2014-07-22E IDIAN-^-- CITY COUNCIL REGULAR
MEETING AGENDA
City Council Chambers
33 East Broadway Avenue
Meridian, Idaho
Tuesday, July 22, 2014 at 6:00 PM 6:05 PM
Roll -Call Attendance
X David Zaremba X Joe Borton
X Charlie Rountree X Keith Bird
X Genesis Milam X Luke Cavener
Mayor Tammy de Weerd
2. Pledge of Allegiance
3. Community Invocation by Jake Lopez with Calvary Chapel Not present
4. Adoption of the Agenda Adopted
5. Consent Agenda Approved (Pg 2-4)
A. Approve Minutes of July 15, 2014 City Council Meeting
B. FP 14-033 Biltmore Estates Subdivision No. 1 by L.C. Development, Inc.
Located South of W. Victory Road and West of S. Meridian Road Request:
Final Plat Approval Consisting of Twenty -Nine (29) Building Lots and Six
(6) Common / Other Lots on 10.92 Acres of Land in the R-4 Zoning District
C. FP 14-032 Reflection Ridge Subdivision No. 3 by Mission Coast Properties
ID, Inc. Located Approximately 1/2 Mile South of E. Victory Road and 1/2
Mile West of S. Locust Grove Road
D. Continued from July 15, 2014: FP 14-027 Woodburn West Subdivision No.
2 by Northside Management Located North of W. Ustick Road and East of
N. Linder Road Request: Final Plat Approval Consisting of Forty -Eight (48)
Building Lots and Seven (7) Common / Other Lots on 25.75 Acres of Land
in the R-8 Zoning District
E. Final Order for Approval: FP 14-030 Reardon Subdivision by CS2, LLC
Located Near Southwest Corner of W. Cherry Lane and N. Summertree Way
Request: Final Plat Ten (10) Single Family Residential Lots and Two (2)
Common/Other Lots on Approximately 1.96 Acres in the R-8 Zoning District
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda — Tuesday, July 22, 2014 Page 1 of 5
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing,
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
F. Quitclaim Deed from the Idaho Transportation Department for Permanent
Easements Required to Maintain City Sewer Infrastructure at the 1-84
Meridian Road Interchange
G. Fiber Optic Easement for Public Works Fiber Optic Line, City Hall to Water
Department, and to Wastewater Treatment Plant - Leonard Huskey Estate
H. Fiber Optic Easement for Public Works Fiber Optic Line, City Hall to Water
Department, and to Wastewater Treatment Plant - Tumble Creek
Homeowner's Association
I. Fiber Optic Easement for Public Works Fiber Optic Line, City Hall to Water
Department, and to Wastewater Treatment Plant - Bridgetower
Homeowners Association
J. First Amendment to the St. Luke's Regional Medical Center, Ltd., Service
Agreement With the City of Meridian
K. Temporary License Agreement with Ada County Highway District for
Installation, Maintenance, Repair and Replacement of Parcel 163 Artwork -
UNDER THE SUN AND DREAMING
L. Approval of Professional Services Agreement for a "City Wide Strategic
Plan" to Leadership Advisors, Inc. for the Not -to -Exceed Amount of
$53,250.00 Item removed from the Consent Agenda and moved to Item 6
M. Approval of Change Order No. 2 to Task Order 10432 for "Ustick Road
Utility Improvements" to Civil Survey Consultants, Inc. for the Not -to -
Exceed Amount of $22,648.10
N. License Agreement with COMPASS for Installation of Redundant
Equipment at Meridian City Hall
O. Resolution No. # 14-999: A Resolution Of The Mayor And The City Council
Of The City Of Meridian Authorizing The City Clerk To Destroy Certain
Semi -Permanent Records Of The Meridian Public Works Department; And
Providing An Effective Date.
P. Approval Of Award Of Bid And Agreement To Pipeline Inspection
Services, Inc For The "Sewer Manhole Retrofit And Line Repair 2014 "
Project For A Not -To -Exceed Amount of $87,650.00.
Q. Award of Bid and Approval of Agreement for the "Meridian Heights Water
Meter Project"
Vacated from the agenda
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda — Tuesday, July 22, 2014 Page 2 of 5
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.
R. Amended onto the Agenda: Approval of Professional Services Agreement
for Instructor Services for Self -Defense Classes with Alexandra Breshears
at No Cost to the City
S. Amended onto the Agenda: Approval of Professional Services Agreement
for Musical Talent for Concerts on Broadway with High Street
Entertainment for the Not -to -Exceed Amount of $3,500.00
6. Items Moved From Consent Agenda (Pg 68-69)
Item 5L moved here: Approval of Professional Services Agreement for a "City
Wide Strategic Plan" to Leadership Advisors, Inc. for the Not -to -Exceed Amount
of $53,250.00 Item discussed and moved to the end of the agenda as Item 11 by
motion
7. Action Items
A. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) PY2014 Action Plan Public
Hearing (Pg 5-8)
B. Resolution No. # 14-1000: Resolution to Approve the Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) PY2014 Action Plan Approved (Pg 8)
C. Public Hearing: AZ 14-010 Archer Farm Subdivision by Archer Farm
Properties, LLC Located 4660 N. Meridian Road Request: Annexation and
Zoning of 5.2 Acres of Land with an R-8 Zoning District Approved (Pg 8-12)
D. Public Hearing: PP 14-010 Archer Farm Subdivision by Archer Farm
Properties, LLC Located 4660 N. Meridian Road Request: Preliminary Plat
Approval Consisting of Twenty (20) Building Lots and One (1) Common Lot
on 4.93 Acres of Land in a Proposed R-8 Zoning District Approved (Pg 8-
E. Public Hearing: AZ 14-009 Castle Creek Subdivision by Northwest Ventures
Located 2432 E. Amity Road Request: Annexation and Zoning of 6.97 Acres
of Land with an R-8 Zoning District Approved (Pg 12-19)
F. Public Hearing: PP 14-009 Castle Creek Subdivision by Northwest Ventures
Located 2432 E. Amity Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting
of Nineteen (19) Building Lots and Five (5) Common/Other Lots on 6.58
Acres of Land in the R-8 Zoning District Approved (Pg 12-19)
G. FP 14-031 Heritage Grove by Green Village Development Located NWC of
N. Locust Grove Road and E. Ustick Road Request: Final Plat Approval
Consisting of Thirty -Three (33) Single Family Residential Lots and Ten (10)
Common Lots on Approximately 6.81 Acres in the R-15 Zoning District
Approved (Pg 19-20)
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda — Tuesday, July 22, 2014 Page 3 of 5
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. Public Hearing: RZ 14-004 Citadel II Self -Service Storage Facility by Citadel
Storage, LLC Located East Side of S. Eagle Road and North of E. Easy Jet
Request: Rezone of 5.44 Acres of Land from the R-4 (Medium Low -Density
Residential District) Zoning District to the C -C Zoning (Community
Business District) Zoning District Approved (Pg 20-38)
Public Hearing: CUP 14-007 Citadel II Self -Service Storage Facility by
Citadel Storage, LLC Located East Side of S. Eagle Road and North of E.
Easy Jet Drive Request: Conditional Use Permit for a Self -Service Storage
Facility Consisting of Thirteen (13) Buildings on Approximately 4.8 Acres of
Land in a Proposed C -C Zoning District Approved (Pg 20-38)
J. Public Hearing: AZ 14-008 Shallow Creek by Steve Arnold Located
Southeast Corner of N. Locust Grove Road and E. Franklin Road Request:
Annexation of Approximately 6.61 Acres from RUT in Ada County to the
R-15 (Medium High -Density Residential) Zoning District
Continued to August 19, 2014 (Pg 38-52)
K. Public Hearing: PP 14-008 Shallow Creek by Steve Arnold Located
Southeast Corner of N. Locust Grove Road and E. Franklin Road Request:
Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Eighteen (18) Buildable Lots and
Two (2) Common Lots on Approximately 5.84 Acres in the Proposed R-15
Zoning District Continued to August 19, 2014 (Pg 38-52)
L. Public Hearing: CUP 14-005 Shallow Creek by Steve Arnold Located
Southeast Corner of N. Locust Grove Road and E. Franklin Road Request:
Conditional Use Permit for a Multi -Family Development Consisting of Sixty -
Eight (68) Dwelling Units (17 Four-Plexes) on Approximately 5.84 Acres of
Land in the Proposed R-15 Zoning District Continued to August 19, 2014
(Pg 38-52)
M. Public Hearing: PP 14-007 Timbergrove by Steve Arnold Located West Side
of N. Centrepoint Way and North of E. Ustick Road Request: Preliminary
Plat Approval of Twenty (20) Buildable Lots and Three (3) Common Lots on
Approxmately 4.28 Acres in the C -G Zoning District Approved (Pg 52-61)
N. Public Hearing: CUP 14-006 Timbergrove by Steve Arnold Located West
Side of N. Centrepoint Way and North of E. Ustick Road Request:
Conditional Use Permit Approval for a Multi -Family Development
Consisting of Eighty (80) Dwelling Units (20 Four-Plexes) on Approximately
4.28 Acres in the C -G Zoning District Approved (Pg 52-61)
O. Public Hearing: MDA 14-007 Timbergrove by Steve Arnold Located West
Side of N. Centrepoint Way and North of E. Ustick Road Request: Amend
the Recorded Development Agreement for the Purpose of Excluding the
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda — Tuesday, July 22, 2014 Page 4 of 5
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.
Property AND Creating a New Development Agreement to Govern the
Proposed Timbergrove Subdivision Approved (Pg 52-61)
8. Department Reports
A. Adoption of the Tentatively Proposed Revenues and Expenditures for
Fiscal Year 2015 for the Amount of $93,757,229 Approved (Pg 61-62)
B. Approval of the Amended Revenues and Expenditures for Fiscal Year 2014
in the Amount of $91,485,197 Approved (Pg 62)
C. Legal Department: Agreement for Professional Services with Corbett
Auctions and Appraisals, Inc. Approved (Pg 62-63)
D. Legal Department: Resolution No. # 14-1001: A Resolution Setting Forth
Certain Findings and Purposes to Authorize Sale at Public Auction of
Firearms in Custody of the Meridian Police Department due to
Abandonment, Impound, Leaving, or Release from Attachment. Approved
(Pg 63-64)
9. Future Meeting Topics
A. Selection of Date and Discussion Regarding a Joint Meeting with City of
Kuna in Regards to South Meridian (Pg 64-68)
10. Executive Session Per Idaho State Code 67-2345 (1)(f): (f) To Consider and Advise
Its Legal Representatives in Pending Litigation
Amended onto the Agenda: Executive Session per Idaho State Code 67-2345
(1)(d): (d) To Consider Records that are Exempt from Disclosure as Provided in
Chapter 3, Title 9, Idaho Code (Pg 69)
11. Item 5L moved from Item 6: Approval of Professional Services Agreement for a
"City Wide Strategic Plan" to Leadership Advisors, Inc. for the Not -to -Exceed
Amount of $53,250.00 Approved (Pg 68-69)
Into Executive Session at 8:57 PM
Out of Executive Session at 9:25 PM
Adjourned at 9:25 PM
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda — Tuesday, July 22, 2014 Page 5 of 5
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 July 22, 2014
A meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:05 p.m., Tuesday, July
22, 2014, by President Charlie Rountree.
Members Present: Charlie Rountree, Keith Bird, Joe Borton, Genesis Milam, David
Zaremba and Luke Cavener.
Members Absent: Mayor Tammy de Weerd.
Others Present: Bill Nary, Jacy Jones, Caleb Hood, Bill Parsons, Sonya Watters, Kyle
Radek, Tracy Basterrechea, Parry Palmer, Lori Den Hartog, 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
Mayor Tammy de Weerd
Rountree: I'm going to call the Tuesday, July 22nd, Meridian City Council meeting in
session and first thing on the agenda is roll call. Madam Clerk.
Item 2: Pledge of Allegiance
Rountree: Thank you. If you would join me in the Pledge of Allegiance, please.
(Pledge of Allegiance recited.)
Item 3: Community Invocation by Jake Lopez with Calvary Chapel
Rountree: The next item is a community invocation. Is Jake here this evening? I don't
see him.
Item 4: Adoption of the Agenda
Rountree: Seeing he is not present, then, we will move on to the adoption of the
agenda.
Bird: Mr. President?
Rountree: Mr. Bird.
Meridian City Council
July 22, 2014
Page 2 of 69
Bird: On the agenda, Item 5-L, we would like to pull to 6-L and also on 5-0, the
proposed resolution number is 14-999. 5-Q has been asked by staff to vacate this item
from the agenda. Have been asked to, please, amend onto the agenda under 5-R,
approval of professional service agreement for instructor services for self-defense
classes with Alexandria Breshears at a no cost to the city and also add 5-S, please
amend onto the agenda approval of professional services agreement for musical talent
for Concerts On Broadway with High Street Entertainment with a not to exceed amount
of 3,500 dollars. Under Action Items, 7-13 is proposed 14-100 for resolution. Let's see.
And Item No. 8-D, the resolution proposed is 14-101 and also on Item No. 10, the
Executive Session, we have (1)(f) and we want to add (1)(d). With that I move that we
approve the amended agenda.
Zaremba: Second.
Rountree: It's been moved and seconded to approve the agenda. Any discussion? All
those in favor of the motion signify by aye. Opposed same sign? Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 5: Consent Agenda
A. Approve Minutes of July 15, 2014 City Council Meeting
B. FP 14-033 Biltmore Estates Subdivision No. 1 by L.C.
Development, Inc. Located South of W. Victory Road and West
of S. Meridian Road Request: Final Plat Approval Consisting of
Twenty -Nine (29) Building Lots and Six (6) Common / Other
Lots on 10.92 Acres of Land in the R-4 Zoning District
C. FP 14-032 Reflection Ridge Subdivision No. 3 by Mission
Coast Properties ID, Inc. Located Approximately 1/2 Mile South
of E. Victory Road and 1/2 Mile West of S. Locust Grove Road
D. Continued from July 15, 2014: FP 14-027 Woodburn West
Subdivision No. 2 by Northside Management Located North of
W. Ustick Road and East of N. Linder Road Request: Final Plat
Approval Consisting of Forty -Eight (48) Building Lots and
Seven (7) Common / Other Lots on 25.75 Acres of Land in the
R-8 Zoning District
E. Final Order for Approval: FP 14-030 Reardon Subdivision by
CS2, LLC Located Near Southwest Corner of W. Cherry Lane
and N. Summertree Way Request: Final Plat Ten (10) Single
Family Residential Lots and Two (2) Common/Other Lots on
Approximately 1.96 Acres in the R-8 Zoning District
Meridian City Council
July 22, 2014
Page 3 of 69
F. Quitclaim Deed from the Idaho Transportation Department for
Permanent Easements Required to Maintain City Sewer
Infrastructure at the 1-84 Meridian Road Interchange
G. Fiber Optic Easement for Public Works Fiber Optic Line, City
Hall to Water Department, and to Wastewater Treatment Plant -
Leonard Huskey Estate
H. Fiber Optic Easement for Public Works Fiber Optic Line, City
Hall to Water Department, and to Wastewater Treatment Plant -
Tumble Creek Homeowner's Association
Fiber Optic Easement for Public Works Fiber Optic Line, City
Hall to Water Department, and to Wastewater Treatment Plant -
Bridgetower Homeowners Association
J. First Amendment to the St. Luke's Regional Medical Center,
Ltd., Service Agreement With the City of Meridian
K. Temporary License Agreement with Ada County Highway
District for Installation, Maintenance, Repair and Replacement
of Parcel 163 Artwork - UNDER THE SUN AND DREAMING
M. Approval of Change Order No. 2 to Task Order 10432 for
"Ustick Road Utility Improvements" to Civil Survey
Consultants, Inc. for the Not -to -Exceed Amount of $22,648.10
N. License Agreement with COMPASS for Installation of
Redundant Equipment at Meridian City Hall
O. Resolution No. # 14-999: A Resolution Of The Mayor And The
City Council Of The City Of Meridian Authorizing The City
Clerk To Destroy Certain Semi -Permanent Records Of The
Meridian Public Works Department; And Providing An
Effective Date.
P. Approval Of Award Of Bid And Agreement To Pipeline
Inspection Services, Inc For The "Sewer Manhole Retrofit And
Line Repair 2014 " Project For A Not -To -Exceed Amount of
$87,650.00.
R. Amended onto the Agenda: Approval of Professional
Services Agreement for Instructor Services for Self -Defense
Classes with Alexandra Breshears at No Cost to the City
S. Amended onto the Agenda: Approval of Professional
Services Agreement for Musical Talent for Concerts on
Meridian City Council
July 22, 2014
Page 4 of 69
Broadway with High Street Entertainment for the Not -to -
Exceed Amount of $3,500.00
Rountree: Next Item is Consent Agenda.
Bird: Mr. President?
Rountree: Mr. Bird.
Bird: On the Consent Agenda Item 5-L we want to pull to 6-L off the Consent Agenda.
Item 5-0 the resolution number is 14-999. 5-Q has been requested to be vacated off
the agenda. 5-R has been added. And 5-S has been added. And with that I move that
we approve the amended Consent Agenda and for the president to sign and the clerk to
attest.
Zaremba: Second.
Rountree: It's been moved and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda. Any
discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote, please.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milan, yea; Cavener,
yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 6: Items Moved From Consent Agenda
Item 5L moved here: Approval of Professional Services Agreement
for a "City Wide Strategic Plan" to Leadership Advisors, Inc. for the
Not -to -Exceed Amount of $53,250.00
Bird: Okay. We are at Item 6, which now is Item 5-L. Is there some discussion or
questions that would like to be brought up?
Borton: Mr. President?
Rountree: Yes.
Borton: Looking at the contract and I don't know if Caleb maybe can answer, maybe
not. We just had the task with regard to the city-wide strategic plan process with that
consultant contract -- if it was discussed in my absence I apologize, but it wasn't clear to
me what the role of the City Council is specifically as far as being an active participant in
explaining that plan or more of a recipient, having it presented to us. So, I didn't know if
there was anyone who could answer that question better than what the scope itself
says.
Meridian City Council
July 22, 2014
Page 5 of 69
Nary: Mr. President?
Rountree: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Mr. President, Members of the Council, Council Member Borton, I know we have
discussed it at length in the formulation of it. Chief Niemeyer and Bruce Chatterton from
Community Development are the ones that had actually met with the consultant and
negotiated a scope and I guess I would ask if the Council wouldn't mind you could put it
to the end of the agenda. I think the Mayor should be here by the end of the agenda, I
think she has probably the most knowledge of how the process is going to work that
would include the City Council as well. But I'm sorry 1 don't have more specifics than
that, so --
Rountree: Further discussion?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: Have a motion to move that to the end of the agenda, which would be Item
11.
Bird: Mr. Chairman -- Mr. President?
Rountree: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we move 6-L to Item No. 11 on our agenda.
Borton: Second.
Rountree: It's been moved and seconded to move Item six -- 5-L to Item 11 on the
agenda. All those in favor of the motion signify by aye. Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 7: Action Items
A. Community Hearing
Rountree: Action items. Community Block Grant. Lori.
Den Hartog: Thank you, Mr. President, Members of the Council. I'm here this evening
to present our 2014 annual action plan for the Community Development Block Grant
program. I was here before you at the end of May discussing our priorities for the
upcoming year. The action plan year will start on October 1. Our priorities for the
coming year -- we have two. We are looking to do public facility improvements and
projects within the low to moderate income area of the city and public facility
improvements that address the conditions contributing to the deterioration of the area.
Meridian City Council
July 22, 2014
Page 6 of 69
That will be the primary focus of our CDBG expenditures for the upcoming program
year. CDBG funds will also be invested in public service activities that serve and will
benefit our low to moderate income residents of the city and will advance a suitable
living environment. So, these are allocations for the upcoming year, we have our
administrative expenses at just over 40,000. We have 3,000 dollars allocated for our
fair housing outreach and education and I will go into a little bit more detail in just a
minute on these. Under the suitable living environment we have one public facility
project, which is a fitness path at Meridian Elementary School, which is a public school
here locally right in the downtown area for 50,000 dollars. We have two public service
activities. We have hunger relief through the Meridian Food Bank at 27,000 dollars and
we have homeless case management with CATCH, which is Charitable Assistance To
Community's Homeless for 18,000 dollars for case management services. We did -- we
are planning on maxing out our 15 percent cap on public service dollars with those two
projects. And, then, our final project, which as you can see takes up the bulk of our
allocations for this year. It's a public facility project to do fagade improvements to the
Meridian Community Center here in our downtown area for 162,000 dollars. I don't
know how well the map shows up. You can see the boundary of our defined LMl area
within the city. Fairview is the northern boundary. Locust Grove is the eastern
boundary. Linder to the west. And, then, as you can see it's kind of an L shape along
Meridian Road there. So, some of these -- the community center takes place within our
urban renewal area, which is an important consideration for the type of project that it is
and the other two -- as you see the impact takes place within our LMI area in its location
just across the road. And, then, I have also highlighted the CATCH program, because
they have offices in what is now the West Ada -- and let me get that right -- the West
Ada School District. Make sure I said that right. School District No. 2. Have offices
there. So, a little bit more detail on the program activities for the coming year. The
dollars allocated for the food bank will be used to purchase food that will be distributed
directly to persons and families in need here at the Meridian Food Bank location.
Currently the food bank serves approximately 4,500 people each month. They have
received funding in the past and they have been a wonderful sub recipient for us. They
have a lot of tracking and a great deal of information gathering that the need to be able
to comply with the grant and they have been a very solid sub recipient for the city. The
next item is a new one. We talked a little bit about this in May. It's Case Management
Services with CATCH, which is Charitable Assistance To Community's Homeless.
These funds will be used to pay for increased staffing time. There is one CATCH
employee currently serving the homeless families in Meridian. CATCH is -- is an
organization that houses homeless families first and provides intensive case
management to address the issues contributing to the homeless episode and prepare
that family for self sufficiency. So, these funds will allow this organization to increase
their services in Meridian and sere more families. The activities are the public facility
activities. The first is the Meridian fitness path, as I mentioned before. The plan is to
invest 50,000 dollars to construct a quarter mile path in the west field at Meridian
Elementary School. The path will be composed of blacktop surface loop and
scientifically designed station base exercises, which will also be ADA accessible. And
the path will also serve as a pedestrian connection between 4th Street and Pine Avenue
and Northwest 1st. And, then, the final public facility finally is the fagade improvements
Meridian City Council
July 22, 2014
Page 7 of 69
of the Meridian Community Center. The plan is to invest 162,000 dollars to design and
construct those fagade improvements for that facility, which is currently owned by the
city. And we have program administration. Our allocation is capped at 20 percent. We
do have -- this is the highest year of the dollar amount funding that we have had. I was
trying to recall what last year was, but we are just over 300,000 this year and we have
been keeping our administration expenses consistent, so they are just 13 percent for
next year's administrative costs. And the final one -- if you will recall a few weeks ago
you had a presentation. Mr. Jerome Mapp came over and discussed the Fair Housing
Awareness campaign that the City of Meridian has partnered with Boise on and so the
fair housing outreach and education is 3,000 dollars and some of those funds are used
to go towards the campaign that we partner with Boise and Nampa and the dollar
amount there will go towards -- we have some training there -- the landlord training that
we will do with the city of Nampa next year as well. So, that's what those funds will be
used for. The public comment period on the action plan was opened on June 16th. I
did receive written comments from Beth Geagan on behalf of the Boise City Ada County
Continuum of Care, which the city of Meridian participates and the comments were
related to our fair housing action plan and participation in the CIC housing working
group. The comments were consistent with our participation in that group and we have
incorporated the comments into the action plan in Section 6 and 8. And I will leave it
now if we have anybody here in the audience that would like to provide additional public
comments and those can be incorporated as well and, if not, then, I will go to the last
slide. Thank you.
Rountree: Thank you. The public testimony period is still open. I have not received
anybody signing up wishing to testify, but is there anybody out there that would like to?
Seeing none. Go ahead.
Den Hartog: Okay. With that I would ask the Council to close the public hearing that
was opened on June 16th for the 2014 action plan and to adopt the 2014 action plan as
presented and to direct staff to submit the plan to HUD for their review and approval.
Thank you.
Rountree: Thank you. Any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Milam: Mr. President?
Rountree: Mrs. Milam.
Milam: I move that we close the public hearing on 7-A for the Community Development
Block Grant 2014 action plan.
Zaremba: Second.
Meridian City Council
July 22, 2014
Page 8 of 69
Rountree: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on Item 7-A. All
those in favor signify by aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
B. Resolution No. # 14-1000: Resolution to Approve the
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) PY2014 Action
Plan
Rountree: We are now at 7-B.
Milam: Mr. President?
Rountree: Yes.
Milam: I move that we approve resolution number 15-1000, the Community
Development Block Grant 2014 Action Plan.
Bird: Second.
Rountree: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item 7-B, the block grant action
plan. Any discussion on the motion? Roll call vote, please.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milan, yea; Cavener,
yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
C. Public Hearing: AZ 14-010 Archer Farm Subdivision by Archer
Farm Properties, LLC Located 4660 N. Meridian Road Request:
Annexation and Zoning of 5.2 Acres of Land with an R-8
Zoning District
D. Public Hearing: PP 14-010 Archer Farm Subdivision by Archer
Farm Properties, LLC Located 4660 N. Meridian Road Request:
Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Twenty (20) Building
Lots and One (1) Common Lot on 4.93 Acres of Land in a
Proposed R-8 Zoning District
Rountree: I will now open the public hearing for Item 7-C and D. That would be for the
Archer Farms Subdivision annexation and preliminary plat. Staff?
Watters: Thank you, President Rountree, Members of the Council. The next
application before you is a request for annexation and zoning and preliminary plat. This
site consists of 4.93 acres of land. It's currently zoned RUT in Ada county and is
located at 4660 North Meridian Road. The request for annexation and zoning is for 5.2
Meridian City Council
July 22, 2014
Page 9 of 69
acres of land with an R-8 zoning district. A preliminary plat is also proposed consisting
of 20 single family residential building lots and one common lot on 4.93 acres of land for
Archer Farms Subdivision. The proposed gross density of the subdivision is 4.06
dwelling units per acre, consistent with the medium density residential future land use
map designation. The average lot size is 7,759 square feet. There is an existing home,
barn, and accessory structures on the site that are proposed to be removed. Access is
proposed via two existing stub streets in Solitude Subdivision at the east and south
boundaries. No access is allowed by North Meridian Road. A 25 foot wide landscape
buffer is required along North Meridian Road. There is an existing seven foot wide
attached sidewalk along Meridian Road. The Unified Development Code requires
detached sidewalks along all arterial streets, but because the sidewalk is relatively new
and was constructed to allow safe pedestrian access to the school to the north and it is
seven foot, rather than five feet in width. Staff is not recommending the sidewalk is
removed and replaced with a detached sidewalk. A six foot tall fence exists along the
northeast and south boundaries. A new six foot tall matching vinyl fence is proposed
along the west boundary adjacent to Meridian Road. There is an existing irrigation ditch
that crosses this site that is required to be piped. Conceptual building elevations were
submitted for future homes in this development as shown, with building materials
consisting of architectural shingles, board and batten, and lap siding with cultured stone
wainscot. Because homes on lots that back up to North Meridian Road will be highly
visible, staff does recommend the rear or sides of structures on these lots incorporate
articulation through changes in materials, color, modulation and architectural elements,
horizontal and vertical, to break up monotonous wall plains and roof lines. The
Commission recommended of these applications. Kevin McCarthy testified in favor.
There was no one testifying in opposition. Angela Robertson commented on the
application and Kevin McCarthy submitted written testimony. This are no outstanding
issues for Council and written testimony since the Commission hearing was received
from Kirsti Allphin, the applicant's representative, in agreement with the Commission
recommendations. Staff will stand for any questions Council may have.
Rountree: Any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Borton: Mr. President?
Rountree: Mr. Borton.
Borton: Were their elevations of the rear in light of the comments about it being on
Meridian Road?
Watters: President, Mr. Borton, no, there were no elevations submitted yet by the
applicant.
Borton: So, Mr. President?
Meridian City Council
July 22, 2014
Page 10 of 69
Rountree: Yes.
Borton: Is the reason for that because you can -- can you articulate from the front
elevations the types of feature that you want to see that would --
Watters: No.
Borton: -- I would presume correspond to the rear?
Watters: That was the reason for staff's condition of approval, that when these come in
for development that they -- they do incorporate those design features.
Borton: Okay.
Watters: Because I could only see the front elevation.
Borton: Okay.
Rountree: Other questions?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: Is the applicant here? State your name and address for us, please.
Allphin: You bet you. Can you hear me okay? My name is Kristi Allphin with KM
Engineering. Address is 9233 West State Street in Boise. Sonya pretty much did a
bang up job of telling you what we are doing here, so I won't really take a whole lot more
of your time this evening. It's a pretty simple infill project here along Meridian Road
and I will be happy to stand for any questions that you have.
Rountree: Are there any questions for the applicant?
Bird: I have none.
Zaremba: Mr. President?
Rountree: Dave.
Zaremba: Just one and, actually, this may be for staff as well.
Allphin: No problem. Fire away.
Zaremba: In reference to the existing sidewalk, which we are apparently recommending
to leave alone and --
Allphin: Out along Meridian Road. Yes.
Meridian City Council
July 22, 2014
Page 11 of 69
Zaremba: Okay. What -- how does that connect in the property to the north and the
property to the south? Is that sidewalk continuous under the configuration that it is on
your property or do we need to say something about how they will --
Allphin: Do you want that one or do you want me to take it?
Watters: Mr. President, Mr. Zaremba, it is continuous to the north and south.
Zaremba: I'm sorry, I didn't hear that.
Watters: There is a continuous sidewalk to the north and south. I --
Zaremba: So, they already connect.
Watters: -- serve as attached or detached if that was your question.
Zaremba: But they do connect.
Watters: But they do connect, yes.
Zaremba: Okay. That was the question. Thank you.
Watters: If you remember a few years ago when solitude developed the -- with the
school to the north the developer put in the sidewalk along the frontage of this property,
so that there would be safe pedestrian access to the school.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Rountree: Further questions?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: Thank you. This is a public hearing on this item. I have a sign-up sheet with
nobody having signed in. Is there anybody out there that wishes to testify? Do you
have any final comments then? Okay.
Bird: Mr. President?
Rountree: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Seeing that nobody wants to testify, I move we close the public hearing on AZ 14-
010 and PP 14-010.
Zaremba: Second.
Meridian City Council
July 22, 2014
Page 12 of 69
Rountree: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearings on Items C and
D. All those in favor of the motion signify that aye. Same sign is opposed? Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Bird: Mr. President?
Rountree: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve AZ 14-010 and include all staff and applicant comments.
Milam: Second.
Rountree: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item 7-C. Any discussion? Roll
call vote.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milan, yea; Cavener,
yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Bird: Mr. President?
Rountree: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve PP 14-010 and include all staff and applicant comments.
Milam: Second.
Rountree: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item 7-D. Any discussion?
Seeing none, roll call vote.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milan, yea; Cavener,
yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
E. Public Hearing: AZ 14-009 Castle Creek Subdivision by
Northwest Ventures Located 2432 E. Amity Road Request:
Annexation and Zoning of 6.97 Acres of Land with an R-8
Zoning District
F. Public Hearing: PP 14-009 Castle Creek Subdivision by
Northwest Ventures Located 2432 E. Amity Road Request:
Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Nineteen (19) Building
Meridian City Council
July 22, 2014
Page 13 of 69
Lots and Five (5) Common/Other Lots on 6.58 Acres of Land in
the R-8 Zoning District
Rountree: Next items are Item 7-E and F, annexation for Castle Creek Subdivision and
preliminary plat for Castle Creek Subdivision. Staff.
Watters: Thank you, Mr. President, Members of the Council. This site consists of 6.58
acres of land. It's currently zoned RUT in Ada county and is located at 2432 East Amity
Road. The request for annexation and zoning is for 6.97 acres of land with an R-8
zoning district. A preliminary plat is also proposed consisting of 19 single family
residential building lots and five common lots on 6.58 acres of land for Castle Creek
Subdivision. The proposed gross density is 2.89 dwelling units per acre, consistent with
the low density residential future land use map designation for this site. The average lot
size in the proposed development is 8,045 square feet. The R-8 zoning is requested,
rather than an R-4 district for relief from dimensional standards due to the irregular
shape of the parcel and the large area along the northeast boundary of the site that's
covered by an irrigation easement for the Ten Mile Drain. All of the building lots along
the northeast boundary have a substantial easement, up to 40 feet wide on this property
for the drain. A license agreement should be obtained from the irrigation district for lots
that encroach within the easement area. A portion of the site along the drain lies within
the Meridian flood plain overlay district. Prior to development occurring in this area a
flood plain permit application is required to be submitted and approved by the flood plain
administrator. There is an existing home on the site that is proposed to be removed.
Access is proposed via one public street access to East Amity Road. Direct lot access
to East Amity is prohibited. A stub street is proposed at the west boundary for future
extension and interconnectivity. A connection to the east over the Ten Mile Drain is not
required on this site, as Messina Meadows Subdivision northeast of this site is required
to provide a connection to the property to the west of this site. You can see it on the
site plan up here to the northwest. The master street map contained in the Ada County
Highway District South Meridian Transportation Plan depicts a north -south residential
collector street along the western boundary of this site. However, because a collector
street is already planned east of this site with Messina Meadows Subdivision to Ustick
Road and a stub street will be provided from Messina Meadows to the parcel to the
west for connection to Ustick Road, staff and ACHD do not feel a collector street is
necessary to be provided on this site. A 25 foot wide landscape street buffer is required
along East Amity Road as proposed. A total of 1.36 acres or 20 percent, approximately,
of common open space is proposed, which is over twice the amount required by the
UDC. As a site amenity the applicant is proposing an additional five percent open
space over the required amount of ten percent. A segment of the city's multi -use
pathway system is designated on this site along Amity Road and along the northeast
boundary of the site along the Ten Mile Drain. The pathway along the drain is being
constructed with Messina Meadows on the east side of the drain. The Parks
Department is allowing the five foot wide detached sidewalk along Amity Road to satisfy
the pathway requirement. Staff is recommending a ten foot wide multi -use pathway is
constructed at the southeast corner of the site from the sidewalk along Amity north to
the future pathway to be constructed in Messina Meadows. Here where the arrow is
Meridian City Council
July 22, 2014
Page 14 of 69
pointing. Conceptual building elevations were submitted for future homes in this
development with building material consisting of architectural shingles, three different
types of siding, with stone accents. Because homes on lots that back up to East Amity
Road will be highly visible, staff recommends the rear or sides of structures on these
lots incorporate articulation through changes in material, color, modulation, and
architectural elements, horizontal and vertical to break up monotonous wall plains and
roof lines. The Commission did recommend approval of these applications. Dave
Yorgason testified in favor. No one testified in opposition or commented. And written
testimony was received from Dave Yorgason on this application. Key issues of
discussion by the Commission were the street frontage requirements for Lot 3, Block 2,
and that is the second lot in right here where the arrow is pointing. Outstanding issue
for the Council. The application requested that Lot 3, the lot where the arrow is
pointing, is allowed a reduced street frontage from 50 feet to 39 feet. The code reads
the properties with street frontages on cul-de-sacs or approximately -- key word -- a 90
degree angle, are allowed to be minimum of 30 feet measured as a cord measurement
per the UDC. Staff interpreted that it was approximately a 45, therefore, required 50
feet of frontage be provided. If Council disagrees with that interpretation they can
address that with the applicant. No written testimony has been received since the
Commission hearing. Staff will stand for any questions Council may have.
Rountree: Any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Zaremba: Mr. President?
Rountree: David.
Zaremba: Just a minor thing. When you were talking about the residential collector
street, which will be off site just to the west of this, you made a couple references to
Ustick Road and I would clarify that I think you meant Amity.
Watters: I did mean --
Zaremba: Amity.
Watters: -- Victory, actually. To the north. Sorry about that. Yes.
Zaremba: Okay.
Rountree: Additional questions? Is the applicant here? Yes, he is. David.
Good evening.
Yorgason: Good evening. Mr. President and Members of the Council, for the record
my name is Dave Yorgason with Tall Timber Consulting. I'm here representing the
applicant Northwest Ventures, who is the owner of the property. Appreciate the staffs
Meridian City Council
July 22, 2014
Page 15 of 69
report and presentation. I believe staff covered all the issues. To clarify a couple of
items, if I could, please. First of all, the frontage is Amity Road on our south boundary.
Not Ustick. But just for the record it is Amity Road. Secondly, as was stated, there is a
large irrigation easement along our northeast boundary. It's extremely large. In fact, in
some places it covers about one hundred feet from the center of the ditch to our
property, which is not normal. We have a huge easement in this area and so it's been a
large burden for us to try to develop around. In addition to, you know, this site is
enabling the sewer trunk line to the south in the southeast part -- southeast part of the
city. Having said that, there is larger sewer easements that are also a greater
encroachment on this little six and a half acre parcel and there is access onto -- in the
road -- we have a couple different layouts, but the highway district and others
encouraged us to use that word, encouraged us to have the access road as far east as
possible, so this is the layout that we came up with after a few iterations. Having said
that, those first two lots on, as you approach into the development, Lots 2 and 3, are
both substandard with less than 50 feet of frontage. That have kind of tweaked and
pushed. We think we can make one of the lots work at less than 50 -- to make it 50 feet
of frontage. However, we do ask for the Council's consideration for waivers to at least
have Lot 3 -- our pie in the sky preference would be both lots, but we really do hope that
at least Lot 3, Block 2, could be allowed to be less than 50 feet of frontage. The specific
condition in the staff report is 1.1.2A for your reference. And it does call out both lots
two and three and if the Council is open to that allow that Lot 3 to be 39 feet of frontage
as shown. Those are all the items. I will just address them at that point. Don't have
any more to add. I would stand for any questions you may have at this time.
Rountree: Questions?
Milam: Mr. President?
Rountree: Mrs. Milam.
Milam: Dave, my -- my concern with this is that -- it's something that has come up a few
times just in the last few months that I have been here and that's when we annex
something at a higher -- at a higher zoning and, then, a project doesn't happen and the
property gets sold and is a completely different project. I like your project. I like that
you -- your density is low, but I'm still somewhat reluctant to just make it an R-8. So,
how close to this project are you?
Yorgason: Council President Rountree and Councilman Milam, how close are we to
starting? And I will answer a few other questions I heard indirectly in there, too. The
sewer is on the way for the sewer. Messina Meadows Phase Five, I believe it is, their
phase five, has already been submitted to the city, has been approved by the city, a
final plat and, plus the construction drawings. That brings the sewer to our boundary.
After that, then, it's working -- moving forward working with builders, developers, others
in the process -- well, builders -- in the process of building it. We have not started
construction drawings. We are just waiting for that next step to take place before my
client would be wanting to move forward with that step. We do know of at least two
Meridian City Council
July 22, 2014
Page 16 of 69
already approved developments south of this site that are waiting for the sewer trunk
line. Black Rock and White Bark. So, we know there is a significant interest and need
for the sewer trunk line to move forward and by approving this tonight it allows us to get
the sewer through that process to our southwest corner, so that they can, then, pick it
up from there and move it forward through White Bark and Black Rock. To address
your question with regard to density. The Comprehensive Plan for this site is low
density residential, which is less than three units per acre. We are not asking for more
that three -- in fact, it's 2.8, 2.9 dwelling units per acre. The reason for the R-8 is to
have relief, again, primarily because of the irregular shape of the site. About 28 percent
of the site is dedicated to open space. It's just a very irregular shaped site. So, the
reason for the R-8 is to allow for smaller lots. Not to have higher density, but to have
smaller lots. Also the development to the north, Messina Meadows, is R-8. So, we are
equal to what their current zoning is. It's just more for a development standard relief,
not for higher density. I hope that answered that question.
Milam: Yes. Thank you.
Yorgason: Thank you.
Rountree: Further questions?
Borton: Mr. President?
Rountree: Mr. Borton.
Borton: Can you talk a little bit about the elements in that southwest portion of the lot
with that drive aisle -- is that the right term for it? What's taking place there and how are
they all --
Yorgason: Sure. Council President and Councilman Borton, that is a common
driveway. It serves two functions. One is access for the three lots in the southwest
corner. Again, due to the irregular shape we can't even get a cul-de-sac, it's just small
and tight, so this is a creative usage of existing code where -- I have to defer to staff, I
think it's either four or six homes are allowed up to that number on a common drive. We
are showing three. The second primary is after lots of discussion with staff here, the
Public Works staff, engineering staff, in trying to find the proper alignment for the sewer
through the site and to maintain the grade as high as possible through the site and to
maintain the right grade as you go forward onto the parcels off site. The sewer trunk
line will run through the common driveway and you can see further to the west -- well,
both sides of the common driveway, the green portion is whiter than your normal
driveway and that is to allow for the additional easement use for Public Works for that
sewer trunk line.
Borton: Mr. President?
Rountree: Joe.
Meridian City Council
July 22, 2014
Page 17 of 69
Borton: So, those three houses that take access to that common driveway would be
able to use it, park vehicles upon it; correct?
Yorgason: Council President and Councilman Borton, use it for access, yes. Parking
on it is not something we support and it's not allowed parking there specifically for the
sewer, Public Works, to insure the access there.
Borton: I understand that, but it seems like you would have those three homes, parked
vehicle, guests, boats, RVs, on a driveway that's adjacent to two -- two other homes? It
would have a driveway directly out their side windows, that the three homeowners to the
southwest would be permitted to do it as they please. Is that right?
Yorgason: Council President, Councilman Borton, this is just like any other common
driveway throughout the City of Meridian and so it's built to a certain width to allow for
access, but it's not allowed to have parking on both sides. That would not be allowed
here. But where do guests park? Maybe to get to your question there. They can park
in the driveways to those homes. There will be room there also. As well as the public
street out in front of the homes out further away.
Borton: Okay. Thanks
Rountree: Further questions? Thank you
Yorgason: Thank you.
Rountree: This is a public hearing for these two items. Does anyone wish to provide
testimony? Do you have any further comments, David?
Yorgason: For the record, Dave Yorgason. The only additional comment I might add
with regard to the waiver of Lot 3 having frontage, is it was an item of significant
discussion with the Planning and Zoning Commission and all of them were either not
concerned or supported the idea, but they recognized it was a decision by the Council,
not the Planning Commission, and so I just offer that, again, for your consideration. I
didn't hear any discussion with you here about that, but that's just adding an additional
piece of information for you.
Rountree: Okay.
Yorgason: Thank you.
Rountree: Any discussion? Further questions?
Borton: Mr. President?
Rountree: Mr. Borton.
Meridian City Council
July 22, 2014
Page 18 of 69
Borton: If there are no other questions or comments, I would move we close the public
here on Item 6-E and 6-F.
Rountree: It would be seven.
Borton: Or, excuse me, seven. 7-E, 7-F, AZ 14-009 and PP 14-009.
Zaremba: Second.
Rountree: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearings on Item 7-E and
F. Any discussion? All those in favor of the motion signify by aye. Opposed? Very
good.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borton: Mr. President?
Rountree: Mr. Borton.
Borton: I think -- I think this is an extremely challenging piece. I think Dave has done a
good job with a tough piece and he brought up some of the concerns with it, some of
the challenges on lot street frontage, some of the challenges that the irrigation provides.
I think Councilwoman Milam brought up some good points with regards to the density
issues on R-8 versus R-4. Again, it's a smaller lot. I think it constrains what would be
able to be done here. It sounds like there might be some portion of the drive to move
this forward to accommodate some sewer issues further south, which I appreciate as
well. But it's not a project and a plat and an annexation that I am supportive of at this
time for those reasons.
Rountree: Further discussion?
Bird: Mr. Rountree -- or Mr. President?
Rountree: Mr. Bird.
Bird: With no discussion, I would move forward with -- I would move that we approve
AZ 14-009 and include all staff, applicant comments.
Cavener: Second.
Rountree: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item 7-E. Any further discussion?
Roll call vote.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, nay; Milan, yea; Cavener,
yea.
Meridian City Council
July 22, 2014
Page 19 of 69
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Watters: President Rountree, excuse me. May I clarify that motion? Did the Council
mean to go by the staff report and require the minimum street frontage on that Lot 3?
Bird: Yes.
Watters: Thank you, Mr. Bird.
Rountree: Okay. Item 7-F.
Bird: Mr. President?
Rountree: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve PP 14-009, include all staff and applicant comments.
Cavener: Second.
Rountree: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item 7-F. Roll call vote.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, nay; Milan, yea; Cavener,
yea.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE NAY.
G. FP 14-031 Heritage Grove by Green Village Development
Located NWC of N. Locust Grove Road and E. Ustick Road
Request: Final Plat Approval Consisting of Thirty -Three (33)
Single Family Residential Lots and Ten (10) Common Lots on
Approximately 6.81 Acres in the R-15 Zoning District
Rountree: The next item is final plat for Heritage Grove. Your turn, Bill?
Parsons: Sorry. Mr. President, Members of the Council. The next item is the Heritage
Grove final plat. The primary reason why this is on the agenda this evening is the
applicant did not get his response to me in a timely fashion and, therefore, I did receive
it this afternoon. He is in agreement of the -- all the conditions of approval and I would
mention to Council that the submitted final plat and the landscape plan is consistent with
the approve preliminary plat in which you acted on a few months ago. So, staff is
recommending approval of that -- of this subdivision or this final plat this evening and I
will stand for any questions you may have.
Rountree: Any questions for Bill?
Meridian City Council
July 22, 2014
Page 20 of 69
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: Okay. Could I take a motion for this?
Borton: Mr. President?
Rountree: Mr. Borton.
Borton: I would move that we approve Item 7-G, FP 14-031.
Bird: Second.
Rountree: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item 7-G. Any discussion? Roll
call vote.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milan, yea; Cavener,
yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
H. Public Hearing: RZ 14-004 Citadel 11 Self -Service Storage
Facility by Citadel Storage, LLC Located East Side of S. Eagle
Road and North of E. Easy Jet Request: Rezone of 5.44 Acres
of Land from the R-4 (Medium Low -Density Residential
District) Zoning District to the C -C Zoning (Community
Business District) Zoning District
I. Public Hearing: CUP 14-007 Citadel II Self -Service Storage
Facility by Citadel Storage, LLC Located East Side of S. Eagle
Road and North of E. Easy Jet Drive Request: Conditional Use
Permit for a Self -Service Storage Facility Consisting of
Thirteen (13) Buildings on Approximately 4.8 Acres of Land in
a Proposed C -C Zoning District
Rountree: Item 7-H and I, rezone for Citadel II self storage and a CUP for Citadel self
storage. I will open the public hearing for those two. Staff.
Parsons: Mr. Chairman -- or Mr. President, Members of the Council, next on the item
agenda is Citadel II self storage conditional use permit and a rezone application. The
site consists of approximately five acres in size. It's located on the east side of South
Eagle Road, just north of Easy Jet Drive. In 2002 this property was before you as part
of the Sutherland Farms planned unit development. Under that planned unit
development the city did allow a use exception on this site to develop with either an
office park or a multi -family development and it was expected to happen with the later
phases of the development. Now that the applicant is here this evening discussing the
rezone and a conditional use for the storage facility, staff is recommending a new
Meridian City Council
July 22, 2014
Page 21 of 69
development agreement or at least extract this property from the approvals of the
Sutherland Farms PD and that development and have them enter into a new
development agreement subject to the proposed use that we are discussing this
evening. You can see here that the property is currently zoned R-4, which was
consistent with the -- that approval in 2002 and, again, those uses were allowed through
a conditional use permit either as an office complex or a multi -family development. You
can see the development surrounding this property are commercial to the north. We
have earlier phases of the Sutherland Farms Subdivision, zoned R-8. To the south is
an office park zoned L -O and, then, across the street Eagle Road side to the west we
have an R-4 development and also a fire station. Currently this property is vacant to
make way for the proposed development this evening. One thing that I would mention
to Council just as a side note, this property is mixed use community on the future land
use map that we have currently in place and typically you do envision three -- a mix of
uses on the site, at least three types of land uses and this particular property, if you look
at the surrounding developments and the amount of commercial we have to the north
and all the mix of residential uses and the office component, staff feels that this site is
adequate for a single use, such as the storage facility. I would also point your attention
to this five acre piece on the south side of Easy Jet. This is also allowed to develop with
either multi -family or future office in the future -- or more office. So, we can see that at
least we can get at least additional residential or at least more multi -family in there,
even potentially more office in the future as well. So, looking at that surrounding
development staff finds that this proposed use is consistent with the mixed use
community designation. As I mentioned to you, this site is R-4 and the applicant is
requesting to rezone it to R -- excuse me -- C -C, Community Business District, and a
conditional use to develop the self storage -- self service storage facility. The UDC
does require a conditional use for that proposed use this evening. Here is the site plan.
The applicant is proposing a 648 square foot office building adjacent to Eagle Road
and, then, 12 storage -- enclosed storage buildings, so there is no outdoor storage
proposed with this development this evening. And the approximate square footage of
the storage facility is here in the upper right-hand corner at 73,575 square feet of, again,
enclosed storage area. The UDC's landscaping requirements are pretty minimal for this
site. Per the UDC the applicant is required to provide a 25 foot landscape buffer along
Eagle Road and, then, along the lowest boundary of the site the applicant is required to
construct a pathway and ten feet of landscape along that pathway between the facility
and the pathway to soften that edge or use adjacent to the pathway. Along the east
boundary adjacent to the residences the specific use standards for the self-service
storage facility requires a 25 foot wide landscape buffer. However, it is the Council's
discretion to allow a reduced buffer along that boundary through the public hearing
process and so at the public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission, the
Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended actually a 15 foot buffer along that
boundary based on the public testimony that they heard at the hearing. Again, this is
within your purview. The applicant has reached out to the adjacent neighbors. At the
time that they submitted this application they had agreement from a majority of the
residents -- owners -- the property owners to the east that supported not only the use,
but also the reduced setback. Somehow at Planning and Zoning Commission the
neighbors were a little confused on what transpired at the hearing and so they had flip
Meridian City Council
July 22, 2014
Page 22 of 69
flopped and changed their mind and decided that maybe they wanted a little bit larger
buffer along their boundary. So, the recommendation before you this evening from the
Planning and Zoning Commission is a 15 foot landscape buffer. Because the east
boundaries up against the office park and this existing landscaping and fencing with the
development of the office park, there really is no landscaping required along that south
boundary. So, that's why you don't see any here. The applicant is trying to create the
buildings -- actually use the buildings as the buffer or the perimeter to the office complex
to buffer that use for their internal activities. Here is the street view of the proposed
facility. You can see how it interacts with the adjacent roadway, along with the
landscape buffers. As part of this application this evening the applicant is requesting
Council waiver to allow the primary access into a development off of Eagle Road.
ACHD has approved this access point that's shown on this street view this evening. I'd
also point your attention to this access point adjacent to the office park here on the
south boundary. Per the UDC standards the applicant does have to provide a
secondary access into that development. With the development of the office park
perhaps access was granted to this property through a record instrument and the
applicant will be taking advantage of that. Staff has recommended that a solid gate be
placed along that boundary to screen any internal activities proposed with this
development. The proposed building materials for this site will consist primarily of
metal, CMU block. The proposed office building will be of a stucco material and, then,
along the south boundary and along the pathway the applicant is proposing Hardie
plank, just 20 by 20 foot Hardie plank paneling here to break up the mass in the middle.
You can see here in this exhibit that the width actually steps down along the north
boundary and the south boundary. In our presentation to the Commission and the
recommendation before you this evening, the Planning and Zoning Commission did
recommend additional design elements to the Eagle Road side for your consideration
this evening and the applicant has provided written testimony as -- for you to take action
on that as well, but, basically, the recommendation from the Planning and Zoning
Commission is to increase the width of these parapets along Eagle Road from 25 feet to
50 feet in order to break up more of that metal along that roadway and provide some
more architectural relief to that fagade and rather than having primarily metal adjacent
to that roadway. And, then, as -- as an offering that applicant is also showing new office
elevations for your consideration as well this evening. Again, you can see it's all stucco
with architectural arched roofing on it, metal roofing to kind of tie into the architectural
theme of the proposed development. As I mentioned to you the site is governed by an
existing development agreement, because this is really a stand-alone use. It was not
approved under the Sutherland Farms PD or the annexation. Staff is recommending a
new development agreement before you this evening. These are the recommended
provisions that we want tied into that agreement with the city and the developer. We
believe this addresses any concerns moving forward with the proposed use. This is
similar to what we did on the Citadel site off of Chinden Boulevard as well. We tied the
-- actually, Council tied them to a single use of the property to make sure that they can't
go back and do that office and that multi -family in the future. So, Planning and Zoning
Commission did recommend approval of this project at their June 19th hearing.
Testifying in favor was the applicant Jim Conger. There were several folks that
commented on the application. Again, they weren't in opposition of it, they just wanted
Meridian City Council
July 22, 2014
Page 23 of 69
to make sure that landscaping was addressed adequately along the east boundary. We
had Jake Centers commenting. Mike Darr and Ed Williams. Topics of discussion -- one
of the main topics was the design of the proposed facility and I brought that up to you in
my presentation. The ten foot setback adjacent to the east boundary -- one item that
was removed from the staff's recommendation was a requirement for the applicant to
work with ACHD and the fire department on a safe crossing or a crossing to tie the
pathways across Eagle Road -- I mean staff had called out in the staff report -- at least
in our recommendation in the staff report we were concerned that that pathway
connection was at the mid mile of Eagle Road and there was quite a bit of traffic, so
how would we facilitate safe pedestrian crossing across a four lane arterial roadway and
so in that discussion we realize we had a condition in there that may not be feasible for
the applicant to comply with, so Planning and Zoning Commission did remove that
condition. One of the other concerns -- and I think I heard this on the last time Citadel
came through before you was the maintenance of that ten foot landscape buffer
between the residents and the proposed facility, it's kind of a no man's land when you
add these facilities up against residences. The applicant assured not only the P&Z, but
staff said they would go in there and do their routine maintenance just like any other
landscaping out there and they would regulate that just as much -- they would keep it up
-- have the upkeep of that buffer just as much as the buffer along Eagle Road. One of
the items I brought up -- was brought up by the adjacent residents was the grade
differentials between this project and the existing homes on the east boundary. So,
they wanted to assure -- have assurances that this facility wouldn't be any lower or be
similar to their grade of existing homes. And the last item that we brought up or was
discussed was currently there is an existing common lot developed with the earlier
phases of Sutherland Farms HOA. Currently they encroach on the applicant's property.
There is existing fencing that goes -- that's constructed on this site and we had a
provision that they provide written documentation from the HOA for the relocation that
they approve or support the relocation of the fencing. The applicant assured us that
they would coordinate with the HOA on the relocation of that fencing. So, staff -- or the
Commission did strike that condition and I realized that it would be -- staff would still
work with the HOA, that we just didn't need to get involved in that. It would be a private
party matter and they could handle it prior to commencing with development of the site.
So, basically, as far as Commission changes to the staff recommendation, as I
mentioned to you, we had Commission strike condition 1.2.2, bullet number four,
removing the requirement for written documentation from the HOA on the relocation of
the fence. Remove the requirement to coordinate with ACHD and the fire department
on signalized pedestrian crossing at the pathway location and we also had Planning and
Zoning Commission also modify condition 1.2.513 and 1.2.5C, which actually had to do
with changing some of the design elements that staff had recommended to the facility
along Eagle Road. So, written testimony since the Planning and Zoning Commission
hearing. Mr. Conger did submit written testimony and he has two items that he would
like to discuss with you this evening. The first being overturning the Commission's
recommendation for the 50 foot landscape buffer along the east boundary and the other
condition would be the applicant would like -- would like the Council to allow him to
construct a 25 foot parapet as shown this evening in this graphic and provide a more
upscale office building as shown in presentation to you. So, literally, there are two
Meridian City Council
July 22, 2014
Page 24 of 69
outstanding issues this evening for you on this project -- will a the reduced buffer along
the east boundary and, then, approving that access point to Eagle Road as shown here
in the -- in the street view. Other than those two items there aren't any outstanding
issues for you and I would be happy to stand for any questions you may have.
Rountree: Questions for Bill?
Bird: I have none at this time.
Borton: Mr. President?
Rountree: Mr. Borton.
Borton: Bill, I -- one of the Commission changes to the staff recommendation, it reads
that -- it's like a double negative, so I have got myself tied up a little bit. There is -- it
eliminates the condition and removing the requirements -- this is the 1.2.19.
Parsons: Uh-huh.
Borton: So, is the change that the requirements for the applicant to coordinate with
ACHD existing or is that requirement gone?
Parsons: Council President, Councilman Borton, that requirement has been stricken.
Borton: Mr. President? And the last question with regards to one of the outstanding
issues on the landscape buffer to the east, was it your remarks at the outset that the
required buffer is 25 feet, but we were -- P&Z was okay with recommending 15? Is that
correct?
Parsons: President Rountree, Councilman Borton, that is correct. They were
comfortable with 15 feet based on the public testimony.
Borton: Okay.
Parsons: But the ordinance does require 25 feet or a waiver.
Borton: Okay.
Rountree: Other questions? Applicant?
Conger: Mr. President, Members of the Council, Jim Conger. 1627 South Orchard
Street. First of all, thanks for letting us present tonight. This will be our second facility
and I think it's important to note that the design, all our architectural effort put into the
first facility that was just approved and constructed last year in Meridian, is what we are
basing -- basing this project off, so we can hold continuity between the two facilities in
Meridian. This site plan in front of you tonight, just like Bill indicated, is the one in front
Meridian City Council
July 22, 2014
Page 25 of 69
of us. I guess my first statement is I'm pleased to be in front of you and accept the
conditions of approval as they are written from -- I'm a little bit concerned or confused
more on Bill's comments that P&Z approved the project with a 15 foot setback on that
east boundary. So, I will start out there with Condition B, 1.2.3, which is that east
boundary. I mean if you look at the staff report what the commission -- you know,
amongst the or five items that they modified is struck out in what's in front of you and
what's been published, but the condition inside that staff report maintains still ten feet.
The P&Z Commission did not approve 15 feet or restrict it to 15 feet. The P&Z listened
to one neighbor and it wasn't numerous neighbors, it was only one neighbor that came
up to discuss the depth of that setback. What P&Z issued a statement on was the fact
that, please, go back, meet with the neighbors and see if you have any room to move.
There was no approval of 15 feet and the condition in front of you that -- that I think we
hopefully approved, which is what's written by staff, is ten feet. So, I will continue on
with that. What had happened is -- is one of the neighbors came and was most
concerned about the -- making sure we block off both ends of this east boundary. As
you can see we are through this project we are completing a regional pathway. Their
biggest concern was this regional pathway feeding pedestrian traffic up between our ten
foot setback and their homes. We have already made the commitment to close both
ends of that. We will still be able to get in there and do our maintenance as Bill
indicated. But I think going back -- and it's important to rewind. We had numerous
meetings with this neighborhood group, because this is a little bit different project for us.
We bought the land and now working on getting approval. You know, the process to
day, you know, with the approval process, as all of you well know, is about a 50,000
dollar bill to get where we are today. We had -- we had an option with what's on the
books with the city and the previous development agreement of an apartment complex
or a self storage unit. My client owns both apartments in Meridian and the Citadel self
storage also in Meridian. So, what we wanted to do was not get in front of City Council
and still be having a debate over how much square foot will this facility have, because
what we have said to the neighbors is -- and what we have said to the city is this
property is more than five dollars a square foot, you can't give 25 foot buffers, you can't
give 15 foot buffers. We will have to go the apartment route where we can do ten and
15, two or three story, depending on the setback and utilize the property. We went to
the neighbors and were very crystal clear on the two project choices and what I want to
hand out to you right now real quick is -- is the agreement between the neighbors and
the developer of the reduced setback -- and it calls it out, reduce setback to ten feet and
the additional trees that they will get and this wasn't just thrown together, this was all
signed at the first of April of this year, but it was culmination of a minimum of four
meetings to get to this point. I'm not the largest fan of giving handouts of documents
that are already in your packet. These are in our packet. But I think it's that to touch
and look at them and understand that we have neighbors that very much know what the
setback is going to be with this project, which is ten feet, to make it -- to make it actually,
you know, economically function. So, I think a testament -- and I will probably get off
the reduced setback with that, unless there is any questions for the fact that we I don't
believe will have any comments from neighbors. What we did is after the P&Z there
seemed to be some confusion. I went back on July 9th for another neighborhood
meeting and walked the property, understood the property, understood the ten foot
Meridian City Council
July 22, 2014
Page 26 of 69
setbacks and understood what everybody already agreed to in April and that will not be
an issue tonight. Ten foot is what is required for the price of this land and what is
required to make a self storage facility work on this property. So, ten foot. You know,
the next item -- oh, hey, Bill, do you mind, you grabbed the P&Z. Could we grab the
one that says 7/27. So, the next item I'm going to go into is -- is Item B, 1.2.56, which
was modified by the Commission and basically, just as Bill indicated, we are -- so, our --
just as Bill indicated, staff is asking for these two parapets to be 25 foot in length. You
know, our corners are anchored heavy with the block --
Borton: Mr. President?
Rountree: Mr. Borton.
Borton: Jim, what's the length of the -- that entire Eagle Road wall?
Conger: Mr. President, Council Member Borton, you're going to catch me red faced and
embarrassed.
Borton: I'm just trying to get a sense of 25 versus 50 feet in relation to the total span.
Conger: Yeah. That entire span is, you know, in the range of 800 feet or so. But that
would include the entry road and office location as well.
Borton: Okay.
Conger: Yeah. Thanks, Bill. That's perfect. So, quickly, I will jump back, so I don't
drag this out. Increasing the use to 25 feet, you know, at the end of the day we are
okay with that. We aren't here fighting any enhancements. We heard staff very early in
the game that Eagle Road is going to be important. You know, I guess our point is our
office is great, but it's -- it's not as good it could be. We are proposing that the dollars
be spent in enhancing the office. We went very early in our design work back on the
office. This office provides a lot better modulation to Eagle Road, the barrel roof versus
the hip roof -- it is a little bit more like our first facility, which you will see in a second
when I show a quick video. But I guess we leave it -- at the end of the day we want to
leave it up to the Council -- where is this money best spent. We believe it's in
enhancing the office. That's going to be the first thing you see as you're heading south
on Eagle Road and we believe just as it's spread across there that the extra 25 feet in
the middle of this building in two locations probably isn't going to change from an
esthetic standpoint. But, again, we are not fighting that condition. We will simply live --
live to your requirements. You know, this is kind of the fun part we like. We assume
you don't have time to visit every existing project in Meridian. We know everybody is
busy with their day job and their night job and everything else. We just want to be able
to show you, you know, our facility -- and, Bill, I might need your help to click on that if it
doesn't let me. Can you start that for me, please. And we will quickly run through that
first facility, which is the esthetics and the design that the second facility will match. You
can see we do have the barrel roof. Start you out at our office and entry of the building.
Meridian City Council
July 22, 2014
Page 27 of 69
The barrel roof, as I indicated earlier. You can start seeing the stone parapets,
obviously, mixed in with the landscaping. We call out to waterwise landscaping and
other environmentally sound design methods in this new project as well. This will just
enter us in -- trust me, this is just a two minute video, so it won't be much of your time.
But you can see the split face block and the texture relief, the top cap, everything that
that gives. The clean look. The color pallets and everything that's inside this facility.
So, when you do see through the gate it is still esthetically pleasing. I'm going to come
up here and go to the left -- and you will see the ten foot setback that the existing
neighbors -- that is identical to what we are asking for on this facility and it just matched
in seamlessly one final time going through looking at the clean -- cleanliness, basically,
and the clean architectural look of the facility. And I think in -- and it will just exit you out
the front gate. And I think in closing my only last item is I will quickly, when I'm done
talking, I will hand out -- we have a statement from every neighbor that's on the existing
facility that you just saw that backs up to the ten foot reduced setback and I will hand
those out before I depart and I guess we will respectfully adhere to your direction on the
25 foot parapets versus the enhanced office architecture and for that I will stand with
any questions.
Rountree: Any questions for the applicant?
Bird: I have none.
Borton: Mr. President?
Rountree: Mr. Borton.
Borton: The question that will be posed is can you articulate what the specific additional
features are you're referencing on the office versus the parapets?
Conger: Yes. Mr. President, Council Member Borton, yeah, it will be the roof changes
from hip to the barrel. We actually in this office environment -- I will come back. We
have the pop outs where -- where this will actually pop towards Eagle Road, because
the office is at an angle, so you will actually be seeing some stuff at 45 degree angles,
instead of just, you know, the side of the building. So, we have got the pop outs to
enhance the architecture. You know, we still have stuff along the other office. We have
built a few more features that are popping out of this -- this facility and it would be a lot
more similar to what you saw on our other facility with the barrel roofs and kind of some
angles that are a little bit different and kind of don't blend in, you know, just kind of pop a
little bit to give it some esthetic relief.
Borton: Okay.
Rountree: Other questions?
Zaremba: Mr. President?
Meridian City Council
July 22, 2014
Page 28 of 69
Rountree: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: Does the office have a residence in it or is it pure office?
Conger: Mr. President, Council Member Zaremba, excellent question. No, we do not
have on site living residences, but we do have 24-7 security that all goes back to our
corporate headquarters. But no living -- no exterior storage, no residence, just a clean,
managed office.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Cavener: Mr. President?
Rountree: Mr. Cavener.
Cavener: Jim, what's the square footage of the office?
Conger: Yeah. Mr. President, Council Member Cavener, the office square footage is
648 square feet.
Cavener: Okay
Milam: Mr. President? This isn't really a question, just more of a comment, but I -- I
really admire the fact that you went to the neighbors with the two project options and let
them help you decide which way to go -- that you respect the neighbors and I
appreciate that.
Conger: Thank you.
Rountree: Any further discussion?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: Thank you for the moment.
Conger: Thank you.
Rountree: This is a public hearing on Items H and I. Does anyone wish to provide
testimony? Jim, do you have any further comments that you would like to make?
Okay. Council?
Bird: Mr. President?
Rountree: Mr. Bird.
Meridian City Council
July 22, 2014
Page 29 of 69
Bird: If nobody has any further questions that need to be done in the public -- I
would --
Borton: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Go ahead.
Borton: I apologize, Councilman Bird, I do have one question.
Bird: Okay.
Borton: Not to belabor the point, but I think Mr. Conger has brought up some great
points and I appreciate him gathering information from residents here and in his other
project about the setback. Bill, can you give me -- or give us the -- the short version of
why our UDC asks for 25 feet on these self storage facilities if -- it seems like there is
ways to address the concerns with a much smaller setback.
Parsons: Sure. Mr. President, Councilman Borton. The primary reason for it is
because of the commercial zoning up against a residential zone. That's the primary
concern of why we require it. It's a typical setback, dimensional standard that we
require for any commercial development up against a residential zoning district.
However, in our UDC we do allow the Council discretion to reduce that if a building and
existing fencing in a landscape buffer that's under 25 feet can mitigate for those
concerns and that's why we left it that way, because we realize certain uses don't
always require a 25 foot landscape buffer. So, it's nice to have that flexibility in the
code. If the applicant goes and works with the -- the neighbors, for example, on their
support of a reduced buffer, at least helps tell that story and at least gets that
information in front of you to make an informed decision on it.
Borton: Mr. President, one final question. There was a comment I believe you made in
your report. I don't know if Mr. Conger said it -- about with that reduced setback to the
east there were additional trees that would be provided -- I presume more than what
would otherwise be required. What are the specifics on those?
Parsons: Sure. President Rountree, Councilman Borton, the condition as it reads in
what the applicant agreed with the neighbors. He wanted a 20 -- one tree every 20 feet
and, then, one -- a size two -- two two inch caliper trees spaced 20 feet apart. Perma
bark. Weed barrier. And two five gallon shrubs between every tree as proposed and
agreed upon with the adjacent neighbors is how the condition is written.
Borton: Thank you
Rountree: Other questions? Did you have anything to add to that? Okay.
Bird: Mr. President?
Meridian City Council
July 22, 2014
Page 30 of 69
Rountree: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we close the public hearings on RZ 14-004 and CUP 14-007.
Milam: Second.
Rountree: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearings on Item 7-H and
I. Any discussion?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: All those in favor of the motion signify by aye. Opposed same sign?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Bird: Mr. President?
Rountree: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve RZ 14-004 and to include staff and applicant comments.
Borton: Second for discussion.
Rountree: Okay. Discussion?
Borton: Some of the variables -- one of the variables was the -- the additional 25 feet
on the parapets versus the --
Bird: That is not on the rezone, that will be in the CUP. That's why I didn't --
Borton: I knew that.
Bird: Oh, you know better than that.
Rountree: We learn something every time we -- okay. Further discussion? Roll call
vote, please.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milan, yea; Cavener,
yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Bird: Mr. President?
Rountree: Excuse me. Bill.
Meridian City Council
July 22, 2014
Page 31 of 69
Parsons: I don't mean to interrupt, Councilman Bird. I have one request, though. If it is
the desire of the Council to allow the 25 foot wide parapet there on Eagle Road, staff
would recommend a condition that says alternative compliance from the planning
director. As this is presented to you -- I mean when the applicant submitted their
conditional use permit application, the reason why we have these requirements on the
design is because we are looking at it from a design review standpoint -- what our code
requires from a design -- from a design standards in our ordinance. So, the applicant
did not seek alternative compliance with this application, so that's why some of these
requirements were placed on the design of the building to kind of -- to help them get
better aligned with our design standards in the UDC. So, if it is your desire to leave it as
presented to you this evening, then, we just ask that you include that in your motion if
they seek alternative compliance to allow for more metal along Eagle Road.
Zaremba: Mr. President?
Rountree: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I, for one, was actually going to go the other direction. I'm not thrilled with
having any metal facing Eagle. That is not attractive to me. It looked to me on the brief
views that we got of the first facility up on Chinden that much of it was the block wall. I
don't know of other people's opinions, but I don't think that any of the metal would be
attractive. It would make sense for me for that entire Eagle Road fagade to be the block
wall. The -- what was shown was a block wall with -- with texture and variation on the
face of it. That would be a much better presentation to Eagle Road than any sections of
metal in my opinion.
Bird: Mr. President?
Rountree: Further discussion? Mr. Bird.
Bird: And I agree, Councilman Zaremba, I thought it -- he stated that that was going to
be like the existing Chinden deal and to me that looked like block with some kind of a
drive it system of something -- it didn't look like metal to me -- is it metal?
Rountree: Mr. Bird, we will have to open the hearing back up.
Bird: Oh, no. No. But I mean --
Rountree: If you wish -- if you have additional questions we certainly can do that.
Bird: Yeah, I think it must be metal.
Milam: Mr. President, can we review the video again?
Meridian City Council
July 22, 2014
Page 32 of 69
Rountree: I think it might be handier to just reopen that -- this particular hearing and if
we need additional information we will have that information, so we can make an
appropriate decision.
Bird: Mr. President?
Rountree: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Upon your desire, if you would like to open the public hearing, I would sure back
it.
Rountree: Is that a motion?
Bird: Yes, it's a motion.
Borton: Second.
Rountree: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to reopen the public hearing for Item
7-I. All those in favor of the motion signify by aye. Opposed same sign? Okay.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Mr. President?
Rountree: I'm going to reopen the public hearing for Item 7-I.
Zaremba: I would note for the record that I don't believe anybody left the room during
the time that we had it closed.
Rountree: No.
Zaremba: Maybe somebody did, but came back in.
Bird: Oh, she wants to talk.
Rountree: Now, it's reopened. Do you have anything to add at this point, since we
reopened it? Then I will get the public comment.
Centers: Jack Centers. 1979 North Locust Grove in Meridian. Just to speak to the
esthetics of it, when these facilities are -- basically you pour your foundation and your
flatwork and the company comes and constructs these all out of metal. So, the block
that was placed on Chinden Road in front, it, basically, just sits in front of the metal.
That metal goes all the way through there. So, it's just a fagade. It's not any structural
part, it's just merely for esthetics. So -- but it is metal along what you see there, the
gray. It's a corrugated metal, you know, lifetime product. It will never need painting or
resurfacing.
Meridian City Council
July 22, 2014
Page 33 of 69
Bird: But the fagade -- excuse me, Mr. President? The fagade it's a brick or something,
isn't it?
Centers: Councilman Bird, the fagade --
Bird: The fence is metal.
Centers: Well, it's not a fence. It's actually the back of a building.
Bird: Well, the back of a building.
Centers: Yes.
Bird: But the -- continuous is metal.
Centers: It is. All the way.
Bird: But the fagade is block or something.
Centers: It is. It's a concrete masonry --
Bird: That's what I -- that's -- all right.
Centers: It's a block and it has textured space to it.
Bird: Yeah. I knew the back of the building was metal.
Centers: Okay. Great.
Bird: But I thought the fagade was -- was a block or some other --
Centers: Yeah. And it is.
Bird: -- building material.
Centers: It is. That's exactly what we are speaking about, so -- but -- yeah. And, then,
just to, I guess, throw it out there, the block is extremely expensive.
Rountree: Other -- other questions you might have of Jake?
Milam: Mr. President?
Rountree: Mrs. Milam.
Meridian City Council
July 22, 2014
Page 34 of 69
Milam: Sorry. So, the -- this outside perimeter is the back of the building? There is
nothing between the building and -- there is no wall perimeter around it. The wall is --
Bird: Is the building.
Centers: That is correct. Yeah. The facility is completely encased with the back of the
building. Now, however, on the east side of the project adjacent to the neighbors, as
well as on the north side adjacent to the regional pathway that we will be building, there
are some protrusions that are built out of a Hardie plank, cementuous board product
that protrude off that will break up the metal as well similar to the front, it's just a more
cost effective method of achieving that break up. We have worked with staff. We did
this, actually, on the facility on Chinden Road as well. But I guess just to throw that out
there, that these are kind of a -- they are difficult to come up with methods to modify the
look, because they are just -- they are all metal. They come, basically, in a package on
a trailer and these guys put them up. So, it's not like stick framing and building and
being able to, you know, make some adjustments easily, it's actually quite difficult to
add stuff on here, but, you know, we just tried to do what we could with working with
staff and making it similar to the other facility.
Bird: Mr. President?
Rountree: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Jake, if I -- and I don't know how close this picture is -- schematic is, but it looks --
if I -- if I look at -- those are 25 foot parapets, it looks like about 400 feet and you have
got a hundred feet of it in parapet. Is that about right?
Centers: That is -- oh, excuse me, Councilman Bird, that is pretty close accurate.
Yeah. So, we actually did some calculations and, I apologize, we didn't have them, but
-- one thing I wanted to point out is there is a block wall actually by the entrance of the
office as well.
Bird: Well, yeah.
Centers: That's all block. That's all block. Block. And those corners are anchored in
block as well.
Conger: That matches the other view from --
Centers: Right. So, everything in red is actually the concrete block wall.
Bird: But what I was getting at, Jake, was the fact that about a quarter of it is going to
be parapet anyway. Out of 400 feet you're going to have a hundred -- if we put 25
footers. You have four of them there, that's -- that's a hundred feet out of 400. So,
there is 300 of metal showing.
Meridian City Council
July 22, 2014
Page 35 of 69
Milam: Twenty-five percent
Centers: Well, Councilman Bird, that's not exactly accurate, because the 400 -- so, are
you just talking the distance of the building then?
Bird: Yeah. I'm not including the block on the end, so --
Centers: Right. Bill, we ran some percentages. Do we have those handy? I don't
know if we do. We actually did some actual calculations of what the percentage of
block versus metal would be on Eagle Road as -- as drawn. Perhaps we should have
been a little better prepared with that, but -- I guess it doesn't matter. It's just more of a
visual. We do have the evergreen landscaped trees, the cedar trees.
Rountree: Are there anymore questions?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: Okay.
Zaremba: Mr. President?
Rountree: Go ahead, Jake.
Centers: It's approximately 40 percent of that --
Bird: Forty percent?
Centers: When you calculate the total frontage of Eagle Road in block, including the
entry.
Bird: Okay. Forty percent.
Rountree: Mr. Zaremba, you had a --
Zaremba: I'm just repeating my earlier comment. I'd prefer to see the whole wall in
block, but my second choice would be 50 feet each.
Rountree: Questions? Comments?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: Jake, I know how much you enjoy that, so I appreciate you getting up. Now,
the hearing is still open and, Lori, come on up. If I missed you the first time I apologize.
Jones: Thank you, President Rountree and Council Members. My name is Lori Jones.
I reside at 3499 East Quinn Drive, Meridian, which happens to be not the street right
Meridian City Council
July 22, 2014
Page 36 of 69
next to the property, but I'm around the corner. So, I am in the Sutherland Downs
Subdivision. First of all, I'd like to say to Mr. Conger I do appreciate this concept. My
concern would be the ten foot buffer -- a question would be is that room enough to get
equipment back there to take care of the landscaping and I do know that we have had a
problem with rodents and is there a -- I don't know what it takes to maintain these
properties, but I would have a concern that if we cut it down to ten feet there would not
be room for maintenance equipment. Thank you.
Rountree: Thank you.
Rountree: Excuse me, Jim. See if there is anybody else that wishes to testify.
Anybody else wish to testify? Okay. Thank you. All right. Now, you get the final word.
Conger: Thank you, Mr. President, Members of the Council. Jim Conger again. As far
as back to the ten foot setback, there is ample room for maintenance. We have the
other facility with it. It is not uncommon for, actually, numerous residential homes to be
reduced to ten foot. So, maintenance from that standpoint is not an issue. If it got wider
and we go to an apartment type complex the setbacks aren't going to be drastically
different. They might go to 15. They won't be fenced in, so it will be a connection path
with a regional pathway. So, at the end of the day the neighbors that are adjacent to
this aren't here because they like the storage project, you know, the ten foot is
acceptable to them. They have signed off on it in April. It is -- it beats having the
apartments behind them and it really was an either/or, because that's all we had
approval through the original development agreement. So, we hear the concerns of the
moles and the rodents will actually be -- be a help to that. Before it's over they will be
gone, but -- but, again, we respectfully request the ten feet. We have to have ten feet
for this storage facility to move forward and I will stand for any further questions.
Rountree: Any further questions?
Bird: I have none.
Conger: All right. Thank you.
Rountree: Okay. Thank you. All right, Council. Try this one more time.
Bird: Mr. President?
Rountree: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we close the public hearing on CUP 14-007.
Milam: Second.
Meridian City Council
July 22, 2014
Page 37 of 69
Rountree: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on Item 7-I.
Further discussion? Seeing none -- all those in favor signify by aye. Opposed same
sign?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rountree: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Mr. President, I move we approve CUP 14-007 with allowing the ten foot
setbacks. Adding the parapet 25 foot that faces Eagle. Let's see. What else? These
have all been struck. Am I missing anything?
Rountree: Alternative compliance.
Bird: The alternative compliance. Yes. State that. And also to -- to take staff and
public and applicant comments. Can't think of anything else I need to --
Borton: Second.
Rountree: It's been moved and seconded. Discussion?
Borton: Mr. President?
Rountree: Mr. Borton.
Borton: The elements -- additional improved architectural elements to the office
building --
Bird: That was part of his statement if we went to the 25 foot.
Borton: And that would be part of your motion to include that?
Bird: That was part of the motion, yes.
Milam: Mr. President? Well, I'm only a little bit concerned reducing those to two of
them at 50 feet each, because we are -- I guess that there was 800 feet of frontage,
which if we just have two parapets that are 25 feet each -- it should at least be equal to
the one that --
Bird: This is part of his testimony. There is four of them.
Milam: But you said two. On here it says two. So, is it two or is it four?
Bird: The motion -- the maker of the motion would state there will be four parapets, two
plus the two corners, let's put it that way. That makes four and that's what --
Meridian City Council
July 22, 2014
Page 38 of 69
Rountree: Any further discussion on the motion?
Milam: None.
Rountree: I'm not even going to attempt to repeat the motion.
Bird: Me neither.
Rountree: But I think your intent is clear, so roll call vote.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milan, yea; Cavener,
yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
J. Public Hearing: AZ 14-008 Shallow Creek by Steve Arnold
Located Southeast Corner of N. Locust Grove Road and E.
Franklin Road Request: Annexation of Approximately 6.61
Acres from RUT in Ada County to the R-15 (Medium High -
Density Residential) Zoning District
K. Public Hearing: PP 14-008 Shallow Creek by Steve Arnold
Located Southeast Corner of N. Locust Grove Road and E.
Franklin Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting
of Eighteen (18) Buildable Lots and Two (2) Common Lots on
Approximately 5.84 Acres in the Proposed R-15 Zoning District
L. Public Hearing: CUP 14-005 Shallow Creek by Steve Arnold
Located Southeast Corner of N. Locust Grove Road and E.
Franklin Road Request: Conditional Use Permit for a Multi -
Family Development Consisting of Sixty -Eight (68) Dwelling
Units (17 Four-Plexes) on Approximately 5.84 Acres of Land in
the Proposed R-15 Zoning District
Rountree: Okay. Moving on to Items 7-J, K, L, public hearings for Shallow Creek
annexation, preliminary plat, and conditional use permit. Staff.
Parson: Thank you, Council President, Members of the Council. The next item on the
agenda is the Shallow Creek Subdivision. It consists of 6.60 acres of land currently
zoned RUT in Ada county. The applicant is requesting to annex this property into the
city with the R-15 zoning district in order to develop 68 multi -family units on the
property. You can see to the north we have existing -- or undeveloped commercial
property zoned C -G. To the east is a county residence, zoned RUT in Ada county. To
the south we have an existing LDS stake center currently developed and across the
street on the west of -- west side of South Locust Grove Road we have an R-40 piece of
ground currently developed with an existing single family residence as well. One unique
Meridian City Council
July 22, 2014
Page 39 of 69
aspect of this property or -- as Sonya mentioned to you earlier in her presentation is this
site is heavily encumbered by not only the flood plain, but also the flood way. And so as
you can see here there is actually a demarcation line on the site that shows you -- kind
of delineates the area that's flood plain and the area that's flood way. And so anything
within this area can be developed under the -- as long as it's approved by the city flood
plain administrator. Anything within this flood way is off limits, at least can be enhanced
with landscaping and that's what the applicant is proposing this evening. So, again, the
preliminary plat consists of 17 -- or at least 18 buildable lots. Seventeen of those will
have four-plex structures, for a total of 68 units. The Comprehensive Plan designates
this site as mixed use community, just like similar to the last project. Again, the
applicant is proposing a single use for this development just due to the amount of
constraint on the site. You just cannot fit any additional uses on this property. So, the
applicant is maximizing the most that he can based under what's allowed in the flood
plain and the flood way. A single access point to this development is proposed on
Locust Grove and, again, ACHD staff has recommended the location of that access
point. Internal access will be provided by a common lot and it will also provide access
to the street and also shared parking within the development. Because of those site
constraints that I just mentioned to you, staff is not recommending cross -access with
any of the adjacent properties to the east, nor to the south. So, this will be primarily
served by one way in and one way out this evening. Open space for this development
-- because of that large flood plain and flood way on the site the applicant is showing
3.85 acres of open space. A majority of that is due to the enhancement to the floodway.
And, then, also internal to the site we have pedestrian walkways, a sitting area, a
clubhouse as an amenity, and, then, the applicant is also proposing to construct a
portion of the multi -use pathway right along the fringe between the flood plain and the
flood way. Staff does have conditions of approval that before development can occur
on the site they need to secure those approvals from the irrigation district from the city
and also from the Army Corps of Engineers as far as reclamation or any changes to the
flood way. So, we do have adequate conditions in place moving forward. Here are the
architectural renderings for this -- for you this evening. Because we do not want a
monotonous development out there, we are recommending that the applicant provide
three distinct elevations for the site, three distinct color pallets for the site, all of the
covered parking within the development, the carports, as well as the units themselves
will all have to be complimentary colors. You can see here here is some examples of
existing four-plexes built throughout the community. The applicant wants to bring this
same color pallet to this development as well and the design of the carport structure
actually emulates or tries to blend in with the belly band here, so it's low profiled, try to
make it blend into the development so it doesn't stand out and staff does have a
condition that this also be powder coated or color painted to match the color scheme of
the development as well. The Planning and Zoning Commission did recommend
approval of this project at their June 19th hearing. We had Steve Arnold testifying in
favor. Several of the neighbors did come out and testify in opposition of this project.
That was Rod Cullip, Helen and Dale Sharp, John and Maryann Duncan and Melanie
Hensman testified in apposition of the project. Their primary concerns were parking and
density up against their residential subdivision, which is actually approximately eight
hundred feet to the east off of Locust Grove. But they had concerns with this moving
Meridian City Council
July 22, 2014
Page 40 of 69
forward and they were concerned about the additional traffic in the area. Probably the
two primary items of discussion by the Commission were what were the adjacent land
uses next to this development and I would report to Council that it is mixed use
commercial -- mixed use community as well. So, it's consistent with this property as
well, it's just currently in the county. And, then, further to the east of that there is a C -G
zone property that has a development agreement on it. So, there is quite a bit of a
buffer between this development and the residential subdivision to the east that came
and testified on the project. So, there aren't any outstanding -- any changes to the
recommendation to the staff report. There aren't any outstanding issues before you this
evening. Staff did receive an e-mail late this afternoon from the applicant. Again, they
are in agreement with all the conditions in the staff report. This concludes my
presentation and I'd stand for any questions you may have.
Rountree: Questions for Bill?
Bird: I have none.
Milam: I have none.
Zaremba: Mr. President?
Rountree: David.
Zaremba: I hope I'm not inventing this, but memory from way back -- we years ago had
another project that was in the flood zone and my recollection is there was a
requirement that they all be built on slabs, as opposed to foundations. I don't know if
I'm remembering that correctly or whether that applies to this or somehow something
sticks in my mind that there was an issue about not having basements or foundations
and doing them on slabs. Anything there?
Radek: Mr. President, Councilman Zaremba, that's correct. I believe that was
Bellingham -- Bellingham maybe three, four. I think the actual requirement for slabs
may have been because of high ground water, but anyway this would be permitted
through David Miles and it will have to meet our lowest -- low flow requirements and that
is -- I believe we are at two feet above base level elevation with the lowest floor, so -- so
I have, you know, no doubt that they will be built in accordance to our regulations.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you
Rountree: Questions?
Bird: I have none.
Borton: Mr. President? Bill, is the landscape plan -- does that have green open space
in the flood way?
Meridian City Council
July 22, 2014
Page 41 of 69
Parson: Council President, Councilman Borton, it is.
Borton: Okay. Just grass and trees?
Parson: That is correct at this point in time. In speaking with our flood plain
administrator it -- the amount of trees that you see in that flood way may not occur, so --
but there is -- there has to be further study and they have to provide that study to the
Army Corps of Engineers to make sure there is no rise to the flood zone or flood plain.
So, like I said, prior to even submitting a final plat they will have to provide that
documentation that the analysis has been provided and approved by those three
agencies.
Borton: Okay.
Rountree: Further questions?
Bird: I have none.
Zaremba: Mr. President?
Rountree: David.
Zaremba: Just looking at the traffic circulation, is the fire department comfortable with --
it doesn't look like there is a turnaround near the end of it, but has that been looked at?
Parsons: President Rountree, Councilman Zaremba, yes, Deputy Fire Chief Perry
Palmer did comment on the application and the site presented to you this evening does
comply with their requirements and they are conditioned to do so.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Rountree: Other questions? Okay. Is the applicant here? If you would state your
name and address.
Arnold: Mr. President, Members of the Commission -- or Council, for the record my
name is Steve Arnold. I'm with A -Team Land Consultants. 1785 Whisper Cove, Boise.
83709. Because the next six items are mine I will try to keep my presentation here
tonight as brief as possible. Bill does a great job presenting and I'm afraid I would just
bore you. I think what I'd like to go into first is the architectural styles, the building, that
you would be approving tonight. It's a unique style. The developer actually has a
patent on the building, so if he sees any of these buildings going up anywhere else
within the valley they go chase the builders, but they are a two story apartment with no
upper level balcony. The upper unit -- the two stories is all one unit. So, the two stories
is within one unit. They offer architectural relief that's very attractive on both the outside
and the inside with granite, fireplace -- granite in the kitchen. Fireplaces. So, the units
Meridian City Council
July 22, 2014
Page 42 of 69
here are very unique. The one thing that my client has asked me not to do is put tot lots
within these -- these projects, because of the type of renters that they are getting is a
higher end rent that doesn't typically afford itself to a lot of children. So, the projects in
the past he's actually removed tot lots. So, the amenities that we are providing are
more for an adult community. As Bill stated, we do have several unique challenges to
the site. One is the flood way. We are not proposing to touch it at all. We are staying
out of the flood way and building within the flood plain. Our most likely -- I have not
worked too much the flood plain issues in Meridian, but typically what we do is we
submit a LOMAR F and raise the site out of the flood plain, so we are not working there.
One of the Council Members had a question about the ground water. It's pretty low
here. But we will meet the minimum required two foot of separation. One thing that
came up was the amount of landscaping that we are proposing and that is a challenge
with the Army Corps, but we are going to try to put as much possible as we can in there.
The natural flood ways, they are not regulated and we don't believe that we will be
affecting it very much with some plantings here and there. We did meet with the LDS
church to the south. One of the conditions was make a secondary connection with the
water and they have agreed to work with us on that. I think that being said, the
opposition that we had, like Bill stated, was over a thousand feet away and it was mainly
traffic generated. ACHD has reviewed this and has improved the site entrance and the
traffic for this development. And I will stand for any questions with that.
Rountree: Any questions?
Milam: Mr. President?
Rountree: Yes.
Milam: I apologize, but I missed the first part of that. But -- so, are you not renting to
anybody with children?
Arnold: Mr. President, Councilman Milam, no, it's not -- not that we don't rent to people
with kids, but typically because of the high rent that we are getting here we don't have a
lot of children that utilize that type of facility within the development. Our amenities
were pathways, gazebos, with picnic areas and a clubhouse. So, the -- my client -- this
is just a personal thing with him. He doesn't believe that that amenity is ever utilized
within his four-plex projects, so that's why we are proposing the amenities that we are
doing. But, yes, kids are allowed. So are pets.
Rountree: Further questions? Don't see any. Thanks for a moment. It is a public
hearing. Is there anyone wishing to provide testimony? Yes, sir. If you would state
your name and address for us.
Cullip: Rod Cullip. 1821 East Franklin Road. I have the R Rocking Ranch, which is
right adjacent to that -- to the east and, actually, our properties are separated by Five
Mile Creek. It's to the middle of the creek. And I was at the P&Z meeting and brought
up a bunch of other stuff also with that and at that time I brought up the issue with the
Meridian City Council
July 22, 2014
Page 43 of 69
fence. We have horses. We have like 18 head of horses. We have an arena. A round
pen. We do a lot of work with horses and my concern is kids getting into our property
and I brought up that they actually need to put a fence or something to try to curtail that.
Originally I brought up the fact that this was all filled in and I watched them fill it and they
put about eight foot of fill in there and they put like six foot of fill without even putting a
roller on it. So, the last two foot they compacted it. So, that's a concern that you guys
might have. I don't know how you deal with that. But the other issue is it's a high
density area and for that many people to be in that small of an area with just one
entrance in and out and it's right on the busy road of Locust Grove right there at the
corner of Franklin, that might be something you really need to consider, too. The house
-- the actual design and everything looks great. I don't have any problem with that at all.
It's the density. It's the traffic issue. The parking issue. Which all the other neighbors
have brought up also at the P&Z. And my main concern is I got stallions, we breed, I
don't want any kids or anybody getting into our property over there, which alls they have
got to do is cross the creek and climb a fence, you know. So, if there is some type of
fence they could put in to protect that like they did at the end of the subdivision, they did
the same thing, they are going to put a fence in to keep the kids from crossing over. So,
that's all I had.
Rountree: Very good. Thank you.
Cullip: Thank you.
Rountree: Any questions for --
Cavener: Mr. President?
Rountree: Yes.
Cavener: Just a quick question for you, because I'm not familiar with the area. What's
the -- what's the width of the -- of the creek? You know, are we talking --
Cullip: The creek is roughly ten feet at the widest area.
Cavener: Follow up? Is your concern, then, that kids would, then, climb a fence and,
then, have to scale or jump across the creek to get to your property?
Cullip: The problem is is during the winter when the irrigation goes out the creek dries
up.
Cavener: Sure.
Cullip: So, they can just walk across and I have had problems with them and I have had
problems with them at the end subdivision and they are like a half a mile away and they
still got in throwing rocks at my horses and everything. It's just been a mess, so --
Meridian City Council
July 22, 2014
Page 44 of 69
Cavener: Appreciate it. Thank you.
Cullip: Yeah. I appreciate it. Thank you for your time
Rountree: Thanks, Rod. Anyone else wish to provide testimony? Very good. Steve,
do you want to provide a wrap up, respond to the issues?
Arnold: I guess in regard to the fence, you know, this is a regional pathway that we are
constructing there. The only option for the fence would be on our side. We'd like not to
box it in. The width between the properly and probably where the horses are is
probably 50 -- some places maybe wider -- foot wide. It would not be -- I don't think
conducive to the project as a whole to fence it in, so with that I will stand for any
questions.
Rountree: Any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: Okay. Thank you. Any discussion?
Bird: I have none.
Borton: Mr. President?
Rountree: Mr. Borton.
Borton: Maybe it sparks discussion or not. I think it's a great product. My hesitancy is
whether it's the right location for it. And I appreciate what -- what Steve said and what
they have tried to do and -- but this location is a tough one. It's a tough piece of ground,
I understand, but putting 68 units right near Franklin and Locust Grove on the corner or
close to the corner is concerning.
Rountree: Further comment?
Bird: Mr. President?
Rountree: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I do have some concern on the entrance way and I know ACHD has already
approved it and everything and I don't know if it's a full in and out or just a right -in and
right -out, because as close it is to Franklin and Locust Grove corner and the traffic that
is on Locust Grove, I -- I can see some I think traffic problems, but I'm not -- you know,
that's -- that's what we have got ACHD for to do that -- call that shot, but it don't -- it
don't look -- I'm quite concerned about the in and out on that project. I wish there was
another place they could -- or farther back at least a quarter mile or so that they could
go back. But that it is very very close to the intersection in my opinion.
Meridian City Council
July 22, 2014
Page 45 of 69
Rountree: Any other discussion? What's your pleasure?
Bird: Mr. President?
Rountree: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I guess if we are going to do it, I better do it. I move that we close the public
hearings on AZ 14-008, PP 14-008 and CUP 14-005.
Rountree: Do I have a second?
Milam: Second.
Rountree: That is a second?
Milam: Yeah.
Rountree: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearings on Item 7-J, K
and L. All those in favor of the motion signify by aye. Opposed same sign? Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rountree: All right. Is there further discussion?
Milam: Mr. President?
Rountree: Yes.
Milam: I don't know. I just -- I would like it a lot more if it had maybe a few less
buildings, some more open space, and amenities and a fence around it. And the road
farther back.
Rountree: I'm not sure you can re-engineer it to that extent.
Milam: Okay.
Bird: Get your checkbook out and buy the property.
Milam: Okay.
Bird: Mr. President?
Rountree: Mr. Bird.
Meridian City Council
July 22, 2014
Page 46 of 69
Bird: I will take off and see what -- see how we come out. I move that we approve AZ
14-008 and to include all staff, applicant, and public testimony.
Zaremba: Second.
Rountree: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item 74 Any discussion?
Seeing none, roll call.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, nay; Zaremba, yea; Borton, nay; Milan, nay; Cavener,
nay.
MOTION FAILED: TWO AYES. FOUR NAYS.
Rountree: Is there an alternative motion? If there isn't, then, Items K and L --
Bird: Are gone.
Rountree: -- if I'm not mistaken, Mr. Nary, are mute at this point without the
annexation?
Nary: Mr. President, Members of the Council, that's correct. You would still want to
take action on them.
Rountree: Yes.
Bird: Is there an alternative --
Rountree: If somebody has another motion they would like to make?
Bird: Mr. President?
Rountree: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I don't have another motion, but I will move we disapprove PP 14-008
Rountree: Do I have a second? We did that already with the last --
Nary: I guess, Mr. President, Members of the Council, before you do that, you may
want to remember that on the annexation you're not required to annex and you -- but
you at least want to state on the record if you're going to deny it, but you might want to
take care of that first before you deny the other applications.
Bird: Okay. I will withdraw
Nary: At least -- I would suggest you at least address that annexation one first before
you deal with the other two.
Meridian City Council
July 22, 2014
Page 47 of 69
Bird: Mr. President?
Rountree: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Mr. Nary, I didn't understand you. We -- we disapproved of AZ 14-008. So, we
didn't approve it, so is it automatically -- it's denied; right?
Nary: No.
Rountree: No.
Bird: We have to make a motion to deny it?
Nary: Correct.
Bird: Okay. Let one of the no votes make it.
Cavener: I will try and navigate through this.
Rountree: You and three others could make the motion.
Cavener: Maybe my question is for -- for legal. Can we approve annexation,
subjugated to them placing a fence or a barrier around their property and the
neighboring property?
Bird: That would be the PP.
Cavener: That would be the PP.
Nary: So, Mr. President, Members of the Council, Council Member Cavener, yeah, you
can certainly have that discussion of what other conditions may make it more attractive
and require that as part of both the development agreement, so that would be part of
your annexation, as well as part of your preliminary plat and the CU as to make it more
compatible with your neighborhood, because -- so, you could certainly do that as part of
it if you want to approve it. If you want to not approve the annexation, the state code
only requires that you, basically, find that it's not in the best interest of the city at this
time to annex this property. But that's totally up to you at that point.
Milam: We could approve the annexation, but not the plat.
Nary: Mr. President, Members of the Council, Council Member Milam, what you could
do is approve the annexation with conditions that you place additional conditions on
both the plat and the CUP and get them part of the development agreement, whether
it's fencing, whether it's -- the access point is more problematic, because that really is
ACHD's, but the plat itself and the design, whether it's the number of buildings and such
Meridian City Council
July 22, 2014
Page 48 of 69
that are concerning to you, that that's certainly something you can, as a Council, limit if
you wish.
Borton: Mr. President?
Rountree: Mr. Borton.
Borton: I don't think it's the right time for this particular project with its density to be
annexed as presented. I don't feel comfortable myself trying to redesign it here in a
meeting.
Rountree: Any further comments?
Borton: Mr. President?
Rountree: Joe, are you going to make a motion?
Borton: I am.
Rountree: Okay.
Borton: I move that we deny Item J, AZ 14-008.
Rountree: Do I have a second?
Milam: Second.
Rountree: It's been moved and seconded to deny the annexation for Item 7-J. Any
discussion?
Borton Mr. President?
Rountree: Mr. Borton.
Borton: Again, I echo -- I think Steve Arnold and his client have a tough parcel to
work with and I think they have tried to do a good job with it. It may be tough for a
while, but --
Rountree: Further comments?
Cavener: Mr. President?
Rountree: Mr. Cavener.
Cavener: I would say that the applicant has done a very good job in light of their
limitations of design project. I think that ACHD has signed off on it. We have heard
Meridian City Council
July 22, 2014
Page 49 of 69
from fire, they don't have any issues. You know, I struggle with saying come back with
a better mousetrap. I think that the applicant has done a very good job of bringing forth
a mousetrap that works for the piece of property.
Rountree: Any discussion? Okay. Motion has been made and seconded. Roll call
vote.
Roll Call: Bird, nay; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, nay; Borton, yea; Milan, yea; Cavener,
nay.
MOTION FAILED: THREE AYES. THREE NAYS.
Rountree: And I can't vote twice. Let me suggest that maybe the answer here is the
applicant's kind of heard our concerns, that you might want to table this to a date certain
and have the applicant look at the process before you close the process and he has to
start over again entirely. I get a sense that there is a desire to do something here and
anticipation that it might be able to work, but it doesn't appear that we should or can
reengineer this project from the dais and I think that it gives that applicants an
opportunity to do that if they so wish and in doing that, Mr. Nary, can we defer it, can we
give a -- it's going to take some time to try to redesign this. It's just like we can have it
next week.
Nary: Mr. President, Members of the Council, certainly you would have to reopen the
public hearing and see if that's the desire of the applicant, because if you do deny it and
-- I'm always sketchy on this, but isn't this -- wouldn't this prevent them from bringing it
back for a year? Or just the same project? Just the same project. So, they could come
back with a different project. But it is a lot of time and investment and if you want Mr.
Arnold can certainly come up and clarify what your concerns are, so that if you set it
over your next available date for a hearing is August 19th. So, you have almost a
month. And if he needs longer certainly that's within your discretion, but that's your next
available date anyway.
Milam: Mr. President, I agree. I think that there are changes that could be made that
might be able to -- that might help me make my mind up in a different manner, but I
would like to see some changes on that.
Rountree: So, do I have a motion to reopen the public hearing and --
Borton: Mr. President?
Rountree: Mr. Borton.
Borton: I would move that we reopen the public hearing on Items J, K and L. I believe
they were -- all three were closed.
Rountree: They were.
Meridian City Council
July 22, 2014
Page 50 of 69
Borton: AZ 14-009, PP 14-008 and CUP 14-005.
Zaremba: Second.
Rountree: It's been moved and seconded to reopen Items 7-J, K, and L. Almost have
that memorized. All those in favor of the motion? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Bird: I move that we continue the public hearings for AZ 14-008, PP 14-008 and CUP
14-005 to August 19th, 2014.
Rountree: Before I hear a second, Mr. Arnold, would you like to provide some
comments and maybe hear -- rehear some of the things that we have concerns about,
so if you desire to move forward with this after it's put off until August 19th -- your client
may not want to do that. I don't know.
Arnold: Mr. President, Members of the Council, yeah, we will move to the 19th, but I
would like some clear direction from the Council tonight as to what would make this a
more suitable project. We do have constraints. I know the entrance was brought up.
ACHD has approved that. We can't really move that. I hear a fence. Now, if it is a
fence -related issue, I mean -- I know my client would most likely do the fence instead of
get denied, so we can make that decision tonight if that's it. Redesigning the layout -- I
don't know how much I would do differently with a four-plex project. It is -- there is
zoning across the way that's R-40, which is high density residential, so other than this
guy just going -- this client going away, I'm not sure how much I could show you
differently than what I have got, other than commit to you tonight that I would put a
fence in there between the two uses and somehow coordinate that with the staff and the
Army Corps of Engineers. So, if you're looking for a redesign I need I guess a little
more direction.
Milam: Mr. President? My -- personal, I -- unless this is a senior living -- if you're
putting a fence in it will remove the pathway maybe, so --
Arnold: What I would probably propose to do is try to work with the Army Corps in
locating a fence -- or moving the pathway slightly towards us. You know, if it's certain
that you're looking for a tot lot, you know, again, we aren't limiting this use to any age
group, it's just a preference of my client. If the Commission -- if that's something that
would make it easier for you to approve tonight, I could commit to that tonight as well.
It's not a preference, but, you know, I think what we have shown for amenities is
adequate, but if that's what you are looking for we can commit to that tonight.
Milam: Mr. President? Well -- yeah. So, I feel that you have how many -- 68 homes
and nowhere for children to play. They are going to find something to do, whether it's
climbing into his house or somebody else's -- there are no parks nearby, so I -- there
Meridian City Council
July 22, 2014
Page 51 of 69
needs to be some form of park facility for kids to play on, unless you're designating it a
senior living facility. That's how I feel.
Arnold: We can commit to the one of our amenities tonight as a tot lot, if that's the
direction of the Council.
Bird: Mr. President?
Rountree: Mr. Bird.
Bird: While I have concerns on the traffic, Steve, it's still -- that's ACHD's deal and they
said it was okay, so I -- my -- as you know, I was in favor of doing it. I think a fence
would be a real needed amenity. A tot lot I don't think is going to be used that much,
but if you think that will get you through, fine with me, because I don't think you're going
to find very many young kids living in that kind of an atmosphere.
Arnold: Mr. President, if I can reply to the fence. We would like to do open screening
type fence, because I -- if that's the direction tonight I -- I don't want to do a solid wall
fencing along there. And we would -- to put the fencing on our side, we would have to
provide some sort of gating to get to the pathway, so --
Bird: Mr. President?
Rountree: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Bill, what kind of -- what kind of fence -- could we -- do we need to have a solid
fence there or could we -- could we use wrought iron or something like that? But
wrought iron would be climbable -- pretty easy climbable.
Parsons: Council President, Councilman Bird, the ordinance would require open vision
fence adjacent to the pathway and -- or four foot solid fencing. So, you couldn't have a
six foot solid fence up against the pathway, it would have to be --
Bird: Yeah. That's right.
Parsons: -- either a four foot solid or some type of open vision fencing.
Bird: Okay.
Rountree: Again, Council, I don't think it's our job to redesign this at this point. To me
the issues are fencing. There is issues about accommodation for children. And there is
issues of density. I don't know how you address those issues, but those are three
issues that I have heard. If you wish to take the opportunity to take your skill set and
your imagination and address those, the Council can continue this until August 19th. If
that's your desire. I don't see that it's going to happen tonight.
Meridian City Council
July 22, 2014
Page 52 of 69
Arnold: Certainly.
Rountree: Okay. Thank you.
Zaremba: Second the motion.
Rountree: Excuse me. We are still open. Is there any further testimony? Okay,
Council. Back at you.
Bird: Mr. President?
Rountree: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we continue public hearings AZ 14-00 --
Rountree: We need to close the hearing.
Bird: Oh. I'm sorry. I move we -- no. no. We leave it open.
Rountree: Oh, that's true. That's true. You're right.
Bird: Now I'm getting really confused.
Rountree: I'm already confused.
Bird: I move that we continue the public hearings on AZ 14-008, PP 14-008 and CUP
14-005 August 19th, 2014.
Zaremba: Second.
Rountree: It's been moved and seconded to continue 7-J, K and L to August 19th. Any
discussion? All in favor of the motion signify by aye -- or does that need to be roll call?
Okay. Opposed? All right.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
M. Public Hearing: PP 14-007 Timbergrove by Steve Arnold
Located West Side of N. Centrepoint Way and North of E.
Ustick Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval of Twenty (20)
Buildable Lots and Three (3) Common Lots on Approxmately
4.28 Acres in the C -G Zoning District Approved
N. Public Hearing: CUP 14-006 Timbergrove by Steve Arnold
Located West Side of N. Centrepoint Way and North of E.
Ustick Road Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval for a
Multi -Family Development Consisting of Eighty (80) Dwelling
Meridian City Council
July 22, 2014
Page 53 of 69
Units (20 Four-Plexes) on Approximately 4.28 Acres in the C -G
Zoning District Approved
O. Public Hearing: MDA 14-007 Timbergrove by Steve Arnold
Located West Side of N. Centrepoint Way and North of E.
Ustick Road Request: Amend the Recorded Development
Agreement for the Purpose of Excluding the Property AND
Creating a New Development Agreement to Govern the
Proposed Timbergrove Subdivision
Rountree: Next item. 7-M, N, O. Staff. That's Timbergrove.
Parsons: Thank you, Mr. President, Members of the Council. Next item on the agenda
is the Timbergrove project. It's -- the architecture is pretty similar to the last design as
the applicant stated. It's the same developer on this piece of ground. In this particular
case it's actually seven of the vacant commercial lots that were platted with the
CentrePointe Subdivision in 2006. The applicant is proposing to replat these with 20
buildable lots and going through conditional use permit to develop 80 multi -family units
on the site. So, 24 four-plex structures. You can see here to the east -- or the west we
have existing single family residential, zoned R-8. To the north of this project is vacant
commercial ground zoned C -G and future phases of that CentrePointe commercial
development. To the east we have a commercial shopping center, Kohl's and multiple
various commercial uses there. And, then, to the south we would also have existing
vacant commercial land zoned C -G. You can see here that this project -- the property
has been vacant for quite some time, since 2003. And the applicant is, again, to
discuss this proposal. Again here you can see the 20 units. This is a little bit denser
than the last project. This is approximately 18.7 dwelling units to the acre, which the
comp plan designation on this property is mixed use regional. Under that land use
designation the Comprehensive Plan anticipates densities between six and 40 units to
the acre. So, this is at the mid range at that point. If you recall in 2012 the developer
did come through to the city and amend the development agreement to allow multi-
family uses within the CentrePointe development. Originally when they were before you
in '03 with their annexation they actually restricted the use of multi -family on the site, but
they have since amended the DA to allow the use to occur on the site. The UDC does
require that multi -family developments get conditional use approval in the C -G zoning
district. Here is the landscaping for this site. Again, this is less landscaping than what
you saw on the previous plan, but the landscaping plan before you this evening does
consist of approximately 76,000 square feet or a little bit over an acre of open space.
Primary open space for this development is located here central to the development, so
north is oriented to the left here. Three access points to CentrePointe Road are
proposed with this development and these driveways actually were aligned with existing
curb cuts with a commercial development across North CentrePointe Way. One thing
for -- one thing that's changed since this has come before is CentrePointe Way at one
time was a local street and ACHD has since changed the classification to a collector.
So, we envision this being essentially a frontage or backage road to Eagle Road in the
future and it serves that at this point as well. With this subdivision improvements in
Meridian City Council
July 22, 2014
Page 54 of 69
2005 a ten foot wide landscape buffer was installed with the development of those
commercial lots and the Council at that time also approved a ten foot landscape buffer
adjacent to the single family residences along the west boundary where moving my
cursor here. So, what you see here -- all these -- and the applicant's actually tilted the
buildings at an angle, so only a portion or a corner of that building is at the ten foot
setback, the rest of it opens up to provide more open space or provide less bulk and
scale adjacent to those single family residences. So, we do -- I like the design of how
they have positioned the buildings and show that as more open space and also provide
that compatibility with the HOA's and single family residences. The proposed amenity
for this development would be an existing -- or a clubhouse here adjacent to
CentrePointe Way. We have a large tot lot here -- or plaza area and, then, multiple
sitting areas within the area. One item that we were requesting -- that's been changed
since Planning and Zoning Commission was -- the construction of this driveway to that
commercial lot and I will get into that in a little bit more as I move forward through my
presentation. So, these elevations are very similar to what was presented to you in my
last hearing -- or last presentation. Again, we are looking for a mix of building materials
within the development. Multiple color schemes. And, then, also all the carport
structures to match the color scheme development as well and here again are the
examples. Here is the elevation of the clubhouse. It, too, should have the same mix of
materials as the proposed multi -family units and, then, this is, basically, a schematic of
the proposed picnic areas for the development. Because this property is subject to
multiple development agreements and the applicant is -- had to -- in order to administer
this development staff felt that it was cleaner for them to extract this proposed
development away from the original CentrePointe DA and have them enter into a new
DA with the city. And so these are the recommended provisions before you this
evening with a DA modification. We are tying them to their layout. Their density. And,
then, also any future ordinances and, then, extracting them from the previous two DAs
that are restricted to the site. So, the Planning and Zoning Commission did recommend
approval of the project at the June 19th hearing. Testifying in favor was Steve Arnold.
No one testified in opposition of the application. Jonathan Seel did testify on the
application and wanted some clarifications and I will dive into that a little bit more and,
then, David John, who is an adjacent property owner within the Champion Park
Subdivision also spoke on the application. Mr. Arnold and Jonathan Seel did submit
written testimony on the application. And there were quite a few items that were
discussed at that hearing. The first one was the alignment of the southern access point
-- if I can go back here to the site plan, it shows how it will interface with that commercial
lot along Ustick Road. So, the Commission was concerned about funneling that
commercial traffic just through that portion of the development, so they were wondering
how they could realign this access point. As I mentioned to the Commission, this is set
in stone. ACHD supports this location. It does align with the driveway across the street
and so this shouldn't be impacted too much by that commercial lot. It is a single lot, but
that was a topic of discussion and one of the changes to the staff report requires that
the driveway actually be constructed to that boundary. Not just get an easement, but
actually construct a driveway so it's in place prior to the development of the commercial
lot. The other issue -- the item of discussion discussed was this proximity of this
development to a collector street and how the front entrances front on a collector street
Meridian City Council
July 22, 2014
Page 55 of 69
and how that would interact with, again, children or pedestrian or pedestrians playing
with the development and the safety concerns with that. The second -- the third item
was the pedestrian connection with Champion Park that you can see here. I know a lot
of the adjacent neighbors -- or at least some of the residents in Champion Park believe
that this is not a micropath connection, it's merely an access road to get you to the
pump station. But it is a multi -path -- a micropath and it needs to tie into the
development to not only link this development with the commercial to the east, but also
allow these residents access to get to Champion Park that's developed in their
subdivision the city park. So, staff believes this is a very important connection for this
development because of the limited amount of open space, although it does comply
with the ordinance, that amenity so close by to this development will be an
enhancement to this development. So, we certainly want that connection to remain in
place. So, there were several conditions modified as I testified. One was the requiring
of the construction of the driveway to the south boundary and the other issue that was
brought up -- or Mr. Seel in his testimony -- written testimony wanted to make it clear
that staff has a condition that there is actually a 30 foot wide landscape buffer
developed between the central access and this other access, we wanted to make sure
that that would happen on the west side of the roadway and not on the commercial lot.
So, Mr. Seel felt the language wasn't very clear, so we have clarified that this is actually
to happen with this development on the west side of North CentrePointe Way. And so
that two outstanding issues before you this evening -- one would be -- or at least one
outstanding issue for you to act on this evening is pretty similar to what we dealt with on
the Citadel project. The way the ordinance is structured is whenever you have
residential uses adjacent to a commercial use we require a 25 foot landscape buffer.
Well, at the time that these commercial lots came in residential wasn't contemplated, so
that portion of the ordinance didn't apply. Now that the applicant is proposing a
residential use up against this commercial lot now all of a sudden we have put the
burden on this commercial lot to construct a 25 foot wide landscape buffer. Now that
we have a DA opened up for the CentrePointe development the applicant is requesting
that the Council modify the requirement for that landscape buffer and add a DA
provision that states that they construct a five foot wide landscape buffer on the
commercial lot. I would mention to Council that this building as it sits here adjacent to
that commercial lot is approximately 12 feet from the boundary. So, if you were to allow
the five foot landscape buffer here, you, essentially, would have a 17 foot setback
between this multi -family structure and the parking lot or a commercial building. And
this lot here, which is to the west, is also zoned C -G commercial, so it, too, has some
requirements for landscape. That landscape buffer has already been installed with that
commercial lot, so there aren't any concerns with the commercial lot within the
Champion Park Subdivision. So, we are merely -- the applicant would like you to take --
address that landscape for this commercial lot as part of the changes to the DA if
someone planned to do that this evening. Other than that outstanding issue, staff has
not -- has received written testimony from the applicant again late this afternoon. They
are in agreement with all the changes and conditions in the staff report. Staff is
recommending approval. Planning and Zoning did recommend approval and I will stand
for any questions you have.
Meridian City Council
July 22, 2014
Page 56 of 69
Rountree: Questions for Bill?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: Very good. Steve.
Arnold: Name and address again?
Rountree: Please.
Arnold: Steve Arnold. A -Team Land Consultants, 1785 Whisper Cove, Boise. 83709.
1 won't go into much of the building design on this. I have kind of addressed it in the
previous one. I will note that in addition to what Bill's talked about, if you will notice the
buildings adjacent to the west side of the project are different than the ones facing the
north side -- of the east side and one of the reasons that we modified that building was
so there would be no sidewalk in the back of the lots. That's not creating issues with the
police and vision in the back that I also tried to line up as best possible the -- there is
townhouses to the west of us and I tried to make it equal, one unit backing up to each
townhouse unit, so that was the reason for the difference in the building and the
elevations there. As Bill stated we eliminated one of the entrances onto CentrePointe
Way, which made ACHD happy, because once you go from a commercial street to a
collector they have access restrictions, so allowing to do the north -south drive aisle that
we are proposing, we were able to eliminate some of the access points. The main
access is there centered and it's aligned with the main drive aisle through the east of us
within the commercial development and as Bill stated, we are not asking for the
development agreement modification, but we are in agreement with the request from
Mr. Seel to modify the development of the DA to allow for a five foot wide buffer there at
our south boundary and we are in agreement with the request to pave that approach
right -- that was my bad, I should have shown that in the first place. I guess with that
being said I will stand for any questions.
Rountree: Questions?
Milam: Mr. President?
Rountree: Genesis.
Milam: So, is there -- so, there is no fencing on this one anywhere around the
perimeter; is that correct?
Arnold: There is fencing adjacent to the west, but high vinyl.
Milam: Okay.
Rountree: Further questions? Thank you. This is a public hearing -- several public
hearings. Anyone wish to testify? Jonathan, welcome.
Meridian City Council
July 22, 2014
Page 57 of 69
Seel: Good evening, President, Commissioners, Jonathan Seel, W.H. Moore Company.
1940 Bonito. As some of you probably remember, I have been involved in this project
since the beginning. I can remember when it was an alfalfa field and back then when I
was going through approvals I would have never envisioned I would be standing here
today advocating for residential. If Anna Canning was here today she would probably
be over there rolling on the floor right now. But the truth of the matter is we envisioned
originally that this would be potentially some type of back office use or some type of
limited retail, such as a tire store or something. But the truth of the matter is we have
had zero -- literally zero interest in this land since we have developed it. And so we
really feel at this point that the next suitable use for it is this type of project. Again, it is a
good transition between commercial and single family. We think it is a nice design.
Obviously it's limited with the width. So, again, tonight I would ask that you do approve
this project, because I think the only other option for us is that it would remain a weed
field for who knows how long, unfortunately. The other request I had is that -- as Bill
talked about the five foot buffer, which borders our property -- if I can -- I think this --
right there. Of the matter is -- as Bill mentioned to you, that drive lane is capped in
concrete, literally and figuratively, and if we were required to do a 25 foot buffer there
that would make that lot, which would be to the border of Ustick Road almost
unbuildable. It's a very small lot as it is. So, that's why we are asking for an exception
tonight to reduce that to five feet. I think the truth of the matter is there shouldn't be any
surprise to anybody that's coming in this particular development that they know they are
going to have some type of commercial development, whatever it is, surrounding it
along here, so we simply ask you to approve that. With that I will stand for any
questions you have.
Rountree: Any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: Anyone else wish to testify? Steve, do you have any wrap up? Okay.
Thank you. Council, any questions? Discussion? Motion?
Borton: Mr. President?
Rountree: Mr. Borton.
Bird: I move we close the public hearing on Item PP 14-007, CUP 14-006 and MDA
14-007.
Milam: Second.
Zaremba: Second.
Rountree: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on Item 7-M, N, O.
All those in favor of the motion signify by aye.
Meridian City Council
July 22, 2014
Page 58 of 69
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borton: Mr. President?
Rountree: Mr. Borton.
Borton: Unless there is some discussion, I would move that we approve Items -- M is
the number?
Rountree: M. 7-M.
Borton: -- 7-M, PP 14-007, to include staff and applicant comments.
Milam: Second.
Rountree: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item 7-M. Roll call.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milan, yea; Cavener,
yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borton: Mr. President?
Borton: I would move that we approve Item 7-N, CUP 14-006.
Milam: Second.
Rountree: It's been moved and seconded to approve item 7-N. Any discussion?
Zaremba: Discussion if I may, Mr. President. I think we had a choice. I'm agreeing
with the most recent thing staff said about the five foot landscape buffer on the south
and making that connection with a cross -access at that south driveway. I also would
reinforce what staff -- what Bill said about the existing pathway into the west
subdivision. It was always the intent that that be a pedestrian access between the
residential and the commercial and I appreciate that this applicant has accommodated
that. Those are my comments. I just wanted to make sure that's what we were talking
about.
Rountree: Any other comments? Discussion?
Bird: I have none.
Meridian City Council
July 22, 2014
Page 59 of 69
Rountree: Roll call.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milan, yea; Cavener,
yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borton: Mr. President?
Rountree: Mr. Borton.
Borton: I would move we approve Item 7-0, MDA 14-007, a modified development
agreement.
Milam: Second.
Rountree: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item 7-0. Discussion? Roll call.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milan, yea; Cavener,
yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rountree: My question for Council -- that doesn't necessarily wrap up the five foot
buffer on the commercial lot to the west of this -- actually to the south of this on Ustick.
So, what's the Council's desire there?
Zaremba: Mr. President?
Rountree: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: We have had a similar situation to this once or twice in the past and the most
recent one that I am thinking of we stated that the property where the use was changing
is where the buffer had to go. We have already approved this plan without saying that
the 25 foot buffer had to be on the property. I think that we have -- the issue is there
was never a requirement for the 25 foot buffer on the south -- on the property to the
south of this and making residential out of this should not put the burden on that
property to provide the buffer. If we didn't require it on the residential property who is
the one making the change, I think we can exempt the existing preconceived
commercial property from taking on that burden. I don't see that that should be an issue
under the law.
Rountree: Caleb, do you have a comment?
Hood: Mr. President, just a comment on that. I like -- I like your train of thought there.
Unfortunately, we do need the record, because the onus is on the developer of the
Meridian City Council
July 22, 2014
Page 60 of 69
currently vacant lot to mitigate their impact on the residential. It doesn't take into
account that before it was all planned for commercial. So, on the record it would be
certainly clearer and part of -- since the development agreement was already open, you
specify that there needs to be a certain buffer width between these two lots, that way it's
clear. Certainly that train of thought makes some sense that we need to actually put
that, because if someone looks at just development review of that vacant lot, the
ordinance says you provide the buffer to residential. It's not the other way around, so if
we could amend the last motion or somehow include that in a sub motion or another
motion to just --
Bird: Mr. President?
Rountree: Mr. Bird.
Bird: If the maker of the motion would just state including all staff, public, and applicant
comments that covers that five foot buffer, because Bill was very clear about it.
Zaremba: Well -- and, Mr. President, my comments before we voted specifically
pointed out that we all knew we were approving the south property to have the five foot
buffer and that was my intent to have that as part of the record. I guess my question is
for Caleb, do you think we need a separate motion that applies only to the south
property?
Hood: Unless legal staff says otherwise, I do. Councilman Zaremba, your comments
were made while you were talking about the plat and the CU.
Zaremba: Yes.
Hood: Now is the time to act on the development agreement modification. That's what
applies to Mr. Seel's property that they are maintaining. So, anything that runs with that
land needs to be done when you're acting on something that is on that property and
that's the development agreement that applies to all of CentrePointe.
Zaremba: I'm getting the legal technicality. Thanks. We know what we want to
accomplish.
Hood: I'm sorry for being so bureaucratic in that, but --
Zaremba: No. You make a good point.
Hood: -- it does need to go with that application.
Zaremba: Yeah.
Rountree: I would suggest that a second motion identifying that as our desire with the
open MDA would take care of the matter and have the record very clear.
Meridian City Council
July 22, 2014
Page 61 of 69
Bird: I agree.
Borton: I will take a shot at it.
Rountree: Okay.
Borton: Mr. President?
Rountree: Mr. Borton.
Borton: I move we approve 7-0, MDA 14-007, the modified development agreement,
and to include in that approval the approval of a five foot wide landscape buffer along
the north boundary of the commercial property directly south of this project.
Bird: Second.
Rountree: It's been moved and seconded to provide that language in the modified
develop agreement. Any further discussion? Roll call.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milan, yea; Cavener,
yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 8: Department Reports
A. Adoption of the Tentatively Proposed Revenues and
Expenditures for Fiscal Year 2015 for the Amount of
$93,757,229
Rountree: Okay. We are at Department Reports, Item 8-A, the adoption of the tentative
proposed revenue and expenditures for FY -2015. Mr. Bird.
Bird: Mr. President, I move that we send forward the tentatively approved revenues and
expenditures for fiscal year 2015 in the amount of 93,757,229 dollars.
Zaremba: Second.
Rountree: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item 8-A in the amount stated.
Any discussion? All those -- no. This is a roll call.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milan, yea; Cavener,
yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian City Council
July 22, 2014
Page 62 of 69
B. Approval of the Amended Revenues and Expenditures for
Fiscal Year 2014 in the Amount of $91,485,197
Nary: Mr. President?
Rountree: Yes.
Nary: Mr. President, Members of the Council, I guess maybe be more for the public
record, because we have had some public comment, that all you're doing with this
motion -- and I know all of you know this, but for those that are maybe watching at home
or in the audience, this is simply setting your ceiling for the advertisement for your public
hearing in August. So, we have had some folks already comment thinking this was
approving your budget and it's not. So, I just wanted to make that clear. And the next
item is approving the amount that we will, then, put in ordinance in August for the final
close out of this current fiscal year's budget.
Rountree: Okay.
Bird: Mr. President?
Rountree: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve the 2014 fiscal year amended revenues and expenditures
in the amount of 91,485,197 dollars.
Zaremba: Second.
Rountree: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item 8-B. Any discussion? Roll
call.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milan, yea; Cavener,
yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
C. Legal Department: Agreement for Professional Services with
Corbett Auctions and Appraisals, Inc.
Rountree: Next item is 8-C. Bill, can you give us a rundown on that?
Nary: Yes. Thank you, Mr. President, Members of the Council. This one is a little bit
unusual, but you have two items, C and D. C is simply a professional services
agreement with Corbett Auctions and Appraisals to run an auction for the city. We are
actually doing this jointly with the city of Boise and with Ada County Sheriff's Office.
Item D is something unusual that you haven't seen before, because the law changed
recently. In the past when we had seized firearms that were still usable, the department
Meridian City Council
July 22, 2014
Page 63 of 69
under certain conditions could convert them for police use or we would just have them
destroyed. Now the law requires, if they are still usable, that they be auctioned off. And
so unless they have a serial number filed off or not usable or been altered off, they have
to be auctioned and so the three agencies found it was easier and more valuable to
combine all those efforts into one auction and so we have it scheduled in August. This
is just a contract approving the engagement with Corbett and moving forward and, then,
this is the disposition of that property. It's not technically the city's, but it's in our
possession. So, Item D is simply a resolution acknowledging that.
Bird: Mr. President?
Rountree: Questions? Yes, Mr. Bird.
Bird: Bill, would you explain for the public where the money goes that we -- come in
from this auction on our part of the guns?
Nary: I think the money just comes back to the city.
Bird: It comes back into the General Fund?
Nary: Correct. In the General Fund. So, yeah, it's actually a -- I don't know if it's even
a -- law enforcement directed, I think it just simple goes back to the General Fund.
Bird: Yeah. I just wanted to clarify.
Nary: Sure.
D. Legal Department: Resolution No. # 14-1001: A Resolution
Setting Forth Certain Findings and Purposes to Authorize Sale
at Public Auction of Firearms in Custody of the Meridian Police
Department due to Abandonment, Impound, Leaving, or
Release from Attachment.
Rountree: Other questions? Very good. Item 8-D.
Bird: Mr. President?
Rountree: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve resolution number 14-1001.
Milam: Second.
Rountree: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item 8-D. Discussion? Roll call,
please.
Meridian City Council
July 22, 2014
Page 64 of 69
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milan, yea; Cavener,
yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Nary: Mr. President, you would also have -- you need to approve the professional
services agreement as well.
Bird: Oh, I'm sorry.
Rountree: Oh. Yeah. All right. Going back to Item C.
Bird: Mr. President?
Rountree: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve the agreement for professional services with Corbett Auctions
and Appraisals, Incorporated.
Milam: Second.
Rountree: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item 8-C. Any discussion? Roll
call.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milan, yea; Cavener,
yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 9: Future Meeting Topics
A. Selection of Date and Discussion Regarding a Joint Meeting
with City of Kuna in Regards to South Meridian
Rountree: Future Meeting Topics. There is one -- one item on our list. Robert, are you
going to give us -- Caleb, Robert, none of your team?
Caleb: Council President, we actually drew straws and Jacy was going to --
Rountree: Okay.
Caleb: If you want to I can --
Jones: We will give it a go. Mr. President, Council Members, Wendy with the city of
Kuna has reached out to us. She would like to have -- schedule a joint meeting with our
group and theirs to discuss the area of impact on Kuna and Meridian's border. They
Meridian City Council
July 22, 2014
Page 65 of 69
have discussed potential dates. July 29th, which is next Tuesday, was one date that's
suggested. August 12th following your workshop has also been proposed. Basically
they would like us to go back to them with some suggested dates. They are looking at
doing it potentially on a Tuesday. They regularly meet at 7:00 p.m. and they would like
to host it there. So, we will take your direction on maybe a list of dates that you like and
try to work with them and get their council on board and make that happen.
Rountree: So, I guess there are two things here. Do you wish to meet with Kuna? And
the subject is our southern borders and their northern borders and, if so, what days that
have been recommended and/or are there other days you might suggest and move
forward. So, what's your pleasure?
Borton: Mr. President?
Rountree: Mr. Borton.
Borton: I, for one, think it's a great idea and any chance we can continue those
discussions -- it's a great offer and we should participate yearly. As far as the date and
time for me it's hard to pick, if it's a day meeting, night meeting, but we can work that out
I'm sure in August and come up with something.
Zaremba: Mr. President?
Rountree: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I agree, I think it is a good idea. Be nice to meet with them and discuss the
subject in particular, maybe others as well. Just as a consideration -- and maybe Jacy
already said this -- our workshop day -- we could have our regular meeting at our
workshop time and, then, go to their meeting in the evening if anybody wanted to put
that many hours into Council meetings on that Tuesday.
Cavener: Mr. President?
Rountree: Luke.
Cavener: I also agree and I think that the one thing we don't want to do is risk cutting
our regularly scheduled meeting short to appeal with their time table. So, I like the idea
of meeting at 7:00 o'clock after our workshop session. I think that gives us ample time
to conduct our business here. It makes for a long day I know for some of us, but I think
that would probably work best.
Rountree: Other comments?
Bird: Mr. President?
Rountree: Mr. Bird.
Meridian City Council
July 22, 2014
Page 66 of 69
Bird: I agree, I think we need to meet with them and the 12th after our meeting we can
get together and go down there and talk with them and I think it's very important that we
get communication going between the two of them before communication shuts up or
something.
Milam: Mr. President? Did they -- do we do this at their regular meeting or can they
meet earlier? I mean is it 7:00 o'clock or --
Rountree: That's a question for Caleb.
Hood: Council President, Council Woman Milam, the rest of the Council, they regularly
have 6:00 o'clock work sessions similar to what we have at 3:00. 1 don't think -- this isn't
an action item, it's just a discussion, so I think 7:00 o'clock was mentioned. Your
workshop starts at 3:00. 1 would think we could be done at 5:00 o'clock and still allow
time for a little bit of a break and the drive down there, so 6:00 o'clock may be -- but I
guess we could leave it up to Kuna, 6:00 or 7:00, maybe leave that in their court.
Everyone seems to be leaning towards the 12th for a meeting, so 6:00 o'clock -- again,
they regularly have workshops, special meetings at 6:00 p.m.
Milam: Okay.
Hood: If that helps.
Milam: Thank you.
Rountree: So, I get a general consensus that we are looking at the 12th and the timing
is kind of based on what works for them. We will start our regular workshop at 3:00 and
try to keep it --
Bird: Short.
Rountree: -- Jacy, on a -- don't load up the agenda and we can meet that time. If 5:30
works good for them we can probably do that as well. So, is everybody in concurrence
with that?
Bird: I am.
Rountree: All right. Very good. I will tell you that we have met several times with the
mayor and the president of their council and a couple times have reached a general
agreement and consensus, only to be told after meeting with their council that that's not
necessarily the way their council wants to go, so I think it's an opportunity for both
councils in total to get together and air our desires and see if we can come to some
agreement. But, anyway, I appreciate your willingness to do that and we will try to get
that done on the 12th.
Meridian City Council
July 22, 2014
Page 67 of 69
Zaremba: Mr. President? On the subject of future meetings, the meeting the week
before that is National Night Out.
Rountree: It is.
Zaremba: And do we want to expose the new people to where we meet and how and
talk about National Night Out a little bit?
Rountree: Just give us a little low down on that.
Basterrechea: Yeah. National Night Out would be just like years past. The kickoff will
be at the Applebee's here in town at -- on Eagle Road at 4:15. And, then, after that's
done we usually meet with Council members who are wanting to go to the different
National Night Out events and you will ride with one of the command staff or a sergeant
and we will run you to the different events throughout the city, so -- we usually divide it
up amongst Council Members, so that we can hit as many of them as we can. So, if
you are wanting to go, if you could let us know that up front, so we can divide those
tasks up that would be great.
Rountree: And we will get notified of that shortly about your desire and they will identify
how many of these events are going on, split them up amongst the various Council
people and you will have an opportunity to see a part of the city you haven't and meet
some folks you hadn't seen before, so -- it is kind of an interesting night. It's fun. You
eat a lot. You can eat a lot of pizza.
Bird: Hot dogs.
Rountree: Hot dogs.
Bird: Burgers.
Rountree: Anyway, we will have something out on that I think the closer we get and as
they identify how many block parties there will be.
Basterrechea: We usually know about the week before exactly how many block parties.
So, within the next week or so we can let you know that.
Rountree: Very good. That brings us to --
Nary: Mr. President? Sorry to interrupt your train of thought, Mr. President. I wondered
if you wouldn't mind taking up the Item 6-L.
Rountree: Yeah. I was just going to go to 11.
Nary: Yeah. If we could do that one first, then, maybe Caleb could get out of here. I
would let you know, Mr. President, Members of the Council, I have had some e-mail
Meridian City Council
July 22, 2014
Page 68 of 69
contacts with Chief Niemeyer and Caleb has had a chat with Bruce Chatterton, so I will
let you know what Chief Niemeyer and Mayor has actually weighed in as well. It was
the desire of the consultant Phil Eastman to meet with all of you individually and as part
of the facilitated discussion. It wasn't in the -- it's not in the scope necessarily, because
we can't really force any of you to participate. We would also have to be cautious of
open meetings. So, we want to make sure that we are sensitive to the -- how we can do
this, but it was the desire of them to include all of you in both individual meetings, as
well as facilitated meetings, and it was our intention and desire tonight to have the
agreement approved so we can get the work started so it can get completed by the end
of September as required and you don't have another meeting until the 12th to approve
anything, because on the National Night Out this year it was requested to not even have
a Consent Agenda, so you won't even have a five minute meeting like we have done in
the past. So, we wouldn't be able to get -- we won't have anything else in front of you
until the 12th. So, that was the reason it was on tonight and I don't know if Caleb has
more to add from his conversation with Bruce as to the role of the Council.
Rountree: That pretty much sums it up, Caleb?
Hood: It does. I guess if Councilman Borton has any other follow-up questions or
hopefully that addressed it, because that's what I heard from Bruce, so --
Rountree: Okay. Mr. Borton.
Borton: It does. I -- just to make sure that we are -- at least have a chance to be
involved on the front end. I think the budget process has exposed that Council might
have strategic directions that we haven't articulated maybe as clearly as we could and
this is an opportunity and we want to make sure we can do that, so I'm comfortable
going forward with that explanation.
Item 11: Item 5L moved from Item 6: Approval of Professional Services
Agreement for a "City Wide Strategic Plan" to Leadership Advisors,
Inc. for the Not -to -Exceed Amount of $53,250.00
Rountree: So, we have that item for approval of the professional services in an amount
not to exceed 53,250 dollars.
Bird: Mr. President?
Rountree: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve the professional service agreement with Leadership Advisors,
Incorporated, for a not to exceed amount of 53,240 dollars.
Borton: Second.
Meridian City Council
July 22, 2014
Page 69 of 69
Rountree: It's been moved and seconded to approve the Item 6-L, now 11 on our
agenda. Any discussion? Roll call, please.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milan, yea; Cavener,
yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 10: Executive Session Per Idaho State Code 67-2345 (1)(f): (f) To
Consider and Advise Its Legal Representatives in Pending Litigation
Amended onto the Agenda: Executive Session per Idaho State Code
67-2345 (1)(d): (d) To Consider Records that are Exempt from
Disclosure as Provided in Chapter 3, Title 9, Idaho Code
Rountree: That brings us back to Item 10, which is Executive Session.
Bird: Mr. President?
Rountree: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we go into Executive Session as per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1)(d) and
(1)(f).
Milam: Second.
Rountree: It's been moved and seconded to go into Executive Session. Roll call,
please.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milan, yea; Cavener,
yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
EXECUTIVE SESSION: (8:57 p.m. to 9:25 p.m.)
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:25 P.M.
( RECORD 149N_ ILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
TAMMY EERD, MA �co�roaarao Lc DATE APPROVED
ATTEST: °sr
-1-a ✓= � `'f III
JAYCLEW01MAN, CITY CLE Sr4l �? `
9
V'
,y
"°A S['° e