CC - Staff Report 5-25
Page 1
HEARING
DATE: 5/25/2021
TO: Mayor & City Council
FROAM: Joseph Dodson, Associate Planner
208-884-5533
SUBJECT: H-2021-0022
Gramercy Commons MDA
LOCATION: The site is located at 1873, 1925, and
2069 S. Wells Avenue, in the NW ¼
of the NE ¼ of Section 20, Township
3N., Range 1E.
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Development Agreement Modification to amend the Kenai Subdivision (aka Gramercy) Development
Agreement (Inst. #106141056) for the purpose of amending the concept plan to incorporate 164 age
restricted multi-family housing units, by Intermountain Pacific, LLC.
II. SUMMARY OF REPORT
A. Applicant:
Mike Chidester, Intermountain Pacific, LLC – 2541 E. Gala Street, Meridian, ID 83642
B. Owners:
St. Luke’s Regional Medical Center, LTD.; The Dagney Group, LLC, and; Elton Family Fund 1,
LLC
C. Representative:
Same as Applicant
III. STAFF ANALYSIS
The Applicant proposes to amend the Kenai Subdivision Development Agreement (Inst. #106141056)
to amend the existing concept plan for the subject commercial lots and incorporate a new development
plan with a multi-level, 164 age-restricted unit multi-family development. See Section V for Staff’s
recommended new DA provisions related to the proposed development.
History: The subject sites were annexed in 2006 under AZ-06-007 (Kenai Subdivision) and platted
under PP-06-019 and FP-06-048; the preliminary plat was approved with single-family detached,
single-family attached, multi-family, and commercial building lots. The subject development is
STAFF REPORT
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Page 2
proposed across three (3) of the commercial properties that directly abut Mountain View High School—
in reality, the new development is proposed primarily on the two southern properties and only a drive-
aisle and parking are proposed to cross the property line of the northernmost site.
The original approvals required a cross-parking and cross-access agreement for all lots within the
subdivision; Staff understands this agreement to be recorded and in place for the subject sites. The
Applicant is proposing to amend the existing DA rather than enter into a completely new DA in order
to show good faith in the original agreement and to remain part of the overall Gramercy Development,
including maintaining the cross-access/cross-parking agreements.
Because the Development Agreement (DA) does not include multi-family in this location, an MDA is
required and is why the Applicant is requesting one. Concurrently, multi-family residential is a
conditional use within the C-G zoning district and the Applicant has applied for said permit which is
scheduled to be heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission on 6/03/2021, following the decision
by Council on this DA Modification. Staff will analyze the proposed development in more detail with
that report; Staff’s review at this time shows the Applicant is compliant with or exceeds code
requirements in parking, open space and amenities, and dimensional standards for the proposed use
within the C-G zoning district.
Concept Plan: The existing concept plan within the DA only depicts the three subject lots as
commercial lots but does not depict any building footprints or any other development on the lots. The
only development depicted on the existing concept plan around these lots are the multi-use pathway
along the southern property line and the associated pathway landscaping. The pathway and required
landscaping are already installed in this area of the site. See Exhibit B for the existing concept plan
found within the original Development Agreement.
The new development plan depicts a singular, multi-level, age-restricted (three and four stories in
height) multi-family apartment complex that is wrapped around a parking structure—the parking
structure is proposed to contain a majority of the required parking spaces. Around the proposed building
the new development plan depicts a drive aisle that circles the entire structure and includes two areas
of surface level parking located on the east and north sides of the proposed building that contain the
remaining required parking. The drive aisle that circles the building is intended to be for Fire and EMS
but Staff is unaware if the drive aisle will be closed to resident traffic as well. In addition to the building,
the new development plan depicts multiple areas of open space and amenities located along each side
of the building to include: a pool and other amenities within a south courtyard; an entry plaza along the
east side of the building; fire-pits and lounging areas along the west, and; a community garden and
pickleball court along the north side of the building. All of the open space and amenity areas appear to
be connected with sidewalks and to be easily accessible by future residents.
The submitted elevations are for illustrative purposes and further refinement is necessary to comply
with the Architectural Standards Manual and other design elements of buildings already constructed
within the Gramercy development.
Access: The subject sites are internal to the Gramercy development and only abut a short segment of
public road along the southern boundary of the site (E. Goldstone Street); all of the sites are currently
undeveloped and do not have any accesses constructed on-site. However, to the north and east, adjacent
sites are developed and have constructed portions of drive aisles for their access to S. Wells Avenue.
As seen on the proposed development plan, the Applicant is proposing to connect to these three (3)
drive aisles to provide access to the apartment complex: one to the north connecting to an existing drive
aisle and commercial property and two to the east to connect to S. Wells Avenue.
ACHD does not act on Development Agreement Modifications but has provided a response letter with
the concurrent Conditional Use Permit application. In their response letter, ACHD has noted that no
improvements are required to any adjacent or nearby public roads and did not require a Traffic Impact
Page 3
Study because the development is not estimated to generate enough peak hour vehicle trips, despite
proposing over 100 apartment units. Staff verified with ACHD that the estimated trip generation of the
development does not change whether the units are proposed as age-restricted or not. In addition,
ACHD has noted that all adjacent public roads are over-built and are capable of handling additional
vehicle trips without issue. Because of these reasons provided by ACHD Staff is supportive of the
proposed development in regards to its transportation impact.
Nonetheless, Staff understands the traffic along Overland Road (the closest arterial street to the north)
is worsening and any additional traffic will exacerbate the problem. The development would also have
easy vehicular access to the east to Eagle Road in three different places via commercial collector streets.
One of the commercial collectors also provides an additional access point to Overland Road which
should lessen the burden placed on the intersection of Overland Road and S. Wells Avenue.
In addition to vehicular access, the site abuts a segment of multi-use pathway that the Applicant is
proposing to connect to. This multi-use pathway runs along the southern project boundary and
continues both north and south. To the north, the pathway runs along S. Wells and connects to the
arterial sidewalks along Overland Road. As the pathway heads south, it runs along the Mountain View
High School property and then connects to a public park, Gordon Harris Park; the pathway then
continues into the neighboring single-family development further to the south.
Staff finds proposing an apartment complex in this area of the City in close proximity to commercial
development, child care/charter school, and established regional pedestrian facilities warrants a
Development Agreement Modification and support of the proposed development.
IV. DECISION
A. Staff:
Staff recommends approval of the modification to the DA (Inst. #106141056) as recommended by
Staff’s analysis above and with the specific changes below.
V. EXHIBITS
A. Development Agreement provisions from the existing DA (Inst. #106141056):
Existing Provisions:
Page 4
Page 5
Staff’s Recommended Changes:
Strike 5.1.9 – Current development code requires Administrative Design Review for new multi-
family residential and new commercial so it is not necessary to dictate other parameters.
Staff does not recommend any other changes to the existing provisions for this site as this
DA and these provisions encompass a much larger area than the three subject sites.
Add Provision: “Future development of the proposed age restricted multi-family development on
the subject C-G zoned properties shall be substantially consistent with the approved site plan, unit
count, open space and amenities, and future approved elevations (the submitted elevations are not
approved; future elevations will be reviewed via Administrative Design Review with a future
Certificate of Zoning Compliance application for the overall site development).”
Add provision: “The multi-family units within this project shall be age-restricted to 55 years and
older, per the Applicant’s proposal.”
Add provision: “Applicant shall connect to the regional pathway system along the southern
property boundary by constructing at least one (1) pedestrian crosswalk across the drive aisle with
either stamped concrete, brick pavers, or similar to clearly delineate the pedestrian connection to
the pathway system.”
Add provision: “Future development of northernmost property (1873 S. Wells Avenue; Parcel #
R3238510240) shall NOT include any multi-family development and shall be limited to
commercial uses (including vertically integrated development) unless a future Rezone application
is applied for to allow single-family dwellings. The concept plan for these three parcels shall be
updated when Parcel R3238510240 develops in the future.”
Add provision: “Prior to Certificate of Zoning Compliance approval, a Property Boundary
Adjustment shall be obtained by the Applicant to reconfigure the lots consistent with the
proposed site plan.”
Page 6
B. Existing DA Concept Plan (Preliminary Plat):
Subject
Sites
Page 7
C. Proposed Development Plans:
Page 8
Page 9
D. Conceptual Building Elevations: (NOT APPROVED)
Page 10