HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-04-16Meridian City Council April 16, 2013
A meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:20 p.m., Tuesday, April
16, 2013, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd.
Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, Charlie Rountree, David Zaremba, Keith
Bird, and Brad Hoaglun.
Others Present: Bill Nary, Jaycee Holman, Caleb Hood, Bill Parsons, Warren Stewart,
Tom Barry, Clint Dolsby John Overton, Mark Niemeyer, Clint Worthington, Mollie
Mangerich Steve Siddoway and Dean Willis.
Item 1: oll®cll Attendance:
Roll call.
X David Zaremba X Brad Hoaglun
X Charlie Rountree X Keith Bird
X Mayor Tammy de Weerd
De Weerd: Thank you so much for your patience. We will go ahead and start tonight's
meeting. It is, for the record, Tuesday, April 16th. It's almost 20 after 7:00. Madam
Clerk, will you, please, start off with roll call attendance.
Item : Pledge of Allegiance
De Weerd: Item No. 2 is the Pledge of Allegiance. If you will all join us in the pledge to
our flag.
(Pledge of Allegiance recited.)
Item 3: ommuniy Invocation by
De Weerd: Item No. 3. We don't have anyone to lead us in the community invocation.
Item : doption of the Agenda
De Weerd: So, we will switch -- or go to Item 4, adoption of the agenda.
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: A couple items on tonight's agenda. Item 7-A under Action Items, the
applicant is requesting to withdraw that application. 7-E is Resolution No. 13-919.
Under Item 8, 8-D is Ordinance No. 13-1551. Under 9-A, that is Ordinance No. 13-
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 2 of 66
1552. And with those notes, Madam Mayor, I move adoption of the agenda as
presented.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda as presented. All those
in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item Consent Benda
ater and ewer in asemen for Commercial Southwest
ubdiviion o.
elease of evelopment Agreement with ed Tail
Communities, LL.
C. Professional Services Agreement with Kings of wing for
usical Talent for Concerts on roadway on July 0, 2013 for
an amount not to exceed $1,800.00
De Weerd: Item 5 is our Consent Agenda.
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 3 of 66
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: We have no changes on our Consent Agenda, so I move approval of the
Consent Agenda and the Mayor to sign and Clerk to attest.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda. Madam
Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 6: Items oved Fro Consent Agenda
De Weerd: There were no items moved from the Consent Agenda.
Item 7: Action Items
ulic Hearing Continued from oveer 7, 2012: A 11-003
King roperty by Dexter King Located at 1195 .Overland
Road Request: Annexation and Zoning of Acres of Land
within an - onin istrict
De Weerd: So, we will move into Action Items under seven. 7-A was requested to
withdraw the application. Council, I will need a motion to accept that request.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move to withdraw AZ 11-003 as per applicant's request.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve the applicant's request to
withdraw the application on Item 7-A. Madam Clerk, I will call roll.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 4 of 66
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Public Hearing Continued from April , 2013: VAR 13-001
nihtsky states by Iron ountai Real state, Inc. Located
on the orthwest Corner of Chinden oulevrd and N. Linder
Road Request: Right-In/Right-Out Access Point to State
Highway 20/2 (Chinden ouelvard)
De Weerd: Item 7-B is a public hearing continued from April 2nd on VAR 13-001. I will
ask for staff comments at this time.
Parsons: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. The first item on the
agenda tonight is the Knightsky Estates variance application. The applicant is here this
evening to discuss aright-in, right-out only access to Chinden Boulevard, State
Highway 20-26. That proposed access point will be approximately 500 feet west of the
current intersection location. This property is located on the northwest corner of Linder
Road and Chinden Boulevard. It's currently zoned C-C and it's approximately 9.34
acres in size. History on this site. In 2006 this property was annexed in as the
Knightsky Estates Subdivision. Included in that subdivision was approximately 40 or so
acres here and, then, this remnant piece here. We had C-C at the corner, transitioned
to TN-C -- or TN-R along Chinden and, then, north of that was R-4 zoned property as
well. So, it was more of a mixed use development at that time. In 2011 the property
owner and a new developer came forward with the Spurwing Subdivision application,
which, essentially, rezoned and took out a portion of this property and rezoned R-8 and
is currently developing as a nine hole executive golf course and an estate lot
subdivision as well. With the approval of that subdivision a stub street was proposed
and is required to stub to the C-C zoned property as well. The aerial exhibit before you
this evening depicts kind of the -- shows what types of access are currently approved
along Chinden Boulevard in this mile segment. One thing I want to -- here is Paramount
Subdivision, which is an access point at the half mile. We have, again, the intersection
at the mile and another intersection at the half mile, which is consistent with the UDC.
In 2009 this property here, which is known as Knight Hill Subdivision, it came through
for a variance and asked for aright-in, right-out only access point to Chinden as well
and Council did deny that request back in 2009. The applicant has submitted a
conceptual plan depicting the proposed access points. Here is what I have highlighted
for you right now. Currently in 2006 ACHD did act on this application. At that time they
did grant an access point to Linder Road. The one thing that's the difference that has
changed since -- from previous until now is that we have that Fred Meyer development
to the east of this and with that development they are required to put in a center median,
so rather than having full access to this development as previously approved, this is
now restricted to a right-in, right-out only access point and I'd mention to you as well
Spurwing Challenge is required to stub a local street to this development as well. And,
then, once this applicant -- if they decide to develop this property they will be required to
build this connectivity commercial driveway to create that backage or frontage road
consistent with the UDC as well. I would mention to Council that we did receive
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 5 of 66
comments from ITD on this application. They have tentatively approved this
intersection -- or this access point to Highway 20-26. In speaking with the applicant
before the hearing they have contacted ITD. ITD will be requesting that this have a
decel lane into the development. If the access is approved that's what ITD will require
and, then, also some form of restriction by a pork chop or a center median in the future
making sure that cars entering and exiting follow the right-in, right-out only practice as
well. I would mention to you that staff did receive comments from the Meridian Police
Department. They are recommending denial of the variance as well. In speaking with
the Fire Department today they want to go on record to say that they support the
proposed access point. One other item that I wanted to mention to you -- is based on
the UDC we do have a requirement that we meet certain findings to grant access of this
access point to Chinden, both in our staff report and our analysis in that staff report we
looked through the Comprehensive Plan, we looked at the UDC, and we have also
looked at the draft access management plan that ITD was supportive of a few years ago
as well and based on those findings staff is recommending denial before you this
evening. Staff has not received any additional written testimony on this application. To
staff's -- other than the staff denial on the application there are no other outstanding
issues before you this evening and at this time I would stand for any questions you may
have.
De Weerd: Thank you, Bill. Council, any questions for staff at this point?
Bird: I have none at this time.
Rountree: None right now.
De Weerd: Okay. Would the applicant like to make comment. Good evening. If you
will, please, state your name and address for the record.
Brown: For the record my name is Kent Brown. My address is 3161 Springwood,
Meridian, Idaho.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Brown: How do I pull this up? I don't know what you can see. The map that I have got
shown shows our site highlighted in yellow. Fred Meyers to the east of us, they have a
right-in. They also have a full access. Obviously, they are located in Eagle. Just
recently the Foxtail development was approved for a redevelopment with houses and
commercial. They were also granted an access to Chinden also. We have kind of
shown the alignment that we have with our road with the Spurwing Challenge that's next
to us. We kind of view this area as kind of a unique scenario in your comp plan. I
pulled up the Meridian comp plan and our use is the only commercial use that you're
showing north of Chinden, except closer to Highway 16 where it comes out there is a
commercial node that's shown on your comp plan there. These other residential uses
that Bill made mention in his report, we have to the west of us light access at Long Lake
that -- that Spurwing Challenge people are in the process of closing the main entrance
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 6 of 66
to Spurwing and putting this new one in at the half mile that is signalized. Ten Mile
doesn't go through because of the golf course and so there is no access there.
understand that the Olive Tree development that's kind of -- the Olive Tree
Development that's located here, it has an emergency access that comes out at the Ten
Mile location. Just to the west of that is a private lane for some estate homes called
Double Eagle. But if you're familiar with Spurwing Greens property, they have three
accesses to redevelop the remainder of that property and eliminate any access to
Chinden. They have a lighted access at that point at the half mile. Black Cat is
proposed to connect and is existing there. And, then, the only other existing one is
really close to where 16 comes out as Pollard. What makes this kind of unique
compared to like the application that Bill mentioned that's directly to the south of us is
this rim and for lack of a way to describe it, it's basically the Meridian rim to the Boise
River, because that's the area that is in Meridian's impact and we have no inability to
bring roads in from the backside to have frontages in that area, so we have just Chinden
as our access and when those accesses are the golf course and residential that's fine,
but when you have a commercial use that's at the corner it makes it a little more difficult
to move forward with your project if you have to go to get to there. I highlighted here in
red the -- where the fire station is. In speaking with Perry earlier today he's the one that
brought this up when we had apre-application meeting that as the fire truck leaves
there and heads towards the Chinden-Linder intersection with the Opticon on, it freezes
all the traffic and if our entrance is a right-in, right-out on Linder or is down at the light,
they have to either go into the other lane and, then, somehow try to maneuver, but if the
traffic is backed up there it creates a difficulty for them to access and provide safe
entrance into that property there on the corner, where if we got our right-in, right-out on
Chinden they would cross over, the traffic would be stopped, there wouldn't be any
traffic going west on Chinden and they would be able to enter into the site. I also spoke
to Perry about the limited access into the Spurwing property we provide probably the
best secondary access into the Spurwing development. He mentioned to me that it
would probably be the quickest access that they would have from a secondary
standpoint. I'm sure you're familiar with the Spurwing Greens property. They have an
access, but you would have to drive through their entire development and, then, come
back into Spurwing to provide a secondary access into there. The original approval with
the Knightsky development, we had a full access on Linder that was planned at that
location. In speaking to the planner that handled that application, it was thought that we
would have a light, we would be 550 feet from Chinden and have a light access at that
point with full access to be able to enter into the development off of Linder. Then you
had a straight shot where you would come out where the light is -- is at on Long Lake
and you had a -- the ability to access that way versus the way that we currently have to
go -- we would currently have to come in at the Spurwing light and, then, drive through
the development to come back to get there from Chinden, other than that right-in, right-
out. So, basically, you would have people that are southbound on Linder would be able
to access our site or they would have to drive through this estate residential
development to get there. Am I doing this --
Parsons: Kent, let me drive for a second .and I will get you that slide.
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 7 of 66
Brown : Okay.
Parsons: Thanks. Sorry to interrupt you.
Brown: I need all the help I can get. In our application to ITD what we proposed to
them is this concept plan. We worked with their staff and talked to them about where
we could have it. We originally proposed going some 600 feet from the intersection, but
they said that we would be better and safer that -- if we came in at 500 feet from that
intersection with a decel lane. This right-in, right-out creates a safe environment, but
the only way that anybody can access this is by coming south on Linder, so any
residents coming from Eagle, because that's, basically, where they would have to be
coming from to access this property or they would have to come from the light and drive
back through to get here, which makes it very difficult for the zoning that we have for our
neighborhood commercial uses to be able to make that -- that a viable project for
commercial. With the changes that ITD has made into their policy, those are things also
that has taken place that has changed in this site location. I think we have -- in the
findings that you're supposed to make whether there are unique characteristics and I
believe that where we are located in what I was calling the -- the Meridian rim to the
Boise River, that we have a unique characteristic. We have the inability for public
streets to be stubbed to the rear of us. Our northerly boundary with the Brandt property
is the edge of the impact area. We have existing estate homes that are located there.
You have the proposed and soon to be completed Spurwing Challenge with its estate
residential uses that's on the other side of us. You have the Spurwing development and
no access, basically, coming from the rim until you get over to Spurwing Greens where
we have a road going over the rim there. So, that's the only back access that you have
from the north coming south. So, you have the limited access points. This unique
characteristic and specifically with our site I think the hardship can be fixed by us having
our access. Also, the discussion with the fire department that our site is safer if they
were able to access the site with a Chinden access. I think that that helps remove that
hardship. That's another finding. The first finding is is does this grant a special right or
privilege. For us to be on an equal playing field with commercial businesses in Meridian
compared to the properties that are to the east of us that are commercial, we need an
access to Chinden also. It's not one that you granted, but it's one that has been granted
to them and this property would be competing for those commercial uses. We envision
that most of our uses are going to be either office or a bank. They are not high intense
uses. They are neighborhood commercial in nature and seek your approval for this.
stand for any questions that you might have.
De Weerd: Thank you, Kent. Council, any questions?
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Hoaglun.
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 8 of 66
Hoaglun: Kent, it looks like from the drawing, but I want to be sure, since my eyes
aren't like they used to be. You have a decel lane for that right turn access off of
Chinden?
Brown: Yes, we do. And that would be a requirement of ITD for that to allow the -- the
through traffic going west to be able to travel safely.
Hoaglun: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions from Council?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I can't tell from the plat if there is sufficient setback in the concept to
accommodate the decel lane at a future intersection configuration that would be
somewhere between five and seven lanes in addition to the decel lane. So, just thinking
of future expansion of Chinden. With the three or four lanes that might be there now
and a decel lane, as it expands to four through lanes, I don't know how many turn lanes
there would be. Would that decel lane go away and the safety conditions that we are
trying to avoid with all of these approaches be exacerbated? Can you address that,
Kent?
Brown: Obviously, we wouldn't -- we wouldn't want that to go away either, because to
get access you want that to be safe for the people that are coming in there and I guess
we could be -- we know what their plan is and could address that with ITD and the
improvements that we would do.
Rountree: Madam Mayor. With respect to addressing it with ITD, I read their letter and
it doesn't have much substance. It just says that whatever approach separation
standards they have now, I don't know if they have shared that with the City of Meridian
at this point or not. Apparently it's something new and they don't address the possible
expansion of the right of way width in that area and the need for continuing the decel
lane in that instance. And, in fact, they have not processed this application, because
they see that it would violate our policy and not only violate our policy, but it's against
our ordinance, but we allow for variances with adequate information and in that regard I
would want to see some adequate information as it relates to safety, because that's the
issue we are concerned with.
De Weerd: Anything further from Council?
Bird: I have none.
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 9 of 66
De Weerd: I did have several people who have signed up. When I call your name if
you would like to provide testimony at that time I would invite you forward and if I
mispronounce your name I apologize in advance. Mike Reich is neutral. Mike Reich. I
had a 33.3 percent change that I would say it right. Thank you for being here with us. If
you will, please, state your name and address for the record.
Reich: Michael Reich. 5569 North Schubert Avenue in Meridian.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Reich: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Council. I will try to be brief. I represent the owner
of the development beside the Spurwing Challenge Estates. We feel that it is in the
best interest of that parcel if it had aright-in, right-out. However, we are concerned
about safety issues that being a residential ..development beside it, because of the
connector roads. And, in fact, at one point we had investigated also trying to get aright-
in, right-out and purchasing that corner. We were told that that wouldn't be possible and
to provide the best access for the corner we agreed to do a connector road. What we
are asking is that the city does agree to the variance and provide aright-in, right-out,
that we would restrict that access to emergency vehicles only and still allow pedestrian
access, so we have that pedestrian sidewalk continuity, but we are concerned about the
additional traffic, possibly a light being red at Linder and people trying to take a shortcut
to get back to some of the other developments or the country club and cutting through a
residential development. Again, we believe that it's -- that it's a good fit for that -- that
ten acre corner, but it's not necessarily a good fit for the residential development that's
currently under construction. I would point out that per Kent's letter that was submitted
to the city and the traffic studies that were submitted by Bailey Engineering, there is
traffic counts that show cars coming in and the same amount of cars going back out to
either Linder or Chinden. So, it appears that the traffic study doesn't believe that many
cars would be needing to use that access road anyway, so closing it and making it an
access point for emergency vehicles only seemed logical. It would be a tertiary access
point for emergency vehicles, since there is another access point, as Kent stated,
through the Spurwing Greens Subdivision. I guess in closing I would say that if the
variance was granted and the road was not closed for public access between the two
parcels that perhaps we could put a restriction for future uses -- I think this is a C-C
zoned property with a conditional use permit could be multi-family residential, which
would also be a high traffic count of cars and would also be a longer period of time in
theory. We would ask that it be restricted to not multi-family if that access remained
public. That's it. Thank you for your time.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Rountree: I have a question. The road you speak is that a public road?
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 10 of 66
Reich: The connector road that we -- yes, it would connect right at this point right here.
Where that -- somebody is controlling it.
Rountree: I see it.
Reich: It is a public street.
Rountree: Okay. Thank you.
Reich: We would have -- when we -- we had some alternate designs, we would have
probably redesigned it differently if we knew there was going to be a right-in, right-out
where the traffic would not have gone through the residential block, but perhaps a
frontage street on the other side of the golf holes that are designed -- I believe you are
familiar with the design of the course.
De Weerd: But I guess with the design of that corner and if they didn't have this right-in,
right-out, they would have to go through your property anyway.
Reich: Right. But it would be less traffic. I mean if there was no right-in, right-out we
wouldn't be getting people taking a shortcut off of Chinden to get back to the Spurwing
development or the Spurwing country club, because right now they can come in off of --
in the bottom where it says proposed access point and bypass the Linder and Chinden
light to get back to the country club or the Spurwing development -- the original
Spurwing development. So, again, I think it would be unlikely that it would just be traffic
to the 23 lots that are being developed, it would become a shortcut in heavy traffic.
De Weerd: Do you think there is a way that through design, since that's entry into your
subdivision, you can design it as such, that makes it look more private and less inviting
for those to shortcut. I mean I'm certainly not a design or a traffic engineer, but there
are ways that perhaps even at being a public road you can have aroad -- or entry
treatments that kind of narrows it and makes it look less inviting. I don't know. Just
trying to help you limit the amount of cars that go through there.
Reich: You can certainly do that and I think for your one time person that's sitting in the
corner I think that would eliminate somebody cutting through. The people that are going
to live there or visit the country club, they are going to be doing it multiple times a week
are essentially going to realize design or not, that there is a shortcut.
De Weerd: Well, the biggest offenders will be the people that live on that road.
Reich: Yeah. Well, not that road. I think the biggest offenders will be the people that
live further back and to the country club.
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor and Mike, I want to follow up. You made a statement and I got
a little confused. You said they would use it as a shortcut to defeat that Linder Road,
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 11 of 66
Chinden -- since it's aright-in, right-out, they are going to have to come through that
light -- so, I must be missing something, what you meant by they --
Reich: Okay. Somebody going westbound on Chinden that wants to turn in towards
Spurwing --
Hoaglun: Right.
Reich: -- and there is traffic at the light at Linder -- not at Linder. I'm sorry. That's my
mistake. At the new access point to Spurwing.
Hoaglun: Long Lake.
Reich: Long Lake. Thank you.
Hoaglun: But this is traffic that's going westbound, so they see traffic at Long Lake.
Reich: See traffic at Long Lake and cut through here to --
Hoaglun: Okay. But that's, in fact, a time light where it's not quite as much. In my mind
if I'm going someplace I think, well, I don't want to take a side street, because my -- the
speed limit isn't as fast. I guess if it's really backed up it might, but, yeah, it's one of
those -- yeah, do I really get there any faster by taking a back side street.
Reich: I cut through on my way to work every day.
Hoaglun: Uh-huh. Okay.
De Weerd: It's the people like you that --
Reich: It is.
De Weerd: But I guess my question to you is do you think that would cause more traffic
than not having this, making the people go to the light and drive through the subdivision
to access this because they are coming off of Chinden. I almost think that there would
be more traffic having to go to the light and, then, backtracking to the east, because
they are certainly not going to go turn around at Fred Meyer and, then, come down
Linder to go into it at that point.
Reich: I think it's a fair point -- or a fair question to raise. Again, the traffic study doesn't
address how many cars may be using that and I would be curious to that as well. It's -- I
think it's a fair point.
De Weerd: Any other questions from Council?
Bird: I have none.
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 12 of 66
De Weerd: Okay.
Reich: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Tom Dater signed up for. Good evening. If you will, please,
state your name and address for the record.
Dater: Yes. I'm Tom Dater. I live at 698 East Laguna Shore Lane in Eagle.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Dater: And being over 30 I'm not going to try to mess with this computer thing, I'm just
going to talk.
De Weerd: Okay.
Dater: When Fred Meyer came in that whole intersection changed its design and the
full access that had been granted off Linder into this property was, then, removed and
they put a median down the center and as a result it started to restrict the accessibility,
so in looking at this putting aright-in, right-out where it's proposed is not really anything
new, it's sort of saying this is the way things are going. I'm not using it as an example or
saying what Eagle does Meridian should do, but Fred Meyer has two full accesses and
a right-in, right-out, which sort of puts this property at a -- I will say a competitive
disadvantage, because the only way you could get in there off of Linder would be to
come toward the south and make a right in. If you're going north on Linder the only way
you can get in is to make a u-turn and that u-turn is on a fairly heavily traveled arterial.
There is a church scheduled to go in just north of there a little bit. That's going to create
more traffic. It's a very convoluted issue. So, then, I think if you have to go up to the
light on Chinden -- I can't remember the name of that street. Long Lake. Okay. And
come back around, now you're putting a huge amount of traffic through a residential
area and the golf course that may have pedestrian traffic or even a golf cart. I don't
know. But I'm thinking the construction traffic, as well as the usage traffic, is really
going to be sort of negative or a danger and I know one of the issues here is safety and
I can't imagine if I lived in that subdivision that I would want to see -- I don't know what
the car count is going to be -- 10,000 cars a day if it is or concrete trucks and guys in
their pickups racing through there to build something. To me it is a danger not to put in
the right-in, right-out and it's really sort of necessary and so I'm supporting a hundred
percent the right-in, right-out philosophy.
De Weerd: Thank you. Jeremy Amar. Okay. Signed up in favor. Don Knickrehm.
Don, I'm very curious as to how you say your last name, so if you will, please, state your
name and address for the record.
Knickrehm: My name is Don Knickrehm and my address is 601 W. Bannock in Boise.
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 13 of 66
De Weerd: Thank you.
Knickrehm: I'm representing the current owners who are selling to Mr. Amar and his
development company and so I wanted to address the issue of the variance and the
right-in, right-out. Our understanding is that the Council can only grant a variance if it
will not grant a special right or privilege that's not otherwise allowed. If it relieves an
undue hardship because of the characteristics of the property. And, thirdly, it will not
be detrimental to health or public safety. We think that this circumstance meets all of
those requirements clearly. The key is the site history and the development that's
occurred over the last seven years. This Council or your predecessors approved the
Knightsky Subdivision in 2006 with a development agreement and you have seen -- I
don't know how to work this thing, but you have seen the picture of the Knightsky
approval. There was a boulevard that ran from the northeast corner of the property on
Linder across -- and it was a divided boulevard -- straight shot across, so there was no
face-on residential housing at all on that boulevard and, then, it turned into the light at
Long Lake. It was a totally different circumstance. And at that time ACRD had
approved a full access with cleft-hand turn bay on Linder for this site and so that was a
very different circumstance than what exists today. Since 2006 when Knightsky was
approved the intersection has become a major commercial intersection with the
development of Fred Meyer and the Eagle Island marketplace. Fred Meyer has a full
turn access onto Chinden that doesn't quite even make the quarter mile and just last
week the Eagle city council granted another full turn access to the developers of the
Foxtail golf course property, which is a mixed use development, commercial and
residential. So, those changes have occurred. More importantly, the -- the turning
movement that now exists on Linder is very restricted, so the only way if one was going
north on Linder one could access the property is with a full u-turn, because of
construction of a raised median. The City of Meridian has recently approved Spurwing
Challenge Subdivision and so to now get to the light from this ten acre commercial
parcel -- and, by the way, in the process of approving Spurwing Challenge you also
completed the rezone of this parcel. So, it's TN-C and some of it's C-C. You rezoned
the rest of it C-C. So, that was just a couple weeks ago. Or a couple months ago.
Does that mean I'm supposed to stop?
Knickrehm: Well, may I have a minute to wrap up?
De Weerd: Yes.
Knickrehm: Thank you. The point is a great deal has changed, including the fact that in
2009 the city amended the development agreement with Knightsky to provide
specifically that the owner developer may request a variance of this requirement,
meaning no direct access on Chinden if prior approval is obtained from ITD. We think
we have met that requirement. The reason that went in was because the 2009 approval
with Fred Meyer, we came back to Council and said, look, we -- we need a little latitude
here. So, I believe that public safety is addressed because there is better fire access, it
avoids traffic through a residential neighborhood. It avoids u-turns on Linder and it
lessens traffic on the arterials, because it provides neighborhood services, so people
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 14 of 66
don't have to travel as far. I'd like -- if I could just have a second to address a question
that was raised by Council that wasn't fully answered earlier. The question was what
about ITD right of way? Actually, when the fellow that developed Eagle Island
Marketplace, we did that whole subdivision. The additional right of way on Chinden was
deeded by the owners of -- my clients, the owners of all of this parcel before they sold it
to -- before they sold the golf course portion off. So, the right of way has already been
deeded and the ITD decel lane would take that into account. I'd stand for questions.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions from Council?
Rountree: I have none.
Knickrehm: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Kevin Amar signed up in favor.
Amar: Madam Mayor, Councilmen, my name is Kevin Amar. Address is 3681 North
Locust Grove in Meridian.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Amar: Obviously, I'm in favor of the project. A couple other things that came up with --
and Don Knickrehm addressed this also, but in 2009 when Fred Meyer was approved
there was an amendment to the development agreement to specifically come back in
and request a variance if we could get ITD to accept that variance -- or accept an
approach on Chinden. We spent quite a bit of time with ITD and ACRD both working on
this site and on this -- I understand it's just a conceptual plan, but we wanted to bring a
conceptual plan with the location of the right-in, right-out that is practical. When we first
approached ITD with this right-in, right-out it was further to the west. It was a request by
ITD to move it back to the east, so the traffic at the point that is here hasn't accelerated
to the point where it becomes dangerous. They were concerned about safety.
Obviously, we are concerned about safety and it's something this Council is concerned
about as well. With this location and with the decel lane we have addressed that safety
issue. We have had another traffic analysis done. ITD reviewed that traffic analysis
and determined that there is no increased safety impact with this access than without
this access or no significant increase. The right of way on both Chinden, as well as
Linder, with buffers for landscaping and pathways has all been adequately addressed.
We worked with your staff to figure out buffers for landscaping and there needs to be a
pathway along Chinden, as well as an adequate landscape buffer on -- on Linder and,
then, providing also sufficient right of way or for future right of way if there should be any
additional needed on Chinden, as well as Linder. So, we would ask for your approval
this evening. We think we have addressed the -- certainly the safety and the other
issues required for a variance and I would stand for any questions.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions?
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 15 of 66
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Kevin.
Amar: Thank you.
De Weerd: Shawn Nickel signed up in favor.
Nickel: Good evening, Madam Mayor, Council. For the record Shawn Nickel, 1589
North Estancia Place in Eagle. Just to elaborate a little more on the history of this
project, back in 2006 I brought this project, the Knightsky Estates and also the Knight
Hill across the street before this -- this body and received approval. Back at that time
we met and worked with ITD and ITD was not, in 2006, allowing access points on
Highway 20-26. We worked with ACRD to make sure that we had designs that access
on Linder to be a full access point to provide access to this development, both at this
corner and, then, down at Long Lake. After we -- and at that point we did not fight or
acknowledge -- or acknowledge no access onto Chinden, because at that time we
understood that all four corners were basically being treated the same. No access
points, except for at the half mile. So, we designed Knightsky to accommodate that.
Shortly after that, 2007, 2008, I don't know if you recall, Madam Mayor, but I came to
you -- actually Chris and I came to you a couple of times and -- with concerns that the
Fred Meyer property was now being designed, they were going to be asking for access
off of Chinden and we were concerned that now we are not on a level playing field and it
was your suggestion that we come back to the Council and address it through the
development agreement, which the 2006 prohibited access onto Chinden. So, in 2009
came back, I proposed the revision to that condition, removing the prohibition of that
access point. Mr. Knickrehm read into the record what that new condition stated,
basically, that upon approval of ITD you guys would look at a variance and so that's kind
of where we are at right now. So, I thought it was necessary for you to have that
additional history as to why there was no access in 2006, but we did modify it in 2009
and now with the -- when the Fred Meyer property did develop we lost that full access
onto Linder, so this is -- this right-in, right-out is -- as you have heard is needed for this
development to continue. I'd stand for any questions.
De Weerd: Thank you, Shawn. Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Those are the names that have signed up on our sign-
up sheet. Is there anyone else who would like to provide testimony? If not, Kent, do
you want to wrap it up?
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 16 of 66
Brown: Just briefly. When we started down this road your staff was very helpful. They
explained that they would have to recommend denial because of your policy. We
started meeting with them before we heard that ITD was looking at the new policy and
meeting with them and discussing what this new policy would be addressing, we waited
for them to be able to approve this policy, so that we could approach them and get a
favorable response. We don't have a permit in hand and the reason for that is stated in
Mr. Szplett's conversation and letters that he sent. I spoke with him earlier today and
said realistically Council wants to know what we need to do to go forward with the
permit and he said come back with a favorable response from the Council that they are
granting a waiver or the variance. I should say variance, not waiver. And that you can
expect that we would have to build a decel lane and that we would have to provide
some protection. He says, then, what they are protected by is that the westbound traffic
is safe -- is protected, because we were in a decel lane. As those people are trying to
enter our site they can continue west and accelerate and that no one tries to cross the
lanes of traffic before the light and enter into that intersection. That would be a right-in.
He says so that protects them and that information that our engineer in the report that
he did provides them with that background. For this property to go forward as a
commercial or a community neighborhood commercial site, it's a vital aspect of that. It's
interesting in looking at ITD's policy they wouldn't allow this if it was us connecting to a
public street. They do -- their matrix allows it, because it's a driveway and it's private.
It's a private drive and restricted with the right-in, right-out. I leave that with you and
seek your approval.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions?
Rountree: I have none of Kent.
De Weerd: You know, I don't have any of Kent either, but, Kent, maybe you might want
to stand there. Because I have history of this, too, and this corridor was to have a
limited access. Whoever suggested we follow Eagle's lead I will not chastise you. But
they -- they gave up the baby with the bathwater on that and they broke the code. I'm
sorry, but state highways are to move traffic. It's not to stop every half mile and
inconvenience the motoring public and that's why that corridor was studied and it was
brought back by the group that limited access would -- would be adhered to by all of the
governing cities along that corridor to preserve the ability to move traffic and so we
wouldn't have an economic disadvantage to any one property owner. We have three
corners of that intersection in our city jurisdiction that the property owners worked very
well with our staff to adhere to the vision of that corridor. Yes. And when one city caves
it does cause an economic disadvantage to the other three corners that did participate
as envisioned in that entire corridor. I do think that Eagle did a disservice to that
transportation corridor and not only that, I know that when Shawn and Chris came to us
they were very willing to participate with the property owners at the four corners to come
up with a comprehensive transportation plan so we wouldn't be in this situation that we
are in, but the one entity that didn't come to the table was the one entity that ITD gave
them everything they wanted. They put in a center median to cutoff the access to -- off
of Linder and remove that. They economically disadvantaged this -- this piece of
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 17 of 66
property. Paired with that was the split of the property and now I have serious concern
about putting that traffic through a residential subdivision to get to a light, so they can
turn left. I guess at this point it is the decision makers of City Council and -- but I think
this is a real predicament that a lot of different decisions that were made has put this
property into, as well as the viability of a high end residential area that connects to it in
trying to -- to have a safe way to get cars to the destination of where they are going.
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: I do have a question for Kent. He said something that made me think. Kent,
if -- if -- and I don't know what the Council will do, if they were to grant you right-in, right-
out and the access point that goes west through the development accesses Spurwing
Challenge Subdivision, what are your thoughts on having that as an emergency access
only to that development where fire and police could access, but you can't have through
traffic. Is that --
Brown: It's definitely not a game changer for us. As we looked at it I probably -- I, as a
general rule, have had a hard time with bollards and those kind of things to provide that.
I think if -- you know, you have an island or something there that makes it so that it
doesn't look as apparent, because what you do want is you want people that -- that
know and access commercial, that they know that it's there, but the people that -- the
cut-through traffic are not trying to use. I differ from our neighbors to the west. I don't --
I don't catch his vision of those people driving through that development to get there.
It's -- the route is -- is out of the way you would really have to be flying to make up
traffic, you know, at that light, in my opinion, but, you know, how -- that light is operated
because of the level of traffic that's coming north-south would be activated, so I would
probably recommend that we -- we disguise it or somehow work with them to make it so
that it's not as apparent, but have a connection, but that's just my personal opinion. I
don't know what the developer wants. I mean if -- if it's needed to be emergency access
I wouldn't be opposed to that, I guess.
Hoaglun: All right. No. I appreciate that, Kent. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Brown: Thanks.
De Weerd: Council, discussion?
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I have a question for Bill. Bill, this parcel is still under a DA;
is that correct?
Parsons: Madam Mayor, Members -- Councilman Rountree, that is correct.
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 18 of 66
Rountree: And does the DA specifically restrict access at this property?
Parsons: As Mr. Knickrehm has testified on the record, he stated that DA provision
correctly in the amended DA. I would point out to Council that before this site can
develop any new developer or current developer will have to come back with a DA mod
to attach a concept plan, plat the property, and get some of that -- those approvals in
place as well. Because there are so many DA's on this property we want to make sure
going forward that we have a clear record of how this property will develop, so one of
those provisions is they come back and amend the DA's in the future.
Rountree: Thank you.
De Weerd: I just want to remind whoever develops it is putting a big welcome to
Meridian feature. I -- I have a long-term memory on this, so just -- yeah. Just
remember that, Shawn. I want to make sure I remind them every time that the public
record is very clear. Okay. Council, if you have no further questions for the applicant or
staff, I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing if you so desire.
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I would like to suggest that we keep the hearing open,
because I have some recommendations that might require some additional information.
De Weerd: Okay.
Rountree: And if you will give me a minute I will tell you why. I don't have any particular
issue with coming up with an argument for the first two items that we need to -- we need
to address as part of the variance, but with respect to the safety issue and ITD, we have
heard testify that it's safe and it has approval and whatnot. I have one document from
ITD -- the word approval, the word approve, the word safe or safety is not in the letter in
any way, shape, or form. I have not seen a layout of that intersection as proposed. I do
understand that right of way has been granted to ITD with this property and the adjacent
property, but I still have not seen anything that will give me any dimensions to indicate
that that right of way width is sufficient to accommodate this deceleration lane or that
any other improvements that might be necessary at this intersection. So, at this point I
can't address the safety issue with the third item that we need to address on the
variance, so I would -- at this point have to vote to deny the request, but with additional
information that might address the safety issue specifically, I personally think we have
got to help to get this parcel developed. It can't just sit there as it is and I suspect that
that's the way it's going to sit if we can't work with the developer to get this going. But
by the same token Ican't -- I can't vote for a variance if I can't address one of the critical
points in the variance argument and that's the safety issue.
De Weerd: Yes.
Amar: Madam Mayor, Councilman Rountree, specifically --
De Weerd: If you will, please, state your name again for the record.
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 19 of 66
Amar: For the record Kevin Amar.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Amar: To address that safety issue -- and we can certainly provide that exhibit, Mr.
Rountree, and we can provide that with ITD. That was one of the main items that Dave
Szplett, ITD engineer, was concerned with with safety and maybe it's something that we
-- we bring back during another hearing or something during the preliminary plat layout
or -- that's up to you how you want to address that, but we can certainly address that.
We feel like we have addressed that safety issue. Obviously, we don't have the exhibit
to show you, but I believe with that exhibit it could certainly answer Mr. Rountree's
question.
De Weerd: Well, we could continue this, so that you could bring that to our next -- next
meeting. I think we need to --
Rountree: That would be the 23rd.
Hoaglun: And Madam Mayor and -- Kevin, would that give you enough time, a week,
to --
Amar: Yeah. That would be fine.
De Weerd: Okay.
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I don't know if any of the other Council need additional
information, but that would be very helpful in -- in our deliberations and making a
decision on this, because variances are -- are subject to us being able to make those
arguments.
Bird: I agree wholeheartedly.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I also agree with Councilman Rountree. I guess while I have the microphone
I'll express my frustration at our having to deal with problems that have been created by
others. As all of you who have testified know we have been working on this for many
many years and trying to deal with the issues of what the traffic is going to be in the
future on Linder and Chinden and this is going to be an important intersection. I agree it
needs to be developed to a profitable and attractive way without messing up the traffic
on Chinden and Linder, so I, too, think it would be valuable to continue and if you come
-- I think what Councilman Rountree asked for was a drawing of what this intersection
would look like -- the intersection and the portion adjacent to the property at full build out
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 20 of 66
and I think we are thinking that's probably a seven or eight lane facility, plus your accel
and decel lanes, so that would be helpful for me to see that... Everybody knows I have
been strongly opposed to messing with our agreement about full access on the mile,
possibly on the half mile, and if a right-in, right-out happens it's on the quarter mile. But
I can see the necessity for working something out on this one. But I agree with seeing
something more. While I'm speaking I will also express the opinion that I'm not in favor
of closing off the through street. The people that want to access this facility will do so. I
don't believe it would be attractive to use the golf course area as a cut through. I think if
anybody's going to cut through they will stay on this property that we are talking about
right now and cut that corner, but other than the convenience for the residences who
might use this, I don't think the general public who don't live at Spurwing will go through
there, so I'm not in favor of bollarding or closing or making an emergency access out of
that public street. So, I gave you two opinions.
Hoaglun: And, Madam Mayor, I was going to ask Kevin, since we had him up here, just
your thoughts on closing or not closing.
Amar: I think -- I agree with Councilman Zaremba. I think that that access point will be
used by the residents more than people accessing Spurwing clubhouse or the golf
course. The access that they are building into Spurwing off of Long Lake now has a
direct shot to the clubhouse. It's very direct and it's very -- it's a right turn off of
Chinden. If anything, the people that cut through this property are going to be the ones
that live in that -- or will live in the Spurwing Challenge, the project that's being
developed now. Obviously, there is always some cut through as we have heard this
evening, but I don't see it as a main thoroughfare. But they did try to development or
design the site in such a fashion it wasn't a straight road. We certainly want. to
discourage that as well.
Hoaglun: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: Well -- and maybe, Kevin, you can work with the property owner to the west
and do some -- just some brief discussions on what you could do to make that look less
convenient to slow the traffic down.
Amar: Yes, ma'am. We can --
De Weerd: And I guess to our public safety department I would love it if you come back
next week on the same sheet, so --
Amar: We will work with them.
De Weerd: Just wanted to point that out. Okay. Any other questions for Kevin?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: I have none.
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 21 of 66
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Amar: Thank you.
De Weerd: Yes, Mike. If you will, again, state your name for the record.
Reich: Just a few comments. I would request that maybe for the next hearing if there
could be an updated traffic study that would talk about how many cars the traffic
engineers feel might use that access connector between the two developments and the
other question I would have is if nobody believes anybody is going to be using the
connector why wouldn't we be able to eliminate the connector. Again, not for pedestrian
traffic, because we think that -- I understand the city's requirement that sidewalks be
contiguous and pedestrians have continuous access, but if -- you know, I'm hearing
everybody say they don't think that it will be used as a cut through or that it's not
necessary, so I would say why wouldn't you close it off at that point.
De Weerd: Well, I would agree probably with what Councilman Zaremba said, your
residents are going to use it more than anyone, because I wouldn't want to have to go
down to the light and, then, backtrack back. So, maybe you can talk to the developer
and talk about that as well.
Amar: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Anything further from Council and what you
would like to see? Any additional information you need to come back at the next
meeting? Okay. I would entertain a motion, then, to continue this item to the 23rd of
April.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we continue Item 7-B until April 23rd.
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to continue Item 7-B to April 23rd. All those
in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
C. ublic Hearing: 13®005 adie Creek by Sadie Creek
Commons, LL Located Southwest Corner of . Eagle Road
and E. Ustick oa Request: Amend the Sadie Creek
Development Agreement (Instrument #108008770) for the
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 22 of 66
urpose o Attaching a Concept Ian and odifying Certain
Provisions
De Weerd: Item 7-C is a public hearing on MDA 13-005. I will open this public hearing
with staff comments.
Parsons: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. The next item on the
agenda is the Sadie Creek Promenade development agreement modification
application. The subject property is located on the southwest corner of Ustick Road and
Eagle Road. It's currently zoned C-G and is approximately 14.79 acres of land. History
on this property. It was -- a portion of the site was annexed in 2004 with that C-G
zoning. With the annexation approval a DA was required. Also in 2005 a new concept
plan, a CUP, and a plat came forward to develop this site with a mix of commercial
uses, office, restaurant, retail. That is the concept plan on the left-hand side in front of
you. I would mention to Council that the CUP and the preliminary plat have expired.
However, the two existing DA's do govern the site and require some plans with certain
provisions and that's what we are here to discuss this evening. Again, the concept plan
on the left-hand side is what was acted on with the planned development back in 2005.
It included 11 buildings, a total square footage of 11 -- 113,000 square feet. Buildings
range in size between 3,000 square and 34,000 square feet. When these two
properties did annex in together there was a requirement that the two link together to
cross-access and through a consistent development theme. Here you can see the
applicant -- at least on this -- the approved concept plan. There was really a disconnect
with how this would interact with the Bienville Subdivision to the south. I would mention
to you at the time they did submit a variance for access to Eagle Road. They withdrew
that request and based on the withdrawal of that request the applicant was essentially
granted three access points to Ustick Road. That you see here as well. Also, as part of
that original DA there was a requirement that single story office buildings be provided
along the western boundary to provide buffering to the single family homes that were
developed in the Carol Subdivision to the west. Again, these are restricted to single
story and eventually would transition to your more intense commercial towards the
intersection and, then, again, there was no pedestrian or a public amenity for the mixed
use development either. Again, the applicant is here tonight to propose a new concept
plan. This plan does have more buildings, smaller scale in bulk style buildings than the
previous plan. The one benefit of this proposed concept plan is that there is an actual
central spine road here that connects to Bienville and doesn't allow -- doesn't require
the folks to cut through the parking lot to get to Ustick Road. I think that's probably the
best -- the better design concept than the previous plan. There is a central plaza area
here, based on staff recommendation and working with the applicant. There is one
public street access that is a lighted intersection here on that Center Point Way that was
deeded by a warranty deed to ACRD. In the future the applicant will come back and
plat this property as well. Again, the design concept that staff does like is that the
applicant has actually done a better job separating and splitting up the parking area
here. You have more streets up along the street. They definitely have a better street
edge or design along the street frontage versus the previous plan. And, then, also
having a smaller scale -- scaled buildings as well also adds and contributes to the look
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 23 of 66
of the building and given the type of residential development occurring to the south
there will be an additional need for commercial in the future. So, here again is what the
applicant -- the staff is recommending to you. Some of these are recommendations by
the applicant and some of them are from staff, but for simplicity purposes I have just
consolidated what we are proposing. The first section is Section 4.1. It basically just
states what they propose to do and that's to develop 150,000 square feet of office,
retail, and restaurant uses on 14.79 acres. The original DA spoke to the Kissler
annexation and the preliminary plat and the conditional use permit. As I stated to you
earlier, those permits are no longer valid, so it's necessary to remove that as the
amended DA. Section 5 references requirement for asite -- detailed site plan review for
-- through the conditional use process. Since this time the UDC has been amended.
We have an adopted design manual process, so staff shows that as no longer required
for them to come back and do detailed site plan review. We can handle that through the
development provisions that we are presenting tonight in the fact that they will have to
come back for CZC and design review for any commercial development on the site. So,
we feel that's adequately addressed through the ordinance. Provision number five
basically addresses what's to happen on those western most lots or up against that
residential subdivision to the west. Again, there will be single office lots only -- single
story office buildings and there will be a requirement for a block wall as well and a 25
foot landscape buffer along that as well, consistent with the Bienville Square
Subdivision to the south. Provision number eight is just delete that one altogether. That
requires approval for the drive-thru uses. Again, adrive-thru use is not within 300 foot
of the residential zone. There was another drive-thru use. That drive-thru will be
deemed an accessory use and, therefore, can be approved at staff level. If it does -- if it
is within those requirements it will have to come back through a conditional use permit
and Planning and Zoning Commission will take action on that conditional use permit
application. Provision nine is the one that I want to spend some time on. As I
mentioned to you the concept plan before you this evening does show three access
points to Ustick Road. The far left access point, again, is a public street. The center
access point will be a full access point at this point is what we are recommending to you
and, then, the eastern most driveway is a right-in, right-out only and these proposed
driveways again are consistent to what's occurring on the north side of the property with
the Center Point development. That's something that ACRD did act on back in 2005
with a plat. Staff did not receive any comments from ACRD on the access points for
you this evening, but, again, the concession was we are not getting access to Eagle, so
they were willing to take a hit on Ustick Road basically is what their recommendation
was back in 2005. Two thousand -- or excuse me. Provision number ten deals with,
again, limiting those uses to certain properties and the scheduled use in the UDC --
anything that's permitted would be allowed to go in, anything that requires a conditional
use permit would go before P&Z. Number 12 is a new provision that staff is
recommending. Basically because this is commercially zoned property the applicant is
not required to plat the property, but in discussions with the applicant they wanted to
have the ability to at least obtain approval of two certificate of zoning compliance
applications before they process this final plat -- or the preliminary plat and the final plat.
Staff felt that was an appropriate request and so, basically, what we have done is we
have recognized -- we will give you two CZC approvals, however, before getting the
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 24 of 66
other CZC approvals you must have a recorded plat and that central drive aisle would
have to connect from Bienville Square to the south and Ustick Road to the north.
Provision number 13 again is staff's recommendation to you. As I mentioned to you, a
portion of this site is subject to one DA and a portion of the property is subject to
another DA. So, what we want to do is basically remove this property and, then, just
have it subject to the DA back in 2005 and the amended DA that we are proposing this
evening. And, then, number 14 is a requirement that they comply with their submitted
concept plan that I have depicted before you this evening and that they provide a
central plaza area or pedestrian amenity and, then, also will have legal attach a new
legal description that explains the parameters of the property and a concept plan will act
as that exhibit to govern that moving forward. Staff did receive written testimony from
Matt Schultz. He is in agreement with the recommended changes before you this
evening. There are no outstanding issues before you this evening and at this time I
would stand for any questions you have.
De Weerd: Thank you, Bill. Council, questions?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: The DA that would be eliminated in Item 13 I believe it was, that doesn't
include anything like fences or whatnot that might be applicable to this property as well?
Parsons: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, it does not. When that -- when the
portion of this property came before you in 2004 they only had a bubble plan for how
they were to develop the site and that's why you have had acondition -- or staff
recommended that DA provision that they come back with either a planned
development to show you a master concept or go through individual detailed site plan
review through the conditional use process. Now that we have a concept plan, now that
we have a new ordinance in place, a new design review procedure we feel confident
that that's no longer applicable to develop the site.
Rountree: Madam Mayor. Another question for Bill. The three access points that are
shown on the concept plan are consistent with the access points that are there?
Parsons: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, there is -- there is curb cuts there,
but the access point -- the two access points on Ustick north of the public -- or east of
the public street aren't constructed, only the public street is constructed at this time.
Rountree: Right. Right. The curb cuts are there.
Parsons: The curb cuts are there. Correct.
Rountree: And on the corner of Ustick and Eagle, the northern corner there, there is no
indication on the concept plan that that would be landscaped or otherwise. Is that just
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 25 of 66
an oversight or is something planned for that area that would not be landscaped and
bermed?
Parsons: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilman Rountree, I believe it's
an oversight. The applicant will be required to do a 35 foot landscape buffer along that
roadway segment.
Rountree: I see Matt shaking out there in the audience, so -- thank you.
Parsons: Yes.
De Weerd: Mr. Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor. Madam Mayor, question for Bill. That central plaza
landscaped area, is that a requirement or did they just put that in?
Parsons: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilman Hoaglun, this property is
designated mixed use regional on the Comprehensive Plan. At the time that this came
forward we didn't really have a requirement for those type of pedestrian facilities --
amenities if you will. Because the applicant is opening up the DA and wanting
something different we felt it appropriate that we have something in -- as part of this
development to have a more consistent plan with the Comprehensive Plan, so that was
a suggestion of staff for them to throw that in. They obliged staff. Although it's not in
the ideal location for the development, staff has encouraged them through the staff
report that when they develop this they should look at a better suited site for the central
plaza area adjacent to the drive aisle in the middle of nowhere. They should try to link
that to some of the buildings in the development as well. And I think they are in
agreement with that as well.
Hoaglun: Thank you.
De Weerd: Any further questions for staff at this time?
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I guess I'm remembering something differently than the way I heard you say
it and that is when Center Point Road -- is that what the signalized street is? That was
established to be a backage road, which was atrade-off for giving up some accesses to
Eagle, but it also meant that all of the accesses between there and Eagle Road would
eventually be right-in, right-out was my recollection and it disturbs me that we are
talking about one of these driveways being a full access. The driveway opposite is the
access in front of Kohl's, which is also at the moment not restricted. It's able to do that.
So, the other driveway to the right I believe does have curbing that acts like an island,
so the -- the driveway to the north and the driveway to the south into this property that
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 26 of 66
are closest to Eagle are already right-in, right-out, but my recollection was that as
development occurred and as traffic on Ustick increased, this other driveway was going
to be right-in, right-out as well and I suppose I don't have a problem saying that may still
be okay traffic wise today, but I think we need to have protection and maybe some
discussion with ACRD that at some point they may become right-in, right-out and that's
why the signalized intersection was supplied as a backage road and I don't know if we
need to have a discussion right this minute, but I keep getting Justin involved before the
applicant has made their statement. I don't know whether that's appropriate or not.
will let Madam Mayor decide that.
De Weerd: It's not appropriate.
Zaremba: Okay. I will ask my question later.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Anything else for staff at this point? Yes, Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Madam Mayor, thank you. Bill, you mentioned the drive-thru as it relates to
this application and any future applications and I have got to tell you that directly to the
east of here on Ustick the access into that particular development has some drive-thrus
that are immediately inside that development and they are a mess, particularly on a
busy week night and generally on the weekends there is a tremendous amount of
conflict with queuing for getting into the parking lots of -- and into the areas of the drive-
thrus and traffic trying to turn into the development itself and I think we need to take a
really hard look at that in allowing drive-thru operations near the entryways of these
developments, because that one is -- it's already a problem, but it's going to get worse
and the other thing -- and this has nothing to do with Matt and his application, but we
talked about right-in and right-out on several occasions this evening. The right-in and
right-out solution that has been used simply doesn't work and I would recommend that
staff get with ACRD and even ITD and develop a solution that does eliminate and
discourage people from driving through the pork chops that they have been using in the
past. They just don't stop people from making that move. You can drive around them
very easily and people do and we have seen aerial photos of them doing it here in other
applications. So, if you would put that on the list of something to address in the future.
Parsons: Certainly.
Rountree: That just reminded me of that. Thank you. Thanks, Madam Mayor.
De Weerd: Okay. Would the applicant like to comment. You almost thought we were
on a different topic, uh?
Rountree: Well, we were off topic.
Schultz: Good evening, Mayor and Council. Matt Schultz, 8421 South Ten Mile in
Meridian. Here on behalf of Sadie Creek Commons, LLC.
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 27 of 66
De Weerd: Thank you, Matt.
Schultz: Thank you. I was not involved in the original approvals of this back in -- in two
stages, I guess. Annexation, DA, 2004, 2006. The actual DA was signed in 2007,
recorded January 2008. Kind of took a little while, but I guess finally got it recorded,
which happens sometimes -- you know, the DA's, too, to go through the process and
with the economic downturn I could see how the owners were probably kind of dragging
a little bit, but what we see here is a result of somebody that came in first on the corner
and did a plan, got it approved, and, then, sat while people around them moved ahead.
The Bienville Square people to the south, they worked out some cross-access
easements with each other and kind of solved the no Eagle Road access as a little too
close to Ustick to safely get an access into the site -- this particular site in the middle
like it was originally designed and what you really see is the flow of that original site plan
kind of -- you could see they just eliminated the Eagle access and left the flow the way it
was really designed, so let's just approve it, we will fix it later with -- you know, when we
come back. I mean I could just see that happening reading between the lines of how
that site plan was done. So, when I picked it up and looked at it, we got with Cornell
Larsen, architect, read through this -- read through the history, read through the DA,
said, you know, the Eagle Road access, don't even try, especially at the current speed
limit, it's just not safe, and that was kind of our deal. We didn't want to move ahead on
that. It's essentially a cleanup of the DA that we are asking far and what really drove
this was there is three parcels out here and it's zoned C-G, has a DA, it's annexed into
the city, all the utilities are everywhere around this thing, the stub streets are cut in with
Ustick. Ustick was actually widened and those curb cuts put in after this was approved
in the locations that they show it. To Councilman Rountree's comment about the curb
cuts, they are where we show them where they were actually widened after this original
one was approved. So, there is not too many ways you can slice or dice this thing.
Commercial sites generally evolve as different tenants may or may not come in and pick
which pad they want first, who is your anchor and so we really wanted still to have some
flexibility, we are considering this apre-preliminary plat, if you will, concept plan to show
the -- the accesses, which are important, which are the north-south. One's existing and
one will be constructed, kind of show the general configuration and it was originally
approved for up to 150,000 square feet. We are not changing that condition. I doubt
we would ever get there, because if you -- Cornell Larsen did several iterations and to
provide the parking required -- not necessarily by the city, but by the tenants and users,
this is kind of what you get with many buildings and uses and four to five stalls per
thousand square feet and those things. Two around 110, 115. The only way to get
more would be to do like maybe two big ones. In the original DA, which is what we are
sticking with, except for some modifications, did allow up to a 75,000 square foot
building. You can see we didn't even get close to that. But we would still like some
flexibility moving forward. That north-south spine street could wiggle a little bit
differently, but it's still going to get to Ustick and it's still going to get to the south and
there is going to be a central complex area or a median area, whatever you will,
somewhere in the middle, we are not sure quite yet. This is -- this is still a concept that
at least cleans up the old concept, speaks to the landscape buffers and, Councilman
Rountree, that I think was just an auto CAD oops, some trees got left off there, but that
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 28 of 66
was mentioned going around there and, really, the big deal was we want some flexibility
in the timing of getting going on its momentum and so we are here to ask you for the
ability to get going to the three parcels out there in accordance with C-C zone, the CZC
process, design review, whatever needs to happen in a month or two before we have to
go to full blown preliminary plat, final plat, recorded plat. And it may -- it may end up
that it just happens that way anyway, then, we -- because I suspect we are going to get
going on a preliminary plat pretty soon, but we just wanted some flexibility. It could
save three months, six months and I don't think the city loses any control over what
goes in there. I think it still gives us flexibility to -- to get some things going and while
we were doing that we looked at the 11 conditions of the development agreement and
stepped through them. I propose my -- leave this as is, leave this as is, leave this as is,
let's tweak this, let's delete that and, then, Bill has some of the cross-outs and re-
tweaks. So, it's a little confusing, but I think it's just fairly straight forward stuff. We are
not changing the block wall. We don't want to change the block wall in DA's. I have
learned that lesson. I have seen people try to go through that process. We don't want
to change that. Single story on that side. Landscape buffer on that side. That's -- that's
fine. There is really no changes, other than just cleaning it up for the City of Meridian's
new process, this is how you look at -- how you look at the conditional use process or
don't anymore. How you look at -- at drive-thrus, which I do agree there needs to be
special attention paid to those -- those type of plans and how they come in and how
they take access. It gets to be a mess. I do agree with that. But what we are really
proposing here is a simple cleanup of the DA, it gives us the flexibility to choose to
move forward to -- but before we do anymore than that we would have to come back
with a preliminary plat, final plat, you know, bill everything to record the plat and move
forward and that may happen anyways. We are in concurrence with staff's revisions of
our proposed revisions and additions and we believe it's appropriate for that. And
speaking to the access, Councilman Zaremba, you mentioned -- I believe at the time
you were on Planning and Zoning, if I read the record right. I'm not sure. And,
unfortunately, the way I read it I couldn't find it. I was looking for it real quick. It did talk
to the fact that those two would be full right-in, right-outs. The one signalized, the one
unsignalized -- let me back up. Full access. One signalized. One full access
unsignalized. And the one closest would be a right-in, right-out and it kind of -- when
they did the Ustick Road widening they kind of extended the -- the little dividers, not
really a raised median, but it's the little -- the cone things or whatever you call them --
back to make that aright-in, right-out. There is no other way to treat that one and
ACRD -- I believe it was in the ACRD staff report, they -- they granted that. There was
a lot of discussion about Eagle Road and that was squashed and that's said three
different ways in the DA and we are not challenging that, but there will be Eagle Road
access. The owner does reserve the right, obviously, to come back later, if he so
chooses, ask for maybe aright-in only and maybe if the speed limit reduces at some
future date, but we are not here to ask for that tonight and you guys -- you may reserve
the right to be told no, too. But they could ask and -- later, but right now we are not
asking for anything to do with Eagle Road. We think that would not be appropriate at
the current speed limit. So -- so, with that I hope it's -- it's simple enough to say, hey,
we would like the flexibility for two -- the two CZCs and we are just cleaning up --
making it a clean legal description, a clean stand-alone DA and I know Bill was happy to
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 29 of 66
have a clean file if this goes through for moving forward. It's -- there is not a lot of what
the heck are we going to do with that condition of approval. You know, we will just kind
of clean it up. So, thank you.
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor. Thank you for all you have done on this so far. I'm -- it's
been a long project. I know. Just in looking -- this is something we are beginning to
deal with all over where we have residential behind major buildings. In other words,
residential and public streets that are looking at the back of the building. Are you going
to propose or are you proposing any treatments that makes them a little prettier than
just the back of a building?
Schultz: Mayor and Councilman Zaremba, we -- we haven't got that far, but, obviously,
with the entrance coming off of Eagle, that back side actually becomes almost a de
facto front and, really, something does need to be done there and we haven't got that
far along in the -- in architectural treatment. We realized that from day one that with this
access shifted south coming in that we are cognizant of how that looks. There is a
landscape -- a little landscape up on our side, another one on their side, plus a road on
their side, so there is some separation, but to say we are not going to do anything is --
we do want to make it look nice, Councilman Zaremba. We just haven't got that far yet
in the process and I'm not sure what process, is it the design review or the view -- we
would look at those. That would be the avenue that those things would be discussed
through I believe at that time.
Zaremba: Great. I just wanted to know that you're being sensitive to that, so thank you.
Schultz: Appreciate it.
De Weerd: And because we have seen this a couple times before. I think this is a
great clean up. I do like the addition of your central plaza and, you know, I think Council
and the neighbors -- we saw this as a quality application with the elevations that were
attached to it and such, too. So, this does answer some of those circulation questions
that have been kind of a bugaboo. That's a technical term. But, you know, I do
commend you for bringing back a -- I think what looks like a better project. So, thank
you. Well, thank you, Matt.
Schultz: Uh-huh.
De Weerd: This is a public hearing. Is there anyone else who would like to provide
testimony on this application? Yes. If you will, please, state your name and address for
the record.
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 30 of 66
Grant: My name is Steve Grant. My address is 1534 Leslie Way. My property is on the
west -- western boundary and we have been here a time or two before.
De Weerd: Yes, you have.
Grant: As you may recall.
De Weerd: Yes, we have.
Grant: Just a little bit of history. I'm pleased to hear that Matt provided testimony that
they would continue the block wall. There is a couple of things that I think are important
to note about that wall. It is not on the property line, it's four feet onto their property,
which, in essence, made my backyard four feet bigger and to mitigate the -- the
landscaping issues there with the folks -- Idaho Mutual Trust, who assumed
responsibility for Red Creek when they defaulted, there was -- there was a landscaping
allowance provided for -- and it was negotiated separately with these property owners to
mitigate those -- those -- the fact that your yard just got bigger and needed to have
something done with it to make it attractive and so I would -- I'm certainly in favor of -- of
what they proposed. I think that's -- again, as long as the wall is extended -- it was
never built properly, as you may or may not be aware, but it ought to be continued with
the same construction it has now. It's actually higher than it was designed, which when
you're in your yard you really can't see anything on the other side. So, in terms of the
residential buildings I would think that provides some relief from -- from any transition
issues that might be incident to, you know, commercial buildings being there. So,
again, continuing the wall is -- is -- I'm pleased to hear that. Some kind of a landscaping
allowance for the property owners that are affected by that would be appropriate and
should be considered by -- by the developers. The other thing that we -- we talked
about previously was making sure that the lighting in that area had residential shields on
it, so that they are -- we could mitigate the effect of tree lighting and other lighting that
might be required for commercial properties. And if I could just comment on the -- the
issue that was raised about access from Ustick. As you gentlemen have properly stated
-- and being a resident there, that is already very congested and you don't have people
coming out of this proposed subdivision, so, you know, you would take a situation that's
highly congested and if you allowed somebody to turn left to go west on Ustick, now you
really got a safety issue. So, I think you have raised the proper concerns and that
would I think need some work, because I think that would become a serious problem,
because the road also being so narrow and there is not really a median there for any
length of -- you know, any space that will allow, you know, people to -- the time to get
into it -- or to be able to merge with traffic going west. That's all I had. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you, Steve.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Steve, we do have a question for you.
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 31 of 66
Zaremba: Just a minor one. My recollection is this is about the -- the block wall.
Grant: Uh-huh.
Zaremba: One of the issues was -- is I think everybody's understanding was that the
decorative side of the wall was supposed to be towards Leslie and that --
Grant: It was actually supposed to be two sided.
Zaremba: Oh, was it two sided?
Grant: Yes.
Zaremba: But at any rate --
Grant: You can imagine how it was constructed.
Zaremba: -- the current wall apparently got constructed with a plain side towards Leslie.
Grant: Plain side and no decorative cap stones or anything like that, so --
Zaremba: So, I guess my question is as this last portion is completed would you prefer
that it look like what you already have or would you like to have a decorative side on
your side?
Grant: Yes. I think it would be -- it wouldn't be right to make it different and, then, it
would really stick out. So, I think, yeah, that would be appropriate.
Zaremba: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions? Thank you.
Grant: Thank you.
De Weerd: Before I ask Justin to come up, is there anyone else who would like to
provide testimony on this item?
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I'm sure Justin remembers my question, but I just wanted to comment. We
have actually had this conversation over the years several places along Ustick. Over by
Meridian Road as well. As Ustick develops and grows there may be a number of
driveways that currently have full access that will lose it and I guess the question is
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 32 of 66
even if it's allowed today, is there a point at which ACRD has the power to say, no, this
can't happen anymore and does that happen?
Lucas: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Justin Lucas, Ada County Highway
District. 3775 Adams Street, Garden City, Idaho. The answer to the question is yes.
Absolutely. ACRD in the past has allowed full access with a provision that it will be
transitioned into right-in, right-out when traffic warrants it. Is that the case at this
specific location? I'm not sure. I didn't -- I have -- I don't have the original report in front
of me. To be honest, I don't even know if it's been acted upon for this property,
because this property has never gone through a platting process and so ACHD really
doesn't have an opportunity to provide those comments until an official application that
goes through the ACRD process happens. That having been said, ACRD reserves the
right to close any access they want if there is a safety issue. I mean the highway district
has the ability to close access points that have existed for a long time as full accesses
and turn them into right-in, right-outs regardless of the approval of that access. No
access is guaranteed as full access. Obviously there is lots of them that will always
remain that way, but through projects and through the widening of Ustick Road and as
traffic continues to change and the conditions change, ACRD can do specific studies
and put in a raised median, just like ITD did right down the center of Eagle Road. I don't
know when that's going to happen on Ustick. I don't know when those warrants will be
met, but certainly ACRD reserves the right for safety purposes to close off access
points. We could certainly -- when the -- this project goes through a CZC or a platting
process work with your staff to find the exact -- to get recommendations on ACHD staff
on that issue. It could potentially affect the site design if, indeed, ACHD comes back
and says, you know, we think we need to do this right now and we need to do it when
this project is built. That could have some impact on site design. But as I stated, the
MDA isn't the place where ACRD usually makes those comments, we wait until there is
amore imminent application, such as a CZC, such as a preliminary plat, something that
we have a chance to comment on those directly. I hope that makes sense what I'm --
what I'm saying there.
Zaremba: It does and thank you.
Lucas: Thank you.
Zaremba: Always happy to have you here.
De Weerd: Any other questions for Justin?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: I have none. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Again, this is a public hearing. Is there anyone who would like
to comment on this item?
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 33 of 66
Parsons: Madam Mayor? I'm sorry to interrupt.
De Weerd: Bill.
Parsons: Just some points of clarification for Council as well. You can see here the
recommended provisions that we have before you and if you look at number nine again,
it doesn't vest them with full access or anything for that central access point, it's just
here just on record that that's what it will be at this point. Again, ACHD, based on what
we have presented to you, merely just states those are the access points that are
approved there. So, if ACRD or staff feels moving forward that that needs to be
restricted, you can certainly entertain that and look at that again with the subdivision
process. The other thing is is our code asks -- requires Council to grant waivers or
additional access points to arterial streets. I mean this is a development agreement
modification. If it is your desire to have that as a right-in, right-out, you can certainly add
that as a provision tonight and the recorded -- or as part of the record and can add that
provision as well. So, there is nothing set in stone that says that's going to be full
access for ever and ever, it's just basically those are the curb cuts that were approved
with the widening and that's how the provision's written. The other issue is if we go
back to your design review comments, as the applicant stated, there aren't official
elevations before you this evening, but the applicant will have to go through a design
review process and certainly staff will pick your -- your recommendations and your
advisement when you review those elevations and remind the applicant that along at
least those portions along the street he should have -- try to incorporate four sided
architecture where possible.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Matt, do you want to wrap this up?
Schultz: Thank you, Mayor. I appreciate ACHD's comments on they reserve the right
to do whatever. At that time --
De Weerd: You want to restate your name?
Schultz: Matt Schultz.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Schultz: -- to -- in the interest of safety and how things are going right now we would
like to -- if possible, just leave it as it is, acknowledging that there is more stuff to move
forward before the full blown site gets developed, that -- through the CZC process
ACRD would have the ability to comment on that. I was looking back to the file. The
original traffic they did have that as a full and (believe -- I believe ACRD had approved
it as full, but subject to always, you know, hey, that was back in 2006, 2007, we are now
2013 -- yes, 2013. You know, it's been a long time. So, things change. Has it
dramatically worsened? I'm not a traffic engineer to make that call. But we do know
that we want some interconnectivity. That's what we are showing on the concept plan
and we acknowledge the -- it will be subject to whatever access standards need to be
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 34 of 66
met at that time that the zoning permit comes in or comes through. As far as a block
wall is concerned, the gentleman -- I can't remember his name, he did show up at the
neighborhood meeting, which is nice, to -- to convey his thoughts on the block wall and
the special circumstances that they went through during the previous developer to the
south process and that he was okay just continuing what was already done out and in
the same way just to make sure -- you know, just really jump out if something's
dramatically different and either way we are open to whatever makes sense. You know,
we want to get along with our neighbors if possible and those are the key things about
these applications. That, obviously, is how you get along with your neighbors. We want
that to go as smoothly as possible. So, with that I think it's a good step. It's a
foundational step to get this thing cleaned up -- the DA cleaned up and we are asking
for your favor, to give us the ability to have the two CZCs prior to the final plat and we
would ask for that to be part of the -- in accordance with what staff has put together.
So, thank you.
De Weerd: And, Matt, I would assume that with those two CZCs you put in all of the
sidewalks, the infrastructure; right?
Schultz: Mayor, if they want to do a -- like a little office on the very west side, then, the
sidewalk pertaining to that -- to that section, it was appropriate to do that, that would be
put in at that time, as would any -- I think what it comes down to is the parcels that are
the three parcels that are there would probably reconfigure through a parcel boundary
adjustment and the frontages on those parcels would be improved to your -- to your
requirement standards of the zone and through your process for that. But if we were
going to do a little medical office building back in the -- a single story back in the corner,
just to do all the frontage on Eagle and Ustick, that was never our intent to -- to be -- to
do that and full landscape buffer for the whole quarter mile frontage. That was never
the intent with those. We just did it for that section that was developed. But if that so be
your requirement, then, that would be something that we would not totally say we are
going to take a denial over objecting to that.
De Weerd: I guess I wouldn't be so concerned on Eagle, but certainly on Ustick. But
that's just my --
Schultz: If that's going to be your recommendation that we put in the frontage sidewalk
-- the curb and gutter is there, but the sidewalk is not, if you drive -- I believe if you drive
down there and the curb cuts, but there is no sidewalk yet the way it sits right now. So,
that is a valid concern that if something came in over here would you connect the
sidewalk from our -- our west boundary to whatever commercial or use you are
proposing to provide that access and that would be something that could be required
through the -- through the CZC process to get that there. ACRD is undertaking a
widening from I believe Locust Grove -- is that the next one over from Eagle? Up to our
-- our west boundary line very soon. They have even asked us for a little bit of sidewalk
easement for them to do that section between Center Point and our west boundary with
their project, to put the sidewalk in there with theirs, because this could -- I mean I hope
it moves forward quickly, but we just don't know until somebody goes, so we -- on behalf
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 35 of 66
of the owner they are -- they do -- you have several interactive parties. This is the last
corner available out there and there is a lot of interest in it. It is a little bit access
challenged, but it still works. So, we are hopeful that we do see this go fairly quickly
and the two CZCs may to the point before we are done and may just go straight to
preliminary plat on the timing before we are all done if it goes that fast, so -- thank you.
De Weerd: Okay.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Matthew, the -- my idea of a landscape allowance for apparently additional
property that -- I don't know if it ultimately got deeded or if it's just kind of an adverse
possession or what's going on with that property.
Schultz: Yeah. Mayor and Councilman Rountree, my experience with this -- and I
believe it's what happened over here, it's happened where your fence doesn't go on our
property line and it really becomes their property. What you do is you grant an
exclusive easement to that person for their use only of whatever is behind that wall,
even though technically it's owned by this parcel. So, that means you're not moving
property lines or doing anything too drastic, you're just granting an exclusive easement
and improving that to -- and I have done this on another site -- putting in some sod or
sprinklers and rocks or whatever -- whatever works for -- I believe there is two lots there
that back up to us and that's reasonable. You know, I don't think it's a big area that we
are talking about to go and cover that up with dirt.
Rountree: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: Anything further from Council? Thank you. Council, if there is no further
questions for the applicant or staff, I would entertain a motion.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we close the public hearing on Item 7-C.
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on this item. All
those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 36 of 66
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we approve MDA 13-005 for Sadie Creek, subject to all staff and
applicant comments.
Bird: Second.
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a couple seconds approving Item 7-C. If there is no
discussion, Madam Clerk.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
D. ublic Hearing: Public orks Department, nvironmental
Division Fee Schedule
De Weerd: Item No. 7-D is a public hearing with our Public Works Environmental
Division fee schedule. I will go ahead and open this public hearing and ask for staff
comments. Generally we have staff kind of introduce their item for public comment.
Mangerich: I'm introducing the fee distribution of 75 dollars to be attributed towards
planned review from our pretreatment staff and 75 dollars for a final field visit.
De Weerd: Okay. And these are two new fees?
Mangerich: This is a preexisting fee which has been split into two separate functions,
thereby, there is no increase in fee, but a more appropriate distribution of the fee
attached to specific service.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mollie. Any questions from Council?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: I have none.
De Weerd: Thank you. Is there anyone who would like to provide testimony on this
item?
Rountree: Seeing none, Madam Mayor, I move that we close the public hearing on Item
7-D.
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 37 of 66
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: 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.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
esolution o. 13-919: doting ublic orks Department,
Environmental Division Fee Schedule
De Weerd: Darn, you know, you got off way too easy. I think we should have invited
people in just to testify. Okay. Council, what would you like to do?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we approve Item 7-E, Resolution No. 13-919.
Bird: Second.
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve the resolution on 7-E. If there is
no discussion, Madam Clerk.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Noaglun, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
ulic Comment: Large- cale pedal vents Update t
1°eorry Use Code
De Weerd: Item 7-F is a public comment and I will turn this over to Madam Clerk.
Holman: Thank you, Madam Mayor. This is the second and possibly third reading of
this. These proposed changes to our large scale special events code. We haven't
received -- or I don't believe anyone signed up for public comment tonight, so we are
just asking for -- just ask for it to move forward at this point.
De Weerd: Council, do you have any questions for Jaycee? I know that she did her
presentation on this earlier.
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 38 of 66
Rountree: I have none.
De Weerd: Is there anyone who would like to provide comment on this item? Okay.
Rountree: Madam Mayor? Seeing none, I would move that we close the public hearing
on Item 7-F.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public comment period on Item
7-F. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
econ eadin of rdinnce o. 1®1 Lar e® cl pedal
vents Update to Temporary Use Code
De Weerd: Madam Clerk, will you, please, read Ordinance 13-1549 by title only.
Holman: Thank you, Madam Mayor. City of Meridian Ordinance No. 13-1549, an
ordinance of the City of Meridian amending -- amending Meridian City Code Section 3-
4-1 relating to the definition of special event. Amending Meridian City Code Section 3-
4-3A6D regarding standards for denial of temporary use permit applications. Amending
Meridian City Code Section 3-4-3C6 relating to large scale special events and providing
an effective date.
De Weerd: You have heard this ordinance read by title only. Is there anyone who
would like to hear it read in its entirety? This is the second reading. Council, if you do
not want to waive a further reading, I will put this forward for the --
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: May I ask Mr. Nary -- to include this -- while it is just on the agenda, the second
reading, can we advance to third reading, too, with no -- seeings how we had no public
comment and we closed the public comment?
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Normally you could do that, but you did
notice it only as a second reading, so I wouldn't recommend that. You don't have to
take anymore comment, so we could put it on for third reading for approval next week.
De Weerd: Okay. We will be on for the third and final reading on April 23rd. Thank you
so much, Madam Clerk.
Item 8: Department Reports
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 39 of 66
olice Department: udget Amendment for Spending
uthority on Two UL (Enforcement of Underage Drinking
Laws) rants Awarded to Meridian Police Department for a
of-to- xcee mount of $10,410.00
De Weerd: Okay. We now move to item 8 under Department Reports and ask for our
Police Department comment on Item 8-A.
Overton: Good evening, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. I will try to be as brief
as the previous two. I come to you tonight with a budget amendment, not to request
money, but to ask for spending authority. For the third year now we have received two
grants from the Department of Juvenile Corrections, they are called EUDL grants and
EUDL stands for the Enforcement of Underage Drinking Laws, and both of these are
grants. The first one is in the amount of 3,000 dollars. We used that grant -- we
actually put our grant together with Drug Free Idaho to combine the money to do public
education prior to high school graduation. We try to do the parents who host last year.
We do programs where we try to get out and educate families, both the kids, the
students, the parents, grandparents about the hazards of drinking as we get closer to
the senior prom and to graduation. That can be slides in the movie theaters, that can
be billboards, that could be inserts in the newspaper -- they get very creative on the
different ways that we can put that public outreach out and that's what that 3,000 dollars
will go towards. And, again, we are going to partnership with Drug Free Idaho again
this year. The second one for 7,410 dollars is the money we use for our alcohol
enforcement team. That is a team that's run by Sergeant Stacy Arnold that does all the
compliance checks, the shoulder taps, all of the various other undercover activities we
do to make sure that we are getting compliance from liquor stores, from all of our outlets
that sell various alcoholic beverages and also compliance checks on the kids
themselves. We have also included in the past two years checks on cabs and delivery
services to make sure they are not delivering alcohol to minors within our city as well.
So, that's the basis for how we are going to use those monies going forward and I stand
for any questions.
De Weerd: Thank you, Lieutenant Overton. Any questions from Council?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve the budget amendment for two EUDL, Enforcement of
Underage Drinking Laws grants, in a not to exceed amount of 10,410 dollars.
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 8-A. Madam Clerk, will you
call roll.
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 40 of 66
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
ulic ®rs: ecycled ater Plan Update
De Weerd: Item 8-B is our Public Works Department and I will turn this over to Warren.
Stewart: Good evening Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Several months ago
we and -- in another meeting, had a discussion regarding the reclaimed water program
and what we have learned about that program and also where we wanted to go and as
-- the clerk is handing out a map that we will allude to or that we will go to here in just a
few minutes. It wasn't going to show up very well on the presentation, so we wanted to
make sure you had a large enough copy to make some sense of it. And so tonight
what's going to happen is I'm going to give a brief bit of history and just kind of a status
report on where we are in the reclaimed water program and, then, I'm going to turn the
microphone over to Clint Worthington and he's going to talk a little bit about what we
have done since that last meeting to decide -- to prepare for development of the
reclaimed water program currently and how we might address some of the issues and
concerns coming up. So, there is sort of the agenda. Currently recycled water system
I'm going to talk a little bit about the regulatory environment that we are currently in and
how that affects reclaimed water. A little bit about our existing systems, the boundaries
and limitations and also the boundaries and limitations for the future program and, then,
turn it over for some logistics to Clint Worthington. Next slide. And some of this
information may be fairly familiar to you, so I'm going to try and be as expeditious as I
can and get through this, especially considering the hour. We currently have a 1,600
gallon booster station at the wastewater treatment planted. There is two 800 gallon a
minute pumps. One of those is a redundant pump, so the actual capacity that's -- you
know, that's a deliverable capacity of the booster station is 800 gallons a minute. We
have two 500,000 gallon storage tanks, 12,000 lineal feet of 16 inch main -- essentially
7,000 lineal feet of 12 inch HDPE and about 4,500 -- 4,400 lineal feet of 12 inch PVC
main line and our current investment total in reclaimed water with all that we have put
into it, both at the wastewater treatment plant and infrastructure in the ground is about
five and a half million dollars. We have -- I want to talk just a brief moment about the
evolution of our current permit. As you may recall we initially had received a small site
permit for a program at Heroes Park and we started that Heroes Park for the pilot
program. After we obtained that permit we went for a larger permit -- for a larger area or
larger portion of the City of Meridian and with the hopes and anticipation that we would
eventually be able to serve a much bigger portion of the city. In fact, this was -- at the
time we thought this was just sort of the initial phase or our -- our city wide reclaimed
water program. We have learned a lot of things since then and it's, you know, going to
affect the way we develop the program in the future. Some of that we shared with you,
along with a map. This is a kind of a map that we had showed to you a few months
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 41 of 66
ago, which spurred the discussion which basically is bringing this back tonight to you
and this, essentially, was after we had done our -- our modeling and our sewer master
planning and so forth we discovered that we were probably a little overambitious and
that, in fact, even at full build out we were going to have a somewhat limited area that
we could serve and so we are going to talk a little bit about that tonight and how we
have targeted those uses and how we intend to sort of develop the program. You can
see here with this map -- this is the old map. You got a new one in front of you that we
will discuss. We sort of have priority areas and secondary priority areas. You can see
the yellow -- the heavy yellow line is our permitted boundary or most of it and this is
what we think we can actually serve. Next slide. Current customers. We currently
serve the Heroes Park -- city park with reclaimed water. I-84 Ten Mile Road
interchange. Wastewater treatment plant landscape irrigation and the Fast Eddy's car
wash. We also have some committed customers. There are two commercial
properties, the Walmart at McMillan and Ten Mile, as well as the Brighton Development
down near the interchange, which we have had conditioned to use reclaimed water and
Oseola Park, which is a small park across the street from -- a proposed park across the
street from the wastewater treatment plant. And also the farmable acreage behind the
wastewater treatment plant. We put main line in there last year, so that we could at
some point -- we are actually in the process of trying to identify the best possible crop, if
you will, to use to grow back there with reclaimed water and we eventually will plant
something back there in that ground behind the wastewater treatment plant and we will
serve that. Current allowable uses. Under the permit there is commercial landscape
irrigation, commercial process water, so if we had a data center or something that had a
cooling tower or cooling needs we could use reclaimed water for that. And we have had
some interest in that, although there has not been anybody actually locate yet for that
purpose. Residential landscape irrigation, agricultural irrigation, golf course irrigation,
dust suppression, fire suppression are all permitted uses under our existing permit. We
also have some targeted uses and these targeted uses have come from -- you know,
we have learned from our own experience, as well as from the experience of other
communities that have used reclaimed water, about what things actually work in a
reclaimed water program and what things do not and we have also, based on our land
use planning, this -- these targeted uses, as well as our land use plan, has sort of
helped to develop the map which you have in front of you right now. So, we intend to
reach out and try and capture commercial landscape irrigation, commercial process
water uses, gold courses and the wastewater treatment plant agricultural land. These --
just wanted to point out once again that these strategies are consistent with other
programs that we have looked at in Colorado, Arizona, and California and in two of
those locations in Arizona and California they had initially in their initial phases of their
reclaimed water programs, they had reached out and tried to serve residential
developments and in both cases for regulatory reasons and the infrastructure costs and
the difficulty in working with the residents and reclaimed, both of them no longer pursue
that option as part of their reclaimed water program. Next slide. I wanted to touch for
just a minute on the regulatory environment or status that surrounds reclaimed water or
recycled water. As you know one of the drivers for our recycled water program was our
NPDES permit out at the wastewater treatment plant. It was issued in 1999. It expired
in 2004. It has been anticipated -- or extended since then -- administratively extended
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 42 of 66
and we right now, based on the latest information that we have, anticipate that the City
of Meridian will be in negotiations for our permit somewhere around the end of 2014 to
2015 and we have -- you know, city of Boise's permit is now completed. City of Nampa
is in the negotiations with the EPA right now over their permit. The last -- we thought
we were going to be next and our understanding is now that we will probably be after
the city of Caldwell and so we -- I think 2014 -- into 2014 is probably optimistic, but
that's the latest word that we heard. There are also some regulatory risk with regards to
our reclaimed water program. I think we have -- you know, spent some time with you
guys in the past talking about what those risks are, but there is a lot of -- I would say
maybe rhetoric or information that's being floated around that year around limits for
phosphorus on the Boise River and also on the Snake River are certainly on the EPA's
mind and that that may -- and those year around limits would certainly impact the
reclaimed water program, because our ability to actually irrigate anything in the
wintertime is pretty tough. So, that -- there is definitely some impacts there, if we -- if
there are year around limits imposed. Concentration versus mass base limits. This is
just, essentially, the way that the permits are written. Boise's permit is in a
concentration base limit, which would not be favorable for us. We have gotten some --
you know, we have had some discussions with the EPA and they have indicated that
they are interested in working with us to make sure that our reclaimed water program --
this is the local EPA -- working with us to try to make sure that the reclaimed water
program stays viable, but concentration limits, of course, essentially say no matter what
the flow is, whether it's a trickle or, you know, out of a huge pipe, the concentration in
parts per million have to be a certain level and when we are talking about a reclaimed
water program we, essentially, need to exchange the amount or the mass of
phosphorus that we are delivering to the reclaimed water system for what we are not
putting in the creek. So, there are two different kinds of regulatory limits and how they
decide to write our permit could have an impact on whether our reclaimed water
program is viable or not. Irrigation district challenges are also a concern for us and we
will talk a little bit more about that. Obviously, if we are going to reach out to customers
like Walmart and developments who also have land that is serviceable through the
irrigation district's irrigation water, we are going to have to work up an agreement with
them that is reasonable that everybody can, you know, feel comfortable with in how we
are going to use reclaimed water in cooperation with our irrigation districts and we have
a plan to do that. We have a plan to work with them. We have actually spoken with the
irrigation districts -- both irrigation districts in the past and let me know that we would
like to, you know, sit down with them when we have a little bit more information, which is
what we want to talk to you about tonight and talk with them how we would make this a
playground that could work for both entities. Next slide. I just want to touch a little bit
on, you know, the benefits of recycled water and one -- you know, specifically highlight
one of the main reasons that we chose this option in the first place. It's somewhat
amazing to me that we are still able to grow in the City of Meridian on a permit which
had a limit that was established in 1999. Can you imagine the growth that we have had
since that day? But continuing to grow with a seven MGD limit is getting more and
more difficult every year. In fact, last year if it wasn't for the reclaimed water program
we would have had a violation of our NPDES permit. We simply had more water
coming into the plant than our permit would allow. We were able to stay under that limit,
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 43 of 66
because we were able to deliver reclaimed water and maintain a level underneath that
seven MGD discharge limit. So, it has certainly been beneficial to the city and it is
certainly one of the things that will allow us to continue to grow in the interim between
now and when our permit is renegotiated. We have also been able to reduce
phosphorus delivered to Five Mile Creek. Last year I think the total water delivered by
our reclaimed water program was somewhere in the neighborhood of 23 million gallons
and that equates to approximately a thousand pounds of phosphorus. Well, that
thousand pounds of phosphorus didn't go to the creek and didn't go to the Boise River.
We have, like I said before, got EPA support. They have essentially said we like
reclaimed water. We like the idea. We want to try and work with you to -- to provide a
means where you can continue to use reclaimed water. I don't think they want to be -- I
don't think they want the publicity of saying that they -- they, essentially, wrote a permit
that would eliminate a reclaimed water program for the first municipal water -- or
reclaimed water program in the state of Idaho. So, they have an interest in that. But
the proof is in the pudding. So, we will have to wait and see how that goes. DEQ -- one
of the other advantages with the recycled water program is DEQ regulates recycled
water, instead of the EPA. Of course, the EPA oversees DEQ's programs, but we do
have the ability to work with the more local regulatory agency. Reclaimed water is -- if
the permit could be written and structured so that we can use it, it is certainly a more
cost effective approach for nutrient removal out of our wastewater treatment plant and,
of course, that's one of the other long-term benefits to this type of program. If we can
get a permit that makes it work.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: And, Warren, if I may. Just to clarify it. I don't want to leave the -- how close
we came to violating the seven MGD hanging out there. That -- that violation would
have been a paperwork violation of our permit, which has been extended. Our actual
plant capacity has grown over the years far in excess of what our permit allows and I --
if (remember correctly we actually are capable now, even though the permit has not
been made new, we are capable now of managing 12 MGD and even though for
paperwork purposes we came close to violating the seven, it was never a public safety
problem, it was just a paperwork problem. Am I correct on that?
Stewart: Madam Mayor, Councilman Zaremba, you are correct. We have -- it's actually
10.2 right now, our limiting factor. Our existing treatment plant can treat up to 10.2
million gallons a day of effluent effectively and so we would not have had a water quality
violation, but we have the discharge limit that says no matter whether you're doing --
whether it's clean or not, you're only allowed to discharge seven million gallons a day
and that was --
De Weerd: It needs to be clean.
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 44 of 66
Stewart: Exactly. But, anyway, that -- that was the limit that we were approaching.
There certainly wasn't any jeopardy of us discharging water that was not property
treated.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Stewart: You're welcome. I think -- we got there. Okay. So, I kind of want to talk just
a little bit about -- again about the present situation that we have and, then, a little bit
about where we are headed in the future and, then, introduce the map and let Mr.
Worthington take over. So, presently with the existing infrastructure that we have in
place we can irrigate approximately 60 acres of ground and we are just -- so everybody
knows, we are essentially there. With the commitments that we have right now we are
essentially at that 60 acre limit. Now, with some additional booster pumps at the
booster station and not too distant future some additional storage, we could -- we could
increase that. But it will take some plant expansion, some infrastructure in order to
make that work. Of course, one of the things that I wanted to highlight is the time of use
is a factor. So, although we have the ability to sow 60 acres, we have the ability in the
future to service a certain number of acres, timing is a big issue. Most -- because of the
regulatory requirements most of the irrigation on places have to take place at night.
That's also when the flows coming into the plant are at their lowest. So, it's kind of --
they work against each other. So, if we are going to serve large amounts of acreage we
have to be able to treat these largest loads during the day and store it, so that we can
deliver it at night when the flows are coming in much lower. So, time of use is a factor
and certain types of uses could be done during the day. In other words, Ten Mile
interchange could get done during the daytime, because there is nobody there. Heroes
Park would have to be done at night. So, it depends on when the uses occur also as far
as what we can serve and what we can't. And, then, we have limitations of our existing
booster station and to our storage tanks. And I want to just kind of set the stage for
Clint by talking a little bit about the future. Maximum irrigable acres at full build out. In
other words, when the city is built out fully to our city limits -- not our city limits, but our
impact area boundary and we have the full flows coming into the wastewater treatment
plant, essentially that's approximately 20 to 21 million gallons a day is what we
anticipate. What can we serve with a reclaimed water program? And the answer to that
question is approximately 2,200 acres of irrigated ground. What that really means when
you look at the map before you is although we have a pretty large permitted area, we
really can't serve anywhere close to that total area and so what we are talking about
here is sort of concentrating on the Ten Mile Corridor where we already have
infrastructure in place. We also have the capacity to upgrade or to bring the booster --
the existing booster station at the treatment plant can eventually have pumps installed
to deliver ten million gallons -- or ten -- 10,000 gallons per minute. Excuse me. In order
to get to that full build out, 2,200 acres, we would also need another one to two storage
tanks at the treatment plant and we would need four to five off-site storage tanks and
booster stations at strategic locations and the reason for that is, unlike our water
system, where we can sink a new well in close proximity to where the demands are, our
reclaimed water is produced in one location and in order to serve, you know, more
remote areas we are going to have to put storage and boosters in other areas.
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 45 of 66
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor and Warren, what's the size of those storage tanks in gallons?
Stewart: About 500,000 gallons.
Hoaglun: Five hundred thousand? Okay.
Stewart: It's a million gallons total. So, I'm going to turn over the time now to Clint. Go
to the next slide if you would. And he's going to talk a little bit about this service area
map that was based -- that was developed based on our hydraulic model and our land
use planning and we think we could actually serve and these targeted uses that we
want to go after. Yes.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Warren, on the map you have talked to and showed us with the handout
there is some kind of a tank up in the Spurwing development and I can't differentiate the
color, whether it's a batch or a storage, but, anyway, there is a tank up there in that new
development. Has that been coordinated with them?
Stewart: No. And this is one of those things that as we grow as a system -- right now
we couldn't serve them if we wanted to.
Rountree: Right.
Stewart: They have expressed interest in having reclaimed water. They have come to
some of our meetings and we have had conversations with them and I don't want to get
too worried about the actual location of those tanks. We place them pretty generically,
so it makes -- you know, that's not exactly the location that that needs to necessarily be.
We just are going to need storage, because that's a long ways from the -- from the
treatment plant. We are going to need storage up in that. neighborhood somewhere in
that area in order to serve that golf course if we ever do.
De Weerd: Well, it's a thereabouts mark on the map.
Stewart: Correct. Correct.
Rountree: And what was the poundage of phosphorus you said we had not delivered to
the Boise River?
Stewart: Based on my understanding -- and I -- you know, we, essentially, delivered
about 23 million gallons of reclaimed water out to Heroes Park and to the interchange
and so forth and I did some rough calculations based on our average flows, an average
day at the treatment plant of somewhere between five -- or in upper five and a half to six
and a half million gallons a day and Tracy had indicated that based on those kind of
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 46 of 66
flows that we are somewhere between 250 to 300 pounds a day phosphorus that would
be normal for that kind of flow. So, I just did the math and essentially it comes to
approximately 1,000 pounds of phosphorus that we couldn't have essentially delivered
to the Boise River because of reuse.
Rountree: It just doesn't seem like it's near big enough. You're only talking about three
pounds a day.
De Weerd: That's year around, though.
Stewart: Madam Mayor, Councilman --
Rountree: Or was that a daily base?
Stewart: That's a -- the 250 to 300 is a daily --
Rountree: Yeah.
Stewart: -- amount based on six million -- approximately six million gallons of effluent
treated. So, six goes into 23, you know, not quite four times. So, three times 250 --
eight hundred -- you know, your rough math approximately a thousand pounds.
Rountree: Okay.
Stewart: Is my math right?
Rountree: Yeah. I'm trying to extend it on an annual basis.
Stewart: Okay. So, if we can -- if we can grow the program and deliver more reclaimed
water we will definitely get rid of even more pounds of phosphorus. Anymore questions
before I turn it over to Clint? If not, Clint.
Worthington: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, hi. I'm going to back up just a
little bit here before I get into the map and go over a couple of things, so -- Tom, if you
could go ahead one slide. Thank you. I will be going over the most recent work with
the recycled water program that we have been doing. We have identified the needs for
a process as it relates to development being conditioned to connect to the end use
recycled water. We have begun to establish this program and the following are needed
components of this process. They include the following documents: Developing an
ordinance and service area map, which Warren just showed you. A standard user
application. A standard user agreement. Design standards and specifications and I just
want to point out that currently we have all of these completed in draft form right now.
Tom, can I get the next slide?
De Weerd: Vanna? Tom Barry. You want to advance the slide.
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 47 of 66
Hoaglun: Clint, you need to get better help. I don't know where you get some of these
people.
Worthington: Next I just wanted to briefly go over what makes up each of these
documents and what their purpose is. The recycled water ordinance, like ordinances for
water and wastewater there are rules and regulations for the recycled water program.
The ordinance will also address key structures, which with recycled water are currently
-- they are currently healthy, but the ordinance will be written to give us the ability to
change that in the future if we need to do that. Next slide, please. The service area
map which Warren mentioned previously has been created using modeling and our
comprehensive land use plan. This map includes area within our city's permitted limits
as the most feasible areas to serve based on modeling and our comprehensive plan
target areas based on zoning. The service area map allows us to capture new
developments as they begin the submittal process with the city. So, this is our draft
service area map that you say earlier. Kind of give a little explanation to it. The areas
within the solid gray boundary are primary service areas. They are considered primary,
because they are located along the Ten Mile corridor, as Warren mentioned, and are
the largest areas to potentially serve for the least amount of infrastructure cost. The
areas within the dashed gray line are the secondary areas, which are more of the
outliers and would cost more in infrastructure to serve them, which makes them
secondary. The colors on the map represent different uses based on zoning, with the
exception of the darker blue, which is existing areas. The lighter blue areas are
potential nonresidential areas, which are our primary target, which would -- that would
include industrial, commercial, those types of uses. These areas would include
commercial and industrial type uses. The gray color are areas that are residential and
more of a secondary target, with the exception of landscaping and common areas within
those residential developments. The bold magenta line represents piping that is
existing and the dashed magenta line being needed future piping. The tank symbols, as
Councilman Rountree pointed out earlier on the map, represent future storage tanks
needed to serve the area surrounding their location. The primary purpose is to allow us
to store water pumped from the treatment plant during the day and distribute that water
at night for irrigation use. Next slide, please. So, next I will go onto the next document
that we found a need for the programs or process that is a user application. This
application would be submitted by the developer or owner if the property is within the
service area map. The application will provide info specific to the owner's name,
location of the development, development -- type of development, proposed use for
recycled water quantity requirements. This application would then be reviewed and
modeled by Public Works to determine whether the development would be required to
connect to recycled water. Next slide. Once the development is determined to be
conditioned to use recycled water by the application process, agreement will be
prepared that will include the owner, location of the development, allowed uses of
recycled water, allowed quantity of recycled water, allowed times of use, and any fee
associated. Of course, as we said earlier there are currently no fees. The use
agreement will go along with the development agreement for a subdivided agreement
and is, basically, a legal agreement with the developer for specifics of recycled water
use. Design standards of the document that will be used to -- by design engineers to
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 48 of 66
insure that recycled water within developments, as well as capital projects are
consistent with the following design concepts, format, methodology, procedures, quality
of work, and adhering to other applicable standards, such as DEQ, IDWR, Idaho
Standards for Public Works Construction and others. Lastly are the -- are develop any
specifications for recycled water to be included in the city's supplemental specifications
to the ICWC. These specs guide construction activities and will be much like water and
sewer supplemental specs, but more specific to recycled water. They will include
requirements on construction materials, workmanship, and pay items. So, I have put
together some process flows of a couple different scenarios of how the recycled water
process would work for new developments and how they will be incorporated as a city
process, meaning the applications and the service agreements that I mentioned. The
first scenario would be for subdivided land development projects, which include
anything that requires a plat approval. Go to the next one. The second scenario is for
developments where land isn't being subdivided and requires a CZC and a building
permit. These flows -- these process flows are drafts and we will still need to get
consensus with other city departments, such as development services and the building
division before they can be finalized. So, our intent is to take these draft documents
and create a public outreach plan and reach out to developers, irrigation districts,
engineers, the BCA and, of course, our citizens and customers. The goal is to then
finalize the documents and programs based on comments and discussions on our
public outreach efforts. At this point we haven't started putting together that outreach
plan, but would be a next step in continuing with the program. The next item is fees.
Currently fees for recycled water use are waived, including application fees,
assessment fees, meter fees, and usage fees. We recommend this continues, for the
fact that the recycled water system essentially serves as a treatment option for the
wastewater treatment plant and acts as a trade-off for costly improvements at the
treatment plant. Recycled water also benefits the city water system by using recycled
water in place of potable water, which are used as -- as potable water usage and acts
as a conservation measure. So, our next steps. We would like to get Council direction
on how to proceed with the recycled water programs from this point and the options
would include, one, continue implementing the program, complete the draft program
process documents that I went over. Perform the public outreach, finalize the draft
documents, and implement the process. And the second option would be to put the
program on hold until the NPDES permit issue is resolved. Next slide.
Hoaglun: Clint, before you -- Madam Mayor. Before you move, that first option, number
one, what's your guess of the time frame on something like that?
Worthington: I think we could -- the documents are -- need to be reviewed internally.
Like I said, they are in draft, so they need to be finalized in a more substantial draft form
and, then, we need to perform a public outreach and I think, you know, with some of the
players and that, irrigation district and -- irrigation district mostly, it could take awhile --
six months. Six month time frame.
Hoaglun: My guess was a year, but Ididn't -- I wasn't sure, so --
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 49 of 66
Worthington: Well, six months to a year.
Hoaglun: Okay. I just wanted a context to consider against the NPDES permit process.
Worthington: Okay. Okay. Our recommended option, of course, is the first option, to
proceed with the program and continue the process. We feel like this is the way to go
for a few reasons. It allows us to capture any new development within the service area
and get them using recycled water, which provides benefit to both water and
wastewater systems. This option also assists us in staying within our wastewater
treatment plant permitted capacity limits without costly upgrades, as Warren mentioned
earlier. And, thirdly, having an established water -- recycled water program could
potentially be beneficial with the EPA and a new NPDES pool. So, with that I will stand
for any comments or questions.
De Weerd: Thank you, Clint. Any comments or questions from Council?
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: One very minor thing and this is on the -- oh. I appreciate the work that
you're doing on the program. It's doing great. But on the user agreements, you had a
couple categories there that would probably include my comment, but it's so important
that we make sure that nobody make across-connection to the potable water system,
that I would elevate that to a capital subject and give it its title and a separate paragraph
and not fold it into a subject of thou shalts and thou shalt not make -- make it a separate
thing that stands out.
Worthington: That's a good point, Councilman Zaremba. We -- actually, that's going to
be in the ordinance as well. The ordinance and the user agreement, like you said.
Zaremba: Well, I'm sure it would be in the ordinance, but I just want it right in front of
them, so that everybody knows.
Worthington: Sounds good.
Zaremba: Thank you.
De Weerd: Any other questions?
Zaremba: And as an opinion I would go for option one.
De Weerd: Okay.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 50 of 66
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: It's a great program. I think we need to move forward with it. I have some
concerns about fully developing option one. It's an unknown. We don't know what the
regulators are going to do. We already have made some promises to some public out
there for delivery and not been terribly successful. I fully support that we engage the
regulators and the folks that are stakeholders in terms of control of water, but if you start
entertaining this as a public process and you build the public's expectation that this is a
good thing and it's going to be there and you get a bunch of people signed up to do it
and, then, either we can't deliver it or we won't be delivering it because the regulatory
process won't allow it or, thirdly, our permit is such that it's not economically feasible for
us to proceed and, then, you have to turn around and you tell those folks thanks for
spending the year working with us to develop all of this bureaucracy, but, you know
what, it's not going to work. I don't like to do that to people. I have had it done to me
too many times in the past. I don't know where the middle ground is. But I think we
need to advance and get some of the leg work done up front. Definitely. But at some
point I think we need to put it to rest until -- we can go out and say we want to complete
this, because we know we can. And knowing what strings might be put on how we can
move forward, we can, then, move forward in that fashion and not build an expectation
that we may not be able to deliver.
Stewart: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, fully understand the regulatory
environment that we are in and it causes us a lot of concern as well in trying to move
forward. In fact, we have -- we have taken steps to sort of put the brakes on capital
improvements in the reclaimed water system for the time being. Our concern is around
the existing infrastructure that lies sitting out there in the ground. If we have another --
let's say Walmart that comes in adjacent to our existing pipe and they are interested,
our concern is right now we don't have a very good process in place to say who -- you
know, what, where, when are we going to allow these people to hook up and under
what conditions and how are we going to regulate that connection and so on and so
forth. So, we feel like there is some need to answer some of those questions and put
some structure together for the immediate -- so, it may come in very easy targets to add
to the system and -- and be able to answer those questions and guide them through a
process that makes sense and determine whether or not they should use reclaimed
water. However, like I had indicated, our present program with the present
infrastructure at the wastewater treatment plant, quote, to max out if we just served
everybody that we could. So, even with that in mind, we would have to come back to
the Council if there were anew -- another Walmart or whatever store come along that
corridor somewhere and say we want to use that water. We would have to come back
to you and seek some funding for some additional booster pumps out at the wastewater
treatment plant and we will have the opportunity I think at that time to say, okay, this is a
target of opportunity, we want to pass on or do we want to give them the nod and say
yes. And there is a bit of a chicken and the egg here going on, but we feel like there is
a need for some structure to administer the program and -- that's already available to us
based on the existing infrastructure in the ground, but we also recognize that we don't
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 51 of 66
really want to get too aggressive about trying to expand the capital infrastructure at this
stage until after the permit's renegotiated. So, I don't know if that's helpful or not.
Rountree: No. I understand where you're coming from. I'm just concerned about -- if it
comes across as this is a selling process and we are out there soliciting folks that want
to participate in this and you build that expectation for them and, then, we either can't or
won't deliver, it's another black eye.
Barry: Madam Mayor?
Rountree: But, then, again, it's an unknown. We -- we don't know.
De Weerd: Mr. Barry.
Barry: Thank you, Madam Mayor. And, Councilman Rountree, you have hit the
dilemma right on the -- right squarely where it is and, you know, the way that we have
been proceeding with the current customer base is, essentially, under a first right of
refusal basis. Now, we only have been serving, essentially, irrigation customers, if you
will, except for Mr. Eddy down at Fast Eddy's there on Ten Mile and when we have
spoken with folks that are interested in this program we have told them that we would
like for them to participate and they have agreed to participate voluntarily, but that if we
are not ready or unable to serve them, that this first right of refusal would kick in under
their agreements and they could go to an alternative source with no additional cost.
Essentially the system we are establishing here would require from an irrigation
standpoint -- I'm talking about the irrigation system here. Would require them to newly
connect anyways for the primary water to be reclaimed and the secondary to be surface
irrigation. So, in that case they are building the same infrastructure they would normally
have to build with the same back flow prevention devises and those sorts of things and
-- and that's the way we have approached this and people seem pretty open to that.
What we are trying to do with tonight's presentation is, obviously, give you a status of
where we are in the program, continue to highlight some of the vulnerabilities, but also
formalize, essentially, the program as it has begun to evolve and that formalization
involves the things that Mr. Worthington and Mr. Stewart had described with regard to
the service area map, the conditions, the requirements, the specifications on those
developments that want to participate in this program and the process by which we
would evaluate whether they would be eligible or not. So, what this is is really a
formalization of the program without trying to put too much more capital into it. We do
want to formalize the actual process, so that those that come in and volunteer for this
have some assurance of the possibilities of the program and also the vulnerabilities in
such a way that they can make decisions regarding how they would design and operate
their infrastructure according to the possible limitations or lack thereof of the system.
Rountree: Well, as long as the latter is perfectly clear that whoever wants to sign up for
this service I'm okay with it, but it's not something we want to go out and wave our flag
about. It's -- it's a risk for both parties.
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 52 of 66
Barry: It is definitely a --
Rountree: If they want to invest with us in that I'm okay with that and, I agree, we need
a process in order to do that. But the process needs to be perfectly clear that this -- we
don't know which is the high road and we don't know which is the low road.
Barry: Uh-huh.
De Weerd: And I think we knew that when we went down this road that being a
recommend trailblazer is not always the easiest in both delivering to the -- the public
piece to it and to the commercial piece and with being the first we will work out a lot of
kinks, which, indeed, we have and it's a good caution, but I would agree with the earlier
statement that EPA has been supportive of this and I would imagine they would
continue to as part of the permit, but it is a gamble. It's been a gamble. It's been a
gamble I think this Council has been willing to take and commit to, because it is the right
thing to do and it has allowed us to -- to weather continued growth as another strategy,
even interim to a long-term plan. So, I appreciate where we are today and to proceed
cautiously in how we continue to -- to build this strategy in dealing with phosphorus and
some of our flow issues until we do get a new permit.
Stewart: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Stewart: Council Members, I wonder if it would be -- if it would make it a little easier if
part of this outreach program -- I mean, obviously, we haven't developed that and we
are interested in doing this public outreach specifically because we want to -- we want
to make sure that we have agreements with the irrigation districts that they are
comfortable with and that we are comfortable with and we want to make sure the
development community is comfortable with, you know, the design standards and the
specifications and so forth. We would certainly, as a part of this, you know, public
outreach program make sure that one very significant component of that was the fact --
aclear expectation that this may go away, depending on regulatory requirements.
Rountree: I think that's cornerstone.
Stewart: So, we can definitely make that a major part of that outreach program to make
sure people are aware you're engaging in this program with us, but regulatory
requirements change and they could have drastic effects on where we go with this,
depending on what those regulatory requires are.
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor, that was my comment. I was agreeing with what Councilman
Rountree was saying, but we just -- as we go through this process and work with people
we have to make it perfectly clear that the regulatory rug could be pulled out from it at
some point in time by the EPA. If they know that and still want to work with us and go
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 53 of 66
through the process, that's great, but we just have to be clear about it. So, I think you're
right on track, Warren.
Rountree: So, will you take that a step further and put that into your agreements, then,
and applications as well? Make that clear when a user comes in to use recycled water?
Barry: Yeah. Madam Mayor, if I may, the discussion is I think -- is I think very
appropriate regarding where we are in the program. But there is just somewhat of a
crossroads where if we are going to pursue reclaimed water as a regulatory approach --
and (think we all recognize that at anytime, as Mr. Hoaglun has just stated, at anytime
whether it be in the next permit, the permit after that, the permit after that, there could
be at anytime -- these regulations are constantly changing -- an undermining of the
reclaimed water program. I think the likelihood of that happening the further we are in
the program is -- is lower and -- but there are no guarantees. The challenge here is if
we make the program optional as a treatment alternative, then, it doesn't work as a
treatment alternative. And so there is some -- some balance that has to be brought to
the discussion with regard to voluntary participation in the program and the vulnerability
that that places potentially on the customer against the city's need to get rid of the
water, which is, essentially, a treatment alternative if you will. And that's what we are
trying to balance here is the risks of the program, both from the city's perspective and
the end user's perspective, but also the need for the program to disseminate water as
widely as we can in order to make it viable. If we make this thing optional for those who
are in the primary service areas and they choose not to participate, I'm not sure that we
have a viable program and so there is -- that needs to be incorporated as part of the
discussion, I believe.
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor and Tom -- yeah, I think that's a good discussion to have at
the point we have agreement with all the parties involved that need to be on board with
this that might have objections. So, until we reach that point where certain parties are
on board and say, yeah, your reclaimed water can be used in -- in place of ours, then,
think we could move forward for those -- from optional to -- to mandatory, but I want to
see that component first, because that could be difficult, so --
Barry: You bet. And we would be happy to do that.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I'm just -- certainly the EPA has approved or accepted reclaimed water
systems all over the country. I think one of the issues is many places where it's
commonly used they do irrigate and water their lawns and golf courses all 12 months of
the year, so -- one of our risks is if we get a year around restriction, then, there is three
or four months where we have a problem. But just to throw an opinion in, an anecdotal
opinion, I don't think the EPA is out to undue reclaimed water programs and I would
expect them to work with us for a resolution, of course, when they eventually bring their
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 54 of 66
hammer down and say this is the way it is, then, we have to live with that. But I -- they
have been supportive of reclaimed water programs other places and I would look to
them to continue that, just to be optimistic.
Worthington: And, hopefully, the local EPA, who is really supportive of it, has some
clout with the national EPA that can -- that's going to be pending sorting it out, so --
De Weerd: Okay. Any further questions? Anything else from staff? Did you get
feedback -- enough feedback? Do you want me --
Stewart: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I think if I got the gist of the
conversation is go ahead and proceed, proceed with caution and make sure everybody
is fully aware of the vulnerabilities associated with reclaimed water.
De Weerd: Sounds like it in a nutshell.
Barry: Thank you.
Department Report: eco mention to Adopt an
mendment to the City's olid ste ®rdinance Regarding
Commercial Recycling ervices by on-Franchised
Commercial Recyclers within City Limits (Commercial
ecyclin rdinance)
De Weerd: Thank you. Thank you, Clint. Okay. Item 8-C is from our Solid Waste
Advisory Committee.
Mangerich: Good evening, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. I'm here this
evening representing the Solid Waste Advisory Commission. Forthwith I will refer to as
SWAC. I'd also like to mention to our Council and Mayor tonight that we are pleased to
also have in our audience representatives from a local recycling company, Western
Recycling company is here, as well as Steve Sedlacek, who can speak to those
historical services to SSC when he was our provider and now Republic Services, our
current solid waste provider. Meridian has enjoyed an exclusive solid waste franchise
agreement currently with Republic Service, providing services to residential, commercial
and multi-family premises within our city limits. Soon after the assignment of the SSC
solid waste franchise agreement to Republic Services the city was approached by a
local commercial recycler and asking for clarification as to what besides commercial
recycling services, if any, may be offered within the city limits by nonfranchisee
commercial recyclers. So, under the direction of our Mayor's office the staff formed a
subcommittee on this topic and it was comprised of representatives from our local
recycling community within the Treasure Valley Republic Services, our SWAC
members and city staff to review the matter. Meetings were held over a seven month
period with the following results. The committee worked hard in the development of the
initial development of a vast commercial recycling ordinance, which includes a provision
for not only identifying the recyclables that could be collected by nonfranchisees, but
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 55 of 66
also included a provision with a permit or a fee associated with it. After this was
developed we sent cover letters out and mailed out to 18 commercial -- known
commercial recyclers within our Treasure Valley area and, then, provided a public
comment opportunity at the following SWAC advisory commission meeting of which
there was good attendance. Based on comments, based on that first public comment
committee, the working group went back to the board, revised the commercial recycling
ordinance to, A, provide clarification on the definitions within the ordinance and, two,
remove that permit and see the permit provision. So, then, we sent this all back out to
those 18 commercial recycling service providers, opened another public comment
opportunity at the following SWAC meeting of which we received public comment all in
favor of agreeing to the commercial recycling ordinance without the permit provision and
at that SWAC meeting we voted unanimously to bring to you tonight to recommend for
your consideration the commercial recycling ordinance without the permit provision,
which is in your copy -- in your packet this evening. And I stand for any questions.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mollie.
Mangerich: You're welcome.
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Mangerich: Well, thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. I guess at this point we will just move into the first reading and see if
there is any comments that wish to be made at that time. So, Madam Clerk, will you,
please, read the Ordinance 13-1551 by title only.
Holman: Thank you, Madam Mayor. City of Meridian Ordinance No. 13-1551, an
ordinance amending Title 4, Public Health and Safety, Chapter 1, Sanitary Service
System of the Meridian City Code for the purpose of including definitions for commercial
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 56 of 66
recycler, coding of recyclable materials and for separated recyclable materials in 4-1-3
and to add: Or commercial recycler to 4-1-10H and to add a new 4-1-11 commercial
recycling exemption and reassign the existing Section 4-1-11 nuisance declared to
Section 4-1-12 and reassign the existing Section 4-1-12 penalty to Section 4-1-13 and
providing an effective date.
De Weerd: Thank you. Is there anyone who would like to provide comment on this
item? Okay. Good evening.
Sedlacek: Good evening.
De Weerd: You got to sit through our entire meeting to make comment. Thank you for
joining us. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record.
Sedlacek: Certainly. Steve Sedlacek.
Meridian, Idaho.
Republic Services, 2130 West Franklin,
De Weerd: Thank you.
Sedlacek: I just wanted to provide testimony that we support the ordinance change. It
is codifying basically the world as we know it or as it exists. We needed to update the
ordinances. It was a good idea to do this, so that we could more clearly state what does
go on and what should be going on, I guess, with regard to what's franchisable and
what's not. So, we took part in the process. We like how it came out and we hope that
you support it.
De Weerd: Thank you, Steve.
Sedlacek: An questions?
De Weerd: Any questions?
Rountree: I have none.
De Weerd: No. Thank you.
Sedlacek: Could I -- one comment. I think Andrea Pogue did a great job herding all of
us, keeping us in -- on task and getting this thing done, so --
De Weerd: Well, we appreciate everyone that was involved. It was -- I think you ended
with a nice product and it's always the process, the journey of getting there and
appreciate the -- all of those that stuck with it.
Sedlacek: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Additional comment?
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 57 of 66
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I just would like to say that this is an example of how one of
our standing committees makes our job a little easier. They spent a lot of time
deliberating this, they had a bunch of folks participating when it was discussed in the
open forum of their meetings there really wasn't any major dialogue from the public,
they had already addressed the issues. They addressed some of the issues that I
brought up and I think they have done an excellent job of bringing all of that together
and did the wordsmithing and the committee did the logic and reasoning and brought
this particular ordinance proposal and change forward and I think it's a -- again, it's an
example of the -- the good work that our committees can do for us.
Bird: Amen.
De Weerd: If there is no comment, I guess I would look to Council for what you would --
this is -- this is listed as the first reading. If you would prefer to have second and third
reading at our next meeting or we can have it for the next couple of weeks.
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I would move that we move this forward to a second and
third reading at our next regularly scheduled meeting.
Bird: Second and third reading.
Rountree: Second and third. Yes.
Bird: I would second that.
De Weerd: Okay. I'm not sure if you need a motion to do that, but I appreciate the
direction and we will put it on our next agenda for the second and third -- and final
reading for Council action on the 23rd. Sound like a plan? Okay. Very good. And
thank you for sticking out the meeting to be here for this item. Appreciate it. And your
involvement in the process.
Fire a rtent: M Joint oers reement icusion
De Weerd: Okay. Item 8-E is our Fire Department. Chief Niemeyer.
Niemeyer: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, good morning.
De Weerd: It's not that late.
Niemeyer: Happy to report I do not have a PowerPoint and on this issue the police
department and myself are in total agreement, so we have gone with improvement.
De Weerd: We are improving with the evening.
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 58 of 66
Niemeyer: This is a follow-up discussion to the EMS joint powers agreement
presentation that I gave last week. Certainly this historic nature of this discussion I want
to give it due time, but in the interest of time and looking for a little bit of direction on
what you want to take. Within your packet you should have an updated agreement that
identifies an issue that I believe Councilman Rountree brought up regarding the joint
powers board configuration of a number of folks that are on that board and specifically
the county commissioners having two representatives and, then, the rest of the
agencies having one. That got cleaned up by the legal teams at work. The other two
issues that were brought up during the presentation, one was termination of the
agreement. Through the discussion with the other agencies and legal teams working on
the agreement, it was kind of a unanimous consent that if the agreement is terminated
that would require unanimous consent to terminate the agreement, no differently than if
we make a change to the system and so we felt like the language currently in the
agreement recognizes that and has a provision for it. And, then, the other one that got
brought up was joint purchasing of real property and the question was what does that
mean, what does it look like. Under Section 4.5 prior to any joint purchasing happening
there would have to be by resolution outlining the distribution and ownership of that
property. So, before we even spend any money or did something together on any kind
of joint purchase, that resolution would have to be adopted prior and so we feel like that
was covered. In addition to that, you should have within your packet a document that
states fire department follow EMS joint powers agreement. These were issues,
thoughts, ideas that you as Council came to me with individually stating can we get
some clarification here, can we possibly make a change here and so we have outlined
those in the issues. Some of them we certainly can change to accommodate better
language. Others we are kind of stuck with. And an example of that is the separation of
the Ada County Commissioners with the Ada County Paramedics and district
commissioners. It doesn't make any sense to us, because they wear the same hat. It
doesn't make any sense to the director in the sense that they wear the same hat, but as
a result of the Kuna versus Ada County lawsuit that took place one of the prevailing
items that their legal team took out of that was the prosecuting attorney saying you need
to have clear delineation between these two groups. It's one of the things that the judge
mentioned also as a conflicting or -- a conflicting issue, so there needed to be
separation, so that's why you see it here that those two same groups wear different hats
and they are identified as such. As much as it confuses the language a little bit. I see
Councilman Rountree smiling on that one.
Rountree: Leave it to the lawyers.
Niemeyer: So, with that certainly
through this item by item to discus
you have seen within the document
De Weerd: Thank you, Chief.
looking for some direction here. We can either go
s or I could take questions from you based on what
Bird: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 59 of 66
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: On your board quorum of 50 percent, I don't go for that. You got to be above 50
percent for a quorum.
Niemeyer: Okay.
Bird: And also in your agreement it's appoint chairman, vice-chairman, secretary, those
should be elected by the board members. It shouldn't be appointed.
Niemeyer: Elected instead of appointed?
Bird: Yeah. And the biggest -- the biggest thing we -- I compared this with the last draft
that we spent four years working on, there is some things in here that I -- to be blunt,
there is some things in here that -- that certain people within Ada County pushed to get
out of the state draft and now they are showing up in here that we weren't in favor of.
So, I -- I think you need to go forward on it, but I need some clarification. I think what
you did for Mr. Rountree's deal clarified a lot of stuff.
Niemeyer: Yes.
Bird: But the quorum has got to be over 50 percent, in my opinion.
Niemeyer: Just a follow up to that, Madam Mayor, Councilman Bird. Is there any
recommended number that you would like to see as a --
Bird: I think you got to do at least one over.
De Weerd: Just do percent plus one.
Niemeyer: Plus one?
Bird: Yeah.
Niemeyer: Okay.
Bird: So, if you have got five on there, you have got to have three.
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: I had a question for the lawyers on this. It was in page four, 3.4 withdrawal
and 2.4.1 said no party shall withdraw from this agreement unless it demonstrates one
or more of the following circumstances and, then, they delineate what those are. But --
and, then, I'm used to the fact that we as a Council -- we can enact something, but a
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 60 of 66
future Council is not bound by that, they can undo or redo and move forward and that
kind of speaks to that under page five, 3.4.3, there is a voluntary withdrawing or for
cause, but that first section on withdrawal, it just says it's going to be this, this, this or
this. So, I just wanted some clarification. Does this all work? I know there is a penalty
for withdrawing and that's what a future Council could -- would have to consider, but I
just wanted clarification, Bill, from -- are we -- is that okay? Just wasn't totally clear to
me.
Nary: Well, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Hoaglun, I think
the chief, since he was involved in negotiations, can probably talk about what the intent
-- because I think maybe what's necessary is some clarification, because I do think the
ultimate intent of the agreement is once the parties sign onto this, then, they really have
to work together to change it or if they really can't work together, then, if any individual
party wants to leave, then, really the penalty -- the sort of death penalty they get is they
are not performing this service. The -- I think the intent of the others -- and maybe
some clarification is needed, but is trying to get some -- put some framework around
how to work out whatever those differences are that talks about funding and staffing and
those types of things and maybe chief can expand on that, but it seems like one is really
designed to try to negotiate a resolution and one is saying if you can't do anything or
you just want out, you can get out, but here is the -- here is the --
Niemeyer: Yeah. I can follow up on that, Councilman Hoaglun. Ted and I worked on
this, we probably didn't get that to you in time. 3.4.1, outside of the court order that
would be 3.4.1.2, the other -- yeah. The other three are really dealing with voluntary
withdrawal from the -- in other words, we have a financial hardship, we can't continue to
provide this service and Mr. Nary hit it right on the head, the goal is for the system to
work with that agency or that jurisdiction to try and continue to keep them in the system,
if they can't, then, they can't, and so we have some language that identifies how you go
about doing that. 3.6 is where the board would say you are not in compliance with the
agreement and through a vote would, then, have, essentially, a forced withdrawal if you
will. And so 3.4 really gives it voluntarily, withdrawing other than the court order. 3.6 is
where a board takes an action against an agency due to noncompliance with the
agreement.
Hoaglun: And if -- but if they -- would the parties still be part of the board when that vote
is taken?
Niemeyer: Yes. But they aren't in the unanimous consent.
Hoaglun: Right. Okay.
Niemeyer: I think, you know, the reality is if we get to that point where there is that big
of an issue -- I'm only trying to forecast in the future, but my guess would be that the
agency has some reason why they cannot continue in the system and it's going to go
down the voluntary pathway.
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 61 of 66
Hoaglun: Okay. Makes sense. Thank you.
De Weerd: Additional questions? So, I -- I guess, chief, there is still a couple of tweaks
that need to be made and, then, maybe you can bring it back in in full.
Niemeyer: And just an update on that, as I have discussed this with the other agencies,
there is only one party that jumped ahead and signed the agreement and that's North
Ada County Fire and we understand that as the commissioners finalize reading through
this they may have a couple questions. The city of Boise receives their presentation the
end of the month. They certainly may have questions. What we are going to be asking
our elected bodies to do is once they are comfortable with the agreement, once we
have all the tweaks to it, is to approve for the Mayor or the chair to sign and do a joint
signing where we have all the agencies at one table doing the signing. So, that's the
plan moving forward. So, the next time I come back to report to you it will be after all
the inputs have been given, the final tweaks have been made to make sure we
represent everybody's interest and, then, we will come back to you with a final product
on that request.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I have got -- I have got a question. North Ada has -- aren't they in a joint powers
agreement with Boise city?
Niemeyer: They are.
Bird: Why are they listed when Meridian rural or none of them are under the same
agreement?
Niemeyer: The only reason that they are listed is that they still hold an EMS agency
license. When Whitney and Boise did their agreement Whitney removed their EMS
license. North Ada still has an EMS license, because they provide service up in Hidden
Springs and that's not part of the Boise agreement.
Bird: They are actually running a unit themselves then, Mark?
Niemeyer: Correct.
Bird: Okay. I did not realize that. Okay.
Niemeyer: Yeah. We asked that question initially, too, and we liked what the answer
was.
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 62 of 66
De Weerd: I'm glad you had an answer. So, to bring this back with, again, the
changes, Council, then, you can either act on it then or you can wait if you feel more
comfortable after, you know, a couple of others have signed onto it and it won't change.
Rountree: Madam Mayor. Keith indicated he had some issues between this and the
previous draft and changes that apparently were not necessarily agreeable. I would
hope that -- and not here, but you have an opportunity to talk to Mark and get those
resolved and get the resolution of those to us --
Bird: I have sat in on those things before and --
Rountree: So, we know what the issues have been and what the resolution is.
Bird: And I will tell you guys publicly, if you -- if we go for this, leave your egos at the
door when you go in, because there is no room on a committee like this for your political
egos. That was the biggest thing we fought for years was egos. Leave them at the
door when you go in.
De Weerd: And, fortunately, this agreement requires you to check egos at the door.
Bird: It says to, but it don't.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I agree that there is some little tweaking that needs to go on here, although I
guess my question would be do you need to bring this back next week. If Boise is going
to be considering it later in the month -- although next week is almost the end of the
month, but I'm not sure there is anything more we can add until we find out whether
other agencies are making tweaks to it. So, I would like a report back, but I don't need it
next week I don't think.
Niemeyer: I would agree wholeheartedly. I think it makes the most sense to wait until
we have all the tweaks on the table from all the elected officials and, then, bring back to
you a final product.
De Weerd: Well, let's target May 7th to get an update and we will go from there.
Niemeyer: Sounds good.
De Weerd: Okay.
Bird: Thanks, Mark.
Niemeyer: Thank you.
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 63 of 66
De Weerd: Thank you.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: Is May 7th election day? I think we are having our meeting on May 8th.
De Weerd: No. May 7th is not election day.
Zaremba: Oh. Okay.
De Weerd: May 21st is.
Zaremba: 21st. Okay.
Bird: The 21st is.
Zaremba: Wrong date stuck in my head.
De Weerd: I hope you get it unstuck.
Zaremba: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. We are at Item F. We are zipping through this -- this agenda.
Mr. Nary.
Nary: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. This is the shortest
presentation you will have tonight.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Rountree: It's over?
Nary: No.
De Weerd: It's hard to believe.
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 64 of 66
Nary: If you don't interrupt me it will be the shortest. All it is that's in front of you is you
have previously heard this, this is the Red Tail development agreement modification by
Red Wing Subdivision -- or Red Wing Subdivision. The original development
agreement that was in front of you or the modification that you saw a couple weeks ago,
had as part of Exhibit D some photographs of the types of buildings they would
construct on the property. They were, basically, photographs of other developments
and other properties. Subsequent to that -- to that hearing they have actually provided
four pages of actual architectural renderings of buildings, so they asked to add that into
the development agreement, so you would actually have what they are actually going to
build, not a picture of something that was built elsewhere. So, we said that was fine, as
long as the Council is aware of it and they knew if they were approving this modification
that was all that was added into it. So, it's ready for approval, just wanted to make sure
you were aware of it.
Bird: Bring it forward.
De Weerd: Okay.
Nary: You can approve it now.
Bird: This is it, isn't it? Yeah.
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: I move we approve MDA 13-002.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve the MDA 13-002. Any comments
from Council? Madam Clerk.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item rdinance
Ordinance o. 1-1 n rdinance ( 1-002 Red in
Subdivision) For The e- one Of Tract f Land Situate In
Portion O The Northwest ne uarter f ection 30,
Township orth, nge 1 East, oise eridian, City
IVleridin, ituated In da County, Idaho nd Adjacent n
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 65 of 66
De Weerd: Item No. 9-A is Ordinance 13-1552. Madam Clerk, will you, please, read
this ordinance by title only.
Holman: Thank you, Madam Mayor. City of Meridian Ordinance No. 13-1552, an
Ordinance RZ 13-002, Red Wing Subdivision, for the rezone of a tract of land situated in
a portion of the northwest one quarter of Section 30, Township 3 North, Range 1 East,
Boise meridian, City of Meridian, situated in Ada County, Idaho, and adjacent and
contiguous to the corporate limits of the City of Meridian, as requested by the City of
Meridian, establishing and determining the land use zoning classification of R-4, Low
Density Residential, 16.55 acres, and R-15, medium high residential, 16.32 acres,
zoning district in the Meridian City Code, providing that copies of this ordinance shall be
filed with the Ada County assessor, the Ada County recorder, and the Idaho State Tax
Commission, as required by law, and providing for a summary of the ordinance and
providing for a waiver of the reading rules and providing an effective date.
De Weerd: You have heard this ordinance read by title only and I don't see anyone who
would even like to hear it read in its entirety.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Council? Mr. Bird.
Bird: Seeing that Frank don't want it read or Robert, either one, I will move that we pass
Ordinance No. 13-1552, with suspension of rules.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 9-A. Madam Clerk, will you
call roll.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 10: Future eeting Topics
De Weerd: Any items from Council for future meeting agendas?
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 66 of 66
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
De Weerd: Okay. I would entertain a motion to adjourn.
Bird: So moved.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: All those in favor say aye. All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
MEETING ADJOURNED At 10:33 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
MAYOR T DE WEERD
Jr /~/°~ O/.3
DATE APPROVED