HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-05-06EIDIA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR
Nt
MEETING AGENDA
City Council Chambers
33 East Broadway Avenue
Meridian, Idaho
Tuesday, May 06, 2014 at 6:00 PM
1. Roll -Call Attendance
X David Zaremba X Joe Borton
X Charlie Rountree X Keith Bird
X Genesis Milam O Luke Cavener
X Mayor Tammy de Weerd
2. Pledge of Allegiance
3. Community Invocation by Bob Athay with the LDS Schurch
4. Adoption of the Agenda Adopted
5. Consent Agenda Approved (Pg 2-6)
A. Approve Minutes of April 15, 2014 City Council PreCouncil Meeting
B. Approve Minutes of April 15, 2014 City Council Meeting
C. Approve Minutes of April 22, 2014 City Council Meeting
D. Police Department: Dog Licensing Agreement Between the City of Meridian
and The Pet Doctor
E. Award of Agreement for "Architectural and Engineering Design Services -
Storey Park Development" to Insight Architects for the Not -To -Exceed
amount of $89,390.00.
F. Approval of AIA C132 Standard Form Agreement for Construction
Management Services for the Storey Park Development Project for the Not -
To -Exceed amount of 5.25% of the construction cost, which is estimated to
be $1,455,000.00.
G. Approval of Task Order 10055 for "Wastewater Treatment Plant - UV
Disinfection System Expansion Phase 1 Design" to CH2M Hill Engineers,
Inc. for the Not -To -Exceed amount of $191,571.00
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda — Tuesday, May 06, 2014 Page 1 of 7
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.
H. CableONE Movie Night in Meridian 2014 Single -Night Sponsorship
Agreement Between Idaho Central Credit Union and the City of Meridian for
a Not -to -Exceed Amount of $350.00
I. FP 14-013 Da Vinci Park by CS2, LLC Located 4715 N. Locust Grove Road
Request: Final Plat Approval Consisting of Thirty -Five (35) Building Lots
(34 Residential and 1 Commercial) and Five (5) Common Lots on 7.76 Acres
of Land in the R-4, R-8 and C -N Zoning Districts
J. FP 14-018 Messina Meadows No. 5 by Tuscany Development, Inc. Located
North of E. Amity Road and West of S. Eagle Road Request: Final Plat
Approval Consisting of Fifty -Two (52) Residential Lots and Six (6) Common
Lots on 18.72 Acres of Land in the R-8 Zoning District
K. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 13-043
Summerwood Subdivision by Kent Pintus Located at 4202 and 4052 W.
Daphne Street Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Thirty (30)
Single Family Residential Building Lots and Four (4) Common/Other Lots
on Ten (10) Acres of Land in an R-4 Zoning District
L. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 14-003 Heritage
Grove by Tucker Johnson Located Northwest Corner of N. Locust Grove
Road and E. Ustick Road Request: Annexation of Approximately 1.49 Acres
from RUT in Ada County to the R-15 (Medium High Density Residential)
Zoning District
M. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 14-001 Heritage
Grove by Tucker Johnson Located Northwest Corner of N. Locust Grove
Road and E. Ustick Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of
121 Single Family Residential Lots and 19 Common Lots on Approximately
21.71 Acres in an Existing and Proposed R-15 Zoning District
N. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Approval: PUD 14-001 Heritage
Grove by Tucker Johnson Located Northwest Corner of N. Locust Grove
Road and E. Ustick Road Request: Planned Unit Development to Modify the
R-15 Dimensional Standards of the Mew and Alley Loaded Lots to Allow for
Exemplary Design
O. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Approval: MDA 14-001 Heritage
Grove by Tucker Johnson Located Northwest Corner of N. Locust Grove
Road and E. Ustick Road Request: Development Agreement Modification to
Change the Development Plan from Multi -Family to Single Family
P. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 14-002 Revolution
Ridge by C13, LLC Located at 1100 W. Riodosa Drive Request: Annexation
and Zoning of 20.39 Acres of Land with an R-4 Zoning District.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda — Tuesday, May 06, 2014 Page 2 of 7
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.
Q. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 13-040 Revolution
Ridge Subdivision by C13, LLC Located at 1100 W. Riodosa Drive Request:
Preliminary Plat Consisting of 64 Single -Family Residential Building Lots
and 5 Common Lots on 19.74 Acres of Land in a Proposed R-4 Zoning
District.
R. Final Order for Approval: 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
S. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Approval: 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
T. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Approval: 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
U. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Approval: 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
V. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Approval: 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
W. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Approval: 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
X. Final Order for Approval: FP 14-010 McLinder Subdivision by TS
Development Located 4650 N. Linder Road and 1437 W. McMillan Road
Request: Final Plat Approval Consisting of Twenty -One (21) Building Lots
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda — Tuesday, May 06, 2014 Page 3 of 7
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.
and Two (2) Common/Other Lots on 11.8 Acres of Land in an R-15 Zoning
District
Y. Final Order for Approval: FP 14-014 Paramount Subdivision No. 26 by SCS
Brighton, LLC Located Northeast Corner of N. Linder Road and W. McMillan
Road Intersection Request: Thirty -Two (32) Building Lots and Two (2)
Common/Other Lots on 8.39 Acres of Land in the R-8 Zoning District
Z. Final Order for Approval: 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
AA. Final Order for Approval: 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
BB. Final Order for Approval: 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
CC. Development Agreement for Approval: AZ 13-012 Sagewood Subdivision
by Sagewood Overland„ LLC Located on the South Side of W. Overland
Road Approximately 650 Feet West of S. Stoddard Road. Request:
Annexation of Approximately 16.34 Acres from R1 and RUT in Ada County
to the L -O (Limited Office)(5.02 acres) and R-8 (Medium -Density
Residential)(11.32 acres) Zoning Districts.
DD. Development Agreement for Approval: AZ 13-016 Southern Highlands
Subdivision by BHH Investments I, LLC Located South Side of E. Amity
Road West of S. Eagle Road and North of E. Taconic Drive Request:
Annexation and Zoning of 126.27 Acres of Land with an R-4 Zoning District
EE. Development Agreement for Approval: MDA 14-002 Da Vinci Park by CS2,
LLC Located Southwest Corner of N. Locust Grove Road and E. McMillan
Road Request: Amendment to the Development Agreement to Allow a Mix
of Single Family Attached and Detached Lots Instead of all Attached Lots
and Update the Conceptual Development Plan
FF. Development Agreement for Approval: MDA 14-003 Kennedy Commercial
Center by Derk Pardoe Located North Side of W. Overland Road and West
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda — Tuesday, May 06, 2014 Page 4 of 7
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.
of S. Stoddard Road Request: Amend the Recorded Development
Agreement (DA) (Instrument #108119853) for the Purpose of Excluding the
Property from the Recorded DA and Incorporating a New Concept Plan and
Building Elevations Consisting of Office, Retail and Multi -Family
Residential into a New DA
GG. Development Agreement for Approval: MDA 13-025 Centre Point Square by
Centre Point Square, LLC Located West of N. Eagle Road and South of E.
Ustick Road Request: Development Agreement Modification to Change the
Development Plan from Multi -Family to Single Family
HH. Resolution No. 14-986: 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
II. Resolution No. 14-987: 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 15 AND Lots 16 and 17, Block 11 Platted with Jayker
Subdivision No. 1
JJ. Resolution No. 14-988: A Resolution of the Mayor and Council of the City
of Meridian Authorizing the City Clerk to Destroy Certain Semi -Permanent
and Temporary Records of the City Clerk's Office
KK. Resolution No. 14-989: Resolution Extending The Cooperative
Construction And Reimbursement Agreement With JLJ Enterprises And
The City Of Meridian Entered Into On Or About March 10-12, 2009
6. Items Moved From Consent Agenda None (Pg 6)
7. Action Items
A. Continued from April 15, 2014: FP 14-015 Whitebark Subdivision No. 1 by
T&M Holdings Located 2135 E. Amity Road Request: Final Plat Consisting
of Twenty -Nine (29) Building Lots and Five (5) Common Lots on 10.54
Acres of Land in an R-4 Zoning Districts
Withdrawn (Pg 6-7)
B. FP 14-019 Chesterfield No. 3 by Northside Management Located South of
W. Pine Avenue Between N. Black Cat Road and N. Ten Mile Road Request:
Final Plat Approval Consisting of Forty -Eight (48) Residential Lots on 7.42
Acres of Land in the R-8 Zoning District Approved (Pg 7-8)
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda — Tuesday, May 06, 2014 Page 5 of 7
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing,
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
C. Public Hearing: TEC 14-005 Browning Plaza Subdivision by SLN
Planning/Boise Waltman, LLC Located South Side of W. Waltman Lane and
North Side of 1-84, West of S. Meridian Road Request: Two (2) Year Time
Extension on the Preliminary Plat in Order to Obtain the City Engineer's
Signature on a Final Plat Approved (Pg 8-9)
D. Public Hearing: AZ 14-001 Ten Mile Center by Treasure Valley Investments,
LLC Located South of W. Franklin Road on the East Side of S. Ten Mile
Road Request: Annexation and Zoning of 120.69 Acres of Land with the R-8
(13.23 Acres), TN -C (26.11 Acres) and C -G (81.35 Acres) Zoning Districts
Continued to June 3, 2014 (Pg 9-43)
E. Public Hearing: PP 14-004 Biltmore Subdivision by L.C. Development, Inc.
Located South of W. Victory Road and West of S. Meridian Road Request:
Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of 159 Single Family Residential
Building Lots and Twelve (12) Common/Other Lots on 56.19 Acres of Land
in an R-4 Zoning District Approved (Pg 43-59)
8. Department Reports
A. Public Works Department: Budget Amendment for FY2014 in the Amount of
$175,000.00 for Waterline Extensions Approved (Pg 59-62)
B. Approval of Award of Bid and Agreement to Paul Construction for the
"Waltman Street Waterline Extension - Construction" project for a Not -To -
Exceed amount of $74,770.00 Approved (Pg 62)
9. Ordinances
A. Ordinance No. 14-1603: An Ordinance (AZ 13-012 — Sagewood Subdivision)
For Annexation Of A Parcel Of Land Located In The NW 1/40f Section 24,
Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise, Meridian, Ada County, Idaho,
Establishing And Determining The Land Use Zoning Classification Of Said
Lands From RUT And R-1 To L -O (Limited Office District) And R-8 (Medium
Density Residential District) In The Meridian City Code; And Providing An
Effective Date Approved (Pg 62-63)
B. Ordinance No. 14-1604: An Ordinance (AZ 13-016 — Southern Highlands)
For Annexation Of A Parcel Situated In A Portion Of Section 32, Township 3
North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, More Particularly
Described As Lots 16 And 24, Block 1, A Portion Of Lot 1, Block 4, A
Portion Of Lot 1, Block 5, And A Portion Of Lot 1, Block 6 Of Blackrock
Subdivision No. 1, And A Portion Of S. Eagle Road And E. Taconic Drive
Right -Of -Ways, Determining The Land Use Zoning Classification Of Said
Lands From RUT To R-4 (Medium Low Density Residential District) In The
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda — Tuesday, May 06, 2014 Page 6 of 7
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 Code; And Providing For A Waiver Of The Reading Rules;
And Providing An Effective Date Approved (Pg 63-65)
10. Future Meeting Topics None (Pg 65)
11. Amended onto the Agenda: Executive Session Per Idaho State Code 67-2345
(1)(c)(f): (c) To Conduct Deliberations Concerning Labor Negotiations or to
Acquire an Interest in Real Property, Which is Not Owned by a Public Agency;
AND (f) To Consider and Advise Its Legal Representatives in Pending Litigation
Into Executive Session at 9:26 p.m.
Out of Executive Session at 10:38 p.m.
Adjourned at 10:38 p.m. (Pg 65-66)
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda — Tuesday, May 06, 2014 Page 7 of 7
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 May 6, 2014
A meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:00 p.m., Tuesday, May
6, 2014, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd.
Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, Keith Bird, Charlie Rountree, David
Zaremba Joe Borton, Genesis Milam and Luke Cavener.
Others Present: Bill Nary, Jaycee Holman, Bruce Chatterton, Kyle Radek, Sonya
Watters, Jamie Leslie, Perry Palmer, Steve Siddoway, and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll -call Attendance:
Roll call.
X David Zaremba X Joe Borton
X Charlie Rountree X Keith Bird
X Genesis Milam X Luke Cavener
X Mayor Tammy de Weerd
De Weerd: Good evening. I will go ahead and start tonight's meeting by first welcoming
you all to the Meridian City Council meeting and let you know we appreciate having you
here. For the record it is Tuesday, May 6th. It's 6:00 p.m. I will start with roll call
attendance, Madam Clerk.
Item 2: Pledge of Allegiance
De Weerd: Item No. 2 is the pledge to our flag. If you will all rise and join us in the
Pledge of Allegiance.
(Pledge of Allegiance recited.)
Item 3: Community Invocation by Bob Athay with the LDS Church
De Weerd: Item No. 3 is our community invocation. Tonight we will be led by Bob
Athay with the LDS church. If you will all join us in the community invocation or take this
as an opportunity for a moment of reflection. Thank you for joining us.
Athay: Our Father in Heaven, as we come before thee this evening in this City Council
meeting, we thank thee for the liberty which we enjoy, for the ability that we have to
meet together to discuss the affairs of our local government and for our society and
community. We thank thee for the men and women who serve in the military and also
the first responders. We pray for their protection that they will be protected as they
serve us. We thank thee again for the liberties which we enjoy and we pray that we will
be able to work together to preserve these liberties and freedoms for our generation and
also for future generations. We pray now, Father, that we can open this meeting with
thy blessing and we do so in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2014
Page 2 of 66
De Weerd: I would like to offer you a City of Meridian pin for leading us today.
Item 4: Adoption of the Agenda
De Weerd: Item No. 4 is adoption of the agenda.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I have some additions to the agenda that I'd like to note. Item 5 -HH, the
proposed resolution number is 14-986. 5 -II the resolution number is 14-987. And JJ
the proposed resolution number is 14-988 and 5 -KK the proposed resolution number is
14-989. 7-A the applicant has requested that item be withdrawn from the agenda. On
Items 9-A the proposed ordinance number is 14-1603. And 9-13 the proposed ordinance
number is 14-1604. And Item 11 has been requested to be amended to the agenda for
an Executive Session per Idaho State Code 67-2345, paragraph (1)(c) and (1)(f). And
with those modifications and additions, Madam Mayor, I move that we approve the
agenda.
Milam: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve the agenda as amended. All
those in favor say aye. I think that was all ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 5: Consent Agenda
A. Approve Minutes of April 15, 2014 City Council PreCouncil
Meeting
B. Approve Minutes of April 15, 2014 City Council Meeting
C. Approve Minutes of April 22, 2014 City Council Meeting
D. Police Department: Dog Licensing Agreement Between the
City of Meridian and The Pet Doctor
E. Award of Agreement for "Architectural and Engineering
Design Services - Storey Park Development" to Insight
Architects for the Not -To -Exceed amount of $89,390.00.
F. Approval of AIA C132 Standard Form Agreement for
Construction Management Services for the Storey Park
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2014
Page 3 of 66
Development Project for the Not -To -Exceed amount of 5.25%
of the construction cost, which is estimated to be
$1,455,000.00.
G. Approval of Task Order 10055 for "Wastewater Treatment Plant
- UV Disinfection System Expansion Phase 1 Design" to CH2M
Hill Engineers, Inc. for the Not -To -Exceed amount of
$191,571.00
H. CableONE Movie Night in Meridian 2014 Single -Night
Sponsorship Agreement Between Idaho Central Credit Union
and the City of Meridian for a Not -to -Exceed Amount of
$350.00
I. FP 14-013 Da Vinci Park by CS2, LLC Located 4715 N. Locust
Grove Road Request: Final Plat Approval Consisting of Thirty -
Five (35) Building Lots (34 Residential and 1 Commercial) and
Five (5) Common Lots on 7.76 Acres of Land in the R-4, R-8
and C -N Zoning Districts
J. FP 14-018 Messina Meadows No. 5 by Tuscany Development,
Inc. Located North of E. Amity Road and West of S. Eagle Road
Request: Final Plat Approval Consisting of Fifty -Two (52)
Residential Lots and Six (6) Common Lots on 18.72 Acres of
Land in the R-8 Zoning District
K. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 13-043
Summerwood Subdivision by Kent Pintus Located at 4202 and
4052 W. Daphne Street Request: Preliminary Plat Approval
Consisting of Thirty (30) Single Family Residential Building
Lots and Four (4) Common/Other Lots on Ten (10) Acres of
Land in an R-4 Zoning District
L. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 14-003
Heritage Grove by Tucker Johnson Located Northwest Corner
of N. Locust Grove Road and E. Ustick Road Request:
Annexation of Approximately 1.49 Acres from RUT in Ada
County to the R-15 (Medium High Density Residential) Zoning
District
M. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 14-001
Heritage Grove by Tucker Johnson Located Northwest Corner
of N. Locust Grove Road and E. Ustick Road Request:
Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of 121 Single Family
Residential Lots and 19 Common Lots on Approximately 21.71
Acres in an Existing and Proposed R-15 Zoning District
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2014
Page 4 of 66
N. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Approval: PUD 14-
001 Heritage Grove by Tucker Johnson Located Northwest
Corner of N. Locust Grove Road and E. Ustick Road Request:
Planned Unit Development to Modify the R-15 Dimensional
Standards of the Mew and Alley Loaded Lots to Allow for
Exemplary Design
O. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Approval: MDA 14-
001 Heritage Grove by Tucker Johnson Located Northwest
Corner of N. Locust Grove Road and E. Ustick Road Request:
Development Agreement Modification to Change the
Development Plan from Multi -Family to Single Family
P. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 14-002
Revolution Ridge by C13, LLC Located at 1100 W. Riodosa
Drive Request: Annexation and Zoning of 20.39 Acres of Land
with an R-4 Zoning District. and Two (2) Common/Other Lots
on 11.8 Acres of Land in an R-15 Zoning District
Y. Final Order for Approval: FP 14-014 Paramount Subdivision
No. 26 by SCS Brighton, LLC Located Northeast Corner of N.
Linder Road and W. McMillan Road Intersection Request:
Thirty -Two (32) Building Lots and Two (2) Common/Other Lots
on 8.39 Acres of Land in the R-8 Zoning District
Z. Final Order for Approval: 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
AA. Final Order for Approval: 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
BB. Final Order for Approval: 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
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2014
Page 5 of 66
CC. Development Agreement for Approval: AZ 13-012 Sagewood
Subdivision by Sagewood Overland„ LLC Located on the
South Side of W. Overland Road Approximately 650 Feet West
of S. Stoddard Road. Request: Annexation of Approximately
16.34 Acres from R1 and RUT in Ada County to the L -O
(Limited Office)(5.02 acres) and R-8 (Medium -Density
Residential)(11.32 acres) Zoning Districts.
DD. Development Agreement for Approval: AZ 13-016 Southern
Highlands Subdivision by BHH Investments I, LLC Located
South Side of E. Amity Road West of S. Eagle Road and North
of E. Taconic Drive Request: Annexation and Zoning of 126.27
Acres of Land with an R-4 Zoning District
EE. Development Agreement for Approval: MDA 14-002 Da Vinci
Park by CS2, LLC Located Southwest Corner of N. Locust
Grove Road and E. McMillan Road Request: Amendment to the
Development Agreement to Allow a Mix of Single Family
Attached and Detached Lots Instead of all Attached Lots and
Update the Conceptual Development Plan
FF. Development Agreement for Approval: MDA 14-003 Kennedy
Commercial Center by Derk Pardoe Located North Side of W.
Overland Road and West of S. Stoddard Road Request: Amend
the Recorded Development Agreement (DA) (Instrument
#108119853) for the Purpose of Excluding the Property from
the Recorded DA and Incorporating a New Concept Plan and
Building Elevations Consisting of Office, Retail and Multi -
Family Residential into a New DA
GG. Development Agreement for Approval: MDA 13-025 Centre
Point Square by Centre Point Square, LLC Located West of N.
Eagle Road and South of E. Ustick Road Request:
Development Agreement Modification to Change the
Development Plan from Multi -Family to Single Family
HH. Resolution No. 14-986: 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
II. Resolution No. 14-987: 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
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2014
Page 6 of 66
Irrigation (PUDI) Easement Along the Shared Lot Lines of Lots
15 and 15 AND Lots 16 and 17, Block 11 Platted with Jayker
Subdivision No. 1
JJ. Resolution No. 14-988: A Resolution of the Mayor and Council
of the City of Meridian Authorizing the City Clerk to Destroy
Certain Semi -Permanent and Temporary Records of the City
Clerk's Office
KK. Resolution No. 14-989: Resolution Extending The Cooperative
Construction And Reimbursement Agreement With JLJ
Enterprises And The City Of Meridian Entered Into On Or
About March 10-12, 2009
Bird: Item 5 is our Consent Agenda.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we approve the Consent Agenda, Item 5, with all the previously
approved additions.
Milam: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda. Madam
Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener,
absent.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 6: Items Moved From Consent Agenda
De Weerd: There were no items moved from the Consent Agenda.
Item 7: Action Items
A. Continued from April 15, 2014: FP 14-015 Whitebark
Subdivision No. 1 by T&M Holdings Located 2135 E. Amity
Road Request: Final Plat Consisting of Twenty -Nine (29)
Building Lots and Five (5) Common Lots on 10.54 Acres of
Land in an R-4 Zoning Districts
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2014
Page 7 of 66
De Weerd: So we will move into Action Items. Item 7-A the applicant has requested to
withdraw this application. I will entertain a motion at this time.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we remove Item 7-A from the agenda.
Bird: Second.
Milam: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to remove Item 7-A from the agenda and
accept the applicant's request for withdrawal. Madam Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener,
absent.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
B. FP 14-019 Chesterfield No. 3 by Northside Management
Located South of W. Pine Avenue Between N. Black Cat Road
and N. Ten Mile Road Request: Final Plat Approval Consisting
of Forty -Eight (48) Residential Lots on 7.42 Acres of Land in
the R-8 Zoning District
De Weerd: Item 7-13, Council, is final plat 14-019. The applicant has agreed with the
staff report. We got that in after this was printed. Staff, anything further on that?
Watters: Nothing further, Madam Mayor.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: I have none.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Seeing how nobody has no questions, I move that we approved FP 14-019.
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2014
Page 8 of 66
Milam: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 7-B. if there is no
discussion, Madam Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener,
absent.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
C. Public Hearing: TEC 14-005 Browning Plaza Subdivision by
SLN Planning/Boise Waltman, LLC Located South Side of W.
Waltman Lane and North Side of 1-84, West of S. Meridian Road
Request: Two (2) Year Time Extension on the Preliminary Plat
in Order to Obtain the City Engineer's Signature on a Final Plat
De Weerd: Item 7-C is a public hearing on TEC 14-005. 1 will open this public hearing
with staff comments.
Watters: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. The next application
before you is a request for a time extension on the preliminary plat for Browning Plaza
Subdivision. This site consist of 38.21 acres of land. It's currently zoned C -G and is
located on the south side of West Waltman Lane, north of 1-84, approximately a quarter
mile west of South Meridian Road. The applicant requests approval of a two year time
extension on the preliminary plat for the Browning Plaza Subdivision in order to obtain
the city engineer's signature on the final plat. This is the third extension requested by
the applicant. The preliminary plat consists of 40 building lots and two common area
lots on 38.21 acres of land. Shawn Nickel submitted written testimony on this
application in agreement with the staff report. Staff is recommending approval.
However, as with all extensions, the Council may require the preliminary plat to comply
with current provisions of the UDC. Therefore, staff is recommending approval with the
condition the applicant revise the development plans to comply with the 2013 addition of
the Supplemental Specifications and Drawings to the Idaho Standards for Public Works
Construction. That's all staff has, if the Council has any questions.
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Rountree: I have none.
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Applicant have any comments? Can't hear me? I'm sorry. 1 will talk
louder. Most people say I talk loud enough. Okay. Is the applicant here this evening?
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2014
Page 9 of 66
Do you have anything you would like to add? This is a public hearing. Is there anyone
who would like to provide testimony on this item? Council, do you have any questions
for staff or applicant regarding this time extension request?
Rountree: I have none.
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: If there is nothing further, I would entertain a motion to close the public
hearing.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we close the public hearing on TEC 14-005.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on Item 7-C. All
those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve TEC 14-005 and to include all staff comments and conditions.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 7-C. Any discussion from
Council? Madam Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener,
absent.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
D. Public Hearing: AZ 14-001 Ten Mile Center by Treasure Valley
Investments, LLC Located South of W. Franklin Road on the
East Side of S. Ten Mile Road Request: Annexation and Zoning
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2014
Page 10 of 66
of 120.69 Acres of Land with the R-8 (13.23 Acres), TN -C (26.11
Acres) and C -G (81.35 Acres) Zoning Districts
De Weerd: Item 7-D is a public hearing on AZ 14-001. 1 will open this public hearing
and ask for staff comments at this time.
Watters: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. The next application
before you is a request for annexation and zoning. This site consists of 120.69 acres of
land, currently zoned RUT in Ada County, and is located on the east side of South Ten
Mile Road midway between 1-84 and West Franklin Road. The application proposes to
annex and zone the site as follows: 81.35 acres of land located in the lifestyle center,
consisting of 63 acres. High density residential, which is consisting of 15 acres and
medium high density residential, which is approximately 1.5 acres and they are
proposing to annex that with a C -G zoning district. And, then, 14 and a half acres
located in the high density residential and medium high density residential designated
areas to TN -C. And 11.5 acres located in the medium density residential designated
area to TN -R and 13.23 acres located in the medium density residential designated
area to R-8. You can see on this map here the colored one is the future land use map
with the designations I just spoke of and, then, down below is the proposed zoning. It
shows how it coincides with the future land use map. A conceptual development plan
was submitted that depicts a future street layout for the site consistent with the
transportation plan for this area. However, no building pads, parking, or future uses are
shown on the plan. Residential uses up to eight dwelling units per acre, excuse me, are
proposed to develop in the R-8 district. A minimum of 95 residential units are proposed
in the TN -R district in addition to other uses as allowed in the zone. And a minimum of
300 residential uses are proposed to develop in the C -G and/or the TN -C zoned areas
combined. The C -G area is this color right here, if you can make it out on that. TN -C,
TN -R, and R-8. Conceptual building elevations were not submitted with the annexation
request. Future development of this site, including structures, should be consistent with
the provisions of the UDC, the Meridian design manual, and the design elements
contained in the Ten Mile plan. Further details of those design elements are included in
the proposed development agreement provisions listed in Exhibit A-6 of the staff report.
A multi -use pathway is required across the site connecting Peregrine Elementary to Ten
Mile and Franklin Roads in accord with the master pathways plan as shown. The
Commission heard this request for annexation and zoning and is recommending
approval to the City Council. Summary of the Commission hearing. Eric Davis and
Becky McKay testified in favor of the application. In opposition Jeanette Ockerman was
speaking for a group. Dennis -- apologies if I don't pronounce your name right --
Garrison, Don Downum, Cindy Atwood, Ron Hohnstein, Jennifer Johnson, Margaret
Moser, Christine Lambing, Steve Osborn, John Mabitt, Doug Thompson and Angie
McNulty all testified in opposition. Sarah Weekes commented. Written testimony was
received from Jim Wolf, Jerry and Kay Sowards, Jeanette Ockerman. A petition signed
by adjacent residents in opposition to the high level of residential density and access to
Waltman Lane. Craig Downum, John Downum, John Osborn, Maggie Weekes,
Margaret Moser and Dave Dansereau. Key issues of discussion by the Commission
were the traffic impacts on the adjacent rural residential neighborhood and roads at the
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2014
Page 11 of 66
southeast corner of the site. Concern regarding the potential for 300 dwelling units to
develop in a TN -C district versus spread out over the TN -C and C -G districts. They
were concerned about the wording in regard to those issues of DA provision 4.1.6 --
Exhibit A-6. The impact of additional residential dwellings in this area on the school
system and the importance of creating a transition and compatible uses at an
appropriate scale adjacent to existing residential properties. Two commission changes
to the staff report. They voted to modify conditions 4.1.14 and 4.1.6 as requested by
the applicant as shown in Exhibit A-6. There are no outstanding issues for Council.
Written testimony received since the Commission hearing was received from Gary and
Kay Fords and Jeanette Ockerman with a petition. Staff will stand for any questions
Mayor and Council may have.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions for staff at this time?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: Not right now.
De Weerd: Okay. As we enter into the public hearing part of it, the applicant will give
their presentation. They have ten minutes. And, then, we will open it up for public
testimony. Three minutes each. If you speak on behalf of a group -- usually it's an HOA
or others defer their time to you, that will be six minutes. So, we will go ahead and ask
if the applicant would like to come forward.
Davis: Madam Mayor.
De Weerd: Good evening. If you will, please, state your name and address for the
record.
Davis: I'm Eric Davis. Retail West Properties. 199 North Capital Boulevard, Suite 300,
Boise.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Davis: Madam Mayor. Council. I stood here maybe in the old building about 12 years
ago and -- with Mike Ballantyne and we presented an offer for five million dollars to get
this Ten Mile interchange kicked off and it proved out to be successful and took off and
did a project in Tucson and come back helping Treasure Valley Investments with this
project. But during that period of time I was able to meet a lot of the neighbors, a lot of
the property stakeholders right around the project who understood the diverse nature of
all their interests, farmers and ranchers and investors and -- and as the Ten Mile
interchange got approved I participated in some of the planning with HGR on the
specific plan and through what Meridian has done to organize and direct its efforts and
guide the development, because with all of the diverse interests a plan is needed and
we have -- you know, we find value in it. It conveys an expectation in professional
terms that is way above and beyond what we can do ourselves. We need the backbone
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2014
Page 12 of 66
of the jurisdiction. It emphasizes density, multiple uses, sustainability, quality of design,
and we can actually take this plan and give it to a tenant, a retailer, or whoever might
come our way and say here is what we expect -- you know, you have to do at least this
much and however you configure yourself, you know, pay attention. So, we are ready
to go out and find what comes our way. This zoning and annexation will allow us to do
that. It's a unique opportunity. In fact, if you think about it, with the three owners that
are there today with Treasure Valley Investments, Brighton, and Cal -Non, there is
probably 250, 300 -- over 300 acres and only three owners and this will be the -- this
transition will be the -- will be the 250 zone -- or acres rather of commercial zoning. And
don't know if it's a fact, but I think it's probably the largest contiguous commercially
zoned piece of property between Seattle and Salt Lake City on a freeway with a market
like ours. So, it's significant what we are about to do and we don't have any debt on the
property. We don't have to go out and sell a pad to McDonald's to make an interest
payment to the bank. We are able to be patient, work -- make our plan, work our plan
and we are not asking for the plat or a plan approval, because we, quite frankly, don't
have that lead tenant, the bell cow tenant, the major corporate, whoever it might be, but
we have high hopes and high expectations. So, I'd like to just introduce our team. In
fact, tonight we have Mirazim Shakoori with Treasure Valley Investments, who is in from
out of town, and he's owned the land for 12 to 15 years. Deb Nelson with Givens
Pursley and, then, Becky McKay with Engineering Solutions will follow up and finish the
rest of this presentation. Thank you.
McKay: Becky McKay with Engineering Solutions. Business address 1029 North
Rosario, Meridian.
De Weerd: Thank you.
McKay: I didn't think you guys would move through the agenda that fast. I had Boise
City Council tonight also and so I had to get Sheri ready for -- so, it took me a little bit.
Thanks for your patience. I have been working on this particular project with Eric Davis
and with Mirazim and Deb Nelson. Initially they came to me and they -- they indicated
that the Brighton project to the south and the Brighton project to the north were
proceeding forward and their parcel was right in between this and they hadn't taken any
time to look at how these roadways were going to work, how it was going to impact
them. ITD was asking for collector easements that would benefit this whole section and
that they couldn't stand by and do nothing, they had to, obviously, look at some long
range plans, so that as part of development of this section as indicated in the Ten Mile
specific area plan that this transportation system would be established and as you well
know with what transpired to the west of Ten Mile, all the properties unique to this area
are contingent of development of these collectors. So, Mirazim wanted to have -- he
had CHSQA, he had us look at it, meet with the staff and we had a long kind of
evolutionary process in figuring out, okay, based on that Ten Mile specific area plan,
based on what's happening around us, what is a good fit on this particular piece of
property and what can we do so that he has the ability to dedicate these right of ways if
asked, when required by adjoining properties to -- to build these, but yet not
compromise the future development of this property. So, we worked with the staff to
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2014
Page 13 of 66
come up with kind of a composite based on the designation. We had, obviously, the
lifestyle center that was in the original land use designation was on this property. Well,
the complexity that was kind of thrown -- or the curve ball that was thrown to Mirazim
was when Brighton came through with their particular project, Ten Mile Creek to the
south of us, they asked the Council to evaluate that land use map that's attached to the
Ten Mile specific area plan and remove the lifestyle center, which overlapped onto
Brighton significantly. The Council went ahead and they approved commercial
designation on that land use map. So, what it left on this particular property was a half
of a lifestyle center. So, working with the staff they understood the difficulty and what
we were struggling with and we found the compromise and so the staff said, well, let's --
let's have C -G, we will transition into TN -C or transition to TN -R and, then, R-8 and we
believe that these zoning designations and these annexations fit the Ten Mile area
specific plan and comply and make sense based on the changes that have taken place
since 2007. So, that's exactly what we did. We -- we worked -- we had neighborhood
meetings with the adjoining properties and one of the other complexities of this parcel is
the fact that we have an estate county subdivision on our southern boundary. So,
obviously, their concern was traffic, transitioning and how this particular development
would affect them. We explained the Ten Mile plan and, you know, for the single family
dwelling out in that particular area, they weren't real versed in what had transpired, but
they did admit this makes sense and we see that, you know, the City of Meridian and
ITD have spent 32 million dollars on that Ten Mile interchange and so, obviously,
commercial development will take place. Now, as far as how that takes place, you
know, they, obviously, want an input. I -- after the neighborhood meeting they gave me
all of their comments on the transportation. There is an existing elementary school
within their neighborhood that -- that accesses out to Linder Road and they talked about
the fact that their street of Waltman bears all that burden of traffic. So, I typed up all of
their transportation concerns. I sent that over to ACHD and said, you know, these --
these are some of the concerns of the adjoining neighborhood. ACHD came back and
indicated, you know, as far as the traffic on Linder, it's light, the fact that it dead ends
into the freeway. As far as Waltman and capacity, obviously, the peak hours are when
the school -- school kids and their parents and doing drop offs and when they are doing
pick up. I did go out, I did drive around the neighborhood during -- when the kids got
out of school, so I could -- I could see exactly what kind of volume was taking place,
what kind of stacking were we seeing out their along Waltman and Linder and it -- it did
not appear to be heavy to me, you know, you had ten, 12 cars backing up all along
Waltman --
De Weerd: Please, I'd ask you to be respectful.
McKay: So, ACHD, when we bring in a specific design, has indicated they are going to
ask for inner connectivity. They believe that the internal collector roadways that we will
construct will benefit and provide secondary access to this area, whereas Linder just
comes in and dead ends. So, they believe it would be of benefit and will alleviate some
of the traffic issues.
De Weerd: Becky, you need to wrap up.
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2014
Page 14 of 66
McKay: Does Council have any questions?
De Weerd: Council, any questions at this point?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
McKay: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. I do have a list and when I call your name I will indicate what you
signed up, in favor or against, and if you would like to provide testimony at that time I
would invite you forward. Jeanette Ockerman signed up against. Good evening. If you
will, please, state your name and address for the record.
Ockerman: I'm Jeanette Ockerman. 2070 West Waltman, Meridian, Idaho.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Ockerman: I have a presentation from myself and my neighbors and I would
respectfully ask for the ten minutes given to the applicant and the ten minutes we had at
the zoning meeting, so that I can give you the presentation.
De Weerd: Can I ask who are you speaking on behalf of so the -- and if they defer their
time to you. Okay.
Ockerman: Okay. So, we are here to speak in opposition to the current zoning and
these are our reasons why. We feel that the TN -C and TN -R zones have been moved
from the land designated for their use on the future land use map to a medium density
residential area, causing the loss of 17.2 acres of medium density residential to the
TN -R and TN -C zones, which will negatively impact our existing neighborhoods, roads
and schools due to the loss of that medium density area. We are also concerned about
the lack of a conceptual plan, insufficient transitional zoning details to the adjacent
neighborhood and the lack of specific locations for those 300 residential units in the
TN -C and C -G areas. This is your Ten Mile interchange map. On that original plan
there was almost equal distribution between the commercial and residential areas, 63.3
acres were commercial and 55.8 were residential. Twenty-five percent of the area was
stable medium density neighborhood anchoring that east side adjacent to the existing
neighborhoods. So, all of that area in yellow is medium density east of that second
collector road. The proposed zoning asks for 95.69 acres or almost 80 percent of the
land go to a commercial use with this C -G and the TN -C zones, with a small 13.23
acres of medium density residential or only ten percent of the area. In your proposed --
in your future land use map the TN -C definition is the same as a lifestyle center and we
feel it belongs out where the lifestyle area was. The TN -R is more compatible with the
high density and medium high density areas. Putting the TN -C and TN -R zones where
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2014
Page 15 of 66
they belong on the map would allow the medium density to stay at 30.4 acres and retain
compatibility and reduce the impact on our adjacent neighborhoods and roads. So, if
you will just look briefly at the map, the yellow is the medium density in the Ten Mile
interchange map and, then, when you look at the applicant's map everything to the right
of that second new road is TN -C, TN -R and R-8. You can see the difference from a
medium density to those three other zones and that's concerning to us. A traditional
neighborhood center is to serve the focal point of a neighborhood, so why is this TN -C
being put back in a residential area when there was over 60 acres of land for that
purpose on your Ten Mile interchange map? Single family homes are not permitted in a
TN -C, but they are going to be next -- the TN -C is going to be next to an R-1. So, how
is that zoning going to transition? And this is a picture of a TN -C from your website.
That's concerning to us that that's going to be next to our rural neighborhood. Then
there is the 300 residential units that are being spread across the TN -C and C -G zone.
They don't have a definitive location or a conceptual plan so that we can see that the
majority don't end up in a TN -C right next to us. Residential is not a permitted use in the
C -G zone. Those 300 residential units would be the equivalent of 15 acres of high
density residential at 20 units per acre. Again, this picture is a TN -C off your website.
This is not what we want next to our properties. We feel that this is more appropriate
closer to Ten Mile. Then there is the TN -R, which averages 12 units per acre, with a
maximum of 15. A TN -R is twice the density of an R-8 or medium density residential.
We feel like it's not compatible next to an R-1 neighborhood and, again, that those
transitions have not been addressed. You see the TN -R off your website again,
compared to our neighborhood at the bottom. In your Ten Mile specific area plan -- and
I quote from page 3.4: The land use framework promotes more intense use around
major corridors and transit and lower density development closer to existing
neighborhoods. Citywide objectives are to concentrate the commercial and higher
density residential developments in areas with the highest transit -- highest transit
capacity and conserve the scale and character of existing single family neighborhoods.
That's what we are asking you to do. On your plan it says medium density residential
areas are characterized by relatively low densities and a predominance of single family
homes. Large apartment buildings and apartment complexes are not compatible.
These areas should be protected from encroachments of higher density and higher
intensity uses. The TN -R and TN -C zones are encroaching on that 30.4 acres of
medium density residential on your map. If you look at the zoning all around that
school, all that area in yellow is an R-4. Keeping that 30.4 acres of medium density
just west of the school would maintain the integrity of those R-4 and R-1 neighborhoods.
It would create another stable and secure neighborhood next to our school. It would
help create that sense of community that Meridian wants. It would provide a transition
to adjacent Primrose Subdivision and reduce the traffic on Waltman and Lilac roads and
it would be consistent with your plan. The road dividing the TN -R and the TN -C flows
directly into Waltman and Lilac lanes. The commercial and higher density residential
will directly access our subdivision. It has the potential for two to three times the level of
road usage due to the change from 30 acres of medium density to that higher density
TN -C and TN -R. That's a concern. The TN -C and TN -R zones were intended to be in
other areas of your map. The traffic created by their use would, then, be handled by the
main roads. There is a high density residential and commercial area just west of that
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2014
Page 16 of 66
second main arterial road and that would encourage the traffic to flow north and west
and away from our area instead of into it. Right now 1,089 is the average daily traffic on
Waltman Road -- actually, that was in 2011, three years ago. They say capacity is
2,000 cars per day. Peregrine Elementary does create traffic problems before and after
school and we believe that will be worse if you add those higher densities at the end of
the road. Current enrollment at the school is 600. Capacity is 700. Half of the students
are in the walking zone. Of the 300 students who could walk most are driven by their
parents, according to the principal. Two hundred students could be added to the school
due to the zoning and the increase -- increasing our traffic problems. For whatever
reason the kids who walk are driven to school and we believe that will continue and it's
going to only get exacerbated. Putting the TN -C and TN -R at the end of Waltman will
increase our traffic. Not only from the new development and the zoning, but the existing
neighborhood on the east. That TN -C zone is going to attract those neighborhoods east
of Linder to use Waltman as an access road to that commercial district with the
restaurants, the retail, and the entertainment they are going to want to cut through our
neighborhood to get to that, as well as to get to the interchange. So, our critical issues,
to repeat, that the medium density was reduced from 30.4 acres to 13. A loss of 17. It
went from 25 percent of the land to just over ten. The lifestyle and commercial areas
now account for 95.69 acres or almost 80 percent of the land, where before they were
just over half. The loss of that stable neighborhood, 30.4 acres were single family
homes that promote home ownership. The lack of compatibility with the existing
neighborhoods and the inconsistency with your land use map in relation to the TN -C
and TN -R, their zones and their location and the excessive traffic on Waltman and Lilac
causing a negative impact on the Primrose Subdivision and increasing safety concerns
due to those zones. The insufficient transitional zoning details, especially in regard to
those 300 units and the fact that there is no conceptual site plan to let us know what
they are going to do or how things will transition. So, we are recommending three
things before you approve this plan. First, you require those 30 acres be designated
medium density, to maintain that land use on your plan, to maintain consistency with the
neighborhoods, protect against encroachment and reduce traffic and safety problems
due to road access. Second, there will be more specifics in transitional zoning with the
R-8 and R-4 bordering our land, limited to single family homes and requiring a privacy
buffer between the existing homes and the new development, including fencing and
green space. And, finally, address access to Waltman and Lilac by moving the TN -C
and TN -R zone to their designated areas on your future land use map due to the
average effect that traffic will have on the zones in our rural neighborhood and for safety
reasons, including student safety. And I just want to point out that Brighton on the north
is 45 acres, they were able to get commercial, TN -C and a high density residential. So,
why can this applicant not have a better transition before they hit at 30 acres of medium
density? We believe it can be done. So, in conclusion we as residents are not opposed
to development and growth in the Ten Mile area. We are opposed to the current level of
zoning adjacent to our neighborhood. We feel there is room to compromise to meet the
needs of the neighbors and the developers alike and we are asking you to, please,
reject the current zoning application in favor of a plan that more closely aligns with the
location of the land designations on your future land use map. And that's all I have. Are
there any questions?
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2014
Page 17 of 66
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions?
Rountree: No. I have none.
Ockerman: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Dennis Ockerman signed up against. I figured you probably
did. It was an assumption. Olin Anderson signed up against. Thank you. Carol
Anderson signed up against. Darlene Vineyard signed up against. Okay. Thank you.
Tonya -- thank you. Thank you. She also signed up against. Sharon and Gary Osborn.
Okay. Good evening. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record.
Osborn: Sharon Osborn. 2030 West Waltman, Meridian, Idaho.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Osborn: My husband and I feel that a more appropriate transition between the now
existing Whitestone and the more rural Primrose Subdivision should be made in
connecting this new neighborhood to the existing neighborhoods as outlined on the
city's Comprehensive Plan from 2007. That plan seems to be much more appropriate
for our neighborhood and an appropriate transition. A TN -C and TN -R zoning, which
are for commercial and medium high density residential, at the end of Lilac and
Waltman Street are totally incompatible for our now rural neighborhood. We aren't
opposed to the development of the Ten Mile area, but we don't want to be impacted by
high density residential. We would like to see single family homes in that area. Thank
you.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I have a question.
De Weerd: Sharon.
Osborn: Yes.
De Weerd: We have a question. Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Could you point out -- and maybe you can help -- the two subdivisions you
mentioned on -- in this map that's showing --
Osborn: Well, let's see. That's -- that is the Primrose and Whitestone is off from Linder.
Rountree: Okay. All right. Thank you.
Osborn: Okay.
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2014
Page 18 of 66
De Weerd: Doug Thompson signed up against. Okay. If you will, please, state your
name and address for the record.
Thompson: Doug Thompson. 1846 West Greenhead.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Thompson: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I want to say, first of all, I
appreciate all the work that everybody has done on this. This is -- I came over
yesterday and talked to some folks in the planning department and was given their
brochure. I don't know what else to call it. A stack of papers it was -- I appreciate all
the effort that's gone into this. I was involved to some degree on the initial planning for
this years ago when months and months and months and months went into making this
master plan and I would ask the Council to consider this change as a violation of the
integrity that the people of Meridian placed in you people when we approved that
original plan the way it was laid out as was drawn up by the gal who spoke here a few
minutes ago. I think that it's important in this master plan that we stick to it. It laid out a
plan that the people of Meridian liked. There was a lot of work went into that and I don't
really feel that there is any need to change that and deviate from that master plan and
I'm not involved in community politics, so you will have to forgive me. I hope whoever
represents this area really takes a hard look at this, because it's important that we -- that
we stick to the original plan. It was approved and everybody felt good about it. That's
all I have got.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Thompson: Thanks.
De Weerd: Joel -- I can't read your printing, but I know it's Joel. Signed up against.
Thank you. Michael Anderson signed up against. Thank you. Yvette Anderson also
signed up against. Dawn Downum signed up against. Craig Downum signed up
against. Okay. Good evening. If you will, please, state your name and address for the
record.
Downum: My name is Craig Downum. 1715 Waltman.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Downum: I agree with everything that Jeanette said. The density is -- it's obvious on
the map. It puts the density way down towards the end, which is going to affect
Waltman regardless of what ACHD or anybody -- no one knows how much it's going to
affect Waltman. I just feel that -- we had an incident with a fire truck trying to get to the
school recently. It was a false alarm, but they couldn't get down the street. There were
too many cars. Cars couldn't get out of the way to allow that to happen. So, that's a
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2014
Page 19 of 66
concern, a legitimate concern. So, I just think it needs to follow the original master plan
and spread a little more than it is. That's all I have.
De Weerd: Thank you, Craig. Jennifer Johnson signed up against. Hi. If you will,
please, state your name and address for the record.
Johnson: Jennifer Johnson. 2035 Waltman Street.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Johnson: Good evening, Madam Mayor and Council. I'm opposed to the applicant's
current plan for development, as it does not -- it gives exposure to the residents of
Primrose Subdivision in terms of impact. We have simply no idea how these changes
will -- will -- if approved will affect us. We don't know what traffic patterns will do to the
future of our properties. We have been told that a few things will be evaluated after
development is done, at which time they may or may not have to -- have to widen the
road. They may or may not have to move wells if they are too close to where the road
needs to change. We don't know how increased traffic, pedestrian and vehicle, will
affect the safety of our children and our livestock. In the interest of fairness and
compromise I don't think homeowners in the Primrose Subdivision should have to
prepare for a potential like this. If proposed the developer will have to pay impact fees
to be used for future changes to this subdivision, especially if the current plan is not
changed to compliment our subdivision. I have a general idea of what the potential
impacts of cost per resident. If the road has to be widened we will lose enough feet of
our easement to potentially have to move wells. This means fencing, irrigation ditches,
and landscaping as well. Most homes are affected are front facing properties with the
well in the front. There are six corner houses with more exposure than the rest. The six
homes would have a higher impact of changes and based on the current prices a cost
impact would approximately be 35,000 dollars per home. The other homes would be
approximately 25,000 dollars per home, with a total of 54 homes in the immediate
impact area would equal 1,410,000 dollars in fees for the developer. This information
got from the impact fee programs on your website and I'd like to quote: The Idaho Code
defines an impact fee as a payment of money imposed as a condition of development
approval to pay for proportionate share of the cost of the system improvements used to
serve the development. The impact fee repeats the legislature -- excuse me --
legislative findings and an equitable program for planning is financing public facilities
that serves new growth and development as necessary in order to promote and
accommodate orderly growth and development to protect the public health, safety and
general welfare of citizens of the state of Idaho. Are there any questions?
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Rountree: No questions.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Richard Telliho. Okay. Signed up against. Good
evening. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record.
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2014
Page 20 of 66
Telliho: Richard Telliho. 1885 Waltman Street.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Telliho: Madam Mayor, Council Members, first of all, I think it's going to be kind of a
hard act to follow with Jeanette. She kind of covers everything.
De Weerd: I would assume that's why everyone decided she was an appropriate
spokes person.
Telliho: She is good. Secondly, I would kind of like to just rebut a little bit about what
the young lady said about the traffic at the school. I live directly across the street from
that school and, yeah, it's almost impossible to get out of your yard or your driveway
when school is coming in or letting out, but there is traffic in and out of that school all
day long and in the evening those parking lots fill up again with soccer practice and little
league practice or, you know, pee wee baseball and football and stuff like that. So, it's
-- it's not just during the day, it's all day. So, with that I would like to read this and, then,
submit it if I may.
De Weerd: Thank you
Telliho: First and foremost I want to express my opposition to this project. I object to
both the zoning that is being planned and the connections to the project through the
Primrose Subdivision. It almost appears that the City of Meridian is in competition with
Boise. Boise was the main hub in the Treasure Valley. It has a large downtown metro
area. Meridian has a smaller downtown, but is growing through urban sprawl. Most
people that live in Meridian did so because it was less urban and had a sense of
community. When I moved here 18 years ago it also had a better education system
than Boise. The residents that live in the Primrose Subdivision moved there for the rural
lifestyle. This plan will completely alter the lifestyle of the Primrose Subdivision. We will
have a monstrous commercial and urban area right at our doorsteps. I have found over
the years that these different plans for growth seem to foster a lack of critical thinking
about the consequences and the impact it will have on the community. The planning
also does not seem to hear or accept inputs from the people of the community. The
applicant Treasure Valley Investments, LLC, stated at the P&Z meeting on March 20th
that this project has the potential of being the largest commercial hub between Salt
Lake City, Utah, and Portland, Oregon. I don't know if that was supposed to be a selling
point, but it sure didn't make any pluses for me. That's the last thing we want in our
backyards, especially being that we are a rural community. Here are a couple of
examples of where I thought there was some lack in planning. We have got the Eagle
and Fairview Avenue that's statistically been considered the most dangerous
intersection in the valley. The traffic congestion was terrible along the whole corridor.
The new plan to fix that was to build the Village at that intersection and create more
traffic. With poorly timed traffic signals the congestion is worse. Closer to home was
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2014
Page 21 of 66
the building of the Peregrine Elementary School. The traffic impact was totally
miscalculated.
De Weerd: Sir, your time is up. If you could, if you can give that to Madam Clerk and
she will make copies for Council. Unless Sharon would like to read the rest of it.
Sharon also signed up against. Shandra -- I'm sorry. I think both of you raised your
hand when you deferred to Jeannette, but we will make sure -- pardon? Okay. I'm
sorry, we can't have a conversation, but we will read it, so -- Steven Devenport signed
up against. Good evening. If you will, please, state your name and address for the
record.
Davenport: Good evening, City Council Members. My name is Steven Davenport.
want to thank you for this opportunity. I have lived at 915 Lilac Street for 36 years. A lot
of them most -- currently living in the Primrose Subdivision and on Lilac Street. Lilac
Street runs north and south and presently is under consideration as an access route to
the Ten Mile interchange. I have witnessed much development and/or changes over
the years. I remember when most of the land around the Primrose Subdivision was
farmland and is now slowly being redeveloped. Land east of Linder Road was the first
to be developed. Residents in a new area wanted to go open upper Waltman Road, so
they could access Meridian Road and the freeway. Residents living in upper Waltman
objected to the plan, fearing excessive traffic would impact them negatively and border
on encroachment. They petitioned the city not to honor this request. The city
responded in a positive fashion and upper Waltman remains a dead end and closed to
the East Linder residents. Needless to say, those residents on upper Waltman were
pleased with the city's decision, one of whom is a close friend of mine. Now it's my
understanding a similar situation is occurring with the development of the Ten Mile
Center. If the plan goes through it will allow residents of -- east of Linder access to the
Primrose Subdivision to reach the Ten Mile interchange. In my opinion redirecting
traffic through lower Waltman, Verbena and Lilac will create an excess. This is an
encroachment and impacts negatively. Are the 60 plus residents of the Primrose
Subdivision any less deserving than the ten residents in upper Waltman.
Redirecting traffic to Verbena and through Lilac will naturally create excessive traffic
and in my opinion pose a problem for bicyclists, as well as neighbors who enjoy taking
long walks through these -- these streets. Except for Peregrine Elementary there are no
sidewalks. I am not opposed those development, but I am opposed to the zoning
changes, namely, TN -C and TN -R. It makes more sense not to redirect traffic to the
subdivision, but to continue utilizing Linder and Franklin Roads as an access to the
interchange. Linder and Franklin Roads are not impacted negatively and I would
encourage the Council to follow the city's future land use plan and keep the 30.4 acres
on medium densities a residential area to reduce traffic. In conclusion I hope the City
Council Members will listen carefully to those who are presenting this evening. Please
don't let this meeting become an exercise in futility. Thank you.
De Weerd: And, I'm sorry, I can't read the first name for Mrs. Davenport, but also
against. Thank you. Cindy Atwood. Good evening.
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2014
Page 22 of 66
Atwood: Good evening. I'm Cindy Atwood. I live at 2290 Verbena Drive and I, too,
would like to thank everybody for all their work and effort. I just -- I pretty much want to
reiterate -- as they said, Jeanette pretty much covered it. I just would like to reiterate
that the traffic on Waltman is extreme and -- and our -- I just hope that you will really
listen to this and at least take some time -- the fact that Peregrine was put on this street
-- and I'm sure you all know that -- rather than -- you know, the city did some bartering
and et cetera to put it there, instead of on the main street, for the safety of the children.
I think that's huge and I think that's something that really should be looked at. And
thank you for your time.
De Weerd: Thank you. Dennis and Yolanda -- and I can't read the last name.
Garrison. Signed up against. Maggie Weekes signed up against. Thank you. Steve
Weekes. Good evening.
Weekes: Mayor and Councilmen. Thank you guys so much for taking the opportunity
to listen to us. We are here for --
De Weerd: Can you, please, first state your name and address.
Weekes: Oh. Sorry.
De Weerd: That's fine.
Weekes: Which one works best? Dave Weekes. 1010 Lilac Street.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Weekes: Appreciate all the work that you guys do for us, even though a lot of us aren't
in your area and stuff, the impact area that we are in, we do live here, we do love
Meridian for a reason. All I'm here tonight to do is thank you guys and, please, take a
minute and look at the situation that we have. The mapping that so much money and
time went into to begin with to try to get that whole area into the Meridian concept, we
are happy with that. We are not against the development and stuff. What we are
against is how we are changing horses in the middle of the stream for a special interest
group that wants to do something a little bit different out of the ordinary. I'm not saying
that sometimes that isn't good. Sometimes it needs to be looked at. But we have the
Whitestone area, we have the Primrose area that are single family homes and we would
really like to have the opportunity to have that transition like as on the map to begin with
considered very very seriously. And, again, thank you guys so much for what you do for
us, even though I'm not even in the city, but you guys are doing a fabulous job, but,
please, take a minute and look at it very seriously and have a compromise for us, you
know. We are happy to have the development. We are happy to have the people come
in and help us out. But we want you to take a look at the consequences of the schools,
roads, over and over and over again. That's what you have heard all night long. I want
you to take a look at it -- what we can do as a compromise to make it workout for
everybody. And thank you so much for your time tonight.
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2014
Page 23 of 66
De Weerd: Thank you. 011ie Land signed up against. Okay. Peggy Moser signed up
three times against.
Moser: Hello, everybody.
De Weerd: Hello. If you will, please, state --
Moser: My name is Margaret Moser and I have lived at 875 Lilac Street in the Primrose
Subdivision 30 plus years and I like it there on my little acre. I know there will always be
growth around us here and that I -- and that I can live with. However, there are a few
things that could happen that will make things change a bit for the worse around here.
These are the things I hope to address in my letter. I read this letter to the zoning, so
now you get to hear it. Waltman is an almost half acre long road. And I use road,
because if you have been on it you would call it that also. And Lilac is a short little
street and these two roads are approximately 24 feet wide. I measured them. Part of
Waltman has a sidewalk on the north side of it, but only by the school. We all in this
subdivision have used it to since the subdivision was built in the early'70s. The addition
of the grade school on Waltman has increased the vehicle traffic considerably to the
point that in the morning and afternoons when the children start and finish a school day,
the parents who come to pick their children up cause a bit of traffic congestion. But,
unfortunately, that only lasts about a half hour. I didn't know that it went on into
evening, because I don't live right across from the school. That one person that said
that has a point there. Anyway, what I am somewhat protesting is extending Lilac
Street north into the new development with the building of even more homes on the
north side of Waltman I am sure there will be even more increased vehicle traffic when
the parents deliver and pick up their children. Traffic from that area would have no
reason to enter our subdivision, but, rather, go down Linder Street and Waltman Road
up to the school as they do now to pick up their children. If a pedestrian walk channel
were to be built from the new residential area directly into the school yard on the west
side, the children in that area would be phase one, two and from school and would not
even have to walk on Waltman at all. Also, the parents could drop them off in the
subdivision, instead of our subdivision. Also on the east end of these new subdivision
areas the traffic would not be compounded with more vehicle traffic through, the
subdivisions on the east side of Linder headed to Ten Mile and Franklin Road. If you do
consider my suggestions in this letter, perhaps a good solid privacy wall between the
new construction and Waltman would be not only a good sound barrier, but also allow
those of us in the Primrose Subdivision to maintain some of our 40 plus years of
privacy. Thank you for listening to me. I have a question to ask you. How many of you
have been down Waltman and Lilac? Would you raise your hands? And how many of
you have been there at 8:15 in the morning and 2:30 in the afternoon?
De Weerd: I have walked during that time for national Walk to School Day.
Bird: Yeah.
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2014
Page 24 of 66
Moser: You know how horrible it can get and the traffic is a mess there. Thank you for
listening to me.
De Weerd: Cindy Downum signed up against. Kaye Fors signed up against. Thank
you. Gary Fors signed up against. Okay. Edmond Kennis signed up against. Thank
you. Sylvia signed up against as well. Christine Lambing signed up against. Thank
you.
Lambing: My name is Christine Lambing. I live at 860 Lilac Street.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Lambing: Madam Chairman -- or Madam Mayor.
De Weerd: That's all right.
Lambing: Council Members. Again, I live at 860 Lilac Street in the Primrose
Subdivision on the corner of Waltman and Lilac, exactly on that corner where they plan
on putting a thoroughfare through to go north into the proposed subdivision. This
neighborhood is comprised of acre lots with single family dwellings, outbuildings,
livestock, horses, farm animals, and irrigation. Room for children and grandchildren to
safely play. We have wells that provide outstanding water. An acre of land -- oh. We
bought this property because of the rural aspects and qualities, as did our neighbors.
An acre of land with a home is not cheap and for us a lifetime investment. This brings
me -- brings me to the point I wish to address. Not everyone wants all of the Meridian
area to grow at the rate it is and has been of late. We are a rural area in Ada County
that is being encroached upon by the city. We all know that growth is inevitable and it
has been made very clear to us that this development is going to happen regardless.
We are, however, vehemently opposed to the way this is happening and to the
multitude of serious negative impacts that is going to have on our way of life, including,
but by no means limited to, the loss of well water, an increase of crime, which we clearly
have very little of. Traffic and road issues. Overcrowding of Peregrine Elementary
School and the loss of some of our property so someone else can make money. I am
also concerned by the complete lack of regard as to the -- the neighborhood -- complete
lack of regard we as a neighborhood have been shown to date. So, going through the
motions, if you will. The proposed zoning adjacent to the some -- excuse me --
Primrose Subdivision is, in our opinion, unacceptable. You want to make a really -- a
residency plan that is too high in density with our existing low density neighborhood.
We have yet to be presented with a clear intent as to the actual number of dwellings
proposed, but have been given ambiguous responses instead, all indicating an
altogether too high density plan. We have heard the planning phased repeatedly, yet
we fail to see correlation on the planning map. On your website I found the following.
Compatibility. The appearance of different land uses, development context, or building
types existing together in harmony without conflict with respect to site architecture and
landscape design. My response: There is no harmony in proposed TN -R and TN -C
adjacent to the Primrose Subdivision. This is from your little brochure that you have for
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2014
Page 25 of 66
people that want to apply. Getting what you want from a handout. Number two. Please
keep in mind that you may not be able to do exactly what you have been -- exactly what
you have intended. We know this can be frustrating, but we will get to as close to
possible with -- working within city codes and policies. If you help us to understand your
needs we can be pretty creative with brainstorming and workable solutions. Response.
We feel there is no consideration being given to the residents of the Primrose
Subdivision and our neighbors. The list goes on. The guidelines go on. But where is
the compliance? We are requesting the property and the review for development
adjacent to the Primrose Subdivision be designated R-1 to better keep in line with our
long-standing and existing neighborhood. We are opposed to the current proposal of
TN -C and TN -R for said property. Any questions?
De Weerd: Thank you.
Lambing: Thank you.
De Weerd: Chris Lambing. Also signed up against.
C.Lambing: I have a letter I would like to submit.
De Weerd: Okay. If you would like to submit it to our city clerk. Those are the people
that signed up. Is there anyone else who would like to provide testimony on this
application? Okay. I will ask, then, the applicant to address the concerns that have
been raised.
McKay: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Becky McKay.
Engineering Solutions. Sonya, can you go back to the street -- there you go. Thank
you. Anytime the city grows out toward these rural subdivisions that were created in
Ada County with individual septics and wells on either R-1 or RUT lots, we always have
issues with transition. Their definition of what is high density, the definition of the
Council, the code, the development community of what constitutes high density are
different. Now, in this particular project we understand that we have these estate
residential lots and that -- that was taken into consideration. I do not believe that we
were just going through the motions. I sent e-mails. I distributed information. I sent
information to ACHD. I met Russ Johnson, their ditch guy, out at the site one afternoon,
he wanted me to be out there when school was getting out, so I could see the traffic for
myself and to talk about their drainage and irrigation issues. I also got the farmer that is
farming this property for Mirazim to attend that meeting. So, we want to be good
neighbors. We have no objections to the Council including in that development
agreement transitional densities next to the existing estate residential. In talking with --
with Jeannette Ockerman on the phone, I -- I had passed on that ACHD is absolutely
one hundred percent convinced that the traffic issues that exist in this area with the
school on Waltman and with Linder Road being the sole access, will be alleviated when
these collectors and these signals are built. There will be two collectors going north out
to Franklin Road. One will come through Brighton and another one will come through
the property to the north. Those will be signalized intersections. We are going to have
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2014
Page 26 of 66
a signalized intersection at Ten Mile Road. We will be building east -west commercial
collectors. We have to transition. We are not asking for a change. We are not here
before you asking for a land use map change. We are here asking for what is included
in that Ten Mile specific area plan. When I look at the original map the Brighton
property has three designations, high density employment, lifestyle center, and medium
density residential -- or medium high density residential. Excuse me. This is what we
have now. Brighton did not transition, they -- in fact, they include no residential in their
80 acre parcel. So, the staff looked at us to provide that residential and we did not
object. We agreed. We will provide some residential. They said the Ten Mile specific
area plan asks for diversity. It wants -- they want townhouses. They want single family
dwellings. They want apartments. We are supposed to create housing that will benefit
that Ten Mile area and provide for those future employees, if we happen to get a
corporate campus, we have a retail center, we have restaurants, that there are multiple
options for residential. R-1 is not one of them. The staff was pushing us to have R-15
and I said I don't think that's -- that's appropriate. I think R-8 would be a better fit and,
then, we transition with TN -R, TN -C and, then, to the C -G. We are embracing
transition. We are supportive of the Ten Mile plan. All we want to do is come in and get
annexed, get this zoned, and get our roadways established and the roadways are
compliant with the transportation plan of the Ten Mile specific area. Comments were
made about -- comments were made about the lack of planning. The Ten Mile specific
area, as you guys know, is the most planned area in the City of Meridian, because you
guys looked at all of the issues. Transportation. Land use. Balancing act as far as
access. Improving this area. This is the foundation of this plan and the sooner we get
our street network established and interconnect with Brighton, the more likely that this
development will take place. So, from a planning perspective I would put the open
space that we need and will be required for the single family, the multi -family, down next
to Waltman and Lilac and it provides a great place for either a neighborhood park or a
private park. That's -- when we go into site design that is exactly what we are going to
do, because we have got to come back and look at this Council and say, hey, we are
transitioning, we have taken everything into consideration. This is a good plan and it fits
perfectly. Do you have any questions?
De Weerd: Council, do you have questions?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Becky, you talked about transitioning and, obviously, that's one of the many
issues that the folks have with this and just spoke to one approach with open space.
don't -- I don't know that without that being in a development agreement that that's
something we can just take for granted. We don't know who ultimately is going to end
up developing this property, but some way or another that needs to be enforced if that's,
in fact, what we want to do. So, from my perspective I would need some kind of a
concept of what that is and something that we can refer to in a development agreement
to fix that.
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2014
Page 27 of 66
McKay: Councilman --
Rountree: And any other things that you suggest that might be ways that you have
addressed some of these issues that are not necessarily evidence on paper that we
have at this point in time. Because in my mind any of those items need to be in the
development agreement if we move forward with this at all, because, like I said, we
don't know who ultimately is going to develop this property. So, is that something that
you or your client can agree to?
McKay: Councilman Rountree, Madam Mayor, we have talked a lot about that and my
clients have indicated that they are comfortable with some language in the development
agreement that says, you know, appropriate transitioning -- transitioning adjacent to the
existing estate residential, whether it be open space, whether it be, you know, lots --
single family lots, that that be a part of the plan and I think that staff has always
expressed their desire to focus our future design on that issue, that, you know, we are
going to be looking for some type of transitioning. We are going to be looking at how
you interconnect the street, making sure that cut -through traffic -- it isn't more
convenient to go from Waltman to Linder than it is to go out to the single intersection at
Ten Mile and go out to the interchange or out to Franklin. We are willing to agree to
some type of language. We are comfortable with that, sir.
Rountree: Thank you. Madam Mayor. This is a far reaching question, but I'm asking
you to reach into your crystal ball and give me some kind of a point in the future when
something might happen on this parcel, assuming it moves forward.
McKay: I think that's probably a question for Eric Davis.
Rountree: For Eric? Okay.
McKay: Because he's got his thumb on the pulse of the market a lot better than I do --
Rountree: Okay.
McKay: -- and he has been working on large developments for a long time.
Davis: Eric Davis. 199 North Capital, Suite 300. 1 think at this point I don't think we will
see anything built until 2017, just based on the way retail -- if it's retail it would take at
least that long to figure out -- do the market studies. We were having, you know, side
bar conversations just today on it with brokers. I think it will be at least that long.
Rountree: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2014
Page 28 of 66
Zaremba: Madam Mayor. If I may, a question for staff. A couple of questions have
been raised and the point was made about all the effort that went into the Ten Mile area
plan and I know it was a lot of effort and we had a lot of participation from people. I was
involved in that as well and appreciate everybody's participation, but the plan does
identify I will say that eastern area of the project that we are looking for as medium
density residential and if you would -- we have two different overlapping definitions here,
but what I'm asking the staff is if you would describe the relationship between medium
density residential and the actual zoning of R-4 or TN -R and what are the relationships
and compare the densities that those different terms mean if you would, please.
Watters: Yes, Councilman Zaremba, Councilmen. Council Woman. The medium
density residential land use designation is three to eight dwelling units per acre. That
can be an R-4 or up to an R-8 zoning district. The TN -R district that's requested by the
applicant is a minimum of eight and a maximum of 15 dwelling units per acre. There is
a mix of land uses, as you can see varying residential densities designated on the
eastern half of this property. The applicant is asking for TN -C, TN -R and R-8 districts
that all allow residential uses and a mix of residential uses. There is a development
agreement provision that staff is recommending that the property be developed in a
manner that provides a transition in uses to adjacent residential properties. We will be
looking at that when a preliminary plat comes in in the future to make sure that there is
a transition in uses. There is also a development agreement provision number 4.1.6
that requires only residential uses to be developed in an R-8 district and a minimum of
95 residential units to be developed within the TN -R zone and a minimum of 300
residential units to be developed within the C -G and/or TN -C zones combined. So,
although it doesn't have a straight out residential zoning district that the applicant is
requesting, through the development agreement that staff and the Commission have
recommended that, you know, guarantee for a certain amount of residential units.
Hopefully that helps, Councilman Zaremba.
Zaremba: I think so. Thank you.
De Weerd: Any other --
Zaremba: Well, I would add a comment certainly we have some more discussion to
have here, but I agree with Councilman Rountree that it -- if in some fashion this does
move forward, the wording that would be in the development agreement I think needs to
be a little bit more specific. The -- just mentioning that there will be transition that could
end up being satisfied by a 15 foot landscape buffer, I believe, according to our rules.
So, I would like to see at least the suggestion that the wording be added that -- that that
transition will include open space or single family dwellings along these borders if, in
fact, we do move forward. I'm just -- the issue, I'm sure as everybody knows, we -- we
hear from developers that we know and they often describe wonderful projects that we
are all thrilled with and, then, somehow before it happens they sell the property to
somebody else who did not make those promises and if we don't have it in writing and
very specific things get lost, so -- and this is no reflection on present company, but
think we need to make sure that we are well covered in case this gets sold to somebody
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2014
Page 29 of 66
else and particularly those transitions are -- are iron glad, let me put it that way, and not
just vague. And I will add there was a time when we wouldn't accept an annexation
without having a plat and I realize we have kind of gotten away from that, but
sometimes I think that's a little scary, too, not to have more definition before we approve
things.
De Weerd: Councilman Zaremba, that was my point that I was going to bring up. This
-- this is indicative of an annexation request without a preliminary plat, which brings a lot
of things into question, as well as the opportunity to capture much of that in the
development agreement that is really applicable to annexation and it is where we get --
not the stick, maybe it's the carrot, but it is the assurance that certain things are going to
be adhered to and it does give us that regulatory and the mechanism to make sure that
those things do happen. I think the preliminary plat actually does give residents that will
be living with whatever impact certain assurances as well and so this is -- this is the
conundrum I think that Council is finding itself in, in particular with the lack of detail in
what is being proposed. Any further questions from Council?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Question for Becky. Becky, the question was -- or the idea was brought forth
of providing access to the school from -- from the development -- from the residential
portion of the development. I don't know if that's been explored, if that's something that
-- obviously that's a detail you may not have gotten down to, but is that something that
the school would be open to?
McKay: As far as --
Rountree: The eastern boundary.
McKay: Oh, on the eastern boundary. I did walk back there. Their playground. I think
they have a portable back there. I -- I don't -- we'd have to really look at it and see from
a -- from their internal vehicular circulation if that would be possible to create -- you
mean like a back way out to this neighborhood? We would have to, obviously, work
with the school district to see if that's a viable option, but I know I saw a portable back
there. They had like a fire gate.
Rountree: Could be at least the minimum of a pedestrian --
McKay: It could be -- oh, it definitely pedestrian. Absolutely.
Bird: Yeah. That's what they were talking about.
McKay: Pedestrian at a minimum. Yes, sir. But, you know, the school likes to control
how vehicles come into their site and how pedestrian interconnections are made. We
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2014
Page 30 of 66
would, obviously, have to get approval from Meridian School District and -- but I have --
we would have no objection of, you know, obviously, pursuing that.
De Weerd: There is no vehicle access --
De Weerd: -- I believe in the area. We did a walk against drugs and we went out that
direction. All of it is the activities in the front of the school.
Rountree: Question about the existing surface transportation. Is that critical to this
development or is that just to be directed by ACHD that the interconnectivity is
required?
McKay: Madam Mayor, Councilman Rountree, that -- that was dictated by your own
plan, your staff, and Ada County Highway District. As far as the transportation, the
primary roadways that we show, those match your transportation plan in that Ten Mile
specific area plan. My recommendation would be that --
De Weerd: We can't hear you for some reason.
McKay: I think it quit. Sorry.
De Weerd: It timed out.
Rountree: You broke it.
McKay: Oh -oh. Send me a bill. How we make that connection would be, obviously,
determined -- we would work with our traffic engineer, the architect and ACHD. I mean,
you know, there are different ways to have vehicular interconnectivity. Some are
beneficial and some may create issues. So, we would have to -- obviously, what I told
the neighbors, you know, we would have to look at how that connection is made and
guess at this time it would be premature, but ACHD I asked point blank what is the
chance of the district having us isolate ourselves from that existing estate residential
neighborhood. They said zero. We will require interconnectivity. We will demand it.
But how it's done is to be determined.
Rountree: Madam Mayor. Ryan is sitting over there looking like he's going to get away
with something, so I have got a question for him.
De Weerd: I'm sure he was hoping we didn't have questions. Ryan, is this something
that the commission listened to?
Head: Not at this point.
De Weerd: Okay. If you will state your name for the record.
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2014
Page 31 of 66
Head: Ryan Head. Ada County Highway District. 3775 Adams Street, Garden City,
Idaho.
De Weerd: Thank you. Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: A question on Waltman. It troubles me. I have a school situation similar to
this in my neighborhood and I purposely do not get on the road between 8:30 and 9:30
but -- and I understand the situation. I'm concerned with Waltman particularly, because
it is a -- substandard is not the correct word, it's the standard road for -- for this kind of
development, but we are seeing this and have seen it recently with another
development that was a rural county development that now has subdivisions connecting
through it and the road doesn't have accommodations for pedestrians or bicyclists, it
doesn't have accommodations particularly for pedestrians to school through its length.
We all need to keep in mind that Linder is the only way in and out of this area right now
and any other route that is opened up until we can get something going on the 5th
Street -- it's going to be a busy road. People are going to use it. I don't know what the
capacity is. I don't know what your rule of thumb for capacity is, but if the volumes out
there are 3,000 vehicles a day it's probably getting pretty close to capacity for a rural,
two lane road. So, I have an issue with what I would anticipate a fair amount of traffic
utilizing that for community purposes, not necessarily for going to the commercial, but
for getting access to Ten Mile and getting on the interstate to get out of that -- that
section of land to the -- to the east of Linder as well. It probably would be very
convenient to go through this area, as opposed to trying to get on Linder and out. Or if
there is an accident on Linder it's the only way out, so I -- is there any -- well, will the
commission have any thought with respect to improvements that might be needed on
Waltman if this were to happen, I guess that's my question.
De Weerd: And that was for your crystal ball.
Rountree: Based on your experience with them.
Head: To clarify, at this point Waltman has about 1,000 vehicles --
Rountree: A thousand per day. Okay.
Head: So, you're talking 2,000, so -- at which we generally look at the peak hour, which
is like 20 to 30 vehicles, but it usually happens off peak, so that is a bit of a challenge.
And, really, this is not a unique challenge. It's indicative of placement of schools out on
the fringes where it's very difficult for children to walk to and the result is that you end up
with a lot of vehicles coming and going during -- during those hours. Even -- and
realize that's not the only case there, because I live in the neighborhood with my kids'
school and there is still plenty of people who drive their kids, unfortunately, to their
school. Just the society in which we live. There are specific limitations to what we can
require off site of the developer and that will be taken into consideration in what we can
-- what the actual nexus to the development is and what that impact would be on that
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2014
Page 32 of 66
roadway. So, those are things -- our commission does take those into consideration,
but there are specific limits that they have legally to what they can require on improving
Waltman.
Rountree: Thank you.
De Weerd: Would not always drive their kids to school if they had safe routes to school,
like off-road pathways and not -- and sidewalks. So, I guess just to also reiterate what
Councilman Rountree has said, if ACHD is looking at connecting any development to
the west of this existing area, that road has to be brought up to a standard that is safe
and, you know, whether it's working with the developers in -- that is to the west and
giving them impact fee payback if they were to do off-site improvements, but if you're
going to connect a dense area to the west, that has to be brought up to a standard that
is acceptable and I didn't really see that in your report.
Head: Yeah. Madam Mayor, it is an interesting situation, because our -- you know, the
city's -- the efforts we have gone to with the city in identifying the future of these
roadways, the typologies or the function of the roadways does not identify as a collector
roadway. However, in partnering with the city we have sought to create connectivity
and it's been a desire in your comprehensive plan, it's something that -- and in
partnering with you we tried to create. It alleviates some of the -- the greater impact and
-- that tend to be at times less desirable when you get into the arterial roadways that
they become overcrowded and that people will start to wonder why aren't we doing
anything more and, then, you have a street like Fairview and streets that are far worse
when you don't have alternatives. But those are the things that we will be looking at.
It's a little bit hard, as you mentioned a few times, to talk into a crystal -- and look into a
crystal ball here. We don't know what the development will look like. We will have a
general idea based on zoning, but we won't know exactly and that's why, you know, our
-- our staff comments were primarily geared towards the proposed roadways within the
development, but beyond that we have limited comments in what we can actually say to
the developer.
De Weerd: But I guess that's the point. That's the point that we kind of marry this land
use plan with the transportation agencies is to avoid maybe lessons that we have
learned in the past and to -- to show those connectivity -- those connection points and
what those impacts are going to be to those existing roadways and how to bring those
up to standards that would be acceptable to new levels of traffic and certainly safety in
this particular case with having the school there -- there has to be a plan.
Head: There is a plan and ultimately where we are at this point in time and in working --
have already been in communication with your staff and looking for additional proposals
and updates to our -- what's called our master street map and if that's something of
interest to the city, we work pretty closely with the city to -- to designate roadways. But
ultimately if it's meeting the standards of a local roadway and that's what it serves that,
and the desires that it not change that, it will be hard for our commission to require a
developer to make modifications beyond that. But if it's the desire that it become a
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2014
Page 33 of 66
collector roadway and provide the access differently, then, those standards would -- it
would be easier for our commission to make those requirements, that it be brought up to
the standards of the collector roadway, which includes your -- your on -street bike
facilities or --
De Weerd: Off. Off street.
Head: Or off street. However you -- we can consider those as we go forward.
De Weerd: Additional questions for Ryan at this point from Council?
Rountree: No.
De Weerd: No? Thank you, Ryan. We know we will never kill the messenger. We will
just give you a hard time.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: Just a couple more comments and in musing a little bit about whether there
should be a pedestrian connection on the east end into the school, the display that's up
on the board right now, if I'm interpreting it correctly, the little street north of the school
that says West Wingfell -- I'm sorry -- Pintail -- P -i -n -t -a -i -I. Pintail Drive. Just about
where the cursor is it looks like there is a pedestrian connection from that street into the
school area.
De Weerd: I think it's a small drive, but it's -- it's not supposed to be there.
Zaremba: I was going to say that clearly the school is in favor of having it --
De Weerd: A pathway.
Zaremba: -- but I will add that -- that the school has accepted those kinds of things in
other places and I think that's a good idea. The additional thought -- and, again, this
same depiction that's in front of us -- I picture myself about 15 years ago. I sat in the
audience like you people are in the old City Hall and was objecting to a proposed
subdivision that had high density residential essentially in the middle of the square mile
and my point at that time -- and I still believe is that the high density residential should
be a little closer to the arterials and -- and the lower density in the middle. What we see
in the upper here, which is the Ten Mile area plan depiction, is more like that. The high
density residential is closer to Ten Mile than it is on the proposal that we see below that.
I'm comfortable with the description of the R-8 and the TN -R and they do match what I
was visualizing as medium density residential. The proposed TN -C to me is high
density residential and if you compare these two, assuming they are to the same scale,
the high density residential has crept to the east considerably and to me is getting
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2014
Page 34 of 66
farther and farther away from the arterial. So, I guess what I'm saying is I would --
don't have that much objection to the C -G that's being asked for or the TN -R or the T-8
-- or the R-8, but I'm struggling with the TN -C, which I -- I think should be move west if
it's going to exist at all and that will alleviate some of the traffic problems. As for
connectivity of the roads, there will be an issue of probably needing to upgrade
Waltman. That may be true anyhow. The advantage of the connectivity is -- it kind of
goes both ways. Yes, it brings more people through the neighborhood, but it also
allows the existing people another way out and this area that has been an area that's
been very uncomfortable for me for some time. We generally -- when you have only
one way in and one way out, such as Linder at the moment, which doesn't connect over
to the interstate, you -- the way in and out of this subdivision is only north on Linder.
That's very similar -- it functions like a cul-de-sac and our rules are you can't have more
than 50 dwellings on a cul-de-sac. We have not applied that to Linder, but the reason
for that is public safety. Being able to get fire trucks and police in and out of there and I
will have to say as far as transportation, I feel having the connectivity of the roadway to
the west is a safety issue that does need to happen. The result of that is going to be
that -- that something will need to happen on Waltman, but -- I guess what I'm looking
for is to say there are elements of this proposal that I think match what we were
originally -- what was worked through with the Ten Mile area plan. The roadway. R-8.
The C -G works for me. The TN -R. I am struggling with the TN -C. I would rather see
that move a little farther west and be replaced with either more TN -R or R-8. And, then,
also agree with -- if we are going to do this that the development agreement should be
more specific about what the transition is going to be between the new neighborhoods
and the existing neighborhoods.
De Weerd: Okay.
Zaremba: One person's thought.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any other questions from Council for the applicant?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Becky? It was mentioned several times about a barrier or a fence or
something around the development. I suspect there is something contemplated. Not
asking you specifically, but will there be such a fence or potentially landscaping or
whatever?
McKay: Councilman Rountree, Madam Mayor, I don't think I had any development
where we haven't had an exterior fence and what type of fence varies from project to
project. Typically when we are adjoining estate residential they want a sight obscuring
type fence. So, I think, you know, appropriate exterior fencing is reasonable and is
standard in our industry. If -- if we had open space would you want us to fence it off,
though? I mean -- you know, I'm not talking the 15 foot like Councilman indicated, but I
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2014
Page 35 of 66
mean usable -- if there were usable open space that adjoined it, I don't think you would
want to fence it off from their neighborhood. I don't know.
Rountree: No.
De Weerd: I think that's a requirement that the subdivisions are fenced and in particular
if there is livestock you're going to have to assure that it's a different kind of fencing. It
can't be vinyl. It can't be wood. It has to be something that animals can't get through.
McKay: Yes, Madam Mayor. If we do have adjoining pastures we do have to provide
some type of fencing that can handle animals and, you're right, vinyl is not one of them.
De Weerd: Because they like to chew.
McKay: Yeah. So, we always coordinate with the adjoining neighbors on the fencing.
Especially if there are existing pastures. Even if I have homes I will typically -- and we
are going to replace fencing or add fencing where there has never been fencing. We
ask them what would you like to see and we coordinate with them. Typically the
developers go along with that recommendation.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: Again, this is a little difficult without really discussing a plat, but do you have
a concept -- I'm looking specifically at the south end of the TN -R zone, which borders
Waltman, and my question -- I'm thinking if I were designing it I probably would put
houses there that access Waltman. So, that kind of negates putting a fence across that
piece of your border anyhow. I mean do you have any -- I know you mentioned maybe
it's open space.
McKay: Madam Mayor, Councilman --
Zaremba: If there were either one of those you wouldn't want a fence there.
McKay: Yes. We did that over on Jericho Street, because in that particular incident the
estate residential lots said we don't want to be partitioned off from your neighborhood,
but we want you to embrace our neighborhood. So, we did front larger lots along
Jericho that were directly across from them and, then, we had our -- in our development
transition to the higher density within that interior and that worked -- it has not been
built, but it is going to be built this year and it worked well. It basically married two
developments together. So, I mean nothing can be done on this particular piece of
property until we bring forth a specific plan and a plat and all of these issues that have
been brought up were obviously in the record and we have our development
agreement, which I have faith in the Council and the staff that they are going to include
provisions that protect the city and protect this neighborhood and all of these desires
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2014
Page 36 of 66
are going to have to be reflected in that plat and that plan and we have been working on
different plans, it's just -- it takes a long time and, obviously, with these other projects
moving forward some of these streets have to be dedicated, because the rotaries are
shared between Brighton and this particular development. So, that has prompted this
application at this time.
Zaremba: So, on the other element -- and, again, I'm going by instinct, not necessarily
-- I'm not an engineer. And I know you have put a lot of thought into this. But is there a
-- is there any chance of moving the denser TN -C area more to the west and maybe
expanding either the TN -R or the -- or the R-8 into that area?
McKay: Councilman Zaremba, Madam Mayor, what -- what they were looking at the --
the type of development they had a target for a specific size and in working with Eric
Davis, one of the things that we were balancing was the transportation network and how
-- to make sure we complied with the Ten Mile transportation plan, but yet achieve the
goal of a certain amount of C -G property to, obviously, attract the development that we
want, the tenants that we want. You -- I mean it's obviously within the Council's
purview. You could extend the -- the TN -R over, you know, and that's it. You could do
something like that. You could -- I mean there -- there are multiple options that are
available that could be done this evening to accommodate that, if you felt that, well, gee,
we don't want to put that TN -C right against them. Let's have an L to that TN -R.
Zaremba: That works for me.
McKay: That's possibly doable.
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Zaremba: One man's opinion, but that would be more comfortable to me.
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Becky, I would agree with that. Is there any -- and I realize why you got TN -C in
there, but there is any way we could replace that with TN -R -- have that whole area
TN -R?
McKay: You mean right there at the south end of --
Bird: Yeah. Get rid of the TN -C altogether.
McKay: Just kind of segregate it?
Bird: Yeah. Right there.
McKay: I guess -- I guess that's a question for Eric. I, obviously, can't make that
commitment.
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2014
Page 37 of 66
Bird: That's just a question just of that area.
De Weerd: Council, I don't know, do we want to sit up here and design a development
or --
Bird: I don't want to design it. I don't want to design it, I just want a question answered.
Davis: This -- Eric Davis. 199 North Capital. Suite 300. Yeah. We are kind of
struggling with density and the number of dwelling units. Our -- our first choice was
commercial and, then, respective of this addition, we have selected these two zones,
because we thought that was accomplishing that. In retrospect in listening tonight, you
know, we can -- we can agree to -- through the development agreement, reduce the
densities along that southern line, the TN -R and the TN -C to something that's more
compatible with the -- even if it's R-8. And so that the residential component of that --
what's built in that would be of a lower density. You know, we were just -- we are -- our
main focus has been commercial and, then, to respect the fact that, you know, if -- you
know, perfect world, you work here and you can ride your bike and walk over and live
there. So, staff would say let's keep enough dwelling units close to this big project. If
it's high density employment, let's be able to live -- live there where you work. So, you
know, that's -- it's a balancing act really and it really won't play out until we have a final
plat and a plan and probably bring a residential developer into the mix. But we are
certainly willing to agree to some language in a development agreement that would
reduce the density at that -- all along that property line on Waltman and the residential,
so--
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I would thank you for that openness and I just wanted to comment that I
understand that we handed you some challenges when we made the changes on the
property to the south of you and I'm not looking for that to penalize you guys, that's not
fair, but we do need to take into consideration that we changed the ballpark a little bit
when we changed that agreement and need to understand what that does to you as
well. So, I think if we can work that kind of language in -- I'm not sure we have heard
from everybody yet and I would be willing to, but I would lean towards asking staff to
rework the development agreement a little bit and perhaps continuing this to another
meeting so that we could see that.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Given our past actions with respect to transition, we have always tried to
buffer large lot subdivisions with progressively scaled down lot sizes. An R -2/R-4,
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2014
Page 38 of 66
R -4/R-8, and I'd like to see that continue with this in terms of transition and -- and see
the area where we do butt the existing rural neighborhood where we have it be R-8,
knowing full well when it gets platted that we would anticipate those lots adjacent to the
larger lots in the rural community would be larger lots in a subdivision. I'd like to see the
R-8 piece extended to the south. I'd also like to have a concept of identified open
space, so we don't lose that as a buffer, because that's -- that's another approach we
have used to buffer and keep the hearing open until we see something like that and
some language change in the development agreement that keeps this on track here.
That does not take away my concern for Waltman. I think at some point in time when
we see what's going to happen out here -- keep in mind that even if we annex this
property it doesn't mean it's going to happen and it would have to go through multiple
hoops yet to get development to occur and multiple opportunities to be consulted and
multiple opportunities for us to try to make it what we anticipated in the Ten Mile plan.
So, I agree with Councilman Zaremba that let's get some additional information and
keep the hearing open until we get that and, then, take -- take an action.
De Weerd: Before you make a motion, if we could ask the applicant to, please, would
work with ACHD and get an answer on what the plan is for Waltman and as it connects
how they are going to insure that that rural designed road is capable of safety aspects
and traffic aspects with that school there.
McKay: I think -- I think I can answer that question, because the Ada County Highway
District commission just two weeks ago talked about how -- how to handle these rural
residential roadways. I believe what they indicated is they have a budget item where
they earmark dollars for safe routes to schools and that money may be tapped to
improve pedestrian access, widen streets, create off-street parking along these
roadways.
De Weerd: Well, if we can insure that that's going to be part of their staff report that's
part of our findings and our development agreement, that's great. But you know -- and
certainly, Ryan, if you can take that back. Those are the kind of things that we need to
see is a certainty and I appreciate that they are moving that direction, we just want to be
able to capture it.
McKay: Yes, ma'am. And I would encourage -- like on future school sites that you guys
look at drop-off lanes like we did at Bridgetower to create an alternative for the vehicles
and the parents that are insistent on driving their children to school versus allowing
them to walk, because it works very well and that is the only school that has it and we
had to push to get them to accept it and I think it's a great idea.
De Weerd: I think it's a great idea, but it hasn't worked all that well.
McKay: It provides an alternative.
De Weerd: Yeah.
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2014
Page 39 of 66
Bird: Better than the middle school.
De Weerd: Any other -- any other discussion from Council before I call on Mr.
Rountree?
Rountree: Oh, thank you.
Milam: Madam Mayor, I do have a question.
De Weerd: Mrs. Milam.
Milam: And it's regarding the -- Waltman and some of the concerns brought up by the
residents was that their road is widened, which it should be, to provide sidewalks and
everything else, they are going to lose property and it's going to cut into their wells or it's
going to be an expense. Is there any way to address this at this time or does that have
to wait until the road is actually widened and happening?
De Weerd: I hate to say that's why we are not the road department, but -- that was for
your benefit, Ryan. That's all -- all the things that need to be considered as -- as they
look at the transition from these rural roads to collectors and it has to connect.
Milam: As far as the annexation and zoning, before we make this decision there is no
way to work on that, that's going to come later -- is that just kind of a question out there
for an unknown time until they actually stake the roads later or is that what they are
going to bring back to us?
De Weerd: Usually those things are all determined as they purchase right of way and
see what -- what specific issues there are to it.
McKay: Madam Mayor, I think I can answer that question.
De Weerd: Good.
McKay: There is ample right of way currently on Waltman and that is a grid -- there are
north -south streets that connect and, then, there is another loop street that goes back to
Linder. But I did look at existing right of way and I -- I think it's either 50 or 60 feet within
-- with 50 feet of right of way they can build a full urban street section, so based on what
right of way was already platted I think they can make it work with what they have.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: If there is no further discussion, I'd first like to say hello and good evening to
a number of friends and acquaintances in the audience. We have spent some time
raising our kids together in the past and it's good to see you again. Having said that,
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2014
Page 40 of 66
Madam Mayor, I move that we continue this public hearing and ask the staff to put a
finer fine point on some of the development agreement conditions with respect to open
space and zoning and ask the developer and staff to take a look -- a better look at the
transition between the rural neighborhood and the TN -R and TN -C area of this
development and identify open space. Also working with ACHD to get a handle on what
might occur in the future and -- anything else that I'm missing? I think those are the
points that need addressing.
Zaremba: Second and discussion, please.
De Weerd: Okay.
Zaremba: I did not hear the maker of the motion mention a date certain. I would
suggest that it be Wednesday, the 21st, which is -- we have a meeting next week, but
normally don't have public hearings on that meeting. It's a workshop during the day.
On the 20th is actually an election day, so that we don't have our meeting on that
Tuesday, we move it to Wednesday, and I'm suggesting the date certain to continue this
to would be Wednesday, May 21st.
Rountree: The maker of the motion agrees.
De Weerd: Okay.
Zaremba: Second agrees.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to continue this item to May 21st.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: I was going to add to Councilman Rountree's list the pedestrian connectivity to
the school site. This is one of the items as well.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Borton: And, then, within the development agreement there is language with regards --
it's all over -- all over with regards to the Ten Mile area specific plan. That's kind of
loosely vague and wiggly. If you could -- with that direction change that language --
Section 4.1.4 and the other -- the components that address how that plan is applied to
the C -G and the TN -C, try and put a little more teeth into the obligations of the ultimate
developer to comply with that Ten Mile area plan.
Watters: Madam Mayor, Councilman Borton, is the Council asking for a concept plan or
not? It's loose because there is no concept plan. It's very hard to write a development
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2014
Page 41 of 66
agreement with provisions when there is not a plan to it. So, if you have some
suggestions I would be happy to hear them.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Thanks, Sonya, because it seems like we wanted -- we want to draw up the
concept plans, too, in our deal. That's something that comes before us when we do get
the concept plans or the zoning. So, all they are asking for is annexation and zoning
and we are putting off for two weeks. I -- and we got some things we need to, but I don't
-- I don't believe we need to have a concept plan, unless they'd like to get one to us.
Watters: Okay.
Bird: It's on the preliminary plat --
Watters: Madam Mayor, I would suggest that maybe we put it off another week until
possibly the 27th to allow staff time to meet with the applicant and them adequate time
to meet with their client to maybe address some of Council's concerns, if you feel it
appropriate.
De Weerd: Well -- and there needs to be adequate time, too, for the residents to see
what is coming back to Council, so -- does that -- there is a lot to be done. I heard it
doesn't get developed until 2017. We got years.
Zaremba: That can go by in a minute.
De Weerd: I'm sorry, Eric, you said it. And I was listening.
Watters: And Madam Mayor, Councilman Borton, if I might add. Those provisions you
referenced in 4.1.4, those are taken out of the Ten Mile plan. Regardless of whether
they are in the development agreement or not, they still do apply. When we get a
development plan in, that will be evaluated in accord with our Ten Mile plan. So, if you
have suggestions of, you know, anything more or that may be more restrictive than the
plan you would like to put in, please direct staff with such.
Borton: Okay.
De Weerd: Well, the motion is to continue this to May 21st. If it needs to be extended
and -- we can note it --
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: -- on our website and also --
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2014
Page 42 of 66
Zaremba: There may be a provision to amend the motion. Can we do that, Mr. Nary?
De Weerd: Yes.
Nary: Yes, you can.
De Weerd: We haven't voted.
Rountree: You can make a second motion.
Zaremba: Uh?
Rountree: You can make a second motion.
De Weerd: You can do whatever you want. I haven't asked for the vote yet.
Zaremba: The motion was very detailed and I would just amend it to make the date
certain the 27th, instead of the 21 st, and leave the rest of the motion in place.
De Weerd: We could ask the motion maker if he wants to make it the 27th.
Rountree: I can agree to that based on staffs recommendation.
Watters: Madam Mayor, the applicant just informed me that she had a meeting
elsewhere that night, so that won't work for them.
Bird: We will have to do it in June.
De Weerd: Well, then, June 3rd. Okay. How about that, motion maker?
Rountree: Madam Mayor.
De Weerd: I'm just trying to help this meeting along.
Rountree: Make my motion to continue this hearing until June 3rd, 2014, with staff and
applicant moving forward with what was previously discussed at this meeting.
Zaremba: Second agrees.
De Weerd: Okay. We have a motion. Further discussion?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
Rountree: Come on, Joe.
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2014
Page 43 of 66
Borton: I'm not changing the motion. I just want to -- just want to point out and
appreciate the applicant's participation in this process and the public participation in
particular. It seems like at least tonight it's been extremely reasonable and
accommodating to try and create a solution. That's not always the case. So,
appreciate that quite a bit. As well as the written testimony that was provided -- is it Mr.
Telliho? On the back in particular. So, thank you for providing that in the letter. So,
think they are helpful for us.
Rountree: I agree.
De Weerd: Okay. I would like to thank both parties as well. The applicant and the
neighbors. I didn't hear any -- anyone saying we don't want to figure out how to work it
out and we appreciate that, so -- with that said -- all those in favor of continuing this to
June 3rd with the provision as -- as provided in the original motion please say aye. Any
opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Thank you all.
E. Public Hearing: PP 14-004 Biltmore Subdivision by L.C.
Development, Inc. Located South of W. Victory Road and West
of S. Meridian Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval
Consisting of 159 Single Family Residential Building Lots and
Twelve (12) Common/Other Lots on 56.19 Acres of Land in an
R-4 Zoning District
De Weerd: Item 7-E is a public hearing on PP 14-004. 1 will open this public hearing
with staff comments.
Watters: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. The next application
before you is a request for a preliminary plat. This site consists of 56.19 acres of land,
currently zoned R-4 and is located south of West Victory Road and west of South
Meridian Road. This property was recently annexed with the Victory South Category B
annexation and the provision of the declaration of consent to annexation, this property is
not allowed to receive development approval until such time as the property owner and
the city execute a development agreement. The applicant is proposing a preliminary
plat consisting of 159 single family residential building lots and 12 common lots on
56.19 acres of land in an R-4 zoning district. The minimum lot size proposed is 8,640
square feet, with an average lot size of 11,020 square feet. The gross density proposed
is 2.83 dwelling units per acre, consistent with the low density residential future land use
map designation for this site. The plat is proposed to develop in five phases as shown.
There are three existing homes and accessory structures on this site that are proposed
to be removed. Access is proposed on the plat via South Kentucky Way, a collector
street in Kentucky Ridge Estates. This is the main street you can see going through the
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2014
Page 44 of 66
site. Access is also proposed from the east via south Carbondale Place, a local street
in Meridian Heights Subdivision and from the southeast by Harris Street, a collector
street here that goes out to Meridian Road. Stub streets are proposed to the west and
north for future extension and interconnectivity. An approximate 300 foot long section of
the Williams pipeline -- natural gas pipeline crosses the southwest corner of the site
within a 75 foot wide easement. All development within this area shall comply with the
Williams gas pipeline developers handbook. An encroachment permit is required for
any development or improvements within the pipeline easement. That is here as you
can see right across the southwest corner there. The Sundial Lateral runs off site along
the west boundary of the property. The applicant proposes 10.2 percent or 5.73 acres
of qualified open space on the site consisting of a 1.5 acre park centrally located there.
A .2 acre pocket park. Subsurface drainage areas, pathways, street buffers along
collector streets and parkways along local and collector streets in accord with UDC
standards. A tot lot with a play structure, a half basketball court and a segment of the
city's regional pathway system are proposed as amenities in accord with UDC
standards. A regional pathway is proposed along the southwest corner of this site
within the pipeline easement. There are a couple of blocks -- Blocks 4 and 5 here that
exceed the maximum block length standards. To mitigate the long blocks staff is
recommending pedestrian pathways are added centrally within these lots as allowed by
the UDC to provide a more direct pedestrian access to the park. The applicant has
submitted conceptual building elevations as shown for future homes within this
development. The Commission recommended approval of this subject preliminary plat
with a development agreement. Becky McKay testified in favor of the application. Bill
Hansen testified in opposition. Tamara Hamilton, Val Hill, and Fred Tillman commented
on the application. Written testimony was received from Becky McKay, the applicant's
representative, and Mark and Christine Freeman. And key issues of discussion by the
Commission were the traffic impacts on South Kentucky Way and the timing for a traffic
signal at the Harris Street and Meridian Road intersection and connection to South
Carbondale Place, the stub street, cul-de-sac in Meridian Heights Subdivision at the
northeast corner of the site. You can see there. The Commission changed staff
recommendation as follows: They recommended modification of Condition 1.1.E -- 1 E.
Excuse me. To allow the existing home in phase two to remain until signature on the
second phase final plat by the city engineer. Second change of the modification to
Condition 1.1.8 to allow for ditches to remain open if used as a water amenity or linear
open space in accord with UDC 11 -3A -6A. Lastly, add new conditions requiring the
applicant to install a water main through the common lot required for the micropath in
the vicinity of Lot 9, Block 9, to connect into the water main required in the proposed
Revolution Ridge Subdivision to the north and include an easement on the plat for the
water main. And that is right around here in this vicinity. There are no outstanding
issues for Council. Written testimony has been received from the Kentucky Ridge
homeowners association since the Commission hearing. Staff will stand for any
questions Mayor and Council may have.
De Weerd: Council, questions at this time?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2014
Page 45 of 66
De Weerd: No questions at this point? Is the applicant here?
McKay: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Becky McKay. Engineering Solutions.
1029 North Rosario, Meridian. I'm representing LC Development on this particular
application. I feel like I'm running a marathon tonight. Thought you guys would take a
break. As you well know, it's been a long road to get to this point and we feel fortunate
that through participation with city and the Meridian Heights Sewer and Water District
and Mr. Centers that we have reached this point. What's before you this evening is the
-- approximately 56 -- the lower 56 acres that Mr. Centers owns that adjoins Kentucky
Ridge Development and Kentucky Way. We have extended the sewer and the water
from Victory Road. Up to the northeast corner of this 56 acres and it will be extended
into this particular project. We will also be connecting over to Carbondale. There is an
existing cul-de-sac. However, the right of way does extend to our east boundary and it
was at the direction of Ada County Highway District that we make a vehicular
connection there. Harris Street currently terminates -- Harris Street currently terminates
-- it comes off Meridian Road, it is a half plus 12 collector roadway, with a future
signalized intersection at the half mile, which also aligns with Cavanaugh Ridge. They
were going to extend and match the Harris Street. Obviously, we don't meet the east -
west warrants at this juncture, so it's going to be down the road. We have stubbed to
the west and we will extend Harris Street as a collector roadway along our south
boundary and Mr. Centers is now under ownership of the property to the south of Harris,
so, then, we will swing Harris Street on south and westward eventually over to Linder
Road. Now, the master street map for Ada County Highway District, your
Comprehensive Plan indicates that Kentucky Way is a collector and Harris is a collector.
Now, there are some homes that front on Kentucky Way and when it was done in 1995
we had what we called residential collectors, which even though they were a collector
status they were allowed to have minimal front -on housing and that's what we have
there. In looking at the design, one of the things that I was cognizant of was, okay,
connecting to Kentucky Way what can we do to slow our traffic down. So, it's what we
-- one of the measures that -- that we took was to come in with an island where we
make that connection, so that we choke that 36 back-to-back collector down to 21 back-
to-back on each side of the island. Those islands they create a sense of place, so
people will know that they are transitioning into a different development. Also will slow
the traffic. We added additional landscaping along that -- that entrance road so we can
do some nice entryway features, but also that landscaping and detached sidewalks will
create a sense that this is a neighborhood, you need to slow down. We didn't want to
make a street connection to Kentucky Way, so we angled that collector roadway and we
T'd it in with Harris and, then, when I designed the property to the south I anticipate
probably doing a little bit of an offset and so that we have that north -south collector
interconnectivity between Amity and Victory, but that it's not a thoroughfare created kind
of a de facto arterial. We are doing the same thing when we extend Harris, we are
dropping it to the south and, then, I'm going to T in from Linder creating the same
atmosphere, because we don't want the traffic or the people -- the vehicles to think that
these are a collector like Stoddard, but the fact that they are a neighborhood collector.
We created loop streets. We have our primary open space along the collector in the
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2014
Page 46 of 66
mid section of this particular project. We will have playground equipment and benches
and landscaping. As far as our lot sizes we are cognizant of the fact that it was
important for the City Council when I brought through the annexation that the lots that
adjoin Kentucky Ridge be a minimum of 10,000 square feet. So, when I designed this
there are no lots under 10,000 square feet that adjoin Kentucky Ridge. They are all
over. I also took measures to drop this street down, so that the lots where houses aren't
all in alignment, but we have offsetting homes and create more backyard. So, I put my
deeper lots there. I used this knuckle here so that we are not stacking a whole row of
lots adjoining Kentucky Ridge, but putting those lots back. So, you know, we have
taken into consideration what's existing and how can we match into it. In comparison to
Kentucky Ridge as far as the density, our density is 3.56 dwelling units per acre. They
are at 3.81. Meridian Heights is at 4.8. So, we are the lowest as far as the density is
concerned. Our minimum lot size -- we have no lots under 8,600 and our average lot
size is over 11,000 square feet. We feel that this is a great development. It's going to
have detached walks with landscaping. We have the pipe -- Williams pipeline that
traverses the southwest corner. We will construct the multi -use pathway and the
greenbelt. That will be the first leg of that in this particular section. We are working with
the city, the Public Works Department, as far as a well site and we have identified a well
site adjoining Harris Street. We have prepared exhibits and we are working on a lease
agreement so the paperwork can begin at Idaho Department of Water Resources. Mr.
Centers obviously has participated in extensions of these utilities and he has
participated to close to 800,000 dollars to -- for the hook-up fees for Kentucky Ridge
and Meridian Heights, so that we could, obviously, bring this area into the city and onto
central services and so as far as financial participation, he has gone above and beyond
any developer that I have ever worked for in trying to make sure that his development
not only benefits himself, but benefits the community as a whole. Do you have any
questions that I could answer?
De Weerd: Council, any questions at this time?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: What's the phasing of construction of the open space, the park and the
connection to Harris Street?
McKay: Madam Chairman -- or Madam Mayor and Councilman Rountree, phase one
will be this area here. I believe we have approximately 29 lots. It's a small phase. We
will extend Harris, come in, make that Carbondale connection. Right now there is one
way in to Kentucky Ridge and that's Kentucky Way. So, this will create a secondary
access for this -- this area. We will also be stubbing to Mr. Hansen's property at this
location. Second phase will be an additional extension of the collector roadway and it
will be this area here. I have at this time the primary open space in phase three. So,
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2014
Page 47 of 66
the extension of Harris and the connection of Kentucky Way to Harris and our primary
open space will be in phase three and so phase one and two they are both small
phases and, obviously, based on the pace of the market at this time phase three could
come upon us faster than we anticipate. Last phases will be phase four and phase five
on the west side.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Becky, did you have the opportunity to see the written submission of the Kentucky
Ridge homeowners association that was sent in?
McKay: I saw some information that was sent to the Ada County Highway District
commission. I did read through it.
Bird: This is ACHD and Meridian City Council, so you --
McKay: Yes, I did.
Bird: Okay. Just wanted to make sure you have seen it and you address the issues.
McKay: Thank you.
Bird: Thank you.
De Weerd: I guess what came up in an earlier application is the need for a collector in
this area and there is concern again similar to the previous application about connecting
through roadways that weren't necessarily designed for the kind of traffic that now all of
a sudden it's having in particular in these county subs that have no curb, gutter and
sidewalk. Since you're not doing Harris Street until the third phase, you are going to be
impacting the South Kentucky Way I think it was and wanted to know if you will be doing
any improvements on that to help with the safety in that area and what -- what plans, if
any, you have discussed with that HOA.
McKay: Madam Mayor, to answer your questions, this -- this was discussed at length
before the Ada County Highway District commission here just a -- just a few weeks ago.
gave them the history. I was around when Kentucky Ridge came through in 1995 as a
county subdivision connecting to their community water system and their existing sewer
lagoons. Mike Preston was the applicant, the engineer, and there was discussion about
Stoddard should be aligned with and that would be the collector roadway coming into
this particular section. Mr. Preston made an argument that based on Victory roadway,
the curve that is to the east, there was an existing home there that Mr. Sabala's mother-
in-law or something, they did not want the road -- the collector roadway to go by her
house, so the county and the Ada County Highway District went ahead and moved that
collector roadway to the location that Kentucky Way is right now and since your 2001
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2014
Page 48 of 66
Comprehensive Plan it has been shown as the mid mile collector that would go from
Victory to Amity and every comp plan -- because I went and I looked back before I went
to the ACHD commission, every comp plan since that 2000 1 believe '1 shows it and
when Ada County Highway District did their master street map they showed it.
COMPASS map, checked that one, it's shown as a collector. It was known from that
day that road was built that it would be a collector roadway into the interior of this
section, because you have the Ridenbaugh Canal that runs parallel with Victory and,
then, crosses it diagonally. Now, Ada County Highway District staff -- we also did a
traffic study. We had used Six Mile Engineers, who ACHD uses, to do a lot of the work
for themselves. Highly respected. I sent them an e-mail and it said I want you to look at
these issues, the safety of Kentucky Way, the grade, the site distance, the number of
vehicles. These are the concerns that were expressed at my neighborhood meeting.
had two neighborhood meetings. Six Mile came back to me and said there are no
issues with Kentucky Way. It is well under its capacity. ACHD staff indicated that it's
there like, what, handful -- it's a handful of trips on it at this time and that it doesn't
warrant any widening. Obviously, they promised the neighbors -- they said with the new
middle school going in on Stoddard -- I guess the bond issue is going to take place here
shortly, we could get Kentucky Way on our list as far as improving access to school and
go in and do some improvements to it. But as far as off-site improvements, the
numbers do not support it. It has the capacity, I believe ACHD said, of 5,000 vehicle
trips per day and it's well under a thousand. Revolution Ridge will put more traffic on
Kentucky Way than we will, because we have alternative points of access to
Carbondale, which leads out to Meridian Road and to Harris, which also leads out to
Meridian Road. So, when the ACHD commission looked at it they said based on the
policy manual it isn't even at a local street threshold, so there are no safety issues.
There are no existing problems. So, we cannot make Mr. Centers improve it when it's
not warranted.
De Weerd: Do they only look at safety of cars? I mean there is something that needs
to be said about safety of pedestrians and bicyclists and you brought up the point that
the middle school will be built at some point. I don't know if the bond passes this time,
sooner rather than later, but it is going to be built and will be, by approving this, you
know that those kids are not going to go out on Harris and walk down a busy freeway to,
then, go over to Stoddard and walk to the middle school. They are going to walk down
South Kentucky Way to get to school and I can't see how ACHD can say South
Kentucky Way will be safe for pedestrians and bicyclists when there is no curb or gutter
or sidewalk.
McKay: Madam Mayor, what Ada County Highway district commissioners indicated to
me was that the developer of Revolution Ridge agreed to construct sidewalk on the east
side of Kentucky Way.
De Weerd: From their point of entry on down, but that doesn't bring it clear to where
your development will be started, does it?
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2014
Page 49 of 66
McKay: Yes. I believe there is existing sidewalk on the south portion. The lack of
sidewalk is only on that north leg.
Bird: It's on the west side, too.
McKay: Yeah.
Bird: We didn't -- we did not make them do that.
McKay: And I guess the problem that we run into is a design issue, Madam Mayor.
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
McKay: When these sections -- when these streets are designed as a rural section, the
drainage just sheds off from the crown and goes into like gassy swales, borrow ditches,
whatever the case may be. If you construct curb, gutter and sidewalk, then, you have to
put that drainage in some type of drop inlet, sand and grease trap, and pipe it
somewhere. So, to go in and retrofit it is only almost impossible as a private entity to go
retrofit these, because where do you put the drainage, because your property may be
uphill, as Mr. Centers is. Ada County Highway District, however, they have the ability,
because they will make improvements to Victory over time. It is in the CIP to make
improvements to it, then, they can create some storm drain facilities, which, then, will
facilitate the curb and gutter on that north leg of Kentucky Way. I have some
photographs that -- oh. I will grab them and bring them to rebuttal. They are in my file.
De Weerd: Okay.
McKay: And I do have them electronically, too. I took them to the Commission
meeting.
De Weerd: If you can get them to Sonya, then, we can show them on the overhead
when you come up. Any other questions for Becky at this time?
Rountree: No. Thank you.
De Weerd: I'm sure there were people that were signed up, but I will ask you whoever
wants to testify come on up. Madam Clerk, do we have a sign-up sheet? I think the
sign-up sheet disappeared with someone's paperwork, so we are casual. Come on up
when -- and you're the HOA --
Hamilton: I am Tamera Hamilton and I -- I am the HOA president for Kentucky Ridge
Estates.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2014
Page 50 of 66
Hamilton: My address is 3496 South Arcaro. First of all, we would like to thank
Biltmore for having those two neighborhood meetings. It really did help ease our minds.
However, we do have a couple of more suggestions and we would like to present those
to you all tonight. Kentucky Way is going to be Biltmore Estates main entrance and exit
until phase three, as she -- as Becky had mentioned and to our knowledge initially when
we asked how long the phases will take to be built she did indicate that they could be a
year or longer, which means if -- if that is true that it will be three plus years before they
actually have their own entrance and park area and to us simply because the -- the
existing road that is Kentucky Way out to Victory, you can see that right now it's just
grass and fencing and as she mentioned Revolution Ridge has -- has promised to build
sidewalks from this sidewalk here on Kentucky Way that's very close to Riodosa and so
it will continue on around this curve to meet up with Victory. Our -- our primary concern
is we don't feel that that is enough to make it safe for our pedestrians. It will be an off-
road sidewalk, but I believe adding curb and gutter will also make that a bit more safe, it
will guarantee that the drivers will know exactly where the road is and not veer off
possibly to a sidewalk when we do get snow and that has happened where people have
hit our fence before, which seems rather hard to believe, but it has happened. We also
feel like that these subdivisions that are coming in, as long as they are willing to work
with us, we are willing to make compromises, but we feel like safety is not one of those
compromises that we should make, especially when it comes to our children and people
that will access those sidewalks. And as she also mentioned there will be a vote come
May 20th for the new middle school that will make us within walking distance of the
school and right now it is not safe. Victory is not safe. It does have borrow ditches on
both sides of Victory and so we are concerned that, yes, ACHD will come in where
needed to hopefully build a proper sidewalk and curb and gutter to assure our children's
safety there, but we also need that assurance within our neighborhood and we feel like
these subdivisions that are coming in, although we are not opposed to development,
should help and improve those roads, because they will be using them primarily for the
first three years and we feel that the taxpayer dollars should be utilized later on when it
becomes necessary that those curb and gutters should have been done in the first
place. Like I said, our primary focus is safety and so by -- by adding the curb and gutter
will help would with our children's safety, as well as any pedestrian that's utilizing the
sidewalk. If -- if you decide that that's not the course of action that you would like them
to take, we would propose that -- that their entrance be built in phase one at the very
latest phase two. I think we would still provide connectivity, which is what ACHD wants
and we would all like as well, but it does reduce the traffic on Kentucky Way and -- and
make -- just makes it safer for our park, our children that are walking to school, and also
driveways that empty out onto Kentucky Way. As you can see, the differences between
Biltmore and Strada Bellissima, we feel that Biltmore, the way it's designed, although it's
a nice sweeping curve, still will feel like a thoroughfare versus if you use a T
intersection, such as they use at Strada Bellissima, it has a better impact of slowing and
calming that traffic versus an island. This would also give them a chance to put a small
signage, rather than a larger sign to enter into Biltmore Subdivision. It -- it just has a
better -- I think I have gone through neighborhoods that have a T intersection and they
definitely make you slow down. You don't -- you can't just zoom through or go around
an island easily, you have to maybe stop and make the turn or know where you're
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2014
Page 51 of 66
going. So, our request is that you keep our neighborhood safe and keep all the
suggestions that may be used in Kentucky Way. It sounds like it could be quite a few
school children by the time these subdivisions are built out and I think it's important that
we keep those things in line. He would love to see a change of Kentucky Way and have
that traffic truly calmed with a T intersection or something like it and, then, we feel that
today is the best time to take into consideration future changes that will happen to our
city and we need your protection and oversight. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions? Thank you. Any other public
testimony?
Fisch: Good evening.
De Weerd: If you will state your name and address for the record.
Fisch: Rick Fisch. 3378 South Kentucky Way.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Fisch: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I just wanted to make a point of
clarifying that in the resolution -- I don't know if it's a resolution -- a motion that was
passed at the ACHD meeting, the Commissioner Jaurena did have a strong concern
about improvement of Kentucky Way and I think that was included in his -- in his motion.
That's all.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other public testimony? Okay. Becky.
McKay: Sonya, could you load that? So --
De Weerd: If you will state your name again for the record.
McKay: Becky McKay.
De Weerd: Thank you.
McKay: Madam Mayor, as you can see on this aerial photo, the white mark -- where did
it go? The white -- do you see the white lines on the aerial photo that's overlaid
adjoining us? That is curb, gutter and sidewalk and that extends all the way until the lot
stop -- the resident -- or the urban sidewalks and, then, it transitions just to asphalt.
Can I change it? I don't have a -- this is the subject property. As you can see it is
elevated above Kentucky Ridge. That shows you the street typology, drawings showing
Kentucky -- it didn't -- there is Highway 69. There it is. Right there. This is your future
collector map. It shows it, too. I had those highlighted, but it's not showing up on here.
And this is what we are working on in the future is the remainder -- why is that not doing
it? There we go. This is what we are working on is the remainder property to,
obviously, design the collector. It sewers in a different direction out to Linder and north
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2014
Page 52 of 66
to your trunk that's currently at Fall Creek. So, that's why this project has to be done in
different steps, because it sewers in two different directions. Go to the next one. I think
that's it. Yes. As far as the current traffic count on Kentucky Way that was taken this
year, there are 465 vehicle trips per day on it. A standard local residential -- single
family residential street, we try to keep them at a thousand. Existing local streets are
allowed to go up to 2,000. A residential collector is 5,000 trips per day. It will have -- if
you calculate -- include Kentucky Ridge -- or Kentucky Ridge's existing traffic,
Revolution Ridge and Biltmore Estates, the total traffic generated at build out on
Kentucky Way will be 1,849 vehicles trips a day. Well under the 2,000 that a local street
can handle. Sonya, do you have an aerial? There we go. So, the curb, gutter and
sidewalk extends, I believe, to where -- where the urban residential stops and there is --
there are no more houses, other than these estate lots and that's -- so, yes, there is
curb, gutter and sidewalk and Revolution Ridge will build another stretch of sidewalk on
that east side and that was the preference. I would also like to mention this particular
project will pay 480,000 dollars in impact fees to Ada County Highway District alone.
Now, they indicate to me, well, since Kentucky Way is an existing collector under the
rules of the impact fees, we can't take those dollars and earmark them for upgrade of
Kentucky Way. But I mean, nonetheless, that's 480,000 dollars in ACHD's kitty that will
be generated by our development. We think we have got a great project. It's low
density. It's larger lots. The homes that we are looking at are upper mid range I would
categorize them. Mr. Centers is excited. He's put out 1.3 million dollars and doesn't
even have one lot in the ground and we don't see that very -- very often. He has been
generous and good to work with on this particular project. Finally, the only comment as
far as the staff report is concerned -- Sonya did have a comment about pedestrian
paths. We added all the pedestrian paths as requested, except for one pedestrian path
-- I believe it was in Block 4 where our measurement at the mid section of this block is
exactly 750 feet. So, we don't believe that we need a pedestrian path to break the block
if we are -- don't exceed 750. The other comment concerning the conditions was on the
water modeling, we have been working with Kyle on the future city well site and I think
Kyle has modeled it. There is a reference to an elevation of 2,700 that the city can
serve off of the existing capacity and I think Kyle -- Kyle's looked at that and it is beyond
the 2,700, but it does not -- we can only bring on the phases that you can provide
adequate fire flows to based on the current flows out there. So, we just wanted to,
obviously, make that -- we were concerned about that number 2,700 being in stone,
since it was referenced specifically in the condition. Other than that, we are in
agreement.
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2014
Page 53 of 66
Rountree: Becky, what's -- what's the name of the southern most street that would go
out towards Meridian Road? Is that Carbondale?
McKay: The northern most street?
Bird: The southern.
Rountree: Southern.
McKay: Oh. Harris.
Rountree: So, that -- so that goes over and hooks up into Harris. So, it would be Harris
continuing?
McKay: This will be a continuation of Harris. Yes, sir. Carbondale is located at the
northeast --
Rountree: That's Carbondale.
McKay: That's Carbondale. And Carbondale does loop out to Meridian Road.
Rountree: Yeah.
McKay: And so -- and Harris -- eventually it will be signalized. I'm hoping if Hawkins
ever moves forward on their commercial site, they warranted the signal. When
Cavanaugh makes their half mile, mid mile collector that they are required to make
under their DA, then, that will help us meet that ITD warrant.
De Weerd: So, Becky, when do you connect to Carbondale?
McKay: Phase one.
De Weerd: In phase one?
McKay: Phase one.
De Weerd: And they have to go out to Carbondale to Bloomington --
McKay: And Meridian Road.
De Weerd: And, then, to Meridian Road.
McKay: Yes.
De Weerd: Who has the two lots once you get off of South Kentucky Way on Victory
Road to get to Stoddard?
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2014
Page 54 of 66
McKay: I believe Mr. Fisck and Mr. Sabala.
Bird: Yeah.
McKay: And, Madam Mayor, if I may say, I -- I did have to provide a concept on Mr.
Hansen's property to demonstrate to them that the sewer alignment would fall within
future public streets and would not be a detriment to their property and I did put an
access in alignment with Stoddard, which was like a half plus 12 and we had it shifted a
little bit to the east, because we can shift the center line up to a maximum of 12 feet.
They don't have to be in direct alignment, although that is preferred. So, when the
Hansens property develops there would -- could be another connection to Victory in
addition to Kentucky Way.
De Weerd: Well, I will just tell you I'm still concerned about the safety of kids getting to
middle school on Stoddard. I understand from our previous application that many
parents continue to drive their kids to school and if you're ever to break that -- that habit
you have to give kids a way to get to school safely. Getting them to Victory Road
seems that with the sidewalks in the subdivision along Kentucky Way and with
extension of the sidewalk to Victory Road you still have a very busy road on Victory
Road to get them to Stoddard. We have had this scenario before where we are setting
up an unsafe situation and I know it's off-site improvement, how do get kids to school
safely, but if you ask me, one of the biggest responsibilities this Council has is public
safety and it is going to be how to get those kids to school and encourage them to walk.
But you're not going to encourage them to walk when you have no safe way to get there
and they do have existing sidewalks in Bear Creek, so it's trying to figure out how to get
them there. We can't change it for the existing residents, but there should be a plan --
and I don't know if ACHD has it yet, but as we add new -- new residents and new
opportunities for students that -- to want to get to school, that has to be a consideration
from this Council.
McKay: If I may -- if I may comment, you guys have an existing multi -use pathway
that's ten foot wide that was built in Bear Creek at the southern boundary of Victory. It
runs over to Stoddard and, then, we are building multi -use pathways down Stoddard
along the frontage of Fall Creek and -- which leads directly to the new middle school
and, then, we are also building it along one side of our collector roadway all the way to
Linder.
De Weerd: And how is that going to connect to this development?
McKay: It's right across from Victory. Your multi -use pathway -- see in the comment, is
visible right -- right at Victory.
De Weerd: And how do you get them from Kentucky -- South Kentucky Way to
Stoddard, to -- to the pathway?
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2014
Page 55 of 66
McKay: You would have to go down Victory. You have got to work your way down
Victory and I guess Ada County -- with the extension of the sidewalk all the way down to
Victory, matching up to the existing walks that's going to be down by Revolution Ridge,
that will take you -- get you down to Victory. Now, as far as getting from Victory over to
Stoddard, ACHD is the only one that can solve that problem and they indicated with the
new middle school plans they will have to reevaluate this area and create safe routes to
school for the pedestrians and the bicyclists, so -- I mean it's not something I can solve.
If -- I mean there -- we have gaps in our walk all over on the arterial, because there are
section line roadways. So, I don't -- I mean I don't understand -- I guess, you know, the
only way to solve it would be to earmark dollars paid in impact fees for those upgrades,
which that would be sweet, because, then, you would truly be mitigating your impacts
on the transportation system with the monies paid. But my understanding is that's now
it works. It can be spent anywhere in the district. So, I guess that -- that's something
that needs to be discussed. We used to have at least zones where those dollars would
stay within the zone -- I mean that's -- that's not the case. They eliminated those.
De Weerd: Well, I will use a phrase that one of these Council members used to say
often.
Rountree: Don't give me credit.
De Weerd: I'm not in a hurry. If you can't set up a safe situation, wait until you have the
assurances from Ada County Highway District that you will have a safe situation. That
is my concern. Any other questions from Council?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: On Harris Street, does it currently connect to Meridian Road? I'm not
familiar with that --
McKay: Yes, sir.
Rountree: -- piece of terrain, so --
McKay: Yes, sir.
Rountree: And how far back --
McKay: It currently connects straight out to Meridian Road at the half mile. It is like half
plus 12.
Rountree: So, it's -- it will be -- it will be the point of signalization?
McKay: Yes, sir.
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2014
Page 56 of 66
Rountree: And does it go to the depth of the existing subdivision to this parcel or does it
stop at that one subdivision street furthest west?
McKay: No, sir. It abuts our -- this property. So, we can connect to the existing
roadway improvements and right of way and extend westward.
Rountree: And it's my understanding that that property is all under the ownership of
Centers, so -- in fact, that will ultimately be what is widened and --
McKay: Yes, sir.
Rountree: -- put in a --
McKay: We will have to build a full residential collector.
Rountree: And the build you're saying for that is in phrase three?
McKay: Yes, sir.
Rountree: What I'm going to ask is that the right way for that, in anticipation that phase
three never happens, be provided to ACHD, so we don't get stuck with what we get
stuck when the market goes south on some of these things and we can't get people
around.
McKay: Madam Mayor, Councilman Rountree, I believe Ada County Highway District
had a condition that a deed restriction be recorded, so they could be assured that the
Harris Street right of way going westward would be constructed as shown in their
master street map in the event that the property ever were to change hands.
Rountree: Okay.
McKay: So, ACHD has -- beat you to it.
Rountree: Good. Takes care of my concern.
McKay: Okay.
Rountree: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? Okay.
McKay: Thank you.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2014
Page 57 of 66
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: If there is no additional information needed, I would move that we close the
public hearing on Item 7-E, PP 14-004.
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.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton.
Borton: I'm comfortable with the plat and the applicant's comments in regards to the
staff conditions that this is proceeded phasing and the balancing of the interest still
makes me feel comfortable that this plat's appropriate. It may become a motion, but for
right now it's just my comment.
De Weerd: I guess I will just give -- I think you already know my concern about the
safety in that area for anyone on foot or on bike. Getting them to Victory and
completing that last leg along Victory to connect to another safe place is, in my opinion,
paramount. We learned this during our high growth period and where they are putting
schools without adequate infrastructure to get kids safely to school, we keep saying we
have learned from our -- our past mistakes and I feel that if we don't have an answer to
this before getting more kids in that area we are going to define insanity. So, we know
that there are going to be off-site connections in many places, but I do think it is our
responsibility to see how to make those connections and to work with the appropriate --
if the developers cannot get it done, that they need to work with the responsible agency
to make sure there is a commitment when that hazard, which is a school, is -- is built,
that that connection is there and that's my two cents worth. I think this is a great
development and you can see that by -- that we don't have a room full of people, that
this will compliment some of the development that is already there, but with that said it
also presents something that we need to insure that we don't endanger and set
ourselves up for a -- a serious problem.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: While I am very concerned about the safety of kids walking to school and stuff and
it only took them 46 years to get sidewalks to my place, but I don't feel that this
subdivision is the cause of it. I think what we need to do is -- like we should have done
at Sawtooth, before we allowed the school district to put the school in out there, we
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2014
Page 58 of 66
should have made sure that they went to ACHD and got that stuff taken care of. This
subdivision's plan -- a pretty good set of impact fees to ACHD and ACHD, to their credit,
has done two or three safety school projects, because of yourself and the Council
asking to get it done and they have done it. So, I don't -- while I know this is going to
create the stuff that -- when they get ready to put that school in, that's when -- that's
when we need to make sure that all pathways to that school is safe out of here. They
are getting it down to the road. Now the school and us and ACHD, they get it from
theirs to the school. That's my first statement. Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I'm not going to sit here all night and look dumb. I can look dumb anytime. But
-- I move that we approve PP 14-004 and include all staff, applicant, and public
testimony.
Borton: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 7-E. Any discussion?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Would the maker of the motion include in that that the open area park be
included in phrase two, as opposed to phase three?
Bird: Maker, if the second agrees, would do that. Yes. It's right on the edge of phase
two anyway.
Borton: Second agrees.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other discussion?
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: Do we need to make any recommendation on the one block length that there
was some question about, whether it was too long or not? Have a division in it or is
the --
Watters: It's --
Zaremba: Okay.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2014
Page 59 of 66
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I believe that met the -- the 750 feet met the --
Zaremba: According to the applicant it was okay.
Bird: Yeah. I didn't see Sonya having a heart attack.
De Weerd: I hope we don't see her have a heart attack. Okay. Any other discussions?
Madam Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener,
absent.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Council, before -- staff, I guess, before we move into department reports, I
will have -- I know we have a request to meet with the Ada County Highway District
commission. We have to talk about connecting and safe routes to school and we have
to do this prior to development and I am -- we have numerous examples of where we
have failed in this area. We don't need to keep doing that. So, if you will put that also
on the agenda and, Ryan, I'm sure in your report tomorrow you will give a heads up.
So, thank you.
Item 8: Department Reports
A. Public Works Department: Budget Amendment for FY2014 in
the Amount of $175,000.00 for Waterline Extensions
De Weerd: Okay. Under Item 8, Department Reports. 8-A is under our Public Works
Department. I will turn this over to Kyle.
Radek: Madam Mayor, Council Members, this budget amendment is for 175,000
dollars to fund two projects. The first project is the Waltman Lane water line extension.
This project was designed at the end of the last fiscal year and was intended to be built
this fiscal year. We budged for three projects and the two projects that were -- not more
important, but more urgent than this project, came in over our budget and took that
water line extension money that Waltman Lane needs. Waltman Lane has been bid
out, so we know exactly how much we need for it, so that's 75,000 we are requesting for
that project. The second project is the Locust Grove, Black Rock to Reflection Ridge
project, and this project is scheduled for construction in 2015 and we were intending to
design it in 2015 as well. We have done some pre -design and come to the realization
that the project will be a little more complicated than our average water line extension
project, requiring a little more design time, so we would just like to start designing early
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2014
Page 60 of 66
on this project, so we would like to move to the design forward is the reason for the --
for the funding for this project. With that I will stand for any questions.
De Weerd: Thank you, Kyle. Any questions from Council?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Kyle, I take it that the second phase -- the second -- the design is going to be
about 101,000 for the design? Because you're asking for 175 and 74 of it is for
Waltman?
Radek: Council -- Councilman Bird, the Waltman Lane project bid out at --
Bird: Seventy-four thousand --
Radek: -- 74,770 dollars, so that would leave us 330 dollars extra, if you will. It seem
like a budget amendment for exactly that amount was absolutely necessary --
Bird: No.
Radek: -- and we are not going to -- we are not going to give the contractor 330 dollars
if he doesn't deserve it, but we -- you know, I don't mind having 330 dollars extra in the
800,000 dollar budget just in case it is needed.
Bird: I'm glad you do, because that -- but I'm talking about the 175,000 that we are
asking for right now. We are not -- we are not talking about the contract. You told me
part of it was for Waltmans, which is 75,000.
Radek: Seventy-five thousand. Yes.
Bird: Okay. So, 100,000 for design of this other project?
Radek: That's correct, sir. We actually have a task order, scoped it with JUB Engineers
and their -- their design estimate was 94,000 and it gets a little higher than you would
normally expect. It's -- it's about 20 percent rather than ten percent of the project,
estimated construction budget. But it is a large project we expected to be 500,000, so
it's not totally out of line.
Bird: Okay. Kyle -- and this is -- this is a broken record. But why are all our contracts
coming in over budget? Are we getting bad estimates out of our professionals or what?
Radek: Councilman Bird, there is a couple reasons. The first and foremost reason is
that when we ask you for budget, we are about a year, maybe a year and a half away
from constructing the project. We don't have a design estimate from our -- from our
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2014
Page 61 of 66
consultants and sometimes we don't know what the project is. For example, the -- one
of the project that went over -- over the budget we requested was the -- the utility
improvements in conjunction with the Ustick Road, Locust Grove to Leslie project. So,
all we know when we come to you for the budget is that ACHD is doing the road project
and we may know what the extent of it is and we may know when they are going to do
it, but until we get into the design of the project with ACHD and we find out where that
storm drain is and where they're putting curb and gutter and sidewalk and the extent of
their -- of their improvements that we have to adjust for, we don't know exactly what we
are doing for the project. So, in this case we have -- we budgeted 40,000 -- 50,000
dollars for the ACHD project, which came in about 80,000. We budgeted 450,000
dollars for the Locust Grove project, which came in at 500,000 and the Waltman Lane
project, which we actually did a design on. The design estimate was 82,000 and the
project came in at -- as you can see at 74,000 and some change and that's pretty good.
And so when we are budgeting a year in advantage of the project and we don't quite
know what the project is and we get within ten percent, I think that's pretty good.
De Weerd: Any other questions?
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: On a similar subject, I -- it seems to me several years ago we went through a
period where our estimates were high and we were getting bids that were much lower,
just after the crash and I guess my -- my question is are we going through the converse
and is what you're describing the fact that the economy is picking up and at the point
that where you make the estimate -- between then and when we actually get a bid the
economy has improved and the cost goes up?
Radek: Councilman Zaremba, that's another point that I failed to mention is, yeah, we
have seen some pretty crazy ups and downs in the -- in the contracting market. We
have had -- we have had times when we have put out a bid and we would get one
contractor bidding on it and we have had times when we put out a bid and we got ten
contractors bidding on it, just because of the -- the atmosphere. We have a lot of busy
contractors right now that don't need our work and when we put out a bid they -- they
see a chance to make money or they see it -- you know, they don't need it, so they -- we
are going to see higher prices and we have seen that lately.
Zaremba: In a way that's good news for the economy, but it pinches a little bit.
De Weerd: Any other questions or comments?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2014
Page 62 of 66
Borton: With no further comment, I would move we approve Item 8-A, the Public Works
Department budget amendment in the amount of 175,000 for the water line extension.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 8-A. Any discussion?
Madam Clerk.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener,
absent.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
B. Approval of Award of Bid and Agreement to Paul Construction
for the "Waltman Street Waterline Extension - Construction"
project for a Not -To -Exceed amount of $74,770.00
De Weerd: Okay. Item 8-13 is looking for approval of the award.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: I would move that we approve Item 8-13, the award of bid to Paul Construction
for the Waltman Street water line extension in an amount not to exceed 74,770 dollars.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 8-B. If there is no discussion
Madam Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener,
absent.
De Weerd: Oh, my gosh. I think that was approved.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 9: Ordinances
A. Ordinance No. 14-1603: An Ordinance (AZ 13-012 — Sagewood
Subdivision) For Annexation Of A Parcel Of Land Located In
The NW'/4 Of Section 24, Township 3 North, Range 1 West,
Boise, Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, Establishing And
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2014
Page 63 of 66
Determining The Land Use Zoning Classification Of Said
Lands From RUT And R-1 To L -O (Limited Office District) And
R-8 (Medium Density Residential District) In The Meridian City
Code; And Providing An Effective Date
De Weerd: Item 9-A is Ordinance 14-1603. Madam Clerk, would you, please, read this
by title only.
Holman: Thank you, Madam Mayor. City of Meridian Ordinance No. 14-1603, an
Ordinance AZ 13-012, Sagewood Subdivision, for annexation of a parcel of land located
in the northwest one quarter of Section 24, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise
meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as described in Attachment A and annexing certain lands
and territory situated in Ada County, Idaho, and adjacent and contiguous to the
corporate limits of the City of Meridian, as required by the City of Meridian, establishing
and determining the land use zoning classification of said lands from RUT and R-1 to
L -O, Limited Office District, and R-8, Medium Density Residential 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 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 read by title only. Does anyone want to hear it read in
its entirety?
Rountree: They are leaving.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: You could say yes and, then, leave. Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve 14-1603 with suspension of rules.
Milam: 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, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener,
absent.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
B. Ordinance No. 14-1604: An Ordinance (AZ 13-016 — Southern
Highlands) For Annexation Of A Parcel Situated In A Portion
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2014
Page 64 of 66
Of Section 32, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise
Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, More Particularly Described As
Lots 16 And 24, Block 1, A Portion Of Lot 1, Block 4, A Portion
Of Lot 1, Block 5, And A Portion Of Lot 1, Block 6 Of Blackrock
Subdivision No. 1, And A Portion Of S. Eagle Road And E.
Taconic Drive Right -Of -Ways, Determining The Land Use
Zoning Classification Of Said Lands From RUT To R-4
(Medium Low Density Residential District) 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 14-1604. Madam Clerk, will you, please, read this
by title only.
Holman: Thank you, Madam Mayor. City of Meridian Ordinance No. 14-1604, an
Ordinance AZ 13-016, Southern Highlands, for annexation of a parcel situated in a
portion of Section 32, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise meridian, Ada County,
Idaho, more particularly described as Lot 16 and 24, Block 1, a portion of Lot 1, Block 4,
a portion of Lot 1, Block 5, and a portion of Lot 1, Block 6, of Black Rock Subdivision
No. 1, on file in the office of the recorder, Ada County, Idaho, in Book 96, pages 12,003
to 12,008 and a portion of South Eagle Road and East Taconic Drive right of ways, the
exterior boundary of which is more particularly described in Attachment A and annexing
certain lands and territory 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
to R-4, Median Low Density Residential 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 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 read by title only. Council, I don't see anyone who
wants to hear it read, so do I have a motion?
Milam: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Milam.
Milam: I move that we approve Ordinance No. 14-1604 with suspension of rules.
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 9-B. Madam Clerk, will you
call roll.
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2014
Page 65 of 66
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener,
absent.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 10: Future Meeting Topics
De Weerd: Council, any items for consideration under Item 10, Future Meeting Topics?
Rountree: The one you mentioned, obviously.
De Weerd: Okay.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: Not a topic, but I regret that I will miss the workshop next week and just want
to make sure we will have a quorum.
De Weerd: Will everyone be here besides me?
Bird: I will be here.
De Weerd: I mean I'm not going to be here either. Only a comment for Mr. Zaremba.
did notice the air quality looked pretty bad in one of those pictures showed today. So,
would you do something about that.
Zaremba: I will do my best.
De Weerd: Okay.
Zaremba: We are going to test every car.
Item 11: Amended onto the Agenda: Executive Session Per Idaho State Code
67-2345 (1)(c)(f): (c) To Conduct Deliberations Concerning Labor
Negotiations or to Acquire an Interest in Real Property, Which is Not
Owned by a Public Agency; AND (f) To Consider and Advise Its Legal
Representatives in Pending Litigation
De Weerd: Council, I would entertain a motion to adjourn into Executive Session.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
May 6, 2014
Page 66 of 66
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we go into Executive Session as per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1)(c),
(1)(f).
Milam: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to adjourn into Executive Session. Madam
Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener,
absent.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
EXECUTIVE SESSION: (9:26 p.m. to 10:38 p.m.)
De Weerd: I would entertain a motion to come out of Executive Session.
Rountree: So moved.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Do I have a motion to adjourn?
Rountree: So moved.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: All those in favor? All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:38 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
MAYOR MY DE WEERD DATE APPROVED
ATTEST: Gc�4�RATEnqu�sr
yr •,, city :
JAYCEEJHLNA`W, Y C l�C C11 l DAH O'
EAL
?�, JR
F�f��the TRE aS`�Q'F.