2019-07-16 RegularMeridian City Council July 16, 2019.
A Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:00 p.m., Tuesday, July
16, 2019, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd.
Members Present: Tammy de Weerd, Joe Borton, Luke Cavener, Ty Palmer, Anne Little
Roberts and Treg Bernt.
Member Absent: Genesis Milam.
Also present: Chris Johnson, Bill Nary, Bill Parsons, Kyle Radek, Berle Stokes, Mark
Niemeyer and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll-call Attendance:
Roll call.
X__ Anne Little Roberts X _ _Joe Borton
X__ Ty Palmer X__ Treg Bernt
__X___Genesis Milam __X___Lucas Cavener
__X__ Mayor Tammy de Weerd
De Weerd: Welcome to our City Council meeting. We appreciate you joining us. For the
record is Tuesday, July 16th. It's two minutes past 6:00. We will start with roll call
attendance, Mr. Clerk.
Item 2: Pledge of Allegiance
De Weerd: Item No. 2 is our Pledge of Allegiance. If you will all rise and join us in the
pledge to our flag.
(Pledge of Allegiance recited.)
Item 3: Community Invocation by Michael Pearson of Seventh Day Adventist
Church
De Weerd: Item 3 is our community invocation. Tonight we will be led by Pastor Michael
Pearson with the Seventh-Day Adventist Church. If you will all join us in the community
invocation or take this as an opportunity for a moment of reflection. Pastor Pearson,
thank you for joining us.
Pearson: Thank you for the invitation. Lord God, we want to thank you for the Mayor, the
City Council, and administrators, first responders, and all employees -- for those here
tonight and we pause for a moment to ask for you r blessing on the proceedings and on
each person mentioned, that we might seek what is best and right, that we will make
decisions that will be of the best for the city. We ask this in the one who is the first and
the last, the beginning and the end, amen.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 122 of 519
Meridian City Council
July 16, 2019
Page 2 of 62
Item 4: Adoption of Agenda
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Item 4 is adoption of the agenda.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: There were no changes to the published agenda, so I move that we adopt it.
Cavener: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda as published. All those in
favor say aye. All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 5: Announcements
De Weerd: Item 5 under announcements. Council, we have a car seat inspection on
Thursday, the 18th, from noon to 3:00 at City Hall. They do require to schedule
appointments and you can call the fire admin office. City 101. Last week was the first
one that we covered Parks and Police and we had around 45 in attendance. This week
on Thursday, the 17th, from 5:30 to 8:00 we will have the Public Works Department and
the Fire Department. So, we would love you to join us here at City Hall. Kleiner Park
Family Fun on Saturday, the 20th, from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00, and just want to make sure -- I
know you have started to get some e-mails about National Night Out and so make sure
you have that on your calendar and I believe Chris will have a brief meeting for consent
agenda business; right?
Johnson: That is correct.
De Weerd: Okay. And we do have some upcoming City Council joint meetings on August
13th at 3:00 pm with Ada County Highway District. If Council Members have agenda
topics you would like considered, if you can get that to our Council President, we can
discuss that at our agenda setting meeting. Same with the joint meeting with West Ada
School District on August 21st at 6:00 p.m., as well Ada county commissioners on
September 17th at 3:30. So, I -- I have some topics that we kind of talked about today,
but we are interested in what is on your mind. Okay? Anything further for
announcements? Hearing none --
Item 6: Future Meeting Topics - Public Forum (Up to 30 Minutes Maximum)
De Weerd: Item 6. Mr. Clerk, any sign-ups?
Johnson: Madam Mayor, there are no sign-ups.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 123 of 519
Meridian City Council
July 16, 2019
Page 3 of 62
Item 7: Action Items
A. Public Hearing for Community Development Block Grant
CDBG ) Program Year 2019 Draft Action Plan
De Weerd: Okay. Seven under Action Items. We do have under Item A, our public
hearing for our CDBG program and I will turn this over to Crystal.
Campbell: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. I just want to give a brief
overview of the presentation from June 4th to remind everybody what was in the action
plan. The actual plan is guided by the consolidated plan -- or, I'm sorry, the CDBG
program is guided by the consolidated plan, which is a five year plan where we go out
into the community and we use citizen participation to assess the community and see
what they really want to have happen over the next five years. The current plan runs from
2017 to 2021 and the goals identified were improving accessibility, enhancing
homeownership opportunities, providing social services, stabilizing the rental gap and,
then, administration and fair housing. The action plan is -- there is one for each year of
the consolidated plan that tells the community how we are going to meet those goals
throughout the year. This is the third year coming up for the current consolidated plan
and it will start October 1st, 2019, and run through September 30th, 2020. The public
comment period started on May 31 and will end tonight after the public hearing. At the
end of the year, then, there is also a CAPER, which is the final report that reports on all
of the accomplishments and it's due in December. So, these are the activities associated
with the goals that we identified. To improve accessibility we plan to do the East Third
Street right of way improvements, as well as streetlight improvements near Meridian
Middle and Meridian High School. For home ownership opportunities, then, we were
going to fund the Home Ownership Assistance Program. For social services, then, we
had identified homelessness prevention , youth extended care scholarships, SORE care
coordination and behavioral health crisis stabilization. And , then, of course,
administration of fair housing. So, we did have one major change and, then, some -- one
public comment that we wanted to update you with. Unfortunately, we will not be able to
fund the Pathways Community Crisis Center this year. They are -- Pathways is a for profit
organization and to receive the CDBG public service funds, then, they have to be a
nonprofit. So, in the past when they have needed to qualify for a service -- or for grants
like this, then, they have used RC&D to qualify as the nonprofit and, then, they are the
fiscal agent, but CDBG require -- would require them to be more like the full-on sub
recipient and treat Pathways as a contractor, which would mean they would have to go
monitor them and everything else and they are just not set up to do that. So, we had to
find a new way to reallocate the 13 ,500 that was originally allocated toward them. After
speaking with the scoring committee, then, we decided to look at the top two ranked
projects that did not receive their full funding, which would be the Ada County Housing
Authority, which is the Home Ownership Assistance Program. So, we are going to
increase that funding from 30,000 to 40,000, which will allow them to help one additional
household and, then, the Jesse Tree of Idaho is homelessness prevention and we are
increasing the funding from there from 21,000 to 24,500, which will allow them to help
another five households. The final update is on public comment. Councilman Borton had
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 124 of 519
Meridian City Council
July 16, 2019
Page 4 of 62
asked a really good question about the default rates for our Home Ownership Assistance
Program. So, when I was trying to compare what type of loans that we more than likely
are providing, it was kind of hard to find the information, but the best that I could come up
with, then, FHA loans nationally there is a 3.7 serious delinquency rate and that was in
2018, which was like an all-time low for -- well, not all time. Since 2011 all-time low and
where ours, then, there were no defaults from the beginning of the program , which was
in 2008. The first time we did it we have funded 35 households and nobody has defaulted.
So, I think ACHA and Neighbor Works Boise have done a really good job of screening
people and making sure they are getting the education that they need to be able to
continue with the loans. So, those were the only updates that I had to the previously
presented plan. So, again, tonight, then, it's the public hearing and the end of the public
comment period. Next week I will make any changes to the action plan and submit that
to you again, along with the resolution, so that you can approve that and I could submit
the action plan to HUD by the end of the month. So, with that I will stand for comments.
De Weerd: Thank you, Crystal. Council, any questions?
Bernt: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bernt.
Bernt: Crystal, awesome job. Great job.
Campbell: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. If there is nothing further, this is a public hearing, is there anyone
signed up to testify, Mr. Clerk?
Johnson: Madam Mayor, there was one sign in and it looks like they are actually here for
another project and they did not indicate they wished to testify.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone here who wishes to provide testimony on
the item? Okay. Thank you. Council, this will be on next week's agenda for -- with a
resolution and if there is no -- nothing further, I would entertain a motion to close the public
hearing.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: I move we close the public hearing on Item 7-A, the CDBG 2019 draft action
plan.
Cavener: Second.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 125 of 519
Meridian City Council
July 16, 2019
Page 5 of 62
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All those in favor
say aye. All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: And we will see this next week. Crystal, you have done a phenomenal job. I
have appreciated the passion that you have put into it, but also going out and seeking
further knowledge about the program and what some of the possibilities have been that
we could be doing to improve our community outreach. So, thank you for that.
Campbell: Thank you.
B. Final Plat Continued from July 9, 2019 for Cherry Blossom
H-2019-0064) by Doug Jayo, Jayo Land Development
Company, LLC., Located at 615 W. Cherry Ln.
De Weerd: Okay. Item B is a final plat continued from July 9th. This does request
continuance to August 13th and maybe I will ask Bill if he can give us the reasons why.
Parsons: Happy to, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. So, yeah, this is second or
third continuance, I believe, for this particular final plat and the issue really stems around
some irrigation easements that run along the south boundary of the projec t. This was a
topic of discussion when it was in front of this body and Planning and Zoning Commission
and so the applicant's elected to continue to work on those issues, but in order to do that
they need to ask for the continuance, submit a revised plan, remove those -- basically
remove the lots along that south boundary from their first phase of development as they
continue to work with the adjacent neighbors and staff on a resolution to those issues, but
we hope to have some updated plans to bring forward a staff report that is consistent with
that preliminary plat that was approved last year. So, really, it's just -- there is some issues
-- technical issues that have to be worked out. We can't seem to get there, so the easiest
thing to do was just remove those lots from the boundary, submit a revised plat, write a
staff report consistent with the preliminary plat and move forward and that's what the
applicant has requested. That's why they are requesting the continuance.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, any comments? Okay. Concerns? Do I have a motion to
continue?
Bernt: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bernt.
Bernt: I move that we continue H-2019-0064 to what date? August 13th, 2019.
Little Roberts: Second.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 126 of 519
Meridian City Council
July 16, 2019
Page 6 of 62
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to continue Item B to August 13th, 2019. All
those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
C. Final Plat for Firenze Plaza Subdivision ( H-2019-0067) by The
Land Group, Inc., Located on the NW corner of S . Eagle Rd. and
E. Amity Rd.
De Weerd: Item C is -- received some comments by e-mail. Is there anyone here for this
item? It is not a public hearing. Typically these are on our Consent Agenda, but the
applicant did not get us comments before the publish date of our Consent Agenda, so it
landed in the Action Items. Council, I see that the applicant is an agreement with the staff
report and there is nothing further on this item. Did you have any questions?
Bernt: No questions.
De Weerd: Okay.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: I move that we approve Item 7-C, H-2018-0067, consistent with the conditions in
the staff report.
Little Roberts: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve H-2019-0067. Mr. Clerk, will you
call roll.
Roll call: Borton, yea; Milam, absent; Cavener, yea; Palmer, yea; Little Roberts, yea;
Bernt, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: We are now in our public hearing section of our agenda. If there is anyone
new here this evening, our process for public hearings is to first hear from staff , who will
present the application and any staff concerns. Then we will hear from the developer or
applicant. They have 15 minutes to present their application to the City Council. After
that we do open it up for public hearing and public comments. There is a three minute
time limit and there is a timer on the screen at the podium that will help you track your
time. I will interrupt you when the timer goes off and ask you to summarize if you haven't
done so already. After public testimony the applicant has an opportunity to summarize
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 127 of 519
Meridian City Council
July 16, 2019
Page 7 of 62
and answer any questions that came up during the testimony and Council will have an
opportunity at that point to ask staff, applicant, or any of those that testified questions.
There is a public record on each of these that Council has had an opportunity to review
before coming to the hearing tonight and that's all considered in addition to what we hear
this evening to render their decision.
D. Public Hearing for Rackham Subdivision (H-2018-0126) by
BVA Development, Located at 1020 S . Eagle Rd.
1. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 20 building lots on
51.59 acres of land in the C-G zoning district
De Weerd: So, with that I will open this public hearing on Item 7-D for H-2018-0126 with
staff comments.
Parsons: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. First action item on the
agenda this evening is the Rackham Sub -- or land use application is the Rackham
Subdivision. It's a preliminary plat. The site consists of 51.59 acres of land and is
currently zoned C-G in the city limits. This property was annexed in 1995 with a vision of
a -- basically a mall on the site. The applicant was before you approximately six months
ago, went through that DA modification process and tied a concept plan to this particular
property and that's not changing as part of this application at this point. I would also
mention to Council that the applicant is proposing -- has submitted a DA modification that
will before you -- be before you in August to change some of the terms of that agreement.
But, again, as part of the preliminary plat all they are doing is creating lots to sell off or
create additional building pads or -- consistent with their concept plan that was approved
with that DA. The applicant is proposing to develop this project in three phases. As you
can see here in the phasing plan there is a phase one, a 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, 2E and a three.
Again, that's subject to change. As -- as you know sometimes applicants always have
the best of intentions to develop their plans consistent with the concept plan, but as I just
mentioned to you, things are changing quickly out there and so it's paramount that they
get this approved, so they can adjust according to what's occurring on this particular
property. When we were -- when we were before the Planning and Zoning Commission
we had not yet received ACHD's comments on this particular application. I am happy to
report that ACHD did provide us a draft staff report and that is included as part of your --
your record. I have had a chance to review that document. Again nothing glaring as far
as any improvements. The applicant will be required to extend North Silverstone Way
into the site and construct a mini roundabout and , then, have a cross-access with the
adjacent property to the south and tie into Rackham Lane, which is currently stubbed to
this property. So, again, consistent with the concept plan and the DA and consistent with
their traffic study that ACHD reviewed and approved. As far as landscape improvements
for the development, the applicant's only required to construct the landscape buffers along
the extension of the collector road, which is that mini roundabout and there is a
requirement for a 50 foot wide landscape buffer along ITD right of way or Interstate I-84.
Staff did receive comments from ITD on this particular application. Some of the things
they were asking for were all site improvements to some of the way the interchange
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 128 of 519
Meridian City Council
July 16, 2019
Page 8 of 62
functions. Because this is just the plat and we have already annexed and zoned, we have
limited purview as to what we can require as part of that process , but as I mentioned to
Council, we do have a development agreement that's coming before you -- a modification.
That would be the appropriate time to talk about some of those mitigations. I know the
applicant is also in contact with ITD and having some conversations with them as well.
So, hopefully, we can vet those out a little bit more as we go through that DA process.
But it's important to note that this -- there are some impacts to the transportation system
out there. So, the Commission did recommend approval of this particular project. Jeff
Wardle spoke in favor and, then, as far as any key items of discussion or changes to the
staff report or outstanding issues, there aren't any for you this evening. It's a fairly clean
application. So, with that I will conclude my presentation and let you know that we are --
both the Commission and staff are recommending approval.
De Weerd: Thank you, Bill. Council, any questions? Okay. Is the applicant here? Good
evening. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record.
Wardle: Madam Mayor, Members of Council, Jeff Wardle. My address is 251 East Front
in Boise here on behalf of the applicant tonight. We are in agreement with what Bill
outlined for you and I'm going to just give you a brief update on where we were , where
we are, and why we will be back in front of you shortly. The project is not changing. As
we have gone through the design and development process it's become apparent that
there are certain phasing considerations that based upon infrastructure and when we are
going to extend infrastructure, it makes sense to do at different times. So, as Bill indicated
and as we talked about previously, the development agreement came in for a mixed use
commercial project based upon the 1995 zoning and annexation . That was originally
contemplating a large retail center with over 700,000 square feet of retail. That included
the Eagle Commons property, which is the -- the Norco property and the related
developments being brought forward by Jim Kissler to the south. The site plan has not
changed. The type of improvements that we are talking about has not changed. What
we have done as we have gone forward with the preliminary plat is identifying the fact
that as we deal with certain elements that phasing as we initially contemplated probably
isn't consistent with what we actually need to build and proceed. As we presented to you
and as -- as you may know, we are in for a building permit on this building right here ,
which is ICCU's main building. In this -- the first two phases we are contemplating three
office buildings with a mixture of retail, hospitality, entertainment here and the possibility
of medical office down here. We will be back with respect to phase three , which is the
future development of that southeast -- the southeast quadrant. As indicated the
preliminary plat proposes 20 block -- 20 lots on one block with private access drives. We
have -- are working on an agreement with Kissler to the south to address the concerns
raised by ACHD and the city to ensure that we have connectivity to the public between
the public roads that are Silverstone to the east and Rackham Way to the west. That will
be accomplished with a private access drive and an easement between these two
properties. Additionally we have addressed fire concern with the acquisition of property
over here to permit an emergency access out to Rolling Hills, as well as emergency
access through the eastern portion here. The preliminary plat that's before you we believe
is fully compliant with the development agreement and the other requirements of your
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 129 of 519
Meridian City Council
July 16, 2019
Page 9 of 62
code. As indicated, these parcels to the east in the southeast quadrant are being platted
at this time, but we will have to come back to you with a development plan for those at
that point in time. Now, the phasing plan that you previously approved in the development
agreement as outlined by Bill, we have submitted. We will be making an amendment and
I'm going to show you why. This is the development plan that was originally contemplated.
Because of infrastructure we had contemplated doing this in four phases. Realistically as
we start with phase one, the ICCU building, these other elements internally, we are going
to have to address access, we are going to have to address utilities, extension of water
and sewer and so that, then, leads to the phasing and the sequencing of certain
commercial improvements and so in the staff report there was discussion as well about
water and how we were going to address water and so Horrocks has been working with
your Public Works Department. If we end up doing all of the infrastructure in the first two
phases, we believe that that adequately addresses the loo ping of the water, because if
we do it in the first two phases we will go ahead and loop out to the water facility that's
adjacent to the interstate. If we end up not doing this extension initially, then, we will just
loop it through this portion as part of phase two. So , we think that that issue has been
addressed. We believe that we have also addressed the issues with respect to
emergency access with the Fire Department and ITD and ACHD's requirements are what
were expected. Now, the phasing that we talked about is just ICCU was phase one. The
other commercial elements of phase two we just need some flexibility as -- for staging,
timing, and where we go forward. But that becomes important, because you will see that
between this plan none of the buildings change and the plan that you will see in a month
or so just incorporates this phasing plan with these structures. So , we are in agreement
with the conditions of approval. We recognize that there is still, obviously, design work to
do, because this is just a preliminary plat, but the preliminary plat complies with the
provisions of the Meridian Unified Development Code and we stand for any questions
that you may have.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions at this time?
Cavener: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Cavener.
Cavener: Mr. Wardle, thanks for being here. Can you jump back to that slide that shows
the water?
Wardle: Sure.
Cavener: I guess there was a concern that was raised from the staff. I appreciate you
addressing it. I don't know if this slide was able to be shared with staff before the meeting.
Wardle: I -- well, I believe that --
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 130 of 519
Meridian City Council
July 16, 2019
Page 10 of 62
Radek: Councilman Cavener, Madam Mayor, yeah, I have been talking to their -- their
engineer Rob Sunderlage at Horrocks and we were going over exactly what this exhibit
should show and say and I'm satisfied with it.
Cavener: Madam Mayor, an additional question.
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Cavener: Mr. Wardle, I don't -- quite frankly, I don't have any issues with your preliminary
plat at all. I think it's fine. My question for you is there is some comments again in the
staff report about the ability for our Fire Department to be able to serve this development
with a ladder truck and there being some potential delays and I guess from the applicant's
perspective is that a concern of yours and I guess -- I'm trying to figure out the best way
that we can come to some type of conclusion to get that -- that piece addressed.
Wardle: Madam Mayor, Council Member Cavener, I, obviously, have to defer to your Fire
Department. Obviously, this is not the first six story building that we have built within a
mile of this site. We are comfortable with the sequencing of things. We are comfortable
with the service times that they indicate, as well as the contribution that the significant
impact fees will add to this that we will be able to address all that and, obviously, it's all
going to be built to code and sprinklered, so --
Cavener: Okay. Fair enough. Thank you.
De Weerd: Chief, anything you want to add?
Niemeyer: Madam Mayor, Council, Councilman Cavener, thanks for the question. As
you know that we put that in our -- in our staff report. This is kind of a mid-rise building,
that six story. When we get into seven and above we are looking at high rise. We always
put that in our staff report. As we continue to build vertically throughout our city -- right
now we have one ladder truck to cover 56 square miles. So , we want to make sure that
there is just an awareness on all of our parts that at some point probably in our city a
second ladder truck is going to be needed based on the call volume and the growth
vertically.
Cavener: And Madam Mayor? I was trying to do some of the quick math, the square
footage with new impact fees, kind of what that would generate. So, we would have an
idea, but I think it's important for -- for Council to note as these great developments come
in and bring a bunch of commercial with them, as they go vertically it is going to increase
our need for additional ladder trucks, which development like this through impact fees pay
for, we just need to make sure that's on our radar.
Palmer: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Palmer.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 131 of 519
Meridian City Council
July 16, 2019
Page 11 of 62
Palmer: Did something change? I thought it was going to be a five story.
Wardle: No. Madam Mayor, Council Member Palmer, there are no buildings in this project
that are going to be taller than five stories.
Palmer: Fair.
Wardle: Okay.
De Weerd: And certainly as the applications come into our Planning Department and the
pre app, with all of our departments around the table, these are the discussions they have
and certainly is a discussion that Council is -- is considering as you consider the
annexation and the entitlements for these developments. So , anything further? Thank
you --
Wardle: Thank you.
De Weerd: -- Mr. Wardle. Okay. This is our public testimony section. Mr. Clerk, do we
have sign-ups?
Johnson: Madam Mayor, there are no sign-ups.
De Weerd: Is there anyone who wishes to provide testimony that's in our audience
tonight? You filled the room just for this awesome project. Nope. Okay.
Cavener: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Cavener.
Cavener: Nobody interested in testifying, I move that we close the public hearing on Item
7-D, H-2018-0126.
Bernt: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on Item 7 -D.
All those in favor say aye. All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Cavener: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Cavener.
Cavener: Move we approve Item 7-D, H-2018-0126 as presented and include all staff
and applicant testimony.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 132 of 519
Meridian City Council
July 16, 2019
Page 12 of 62
Bernt: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 7-D. Any discussion from
Council? Mr. Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll call: Borton, yea; Milam, absent; Cavener, yea; Palmer, yea; Little Roberts, yea;
Bernt, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
E. Public Hearing Continued from June 25, 2019 for Three Corners
Ranch (H-2019-0006) by Sweet Land Development, Inc., Located
at 1890 E. Dunwoody Ct.
1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 31.06 acres of land with
the R-4 zoning District; and,
2. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 45 building lots and
9 commons lots.
De Weerd: Item 7-E is a continued public hearing on H-2019-0006. I will note that this
public hearing was continued on three items. One is a revised plat that I understand has
been received. Two was a plan on the -- something lateral. What was the lateral? Karnes
Lateral. And the third one was to talk about the safety improvements on Dunwoody. So,
I will turn this over to staff at this point.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: I apologize. If I could just briefly interrupt. On June 25th I wasn't here, but
following that meeting I was able to review all the materials, review the P&Z minutes and
also watch the complete video of that -- of that hearing. So, I am fully up to speed on
what's transpired. Had a chance to go through all the materials. So, I feel comfortable
participating in today's hearing as well.
De Weerd: Thank you. We appreciate that, Mr. Borton. And so the conversation tonight
for this continued public hearing are on those three items. We have a lengthy -- or good
public record up to this point, as Mr. Borton just talked about. So, Mr. Parsons.
Parsons: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. I think you did a great job,
Mayor, kind of laying the framework for what we are discussing this evening. So, staff did
prepare a memo. We did receive those -- those updates yesterday afternoon and with
those came a memo that kind of summarized the items that were received, along with
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 133 of 519
Meridian City Council
July 16, 2019
Page 13 of 62
some of the written information that the applicant provided to you as far as how those
deliberations went with the neighbors and what steps they took in order to add ress those
three items. So, I would mention to you that this was the plat that was before the City
Council on the 25th. As you recall there were some changes from the Planning and
Zoning Commission on a revised plat that did not take -- did not happen between that
month timeframe and so this body was -- picked up on that and asked that they make
those changes. Now, I will mention to you that in my memo I errored a little bit. I went
back and looked at the submitted plans today and I would let you know that the hearing
outline that I prepared for you this evening does -- and the plans that the applicant showed
did show a common lot and the sidewalks along Guinness Street as recommended by
the Planning and Zoning Commission and I do have that in the slide here. But I also left
off some of the things that they required. So , if I can go through -- it looks like my
slideshow is gone. So, essentially -- let's see if I have the right slides here for you.
Essentially the applicant did provide -- did extend the road to align with Shandee and,
then, they also extended the common lot along the south boundary of West Guinness
Street. Included the sidewalks. So, staff has received that. That is also included as part
of the record. The other issue was the safety concerns raised on Dunwoody Court and if
you recall the -- the applicant was to go back and work with the neighbors and see if they
could come up with a plan and I remember Councilman Bernt specifically said we have a
lot of smart people in the room and come back with a solution . So, looking through the
record and meeting with the applicant and the Deans, it sounds like the residents' terms
weren't met. The residents want a complete street. They want Dunwoody Court built to
a complete street standard, which means curb, gutter, sidewalk on both sides of the road.
As we mentioned to you at the last meeting, there is the right of way to do that, but in
order to facilitate that that requires drainage, that requires almost a rebuild of the road to
do that, which is a significant cost. In receiving the e-mail from ACHD it appears that their
standards for this particular road meets the amount of traffic that would be on this road
-- meets their warrants. So, there is not traffic that would require those types of
improvements. But there are standards that they can do to improve the safety on the
roadway. ACHD -- Christy Little, in particular, sent an e-mail, which was included as part
of your packet, that explained that the applicant could stripe four foot walkways on either
side of the road and, then, stripe the travel lanes, so you would have, essentially, a striped
pathway on each side of the road or the applicant has the option of doing all of it o n one
side of the road or an eight foot pathway and still stripe the travel lanes and, then, put no
parking signs along both sides of the street. So, there shouldn't be any parking on this
particular roadway. And, the -- the applicant has also gone a step further and also asked
to install street -- a few streetlights to improve some visibility in the area, one being at the
intersection, one around the corner and, then, one at the entrance as you exit out of this
subdivision into Dunwoody Court. So, they are putting lights in the appropriate places as
far as staff is concerned. So, again, as far as a safety concern, that was something that
was very important to this body. Again, I realize that the neighbors and the applicant may
not have come to terms, but according to ACHD standards if these things are met they
are meeting their policies. And the last item was the improvements related to the Karnes.
As we talked about at the last meeting staff was concerned that a portion of those -- of
that waterway would be an easement versus a common lot and I can -- if you can follow
my cursor here, so originally as the Karnes Lateral is piped and within the existing
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 134 of 519
Meridian City Council
July 16, 2019
Page 14 of 62
Dunwoody Subdivision along this boundary here, which is Lot 19, Block 1, and, then, it
terminates -- there is a gate here and, then, it becomes an open ditch that runs through
the property. In discussions with the applicant they are going to -- from where that
headgate is they are going to pipe along the south side of this private street here and,
then, terminate at the west -- the east boundary of this property and, then, head south
across the lots -- or, excuse me, four of the lots and, then, tie into where it's piped within
the Bristol Heights Subdivision. So, some of this waterway is already piped. The
applicant's going to pipe the remainder that falls within the boundary of their project. They
have met with the Karnes Lateral to discuss those improvements. And I would mention
to Council that it's -- at this time it's not realistic for the applicant to get plan approval at
the preliminary plat stage. Typically as you go through the final plats the applicant has to
provide their irrigation plans. Those get sent to the irrigation -- the lateral association.
They approve the plans and, then, as they come in for their signature on the pla t the
applicant has to provide a written letter from the irrigation district that they have prepared
-- built the plans as proposed -- as proposed and approved by the lateral association. So,
those negotiations -- those talks have happened. Now, I did receive an e-mail and you
did, too, for Mr. Mark Miller. He was concerned that he wouldn't have access to his water
and any improvements to that waterway may impede the use of his irrigation system and
so I informed him and I sent him these plans and had him look them over and he wants
to make it clear that anything that happens that the applicant enters into a license
agreement with him, because the lateral will impact his property, which is right in this
location here. There will be a 15 foot easement and that's where some of those
improvements will occur. So, they are going to have to work with that private property
owner and make sure whatever improvements they do to that irrigation facility that he can
hook into it and his current system will remain and work as it currently works today. So , I
told him that I would share that with you and, hopefully, you have had a chance to see his
written testimony. So, those are the three items that -- that we -- that were opened up for
discussion. I would let the Council know that we did receive additional written testimony
on this particular application and that's included as part of the public record as well. So,
we had nine residents, again, speaking to these three items. So, with that, again,
everything's been addressed per staff's purview. We are comfortable with it, but I will just
stand for questions and open it up for public testimony.
De Weerd: Thank you, Bill. Council, any questions for staff at this point? Okay. Is the
applicant here? Good evening. If you will, please, state your name and address for the
record.
Clark: You bet. Hethe Clark. 251 East Front Street. Representing the applicant.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Clark: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, it's good to be back and we have, I
believe, addressed the items that as -- as Bill has mentioned. Appreciate his summary. I
thought it might be helpful just to kind of make sure we are still on the same page, to give
just a brief summary of how we got here, how we got to the three items that needed to be
addressed and, then, ultimately, what we think are the items that Council should be
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 135 of 519
Meridian City Council
July 16, 2019
Page 15 of 62
looking at and considering in terms of a motion. So, again, a small in-fill development,
unique with all of the stub connections that we have talked about in the past. Forty-four
homes. About half the density that could be allowed per the current comp plan
designation. Again, part of the Dunwoody Subdivision, the CC&Rs, provide notice that
this would take access off of Dunwoody Court. As we went through the process there
was the discussion about cut-through traffic, which is why we ended up with the gated
proposal. Again, the larger block does not include a collector roadway network. Everyone
who's going to be accessing these local roads are going to be using them in order to get
out to the arterials. There is not amenities that are accessible from the internal block
itself. That was why ACHD and P&Z recommended no connection, again, as to Stafford
and that was kind of the initial issue that had to be resolved through this process. So ,
again, as Bill mentioned, there were the three items that were brought up for follow up at
this meeting. Start with Karnes. I think Bill's description is accurate. We have been back
to them with -- and they have approved the current plans. That conversation has been
ongoing for months. They reviewed a preliminary set of plans and approved it back in
February. They have indicated that we could represent to you that that -- those plans are
approved. It's my understanding that a Karnes board representative should be here
tonight to confirm that. With regard to Mr. Miller's property, there will be no interference.
We will not be on his property and -- other than to provide a connection to the point where
he currently takes irrigation. So, we will be within the Karnes Lateral easement, but we
will provide a connection point, so we will not interfere with his water. As Bill mentioned,
it's typical of all plats that those plans would be finalized with construction plans in
connection with the final plat. That will be done in the normal course as -- as is -- as is
standard and that -- we are more than happy to see that as a condition of the final
approval, because that's standard operating procedure. With regard to the plats, again,
those have been submitted. The preliminary plat does, as Bill mentioned, include the
buffer. I pointed that out here, because I thought that he maybe missed it, but he caught
it on this round. So, that is there. The north-south connection to Shandee, if Council
recalls, that was an item that was up for discussion and that's something that we would
like to continue as part of the conversation tonight in connection with your ultimate motion.
The revised pre-plat, as Bill mentioned, this is where the -- the buffer lot is located that
staff had requested and, then, the site plan illustrates how that north-south connection
would work. Again, that's something we are asking the Council to revisit for a number of
reasons, including the fact that we believe that it will not be heavily used. We believe that
it's not warranted, that folks will likely go out through the Dunwoody Subdivision. And,
then, in addition to that I just wanted to point out that there had been a number of
conversations about whether we had pushed back the eastern gate as had been
recommended by P&Z and you can see the -- where it is located now is this bulb out area
here at the mouth of the -- of the subdivision. Again, with that north-south connection --
and this is just a reminder of where we were . There is no block length issue to require
the north-south connection. Just as a reminder the emergency connections will be at
Shandee and Chinden and there will also be that pathway that will support an emergency
connection and, again, our traffic engineer's opinion is that only five percent of this site
traffic will actually use it, if it is ever required. Okay. So, now to the -- to the Dunwoody
question and the safety and I want to talk about something that seemed to be an
assumption on the part of several, which was at -- at the last hearing, which is that
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 136 of 519
Meridian City Council
July 16, 2019
Page 16 of 62
Dunwoody Court is inherently unsafe. It is not inherently unsafe. It meets current ACHD
standards and I wanted to walk you through that to make sure that everyone was clear
on that. So, this table is from the ACHD policy manual, Section 7600. This shows the
local street requirements for the various types of local streets that are permitted within
ACHD's jurisdiction. This project or the Dunwoody Court is what is -- what ACHD refers
to as a standard rural street section. The width per ACHD standards is 30 feet with an
eight foot drainage swale. That -- the 30 foot surface is exactly what is at Dunwoody
Court. Now I want to point you to the sidewalk requirements for ACHD for a standard
rural section. The standard is that there would not be a sidewalk. The standard is that
there would be four feet of pavement on each side striped for nonmotorized travel. So ,
let's -- I just want to be clear about this. Dunwoody Court is not an aberration. Dunwoody
Court satisfies current ACHD standards 30 years after it was built and that is why when
ACHD reviewed this, again, they said there are no improvements required on Dunwoody
Court. So, Bill described the communication that ACHD had provided. Again, it meets
ACHD standards, but one thing -- and, Council Member Bernt, I appreciated your
suggestion at the last hearing of looking at things like an extruded curb. Unfortunately,
that's not something that ACHD will allow on a local street. They did, as Bill mentioned,
reiterated that striping would be the -- the treatment that they would allow and they
clarified that they would allow either two four foot paths on either side or what we think
would probably be more appropriate would be an eight foot path on the -- on the south
side. So, that kind of sets you up, so you have a little bit of context for what occurred in
the meeting with the Dunwoody residents. At this point I would ask Mr. Conger to come
in and describe how that went and kind of provide some insight for the Council, as I was,
unfortunately, not able to attend. So, I will turn it over to Mr. Conger and, then, I will wrap
up.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Borton: Madam Mayor, can I ask Hethe one quick question?
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Clark: You bet.
Borton: To the earlier comment on -- sorry to cut you off, Jim. On the sidewalks, if this
application had come into the city along with Dunwoody Court as one project what
sidewalks would be required on Dunwoody?
Clark: Madam Mayor, Council Member Borton, the -- the -- the -- the warrant for the
different types of street sections is actually based on the size of the lots and so based on
this -- on the -- the chart that I showed a few minutes ago, these lots are large enough
that it could have qualified under the rural street section. Now, rural street sections aren't
typically recommended in this type of an area, but it would have met the size requirements
there. Beyond that I wouldn't be able to hypothesize as to what ACHD would require.
Borton: Okay.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 137 of 519
Meridian City Council
July 16, 2019
Page 17 of 62
De Weerd: And if Justin is here from ACHD we can ask that question when it comes up.
Conger: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Jim Conger at 4824 West Fairview
Avenue. I will run through real quick the -- the -- as Hethe indicated, the Dunwoody -- I
call it the Dunwoody Court safety collaboration, which -- the meeting that was held. We
believe that was the direction of City Council was to meet with the owners along
Dunwoody Court and collaborate with all parties that lived in -- in -- along Dunwoody Court
to discuss potential mitigation of the pedestrian safety as the only end goal for that -- for
those discussions. Prior to the neighborhood meeting , though, however, I did schedule
meetings and other discussions with ACHD, because we needed to understand whatever
mitigations that would come up with -- for Dunwoody Court would, obviously, have to be
approved by ACHD. At that point we were actually pushing for the raised curb and that's
where it came -- came very quickly and they have -- have a fairly new policy, actually,
against raised curbs in local streets is, obviously, if we step back and think about it you
wouldn't be able to sweep or clean up debris or do anything behind that raised curb.
ACHD took that opportunity, however, because of my request for the meeting and
everything, to go back and review the original Dunwoody approvals, which is where we
all got the education of the rural street section and how it was then and how it is actually
basically the same today. But what came out of that approval is -- is -- is a lot of things
that -- a lot of things appear to be missing. So, the Dunwoody Court originally had an
approval for -- it was to be no parking signs on both sides and the parking , obviously,
restricted full length of the roadway. The existing roadway, which the Deans do
remember, originally had striped, so the way the policy is is you can do a four foot striped
pedestrian path as Hethe just showed you a second ago. ACHD does have it unwritten,
but -- but it is allowable to do a more meaningful -- you can do an eight foot striped
pathway on one side, which in this case the south side actually doesn't have conflicts with
driveways and their community park and actual -- their tennis court is on that south side,
which might make more sense than two four footers. ACHD also documented -- there
was no room for sidewalks in that 50 foot right of way, as you could see with the -- that
eight foot drainage swale on each side is in the policy is a pre -calculated hydraulic
engineering function that -- that requires those swales to be there. Those swales are for
the Dunwoody Street drainage and they also get used by the homeowners and we were
actually told by several of the homeowners they still flood irrigate and those swales could
not disappear. That kind of buttons up the ACHD portion prior to our collaboration
meeting, which was held with the HOA. Again, topic of Dunwoody Court safety. So,
moving into that, the group -- you know, our groups met with their groups. They indicated
-- Mr. Tippets, who I'm sure will speak today, definitely a professional, would be the
spokesman for the HOA. Myself, along with Mr. and Mrs. Dean, had -- were available to
speak on behalf of the development. So, we weren't -- weren't restricted on making
decisions. I opened it up kind of starting the foundation with kind of going through the
recent findings with ACHD and the Dunwoody Court's missing improvements that -- that
maybe that's a portion of the issue they are seeing today, as well as discussing additional
safety items, like streetlights and a few other items that we will get into. At that point the
HOA appointed spokesman identified that the Dunwoody homeowners held a previous
meeting and -- and approved a prepared statement for us that -- and I'm going to
paraphrase it. The Dunwoody homeowners would not accept anything less than a
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 138 of 519
Meridian City Council
July 16, 2019
Page 18 of 62
complete new roadway to include curbs, gutters, sidewalks and storm drainage and the
homeowners would not provide any talent, material, or funds regarding any of the safety
mitigation. So, that was our collaboration meeting and just to touch base why we call that
a complete road rebuild, anytime a roadway is built with drain swales it never had
engineering slopes to it. So, when you have drain swales you -- you actually run roads
as flat as possible, because you want the crown of the road to take the water into that
swale. You don't slope them a bunch or your swale ends up with all the water at one end .
You actually want this -- the water in the swales, you know, periodically throughout the
roadway. So, if you were to go rebuild this roadway it would be a complete road rebuild ,
asphalt, everything. It would not be just slapping curbs up to the existing asphalt. I --
after that statement I continued to explain our thoughts to provide the following safety
items: Three streetlights -- three streetlights on Dunwoody. Provide and install all the
missing no parking signs along both sides of Dunwoody Court. Install approved striping
and I believe to create an eight foot walking path, which is a more sizable pathway on the
side -- on the south side of the Dunwoody Court. At this point the Dunwoody HOA
spokesman reiterated that they had an HOA approved motion that would not accept
anything less than a full road rebuild of the Dunwoody Court. That was kind of the final
statement and that meeting definitely came to an end for our collaboration. So , we came
back to our group. So, relistened to the City Council hearing that -- that took us on our
journey. We went back to ACHD's position and -- and all their letters that ultimately got
in your file and we are offering the following improvements: Three stripe -- three
streetlights on Dunwoody as we originally promised the neighbors. Provide and install all
the no parking -- and, again, we are approximately 2,200 foot of road, which a mile is
5,280 feet. So, a little under a half a mile of -- that -- that's a lot of no parking signs on
both sides of Dunwoody Court. Install an ACHD approved stripe to create an eight foot
walking path. I think we would have some of our pedestrians walking, too, so we would
love to weigh in on the two fours versus the one eight. We believe the one eight would
keep the drive lane as it is and give a very buffering eight foot. So, we would lobby hard
for one eight foot walking path that ACHD would approve on Dunwoody Court per the
policy and within ACHD right of way we would like to go in and -- at our nickel and remove
all -- any vegetation that's just in sight -- you know, causing line of sight issues. There is
a few of those. There is -- there is not many, but there is actually probably a handful.
These are significant improvements. They are -- they aren't small and we would place
these conditions on our project to see if we will wrap up the presentation with and put
those as conditions of our approval and I will turn it back over to Hethe to further clarify
any -- any points that I may have confused somebody with.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Conger: Thank you.
Clark: Thanks, Jim. Hethe Clark, 251 East Front Street, and I will finish up. Jim, I think
addressed this, but one of the questions that has come up is can we just slap a sidewalk
on there and be done. As Jim mentioned , there are significant engineering issues with
doing that. There is also spacing issues. If you put a sidewalk in there and it's five feet
wide, then, you don't have an eight foot drainage swale any longer. You don't have
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 139 of 519
Meridian City Council
July 16, 2019
Page 19 of 62
something that can accommodate the -- the drainage as it was originally designed and
as ACHD's policy requires at eight feet. So, to -- to wrap up on Dunwoody, there is not
an ACHD policy basis for a sidewalk slash road rebuild. If there were it would be a huge
financial requirement. It would not have a rational nexus or rough proportionality to the
impacts of this project. A 44 lot subdivision doesn't generate this need and does not justify
this expense. Trip counts, even at full build out, will be very low at about 14 percent of
capacity. You would have to quadruple the homes, you would have to come in with a
comprehensive plan amendment to allow for greater density in order to approach anything
that would justify that type of expense.
De Weerd: You need to -- you need to summarize.
Clark: Madam Mayor, I know you had raised some questions about Kingsbridge last time.
I will just offer that we believe that those are not similar situations. You have -- in
Kingsbridge it's 76 acres and 130 lots and multiple stubs for future connections . In this
case 30 acres with 44 lots and no future connections. So, in other words, twice the
sidewalk for a third of the homes and future connection.
De Weerd: I'm sorry, your time is up.
Clark: Okay. And, Madam Mayor, I will just leave you with this: This is the summary that
I had mentioned with the -- the proposed modifications to the P&Z staff report and to -- as
-- to make it convenient for the Council I have these in hard copy for you and I will provide
those to all of you and to the clerk.
De Weerd: Give it to Mr. Clerk. Council, any questions? Okay.
Bernt: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bernt.
Bernt: I have a question for Justin if now --
De Weerd: Yes.
Bernt: Okay.
Cavener: Thank you. Good evening, Justin. If you will, please, state your name and
address for the record.
Lucas: Good evening, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. My name is Justin Lucas.
I'm here tonight representing the Ada County Highway District. Business address is 3775
Adam Street in Garden City, Idaho.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 140 of 519
Meridian City Council
July 16, 2019
Page 20 of 62
Bernt: Madam Mayor, Justin, thank you for joining us this evening. You squeaked in right
at the most opportune time. Thank you very much.
Lucas: Thank you. Glad to be here.
Bernt: Speak to -- speak to us in regard to a rural street versus a local street and as is
the raised curb that we spoke about that's not applicable to local streets, is it applicable
to a rural street?
Lucas: Madam Mayor, Councilman Bernt, ACHD has various street standards. Those
standards have changed over time also and so our code has not been stagnant over time.
So, when you're speaking about a rural street versus a local street , those standards do
exist in our -- in our code now. They may have been different back when Dunwoody Court
or street was -- was built. But, in general, a rural street is typically approved in a
subdivision that has larger lots. The developer comes in and proposes a curbless cross-
section, much like what is on Dunwoody Court, and for the fit and feel of the subdivision
they don't propose a sidewalk. As was mentioned in -- and in Christy's letter, which I
believe you have, there was a pedestrian facility designated on Dunwoody Court when it
was originally approved. It's the pathway and that -- although it may seem odd, because
it's different than most streets in Meridian, it's actually not atypical to have pedestrians
and bicyclists operating within a street with the volumes of Dunwoody Court.
Bernt: Follow up, Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Bernt: So, what you're saying is that even in a rural street you would not the recommend
raised --
Lucas: Yeah. Madam Mayor, Councilman Bernt, to speak specifically to the raised curb,
ACHD has quite a bit of experience with these ribbon curbs or these raised curbs. We
have used them as interim measures on larger streets. If you have ever driven down like
Five Mile, Maple Grove -- there is some segments throughout the county. Typically it's
used on much higher volume streets where we are putting them in as a safety measure
to really clearly delineate the pedestrian space from the -- the vehicular space. They are
not typical at all on local or rural streets. I can't -- off the top of my head can I say that
there is not one out there? No, I don't -- I don't -- I don't think so though. I don't think
there is a lot of applications where we have used that and what we found as we have
installed quite a bit of this, I think with good intentions, we have found that there is quite
a bit of maintenance issues associated with these -- these spaces behind the curb. Our
street sweepers are unable to access that area, so these spaces will often fill up with
debris and other things that, you know, are not -- you know, not desirable. Snow removal
and other things like that, when we are plowing -- if, indeed, we were to plow this
Dunwoody, which is not likely, unless it was a major event, but if we were plowing or doing
other maintenance activities related to that, we can't get behind those curbs and so all of
the snow ends up in that area and so there has been -- through all this internally ACHD
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 141 of 519
Meridian City Council
July 16, 2019
Page 21 of 62
has determined that these -- these are not a desirable treatment and we are not looking
to install more of them in the county, unless it's really a special circumstance where we
have a clear need to do so and as we looked at this we did not determine that this was
that special circumstance.
De Weerd: Mr. Borton, did you have your question answered?
Borton: Somewhat. I don't know if -- Madam Mayor. I will ask it to you because you're
up here. If -- if the Dunwoody Court had come in with this as a singular application, what
would have been the requirements for sidewalks, if any?
Lucas: Yeah. That's a hypothetical question, Council -- Madam Mayor, Councilman
Borton. I don't know. It really depends on what the developer would be proposing at that
time. It's not typical within the City of Meridian and with current development codes and
the development pattern to have a street without a sidewalk. I mean I think that's a blanket
statement I could make. That being said, there are times when subdivisions come in and
request not to include sidewalks for various reasons. As I have stated earlier, usually it's
a rural type street. It's a fit and feel issue. In this instance, I -- it's hard to say exactly
what -- what would be approved. That would go through the public hearing process. It
would be discussed by ACHD. It would be discussed by the Council. Certainly that's not
the situation we are in in this -- in this instance.
De Weerd: That was a perfect nonanswer.
Borton: Well said. I get it.
De Weerd: I guess -- so, it's not hypothetical, because it's happening. You're -- you have
a county sub that were -- that was built as a rural road. It's turning urban, because it is
now connecting to a higher density, even though it's a low density development. So , it's
hard to accept an answer like that when it's playing out in front of you. So , I think this
Council, because we don't have that road authority, is struggling to find that answer as to
what is -- is reasonable to expect to keep this a safe roadway for cars and pedestrians
and bicycles and all modes and we can't answer that. So, we need you to answer that.
Lucas: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, you have the analysis before you that
was performed by ACHD's technical staff. But the word safety is -- is -- is I think it's
everyone's goal and the question of whether a road is safe or not or whether a pedestrian
or bicyclist is safe or not, the professional and technical staff at ACHD examine each
situation in context and provide a determination on what we believe is reasonable. In this
instance ACHD, remember, only officially weighed in on what we are able to weigh in on
in this case. ACHD is unable to require off-site improvements. It's not something that we,
by statute, have the ability to do. But we did examine the situation at the request of the
developer and there was quite a bit of back and forth. I think that's been discussed at
length tonight. And so I guess my answer to that question is we believe that the -- as
stated in Christy's letter, we believe that what was originally required on Dunwoody, if
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 142 of 519
Meridian City Council
July 16, 2019
Page 22 of 62
implemented, seems to work for this situation due to the context, the densities prescribed,
and the amount of proposed use that we see in this area.
De Weerd: So, because you can't ask for whatever you're suggesting, if you were a city
road department within the city realm, would you be asking for something different?
Lucas: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I don't think I can answer that question.
ACHD is not a city road department. We work in partnership with you. We work in these
situations as openly and as transparently as we can. The issue of what can be required
of a development in an off-site situation is not solely an ACHD issue. That is a land use
issue also. So, this isn't simply whether ACHD were -- were in existence or not. I think
that's something that the city has to consider as you consider this application.
De Weerd: And I probably agree with you. I guess in this situation ACHD is not that
perfect model, because it leaves a gap of information, so -- okay. Any further questions
for Justin? Thank you. Okay. Mr. Clerk.
Johnson: Madam Mayor, Members of Council, on your desktop is the sign-in dashboard.
You will see that 18 people have signed in. Six indicate they wish to testify. And first is
Candice McHugh.
De Weerd: Good evening. Thank you for joining us. If you will, please, list your name
-- give us your name and address for the record.
McHugh: Yes. My name is Candice McHugh. I'm actually an attorney representing Mark
Miller and he is a resident at -- in Dunwoody Court. My office is located at 380 South 4th
Street in Boise, Idaho. His address is 1906 East Dunwoody. And I appreciate the --
Madam Mayor and Council, it's obvious that you're giving this a lot of thought and this is
kind of a bit of a little troubling subdivision that's been proposed. But for my particular
client there are two things that I believe were actually required as conditions to be met in
order to go forward with the subdivision , neither of which have been actually met. First
of all, Mr. Miller has not resolved the issues relative to the Karnes Lateral. I understand
that Mr. Hethe said tonight that they would not be using his property, but my client does,
in fact -- if you look at what has been proposed, there are some admissions that while
subtle, are material. In that you will notice that there is a question as to whether or not
Mr. Miller will have access to irrigation water. They say they will have a plumbing and a
functional diversion for Mr. Tippets, but not for Mr. Miller and while they say they won't be
using my client's property, I'm asking about actually being a condition of approval and that
they, in fact, make it so it's functional for Mr. Miller on the lateral. Secondly, if you look at
their proposal and the letter that's included , another recommendation -- or, actually,
another condition -- it wasn't a recommendation, I believe it was a requirement, is to move
the gate that is the entrance way to the proposed subdivision and they propose that that
be held off or that we have the final location determined at the final -- final plat. I ask that
that be made a condition of approval at the very least, so that it does not block access to
the ability for my client and the other homeowners who use the Karnes Lateral, to access
the regular customer easement that they have always had in order to access their back
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 143 of 519
Meridian City Council
July 16, 2019
Page 23 of 62
lots. Right now if you look at what has been submitted, again, it's a subtle admission, but
it is material, they are only providing access to the lateral manager, but my client, along
with the other three homeowners, actually need to be -- have that easement and access
as well and not just the Karnes Lateral, because we have to have the easement and
access, so that we can actually irrigate our properties. Finally, the -- some minor changes
to the proposed plat would actually assuage some of the issues that are here and I think
one of the key things is that -- for the Council to keep in mind is those minor changes for
the plat -- for example, where roads are located, where the gate is located, the impacts
to the actual lateral and access to the irrigation waters , has a minor impact upon the
subdivision, but a major impact to my client in particular and to the Dunwoody Court
people as a whole. So, for those reasons that's what I would like to say. Mr. Miller at this
point, even with the updated approve -- the updated plat, still opposes as it's currently
presented without the conditions he specifically requested and want to make sure an d
confirm that he did, in fact, get the e-mail to all you.
De Weerd: Yes, he did.
McHugh: So, that was a quick three minutes.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Cavener: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Council? Yes, Mr. Cavener.
Cavener: It goes by fast.
McHugh: Yes, it does. And I can talk fast.
Cavener: Your -- your client's request for access I think is an interesting point. Is access
to your client meaning ability to get access, again, to his property or is he looking for --
for gate access? Is he looking to have the gate relocated, so that he doesn't have to go
through it? What is your client really requesting?
McHugh: Well, frankly, we would request no gate and we would request the relocation of
the entrance of the subdivision, which would actually impact Dunwoody Court --
Dunwoody Court the least. But if that is not reasonable , we would like to have the gate
moved back far enough to the east where the back portion of my client 's property could
be accessed without having to go through the gate, so that he can access freely any water
that he might need to do, as well as his back lot, which he could develop in the future or
continue to use as he has with his barn and stuff.
Cavener: Thank you.
McHugh: You looked puzzled. Did I not answer your question quite properly? I don't
have --
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 144 of 519
Meridian City Council
July 16, 2019
Page 24 of 62
Cavener: I'm trying to understand how he is having access to his property.
McHugh: Right now?
Cavener: How is he deprived of access to his property when it's his property that he's
on?
McHugh: Oh. Right. Okay. Good point. Thank you. The -- if you look at the proposal
on the --
De Weerd: You can use the mouse, right, Chris?
McHugh: I should be smarter than that. Okay. If you look to the -- where the entrance
of the subdivision comes in and you will see the Miller property --
Cavener: Yeah.
McHugh: -- he uses that. Right now that's a road that he uses regularly to access the
back property and he has a barn and he accesses the lateral and I believe some of the
other property owners also access that, because that's where you get your water. It's
also the road that would normally have been accessed for the back lot for anybody -- if
he were to develop that property. So, that's what he's -- that he's always been using and
accessing. So, if a gate is placed in that road, which has never been there, it impacts his
access and his -- his ability to use the property I guess.
Cavener: But -- Chris, am I able to control the screen? I know we used to be able to do
that. I don't if we are able to do it anymore.
Johnson: I don't believe so. Mr. Parsons can.
Cavener: I guess -- sorry, Madam Mayor. My question is where the -- the yellow says
Miller property --
McHugh: Uh-huh.
Cavener: -- that's his property. Mr. Miller's property; right? And he's able to be on that
property. So, is it a convenience and he's just wanting to get -- wanting to drive over to
this location, as opposed to walk or use a Razor on his farmland? I mean is that really
the crux of what we are getting to?
McHugh: Oh, thank -- I see. Thank you. Okay. So, if you look at the Miller property, his
-- the back line of his property abuts the subdivision -- the proposed subdivision right here
and he has a barn that's here and farm equipment -- has always used this access to farm
the property that's currently, you know, not developed, as well as Mr. Miller's back lot and
without the ability to use this and access, he will no longer be able to get any kind of
equipment back to his back lot. He won't be able to get it -- if the -- if the gate is not
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 145 of 519
Meridian City Council
July 16, 2019
Page 25 of 62
placed far back and -- back far enough he won't be able to continue to use it as he has in
the past. Right now, you know, his property is here and, then, the next property is, you
know, here and, then, the next property here. There is no roads -- there is no -- this is
landscaped yards. He uses this to access his back lot. Does that answer your question?
Cavener: It provides greater clarification. I still -- I really am struggling to see how --
where the gate is located it's keeping Mr. Miller from accessing his property. I -- I see it,
that it may be not his preferred method. I guess I'm just struggling to see how he's limited
to being able to get access to his water on his property because of a gate on somebody
else's property.
McHugh: Well, it's actually a gate that would impact his easement, because he has a
historic use onto that property that his property's always enjoyed the benefit of.
Cavener: Okay. Thank you.
Bernt: Madam Mayor, could I ask just a quick question?
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Bernt: Ms. McHugh, how would -- how would Mr. Miller's neighbor's access their -- their
-- you know, the back lots behind their -- their living -- the lot where they -- where their
current residence is?
McHugh: I don't represent the other three homeowners, but I have -- I did ask that
question of my client and -- at the homeowners meeting and my understanding is some
of them actually do use that same -- that same route to occasionally go back and access
it, but their -- their lateral -- their water from the Karnes Lateral is underneath and in a
ditch. I think a couple of them are actually here tonight to talk about that , but -- but they
have used it in the past, is my understanding, but not frequently and all the time like my
client does, because it abuts right there and his barn is right next to that particular roadway
or pathway.
Bernt: Thank you, Ms. McHugh.
De Weerd: But it doesn't cut off total access.
McHugh: Correct. He still has the ability on the -- if you drive -- I don't know if you have
driven out there, but if you drive out there my client's property -- house faces east, so it
faces Dunwoody Court and it's the side, so he still can get up his driveway to his house,
he just isn't able to get any equipment if he needs to around the back of the house.
De Weerd: And I guess Mr. Miller -- I think he and the other property owners, the three
to the south of him, had just to approve through the subdivision splitting off and -- and
saying that those would be separate lots; is -- is that correct? Am I remembering that
correct?
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 146 of 519
Meridian City Council
July 16, 2019
Page 26 of 62
McHugh: Madam Mayor, you are correct. My understanding is the homeowners
association has approved that and they are just now gathering signatures. But that is, in
fact, true. And, for the record, those homeowners -- and I did try to read all -- listen to all
the hearings and understand all the requirements, but specifically did propose to this -- to
the proposed subdivision that they just move one of their streets , so that it was between
their -- the back of their lots and so that those houses in the proposed subdivision faced
a different way and, then, everybody would have had a street that would access all the
lots without having to impact those four homeowners' ability to divide those full lots, but
that was rejected.
De Weerd: Yeah. Because they will have to figure out how to get a road to those four
lots if they just split those off.
McHugh: Correct. Which is one of the things that would be helpful is if the -- if the -- if
you think about it, the City of Meridian wants to have orderly development, but what,
essentially, is going to happen is those four lots would have to, then, have four different
little side streets to get to the back of their lots if they are developed and that impacts,
you know, what kind of emergency equipment can get back on those four little -- those
four little side streets if those lots are developed. But, again, I think with just some minor
modifications it could be a significant impact in a positive way for the Dunwoody Court
residents and my client and a minimal impact to the subdivision.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
McHugh: Thank you.
Johnson: Mayor, next is Cindy Breckel. Cindy.
Breckel: Can I give my three minutes to my husband to add to his?
De Weerd: No. You each get three, so -- but I think that was an awesome idea, it just
doesn't work that way.
Breckel: He's a lot more eloquent and nicer than I am. I get right to the point.
De Weerd: Well, that's really nice of you.
Breckel: Okay. Cindy Breckel. I live at 5960 North Rothmans Avenue, Boise, Idaho.
De Weerd: Thank you, Cindy.
Breckel: And I would like to start with something that we all agreed to when we mentioned
the flag salute: And justice for all. That means Bristol Heights and Dunwoody and all the
other subdivisions. Everything that I hear tonight so far is Dunwoody residents feel that
they are entitled. I live in Bristol Heights. We are not asking for paved roads, sidewalks,
this and that. According to what the ACHD said, they do have eight foot of safety. It can
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 147 of 519
Meridian City Council
July 16, 2019
Page 27 of 62
either be eight foot on one side or four foot on each side. This shouldn't be just about
pacifying them, it should be about -- I'm a little nervous. Sorry. It should be about being
able to space out all of the traffic, because we are going to be hit with a lot of extra traffic,
even though there is only, I don't know, 44 homes or something that are going to be built,
it's still going to affect our area, Barclay. It's going to all filter in through there and I feel
that we shouldn't just be limited to worrying about Dunwoody's nice yards and fancy
streets and quiet drives. It's not about that. I also wanted to mention that -- let's see.
That the current and future traffic status of Eagle Road and Chinden are going to require
a lot of congestion and they are going to be heavily traveled. The -- by opening up the
Dunwoody and not letting them have their way with their roads, it's going to be able to put
the traffic through different ways, so that the people that live in the new neighborhoods
will be able to access depending on where they are going to go. If they need to go out --
I'm not real familiar with all of the different roads. I haven't lived here that long. But in
order for the new residents to go out to whatever roads they want to, we need to have the
access. Does that make sense?
De Weerd: Yes, it does.
Breckel: Okay. Well, I think that's about it. I have a lot more to say, but I would rather
give it to my husband to speak, but -- does anybody have any questions?
De Weerd: We appreciate your testimony.
Breckel: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Johnson: Madam Mayor, Mr. Jackson is next.
De Weerd: Well, we are looking forward to your eloquence.
Jackson: That's a tall order.
De Weerd: You know, it's very -- it's very nice your wife speaks so highly of you. So, if
you will, please, state your name and address for the record.
Jackson: Dick Jackson. 5960 North Rothmans Avenue --
De Weerd: Thank you.
Jackson: -- Bristol Heights, Boise. In addressing this matter I think it's very important for
everyone to recognize that they had easy access to recognizing that there was going to
be some development at this location. Here was this large parcel of ground, six streets
being stubbed into it, and everybody that lives around there had that opportunity to see
that something was going to happen to this agricultural piece of ground at some point in
time. So, none of us are exempt from assuming some responsibility for the changes that
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 148 of 519
Meridian City Council
July 16, 2019
Page 28 of 62
are about to occur. Well, Dunwoody residents certainly have a valid concern for -- for
safety with their nonexistent walking and biking accommodation s at this time, as well as
the street lighting. However, those of us who bought properties in adjoining subdivisions
undertook that responsibility by purchasing properties where some of the value of that
property was attributed to sidewalks, paths, biking paths and streetlights. The Dunwoody
residents have that same opportunity to bear some financial responsibility and it's
apparent from what has been mentioned tonight that they are reluctant to get seriously
involved in bearing their responsibility. I commend Bill for his work with the highway
department and making a great advancement to address those needs in a most practical
way. The burden of providing access to this new residential area should not be imposed
strictly upon one area, such as Barclays, Eagle Road and Chinden are at gridlock. The
Meridian paper addressed this with a front page article just a couple weeks ago. Public
services need more than one point of access. Emergency vehicles, if they are restricted
to only one location, are going to have a difficult time responding during major parts of
the morning and afternoon. Meridian has experienced a tremendous growth,
commendable growth and it's no longer a bedroom community, it's a community where
such as the residents that will live in this area need to have access to the southwest for
employment, access to schools and retail shopping. The area needs more than one point
of connectivity and preferably more than two. Thank you very much.
De Weerd: Thank you so much. We appreciate your testimony.
Johnson: Madam Mayor, next is Ben Tippets.
De Weerd: Good evening.
Tippets: Hi.
De Weerd: If you will, please, state your name and address for the record.
Tippets: Happy to. Benjamin Tippets. 1938 East Dunwoody Court in Meridian, Idaho.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Tippets: So, Madam Mayor and City -- Members of the City Council, I'm Ben Tippets. I
have been asked to represent the Dunwoody neighborhood tonight.
De Weerd: Okay. So, we will give you ten minutes.
Tippets: I hope to not take all of it. So, as you know in -- on June 25th at our previous
meeting, there were serious safety concerns expressed by everybody involved in -- in
concerned -- concerning Dunwoody Court as an ingress and egress access to Three
Corners Ranch. The developer had recommended stripes on the side of roads and no
parking signs. As you indicated, that was insufficient. That wasn't -- that wasn't
considered to be safe. So, we were tasked by you as the City Council to meet as a
neighborhood and meet -- to meet with the developer to come up with productive
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 149 of 519
Meridian City Council
July 16, 2019
Page 29 of 62
deliberation I think is what you said. So, we did just that. We met as a neighborhood
and we talked about all the issues from -- from the very least to the very most and what
would make our Dunwoody safe. We talked to -- we talked about what would make
Dunwoody safe and that would require separation of vehicular traffic from pedestrian
traffic. We came to what we felt was the reasonable m iddle ground and that wasn't just
our thoughts that we grabbed out of the air, this is from national standards. It's from the
U.S. Department of Transportation. It's the preceden ce that's been set by previous
neighborhoods that have faced similar issues within the City of Meridian and as we go
from a standard rural road to what functionally is an urban road , we feel that safety
measures are important and what we agreed upon was we had to separate vehicular
traffic from pedestrian traffic and that would require a sidewalk. So, we reached out to
the developer and we had a meeting and as Mr. Conger said earlier, we -- he eloquently
outlined his proposal, which was stripes along the sides of the roads. Signs. I was going
to say two to four lights, but he said three lights and landscape changes. Now, of course,
we felt this was an inadequate, as you have felt previously. This would effectively reduce
the travel width of a road between 19 and 22 feet , which will be insufficient and it would
not separate vehicular traffic from pedestrian traffic. So, we felt it was inadequate. We
presented our own plan, which included sidewalks and we were met with resistance.
There was no compromise. There was nothing. There was no give and take. The
developer insisted that he would -- he wanted to continue with his original plan of stripes
along the side of the road, signs, lights and landscape changes. So, tonight as I come
before you I regret to report that we were unsuccessful in coming up with an agreement
on what it means to have a safe street for everybody involved , not just the members of
Dunwoody Court, it's for all those members that will -- all those people that will access
the street, including those that live in the new neighborhood. But I will say that safety is
our -- of utmost concern and we will not compromise on safety. If Dunwoody Court cannot
or will not be improved to make it safe , we have no choice. Another option needs to be
pursued. So, inclusion -- in conclusion tonight -- I have had a lot of thoughts. The last
three weeks I have missed -- I missed a lot of sleep thinking about this and I have dozens
of thoughts that I would like to point out and to say to you tonight, but I'm going to spare
you in sake of time. But the time has come -- the time has come to make a decision and
we put our faith and our trust in you as the elected members of the City Council of Meridian
to make the best decision. Now, as you deliberate tonight if you have any further
questions or reasonable proposals we are open to those and I'm willing to come back and
answer any further questions that you might have as you do so. Thank you. I would be
happy to answer any of your questions.
De Weerd: Thank you. Mr. Bernt.
Bernt: Thank you, Mr. Tippets. Appreciate your -- your words this evening. I got a
question for you. Do you feel like you -- let me back up. I was -- I was the Council Member
that challenged you and the developer to get together to have productive conversation.
It seems to me -- and I could be completely wrong, so, please, feel free to let me know if
I'm -- if I am -- if I am off base by any means. But it seems to me that the re wasn't
productive deliberation between you and the -- and the applicant.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 150 of 519
Meridian City Council
July 16, 2019
Page 30 of 62
Tippets: That's probably true. And I --
Bernt: Mr. Tippets, two minutes ago you just said that there was. Sorry.
Tippets: Oh. Sorry. Can you restate your question for me?
Bernt: My question to you is -- this is really important, not only with this application, but
past applications and with future applications. Result of deliberate conversations always
happen -- mostly happen when two parties meet in the middl e and have conversation.
That's politics. That's life. That's you and your wife.
Tippets: Sure.
Bernt: Am I off base?
Tippets: No, you're not.
Bernt: Okay. So, am I -- am I -- am I wrong to say that that did not take place between
you and the applicant?
Tippets: In our meeting -- it was cordial. We discussed several things. We felt like we
came with a reasonable plan and we felt like the plan that the developer came forward
with is very similar to the plan that was -- was put forth on June 25th that was felt to be
inadequate. Now, we didn't ask for the sun and the moon and the stars. We don't ask to
have our -- to Dunwoody Court be brought to the same level of Barclay or the Vienna
Woods neighborhood or the Three Corners neighborhood. But we do feel like it is of most
importance to separate vehicular traffic from pedestrian traffic. We asked the developer
to come forward with a new proposal and they didn't -- they politely declined to do so.
Now, I am willing to -- to compromise. I mean my -- my stand is not one hundred percent
firm and you need to know that, but I will not compromise on basic safety. There -- there
is a -- there is a figurative hill that we need to die on and that figurative hill is safety. Can
I give you a personal example? I have children. I have a six year old. She's
developmentally appropriate, but at times she's a bit of a hooligan, as all good six year
olds are. I see some of you had six year olds. And sometimes she walks down the street
to see her friends and I worry about her. I worry about her on our street right now, that I
have to tell her you have to walk on the very side of the street and if a car comes what do
you do? I worry about her now and if this development comes in and no street
improvements are made, I don't know that I can let her go down the street by herself. I
mean I don't send her down at midnight in a blinding snowstorm , I send her down at 3:00
o'clock in the afternoon. But I still worried about her. This is not an octogenarian
neighborhood. We don't have -- we don't all have the perspective of a 35 year old that
knows how to get out of a street in a specific situation or even on the side of the street.
She has a six year old perspective, which is developmentally appropriate. There is always
going to be children. There is going to be children that access this street from other
places. The hill that we have to die on tonight is the hill of safety and that's been -- that
has been said by many -- by the members of the Council, by the Police Department, the
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 151 of 519
Meridian City Council
July 16, 2019
Page 31 of 62
Fire Department, everybody involved. The hill that we have to die on is safety tonight and
so that's why I put it in your hands with that faith and trust that you're going to make the
right decision.
Bernt: Madam Mayor, follow up, please. Mr. Tippets --
Tippets: Yes.
Bernt: As a father, as a City Council Member, I think that we are in agreement. I don't
think there is a person in this room that would disagree with your last statement for sure.
You spoke earlier about a compromise. Are you in a position, you know, in your
representation of your HOA or your subdivision to speak about a compromise?
Tippets: Yes, I am.
Bernt: Okay. What would that be?
Tippets: A stripe down the side of the road is not safe. What prevents a driver from driving
over the -- over a stripe? There is nothing. The concrete or asphalt barrier is not an
option. What other options do we have? We have a sidewalk and that's what we
proposed. Now, I have been authorized by our neighborhood, as a spokesman, to
compromise and I'm willing to compromise. Does it have to be curb, gutter, sidewalk and
a standard length street with streetlights and everything else? No, it doesn't. But it has
to separate vehicular traffic from the pedestrian traffic. There has to be an improvement
made to this road to make it safe. It's a standard rural road at the moment and it's going
to become an urban road with the amount of traffic. I know -- I understand that we are
not going to have 5,000 trips a day go down the street , but we are going to have
significantly more than we have right now and it has to be safe. As I have reviewed -- as
I have reviewed the federal standards, the state standards, the city standards, it requires
separation of vehicular traffic from pedestrian traffic. Now, I'm -- I'm open to suggestions
also. My thought -- and as an expert in public health, that a sidewalk is required on this
road to make it safe.
Palmer: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Palmer.
Palmer: So, a few things. You're the first that said we are not asking for the same
standard that Bristol and Vienna have. Everything that we have heard from everybody
has been that's exactly what we are demanding. You talk about the hill that you have to
die on and won't compromise on is safety. You say that what's to stop somebody from
crossing a painted in line. What's to stop somebody from crossing a curb and a sidewalk?
If there is no level of -- of what is an acceptable level of danger, then, why not demand a
steel and concrete ten foot wall to separate traffic from the sidewalk? Or from -- from the
walking area? Well, that wouldn't make any sense, because that would be cost
prohibitive.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 152 of 519
Meridian City Council
July 16, 2019
Page 32 of 62
Tippets: That would be superfluous.
Palmer: That's a big word for me. But I mean -- yeah, it wouldn't make any sense. So is
rebuilding this road. You say that it doesn't meet federal standards. Well, according to
-- to what your assumption of -- of the level of traffic may be we have -- we have traffic
standards, we have an organization that determines what is to be required and they have
said that the road provides ample infrastructure to be able to handle the traffic that would
be added to by this additional development. We rely so heavily on experts in their field .
ACHD is the expert. They are the ones that own, maintain, and approve and what makes
sense -- what's going to be a road. So, we have to take the emotion out of it. Otherwise,
we would require, if we have absolutely no chance of having vehicles be able to access
pedestrian traffic, we would require a ten foot steel and concrete wall to separate them
everywhere, but that doesn't make sense, because there has to be a level of danger that
is an acceptable range and that standard has been set and I think it's -- it's this Council's
job to decide if the application is legal and makes sense. To me what's being proposed
to us is -- is below the density that they would even have to apply for and that just sets
that standard that the road that exists now is even more capable of handling the traffic
that it has now and is being proposed. So , we can keep going through everybody and
having all the emotional testimony about, you know, we can't -- we can't compromise on
any level of safety, except we are okay to compromise to a level of safety of having a
sidewalk, even though a car could still access it. Where do we go from here, unless we
all just want to make everybody happy, so we are just going to talk about it all night, but
the reality is this fits within all of the code that -- that is there. Where do we go from here?
You don't want to pay for it. You want the developer to pay for an expansion of your road.
You're not even in the city. So, if it were to be built today in the city, your subdivision, we
would require a different level of infrastructure be built, but you were built in the county
with standards that exists today. I just don't know where we are -- where we need to go
now.
Tippets: So, there is an inherent level of danger in whatever we do. As I walk out of this
building tonight there is nothing to prevent me from getting hit on a sidewalk by someone
who chooses to drive on a sidewalk and that's true. There is -- you can't build a ten foot
concrete barrier to separate vehicular traffic from pedestrian traffic, because that would
be excessive and I completely agree with that. But there has to be a certain standard of
safety and what the United States and the state of Idaho and the City of Meridian has
said is for an urban road the standard is a sidewalk. I don't feel like I'm answering your
question very well and I apologize for that.
Palmer: Madam Mayor. And to be fair I guess I didn't ask really a question.
De Weerd: I was wondering what --
Palmer: You made a very good attempt at trying to respond to my rambling of frustration ,
because there is a standard. There is a standard for safety and that standard is more
than adequately met with the existing infrastructure. I'm happy to be her e all night. I have
done it many times and listen to everybody and hear everything and my mind has been
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 153 of 519
Meridian City Council
July 16, 2019
Page 33 of 62
changed from time to time from -- from what initial thoughts that I have had. But I don't
see us getting anywhere, because your neighborhood is not willing to pay for the
expansion to your road and it's adequate for what's being proposed. So, I don't think it's
our job to require somebody else to improve an off -site project that every government
entity has said it's good to go.
Tippets: I would say that there are available options that do have all of those safety
standards that are already met that are not being accessed currently that could be used.
De Weerd: I -- since you're the spokesperson for the HOA, do you feel that you went into
the negotiations -- and I know that Mr. Bernt asked this, but when you start the meeting
saying we have taken a vote and this is what we want, do you think that sets the tone for
a negotiation?
Tippets: Can I -- Madam -- Madam Mayor, I apologize for not addressing you correctly
tonight.
De Weerd: That's all right. I have been called all kinds of things.
Tippets: So have I.
De Weerd: Usually on Next Door. Fortunately I can't see most of it.
Tippets: I would like to take a bit different perspective. When we entered that meeting I
allowed Mr. Conger to present his whole plan uninterrupted. I don't know that we came
in with guns ablazing and making a firm stand from the very beginning. I -- we went in
with the -- with the thought that we were going to have a productive discussion. When --
when Mr. Conger made his entire presentation it sounded very similar to what was
discussed here back on June 25th and we felt that that was inadequate. We did meet as
a neighborhood. We met and we felt like that was -- that was the minimum standard. The
-- the middle ground. We are not asking for lights as would be -- as would be required by
the City of Meridian. We are not asking for -- for everything, but we are asking for
essential safety features and so after Mr. Conger -- to answer your question after Mr.
Conger presented his entire presentation, including all of his -- his suggestions, I provided
all my suggestions. It was not contentious in any way. At least I didn't feel it was
contentious in any way. So, I felt that we went in with the thought that we are willing to
compromise if there is room to compromise and we -- we felt that there wasn't. We were
-- the chiasm that separated our two proposals was very wide and the developer was
unwilling and unable to make any concessions from what he had originally proposed and
we felt that we were coming in with a reasonable -- with a reasonable plan and we were
met with resistance. That's how I would describe it.
De Weerd: But you felt having curb, gutter, and sidewalk on both sides of the road was
a reasonable plan for a gated community with 44 homes . You do know what that
development could be?
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 154 of 519
Meridian City Council
July 16, 2019
Page 34 of 62
Tippets: Oh, yeah.
De Weerd: So, I guess when we continued this we really thought there would be a coming
to the middle of the developer and the neighborhood to -- to look at the safety issue and,
you know, whether it's a detached sidewalk in this -- and the subdivision said on the south
side, because there is three properties and common area, we will do a detached sidewalk.
You don't need curb, gutter, and sidewalk -- or curb, gutter, and -- and a complete street.
You can have a detachment to it. But I guess those are the kind of things that we had
hoped that would be discussed. It does seem like everyone went to their -- the line they
drew and -- and that no conversation was had.
Tippets: Madam Mayor, you make an excellent point about having a detached sidewalk
on one side of the street. If push comes to shove we would be willing to accept that.
De Weerd: Unfortunately, I'm not a neighbor and I'm not the developer, I'm just --
Tippets: Right. But --
De Weerd: A presider of a -- I don't even have a vote, so -- anyway. I guess it just -- no,
can't get a tie here. I -- I don't know. I -- we are not going to solve it in a public hearing.
We -- I guess we had hoped that there would be better dialogue and -- and some -- some
recognition. I think safety is paramount as well. But your subdivision approved four new
lots and I don't -- I didn't hear what additional traffic that those would add and you haven't
even asked for a stripe on your road. So, I -- I'm trying to be sympathetic to what -- what
the neighbors are saying on Dunwoody, but I will go back to the testimony on Bristol
Heights is they are -- they are really accepting the -- the larger percentage of what most
of the traffic direction will be going to and they have curb, gutter and sidewalk and that's
what they bought into. But you still don't have a whole lot of traffic and you had a
developer that was sensitive to building a gated community so you would not carry the
brunt of not just this development, but every connected development within that. There
needs to be some acknowledgement to that and some common ground in finding
something to mitigate a lower impact than what you could have otherwise.
Tippets: Madam Mayor, I -- I don't want to be misunderstood. Within the boundaries of
the proposed Three Corners Ranch I think it looks good. I like the development. I -- the
private -- the private gated neighborhood, it's very nice. They are large lots. It's going to
be a very nice neighborhood. I'm sure my new best friend is going to live back there. I
like it. That's not my opposition. My opposition is not the neighborhood itself , it's the
ingress and egress and how it's being used.
De Weerd: And that's our interest, too.
Tippets: So, Madam Mayor --
De Weerd: So, we have common goals.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 155 of 519
Meridian City Council
July 16, 2019
Page 35 of 62
Tippets: We do. Madam Mayor, yes, we do. So, Madam Mayor, Members of Council,
we leave it in your hands. Do the right thing.
Cavener: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Cavener.
Cavener: Appreciate your testimony, both three weeks ago and tonight and you testified
three weeks ago you were pretty adamant that no -- no sidewalks, not even -- the
neighborhood didn't want to have any participation in the sidewalks, not even the land, if
I recall was part of your testimony. It sounds like that the neighborhood stance has
changed. I'm curious if the HOA has had a conversation about having a fiduciary role in
the creation of potentially a -- a detached sidewalk?
Tippets: Madam Mayor, Councilman Cavener, can you define fiduciary?
Cavener: Are you willing to help pay for it? And Madam Mayor. The reason why I ask is
that your testimony earlier tonight led me to believe that in your opinion your street is
already unsafe as is. If you believe that your street is already unsafe , well, then, why
don't you as a representative of your neighborhood want to do something to address that?
Tippets: Madam Mayor, Commissioner Cavener, I worry about our street. I do.
Absolutely. Do I -- do I feel that there are safety improvements that need to be
implemented? Absolutely. I am one member of 14 or 15 and I recognize that. There has
been lots of different opinions that have been expressed. This -- using the street as an
-- as an ingress and egress is going to change the nature of our street. I mean we are --
I think we are unanimously opposed to using the street as it -- as it currently is or with
suboptimal or minimal safety standards applied. So, that's why we are -- we are taking a
fairly firm stance on separating traffic. Am I willing to -- to put together a committee to
pay for stripes? Yes. Absolutely. I think no parking signs would be nice and we are
probably willing to pay for that, too. I can't speak for everyone, because we have not
discussed that specifically. But am I personally? Yeah.
Cavener: Madam Mayor. And I guess -- I really echo the Mayor's comments. This -- this
medium is not the place for neighborly discussions. This should have happened between
you and the applicant three weeks ago, because there is lots of possibilities -- possibilities
that could have been vetted and discussed neighborly that's just not happening here. It's
-- it's frustrating for me as a Council Member that we are now wrestling with this and it
sounds, the way things played out the way they did is just -- leaves a lot to be desired.
I'm disappointed for our community.
De Weerd: Any other questions?
Tippets: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 156 of 519
Meridian City Council
July 16, 2019
Page 36 of 62
Johnson: Madam Mayor, you have two more sign-ins. First is Jeff Johnson. And your
final is Jeanette Johnson.
De Weerd: Good evening. Thank you for joining us. If you will, please, state your name
and address for the record.
J.Johnson: I'm Jeanette Johnson. My address is 7905 West Colt Drive, Boise, Idaho.
De Weerd: Thank you.
J.Johnson: Madam Mayor and Council Members, I appreciate you listening this evening.
I am here to represent Mark Miller also and I will just take a -- the three minutes. One of
the reasons I'm here is that I have a company called Irrigation Consulting Services. He
contacted me -- when the Karnes Lateral signed a license agreement for the lateral to be
piped, that license agreement is only good for the portion of the lateral that's theirs, not
the portion of the lateral that's on his private property. They cannot sign a license
agreement for his property. That's against the law. He has contacted Bryce Farris, which
I believe you guys have a letter from him. He also has his own attorney now who he is
brought on board. So, there is a requirement that Mr. Conger will need to have a license
agreement with Mr. Miller for that section that is on his property. If Mr. Miller chooses not
to pipe that, then, he will not pipe that. If he chooses not to move the ditch, then, the ditch
will not be moved, because the Karnes Lateral cannot dictate on someone's private
property. Okay? The other thing is Idaho Code is very very clear that water must be
unimpeded and flow at the same rate after work is completed. That is very very clear.
They are proposing a two inch hole for Mr. Miller. Basically they have said here is a two
inch hole. You hook your water back up. The other thing. Water flow must connect the
upstream and the downstream ends, the work area and the property to the ditch, pipe or
headgate at the other facility and must be the same size of specification as the existing
facility. That's part of the Idaho Code. They are proposing to leave him that two inch pipe
and said to him -- and this is in their plans -- you need to hook this back up yourself. No,
that's not the way it works. They are required by law to replace exactly or better what
was there. The proposal of a two inch pipe doesn't work. What needs to be replaced
also is his ability to get to water -- get to his irrigation water. They have not given him --
or even in their proposal there is nothing as was stated by his attorney for him to even
have access to a gate. That's not giving him access to the water. Okay. If they don't --
De Weerd: You will need to summarize.
J.Johnson: Okay. If they don't move the water, then, they will not -- move the gate, then,
he would not have access to his irrigation water. Okay. So -- and that's -- in the letter --
and I will make this very very brief . From -- from Hethe Clark it states that the final
construction plans must be approved by the Karnes Lateral. They can only approve the
plans as far as their -- their part of the lateral. The other part that goes across the property
would need to be approved by Mr. Miller. They can only approve the section that's theirs.
Thank you.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 157 of 519
Meridian City Council
July 16, 2019
Page 37 of 62
Bernt: Madam Mayor, I have a question for you. Don't you think Mr. Miller could access
his water through his own property?
J.Johnson: Not if the gate isn't in the right place. He doesn't have access to that property
because of the way his property sits and the way the barn sits on his property. He doesn't
-- isn't going to have access because of the gate. So -- or if he needed to get equipment
as was stated by his attorney, because of the road and the gate there isn't a way to access
that water if they don't set it up correctly, so -- and also grandfather rights in accessing
water. There is a grandfather law with water. If he has accessed that right for a period of
time, he has the right to access that water. They have to approve -- or have to allow him
to access water that way.
De Weerd: And that is one of our -- that's ordinance in the City of Meridian that they
cannot impede the -- the delivery of water --
J.Johnson: Correct.
De Weerd: -- and that is the -- between the property owners and the irrigation district or
the Karnes Lateral district, that -- that is all worked out in advance. So, those rights cannot
be impeded on --
J.Johnson: Correct.
De Weerd: -- and -- and this developer deals with irrigation --
J.Johnson: Right. We have dealt with him. Yeah. Many many times. I deal with him on
a regular basis. Right. And that this -- this has to be taken care of in -- in -- all of it. And
all of the people on all those properties are in the same situation. Right .
De Weerd: So, they just have to make sure the delivery is to that --
J.Johnson: Correct.
De Weerd: And, then, they need to deliver --
J.Johnson: Then they -- right.
De Weerd: -- that they continue.
J.Johnson: Correct. And that they -- that it's -- it's as was or better. They can't just hook
it up and say you guys fix it and do it yourself , it has to be set up, so that they can -- if
they have their water delivery -- if that means putting in a new box the way it was or
whatever, that's how it has to be, so --
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 158 of 519
Meridian City Council
July 16, 2019
Page 38 of 62
J.Johnson: Is there anyone else? Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any further sign-ups?
Johnson: That was the last of those indicating they wished to speak on the check box.
De Weerd: Okay. Did I see a hand up? Yes, please. Please state your name and
address for the record.
Jurgensmeier: Thank you. My name is Darin Jurgensmeier. I'm from 1778 East
Dunwoody Court.
De Weerd: Darin, thank you.
Jurgensmeier: Thank you for your time. I will try to be brief. Some of the comments that
have been made were that this application has been passed by the previous
commissions. This application has not been wholly supported by the previous
commissions. The first commission meeting with ACHD three of the council members
their voiced strong concerns about it. Their discussion was cut short by the votes of the
other members. The Planning and Zoning Commission, if you listen to that meeting, after
an hour or so of public open debate they requested the changes, including that north exit
and entrance to Three Corners Ranch, which the developer is trying to discuss further
today and they also requested that the safety measures be changed on Dunwoody Court
and those were -- they also required that we meet with the developers to discuss this. It
wasn't a flat support of this application. And when you look at these stipulations every
commission has said, you know, that Dunwoody needs to have some changes to be safe
and as Madam Mayor has eloquently mentioned tonight, this road was rural and is now
becoming urban. If, as Council Member Palmer mentioned, this is to meet the standards,
if you look at the chart that Mr. Clark provided tonight , the rural required no sidewalks.
However, the next level up from a rural road becoming urban required five foot sidewalks.
So, now that this is becoming a rural into an urban road , it doesn't meet the standard.
The ACHD in their initial report said Dunwoody needs no -- requires no improvements.
However, now after discussion there they say, oh, well -- and now it requires an eight foot
section or two four foot sections, which would, then, leave 21 feet of roadway. We are
not requesting to be up to the standard of the neighborhoods surrounding us, which has
wide roadways, six foot sidewalks, et cetera. We are just requesting something safe. If
the developer had mentioned to us, hey, you know, how about a detached sidewalk, the
fiduciary responsibility on our side or the financial support of that would be the donation
of our property, so that their residents in Three Corners Ranch could use that sidewalk to
access the school bus. Their children are going to need to come through the sidewalk
through Dunwoody as well to access the school bus, just because it doesn't come into
the neighborhood. Also that north exit -- so, the Planning and Zoning recommended that
north exit after that deliberation. One of the main reasons was because without it it would
leave an 82 home cul-de-sac, which as Mr. Parsons mentioned, is against the rules --
against the law. The Planning and Zoning said if they added that north exit would that
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 159 of 519
Meridian City Council
July 16, 2019
Page 39 of 62
meet the rules and Mr. Parsons said by the letter of the law probably, but something else
should be done to do it properly.
De Weerd: Thank you. Do we have any questions? Thank you. And -- and I agree with
you on the donation of the right of way.
Jurgensmeier: Thank you.
De Weerd: Any other testimony? Yes. I assumed you were -- are with the Karnes Lateral.
Swick: Yes, ma'am.
De Weerd: Thank you for coming up and testifying. If you will, please, state your name
and address.
Swick: Steve Swick. I'm 6065 North Karen Drive in Meridian.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Swick: So, I didn't plan on speaking tonight, so I don't have anything --
De Weerd: Can you -- can you just pull that a little closer?
Swick: Of course.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Swick: I didn't plan on speaking tonight, so I don't have anything formal prepared. Just
a couple of comments on the Mr. Miller property from Karnes Lateral. Ms. Johnson stated
that we are only giving him two inch pipe access. That's currently how he accesses the
water now. I have a photo of his pipe and everything going into the end of the lateral to
get water. That's what he accesses now. That's what they are providing him with. Mr.
Ti ppets has a 12 inch pipe that comes from this area to his property. We are piping him
with 12 inches. Or the group is. So, they are going to be hooked up with their current
pipes, size, dimensions. That's what we are giving them. That's what we agreed to give
them through the developer. So, if he wants a four inch pipe, then, he would have to add
a four inch pipe. His -- he actually draws water from the main Karnes Lateral. He doesn't
have his own lateral. So, when she said that the lateral was on his property I'm not sure
what she's speaking of there, but as I said I have a photo of his pipe going into the Karnes
Lateral where he draws water. We -- like I said, we have worked with the group to go
through and make sure all of our customers have water as they do now. These two are
the ones -- the main ones that came up that had issues. The headgate that they are
putting in his half on Mr. Miller's property, I believe half is on Mr. Dean's property. They
are looking to relocate that five feet, which would take it off of Mr. Miller's property and if
I misspeak on any of this I'm going to have the developer correct anything I say, but I
have got a lot of information that I may not have totally accurate , but the goal is to move
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 160 of 519
Meridian City Council
July 16, 2019
Page 40 of 62
it and, then, they will add the four or five feet of two inch pipe that would reconnect Mr.
Miller's pipe into the lateral and they agreed to do that. I have an e-mail with that in
writing, so -- that is all have.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions from Council? Thank you. Sorry. Come on up.
Thank you for joining us. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record.
Heiner: Yes. Linsy Heiner. 1778 East Dunwoody Court.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Heiner: I just want to give my own personal perspective as far as our road as it currently
is. We did have a meeting. After the Planning and Zoning Commission they asked us to
meet together with the developer and we had an initial meeting with Mr. Clark and Mr.
Lopez at the tennis courts and it started at 6:00 o'clock and, you know, there was
discussion back and forth with this -- with the developer and our neighborhood and talking
and is it safe, is it not, and Mrs. Dean was there and her opinion it wasn't safe. Marcel's
opinion was he -- his quote was we don't disagree on safety. I mean , you know, we are
all agreeing that there is some safety concern here and -- and I pointed out to Mr. Clark
that 42 minutes into the meeting -- so, at 6:42 only two cars had passed. So, that's this
-- this -- as it currently was that's kind of our neighborhood, just to give you kind of an
insight. You know, I bought -- I personally bought the house. It -- an emotional reason is
that it didn't have sidewalks. Honestly like that's one of the things, because I grew up on
a road that was on -- in the country. So, for me that's the neighborhood that we -- you
know, we bought into and there is two cars passing within 42 minutes. So, now we are
changing it to a lot more traffic and I have yet to see the source of the traffic study. I would
like that. They say that 30 percent will come through Dunwoody and 70 percent through
Bristol Heights. If anyone looks at the map, though, you can see this is a nice straight
direct pathway to Locust Grove and so I personally don't agree with 30 percent. I think
it's going to be much, much higher. So, when Mr. Conger comes in and says we are going
to provide no parking signs and we are going to have no sidewalks and you can't even
park on the street and now we are having a lot of people coming through, this starts to
feel like it's now -- it's not even a neighborhood street, it's now like kind of a highway,
because you can't even park on the side. It just feels -- it feels like fundamentally different
than it currently is. In regards to the sidewalk -- I know I have short time. An adjacent
sidewalk right to the street doesn't impact the neighbors as much and that's what the
discussion has been. It's in regards to a detached sidewalk there probably needs to be
some discussion, because the neighbors coming right in -- the Zuches, right off of Locust
Grove are not part of our HOA and were not involved in those discussions. So, there
needs to be some understanding that that is their property with large trees and I don't like
to infringe on other individuals' property or rights. So, I just think that that needs to be
taken into account. Do you guys have any questions at all?
De Weerd: Council? Thank you.
Heiner: Thank you.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 161 of 519
Meridian City Council
July 16, 2019
Page 41 of 62
Lewis: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Tyler Lewis. 6059 North Karen Drive,
Meridian. I'm going to kind of show you -- again, Ben couldn't be here tonight, so just
want to speak on behalf of kind of the Shandee Street, which is also kind of part of this
development, but thought not as prominent, because it's not the new traffic, but it is taking
additional traffic because of the Three Corners current neighborhood that will access
through there. So, the biggest deal is there I think Three Corners is 48 houses. This road
here now will connect Three Corners to Shandee Drive. Shandee Drive is actually a 27
foot road with no improvements. The neighbors have -- we have talked to -- we don't
have HOAs. We try to -- try to meet with a lot of the members of the neighborhood. We
have met on that piece. We understand that we are only -- at least owning 48 of the
homes. That's why I guess you haven't seen us in front of you asking for a ton of
improvements on our road. It's 27 foot with the average house setback being about 32
feet on those one acre parcels, because it was built in 1962. So, it just brings -- not to
overcomplicate the issue, but it brings back up to the same point as everybody owning in
this piece, if we are going to start off site improvements and other areas for what we are
calling rural roads, it's no different than 48 -- 48 homes for the Shandee Drive that would
be a rural road. That's why we haven't come and asked for it, because we know that the
impact is reduced in the amount of traffic that we will be getting with the development and
that's where we are -- we are trying to work as corner piece. So, that is all.
De Weerd: Thank you. Appreciate that. Good evening. Thank you for joining us. I think
I saw you at a City 101.
Seely: Yeah. Definitely.
De Weerd: If you will, please, state your name and address for the record.
Seely: My name is Remington Seely. I live at 676 East Idaho Avenue and I would like to
just add to the sidewalks and safety. So, important thing to consider when -- with the
proposal of sidewalks is that no matter the cost as Mr. Ti ppets stated earlier, we should
die in the hill. Safety of our children and the people who live -- who live in that area.
What's important to consider here is that just as the Police Department is willing to spend
25,000 dollars on a drone that could possibly save one life, I would also say that those in
the neighborhood should also consider to spend that much money to -- to -- to have the
possibility to save a life, to protect a life. I know that from living in a rural area that without
sidewalks it was really hard for me when I was young to -- younger at least -- to
understand, you know, like where I should cross the road. Sidewalks are important. They
do provide a guide -- a guideline and a structure and not only for the children, but also for
the drivers. It's a deterrence. It's a lot easier to see a sidewalk than just a line and
definitely to notice it when you're driving. So, that's what I would like to add. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. And -- and you live in an area without sidewalks. There are not
very many; right?
Seely: Yeah. Thank you.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 162 of 519
Meridian City Council
July 16, 2019
Page 42 of 62
De Weerd: Thank you. Yes.
Palmer: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Palmer.
Palmer: Real quick. Please tell me we haven't spent 25,000 dollars on a drone.
De Weerd: He attended the City 101 and did talk to the drone operator, so --
Palmer: So, we did spend 25 --
De Weerd: I believe it's -- yes.
T.Lewis: My name is Torri Lewis. I live at 6060 Sweet Valley Avenue. I live in the new
subdivision which we are being impacted with Guinness being connected into us.
De Weerd: And on east -- east-west? North?
T.Lewis: It would be the north side.
De Weerd: North side. Thank you.
T.Lewis: I lived in Dunwoody for 14 years and I raised five kids on that road. I never saw
near the problems they portrayed. It seems to me this is one of those examples of don't,
you know, build in my backyard type of thing. All the safety things that keep coming up.
I had five kids. The bus came into our subdivision. They used to have a -- a bull nose
bus that circled in and out and, then, they made them go to the street, but -- I mean we
always had a stripe on the road. The kids were informed, then, to walk in the stripe. But
all the safety things I keep hearing it just amazes me, because I don't know how my five
kids lasted 14 years. So, anyway, that's all I have.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any other testimony? Good evening. Thank you for joining us.
Santos: Ron Santos. 14474 West Barclay Street in Boise, Idaho.
De Weerd: Thank you, Ron.
Santos: Thank you, Madam Mayor and Council Members, for deliberating and taking a
lot of time to review this development. Also thank the developers, too, for working with
our subdivision.
De Weerd: If you can move a little --
Santos: I'm sorry.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 163 of 519
Meridian City Council
July 16, 2019
Page 43 of 62
De Weerd: Thank you.
Santos: I just wanted to request for the operation of the gates -- to address the safety
concerns of cut through traffic is to somehow provide a vehicle or means to keep that
gate closed in a normal state of operation. So , meaning that once the development is
occupied, those gates stay closed and the only way to get in is to access with a code or
remote, so it doesn't stay open and reduces the cut through traffic, whether it be from
Bristol Heights or Dunwoody and that's what we are requesting.
De Weerd: Thank you. That's a very legitimate concern.
Santos: Thanks.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Borton: Mr. Santos. Did you have a -- you wrote in; right?
Santos: Yes, I did.
Borton: And you had -- was it construction traffic --
Santos: Yes.
Borton: -- as well? Or had a concern with --
Santos: Just a concern of traffic -- construction traffic accessing Bristol Heights.
Borton: Okay.
Santos: And how that was going to play out. That was just in the letter.
Borton: Okay. All right.
Santos: Thanks.
De Weerd: Any other testimony? Yes, ma'am.
L.Lewis: Good evening.
De Weerd: Good evening.
L.Lewis: I'm Lori Lewis and I resided at 2000 East Dunwoody.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 164 of 519
Meridian City Council
July 16, 2019
Page 44 of 62
L.Lewis: Thank you for hearing us today. I just have to ask -- I mean this is really, really,
really concerning to me, because I know we have -- me and my husband, we have -- we
have lived on Dunwoody for 27 years. We know the Deans. They are friends of ours. Or
have been. And hopefully they will still be our friends after this. Parts of our family --
even Tori, who just came up and talked to my kids -- you know, I grew up, my -- I raised
my kids on Dunwoody. It was never unsafe. Well, heck, that -- I mean Vienna Woods
wasn't there. Bristol Heights wasn't there. Three Corners wasn't. It was a whole different
context. The context has changed now and now -- and so what I want to know is who is
the authority in our government that says -- that determines what is safe and what's not
for our people? I just don't -- I don't even know who it is. ACHD -- you asked them to
make a decision. If this -- if these were together what would you do? And they -- they
wouldn't answer the question. No one is answering the question . No one wants to. And
so I'm just like who owns that? I just -- who owns it? I mean even you, Ty, said that --
that if this were a Meridian subdivision you would have different -- different standards.
So, I'm just trying to understand. I know this is weird and complicated, because we have
got a Meridian subdivision going through a non-Meridian subdivision and, you know, going
from one type to another, it's just an -- and I just want to know who is going to decide and
make sure that our -- the kids are -- of not just our subdivision, but the new ones. We are
the only ones talking about the new -- the people in the new subdivision and the safety of
those kids. Who is going to make sure that they are okay?
De Weerd: Certainly the City Council.
L.Lewis: Okay. Thank you.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: I will tackled that for you if you want.
L.Lewis: Yeah.
Borton: Briefly. It's not an answer you will like, but it might help. So, the entire problem
is the disconnect in the two land use agencies which decided these properties -- these
projects next to each other. So, you have got the county that approved Dunwoody Court
and it did so without applying this -- this to and through concept where you're going to
require that project to provide the infrastructure necessary not only for itself , but also the
capacity to serve what will become future projects all around it. It's some of the reason
why you see our water or sewer line sized a certain way, much larger than the actual
project needs, because everyone helps each other out and provides capacity to serve all
of the future development. That opportunity was missed in this context when the county
didn't require this project, Dunwoody, to provide infrastructure that would serve not only
that small development, but what it would inevitably become, which includes this. So,
that ship has sailed and that land use agency has decided that Dunwoody is complete,
which is fine. The problem comes now when this project , a different land use agency,
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 165 of 519
Meridian City Council
July 16, 2019
Page 45 of 62
and there now has to be what you saw in some of the earlier presentation, this concept
called nexus and proportionality. So, now this land use agency doesn't have the legal
means -- in this case in this context and in any other time when you have got competing
land use approvals, it doesn't have the authority to lawfully require this -- this project, for
example, to spend money off site in an unlimited fashion, even if that would be the most
safe solution, because the law, then, requires there to be some nexus in proportionality.
So, instead of requiring Dunwoody to have back then installed large sidewalks and the
infrastructure necessary for the whole region, now we are much more limited and some
of the obligations that this project -- that can be imposed upon -- imposed upon this project
are much more limited, because now it has to be proportional to the impact created by
this project, which is why I think some of the discussion has gone from doing nothing off
site, to where this project has talked about streetlights , some signage, some striping, far
less than what ultimately probably would have been required -- should have been required
when Dunwoody was approved. But much less than what the public clearly wants. So,
that's what happened. I think that's what got us here. So, now we are constrained in --
in our lawful ability to say this project not only asked to do what it needs here within the
city, but also expand funds to a certain degree to improve offsite, we have got limitations
on our ability to do it. Does that make sense? It's not --
L.Lewis: It does and it doesn't make sense. I -- what you're saying makes sense. I
understand what you're saying, but it makes no sense whatsoever. I mean it's just -- it's
-- because it's -- it's a lot of bureaucratic red tape that's keeping people from doing the
right thing and it just -- and there is -- so, at the end of the day -- I mean so did it start with
ACHD -- their recommendation? Is that where it started? That -- where it was off and
they should have recommended or could they not have? I mean where is the
accountability?
De Weerd: Unfortunately you get into what -- shoulda, woulda, coulda. We have been
asking the county for years to adopt our city standards in their county developments that
we will someday abut to and they didn't. They -- and as elected officials they have that
right to. We don't agree with it, but this scenario plays out around our community. This
is not the first time we have -- we have faced this hill and this is not the first time this
developer has faced this hill either and he has worked with the -- the subdivision, the
county sub, in trying to make it safe, because it has to be safe for theirs, too. But it also
has to pencil out and in order to get complete streets, you're going to have much greater
density and you probably won't have a gated commun ity. So, there has to be some give
and take, because as Councilman Borton said, we can't necessarily require this, but we
don't necessarily have to approve it, but be aware, if this isn't approved you don't know
what the next application will be and we are trying to find that happy medium and so it is
a balancing act and I think ten years ago Councilman Charlie Rountree said: I think we
have done our job if everyone is angry at us when they walk out of this room. You know,
it -- it seems silly to say that, but in some regards that's the compromise that we -- we
look for is everyone has to find that -- that middle ground.
L.Lewis: So, do you think that we have -- I mean do you think we have found the middle
ground? I mean even in the --
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 166 of 519
Meridian City Council
July 16, 2019
Page 46 of 62
De Weerd: We had hoped that you all would find the middle ground before you got here
tonight.
L.Lewis: Before we got here. Yeah.
De Weerd: So --
L.Lewis: And it's too late to do that? It's too late to change that? I mean middle ground
isn't -- I mean isn't -- is either -- right now they are like this. There is -- neither one is at a
middle ground. Right? I mean don't you agree that they are just like --
De Weerd: It's -- ma'am. Lori?
L.Lewis: Yeah. I should go sit down?
De Weerd: Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Good evening.
Bergstrand: Good evening. My name is Patricia Bergstrand and I live on 1970 Dunwoody
and I think I have more questions than -- than a testimony here. So, my question when
we were discussing the safety, understand the limitations that we have here, so the
question is why did our other avenues that meet the standards, that meet and have
everything already in place, with no investment, no more money, why are they not being
used? Why they have to pass the traffic -- only two gates open when there is five points
connectivity up by level. You don't have the situation in many places. It is a gated
community. It is not going to be crossing. This makes more options for the people on
Dunwoody. If we go to the no parking signs, so the -- what is going to be the parents that
drive the kids to the bus station, are going to park on Locust Grove? Where are they
going to park? They have -- there is about one third of a mile from the new subdivision
to Locust Grove. So, what is going to happen in the morning commute? Kids walking?
Where are the schools? Southwest. Where are the young drivers going to? Rocky.
Through Dunwoody. Where are the kids riding bikes? To Heritage. Dunwoody. Where
are the kids walking to take the bus at Locust Grove. Dunwoody. What are the parents
going to do. Pitch black. Maybe three lights now. Better. So, where are they going to
park when waiting for the kids to load the bus? Where? Locust Grove? Where are they
going to go? So, then, we are going to have all combinations. Kids walking. Riding
bikes. No sidewalks. Do you add? Wintertime. Dark. If there is snow on the ground we
hear from ACHD they don't -- they don't plow that street. So, the snow is going to be
there. There is no sidewalks for us to shovel and at the beginning we were not asking for
sidewalks. We like the neighborhood. But what we are asking the considerations is what
are the options that are on the table? Why is that to be that plan. We were not opposed
to the neighborhood. We love our neighbors. Our kids go to Ambrose and they cross to
Three Corners, because it's safer. I don't want my kids walking to Locust Grove. I don't
want my kids walking all the windy in the dark. My youngest used to send on his scooter
with a headlamp. I would open the window and see the light floating, because I couldn't
see anymore. That's what we have. And we like it. We like it. But I want the consideration
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 167 of 519
Meridian City Council
July 16, 2019
Page 47 of 62
of what are the options? Where really are the options in making sense here. So , more
questions than answers and thank you. Any questions for me?
De Weerd: Thank you. Any other -- any further testimony?
Clark: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Hethe Clark. 251 East Front Street. And
I will try to fly through a couple rebuttal points and see where we end up. So, one question
that was asked by Mr. Santos was about the gates and as we had mentioned, the gates
will be key carded, so they will generally be closed. But they will be accessible to
emergency service providers and as we have mentioned in prior hearings all of the
pedestrian facilities are full publicly accessible. So, that will continue to be the case.
De Weerd: Well, I'm thrilled to hear you have key cards, not key codes.
Clark: I think there will be the ability also to dial in if you're a visitor, so that will -- that will
allow --
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Clark: -- for folks to be able to get in.
De Weerd: Because we have one of those brewing right now, too. It's really fun.
Clark: Very exciting. Okay. So, with regard to some of Mr. Miller's concerns, as Mr. Swick
stated, we will provide a pipe that meets and matches his current connection point. We
will satisfy Idaho law. We are very used to working with the lateral companies, working
on license agreements with them. We will fully adhere to all of Idaho's law requirements.
De Weerd: And those water entities are really good at making sure you are good and so
is our staff, so --
Clark: That is -- might be the understatement of the night. They are also good at making
you -- making sure their attorney gets paid, so that helps. With regard to the access
questions, Mr. Miller will have access to the lateral from his property. It is accessible to
him from his property. I want to make a distinction there, however. The access from
outside of his property has been permissive over time. There is not an easement right.
There is not a prescriptive right. He will be able to access it from his property. Access
from outside of his property is a private matter between private citizens. It's not a matter
for you all to adjudicate. I am surprised to hear about the Dunwoody residents wanting
to allow development on the backside of those -- what were previously called open space
lots on their plat. As was discussed at the last hearing, this was a nonfarm subdivision.
It had a restriction on development of those properties. They had to be in common
ownership. If the CC&Rs are changing, you know, what we are looking at is like -- I think
about 12 additional homes and a couple of those lots are pretty big. So , the traffic -- it
begs the question of why that traffic's okay when this traffic is not. But beyond that, there
is not an obligation to provide development access by this property to nonfarm ,
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 168 of 519
Meridian City Council
July 16, 2019
Page 48 of 62
nondevelopment lots. As Bill described during the last hearing, generally, when you guys
annex properties they would provide sewer and water from the front side of the lots and ,
then, be accessed through common driveways. That is not disorderly development , that
is standard operating procedure for infill like that. Okay. So, turning to the Dunwoody
Subdivision element. I do want to emphasize that that subdivision was approved 30 years
ago and it was approved with the anticipation that this project would have come along
later. So, my glass is a little bit different than yours, Council Member Borton, respectfully,
from the perspective of it was done with a stub to this project and it was done according
to ACHD standards that continue to be satisfied 30 years later. Now, we recognize the to
and through question and that's why we have done the gated scenario here to try to limit
the number of -- of homes that would take access along Dunwoody Court and we think
that that is a huge concession. That's a huge item that I think everyone should
acknowledge, because 98 percent of developers would have come into this and more
than doubled the density that we are talking about and would have opened every access
point and that would have been significantly more traffic for the Dunwoody residents than
what is being proposed tonight. Now, the Dunwoody residents have insisted on
sidewalks. I do want to just clarify that you will recall that our initial conversations were
that we had started at no improvements , because that's what ACHD had said was no
improvements on Dunwoody were required. We have met -- Marcel and I met with the
Dunwoody folks. At that point we discussed painting. We discussed the no parking signs.
And we also offered up volunteer efforts by -- by Marcel to help the Dunwoody residents
try to find funding sources, if they really did want -- want a sidewalk. Now, that -- that was
the initial movement and, then, we came -- after listening to the Council we came to the
next meeting and we said in addition to that, okay, we will throw up some -- some -- some
streetlights and we will do the other items that have been identified on that summary that
I have provided to all of you. Jim Conger has priced that out. That's, you know, 30, 40
thousand dollars worth of improvements for a roadway that ACHD says doesn't require
any improvements. So, we think we have been trying to come to the middle. The -- the
chasm to jump from what we have proposed, which we think is significant, to a sidewalk,
however, is a horse of a different color, because as we have explained, installing a
sidewalk requires a road rebuild, because it requires a redo -- a redo of the drainage
system. So, let me -- I just want to wrap up with a couple comments along those lines.
So, there is a standard of safety. ACHD has established that standard of safety. There
are 16 homes on Dunwoody today. When this project is built out , assuming about 30
percent are going out this direction, that means about 13 homes worth of traffic. We are
talking about 29 homes on Dunwoody Court. That's all. We are not talking about a
highway. We are talking about a low volume, low traffic roadway with only -- at only about
14 percent capacity at full build out. So, what is reasonable for what happens at
Dunwoody? It has been established by ACHD standards. ACHD developed those
policies over decades and we have adhered to them with this application. ACHD has
confirmed that tonight. They confirmed it through the e-mails. They confirmed it through
their commission. And Bill also summarized it through his comments. So, with that I
would just ask for Council's approval of this and I would also point you back to the
modifications that we requested to Planning and Zoning's recommendation of approval
and I ask that you consider that in connection with your motion tonight and happy to
answer any follow-up questions that you might have.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 169 of 519
Meridian City Council
July 16, 2019
Page 49 of 62
De Weerd: Okay. Council, questions? It doesn't look like they have any.
Clark: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Council, any further information needed from staff , the
applicant, or any of those testif ied? All right. Before I ask if you would like to close the
public hearing, I would ask for discussion first just in case.
Cavener: Smart.
Cavener: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Cavener.
Cavener: I know everybody's probably kind of collecting their thoughts, reading their
notes. I'm happy to start. I think I'm going to be -- I'm supportive of the -- of the application
as presented. I think the biggest challenge is probably the one that clearly everyone in
the room has wrestle with. I'm sure that you are all wrestling with and it's that topic around
safety, because while we don't like to admit it, safety is somewhat subjective. Council
Member Palmer wants to build a wall and ACHD says -- ACHD says status quo is
acceptable and I think we as elected officials rely on subject matter experts , like ACHD,
but we also represent our citizens, even if they don't live in the city. So, I'm sure many of
you are trying to struggle with what is appropriate. Candidly it's frustrating to hear that
the highway district won't let us do this raised curb. I think that would solve a lot of our
problems, but I understand their operational resistance to that. It's a missed opportunity
I think if -- if there would have been more neighborly conversations there might have been
other options presented. This isn't the vehicle to negotiate this or that or up or down. So,
I'm supportive of the lights. I'm supportive of an -- of an eight foot stripe and I will yield
-- yield to what ACHD would support, but I'm in favor of -- our neighbors to the east have
colored designations for bicyclists in downtown Boise. If we could do some type of color
designation to make it stand out more, I would be more comfortable with that. Be really
encouraging for the developer to work with the neighbors about the blind spots. One
person's blind spot is another residen t's lifelong tree and we want to make sure that we
are sensitive to -- to that particular piece. I'm supportive of removing the -- the north-
south connection. This goes back to -- if this was a different use -- this was a much larger
use I wouldn't be there, but it's a small use. Big lots. And I think I said this three weeks
ago. This is a good in-fill project and we -- for those of you that don't get to do this each
week, we often, at the Council, will talk about creativity and oftentimes you don't see a lot
of creative projects and I think this is a creative approach to address the needs of the
entire surrounding neighborhoods, to minimize cut through traffic and to bring forth the
best possible project, really, at the lowest possible density. So, I support it.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Little Roberts: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 170 of 519
Meridian City Council
July 16, 2019
Page 50 of 62
De Weerd: Mrs. Little Robert.
Little Roberts: Madam Mayor, I think we are trying to find it really quick, but when I was
pulling up the minutes of the previous meeting, the way I read it we had already addressed
the north-south connection and it was included in the motion. Because Bill asked for
clarification and it was all included. It was not part of the discussion. Bottom of page 62
in the Council minutes. I don't know who would get to address that.
De Weerd: Bill.
Parsons: Yeah. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council --
De Weerd: Bill will.
Parsons: There was no condition stricken from the staff report. My clarification was
whether or not the Council wanted to see a revised plan that showed the
recommendations from the Planning Commission. That stub street -- that north-south
connection was part of their recommendation. So , this body instructed the applicant,
again, to come forward this evening to talk about the irrigation and revised plat. They
have made those changes as part of that discussion at the previous meeting three weeks
ago. It's still within your purview to strike that condition if you choose to do so.
De Weerd: Lieutenant, I guess we have asked from our road authority about safety, but
certainly sometimes we find ourselves in disagreement on a safety issue when it comes
to personal safety and the safety off the street. Could you maybe weigh in on what your
observations are?
Stokes: Well, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, sidewalks are, obviously, going to
be better. That's why we require them in the city. This is a unique situation . You have a
county road sandwiched between two -- or one will be part of Meridian, one is part of
Meridian and we are responsible for Locust Grove. You know, it really comes down to the
volume of traffic on that roadway. The behavior of the drivers. Oftentimes the traffic --
oftentimes the traffic complaints that we deal with -- we get a complaint from a neighbor
on speed or those kinds of things and it's their neighbors that are the problem. That's just
how it is. It's the people that live in those subdivisions that drive those roads. This would ,
obviously, be a new subdivision attached to an old subdivision connecting to other
subdivisions. So, I guess to sum up, you know, a sidewalk would be better, but it doesn't
-- it's not going to prohibit anything from happening necessarily, because, you know, cars
leave the roadway all the time for all kinds of reasons. So , I think it's better, that's why
engineers came up with that idea whenever, but there is no way to totally make that
roadway safe and free everybody from any kind of danger. I don't know if that helps at
all. We would certainly, you know, if it's approved, be driving down Dunwoody to access
that neighborhood to patrol it or respond to calls and that kind of thing.
De Weerd: Great. You're adding to the traffic on that road.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 171 of 519
Meridian City Council
July 16, 2019
Page 51 of 62
Stokes: Yes, we would. But a marked patrol car is generally a good thing. Generally.
De Weerd: Generally. Thank you.
Bernt: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bernt.
Bernt: Where do I start? Where do I start? I'm generally in support of this application. I
think that it's a great in-fill project. I do believe that this is a perfect example of when two
parties come together and -- and aren't able to negotiate an equitable agreement. That's
the reason why I adamantly challenged the homeowners and the applicant to get -- to get
together to discuss this. This isn't the first time we have had this discussion. It's not the
first time I have yelled at Justin, you know, on the public record. I understand there is --
there is -- we are in a unique situation with the different governing bodies who take care
of the roads and we have -- we have the county and we have the different -- you know,
different municipalities with their -- with our laws and ordinances and code. It makes it
difficult. And with that said that's the reason why I -- I was very clear -- crystal clear in
saying that I wanted you guys to get together to come up with an equitable plan . You
didn't and here we are. So, don't point the finger at us. I was very clear when -- when I
said this or -- you know, a couple of weeks ago. I don't mean to be -- I don't normally
speak this way in the public record, but I'm pretty -- sort of disappointed with how this
process has played out. I know that the -- I know some of the residents that live over in
that area. Very smart, educated, a very deliberate people and I just -- this is not the place
to negotiate. We can't, you know, have the applicant come up and have a representative
from the HOA to come up and -- and negotiate on the public record. That's not how it
works, unfortunately. So, with that said I believe the developer is -- is doing more than
what he needs to do and I wish we could as a body make it so that there would be a
sidewalk or a pathway along Dunwoody Court. Unfortunately, we are not able to enforce
that, because it's an off -- it's an off-site improvement and so it just makes it difficult.
De Weerd: Any other comments? Mrs. Little Roberts.
Little Roberts: Madam Mayor. It's interesting trying to resolve something that was created
with information from 30 plus years ago regarding Dunwoody Court and something brand
new today. We have got different information and dealing with two different entities, the
county and what the city now requires, and the opportunity to resolve it was outside of
this body and, unfortunately, that time has past and so I appreciate the things that the
developer has come up with to voluntarily do to help mitigate safety issues on the road
and I appreciate this is -- I think it's a great in-fill project and, hopefully, as time goes by
things will be peaceful and the traffic won't be as bad as some people anticipate it being
and, then, it will all be a great situation in the long run. But I think it's a really good project
and our hands are pretty much tied in doing anything regarding mitigating anything on
Dunwoody and appreciate what the developer's willing to do and I think we should move
ahead with it. I guess with that I could put it in the form of a motion, unless we have got
some other Council that would like to weigh in.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 172 of 519
Meridian City Council
July 16, 2019
Page 52 of 62
Cavener: Close the public hearing.
De Weerd: Want to close the public hearing.
Little Roberts: That would be great. Madam Mayor, I move we close the public hearing.
Palmer: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All those in favor
say aye. All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Any other discussion?
Palmer: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Palmer.
Palmer: Since some of us have talked about it, I'm also in favor of removing the
requirement to -- for the north-south connection. I think with the -- how little traffic is going
to make it that way, we would rather not that traffic be going up to Chinden anyway. If
they are going to access Chinden they need to do it through the proper route of connecting
to the arterial and, then, connecting to the state highway through either -- through to
Locust Grove or making their way out to Eagle Road.
De Weerd: Any further comment?
Palmer: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Palmer.
Palmer: I was giving Anne a chance to make the motion if she still wanted to, but -- so I
will go ahead and do it. I move that we approve H-2019-0006 with the requested waiver
to allow the irrigation easements within buildable lots and deleting the condition requiring
the north-south connection and adding conditions that the three new streetlights , the
striping as proposed with the eight foot section on the south side of the Dunwoody and
no parking signage be added and the mitigation of the vegetation within ACHD's right of
way sight line as proposed.
Little Roberts: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? What did you say
about the parking signs?
Bernt: Right. Madam Mayor, it's like no parking as far as --
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 173 of 519
Meridian City Council
July 16, 2019
Page 53 of 62
De Weerd: Oh.
Bernt: I thought the same --
De Weerd: I thought he said no parking signs.
Bernt: Right.
Palmer: Madam Mayor? The signs that say no parking. They are required to be installed.
De Weerd: Mr. Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll call: Borton, yea; Milam, absent; Cavener, yea; Palmer, yea; Little Roberts, yea;
Bernt, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: I'm going to call a ten minute break.
(Recess: 8:51 p.m. to 9:03 p.m.)
F. Public Hearing Continued from June 18, 2019 for Oaks North
and South (H-2018-0117) by Toll ID I LLC, Located on the North
and South side of McMillan Rd. between N. McDermott and N.
Black Cat Rds.
1. Request: A Development Agreement Modification to modify
the overall boundary of Oaks North and Oaks South
development and update the zoning district boundaries, the
concept plan and modify/remove certain provisions of the
agreement that are no longer relevant to the project
De Weerd: Okay. I will reconvene this meeting and we will move like lightning speed to
7-F, public hearing continued from June 18th on H-2018-0117 and I will ask for staff
comments.
Parsons: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. The next item is the Oaks
North and South MDA. This project's actually been continued three different times. It
was continued from February, June -- or April, June, and, then, now we finally got the
revised plans I think last City Council hearing -- the last time we asked for a continuance
the applicant withdrew a portion of the application and we asked for some time, so that
we could revise this staff report to reflect those changes with the acknowledgement of
that withdrawal and so that's why we are here before you this evening. So, this site
consists of 357 acres. This property was annexed and zoned in 2008 and, then, later --
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 174 of 519
Meridian City Council
July 16, 2019
Page 54 of 62
and submitted a development agreement and, then, later in 2013 he came back through
with some rezones and preliminary plats for what -- and it changed from Oak Creek to the
Oaks North and Oaks South development. It was a master plan community that consisted
of office, future park. It had three multi-family developments as part of it and, then, a
mixture of R-4 and R-8 lots on both the north and south sides of McMillan Road. Since
this development a lot has changed. So, currently the Oaks South portion, which is the
graphic on the right-hand side, is currently is the property that's controlled by Coleman --
or Toll Brothers. That's currently built out. So, all of those phases are built out. Where
you see the multi-family development, the park, and the office lot and the future fire station
lots, all of that property was removed in 2017 and developed as the Oaks West
development. So, that developer bought that from Coleman. Tom, Senior developed the
Oaks West development. And so that area was extracted for the purpose of entering into
their own development agreement. So, it's no longer subject to this particular DA. And
so even though the next application is just for a minor -- a small subdivision, there is a lot
of provisions that are no longer relevant to this particular property, because of what's
transpired from 2008 to 2013 to ultimately to what we are discussing today. So, there
was a lot of analysis in the staff report going back and forth with the changes and why we
felt there should be more open space added with The Oaks development, but, again, the
Council gave us latitude, we went back and modified the staff report to reflect that. So,
currently in the recorded development agreement this is what's tied as a conceptual plan
for The Oaks development and so because of the continuance the applicant was able to
provide staff with the revised concept plan . You can see here that the northeast corner
of the section which was also proposed as Oakwood Subdivision, has been incorporated
and because the Oakwind Subdivision that was withdrawn a few weeks ago has been
removed, the applicant's gone ahead and put back the R-15 piece and the multi-family
development or some type of cluster development is going to go on this particular
property. Those details are to be worked out. If you had a chance to read through the
staff report you also noted that staff had some concerns and so did the Planning and
Zoning Commission have concerns with the amount of open space for this particular
development. Again, this was a master planned community. The multi-family
developments typically have their own amenities and own open space. So , we were
concerned that we were giving up density and increasing the number of single family lots,
which would inherently impact the amenities approved for the development and so the
applicant, based on some feedback that they received from the Planning and Zoning
Commission, actually came to the table with the DA modification and, then, gave us those
greater details for how that 5.65 acre central neighborhood park would develop and you
can see here there is a -- a lot happening here. Large clubhouse. A larger pool. The
irrigation pond would be a fishing pond, a recreational amenity, and, then, there would be
Bocce ball courts, tot lots. So, they have come with a plan to really beef up the amenity
package for that central open space and as I get into my presentation for the next hearing
item, they have also -- you can see in the concept plan here with the Oakmore
development, they have added some more open space and a tot lot. It's another amenity.
So, the applicant heard what staff had said. the applicant heard what the Planning and
Zoning Commission heard as part of the subdivision approvals and so they have definitely
stepped up to the table and ad ded a greater amenity package for this particular
subdivision. Now, I would mention to you that this exhibit here in the lower right-hand
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 175 of 519
Meridian City Council
July 16, 2019
Page 55 of 62
corner is not tied to the development agreement , but in the staff report staff is
recommending that this be included as an exhibit in the amended DA, so that we make
sure that the applicant constructs what is being shared with you this evening. As I alluded
to in the staff report, once the Oaks North development is built out there will be
approximately 668 single family homes just on the north side of the road alone and there
is over 300 lots on the south side. So, this is -- we are talking some substantial units out
here using amenities and using open space. That's why staff and the Commission felt it
was so important to get those details for you. So, with that I think the applicant the -- in
the staff report we made those modifications, removed all the references to the park, to
the office lots, to the fire station lots, just basically cleaning up, tying the applicant to this
revised concept plan, holding them to this central open space and 5.6 acre park with the
amenities showing before you this evening. The applicant seems to be in agreement with
the staff report and I will conclude my presentation and stand for any questions you may
have.
De Weerd: So, Bill, what is the percentage of open space now? I don't see that.
Parsons: Yeah. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I believe at the time The Oaks
came through I believe that section was approximately 14 percent. There is a lot of
integrated connected pathways. There is parkways throughout. Detached sidewalk and
parkways. There is multiple pocket parks throughout the development that you see here
and --
De Weerd: And they are pocket parks, not retainage --
Parsons: Yeah. To my knowledge they aren't drainage --
De Weerd: Okay.
Parsons: They are pocket parks. And, then, right through this -- right through the center
of the development here is the Creason Lateral that they are going to approve with a
multi-use pathway and tie into the adjacent subdivision for interconnectivity. So, again,
our concern was the -- the level and the amount of amenities that we were losing with the
number of units that we were -- the number of single family homes that are being added
to this development. Again, with multi-family developments there is different standards
for open space and amenities based on the num ber of units, so we felt comfortable with
that when it was master planned that we were going to get additional open space and
amenities, but when you take that component away, then, we have to make sure what
you add back is still consistent with the code and their DA and so the applicant's provided
all those calcs to us and that's why we have scrutinized this. So, I applaud the applicant
working with us to bring back something that -- where staff's comfort level is a little bit --
it's put at ease. We are comfortable with the open space and the amenity package for
the proposed -- at least the Oaks North portion of the development. Oaks South, again,
is all developed out at this point. So, really no concept plan or changes to that, the south
side of the road.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 176 of 519
Meridian City Council
July 16, 2019
Page 56 of 62
De Weerd: Thank you, Bill. Any questions for staff? Okay. Becky. Well, you know how
to clear a room.
McKay: Didn't know it was me. Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council.
Becky McKay. Engineering Solutions. 1029 North Rosario. As Bill indicated, we have
worked with staff on kind of updating that development agreement that was updated. We
did provide the staff with an update of our open space and amenities and I worked with
Stephanie and provided her the exhibit that's before you this evening that shows all of the
amenities they're going to -- that we are going to construct within our central common
area and so that -- we will have a recreational building clubhouse that will have a great
room, storage, seating areas, double sided fireplace. They are going to have covered
picnic areas. They are going to have -- I think they have some -- what is it? Cornhole
games. They are going to have a multi-use court for pickle ball. They are going to have
a fishing pier. Pathways. Swimming pools. Cabanas. Very extensive, high-end package
that Toll Brothers has planned. Definitely an upgrade from what we initially had as far as
our conceptual amenity plan and so I think, you know, I will just finish that -- that, you
know, this is a continuation of that project. It's taken man y years and we have three
phases under construction and they can't build it fast enough. That's how fast they are
selling. So, I would ask the Council support the development agreement modification to
update it to match what we have today. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you, Becky. Council, any questions? Okay. Chris, any sign-ups?
Johnson: None for this project.
De Weerd: Okay. Is there any testimony? If you will, please, come to the podium. We
figured you were here for one of these items. If you will, please, state your name and
address for the record.
Worrel: My name is Randy Worrel and I live at 4647 North Adale.
De Weerd: Thank you, Randy.
Worrel: I live in The Oaks. So, that's why I'm here. I'm looking -- I was concerned,
because in the past the R-15 zoning on either end at McMillan and Black Cat, McMillan
and McDermott, my concern was how that might impact our neighborhood property
values, traffic, overall security in the area and I see that here it looks like they have -- they
have reverted back to the gray area on the map to whatever -- originally was high density
housing. Could that be changed as they build out -- as they build out could they opt to
say, okay, let's have that be single home -- single family homes. Is that possible? Or is
it now set in stone that that's going to be high density housing. Over here on McDermott,
near Black --
De Weerd: That area would come back for a public hearing.
Worrel: Oh, it will.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 177 of 519
Meridian City Council
July 16, 2019
Page 57 of 62
De Weerd: Ye s.
Worrel: Okay. Well, that's good peace of mind on that one. On the other end, too, it
looks like they have already changed the zoning to R-4, which is good peace of mind.
So, that's all. I just wanted to see how it was playing out.
De Weerd: Thank you for --
Worrel: It looks like it's going to be a really nice subdivision up there. The one that they
have south of McMillan is really nice. We enjoy it a lot.
De Weerd: Oh, good. Well, thank you for being here with us.
Worrel: Thank you very much.
De Weerd: And you can always talk to Becky after -- afterwards. She is a fountain of
information. Well, seeing absolutely no one else -- Becky, do you have any other
comments?
Little Roberts: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Little Roberts.
Little Roberts: I move we close the public hearing.
Borton: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All those in favor
say aye. All aye.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Little Roberts: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Little Roberts.
Little Roberts: Madam Mayor, I move that we approve H-2018-0117.
Borton: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve the request for a development
agreement modification. Any discussion?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 178 of 519
Meridian City Council
July 16, 2019
Page 58 of 62
Borton: Quick. Bill, does the staff report already reference these -- the concept plan that's
before us right now or do we need to add that as a condition to include in the --
Parsons: No.
Borton: -- DA to have this concept plan?
Parson: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilman Borton, the DA -- the
amended DA provisions -- proposed DA provisions incorporate these as exhibits and I
would also let you know that the -- the central amenity that you see here before you has
also been -- as part of the DA provisions to be installed with the first phase . So, as Becky
mentioned to you, they have three phases going out there. So , we want to make sure to
get this in place sooner than later. So, we have made those adjustments and, again,
she's in agreement with those changes.
Borton: Okay.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Borton: Thanks.
De Weerd: Okay. Anything further? Mr. Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll call: Borton, yea; Milam, absent; Cavener, yea; Palmer, yea; Little Roberts, yea;
Bernt, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
G. Public Hearing Continued from June 18, 2019 for Oakmore
Subdivision (H-2018-0118) by Toll ID I LLC, Located near
the intersection of W. Gondola Dr. and N. Black Cat Rd.
1. Request: Rezone of 7.39 acres of land in the R -15 zoning
district to the R-4 zoning district; and,
2. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of eighteen single family
residential lots on approximately 7.29 acres in a proposed R -
4 zoning district
De Weerd: Item G is a public hearing continued from June 18th H-2018-0118. I will ask
for staff comments.
Parsons: Thank you, Mayor, Members of the Council. This one coincides with the
previous action you just took on, but this is the Oakmore Subdivision. This is a rezone
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 179 of 519
Meridian City Council
July 16, 2019
Page 59 of 62
and a preliminary plat. The site consists of seven acres of land. It's currently zoned R-
15 and it's located near the intersection of West Gondola Drive and North Black Cat Road.
We have subdivisions primarily surrounding the proposed development , which are R-4 or
R-8 and so you would have West Bridge Subdivision to the north and, then, Black Cat to
the -- to the east. Jump Creek Subdivision to the south. And, then, future phases of Oaks
North to the west. Again, same history as last time. This was annexed in 2008. At that
time it was just a bubble plan and, again, 2013 they came back through, subdivided this,
had a concept plan that showed multi-family on the site and so the applicant is here this
evening to rezone it from R-15 to R-4 and change the development plan from multi-family
to single family, a preliminary plat that consists of 18 single family residential lots and lot
sizes ranging from 9,500 square feet all the way up to 15,000 square feet in size. Again,
here the proposed plat on the right-hand of your -- side of your screen. During the
Planning and Zoning Commission, again, staff raised some concerns about open space
and how this was going to tie into the overall Oaks development and so the applicant has
revised the plat since the Planning and Zoning Commission. They have rerouted the
common drive to meet not only UDC standards, but Fire Department requirements not to
exceed 150 feet. Commission made a recommendation that they extend the open space
to the west and included another amenity, which the applicant has. Staff also
recommended that the applicant add a ten foot multi-use pathway along North -- or North
Black Cat Road, which is the street buffer along that street, which is incorporated, and,
then, also with the Oaks, the Jump Creek product to the south of this project , we had a
pedestrian access stub into this property and they are extending that and tying into that
subdivision. So, we are getting interconnectivity not only with open space in the adjacent
subdivision, but also with pathways. So, we are starting to make those nexus in getting
those connections throughout this area of Meridian. There is only one outstanding issue
for the Council tonight and that's really -- there is the west half lateral that runs through
the property. I know the Jump Creek project had a common lot, if you can see my cursor,
somewhere in this area here. You can see on this color graphic that it comes into the site
right across this -- comes through this common lot and, then, dives across Lot 3 here,
Block 1. I would appreciate and staff's recommended that the applicant just explained
how they are going to route that, whether it's going to be an easement on the buildable
lot or a separate common lot and how that's going to tie into Jump Creek for you this
evening, get some details on that as you guys make a motion on this particular project.
So, testifying -- Planning and Zoning Commission did recommend approval with
conditions. Becky was the only one that testified on the application. There was no one
else that was there to testify. As I mentioned to you, open space and amenities were a
concern, along with the common driveway. Again, the applicant has revised the plat to
coincide with some of the discussions that occurred at the Commission hearing. Staff --
there has been no written testimony since the P&Z commission hearing, so it's a pretty
straightforward application. Staff and the Commission are recommending approval for
you this evening and I will stand for any questions.
De Weerd: Thank you, Bill. Council, any questions?
McKay: Becky McKay. Engineering Solutions. 1029 North Rosario, Meridian.
Representing Toll Brothers on this application. So , basically, what's before you this
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 180 of 519
Meridian City Council
July 16, 2019
Page 60 of 62
evening is a down zone. The property was zoned R-15. We initially anticipated it will be
multi-family with 60 dwelling units. We are asking to down zone it to R-4 and have 18
lots, single family, and those sizes range from 9,500 square feet to 15,000 square feet,
with an average of about 11,495 square feet. At the Planning and Zoning Commission --
Bill, can you put up -- there we go. At the Planning and Zoning Commission their concerns
was since this L piece is pretty far removed from the central open space , they wanted to
make sure that we provided for some type of activity for the r esidents that we are going
to have here. So, we added some open space and we put a playground here , which
satisfied the Planning and Zoning Commission. They were happy with that. Secondly,
the Fire Department, the way we had this arranged, our common drive exceeded the 150
limit, so we kind of rearranged the lots and now it is in compliance. The West Tap Lateral
comes through, kind of arcs through the property right through here. We have been
coordinating with the West Bridge engineer and Jump Creek engineer, so I have a stub
street here that will connect to the north, a stub street that connects to the south, aligns
with their stub streets and, then, we show that we will pick up that -- that lateral and we
pipe it along the rear and, then, up here and it would go out that direction. So, there is
just a short stretch that will be piped along the rear of these buildable lots, but, then, it will
go into common lots and exit where it historically exited. As Bill indicated, the Parks
Department asked that we build a ten foot multi-use pathway along Black Cat. We are in
agreement with that. This particular piece of property sewers to the east out to Black Cat,
so we will have a sewer main line that comes here. I show a pedestrian pathway and
landscaping over the top of that where we will have the sewer connection. So, it's kind of
a dual purpose. What's before you is 2.44 dwelling units per acre. So , it's low density.
The reason that we deferred this application for a considerable amount of time is Toll
Brothers was taking another look at this R-15 property. They were initially going to go
with single family dwellings and down zone this to R-8 and, then, they decided that they
want to do something like an auto court or a MEW type design and so they decided to
keep the R-15 intact. So, that's -- that's kind of why -- why we continued to ask for
deferrals and I have been working on that design for them .
De Weerd: And you will bring it back at some later date.
McKay: I believe we have a condition in our development agreement, Madam Mayor,
that says anything within the R-15 areas has to come back as a conditional use permit.
Is that not correct, Bill? I think that's in there.
Parsons: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I don't know if that's exactly the case,
but it says if it's multi-family it's coming back for a conditional use permit. But if they do
something like --
McKay: Auto court.
Parsons: -- auto court or something that's single family there may be a DA mod or may
-- so, we will have to look at that and -- but I know that DA does say it has to be densities
between eight to 15 dwelling units to the acre on the site, if I remember correctly.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 181 of 519
Meridian City Council
July 16, 2019
Page 61 of 62
McKay: Yes. And I believe, Bill, our target -- Madam Mayor, Bill, our target is eight
dwelling units per acre, but they would be detached dwellings.
De Weerd: Okay. Any questions from Council?
McKay: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any public testimony? Okay. We don't hear down zone very
often. So, awesome.
Parsons: Madam Mayor. Becky just testified -- and Members of the Council, Becky just
testified that that easement would run along those buildable lots. So , as you know, if it's
an easement greater than ten feet we -- we need to have a waiver for that to happen to
go across those two lots. So, if you're inclined to go with that in -- as part of her testimony
tonight, I ask that you include that as a condition of approval or grant the waiver and we
will make it happen.
De Weerd: Okay. Anything further from Council?
Palmer: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Palmer.
Palmer: Move we close the public hearing on Item 7-G.
Little Roberts: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on Item 7-G. All
those in favor? All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Palmer: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Palmer.
Palmer: I move we approve H-2018-0118 with the waiver for the easements on the lots
that Bill mentioned.
Little Roberts: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve Item 7-G. Any discussion?
Mr. Clerk.
Roll call: Borton, yea; Milam, absent; Cavener, yea; Palmer, yea; Little Roberts, yea;
Bernt, yea.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 23, 2019 – Page 182 of 519
Meridian City Council
July 16, 2019
Page 62 of 62
De Weerd: All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 8: Future Meeting Topics
De Weerd: Any items under eight? Okay. With that I would entertain a motion to adjourn.
Borton: Move we adjourn.
Little Roberts: Second.
De Weerd: All those in favor say aye. All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:27 P.M.
(AUDIO REC11 sl 11 ILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
MAYOR T €RD P, , PuGusr � ATE APPROVED
ATTEST.
O C%'O1�11� o
Z
CHRIS J N - Y C L E R,
cFNTER of trc