, been cleaned up per your direction at the last City
Council hearing. I did receive an e-mail from Lieutenant Overton as well saying that the
code enforcement went out there and verified everything was cleaned up, too. So, as
presented to you at the last hearing, we did recommend -- or ask you to approve the
extension one year. That is what the applicant was requesting from you at that time and
we stand with that and as I mentioned to you as well we are recommending a new
condition of approval with that time extension. If you recall that was in relation to this
road connection as depicted in this exhibit. We are asking that you approve this one
year time extension with the condition that the road connection be replaced with a
micropath connection and that would be constructed with the third phase of the
development. In moving forward to Item 7-13, which is the final plat, I wanted to bring
forth, as I have in your hearing outline this evening, I wanted to make mention to
Council that you actually approved phase two of Ambercreek Subdivision back in 2006.
The plat that is presented to you this evening is actually a smaller phase. So, in their
application submittal the applicant has requested that you act on the withdrawal of that
final plat application before you act on this final plat, so that we have a clear record that
you acknowledged the withdrawal of that final plat in 2006 and that will allow you to
make a recommendation or make a decision on the new final plat that's before you this
evening. And the primary difference between that and this plat is the applicant is
actually reducing the number of buildable lots from 74 buildable lots down to 54
buildable lots as presented to you this evening. All of other conditions remain in effect.
The time extension is, of course, critical to this -- keeping this project moving forward. If
Meridian City Council
April 22, 2014
Page 5 of 36
you deny that time extension, of course, the proposed final plat would also be denied as
well and no longer be valid, so the applicant could not move forward without submitting
a new final plat -- or new preliminary plat and go before the hearing -- or go before
Commission and you again here within the next couple months. So, this plat before you
this evening does comply with the approved preliminary plat. I would mention to you
that with the first phase of Ambercreek Subdivision there wasn't a lot of open space
created with that first phase. With this second phase the application is actually
proposing the most important amenity for this subdivision, which is actually this central
park or central open space here and, again, that will have a tot lot and some walking
paths as well as conditions with their preliminary plat. So, this certainly -- based on
what we heard at the hearing last meeting, there is really no place for the kids to play
out there in that subdivision, because there are no amenities constructed in there yet.
This would become a valuable amenity to serve not only phase one, but also phase two.
The applicant has received the staff report. They are in agreement with all the
conditions of the final plat and so staff is asking for Council to recommend approval of
both the time extension and final plat. I will stand for any questions you may have.
De Weerd: Thank you, Bill. Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Bill, does the DA or the notes on the plat indicate the timing of the open
space -- the playground?
Parsons: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilman Rountree, to my
knowledge there was nothing in the DA that required the timing for that open space and
that's why when I had my discussions with the applicant when they discussed the
possibility of asking to withdraw the previous final plat and come in with a new final plat I
did convey to them that the planning division would be looking for that open space with
the next phase. And so they did oblige staff and provide that.
Rountree: Very good. Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Any questions from Council at this time?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. The applicant's representative?
Brown: For the record, Kent Brown, 3161 East Springwood, Meridian, Idaho. I think we
have taken care of the concerns that were issued last time and got to meet with code
enforcement out there and the -- some of the issues were the concrete trucks and the
Meridian City Council
April 22, 2014
Page 6 of 36
construction, them washing out. We actually created a -- one of those washout basins
for them to officially have a place that they can do that. So, that shouldn't be an issue
going forward and it won't be an issue as we go forward with our next phase, because
the area that was in question would be included in -- in all of that. The current situation
-- they had three non -- three lots that haven't been built on and that's why my clients
are anxious to this year get this phase two in the ground and completed. We have
submitted the plan to ACHD for that second phase of the development. They have
been in for three or four weeks now with them. So, hopefully, we will be hearing
comments from them soon on that, so -- stand for any questions.
De Weerd: Okay. So, Kent, I don't want to sound cynical, but we saw the action that
you were able to create. How are -- is it assured that that's not going to happen again?
Brown: You mean the --
De Weerd: The clean up. You know, the hazards.
Brown: When I met with code enforcement out there, technically, we are in violation,
but for the most part the issues -- the chairs and so forth that you saw -- if I was a kid
living next to there I would have probably been the one -- the culprit that had done that.
I remember playing with the flagging stakes and they were our swords.
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Brown: The chairs were pulled from their backyards. The plywood was there. Actually,
went out and grabbed the chairs and the plywood myself today and there was paper
plates and plastic forks and that was their fort. There was probably about the size of
three basketballs that they had dug a hole in the ground and that's what they were kind
of huddling their chairs around. That was the biggest thing that was reported. There
were mounds of dirt, but technically that isn't a violation from what code enforcement
told me, unless things were sticking out of them. We have talked with our client about
that. Code enforcement told me that this particular landowner is very good at -- anytime
that there is anything that's brought to their attention they immediately take care of it, so
-- does that answer your question?
De Weerd: Yes. Thank you. Council, any questions for Kent?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: I have none.
Milam: No.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Brown: Thank you.
Meridian City Council
April 22, 2014
Page 7 of 36
De Weerd: So, Council, you kept this open to get a report back on those items. Any
further information needed?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Is there public testimony? Are we going to allow testimony from anybody?
De Weerd: We kept it open for those particular items.
Bird: I have no -- I need no --
De Weerd: Do we have a neighbor who would like to provide information on the items
we kept this open for? I guess I would ask for a nod or a shake of the head. Are things
cleaned up. The bobble head says yes.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Seeing that, I move we close the public hearings on TEC 14-004 and FP 14-012.
Milam: Second.
Rountree: Second,
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on Items 7-A and
B. All those in favor say. I guess technically 7-13 wasn't a public hearing, but that's all
right.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Okay.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve TEC 14-004 and to include all staff, applicant, and public
testimony in this one year time extension.
Milam: Second.
Meridian City Council
April 22, 2014
Page 8 of 36
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve the time extension, Item 7-A. Any
discussion from Council?
Milam: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Milam.
Milam: I do believe that last time there was some controversy over the amount of
extensions; is that correct? The number of extensions that we had.
De Weerd: There was discussion on that, yes.
Milam: So, we may want to just add in there something about this being the last one or
not give anymore extensions after this one. We had a couple councilmen that were not
in favor of too many extensions on that.
De Weerd: Would the motion maker like to --
Bird: I would not, because you never know what circumstance is going come. That's
something we can -- we can determine when it comes before us. I hate to put any rules
and regulation on something down the road.
De Weerd: I'm sure the developer's representative will make sure he clearly articulates
the appetite of this Council for further time extensions; right? Any further comments?
Okay. Madam Clerk.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, nay; Milam, yea; Cavener,
yea.
De Weerd: Five ayes and one nay.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE NAY.
De Weerd: Okay. Item 7-B.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we -- Bill -- excuse me, Madam Mayor. Make sure I say this right,
because I got to withdraw the final plat of 2006 in this motion, don't I?
Nary: Yes.
Bird: Okay. I move that we approve FP 14-012 with the concession of withdrawing FP
06-027 as a -- as an application and to include all staff, applicant, and public testimony.
Meridian City Council
April 22, 2014
Page 9 of 36
Milam: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 7-B. Any discussion from
Council?
Rountree: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Madam Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, nay; Milam, yea; Cavener,
yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: I would like to note to the neighbors thank you for giving us a heads up on
what's going on out in your neighborhood and I hope you do know who to call now if -- if
we need to send code enforcement out there. Thank you, Kent.
C. FP 14-017 Gramercy Heights Subdivision No. 1 by The
Westpark Company, Inc. Located South of E. Overland Road
and West of S. Eagle Road on E. Griffon Street Request: Final
Plat Approval Consisting of Six (6) Building Lots on 1.01 Acres
of Land in the R-15 Zoning District
De Weerd: Okay. Item 7-C is a final plat on 14-017. 1 will ask for staff comments at
this time.
Parsons: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. The next item on the
agenda is the Gramercy Heights Subdivision. This was before you a couple months
ago. This -- this plat consists of basically six residential lots. There is no open space
with this phase. On the left-hand side of the graphic here you can see the approved
preliminary plat and the proposed final plat actually consists of these six lots adjacent to
the local street. Again, these lots do conform to the approved preliminary plat and the
only reason why this is a public hearing this evening is because the applicant did not
provide the written testimony within the time frame to place it on the Consent Agenda.
But I did receive an e-mail on Monday. They are in agreement with all the conditions in
the staff report. Therefore, staff is recommending approval of the final plat and I will
stand for any questions you may have.
De Weerd: Thank you, Bill. Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Meridian City Council
April 22, 2014
Page 10 of 36
Milam: None.
Rountree: I have none.
De Weerd: Is the applicant here this evening? Okay. The applicant is in agreement
with the staff report. Council, any further information needed?
De Weerd: Okay.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: Seeing no further discussion, I would move we approve Item 7-C, FP 14-017
for Gramercy Heights.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 7-C. If there is no
discussion, Madam Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener,
yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
D. Public Hearing: VAC 14-003 Jayker No. 1 (Lots 15 & 16, Block
11) by The Club at Spurwing LLC Located North of Chinden
Boulevard and East of N. Jayker Way Request: Vacate a
Portion of the 10 -Foot Wide Public Utility, Drainage and
Irrigation (PUDI) Easement Along the Shared Lot Lines of Lots
15 and 16 AND Lots 16 and 17, Block 11 Platted with Jayker
Subdivision No. 1
De Weerd: Item 7-D is a public hearing on VAC 14-003. 1 will open the public hearing
with staff comments.
Parsons: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Next item on the agenda
this evening is Jayker's No. 1 vacation. As you can see in the vicinity map here this is
two lots that was platted with the Jayker's Subdivision in 2007. In 2012 the city had
actually approved a property boundary adjustment to change -- or reconfigure the
parcels and so in this application this evening there is now one single owner that owns
Meridian City Council
April 22, 2014
Page 11 of 36
both parcels and he is currently in the planning stages of his single family residence on
the property and he wants to be able to span -- have his structure span the lot lines
across the two buildable lots here. So, in this vacation exhibit this evening I'm showing
the easements here highlighted in blue is what is requested to be vacated this evening.
Again, it is a portion of those easements. This would be a Lot 15 on the left. Lot 16 on
the right. And to the south of it is Lot 17. So, there is the portion of the utility easement
that was created with that platting. As I mentioned to you, because there was a
property boundary adjustment, I have highlighted the original parcel lines in red here to
show you how the parcel was originally configured with the Jayker Subdivision.
Through the property boundary adjustment we actually shifted these lots to the south,
therefore, we created this utility easement that's currently floating in this parcel. So, it's
actually 20 feet into the buildable lot and that's why the applicant is here requesting
vacation of these easements. We did receive letters from all the utility providers in
support of the easement vacation. As I mentioned in the staff report, the applicant, if he
is proposing this resident to span the lot line, as I'm showing here with the cursor, he
would have to do another property boundary adjustment with the city to remove that,
consolidate the two parcels, so that he could actually build across that lot line. One
other item. The one other item that we have called out in the staff report that I want to
bring to your attention, too -- because we did facilitate a property boundary adjustment
in 2012 and we did shift those lines -- parcel lines to the south, the city did not
reestablish new utility easements along the new boundary of that parcel here and that's
what I have highlighted in green for you. So, in my staff report, because the applicant
may have to come back for a new property boundary adjustment, they can go down to
the county and record utility easements and reference that recorded document on the
record of survey showing the establishment of those new easements. So, along this
portion of the property staff is recommending a five foot utility easement along the south
boundary of this lot only and, then, along the shared boundary here we are
recommending that a new ten foot public utility easement be platted or at least
conveyed across this boundary as well, so that when this parcel to the south redevelops
they have the necessary easements in place just in case they are ever needed in the
future and these are -- these easements that staff is recommending in the staff report be
recreated actually are pretty standard under our subdivision process. So, they are
nothing new or onerous on the owner, it's just something that we like to have platted
along the lot lines to address any drainage on the property as well. So, we feel it's
important. Staff has not received any confirmation from the applicant if they are in
agreement with this new recommended condition, but I did want to at least go on the
record and state that we are recommending that change and, again, I have not heard
from the applicant whether or not they support staff's recommendation or not. So,
don't know if I see the applicant's representative in the audience either this even, so I
would stand for any questions you have at this time.
De Weerd: Bill, just a question. If we know they need to come back why can't we do it
all in one swoop?
Parsons: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we will. I mean that's -- my condition
is you coming back for the PBA they could have those easements recorded. It's not
Meridian City Council
April 22, 2014
Page 12 of 36
another application with the city to record a new easement, it would be something they
do through the county. A record of survey does not plat easements and it does not get
rid of parcel lines, so even though they are going to do a property boundary adjustment
to consolidate the property, they can't create new easements that way under state
statute and the county won't allow it, so they have to do it through a separate agreement
and they have to record that with the county and they reference that instrument number
on the record of survey. So, you can reference those items, you just can't create new
easements.
De Weerd: Okay. They don't need to have another process and -- okay.
Parsons: That is correct.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Is the applicant's representative here? Okay.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Hearing none, I move we close the public hearing on VAC 14-003.
Milam: Second.
De Weerd: I -- I'm sorry. Did anyone have testimony on this item? I asked for the
applicant, but I didn't ask for public testimony. Okay. Seeing none, I do have a motion
and a second to close the public hearing. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion
carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve VAC 14-003 with staff comments.
Milam: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 7-D with staff comments.
Any discussion from Council? Seeing none, Madam Clerk.
Meridian City Council
April 22, 2014
Page 13 of 36
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener,
yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
E. Public Hearing: MDA 14-005 Northpointe Commercial by
Blackhawk/Meridian, LLC Located Northwest Corner of W.
McMillan Road and N. Linder Road Request: Amend the
Recorded Development Agreement (Instr. #103181095) to
Remove the Requirement of Obtaining Detailed Conditional
Use Permit for the Commercial Lots
De Weerd: Item 7-E is a public hearing on MDA 14-005. 1 will open this public hearing
with staff comments.
Parsons: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Next item on the agenda
is Northpointe Commercial development agreement modification. This property sits on
the northwest corner of Linder Road and McMillan Road and was actually platted -- or
annexed in with the Kelly Creek Subdivision in 2003. At the time that the applicant
received approval from the city there was a development agreement that required all the
commercial lots within the Kelly Creek Subdivision to obtain detailed CUP approval.
The reason for that at the time was that the city did not really have a well defined design
review ordinance in place or a design manual and so that was standard practice back in
the day when then planned developments came through. That's a pretty typical
condition that Council required as part of the annexation process. So, the applicant has
run into a little snag based on that requirement in the DA. As I alluded to in the staff
report, back in 2012 the city approved a Capital -- a Cap Ed Credit Union on the site
with a drive-thru as required in the DA to go through the conditional use process. Well,
now that the bank is under construction, the developer that owns the lot to the west of
the bank site would like to have his building pad site, his landscaping, his parking,
installed with Cap Ed's site, so that he can get a building pad ready to go, expecting a
commercial in the future. Well, when he came and approached staff at the counter we
told him we couldn't allow him to move forward on site construction unless he went --
amended the DA or went through the conditional use process. He elected -- because
going -- continuing the DA was the typical process coming forward to you and that staff
knew that we had adequate design standards in the ordinance and the design manual,
we felt comfortable bringing forth a recommendation this evening that removed that
requirement for the CUP approval prior to site development and so here are the two
sections or the two items that staff is proposing this evening for modification. The first is
to omit section five and this requires, again, CUP approval to any construction on the
site and, then, section six, DA provision number four, actually requires the plan -- for
them to go through a planned unit development to establish basically the site
development or any building elevations on the site. So, again, we feel very comfortable
that we have the necessary tools in place. I'd also bring Council's attention that
Meridian City Council
April 22, 2014
Page 14 of 36
because there is already a drive-thru use on this site, if another drive-thru use was
proposed for the property and because this commercial property is within 300 feet of
residential district, the applicant or whoever develops or proposes another drive-thru,
that property would still have to go through the conditional use process as required in
our ordinance. So, we are not giving away the farm by removing this requirement, we
are just allowing them to go through it as any typical commercial development does
today to staff level if it doesn't require a conditional use, if they just go through what's
allowed in the zoning ordinance. If a drive-thru or any use that requires a conditional
use permit is required in the UDC, then, again, they would still have to go through the
public hearing and notify all the residents within 300 foot radius and, then, still go before
our Planning and Zoning Commission. So, we believe we have the necessary tools in
place and, again, we are recommending approval with these modifications presented to
you this evening.
De Weerd: Thank you, Bill. Council, any questions?
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: Thank you, Bill. I -- you probably said this, but I just want to confirm.
Because this was approved so many years ago I agree we did not have design review
at that time and we do now.. How do we know that design review applies to them if they
still have the original rights back from them and we take this provision out? I guess my
question is shouldn't we be -- instead of omitting section five, shouldn't we be saying
change section five to say you are under the current law subject to design review,
because I'm not sure that connection is -- I guess that's a question --
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba, will you make sure to speak into your mike?
Zaremba: Yes. I'm sorry.
Parsons: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, you certainly could add -- you could
certainly modify that provision to say that they go through certificate of zoning
compliance and administrative design review prior to site development.
Zaremba: Because the current laws apply.
Parsons: Correct. We can add that --
Zaremba: Which is the whole reason for eliminating the --
Parsons: Yeah.
Zaremba: I'm just worried -- let's say they sold the property tomorrow and the new
person says, oh, I'm not subject to this, because of the approval many years ago.
Meridian City Council
April 22, 2014
Page 15 of 36
Parsons: Yeah. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, that -- just by omitting this it
doesn't get them out of the requirement of going -- being subject to this zoning
ordinance.
Zaremba: They would still be required --
Parsons: Any commercial development, commercial building, requires certificate of
zoning compliance and design review.
Zaremba: And the new laws apply to --
Parsons: And the new laws apply to this piece of ground.
Zaremba: Okay. I'm comfortable with that if you are.
De Weerd: Bill, thank you for repeating almost everything he said. If you would speak
into the mike.
Zaremba: Yes.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Is the applicant's representative here? The applicant's in agreement
and has no testimony unless Council has questions.
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: No? Okay. Thank you. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone who
would like to offer testimony on this item? Okay. Thank you.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Seeing no further public testimony, I move we close the public hearing on
Item 7-E, MDA 14-005.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on Item 7-E. All
those in favor say aye. All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian City Council
April 22, 2014
Page 16 of 36
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we approve the MDA 14-005 subject to staff's comments and the
applicant's agreement.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve Item 7-E. Is there any
discussion from Council? Okay. Madam Clerk.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener,
yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
F. Public Hearing: RZ 14-002 Reardon Subdivision by CS2, LLC
Located Southwest Corner of W. Cherry Lane and N.
Summertree Way Request: Rezone Approximately 2.20 Acres
from the R-4 (Medium -Low Density Residential) Zoning District
to the R-8 (Medium -Density Residential) Zoning District
G. Public Hearing: PP 14-003 Reardon Subdivision by CS2, LLC
Located Southwest Corner of W. Cherry Lane and N.
Summertree Way Request: Preliminary Plat Approval of Ten
(10) Single Family Residential Lots and Four (4)
Common/Other Lots on Approximately 1.96 Acres in a
Proposed R-8 Zoning District
H. Public Hearing: VAC 14-002 Reardon Subdivision by CS2, LLC
Located Southwest Corner of W. Cherry Lane and N.
Summertree Request: Vacate the Private Drain Field Easement
on Lot 2, Block 1 and Note #6 Platted with the Hearthstone
Subdivision
De Weerd: Now, those were pretty much our clean-up items. These next ones are also
public hearings. We will launch right into those. 7-F, G and H are public hearings on
RZ 14-002, PP 14-003 and VAC 14-002. 1 will open these three public hearings with
staff comments.
Parsons: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Next item on the agenda
this evening is the Reardon Subdivision. It's located near the southwest corner of West
Meridian City Council
April 22, 2014
Page 17 of 36
Cherry Lane and North Summertree Way. This property was annexed and zoned in the
city in 2001 as Hearthstone Subdivision and at that time -- at the time of annexation it
came in with the R-4 zoning district. If you can see in the exhibit to the left there, the
majority of the property surrounding this property is R-4 or R-8 in the city, with a few
outlier county parcels, which are R-2 and R-1 to the west and to the south. At the time
that this was before you in 2001 the property could not be served by city services and
so a requirement as part of that approval subdivision required the existing home that
you see in area here -- aerial here to remain hooked up to the existing well and septic
system. In tonight's presentation the applicant is actually proposing to vacate the septic
-- the drain field easement that actually serves this development. He's actually
coordinated it with the homeowner of this property and has already proceeded and
connected the home to city utilities, as envisioned under that original approval in 2001.
So, although you're acting on the vacation tonight, I would want to let Council know that
the applicant has communicated to me that those connections have taken place
already. Here is the proposed preliminary plat that the applicant is proposing. Again,
this project -- this property also came before Council I should mention in 2007 and it
was known as Moose Creek. That plat has since expired. It never received the proper
signatures from the city and never recorded at Ada County and so what's happened,
because of the economy over the years this property has actually gone back to the bank
and so the applicant is here tonight to discuss a ten lot subdivision with you and a
rezone from the R-4 zoning district to the R-8 district as well and staff is recommending
a development agreement as a provision of the rezone this evening and I will get to
those DA provisions later in my presentation. All of the lots before you this even do
comply with the R-8 dimensional standards. Average lot size is over 5,000 square feet
consistent again with the R-8 zoning district. The existing home on this lot is not part of
the subdivision application, they are merely only part of the vacation request. So, as
mentioned to you it is hooked up to utilities at this time, so the current drain field
easement actually fits across Lots 2, 3 and 4 and 5 in this general vicinity is where the
drain field easement sits platted with that subdivision. If I can step back to the aerial,
you will also notice that there is an existing private lane that is developed on this site
and that's always been a sore spot with the city as far as that access remaining. So, as
you can see here, the applicant has worked with not only the planning staff, but ACHD
-- but he's coordinating with the property owner to the south in conjunction to vacate that
easement moving forward and we do have a condition -- a recommended DA provision
that requires that easement go away as well. So, I will get into that a little bit more. But
as presented to you this evening, you can see that the easement is gone and that
property to the south will be granted access to the local street that the applicant is
proposing to bring in off of North Summertree Way here and dead end in that cul-de-
sac. So, that would be Lot 1, Block 2, as you see here as identified as a nonbuildable
lot. And, again, the applicant has not reached an agreement, with that property owner
at this time, but they are in negotiations at this time and I will let him elaborate a little
more to you on that with his presentation. Because this project is below five acres in
size, the only required open space is the 25 foot wide landscape buffer along West
Cherry Lane, the arterial street. I know this landscape plan doesn't depict the current
plat. That was -- the plat that I presented to you on the previous slide was modifications
based on ACHD staff report and that's why it's changed a little bit from what the
Meridian City Council
April 22, 2014
Page 18 of 36
Planning and Zoning Commission acted on and what you're seeing this evening. So,
the plat that I'm depicting at the hearing tonight actually complied with not only staff's
conditions, but also ACHD's conditions and that's why there is a few modifications here.
The applicant's also platting a common lot along the south boundary of that existing
home site and he's also granted a cross -access easement across the common lot to
facilitate access to that property. So, if and when that further subdivides, further
develops, they will take access from the new street, rather than Cherry Lane. Here is
that exhibit. As I mentioned to you you can see where the existing drain field is and,
then, also there is a note -- a plat note on the subdivision that talks about that drain field
easement is for the benefit of Lot 1, Block 1, here. So, moving forward, again, that will
be vacated. We also have a condition in the staff report that that home be connected
prior to receiving city engineer's signature on the final plat. So, the applicant has a
separate agreement between him and the adjacent property owner of that existing
home to the timing of connection of the city utilities and that's why the home is
connected prior to City Council acting on the vacation. The applicant did submit sample
elevations for you this evening. You can see here a mix of single story, two story
homes, a mix of building materials. Pretty traditional single family homes.
Recommended provision of the DA does require compliance with the submitted home
elevations. As always because this property does abut up to an arterial we want to
make sure that we do get those design elements on the rear facades as well, so we
have an attractive streetscape along Cherry Lane and the DA has been conditioned as
such. So, moving forward, as I mentioned to you earlier in my presentation, we are
recommending a development agreement with the rezone application. The first DA
provision references the compliance with the elevations. The second restricts the
property to ten single family detached homes, so someone can't come in and change
the product type for the property unless they come back through a DA modification.
The third provision deals with the access to Cherry Lane and, again, because that
property does have an existing driveway on it or private street, we want to make sure
that that is removed from the property as well, that the landscape buffer is along the
entire frontage and that they remove that driveway approach as well. And so we were
pretty specific on how we wanted that roadway to terminate and that's why we have it in
the DA as written here. And, then, the last item has to do with future access to the
property to the south. Again, because that easement -- that private lane was actually
created outside of the platting process it doesn't require the applicant to come back to
the city for a vacation application, it requires the applicant to work with that property
owner to vacate the easement through the county. So there is no city application or city
jurisdiction over the vacation of that easement. It's a private matter. And so I want to
be clear on the record that it's not the city's purview. All we can do is restrict access by
the plat, but it's still up to the applicant and that private property owner to get rid of that
private street easement and ACHD was very clear with the applicant as well and so
moving forward if that easement is worked out before we even take in the final plat
application or at least with the submittal of the final plat we want to make sure that there
is written recorded documentation that that easement has been vacated. We won't
even accept a final plat if we don't have documentation. The second item is because
the applicant is platting a nonbuildable lot to serve as access to that property to the
south, we wanted to be very clear as who owns, maintains that property moving
Meridian City Council
April 22, 2014
Page 19 of 36
forward. So, whether the applicant deeds it to the -- the new owners or the people to
the south, we want to see a warranty deed or something showing that they are the
owners of that lot and block moving forward before -- again, before we even accept the
final plat. I mean this has always been something that the city staff has communicated
to applicants as they have come forward is we want to get rid of that private street. The
applicant is providing local street access in accordance with our ordinance and,
therefore, we think is an important provision for you to act on this evening and take
under your advisement this evening as to how you want to handle that. I would also
bring to your attention that in working with this issue through ACHD staff they have
communicated to the city that they can't even accept a private street over top of that
platted easement. So, if -- if Council approves that access to remain, that Cherry Lane
connection, that project -- that public street won't even be extended to the property to
the west for future connection, because it can't -- public right of way can't be platted
over top of a private easement and that's been a big concern for -- big hurdle for ACHD
and the applicant moving forward. So, the Planning and Zoning Commission did
recommend approval at the March 20th hearing. Testifying in favor was Bob Unger.
We had several folks on the adjacent subdivision to the east that testified in opposition
to the project. That was Margie Lane. Tammy Terpin also testified. She's actually the
new owner of the property to the south. We had Sarah Cartwright, who is the property
owner to the west, testifying that she wanted pressurized irrigation and, then, Arlene
Russell was also against the project. We also prior to the P&Z Commission hearing we
also received written testimony from Tammy Terpin or the Terpins. They are the new
owners of the property to the south and they are the owners that are to maintain that
private drive across this property. In their written testimony to P&Z they asked -- they
asked for Commission to allow the existing access to remain to Cherry Lane. Later this
evening -- or earlier this afternoon I did receive an e-mail from Tammy Terpin again and
again she's asking for Council to allow the easement or private street to remain. They
want their access to remain. So, just to be clear, they don't control the property, they
just have the right to use the driveway on the property and, again, it is a private matter,
but it's something that, again, at the public hearing it was a topic of discussion. It's
certainly an outstanding issue for the -- for you this evening to take under advisement,
because if we can't get a public street to the property to the west and we can't go over
that private lane, then, Bob has to redesign the plat in order to comply with all the
conditions and I don't know if he can have staff support of that private lane stays as
shown on the property. But I did want to point that out to you. We did -- the only
additional testimony that I did receive, as I mentioned to you, was Tammy Terpin and,
again, she is requesting that you allow her privacy -- street to remain intact. Other than
that outstanding issue staff believes we do have the adequate conditions in place to
address the development of this property moving forward. How the applicant works that
out with the Terpins and himself that's a private matter, but here is what we are
presenting this evening and we ask that you take advisement on the Cherry Lane
access this evening.
De Weerd: Thank you, Bill.
Parsons: And I would stand for any questions.
Meridian City Council
April 22, 2014
Page 20 of 36
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Council, would the applicant like to make comment? 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, Idaho. 83714.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Unger: Excuse me. I want to thank Bill for all the help, because we have redesigned
and redesigned and redesigned this project to try to comply with the requirements of
closing Jones Lane, which is a private lane, closing that off from Cherry Lane as per the
city's request and also as per ACHD's request. Let's go the -- the vacation of the drain
field easement that was located on the property. We have -- we have an agreement
with Nancy Young, who is the owner of the property with the house on it, which is the
north -- northeast corner, that we would provide them with city sewer and water, hook
the house up, do all the plumbing in exchange for the vacation of the drain field
easement. That has been completed. In fact, our agreement was that we would do it
within 30 days of the Planning and Zoning hearing and I believe we actually met that
date. So, they have been hooked up and that has been completed. With the -- it's very
convoluted with the private lane that the Terpins take access out to Cherry Lane. We
have with Mr. and Mrs. Terpin. They just recently bought the property. They actually
live in California. Last week my client and I met with them. We discussed and went
over the plans -- the plan that you're seeing this evening and at that time they seemed
very comfortable with the revised plan. If they weren't allowed to keep their access to
Cherry Lane, then, they would be okay with this plan and one of the items that we
discussed was that we would dedicate the nonbuildable lot, which is Lot 1, Block 2, that
we would deed that to them once the plat was recorded and that would become their
new access out to Aspen Creek Drive and they seemed very acceptable to that. What
we haven't been able to do is to put together an agreement to that effect and I think
that's what they are waiting for. So, we are still negotiating. I think the e-mail that Mrs.
Terpin sent to Bill this afternoon specifically stated that they would like to keep their
access, but they are still in negotiations with Mr. Swain and myself. So, the condition
that -- that Bill has put in, the approval that we have to resolve those -- that issue prior
to the final plat being submitted and accepted. We are very comfortable with that and
we feel very confident that we will be able to work everything out with the Terpins to get
rid of the private lane, the Jones Lane. We may have to change the name of our street
to East Jones Drive, so that they can keep their Jones -- Jones Street address, because
that seems to be very important to them. So -- so, we may have to change the name
and get that approved to help them with that. And I certainly understand. They -- they
have done all their legal documents. They have done their banking, etcetera, with the
Jones address. So, whatever we can do to work with them to help them with that we
Meridian City Council
April 22, 2014
Page 21 of 36
are going to do. So, one of the things that we have done -- and, Bill, if you could show
the plat. One of the items that we have changed on this -- on -- between Planning and
Zoning and before you this evening are the two lots that -- that we have fronted on
Summertree Way and I want to explain to you why we did that. Originally we had both
of those lots flipped 90 degrees and they were fronting on Aspen Creek Drive. I ran into
a problem where the corner lot -- if -- yeah. The lots being 50 feet wide, the corner lot
would require a 15 foot setback from Summertree Way and an eight foot lot minus that
15 feet, plus the five feet sideyard setback would reduce the building envelop down to
30 feet, which makes it a little bit -- a little bit difficult to get a nice structure on there
and, then, we realized that by flipping these and having those two lots front on
Summertree Way, then, the corner lot would have a 39 foot building envelope, instead
of a 30 foot building envelope, which is more -- well, be almost one foot shy of what all
the other lots would have as far as building envelop width. So, we have made a change
to that and I think there are some folks here from the subdivision to the east who are
going to speak on that this evening. I think what we have done and with the help of the
city staff with the revisions that we have made, are, you know, very good revisions. We
are not -- you know, we don't want to see the access to Cherry Lane either. We
understand the -- the issues with that connection. So, we are making every effort to get
that eliminated. As we have presented to you this evening, all of our lots are in
compliance with the city code and ACHD frontages and having said that I will stand for
any questions you might have.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Milam: I have none.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Mr. Unger, you said that the Youngs were in agreement with the vacation of
the drain field. From what I see on this plan it looks like they are going to be taking
access off of the Aspen Creek Drive and no longer off of Cherry Lane; is that correct?
Or do they take it off of Summer -- Summertree?
Unger: Madam Mayor, Council Member Rountree, they -- since they are not a part of
this subdivision, okay, they are allowed to retain their access to Cherry Lane. The -- the
20 foot access easement that we are providing is a requirement of -- in the event that
that property redevelops that it would have access to Aspen Creek. At this time it's --
we can't make their access go away, because they aren't a part of this development.
Rountree: So, you have answered my second question in that the berm would not be
extended down Cherry Lane to Summertree Way, it's just going to be up to that
property.
Meridian City Council
April 22, 2014
Page 22 of 36
Unger: Madam Mayor, Mr. Rountree, that's true. The berm would not be extended on
-- but there is -- they do have a substantial landscape berm -- or I won't -- may not call it
a berm. It is a little bit of a rise behind the sidewalk.
Rountree: Thank you.
De Weerd: Any other questions at this point?
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: Just a thought from the past that I may not be remembering correctly or
maybe. There was discussion when -- there was a time I thought -- this was way back
at Planning and Zoning many many years ago, that when the subdivision that includes
your property and the property to the east and what is now apparently the Terpins -- my
recollection is that it came in as one thing and at the time they were discussing that this
little loop on -- is it Summertree Way? Would be one way counterclockwise traffic, so
that incoming traffic would be south on Summertree. Outgoing traffic had to go around
this D -shaped loop here. Is that how it turned out or is it two way traffic on
Summertree?
Unger: Madam Mayor, Mr. Zaremba, Summertree is two way traffic --
Zaremba: Okay. Either I'm not remembering it correctly or it got changed, so --
Unger: It is an ACHD standard street. Well, it's a 40 foot wide right of way I believe is
what ACHD is stating in their -- in their staff report. So, it is a two way street and the
little D or loop that goes into the subdivision there to the east, that provides access to
their lots.
Zaremba: Great. Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Anything further? Thank you.
Unger: Thank you.
De Weerd: I did have a number of people that signed up. If when I call your name you
would like to offer testimony at that time I would invite you forward. I will state your
name and the position you stated on the sign-up sheet. Margie Lane signed up against.
Good evening. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record.
Lane: My name is Margie Lane. I live at 1538 North Wintertree Avenue. Madam
Mayor, Council Members, I'm persistent if nothing else as I spoke before Planning and
Zoning as well. I am a resident owner in one of the townhouses immediately east of the
Meridian City Council
April 22, 2014
Page 23 of 36
proposed Reardon Subdivision and I'd like to -- I'm also the homeowner association
president and I would like you to acknowledge the people standing behind me who are
also resident owners in the townhouses immediately east of the proposed Reardon
Subdivision. Mr. Unger just spoke about one of the design changes that he made that
was not requested by or required by Planning and Zoning and that design change has
created three significant issues for us and, again, that design change -- and this plat, by
the way, is only slightly different. It was past out last week by Mr. Unger. It's only
slightly different from the one that Bill showed you and the design change is -- excuse
me -- I will hold it this way. The two lots that now face Summertree Way. We all
purchased our townhomes, because we found the similar architecture and the
arrangement of our townhomes around a common area -- they border are common area
on three sides -- to be a very pleasant village square appearance. One of the issues we
have with what Mr. Unger is proposing is =- issue number one he is not aligned with a
builder and so it is possible that multiple builders could come into the Reardon
Subdivision and create a hodgepodge style of architecture that could range from skinny
houses to what was shown on the photograph. This would dramatically destroy the
appearance of our village square. It simply would not fit. And it would diminish the
visual appeal that we found attractive to purchase our homes. That's concern number
one. Concern number two. The homes that -- the size of the planned homes in
Reardon Subdivision will be large enough that families will purchase them. These will
be homes with two car garages. Families typically own three, if not four or more
vehicles if they have driving age children. It's extremely unusual that a family will park
all of those vehicles in the garage or in the driveway. In most cases you're lucky if one
car goes in the garage and if it does car two is in the driveway, car three and four are
parked in the street. Our subdivision has narrow streets. It's 29 feet from curb to curb.
Each side of our two streets is actually posted no parking by ACHD. As homeowner
association president I get complaints from our residents about the excessive character
of the street parking that we already have and I received comments about how unsightly
it is. People want to park in front of their homes. By orienting these lots to face our
village square there will be street parking on Summertree Way. We know people
already ignore the existing ordinance and it simply is not enforced by Meridian city
police. We actually had a policeman that lived in one of those townhouses and as long
as he owned the home he made patrols through the neighborhood, never once ticketing
anyone parked on the no parking side of the street or even vehicles parked directly in
front of no parking signs. That ordinance is simply not enforced and it is an absolute
fact that street parking diminishes the visual appeal of the neighborhood and anything
that diminishes the visual appeal of the neighborhood, like hodgepodge architecture or
street parking, has the potential to harm property values. The third issue we have is
that these two lots will be directly across the street from our common area. Families
living in these homes will play in our common area without contributing a single cent to
what our homeowner association has to pay for our liability insurance and the
maintenance -- maintenance of that property. Now, this plat, which is only slightly
different from the one that Bill presented, has this corner lot where these two 50 by 100
foot lots -- it's 100 by 100 on this plat. These lots could very easily be oriented from this
direction facing us to facing north internal to the subdivision and these three concerns
would, basically, be eliminated. We do have another solution to the problem as well.
Meridian City Council
April 22, 2014
Page 24 of 36
And Mr. Unger just alluded to the fact that he had setback issues making one lot 35 feet
wide. Well, that 35 foot lot -- especially when it's oriented back internal to the Reardon
Subdivision, would actually make an excellent common area that would contribute to the
visual appeal of the Reardon Subdivision. Now, I realize that the loss of a buildable lot
has a financial impact on Mr. Unger. But we believe that no developer has a right to
come into our village square and our neighborhood and expose us to the financial risks
that I just described by hodgepodge architecture, excessive street parking -- I'm
representing a group. I have more than three minutes.
De Weerd: We gave you more.
Lane: Hodgepodge architecture, street parking, and the sign in our common area about
contributing to homeowner association. Thank you for your attention.
De Weerd: Thank you, Margie. And we did give you six minutes, because you did
mention you were HOA president, so we appreciate that.
Lane: And we believe those issues are very easily addressed. We would like to see
that you require all of the Reardon Subdivision lots face internal to the subdivision.
De Weerd: Council, any questions? Okay. Thank you so much. Arlene Russell signed
up against. Okay. I will read into the record all the names signed up and if I read your
name wrong I apologize in advance. Moana Campbell. Morna Campbell. Okay.
Morna. Thank you. Signed up against. Bill Hayes signed up against. Beth Hayes
signed up against. And Kendra Anderson signed up against. Thank you. This is a
public hearing. Is there anyone else who like to provide testimony on this item? Okay.
Mr. Unger, there were several items that were articulated. If you would, please,
respond to those.
Unger: Madam Mayor and Council, Bob Unger, representing the applicant. First of all,
need to clarify. I -- I don't know what plat that she's looking at that shows those two
corner lots as being 100 by 100. 1 have no idea where -- could I get that, Madam Chair
-- or Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes. If -- if -- actually, for the record we probably should have a copy of
that. Mr. Unger, if you can give that to Madam Clerk we can make a quick copy for you.
Well, we have put it on the overhead, but we do need a copy for the record.
Unger: Madam Mayor, if I might. That is the plan that you are seeing this evening.
De Weerd: Okay. That is the same one?
Unger: She's misreading one of the dimensions. It's 109. 1 think she's just misreading
it. Okay?
De Weerd: Okay. We will put this up and --
Meridian City Council
April 22, 2014
Page 25 of 36
Unger: If you look -- if you look at the -- Lots 6 and 7 and the western dimensions on
those two lots, on Lot 7 it's 52 feet and on Lot 6 it is 57.95. That's to the -- there you go.
So, in flipping these two lots back so that they are oriented on Aspen Creek Drive, that
reduces my frontages down to 50 foot each and that's where I ran into the problem were
I have a 15 foot setback from Summertree and, then, a five yard setback, so I end up
with a 30 foot building envelope, which is what I explained earlier. By orienting them the
way I have it, Lot 6 would end up with a -- what, a 37, 38 foot wide building envelope
instead of a 30 foot building envelope. I do understand their concerns about parking
that could occur on Summertree Way, but, once again, it is a public street and parking is
allowed on one side of that street. Any structures that would be built here are going to
have a minimum of two car garages. So, we -- once again, we meet the parking
requirements where we have a two car garage, plus a 20 foot wide, 20 foot deep
driveway. So, there is capacity for four vehicles to be parked on the property itself. I
know that they have a unique situation in that their property when it was developed was
deep enough where the developer could actually put in the -- the additional loop street
there and still have sufficient depth for lots, but also by doing that he was able to create
two more building lots on that development and the common area I believe also serves
as a drainage swale. So, I'm just trying to clarify some of these points. I think, you
know, as far as additional parking. We would still have additional parking on Aspen
Creek Drive if additional parking would be needed, because there is allowed parking on
both sides of Aspen Creek. I think that it was our preference to -- original preference
was to have both of those lots frontage on Aspen Creek, but it became noticeable to us
that one of those lots would be a little bit harder to -- for someone to build on. Now,
having said that, if it boils down whether the Council is going to approve it or deny it,
then, I will flip those lots back if I have to. But I want to make sure that the Council is
aware that what we are presenting is in compliance. I mean -- and ACHD has
recommended approval with these lots oriented the way they are and I will stand for any
questions.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council? Mr. Zaremba?
Zaremba: Madam Mayor. Speaking of Lots 6 and 7, Block 2, what direction was it
oriented when it went before the Commission -- Planning and Zoning Commission? Did
they see what we are looking at or did you change it after that?
Unger: Excuse me. Madam Mayor, Mr. Zaremba, they were oriented north -south.
Zaremba: Okay.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Mr. Unger, I -- I think that -- I don't know why you would worry about going north -
south, because you got four or five 50 foot lots -- wide lots right next to them and I know
Meridian City Council
April 22, 2014
Page 26 of 36
the one lot there, which would probably be seven, you have got the corner cut out there
that's going to make it smaller, but, you know, you got 50 there and I -- I just think that it
would be better to brings those off Aspen Creek Drive than off of Summertree Way. I
don't think Summertree Way has got anything opening out onto that, whether it's
drivable as a 29 foot road. So, I think if you can get the same lots I don't see where
you're going to lose a foot or two, maybe, on the curb, but I -- I would prefer to go back
-- back to where those two lots got their entryway off of Aspen Creek Drive. That would
be my preference.
Unger: Madam Mayor, Mr. Bird, as I stated, you know, if it boils down to that, then,
certainly you can make that a condition of approval that we rotate those ways -- that
way. It's not our preference, because it does -- it does restrict our ability to build on that
one corner lot, but I'm sure something can be designed to fit
Cavener: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Where did that voice come from? Mr. Cavener.
Cavener: Mr. Unger -- and you will -- I'm somewhat new to this, so you may have to
baby step just a little bit with me. I notice when I'm looking at Lot 6 and 7 that there
doesn't appear to be a sidewalk in front of those lots. Is that accurate? Is that what I'm
seeing?
Unger: Madam Mayor and Mr. Cavener, no, there will be a sidewalk in front there. This
was a -- the revision that we made was done last week and in the ACHD report it
requires sidewalk and that sidewalk will be located -- whether it be within the right of
way or within an easement, which they proposed, either way was acceptable with them.
There will be a sidewalk there.
Cavener: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions from Council? Okay. Thank you.
Unger: Thank you.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Seeing how there isn't anymore public testimony or anything needed, I move we
close RZ 14-002, PP 14-003 and VAC 14-002.
Milam: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on Items 7-F, G
and H. All those in favor say aye. All ayes.
Meridian City Council
April 22, 2014
Page 27 of 36
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve RZ 14-002 and include staff, applicant and public testimony.
Milam: As it is?
Bird: Uh?
Milam: As it is?
Bird: The change will be in the preliminary plat.
Milam: Sorry. My bad. Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 7-F, which is the rezone.
Any discussion from Council? Madam Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener,
yea.
De Weerd: All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve PP 14-003 with the condition that Lots 6 and 7 exit and enter
off of Aspen Creek Road, so they run north and south and to include all staff, applicant,
and public testimony.
Milam: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 7-G with the change as
noted. Any discussion from Council?
Rountree: Madam Mayor, just a comment.
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Meridian City Council
April 22, 2014
Page 28 of 36
Rountree: I agree with the -- the turning of the lots as it appears that there is sufficient
building pad still on Lot 7 to build a fairly sizable home, probably consistent with the
area, and I believe that our design criteria that has been established by this plat and
approval as you see on the screen in front of you will establish the design type that will
be allowed in that area and will be screened before the building permits are issued, so I
think that takes care of my concerns.
De Weerd: Okay. Any further questions or comments? Okay. Madam Clerk.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener,
yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve VAC 14-002 and include all staff and application comments.
Milam: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve Item 7-H. Any comment
from Council? Madam Clerk.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener,
yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
I. Public Hearing: AZ 14-004 Amberwave Subdivision by The
Land Group, Inc. Located Southwest Corner of W. McMillan
Road and N. Meridian Road Request: Annexation of
Approximately 5.56 Acres from RUT in Ada County to the R-15
(Medium High Density Residential) Zoning District
J. Public Hearing: PP 14-002 Amberwave Subdivision by The
Land Group, Inc. Located Southwest Corner of W. McMillan
Road and N. Meridian Road Request: Preliminary Plat
Approval of Twenty -Seven (27) Single Family Residential Lots
and Three (3) Common Lots on Approximately 4.70 Acres in
the Proposed R-15 Zoning District
Meridian City Council
April 22, 2014
Page 29 of 36
De Weerd: Items 7-1 and J are public hearings on AZ 14-004 and PP 14-002. 1 will
open these two public hearings with staff comments.
Parsons: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Next item on the agenda
is the Amberwave Subdivision. The property is located on the southwest corner of West
McMillan Road and North Meridian Road. It's actually just to the east of the
Ambercreek Subdivision on which you acted on earlier this evening. You can see here
that the property is currently RUT in Ada County. This property was before you in 2008
when the federal government or the post office was actually trying to get this annexed in
with a postal annexation or a post office and deliveries and Council at that time did deny
that Comprehensive Plan map amendment application and annexation request. The
existing home has been removed from the property and it will not be remaining with the
subdivision this evening. The applicant is proposing to annex in 5.56 acres of land into
the city and plat 27 residential lots. The requested zoning designation with the
annexation request is R-15 and the primary reason for that is because of the
narrowness of the lot, the applicant is unable to, basically, have R-8 size lots in there
and still meet the public street standards. So, it was staff's recommendation to the
applicant that although this is medium density on the comp plan, which anticipates
densities between three and eight units to the acre and typically see an R-8 zoning
designation with that land use designation, the R-15 in this particular case actually fits
or allows them to shoehorn this subdivision in and actually mimic or basically look as an
extension to the existing Ambercreek Subdivision to the west and so the majority of
these lots they will still comply with the R-8 dimensional standards. Some of them do
that. And so because the R-15 zoning district is a little bit more relaxed in the street
frontage requirements and lot sizes, we felt it was appropriate and since this is
annexation, staff is recommending a development agreement moving forward. The
proposed plat consists of, again, 27 lots and the gross density for this subdivision is a
little bit under six acres -- six dwelling units to the acre at 5.74. Again, all of the lots do
comply with the proposed R-15 zoning district as you see this evening. Here is the
proposed landscape plan before you. Again, this project is under that five acre
threshold as required in the UDC to provide ten percent open space. What the
applicant is doing and as required by ordinance is the applicant is required to provide a
25 foot wide landscape buffer along Meridian Road and West McMillan Road due to the
irrigation canal along McMillan and an Idaho Power easement the applicant actually has
a platted common lot in excess of 65 feet due to those easements. The application is
requesting that Council waive the requirement to the the Lemp Canal this evening due
to the size of the facility and if Council has driven down that corridor you can see a lot of
that development along that way. That canal is still currently open and remains open
and so the applicant is not requesting anything different than what's occurring out there
along that roadway today. This plan has been updated since the Planning and Zoning
Commission hearing to reflect the conditions of approval and so all of the landscape
presented to you this evening does comply with all the UDC requirements moving
forward. Three of the lots will take access from a common drive that you see platted
here. North is to the west of the project, so I don't have the plat oriented correctly, but
north is to the west and so this is the north boundary here. So, here is the common
Meridian City Council
April 22, 2014
Page 30 of 36
driveway. So, here are the three lots that will take access from that and because this lot
adjacent to the south of this common drive does not -- is not taking access from the
common drive, the applicant has to provide a five foot landscape buffer in accordance
with the UDC. The applicant has provided sample elevations with the submitted plat.
This is generally consistent with the homes developed in the area. As a recommended
provision of the DA staff is recommending that future homes designed or constructed in
this subdivision comply with the submitted home elevations or at least design materials
portrayed in these exhibits. As I mentioned to you, this is an annexation and so staff is
recommending a DA. First provision requires compliance with the submitted landscape
plan and the preliminary plat. Requires compliance with the submitted elevations and
requires those mix of materials adjacent to the arterial streets and the third provision
actually ties them to the density proposed, which is 5.74 dwelling units to the acre,
which is, essentially, 27 single family home lots. Planning and Zoning Commission did
recommend approval at the March 20th, 2014 hearing. Testifying in favor was Tamara
Thompson. No one testified in opposition or commented on the staff report. At the
hearing staff did recommend to changes to the staff report. The first recommendation
or change that Commission acted on to strike bullets number two -- bullets number one
and two of condition 1.2.213 and the reason why we had Commission strike those
conditions was -- as I mentioned to you earlier in my presentation, the landscape plan
was updated to reflect those changes. So, those conditions were already complied
with, so there was no need to leave that in the staff report. And the other item had to do
with a public works condition which was 2. 1.1 and as you recall the city or Public Works
requires a looped water system with the construction of the subdivision and so the
applicant wanted some flexibility as to where that connection would occur, whether it
was Meridian Road or through the Ambercreek Subdivision. So, thank goodness
Council did approve the time extension and the final plat this evening, because the
applicant's preference is to route that water line and connect and tie into the
Ambercreek water system. So, they look forward to working with the applicant moving
forward and getting this project moving forward as well. So, as far as additional public
hearing, since the Planning and Zoning Commission staff has not received any. Again,
this is a pretty straight forward project this evening. It does comply with not only the
comp plan, but the UDC and so the only outstanding issue for you this evening to take
under consideration is the approval of the waiver of tiling the canal. This concludes my
presentation and I will stand for any questions you may have.
Rountree: Any questions for Bill?
Bird: Mr. President?
Rountree: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Bill, I'm positive that they are in there, but on their PP they don't show any
sidewalks. Where is the location of the sidewalks?
Parsons: Council President, Council Members, the sidewalks are actually shown on the
landscape plan in this rendering. You can see they are attached sidewalks.
Meridian City Council
April 22, 2014
Page 31 of 36
Bird: No. I'm talking about out on McMillan --
Parsons: On McMillan Road. Excuse me. My apologies.
Bird: And west -- or -- and Meridian Road.
Parsons: Sure. With the development of the Ambercreek Subdivision, that developer
was required to extend the sidewalk across the frontage of this property. So, it is
installed. It's a detached sidewalk and if you can look in the aerial here it's just on the
northern edge of the landscape buffer here and, then, along Meridian Road that
sidewalk is currently in as well.
Bird: Right.
Parsons: And one of conditions is that they need to -- currently the -- when the existing
home was on the property they had the pasture access and also an access to the
home. With the development of this property the applicant will have to remove those
access points and reinstall the sidewalk.
Bird: Okay.
Parsons: You have to fill in the gaps. So, there was no access allowed from Meridian
Road with this development.
Bird: And keep the weeds down so we can see there is a sidewalk.
Parsons: Yeah. Correct.
Bird: Okay.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I had that same question as well. Thank you for asking it and answering it.
One additional similar question that -- if I'm orienting myself correctly, on the caddy
corner corner there is a school as I recall. Part of the reason why the sidewalks on the
two major roads are required. So, going back to -- let's do the landscape plan again. It
would seem to me that any kids that are going to leave their homes and head for that
school are going to walk up that common drive that serves three houses and walk
across the landscape and I guess I'm asking shouldn't we just plan that and have a --
have a walkway across that -- since it's logical that that's the direction kids are going to
go and rather than have them walk across grass, there should be a walkway there, in
my opinion.
Meridian City Council
April 22, 2014
Page 32 of 36
Parsons: Madam Mayor and Members of the Council, the landscape plan and the
conditions of approval show a vinyl fencing across that area, but certainly I will defer to
the applicant as to how they want to handle that connection. But if you recall with
Ambercreek, we did require a micropath connection. Of course, it would require them to
walk out of their way. It's not a very long block to get them to that intersection, but
certainly the applicant could entertain a connection point there through the common
drive. The ordinance would allow it and support it, so I will defer that to them, but at this
time there is fencing blocking that connection point.
Zaremba: All right. Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Anything else for staff at this time?
Bird: I have nothing.
De Weerd: Okay. Would the applicant like to make comment?
Thompson: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Tamara Thompson with The Land
Group. 462 East Shore Drive in Eagle. 83616.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Thompson: We have read the staff report and agree with staff's findings. Bill does such
an excellent job of explaining these projects he hardly leaves anything left for me to talk
about. As far as the pedestrian connection, our -- I think we would prefer not to, just
because that's the front of three houses and not have a thoroughfare through there, that
they stay on the sidewalks and, then, we can have the berming and the landscaping
and the fencing that we have planned. Other than that we are consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and the UDC and we respectfully request your approval tonight.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions?
Zaremba: Madam Mayor, I would just comment that I -- if there is there going to be a
fence across there, that probably would discourage the inconvenience of what I was
thinking of. So, if it's a good solid fence that they don't climb over and break down, that
would work.
De Weerd: Well -- and I'm sure that will look like a driveway.
Zaremba: Uh-huh.
De Weerd: So, it would be very evident they were not on a sidewalk, but on someone's
driveway. Any other questions for the applicant?
Bird: I have none.
Meridian City Council
April 22, 2014
Page 33 of 36
Rountree: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Thompson: Thank you.
De Weerd: This is a public hearing
testimony to this item?
Milam: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Milam.
Is there anyone who would like to provide
Milam: Seeing as we have none, I would move that we close public hearing AZ 14-004
and PP 14-002.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearings on Item 7-1 and J.
All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Milam: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Milam.
Milam: I move that we approve AZ 14-004 with all staff and applicant comments.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 7-I. Any discussion from
Council?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Would this be the proper -- it would be the zoning that we would exempt the tiling
of the canal, wouldn't it, Mr. Nary?
Nary: Yes.
Bird: Yeah. Instead of the preliminary plat. Do you include that, the exemption of the
tiling?
Meridian City Council
April 22, 2014
Page 34 of 36
Milam: Oh. Yes.
Bird: Second agrees.
De Weerd: Any further discussion? Madam Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener,
yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Milam: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Milam.
Milam: I move that we approve PP 14-002 with all staff and applicant testimony.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 7-J. Any discussion from
Council? Okay. Madam Clerk.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener,
yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 8: Ordinances
A. Ordinance No. 14-1602: An Ordinance (AZ 13-008 & RZ 13-008
— Oaks North And South Subdivision) for Annexation And
Rezone of Parcels of Land Located in the North % of Section
33, Township 4 North, Range 1 West, and Annexing Certain
Lands and Territory, Establishing and Determining the Land
Use Zoning Classification of Said Lands From RUT, R-4, R-8
And R-15 To R-4 (Medium Low Density Residential
District) (221.55 Acres); R-8 (Medium Density Residential
District) (155.31 Acres); R-15 (Medium High Density
Residential District) (52.05 Acres) and L -O (Limited Office
District) (5.54 Acres) in The Meridian City Code; and Providing
An Effective Date
Meridian City Council
April 22, 2014
Page 35 of 36
De Weerd: Item 8-A is Ordinance 14-1602. Madam Clerk, will you, please, read this by
title only.
Holman: Thank you, Madam Mayor. City of Meridian Ordinance No. 14-1602, an
Ordinance AZ 13-008 and RZ 13-008, Oaks North and South Subdivision, for
annexation and rezone of parcels of land located in the north one half of Section 33,
Township 4 North, Range 1 West, Boise meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as described in
Attachment A and annexing certain lands and territories situated in Ada County, Idaho,
and adjacent and contiguous to the corporate limits of the City of Meridian, as requested
by the City of Meridian, establishing and determining the land use zoning classification
of said lands from RUT, R-4, R-8 and R-15, to R-4, Medium Low Density Residential
District, 221.55 acres; R-8, Medium density residential district; 155.31 acres; R-15,
Medium High Density Residential District; 52.05 acres and L -O, Limited Office District,
5.54 acres, 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.
De Weerd: You have heard this ordinary read by title only. Is there anyone who would
like to hear it read in its entirety?
Rountree: Madam Mayor? Seeing none. I move that we approve Ordinance No. 14-
1602 with suspension of rules.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve this ordinance under 8-A. Madam
Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener,
yea.
De Weerd: All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 9: Future Meeting Topics
De Weerd: Okay. Council, any items for consideration under future agendas?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Well, I would entertain a motion to adjourn.
Meridian City Council
April 22, 2014
Page 36 of 36
Rountree: So moved.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: All those in favor say aye. All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:32 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
F
.re
r
MAYOR TA Y DE WEERD DATE APPROVED
ATTEST:
3 rev "Yl ec✓ fd —.. ,o city,'f
HOLMAN, CITY CLERK /%
f1 lA E9 17
�f
�heTRi