HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006 08-22
Meridian City Council Meetina
AUQust 22. 2006
The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:05 P.M.,
Tuesday, August 22,2006, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd.
Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, Shaun Wardle, Keith Bird, Joe Borton and
Charlie Rountree.
Others Present: Bill Nary, Will Berg, Anna Canning, John Overton, Ron Anderson, Len
Grady, Doug Strong, and Dean Willis.
Item 1:
Roll-call Attendance:
Roll call.
X Shaun Wardle
X Charlie Rountree
X
X Joe Borton
X Keith Bird
Mayor Tammy de Weerd
De Weerd: I will go ahead and open tonight's meeting. Thank you for joining us. It is
five minutes after 7:00. Today is Tuesday, August 22nd. We will start tonight's meeting
with roll call attendance. Mr. Berg.
Item 2:
Pledge of Allegiance:
De Weerd: Item NO.2 is the pledge of allegiance. Tonight we will be led in the pledge
by Jarom Price. If you will all rise and join us.
(Pledge of allegiance recited.)
Item 3:
Community Invocation by Pastor Fred Thompson with Meridian
Assembly of God:
De Weerd: Jarom, I would like to present you a City of Meridian pin and thank you for
leading us tonight. Item 3 is our community invocation. Tonight we will be led by Pastor
Fred Thompson with the Meridian Assembly of God Church. If you will all join us in the
invocation or take this as an opportunity for a moment of silence. Thank you, pastor.
Thompson: Let us pray or pause for a moment of reflection. Lord God Almighty,
according to your word, when we need wisdom you grant it to us freely. My prayer for
the City Council of this growing city is that you would grant each member the insight and
wisdom to continue to govern with integrity and the best interest of the entire
community. God, there are times we just flat out don't know what to do, but as we look
to you, you provide that guidance. We thank you for that. And we ask that each
Council member may know your love and peace and grace as they go about the
business of this city. May citizens presenting matters before this body look to you as
their petitions are considered and be satisfied with the results, knowing that your Spirit
Meridian City Council
August 22, 2006
Page 2 of 81
is guiding their deliberation? Bless each one present here today, we pray in Jesus'
name, amen.
Item 4:
Adoption of the Agenda:
De Weerd: Pastor Thompson, we appreciate you being with us tonight. I'd like to give
you one of our pins. Thank you so much. Item NO.4 is adoption of the agenda.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: On our Consent Agenda, resolution number, Item G, is 06-526. Regular agenda,
Items 12 and 13 have been requested by the applicant to be continued to nine --
September 26, 2006. And Item 21 has been asked to be continued to September 5th,
2006. And Items 23, 24, 25, and 26 ordinances start with number 06-1252, 06-1253,
06-1254,06-1255. And with that I move we approve the agenda as noted.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Mr. Bird, I would like to add an Item C under Department Reports for the
Mayor's office regarding the letter I placed in front of you.
Bird: Okay.
De Weerd: Request for support of ACHD's impact fee ordinance.
Bird: Motion maker agrees to that.
Rountree: Second agrees.
De Weerd: Thank you. Is there any -- oh, I don't want to -- I don't want discussion. All
those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 5:
Consent Agenda:
A. Approve Minutes of May 16, 2006 Pre-Council Meeting:
B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: AZ 06-015 Request
for Annexation and Zoning of 182.60 acres to R-8 (Medium Density
Residential) (168.23 acres), TN-R (Traditional Neighborhood-
Residential) (10.42 acres) and C-N (Neighborhood Business) (3.94
acres) zones for Tanana Valley Subdivision (f.k.a. - Lookout
Meridian City Council
August22,2006
Page 3 of 81
Ridge Subdivision) by Farwest, LLC - southeast corner of Meridian
Road and Victory Road:
C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 06-
013 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 548 single family
residential lots, 1 commercial lot, 1 school lot and 20 common lots
on 182.60 acres in a proposed R-8, TN-R and C-N zones for
Tanana Valley Subdivision (f.k.a. - Lookout Ridge Subdivision)
by Farwest, LLC - southeast corner of Meridian Road and Victory
Road:
D. Development Agreement: AZ 06-014 Request for Annexation
and Zoning of 20.16 acres from RUT (Ada County) to R-4 (Medium
Low-Density Residential) zones for Cabella Creek Subdivision by
A TM Development, LLC - northeast corner of East Victory Road
and South Mesa Way:
E. Development Agreement: AZ 06-021 Request for Annexation
and Zoning of 77.66 acres from Ada County RUT to C-G (General
Commercial) and R-15 (Medium-High Density Residential) zones
for Kenai Subdivision by Kenai Partners, LLC - south of East
Overland Road and west of South Eagle Road:
F. Development Agreement: AZ 05-058 Request for Annexation
and Zoning of 49.95 acres from RUT to an R-8 zone for Keeao
Sprinas Subdivision by Todd Campbell - 5910 North Black Cat
Road:
G. Resolution No. 06-526 Resolution Setting Forth
Certain Findings and Purposes to Declare Surplus Propertv;
Authorizing the Mayor of the City of Meridian to Donate
Surplus Wastewater Clarification Equipment to the City of
Boise:
H. Aareement with ACHD for Roadway Construction I Sewer and
Water Line Improvements for ACHD Proiect 504003, Ten Mile
Road, Franklin Road to Cherry Lane:
I. Aqreement with ACHD for Roadway Construction I Sewer and
Water Line Improvements for ACHD Proiect 603052, Overland
Road, Linder Road to Meridian Road and ACHD Proiect
302033, Overland Road & Meridian Road Intersection:
J. Aareement with ACHD for Roadway Construction I Sewer and
Water Line Improvements for ACHD Proiect 504043. Eaale
Meridian City Council
August22,2006
Page 4 of 81
Road. Victory to Ridenbaugh Canal and ACHD Project 303014.
Victory Road & Eaale Road Intersection:
K. Public Works Chanae Order Number 1 for Power and Radio
Installation at 3 PRV Sites with AME Electric:
L. Public Works Chanae Order No. 1 for the East Ustick Road
Widenina Project (Desiqn) with Quadrant Consulting, Inc:
M. Water Main Easement Aareement for Grace Assisted Livinq
Phase II by Grace @ Fairview Lakes, LLC:
N. Water Main Easement Aareement for Haz-Tech Subdivision
with Frey, LLC:
O. Streetliaht Agreement for Settlement BridQe No.4 with Capital
Development:
P. Streetliaht Aareement for Settlement Bridae No.5 with Capital
Development:
Q. SHP 06-001 Request for Short Plat Approval for Hastinas
Subdivision No.1 consisting of 4 commercial office building lots
on 1.57 acres in a proposed L-O zone by Monterey, LLC:
R. SHP 06-002 Request for Short Plat Approval for Hastinas
Subdivision No.2 consisting of 4 commercial office building lots
on 1.57 acres in a proposed L-O zone by Monterey, LLC:
S. School Resource Officer Aareement between the Meridian
Police Department and Meridian School District:
De Weerd: Okay. Consent Agenda.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve the Consent Agenda, which includes Resolution No. 06-526,
Item G, and for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest on all proper papers.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to approve the Consent Agenda in front of you. Is
there any discussion? Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll.
Meridian City Council
August22,2006
Page 5 of 81
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 6:
Department Reports:
A. Parks Department - Doug Strong
1. Update of Relocation of Pine Street School:
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Berg. Item 6 under Department Reports. We will begin with
our Parks Department. We have to apologize. Our light bulb is going out in our
projector and so it's been getting increasingly worse, but it is on order, it just is very
slow.
Strong: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the Mayor asked me to look at options
for moving the Pine Street School to one of our city parks in the event that we need to
get it off the school property that may go away here soon. So, we looked at a couple
options. We discussed the possibility of locating the school at Storey Park or the option
of locating it at Settler's Park, seemed to be the two best options. So, what I'm showing
you tonight is a location at Settler's Park. It seemed like it made a lot of sense to
propose this as a location and to be able to show you how it would actually fit in Settler's
Park, because we had recent concept design work done at Settler's Park that would
allow us to drop the footprint of that building in schematically, so you could see where it
would fit, and I have given you a handout with two possible options of how to locate it in
the site and just kind of give you a perception of how it might work in this corner and
what it would actually look like from a size standpoint. So, in this -- the only -- the only
one I'm going to project tonight is option one and it's kind of hard to see, but it's right up
in that area. The status of this history building or history center is still a little uncertain,
depending on what we work out with City Hall, but in this corner that you recently
approved the concept for, the idea was making a community corner, a village or plaza
area for community gatherings and it seems to make sense to locate the school building
there as well from a historic standpoint. In this location you can see that the entry faces
out towards this parking lot. In the second concept that's shown, the building is turned
and pulled down into this area where it faces kind of into more of the plaza area where
you enter from the plaza versus entering from the parking lot. So, those are some of
the options or considerations that could be made if we chose to put the building there.
The third option, which I have not shown you, actually puts the building facing the
parking lot, but up in this overflow area up in here, which is outside the concept area
that was designed for this community corner. In discussing with -- discussing this with
staff and whoever else I could get to look at it, option one seemed to be the most
appealing to people, so that's the reason I projected that one. The reason that we
would recommend moving it to Settler's Park is that from a moving-the-building
standpoint, it would be a more direct route down to Settler's Park than to Storey Park.
One of the other reasons that we shied away from Storey Park was that there is not a
lot of room at Storey Park to locate a building of this type or provide good access and
Meridian City Council
August 22, 2006
Page 6 of 81
additional parking and some of the considerations that would be important for visitors to
an historic building. So, I would certainly entertain questions or comment. This is just a
very early look at what we could potentially do with this building and certainly nothing is
final or that far along at this point.
De Weerd: Thank you, Doug. Questions from Council?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: The concept I like real well, Doug, but has that building been looked at to make
sure it is moveable?
Strong: Not that I'm aware of, that we had any evaluation of what it would take to move
the building. It looks like it's a pretty straight structure that probably could be lifted up
and moved. But that's without an actual contractor looking at it. I would not know.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Doug, I don't have a scale on this particular proposal, but what's -- concept
two, where the building is actually to the south, and parallel to one of those community
buildings, what's the distance between those two, roughly?
Strong: There is probably 50 to 75 feet between the buildings. There is quite a lot of
space in that area.
Rountree: And when you looked at option three, did you consider orienting the front
door to the area that's identified as the history center outside display yard. I guess
that's what that is.
Strong: Orienting it toward the south, essentially?
Rountree: Yes. It seems to me that putting the building there, it can function as a
separate activity center, yet share a common area for display. Where you have it in
option one or option two, it seems to get in the way of what might be going on in that
other community building.
Strong: Those are all important considerations and the reason for the orientation of the
front door would be for access or approach to the building and that was the only
consideration, not the activities that would occur once you actually got into that area.
So, the area to the north of -- that you talked about as option three, that's an overflow
parking area, it's a grassy area right now. That would probably be the least desirable
Meridian City Council
August 22, 2006
Page 7 of 81
area to put it in. It certainly could be done there, but it's also kind of an over -- a storm
retention area, drainage bed area, so there would have to be consideration for that.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: Doug, what's the relationship with the district, just to go forward from the cost of
moving it to the future cost of maintaining, keeping it up?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton, I guess I will attempt to answer that question. The school
district will be selling their property, so that school house needs to be moved. The
school district believes they could probably get a donation to move the school house by
the person who moves all of their portables. Since they have given them lots of
business and so we are hoping that we can get that donated. The maintenance has
been a line item of the city. We have been doing the maintenance on the school house.
Borton: Okay.
Strong: We even have a renovated sign on the corner that we could move. We can
probably do that in house. We could take care of that.
De Weerd: Any other questions from Council?
Strong: Thank you.
De Weerd: I do think that we probably would like to have a preference from Council, so
that's something that we can discuss with the school district and that sort of thing. I
have an idea what Councilman Rountree is thinking. How about the rest of you?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: I'm not sure if it's -- whatever is on the board if that is option one or option two.
Is that one?
Bird: That's one.
Borton: One. My preference is one. I like the way it frames the historic center and the
activities that are to take place to the south of that in the plaza area. So, that would be
my preference.
De Weerd: This one?
Meridian City Council
August 22, 2006
Page 8 of 81
Borton: Correct.
De Weerd: Okay.
Bird: Option one for me, Mayor.
Wardle: Madam Mayor, in the absence of a place closer to our city downtown core to
place the building, I would say option one would be my preference as well.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Rountree: I'm all right.
B. Legal Department
1. Solid Waste Advisory Committee Recommendation for
Approval of $5.130.00 to Crossroads Middle School from
Community Recyclina Fund:
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Rountree. Okay. Well, thank you, Doug, for giving these
illustrations and thank your staff for that as well. Okay. Item 6-B, our Legal
Department, Mr. Nary.
Nary: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. In front of you is a line item
request for 5,130 dollars from the Solid Waste Advisory Committee in regards to a
portion of the payment for some picnic benches and picnic tables at Crossroads Middle
School. This is in line with other similar requests of the Solid Waste Advisory
Committee received for similar things, such as this type of thing on the school grounds.
These are funds that aren't available for the schools to get these types of amenities
added to the school. As all of you know, the money from the solid waste account is
collected through SSC and the city, is, then, maintained to be returned to the community
for these types of projects. One of the conditions that's always the committee's concern
is that half -- at least half of the cost is put in by the requester. Whether it's through
labor, or property, or the actual purchasing of product, that they include as part of their
request and this complies with all of those similar types that we have received in the
past. So, if it meets your approval, we need a specific motion to approve that
expenditure. The money is available in our account that is maintained by finance.
That's approximately 40,000 dollars a year. We haven't used all of it up by any stretch,
so this certainly is within the ballpark to do that if you wish.
De Weerd: I do know our fire chief has asked me, since this was in front of us regarding
recycling, that we had a very energetic music teacher at the salmon barbecue who is
collecting water bottles and was pretty dismayed that we didn't have a recycling
opportunity. So, she was recycling herself. The chief was the winner in receiving all the
bags and he had nowhere to take them. So, we are hoping that maybe at some point
Meridian City Council
August 22, 2006
Page 9 of 81
we have an outlet for recyclable water bottles. And I did tell him I would give a plug.
Chief, did I do okay?
Anderson: Thank you. Appreciate it.
Rountree: And Cheryl appreciates it.
De Weerd: Okay. So, we will let you comment later. Council, any questions for staff or
Mr. Sedlacek with Sanitary Services?
Rountree: Madam Mayor, if there are no questions, I move that we approve the
committee's recommendation for 5,130 dollars for Crossroads Middle School community
recycling fund.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve the request in front of you.
If there is no discussion, Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
C. Mayor's Office
1. Mayor to send Letter to ACHD for Impact Fee Ordinance
No. 202:
De Weerd: Okay. Item 6-C. In front of you is a letter that was drafted by Mr. Siddoway
and he apologizes for not being able to be here. Tomorrow the Ada County Highway
District will be holding their Public Hearing regarding the impact fees as they have gone
through a practice similar to ours to updating and finding some solutions to helping our
strained infrastructure. In front of you is the draft of that letter, as well as a report from
Gary Inselman from ACHD staff regarding the impact fee and its ordinance. I apologize,
I thought that you had received this, and Peggy told me this afternoon that you hadn't.
So, I apologize you didn't have it in front of you sooner. As the hearing is tomorrow, I
would ask for your consideration to move forward with this letter. If you have any
objections, certainly we don't need to do that.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I'm for it. I'll sign the thing. Let's get it to them.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Wardle.
Meridian City Council
August 22, 2006
Page 10 of 81
Wardle: Madam Mayor, I'm just briefly reading Mr. Inselman's notes. I see on item A,
policy implications. It includes a future property tax credit, Section 7-3-07 that requires
the commission to allocate ten percent of the impact fee eligible system improvement
cost out of the property tax revenue.
De Weerd: Would you like to ask Mr. Inselman?
Wardle: Yeah. Just to clarify that for me, please, Gary.
Inselman: Madam Mayor, Mr. Wardle, that's in our existing ordinance as well, so we
weren't planning any major methodology changes with this update. That was a
concession back in 2003 when we went through a year and a half process with the
impact fee task force of representatives of the development community and the
community as a whole and that was to try and maintain a past commitment of the
highway district that we would make up the shortfall in revenue out of the general fund.
We wanted to cap it and that was the compromise that we came up with in 2003 and we
are proposing to maintain that through this update.
Wardle: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions for Gary while he's up here?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Gary.
'nselman: Thanks.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton.
Borton: I, for one, I know it's -- I know they need a response by tomorrow. Maybe I'm a
stickler with the details. I don't -- I don't necessarily feel comfortable -- I'm not saying I
oppose it or thinking any comment one way or the other on the ordinance. I at least
would like to see the thing and maybe a final report or recommendations from the
citizen's advisory committee that's referenced in the memorandum. It makes reference
to the ordinance is attached and I don't have the attachment to this letter, so -- because
time's so short I don't want to voice my support or opposition to the ordinance. I
presume that the highway district might understand.
De Weerd: Okay.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
August22,2006
Page 11 of81
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I would agree and not that I oppose the ordinance as written, but would like at
least a short opportunity to review that before placing a signature in support of that.
De Weerd: Council, I guess we could do one of two things. Gary, do you think they will
be taking action on this tomorrow night -- or tomorrow? Yes, they will? Certainly, you
can authorize this letter under my signature if you don't feel comfortable taking action as
a whole or -- I don't know. I -- or we can phrase this a little bit different. I know in the
many calls I get from our citizens regarding traffic and needed traffic solutions, this is a
much needed ordinance and increase to the impact fees.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird.
Bird: The only thing I disagree on this letter is you need to take the vice-president up to
Mr. Borton, not me.
De Weerd: Oh. Sorry, Mr. Borton.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I would, again, in the interest of time certainly agree that authorizing the
Mayor's signature, since she's had the opportunity to review and discuss with staff, as
well as the commission. My only comment would be before I affix my signature I'd like
to -- commenting that I approve of the ordinance, I would just like to review it entirely.
So, I'm comfortable with you signing on behalf of the city.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Possibly we could wordsmith that last sentence a little bit and I would
suggest that possibly instead of making recommendation, to say we support the goals
of the proposed impact fee ordinance. And all the rest of the letter is, essentially, the
same comment.
De Weerd: Would Council feel comfortable with that change?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Meridian City Council
August 22, 2006
Page 12 of 81
Borton: I think the recommendation or the suggestion from Councilman Wardle makes
the most sense to me. I don't know if there is a change, but -- that could include my
name on it and, again, not to be a stickler, but it's a request that's a tax increase and I
understand there is a need for it and whatnot, but I'd like to see what the committee
proposed. I'd like to see a suggestion or recommending the maximum allowed and
requesting less, why less, maybe a little bit more information before I necessarily want
my letter -- or my name to go on a letter that proposed a tax increase. I totally
understand increased expenses and needs and challenges the highway district has and
I'm sensitive that are pulled ten different directions and probably never have enough
funding to adequately accomplish what they want to accomplish, but I don't see there is
ever a time or -- in this short notice where I'm going to support a blanket tax increase,
quite frankly, without seeing the background information. So, if Councilman Wardle
suggested if it's a letter from the Mayor indicating your support, I don't have any
problem with it, I just don't want to mislead the highway district about my participation
and recommendation or not on this.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I appreciate Councilman Borton's concerns. Some of us have more
information than others and I have had an opportunity to review most of this. But I
respect what he's saying and I, too, would probably be in the same position if I didn't
know what was going on for sure and I think I would concur in what Councilman Wardle
is suggesting.
De Weerd: Okay.
Bird: That would be fine with me.
De Weerd: Just for the record, I know in splitting hairs what a tax increase is to one, is
not a tax increase to another. This is not a tax increase to the general taxpayers. This
is an impact fee that would cause new development to pay a larger share for roads as
the prices of building them and right of way have all escalated, as everything else has.
So, just to note for the public that is here, it is not something that comes from your
property taxes. This is an impact fee that is imposed on new growth. And just for the
record, I will read the letter. It is: Dear Mr. Franden and Members of the Commission:
The City of Meridian supports the Ada County Highway District, ACHD, Impact Fee
Ordinance 202. We believe the increased impact fees are needed to implement the
recently adopted Capital Improvement Plan. The road projects shown in the CIP for
Meridian area are crucial to our city and we support the impact fee ordinance as a
needed measure to help fund the necessary road improvements. Our citizens often
comment that new development ought to be paying its own way for the traffic impacts
they create. Impact fee ordinance 202 is a measure that moves towards that goal. The
fee increases should not be phased in over time. They are needed now. We look
forward to the improved roads and intersections these funds will provide to our citizens.
Meridian City Council
August 22, 2006
Page 13 of 81
We support approval of Impact Fee Ordinance 202. I will insert, I, rather than we, and
sign it under my name and title. I appreciate that. Again, I do apologize to Council that
this was thrown in front of you without notice and will make sure some of these things
don't fall through the cracks in the future. But, Gary, I will be faxing this over to your
office in the morning, if that's appropriate. Okay?
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Nary.
Nary: Also, not to be a big stickler, but since our impact fee ordinance is on the agenda,
impact fees are the -- are to assure that development pays its proportionate share to
maintain the levels of service. So, it isn't even a -- not only is it not a tax, it's not an
increased amount to the development to assure that the taxpayers that have already
paid for the existing services, that to maintain those continuously, that they would pay
their proportionate share. So, it really is an attempt to balance that, and I only bring that
up, because our own impact fee ordinance is on our agenda as well, so--
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Nary, for that. And, you know, I know it is already a
challenge for Ada County Highway District. Our roads are impacted by the traffic of the
entire Treasure Valley and they get to bear the price to make those road improvements.
So, I will be getting that to you first thing in the morning. Okay. Thank you, Council, for
that.
Item 7:
Items Moved from Consent Agenda:
De Weerd: No items were moved from the Consent Agenda.
Item 8:
Annual CPI Rate Adjustment for Solid Waste Collection Services by
Steve Sedlacek and Bill Gregory with Sanitary Service Company:
De Weerd: Item 8 is our annual CPI rate adjustment for solid waste collection services.
Steve.
Sedlacek: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. In front of you, you
should have a memorandum. I don't know if you'd get that electronically or in hard
copy, but every year we come to you based our contract. We do the calculations based
on the Consumer Price Index and we adjust our rates according to that CPI. This year
the rate -- the CPI change was 4.08 percent year over year. We, by contract, reduced
that amount by ten percent and, then, we apply that calculation to our rates, excluding
landfill fee changes, and so, basically, what you have in front of you is about a three
percent rate change for fiscal year 2007. This rate change would go into effect October
1 st, which means that the first billing cycle where you would see the changes, the early
November -- I think it's the November 5th billing cycle. Now, this is one of the higher
CPI changes we have had recently. Inflation is increasing slightly, mostly due to fuel,
Meridian City Council
August 22, 2006
Page 14 of 81
and we burn a lot of fuel. So, this is, basically, just a mathematical calculation. I don't
know if you have any questions for me.
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I just have a question, Steve, and certainly agree with the methodology you
have. I noticed on your rate structure you have -- and either I haven't seen it before or I
missed it -- a habitual late can fee. Could you tell me what that is and is it new?
Sedlacek: That's not new. It is a rate that we are supposed to charge customers that
can't ever get their cans to the curb and constantly call us and say, oh, can you come
back to my house and pick up my cans. Well, we have never charged anybody for that,
we just go get their cans. We don't ever charge anybody. Now, I suppose if somebody
called us --
De Weerd: I didn't know you did that.
Sedlacek: Sure.
De Weerd: Gosh, I have waited a whole week to have you come back.
Sedlacek: Well, you were probably afraid of the habitual late can.
Bird: You would have got charged.
Sedlacek: It's the hammer we have that we don't ever use and it's certainly not
worthwhile charging anybody that if you can call them and arrange a better way to do it.
And that's what we do. We just work with the customers. So, actually, that rate never
has changed in ten years. I don't know if that's a rate per month or a rate per week or
what.
De Weerd: Per trip.
Bird: That don't even do it for pickup.
Sedlacek: I don't know. I doubt we will ever use it. It's just been on the spreadsheet,
so -- the city, actually, does not have a code for charging that either, so I'm not sure how
we do it.
De Weerd: Do you want it on there?
Sedlacek: Sure. I don't know. 1--
Meridian City Council
August 22, 2006
Page 15 of 81
Rountree: It's in the contract.
Bird: It's in the contract.
De Weerd: Okay.
Sedlacek: There is one other --
Bird: It's been on there since I --
Sedlacek: Yeah. One other thing, last year we dealt with an issue with the county
where they wanted to raise their landfill fees. I was hoping that they would get a landfill
fee increase to me this summer, so that we could go in lock step through the process
and raise rates once to the customers, if the county was going to raise their rates. I
have heard that they will, but they are going wait until the end of the year. So, once
again, we are going to be in the situation where as much as we try to work in the same
time frames as them, they are going to wait until after, frankly, the election, I think.
De Weerd: I guess, Mr. Clerk, we just need to pull the minutes from our joint meeting
that said they would do it on a timely basis that would also coincide with this rate
increase and ask for -- if they do increase it, ask for the waiver that would, then, bring it
back to a year from now. I see there is no excuse for that and we owe our citizens
public notice and timely notice and this is not acceptable.
Sedlacek: I'm just giving you the heads up. We will see how that works out.
De Weerd: Well, we will be ready.
Sedlacek: Excellent.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Sedlacek: Thank you. Anymore questions?
De Weerd: Council, any other questions?
Rountree: I have none.
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle, your question was answered?
Wardle: Yes, it was. Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Okay.
Bird: Do we need a motion?
Meridian City Council
August 22, 2006
Page 16 of 81
De Weerd: Yes.
Bird: I thought so. Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Before I make a motion, I want to compliment Mr. Sedlacek. As normal, he
comes in with a set of rate increases, reasons for it, and how he does it and I appreciate
that. And with that I'd move that we approve the SSC, Sanitary Services, rate increase
and to publish the rate increase so it will take effect October 1 st, 2006.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to approve the request in front of you. Is there any
discussion? Hearing none, Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 9:
FP 06-038 Request for Final Plat approval for 5 single-family residential
building lots on 1.06 acres in an R-8 zone for Windsona Subdivision No.
~ by Landmark Engineering & Planning - north of Ustick Road and west of
Under Road:
De Weerd: Thank you. Item NO.9 is FP 06-038. Anna.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I'm not sure if the applicant is here
for this one or not. I was told at about five minutes to 5:00 that someone wanted to
table it. I asked who that person was and no one could answer. So, I'm not sure if we
have got an applicant here tonight.
De Weerd: Do we have an applicant on this item in the audience? Okay.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I would suggest we continue this
item, then. You. Not me. Sorry. Wrong, we.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we continue FP 06-038 until September 5th, 2006.
Borton: Second.
Meridian City Council
August22,2006
Page 17 of 81
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to continue Item NO.9 to the 5th of September. All
those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 10:
MFP 06-004 Request to Modify Final Plat requirements for the approved
fencing along the east and north boundaries for Amke Subdivision by
Michael Arnke - 2070 West Pine Avenue:
Item 11:
MFP 06-003 Request for Modification of the Final Plat for Paramount Nos.
11 and 12 to eliminate the perimeter fencing adjacent to the common
areas. Fencing to be installed at the time of residential construction and
to be the preference of the individual homeowner for Paramount
Subdivision, Phases 11 and 12 by Paramount Development, Inc. - west
of Meridian Road and north of McMillan Road:
De Weerd: Okay. Item 10 is MFP 06-004. Anna.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, on both 10 and 11 are requested
modifications to final plats. We do have letters from the applicants stating that they are
in agreement with conditions of approval. We haven't done these with Council yet.
Would you like a full explanation of those modifications?
De Weerd: Council?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: You say that you have got written agreement from both for the conditions or
verbal?
Canning: Mr. Arnke came and gave me written for Arnke also.
Bird: Oh. Okay. Because it say no here.
Canning: He handed it to me at ten minutes after 7:00.
Bird: Okay.
De Weerd: Okay. Council?
Bird: I don't have any questions.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Anna.
Meridian City Council
August 22. 2006
Page 18of81
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Hearing no further comment, I move that we approve Item 10, MFP 06-004
and Item 11, MFP 06-003.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve Items 10 and 11. Are
there any questions or discussions? Hearing none, Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 12:
Continued Public Hearing from July 18, 2006: AZ 05-067 Request for
Annexation and Zoning of 6.9 acres from Ada County RUT to R-15
Medium-High Density Residential zone for Casa Meridiana by Insight
Architects - 1777 Victory Road:
Item 13:
Continued Public Hearing from July 18, 2006: CUP 05-060 Request
for a Conditional Use Permit for a 32-unit multi-family development in a
proposed R-15 Medium-High Density Residential District for Casa
Meridiana by Insight Architects - 1777 Victory Road:
De Weerd: Okay. Items 12 and 13 have been requested by the applicant to continue to
September 26th. Council?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we continue public hearings for Items 12 and 13 one final time
until September 26, 2006.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to continue Items 12 and 13 to
September 26th. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 14:
Continued Public Hearing from August 8, 2006: AZ 06-019 Request
for Annexation and Zoning of 10.59 acres from RUT to an R-8 zone for
Meridian City Council
August 22, 2006
Page 19 of 81
Southwick Subdivision by Gemstar Development, LLC - 1255 West
Ustick Road:
Item 15:
Continued Public Hearing from August 8, 2006: PP 06-018 Request
for Preliminary Plat approval of 42 building lots and 6 common lots on
10.59 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Southwick Subdivision by
Gemstar Development, LLC - 1255 West Ustick Road:
De Weerd: Okay. Items 14 and 15 are a continued Public Hearing from August 8th on
AZ 06-019 and PP 06-018. I will start this with staff comments.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, was it okay when Will dimmed the
lights before? Because I think you can see the overhead projector a lot better. Yes,
much better. That's fine. This is the Southwick project, which you were familiar with a
couple weeks ago. They have proposed to bring back a plat that was consistent with
the R-4 designation and removed all their four flag lots. They have done that. Staff has
checked it against the R-4 standards. They are okay. We would ask that if the Council
wishes to approve this project tonight that you schedule the findings for three weeks.
Staff needs to rewrite the staff report to reflect the revised layout and to review the
conditions of approval and it will just give us a little extra time to work with the applicant
to make sure they are in agreement with the conditions of approval before Council
approves those findings. There wasn't any new information from last time to present to
you.
De Weerd: Okay. Is the applicant here this evening? Are you okay, Mrs. Wildwood,
on continuing this item?
Wildwood: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we are. I chatted briefly with Anna
and I believe it was Councilman Rountree that asked about the reduction to the R-4
zoning. We are perfectly fine with that. We haven't really changed anything. We have
increased the lot sizes, increased the common usable open space. I think there is just -
- there are very few details left to be worked out with staff. I was going to jokingly say
we agree with staff comments and conditions of approval, we just haven't seen them
yet. So, again, this is that unusual case where I'm begging for large lots and so we
concur the discussions have been very easy with staff, so I'm sure we can work
everything out between now and then.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Wildwood: Thank you.
Canning: And, Madam Mayor, I wasn't asking for this to be continued, I was just asking
for an extra week for the Findings. That's all.
De Weerd: Oh. Okay. Well, we, again, appreciate this unusual request to lower
density instead of increase it. Thank you.
Meridian City Council
August 22, 2006
Page 20 of 81
Bird: Thank you very much.
Wildwood: You're welcome. Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. This is a continued Public Hearing. Is there anyone in the audience
who would like to provide testimony on either Items 14 or 15? Council, seeing none --
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: With no further comment, I move that we close the public hearings on Items
14 and 15.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to close the public hearings on Items 14 and 15. All
those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED ALL AYES.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Rountree: I move that we approve Item 14, AZ 06-019 for annexation and request staff
to have the Findings in three weeks.
Bird: To an R-4.
Rountree: As an R-4.
Borton: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve Item 14. If there is no
discussion, Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Okay. Item 15.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
August22,2006
Page 21 of 81
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we approve Item 15, preliminary plat PP 06-018.
Borton: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 15. Mr. Berg, will you call
roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 16:
Public Hearing: VAR 06-018 Request for a Variance for full access to
Bienville Square from State Highway 55 (Eagle Road) for Bienville
Square Subdivision by Red Cliff Development - 2539 North Eagle Road:
De Weerd: Okay. Item 16 is a Public Hearing on VAR 06-018. I will open this Public
Hearing with staff comments.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Bienville Square access.
The property is located on the east side of Eagle Road, south of Ustick. It does not
have frontage on Ustick.
Rountree: I need to recuse myself for both 16 and 17.
De Weerd: Okay. For the record, Mr. Rountree has reclused himself -- recused
himself. He's reclused himself, too.
Canning: Again, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the Sadie Creek project is
just north of this and, then, would be the Bienville project immediately south of that. The
applicant is requesting one new full access from and to Eagle Road. Specifically, the
approach would be located one quarter mile on the quarter mile south of Ustick Road
and Eagle Road intersection. That would line up with the access -- right-in, right-out
only access approved by Council for the Gateway Marketplace on the east side of Eagle
Road. Upon completion of the Eagle Road corridor plan, the access will be reduced to
left-in, right-in, right-out. Deceleration and acceleration lanes will be dedicated and
constructed to ITD standards at the applicant's request. ITD has provided a conditional
permit approval contingent on obtaining a variance from the Unified Development Code.
Sadie Creek Promenade just to the north, as I pointed out before, is willing to provide
cross-access to the Bienville Square at the time of development of their property. And
that is in our package. There is a commitment from Tamara Thompson with Sadie
Creek Promenade project to provide that cross-access. As you know, there is a platted
road on the west side of the properties and that would be one form of the cross-access.
There would also be cross-access across the shared boundary between the two
properties. Staff's recommendation is for denial, for the same reasons that staff has
Meridian City Council
August22,2006
Page 22 of 81
recommended denial on all these variances, that it's not supported by the
Comprehensive Plan or the Unified Development Code. In particular, this side of the
street faces additional constraints as compared to the east side of the street. On the
east side of Eagle you have got folks slowing down as they approach the intersection.
In this instance you actually have people speeding up as they exit the intersection.
Therefore, it would not be appropriate to have folks slowing down to enter the property.
The full access movement across at the quarter mile mark would -- does not comply
with the Eagle Road corridor study. And, then, as mentioned before, Sadie Creek is just
north. They have been granted three accesses to Ustick and they have always agreed
to allow cross-access. So, staff feels that the site does have sufficient access. That
was all with regard to the variance, shall not grant a right or special privilege that is not
otherwise allowed in the district. So, they do have access. The second variance finding
is that it relieves an undue hardship because of characteristics of the site. Staff
recognizes that granting access from Eagle Road may relieve some traffic congestion
within the site, because of southbound traffic on Eagle Road would not be forced to use
Ustick Road to get through the intersection. Drivers could turn to and from Eagle Road,
however -- excuse me. I think I deleted some of my -- so, there is some logic to it, but
they still do have an opportunity to go out to Ustick Road. So, staff feels that there is
really not an undue hardship, because they do have cross-access across the Sadie
Creek property. The variance shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and
welfare. I think if you look at the accident rates from 2004, the Ustick-Eagle Road
intersection isn't on the top ten. If you look at 2005 and 2006 it looks like it's going to be
number four, with close to 33 accidents at that location both those years. That just
about coincides with the development of the commercial properties on these corners.
So, it's clear that providing these access points along here is having an effect on the
traffic safety along this roadway corridor. Staff -- Amanda Hess, the associate planner
that has been assigned both this and the Sadie Creek Promenade project, did provide a
memo to you with regard to both projects. It was in reference to a compromise, but the
staff recommendation is for denial of these variance requests. If you'd like me to go
through what that memo talks about now or if you'd rather have it after Bienville Square.
I'm not sure if you want to hear both of these and think about them together and, then,
make decisions on them or if you'd like to just take them one at a time?
De Weerd: Council, what would your preference be? To hear them both at the same
time? Might be easier.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I would -- I guess I would suspect that any testimony we would take would be
on both -- on the concept of access to Eagle Road in general. I would be fine to hear
both of them, unless either the applicant or legal counsel objects to that.
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Meridian City Council
August22,2006
Page 23 of 81
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I guess what I would suggest is that you
hear the testimony separately. If it seems that there is some necessity to discuss them
after you have heard testimony, you can certainly table your decision, not make a
decision, open your next hearing and do that, if you think -- there is a proposal in this --
in your packet about a compromise. But I think -- I think each -- each applicant should
have the opportunity individually to present their case as to why the variance relates to
them.
De Weerd: Okay. I guess, Anna, though, as it relates to this application, what you can
share now should be shared before public testimony.
Canning: Okay. The compromise position -- the Sadie Creek Promenade project not
only requires -- ITD has said that they will not grant access to that property. So, it's
clear that -- that any access along Eagle Road will be serving both of these properties.
Staff feels that the quarter mile mark location with the full access with terminating -- or
reducing that to left in only over time is not appropriate, that that left-in movement
provides a lot more conflict points. The right-in, right-out has been where the Council
has been going more often with their approval of these requests and we felt that that
was a more reasonable solution on the Bienville property. We are proposing that it line
up with the second Gateway Marketplace opening across the street, so it would be a -- I
think it's about 700 feet. That location could be -- Bienville Square could be asked to
redesign the site, so that there was clear and easy access to Sadie Creek to provide
that in-and-out movement. It also would allow full acceleration and deceleration lanes,
because it's about in the middle of the properties. So, that was the -- if Council is
inclined to approve an access on this portion of Eagle Road, staff feels that that one is a
better solution than what the applicants have recommended -- or requested individually.
We have encouraged them to work together to kind of -- to try and come to some --
something similar to this. They have just proceeded on their own with -- with the
requests that are before you tonight. But we think that this serves both of them a little
better. Or serves the city better in this instance, but staff is still recommending denial.
De Weerd: So, now, Anna, you had mentioned ITD's comments are to deny?
Canning: We are only talking about the Bienville Square today -- or right now, because
we haven't opened Sadie Creek. But I just felt it -- to understand why we are proposing
this alternative, I mentioned that because of -- on the Sadie Creek property they have
said that they will not allow an access.
De Weerd: Okay.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: You say on Sadie Creek they will not allow a -- well, we shouldn't even be talking
about Sadie Creek. On Bienville -- it's hard for me to understand why anybody would
Meridian City Council
August22,2006
Page 24 of 81
deny access when between Ustick and the school down there, there is seven asphalted
entries on the west side of Eagle Road, done -- put in by lTD.
De Weerd: I guess, Mr. Bird, those are for homes and both the city and ACHD -- or
ITD have adopted ordinances restricting access out onto a state facility. And they are
trying to be consistent to their policies as well, so -- any other questions for staff at this
time?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: It's not a question for staff, it's maybe more of a compliment to staff on this
Bienville project and the -- and this proposed solution, even though you might be
recommending a denial, you have provided something which I think -- for this
Councilman is very intriguing and if the applicant or public or anyone who is providing
any comments today, it might be addressed towards what staff has provided here. It
interests me greatly.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Anything else? Is the applicant here? If you will,
please, state your name and address for the record.
Haggett: My name is Rob Haggett. My address is 787 East State Street in Eagle,
Idaho. I represent Redcliff Development.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Haggett: Madam Mayor and Members of the Council, thank you very much for giving us
the opportunity to come back and present this once again. We are all very familiar with
this project. I think we are getting closer to a resolution. I do want to touch on
something real quick that Council member Borton just mentioned, was that this
recommendation by staff we feel is a good recommendation as well. However, ITD will
not support that. They have said that a number of times. It doesn't meet with their ITD
Eagle Road corridor plan. The access is too close to the intersection and they have
approved the access request that we have made at the quarter mile mark only. We just
recently met with them and received the same -- the same response, because we
wanted to talk about this as a possibility. So, it puts us in a little bit of a quagmire.
De Weerd: Rob, before you go further--
Haggett: Yes, ma'am.
De Weerd: -- we do know that they will be putting center planter medians in. Will there
be any breaks in there? So, does it matter how it aligns to the property across the
street?
Meridian City Council
August 22, 2006
Page 25 of 81
Haggett: That's a great question and it does not matter how it aligns to the property
across the street to ITD, as long as that median is put in. What they are proposing is
that the quarter mile mark with the median there is a left-hand turn as you're heading
north on Eagle Road to access our property and, then, a right-in, right-out, so that the
turning movement would be limited to a right-in, right-out, left-in only. And that would be
the furthest south point of our property, which is as close to the canal that you can get
on the south end. I will mention a couple of different things and go through this and,
then, turn over some time to Gary Funkhouser, who is here as a traffic engineer tonight.
We feel that the information that we will show tonight will support this variance, very
much like the three other applications that this Council has approved on the other three
corners in this area. In all of the following cases, staff recommended denial for the
variance requests and these were all -- even though staff recommended denial, this
Council approved each one of those. The first one is Brighton Corporation on the
northeast corner for the Lowe's development. They received one full access on the
north end and two, right-in, right-outs. The second one is the W.H. Moore project on the
northwest corner. The same thing, they received a full access point with two, right-in,
right-outs. The third project is the southeast corner that Tamara Thompson was in front
of you on June 27th for a request for two, right-in, right-outs, which were both granted.
Now, that project is a little bit different than the two northern projects, because they
have also full access to Ustick Road, which I believe they have at least two access
points there, as well as a proposed backage road that's being planned by ACHD. And
the timing of that is unknown. Could be three years. Could be ten years. But they will
have numerous access points in and out of that project. In all three of those cases, as I
stated earlier, ITD supported those applicants in their request for their access points.
Our request is for one temporary full access that will be reduced to a right-in, right-out,
left-in at some point in the future. That point in the future is when the state starts the
Eagle Road construction to improve the Eagle Road corridor; we will be restricted at
that point. When that starts -- it's projected to be within the next three or four years, but
we really don't know. I don't believe it's been funded yet, so as soon as that happens
we are more than happy to have the movement restricted to what ITO is recommending.
Our request will not only have the least impact of any of the other three requests in this
area, but we will be giving up, as Councilmember Bird mentioned, five deeded accesses
that are on our property. Now, granted, those accesses are for homes, for farming
equipment, but they are still access points and people can still drive in and out of those.
We are giving up five of those and asking for one. Councilman Bird stated at a hearing
on June 27th for the variance request by Landmark Corporation for the southeast
corner, that -- it's a comment that I fully agree with. Councilmember Bird stated that he
feels this Council has been penalizing developers on this one stretch of Eagle Road
when, basically, the horse was let out of the barn a long time ago. We all know it's a
problem, but it's an unfortunate problem that's been put in Anna's lap to deal with and
other staff members of the city. But we have to look at each application separately and
find the merits and see what works and what doesn't work and in this case our request
for this application works based on what ITD has stated. We are the last ones, Redcliff,
the last applicant to come to this party, other than right after us is another application for
a right-in, right-out, but we are, basically, the last two applicant's in this stretch of
development in this stretch of Eagle Road. There was also discussion at the June 27th
Meridian City Council
August22,2006
Page 26 of 81
hearing that the Uniform Development Code for this stretch of Eagle Road could
potentially be changed. The acting city attorney at the time, I believe, Mr. Baird, stated
that this stretch of road could be considered a special situation for access, while still
maintaining the concept of restricting access in the UDC on other stretches of state
highway within the city limits. There is one last thing I want to touch on that I think
needs clarification. The staff report states that we have been granted access by the
landowner to the north to get to Ustick Road and that's true. That's a condition of
approval based on their plat. But nobody knows when that project will be developed.
So, that access that we have is a future access. We don't -- we have no way of getting
to our property today and we want to develop now. We are close, we are ready. We
have a number of potential tenants, we have a number of things that will really make
this a great project and get us moving forward and it will be a very successful project if
we have this access. The 15 acres to the north of us, since they have been denied
access on Eagle Road, their potential tenants and their marketing to try to get tenants
has basically dried up. They have got very limited interest right now in that -- in that
project until such time that they have some kind of access. I'm going to turn the rest of
the presentation over to Gary Funkhouser with Stanley Consulting. He's a professional
traffic engineer. I think he will make a good case for what we are asking for tonight and
at the end I will make a closing remark. Thanks.
Funkhouser: Mayor and Council, my name is Gary Funkhouser. I'm a transportation
engineer for Stanley Consultants. Business address is 1940 South Bonito Way in
Meridian. Stanley Consultants -- our staff ,or the firm itself, has prepared all the traffic
impact studies for the four corners. All four of the developments in the area. So, we are
very familiar with what the issues are in that area and what access mayor may not
cause to the traffic flow within the Ustick-Eagle corridor. I'm not here to argue against
access management. I'm a firm believer in the concept. But, again, there is access
management and there is access management. There is certain degrees of it. I'm here
tonight to discuss some of the issues that have been raised in the staff presentation and
in letters that you have received in your packets tonight. The first one is there is the ITD
letter in there of the March 22nd decision where they have granted access. This access
is not conditional. It's -- they have granted access with conditions. And as Rob has
mentioned, one of those conditions is that they relinquish the five existing legal
accesses that they do have. And, again, people may argue, well, that was for
residences or anything else. There is nothing in the deeds or anything when the state
purchased the property that limits that to those. So, they are legal accesses and it
would have to be determined in a court of law as to whether those are for strictly houses
and farm machinery or for an access to a development such as this. So, there are
accesses at that point at those locations at this time. Also, when the state considers
access, they consider what that access has to their system and there was a memo in
there from the fire department stating that this is a hazard. I guarantee you that the
state would not ever make a decision to put something in that is a hazard. It does have
different conditions from no access, yes, but it is not a hazard if it is put in correctly.
And things can be designed to mitigate accesses to relieve some of the potentials that
will be out there, whether it's the full access or a right-in, right-out. In the memo from
the planning director, under traffic conflict facts -- and this is the memo of August 18th,
Meridian City Council
August 22, 2006
Page 27 of 81
I'm looking at the second paragraph, and the last sentence in it says the majority of
vehicular accidents involve left turns in and out of driveways. Making u-turns is a much
safer option. In the -- at least my reading of the corridor study and concept that has
been put forth by ITD, is that they are trying to provide street access -- signalized street
accesses at the half point and, then, at an in between point, more likely the quarter mile
point, they were looking at a u-turn situation to where a person can come in and make
that u-turn and go back and access driveways that are in the opposite direction. Well,
at the quarter mile point that is where they are proposing to put in this access point and
as it states there that they say that it's much safer for that u-turn. At that location, if
you're looking at this as a single intersection, it's not a safer situation. If you look at it as
a single intersection. If you look at it as relieving or taking away a number of left turns,
that's when it becomes safer. But at this location where they are proposing, if you put
that left in, that left in also serves as that u-turn that the state has in their concept plan.
So, at this point here it is safer to make a left turn than it is the u-turn at that site,
because the left turn you get out of the traffic, the u-turn you got to make a complete
turn in the intersection and, then, accelerate from the traffic. So, you've got to provide
more time for the conflict to occur with a u-turn. I can also point out, if you look at the
designs -- and we are also designing the widening of the Eagle Road for the intersection
for the Winston Moore project. If you look at the design that they have at the Bald
Cyprus intersection, you have a widened section in there, because you cannot turn a full
size vehicle in the five lanes of traffic that's out there. If you're in that left turn bay you
cannot turn that without having a widened section. And you especially can't turn a
single unit truck. So, again, they have to make a turn into a widened section and, then,
accelerate back into the travel way. So, the left into this site at that point would serve
two purposes, the u-turn for their concept and the left turn into the site. The planning
director also made the point about the differential between southbound versus
northbound traffic. In other words, the northbound traffic would be slowing coming into
the intersection, while the southbound traffic would be accelerating. I point -- that
happens under one scenario. The other scenario is there is no difference. If there is a
green light they are both going 55 miles an hour. So, there is no differential in speed
going through that intersection. Everybody is going the speed limit or whatever they
can travel. During the peak hours you can't go the speed, but they are traveling
whatever they can do and they are not slowing down, they are trying to get through that
green light.
De Weerd: Gary, we are nearing the end of your time, so if wrap up is desired, this
would be a good time.
Funkhouser: Okay. The main points I want to make is that this can be designed as a
safe -- it can meet the design requirements for lTD. The design speed for the new
section of roadway, when it is 45 miles an hour, ITD does not like acceleration lanes, so
showing an acceleration lane, it would not be put in there. We are not putting any
acceleration lanes in at the Winston Moore project. You have to turn out into the flow of
traffic, because people do not use acceleration lanes, they feel like they will get trapped
at the end and never get out, so they want to -- they will wait until they get a break from
traffic. You can watch it day in and day out where you provide those things, they'll just
Meridian City Council
August22,2006
Page 28 of 81
wait until they can get there. So, you can provide a safe intersection for this
development. And I would stand for questions.
De Weerd: Okay. Any questions, Council?
Bird: I have none.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton.
Borton: Gary, can you comment on something that Rob mentioned about ITD allowing
or not allowing this type of access. I take it if ITD is telling you that they allow right-in,
right-out and left-in, that they wouldn't support a --
Funkhouser: Well, 1--
Borton: Hang on one second.
Funkhouser: Yeah. Okay.
Borton: Access without the left in, which would provide relatively fewer conflict points?
Funkhouser: Oh, yeah, I don't think that they wouldn't allow it. I think what -- what the
developer wants is to be able to negotiate with the state for the access. At this point if
the city precludes that, they cannot negotiate any access. They have been granted
access by the state at this point. But we can't negotiate as to what it will look like. And
when the state builds their project that will determine what that final access is. If they
put those left turn, u-turns at that site, they would have left-in and u-turns and have that
site. If they don't, they have right-in, right-out. And that's the same situation all the way
down that whole roadway. Whatever they finally decide to put in on that roadway is
what the control will be at each one of those intersections.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: I understand that. I just -- the earlier representation that ITD will not allow right-
in, right-out, as depicted, is that --
Funkhouser: I don't know, because, see, I wasn't involved in those -- those discussions.
Borton: Okay. All right.
Funkhouser: Yeah. I wasn't in on those discussions
Meridian City Council
August22,2006
Page 29 of 81
Borton: Thank you.
De Weerd: I guess I have a question. You mentioned the five deeded accesses, yet
they were not built for this kind of impact, and so how can you compare that these are
anywhere -- have any similar impact to what you're recommending?
Funkhouser: Yeah. I don't think I'm stating that. What I'm stating is that the state,
when they purchased the right of way, granted access to this parcel and there is no
restriction on that access. In other words, they never said that this access is for this
house for this time and this only or that. They were granted access, because the way
the deeds read and everything else is as shown on the plans. You have access as
shown on the plans. These are shown on the plans. It is access. So, if somebody
wants to change that, somebody could argue in a court of law and that's where it would
be determined as to whether that is legal access or not or whether they could take it
away.
De Weerd: And safety should be a consideration in this; is that not correct?
Funkhouser: Safety is always a consideration when the state looks at access.
De Weerd: Especially when your traffic is going 55, 60 or some cases 65 if the traffic's
moving at all.
Funkhouser: Yeah. Speed has -- definitely has a consideration in that.
De Weerd: Now, I understand you had mentioned the other three corners and -- but Mr.
Haggett had mentioned you need to look at these individually. And so as the two
properties to the north came in before the ordinance had changed, those were a little bit
difference situation and when you looked at this region as four corners, do these
accesses really make sense? And regardless of who you represent, if you were
representing us with an ordinance that limits access, would this make sense? And I
know that puts you on the spot and I apologize.
Funkhouser: No, it doesn't, because I have been asked the same question by attorneys
and judges. I'm also an expert witness for the state on cases like this also. And that's
one area where I differ the way the state is interpreting their type four access control. I
do not see where properly designed right-in, right-outs are a detriment to the system,
because if you look at their type four access control, they state that they are going to
have frontage roads, you know, clear to the mile points. You know, the new access
control, the signals are up at the mile points now, they are not at the half mile. The old
one is at the half mile point. But the new one they are considering is at the mile. So, if
they would have, at the time that they built Eagle Road, got the access for frontage
roads, that would have given these people on this side that opportunity to go east and
west. One thing that I didn't get to say that I was going to that the people on Leslie
Drive were going to complain about, you know, cut-through traffic. If you have got right-
in, right-out only on this access right here and no access to Ustick, which you aren't
Meridian City Council
August 22, 2006
Page 30 of 81
guaranteed yet until that other develops, all that right-in, right-out traffic that has to
access Ustick would go down Leslie. All of it would. That's their only real option is to
backtrack around to get up there. If you allow the full access on a temporary until that
other is put in there, then, the left turns have access out and it's quicker to go the other
way. There is a letter, I think you probably have access to, that we did the analysis that
if you looked at cut-through traffic out of this site to go that way, it takes roughly 90
seconds for them to cut through and go around where if that access was through the
promenade it's 20 seconds. So, who is going to spend 90 seconds to go around, when
they could spend 20 going the other way? But if you don't grant the access, that is their
only option to go that way, because there is no way they are ever going to get another
access down to the south to Fairview to get access to the other signal or that -- what is
it, River Valley or whatever the next signalized access is going to be, because the
subdivision is in the way. So, this is a different situation.
De Weerd: I guess while I have a professional witness in front of me, I would like to ask
you, then, how do you assure the safety of that center lane? The number of accidents
that our emergency responders attend to are usually because of that middle lane,
because people don't know how to use it. It's either a passing lane, it's another driving
lane, it's used for multiple purposes, not just turning. So, how do you make that safe?
Funkhouser: Well, as long as you leave it there, it -- the situation is what the situation
is. You can't argue with what is happening out there. The state with their project is
going to--
De Weerd: Well, I do argue, because I can tell you that this Council and this Mayor get
the blame for everything that happens on Eagle Road, so -- and the safety of that road
and that corridor from Meridian's portion on is our responsibility. The safety aspect.
Certainly we don't have road control, but we are responsible for the safety of that stretch
of property. So, I guess I would ask you, because this is your profession, how do you
make the center lane safe?
Funkhouser: Well, the only thing I can point out, too -- even though the ordinance was
not in effect for the people on the north side of the intersection, you had the same
responsibility, then, that you do on the south side, whether the ordinance was in effect
or not. So, the ordinance shouldn't have made any difference as to whether you
allowed those full accesses with that there. So, the situation out there -- this is the only
mile left out of 11 -- you know, out of I guess seven miles out of there that doesn't have
this type of access. All the rest of it has been given away previously. This is just the
last mile.
De Weerd: Well, I guess I would say every application we have an opportunity to learn
and not redo the same mistakes just because we made them before.
Funkhouser: That's right.
De Weerd: So--
Meridian City Council
August22,2006
Page 31 of 81
Funkhouser: But like I say, you can put in a safer -- again, you're not going to get rid of
accidents. I can't argue that if you put an intersection in you won't have accidents. I
can argue the point, though, that transferring a right turn out of this site from here up to
the intersection is not transferring an accident, because accidents at intersections or
driveways are based on entering vehicles and whether you transfer it from this point to
that point, it's the same vehicles entering that access and if they are allowed right turn
on red, they still have that same accident. So, the only ones that are really receiving
any benefit is the left out and that's the thing that's going to be prevented out of this
overall is the lefts out. They would have to go to the intersection to use it.
De Weerd: And the lefts out are what we deal with in cleaning up the messes.
Funkhouser: Yeah.
De Weerd: So -- okay. Well, Council, anything further? Thank you. We will catch your
final remarks in your conclusion. Okay. I do have a number of people who have signed
up to indicate their opposition or favor. As I call your name -- if you'd like to provide
testimony when I call your name, please, come forward. Otherwise, I will move to the
next name. Betty Rosso. And I apologize if I mispronounce your name. Signed up
against. Lori Beck signed up against. Okay. Thank you.
Beck: My name is Lori Beck. I live at 2678 Leslie Drive. And I'm not a paid traffic
consultant and I'm not a paid person who does testimony, but I do live right in this place
that we are talking about and I can tell you as we submitted in our petition to you that
having access to a left-hand turn doesn't mean that you can make it. And I can tell you
that you're right, you're dead on, if you do make a left-hand turn off of Leslie, which is
right by this, you're putting your life into your own hands. So, we tell all our kids -- I got
four kids that drive. None of them are allowed to use the Eagle Road access, because
it's just too damn scary. So, what's going to happen -- and what's going to happen is
they make choices, they are either going to turn left untillTD stops them, in which case
you're going to deal with the accidents, or they are going to turn right and according to
ACHD there are 2,400 people that are going to use that access until they have the other
one. Twenty-four hundred of them. Sixty-five percent of them want to go to Ustick or
they want to go northbound on Eagle. How are they going to get there? They can't turn
left, they are going to turn right, they are going to turn onto our subdivision, they are
going to take those so-called 90 seconds versus 20 and we get to deal with them. That
may be 650 cars a day, that may be 1,000 cars a day, it may be 2,400. I don't know.
But now my kids aren't safe either. And I just ask you to really think about this. You're
right, it's one application at a time, it's one neighborhood at a time. Please preserve
ours. None of those other areas have a subdivision like ours. Please protect it. None
of the rest of them do. The only other thing that I would say is that -- gosh, I'm nervous.
Sorry. Well, I don't have anything else to say. Just, please, don't do it, because
absolutely we know the impact. Or I do. Ninety seconds versus 20 -- I just got to ask
where the 20 seconds comes from, because I don't get that. We are looking at the plan
up here and we have got all kinds of cul-de-sacs and little turns and little ways around it,
Meridian City Council
August 22, 2006
Page 32 of 81
how in the world are they going to take 20 seconds to go from where ever they are over
to Ustick Road. Are they going to travel 55 miles an hour there? I don't get it. I just
don't. Ninety seconds through ours, we see it all the time, people already use those as
a cut-through. You're just talking about multiplying it by thousands and thousands of
percent. Thanks.
De Weerd: Thank you. Joan and Jim Lott signed up against.
Lott: Thank you, Madam Mayor and Council. My name is Jim Lott. I live at 1342 Leslie
Way. Just to reiterate, too, as Lori says, you could be a traffic expert, you don't have to
be a traffic expert, if -- we see accidents out there on Eagle Road and everybody starts
coming through our subdivision, they can take 20 seconds, they can take a minute, they
are bumper to bumper, it doesn't matter how fast they are moving, they have to still stop
and get out on Ustick again. The way it's getting now it's almost gridlock around us to
begin with. Time is not a factor anymore. It's the capacity of the amount of cars coming
through our subdivision and so we have, basically, lot control of our lives, we have a
beautiful subdivision, I hope some of you have -- or all of you have had a chance to at
least it at some point in time. The homes are really nice, the properties are nice, we
have been around for basically ever and we didn't pick this thing. We know there is
going to be development here, but we just want to keep some quality of life. We want to
maintain it. We have value in our properties and in our lives and our children and there
is pets and everything else. And, basically, when this red line, basically, coming right
down to the beginning of our subdivision, you may as well put a sign out that says turn
right immediately if you need to go to Ustick or you want to go north on Eagle, you want
to go anywhere, turn here, we will fix your problem. And it's -- basically it's something I
think we need to have, you know, our needs met as well and we appreciate the amount
of time and the length that this thing has gone through. I mean, I don't know how many
meetings we have gone through. We have seen, basically, an inferior subdivision
proposal. It's been poorly proposed over a period of time. We get situations now where
we are getting -- you know, they are proposing the projects -- and we will fix it the next
time you see it won't be exactly like this, it will be like what it's going to be next time.
You know, where is the end for us, too? I mean we need some relief. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Dean and Mary Brockman signed up against. Okay. Maureen
Boyle and Louis Torino signed up against. Thank you. Adaline Chambers signed up
against. Okay. Thank you. I think it's Sarah Chambers signed up against. I'm sorry.
Sam. I apologize. Candy Seeley signed up against.
Seeley: Candy Seeley. 1567 North Leslie Way. Madam Mayor and Council Members,
I just want to reiterate -- well, I just want to ditto everything that you have already heard,
but today is a good example of what happens in our intersection when you have just an
accident, not forcing people to come down our road, because they can't get around
where you're making them go. With the big accident at Eagle and Fairview, people
were stopped at Ustick going north -- or, yeah, going south, I'm sorry. So, they had to
travel down Ustick. I live two roads -- or two houses off Ustick on Leslie. I can tell you I
counted up until about 3:00 o'clock there was about 80 cars that turned down our street,
Meridian City Council
August22,2006
Page 33 of 81
only to turn around so they could go back out another way on Ustick, because they
knew going around wasn't going to get them anywhere, because the road had been
blocked off previous to that. Otherwise, all those cars would have been going through
the neighborhood out and continuing on, which is exactly what's going to happen. It's
happened on other accidents we have had on that street and I stand out there and
count them every time, because I have to show up to these meetings and I have to try
and make you guys understand that this subdivision was here long before these
developers were. Probably -- I'm not one of the oldest people there, but the
subdivision's been around for at least 25 to 20 years and we do have a quality of life.
We have animals that live there. We have ducks and we have children and we have
kids who ride bikes and we have people just driving on the street that don't want to get
run over by people trying to drive through the intersection -- I mean down our street to
keep from having to go out on the main street. It's getting -- it's getting really bad. I just
-- I don't know why we have to keep revisiting the same issue with these people. They
should have taken the courtesy to -- before they put down all this money on this
property that they were planning on buying, what they were looking into, what kind of
accesses they have and what they didn't have before they try and just buy it and, then,
start shoving their way through everybody else around to try and make it fit what they
want it to do. They should have taken more consideration, like the other three
properties they like to compare themselves to, I'm sure they knew the accesses that
they had before they slapped down all that money to buy the property. And because he
didn't have enough brains to do that, now he wants to try and conform everything. And
it doesn't matter what happens to the other people who live in the area for the last 30
years and he thinks that's okay and that's the way to do things. And I disagree, and I
hope that coming back here all these times is helping you people understand how
frustrated we really are and how -- just because a developer has a lot of money and
buys a piece of property doesn't mean he can run out people who have been in the
neighborhood, who have been voting and putting you people in jobs and paying their
taxes and keeping the city running and we should just get rolled over, because he's got
more money and that's his attitude and I'm really upset with it. Thank you for listening.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Jim -- I can't read your last name. Oh. Thank you.
Hatmaker: My name is Jim Hatmaker. I live at 3014 Leslie Drive. Madam Mayor and
Council. My view has already been stated in various forms, but I just want to go on
record saying that I oppose the access to Eagle Road and I hope that a bad traffic
situation would not be made worse by granting it. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you, sir. Okay. Who signed up after Jim? Maybe it's a J or an S.
The last name begins with an M. Okay. Thank you.
Morrisette: My name is Gary Morrisette. I live at 1438 Leslie Way, Madam Mayor and
City Councilmen. I live right straight across from this intersection that they want to -- my
property backs up to that. I moved there in 1985 and I'm retired for the last four or five
years, so I see the traffic going north on Eagle Road and I can tell you right now that in
many, many times every day you see the traffic stopped trying to get through that light
Meridian City Council
August 22, 2006
Page 34 of 81
at Ustick Road beyond where that intersection is right now, where they are proposing to
put that intersection. So, a left turn deal is not going to work at all. And just before they
-- I think it was '94, '95, we lost one little girl 16 years old trying to make a left-hand turn
into Ustick -- into Leslie Way. Hit a car -- turned in front of a car, 50 miles an hour, hit
her and killed her. Those cars are already doing 45 and 50 by the time they get to that
intersection. It would be pure suicide to open that up for people to try to make left-hand
turns into that -- into that project. And, of course, I completely agree with what Jim Lott
just said. We just can't have all those cars circling around coming through. It's just not
a workable situation. But, anyway, I wanted you to know that -- I'm not a traffic
engineer, but I can sit here and I can see it and I see it every day -- several times every
day, cars are stopped. Sometimes I seen them stopped from there going to Fairview.
So, a right-in, right-out is -- to me is completely out of the question and left-hand turn
going north to turn into there was complete suicide and I think you agree with me.
Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Janeen Helms. Thank you. Signed up against. Okay. Those
are the names on this list. Is there anyone else who would like to provide testimony?
Please come forward. If you will, please, state your name and address.
White: I'm Bob White. I live at 2995 Leslie Drive. To kind of verify what Gary just said
about that problem on Eagle Road turning left in. We moved to Meridian in 2001 from
Idaho Falls and, of course, we kind of got trapped when we got over here, not realizing
what Eagle Road was going to be and what it was even then. But when we moved in
just about five years ago right now, we used to be able to come north on Eagle and
make a left turn into Leslie with no problem whatsoever and we could leave Leslie and
go down; and if you watched what you were doing you could turn left out and across
and go north on Eagle Road. But so help me, what's happened in that five year period,
even to go left off of Leslie -- and we are farther away from the intersection with Ustick
and even where we are to go left you're really taking your life in your own hands and,
consequently, I think all of the neighborhood is -- if they are going to go left, we go on
down through our subdivision out on Ustick and up to the stoplight. And anymore it's
getting like habit over those years, we -- coming home off the freeway we come down
Eagle Road, we get in the center lane that you talked being used for every purpose and
make a left into there. But anymore it's getting -- there is so much traffic on that road
that, truthfully, we are stupid to even try to turn in at Leslie and we are farther south than
this road that's going to be at the quarter mile, which is going to be more traffic backed
up for those people to be concerned with. I want to go on record -- I didn't sign that,
because I was out of town when that -- but I'm definitely opposed to this proposition the
way it's been proposed to you.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. White. Is there any further testimony? Yes.
Ewing: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I'm John Ewing, 2934 East Lake Hazel,
Meridian, Idaho. I represent the Shurrey Company that owns the biggest part of the
piece of ground that the developers are purchasing. There is one thing -- there is a
couple things I want to say. To start with, the developers didn't come in not knowing
Meridian City Council
August 22, 2006
Page 35 of 81
what their access was. Shurrey Company has owned that piece of ground since the
'60s, so I don't think anybody in the neighborhood can outlast us on that. When they did
widen the state -- Eagle Road there, we were one of the only ones that let them
purchase the property at -- at what they were offering, which is very unusual.
Everybody else was getting more. They always start low. We never dickered with
them. But part of the deal was is that we did have two accesses on just our piece of
property, unrestricted -- there is no restrictions. We have that in writing. I think that,
you know, we have never wanted to push the issue. In fact, this is the first time I have
spoke about this project, but it is a situation that the traffic grows. If there wasn't any
traffic on that road there wouldn't be any development on it. I think that every time I
come into one of these I hear the concerns about traffic. It's part of the whole situation
we have got in the whole valley right now. I am for the project, but I did want you to
know that -- that we feel like that the state has gave that to us back when they widened
the road and we'd like to use it now that we have an opportunity for a developer to be in
there. Thank you.
De Weerd: John, I guess I would just like to say on my statements that the city,
irregardless of where the accesses are allowed, one of our largest responsibilities is
public safety and that is -- that is my concern and --
Ewing: I totally agree. Madam Mayor, I just got a deal in the mail that they are thinking
about widening the road to four lanes in front of my house and I'm sure I'm not going to
come and complain about it, because we can't stop progress, but at the same time I
think if -- it's a bad deal, I would be crazy to say I'm not concerned about safety, but
they are slowing the speed down. Eagle Road's always going to have their accidents. I
heard them talk about the wreck on Fairview. The only way we are going to stop
accidents is to stop the traffic. I heard you talk about the center lane being an issue. I
don't think it's an issue of having a center lane, I think it's an issue of maybe we should
have adult training -- driver's training, you know.
De Weerd: Good luck.
Ewing: Yeah. We have -- we have more incidences of road rage causing accidents
than right turns, left turns, or any turns, so -- and I'm not trying to argue, I just wanted to
state that there was some comments made that -- that made me feel like that, you
know, just trying to say, hey, you don't -- we shouldn't get it or these folks shouldn't get it
because they got a lot of money and they have lived there forever. Well, I just wanted
to tell you we have had that land longer than Carol Subdivision was ever thought about -
- before it was ever thought about. We do have those accesses from the state and I'd
appreciate it if you'd consider the state's recommendation and what the development -- I
think it would be a good development. If it never can be developed, I guess that I need
to come in and talk to the city what kind of park do you want there and --
Nary: Careful what you ask for.
Meridian City Council
August 22, 2006
Page 36 of 81
Ewing: Yeah. And I think that's what the neighbors want and I think that if we don't get
the development it's going to be for sale for the same price that we got out of it from the
developer and, you know, I think that Shurrey company, if they don't -- and we certainly
want them to. I don't want to say that. But I have said all along to the neighbors, when
there has been some discussion to me it was for sale. If they like seeing the pheasants
out there, all they got to do is -- if these guys match the price you can put anything you
want there. So, you know -- and I'm not joking about that. That's where we are coming
from. But, anyway, that's alii have got to say. I am concerned about safety, though.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird.
Bird: John, I got a question. How many acres you got there?
Ewing: Oh, it's -- well, it was 20 and, then, the road took -- so, it's about 18. And, then,
the ditch takes out about two more. So, there is 16 acres.
Bird: So, in other words, if you wanted to do like they did along Eagle and Two Rivers
and stuff, you could probably go in there and put in about 60 or 70 house tops -- roof
tops?
Ewing: Actually, if we wanted to, but we never intended that corner to be --
Bird: No. I'm just -- and with the accesses, we wouldn't before here, because the
accesses are there for, evidently, residential is what I'm getting told by--
Ewing: I don't think --
Bird: -- testimony.
Ewing: Mr. Bird, I don't know that to be true. When we got it and when we negotiated
with the state, there were no conditions put on those, so -- and the thought was that it
should always be, in my mind, a commercial piece of property. We came in and
testified and got the -- on the Comprehensive Plan when it come through. It was
something besides what it is now on the Comprehensive Plan. I didn't come prepared
to talk about it. And at that time the Council agreed that -- and I know two of you were
on that Council -- that that corner should be something more than residential and the
neighbors went in and they got changed on the Comprehensive Plan. So, at one time
the Council thought that these projects were what you wanted and I know times change,
but that corner hasn't changed. It's -- and I -- and back to -- you know, if we wanted to, I
guess we could. You know, the fact of it is, is I guess if we found somebody that had
enough money and wanted one house there it would be all right, but I -- that probably
didn't answer your question.
Meridian City Council
August22,2006
Page 37 of 81
Bird: No. It was just --
De Weerd: You know, John, I guess just a comment to your statement. This valley in
1960 had no idea some of the things that would happen between then and now and we
are learning. With Communities in Motion, we are trying to identify these transportation
corridors, look at how we can have frontage or backage roads and be able to more
effectively restrict access and not have these kind of situations. But we will always have
these kind of situations where some of these older subdivisions or land uses apply. It's
trying to find the right solution and --
Ewing: Again, the unique thing about this is, is we are landlocked. We can't get to the
half mile. We can't get to Ustick. If we don't get access, you know -- I mean we are
landlocked. And, again, I -- that's almost like I'm wanting to argue with you and I'm not,
but if every time there was a new subdivision come up, I have never been to the City
Council meeting when there has been any growth or any -- anything new that there isn't
a group of people that it affects and that some voice their opinion more than others, but
I guess I know what you're saying, but we would have zero growth if we waited until
everybody in the City of Meridian was happy about something. I'm not sure you won't
have complaints building your new City Hall over here about where it's at, you know, I
don't know. But you smile like you already have. Surely there is somebody that doesn't
want to tear down the creamery. Anyway, that's the only point. I think this is a good
project. We have no -- it is -- in my mind it is a different situation than so many,
because we don't have access, other than out onto Eagle Road and -- and I just feel it's
a good project.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Ewing: Thank you.
De Weerd: Anything further? Okay. Okay. Any additional testimony? Okay. Wrap up
-- I don't think you have provided testimony; correct? Please come forward.
Boyle: My name is Maureen Boyle. 3109 Leslie, Madam Mayor, Council Members. I
just think that perhaps this is an opportunity for us not to sacrifice what we already have,
because someone new has come to town with a bit of money to build something else.
This is happening throughout this whole valley and I think a lot of us who have been
here since the 70s certainly don't like what we see happening. It's almost a frenetic,
frantic pace and everybody wants to push and get it done right away and places --
neighborhoods with any history are sacrificed so we can put more in and I'm not sure I
understand that. These are long-term residents, long-term tax payers, long-term
supports of the city and the county and the state and we still seem to want to sacrifice
all of that, so we can hurry up and develop. I'm just asking for a slow down and
consideration.
Meridian City Council
August 22, 2006
Page 38 of 81
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Any further testimony? If the applicant has wrap-up
remarks.
Funkhouser: Again, Gary Funkhouser. Just some of the comments. The first one,
2,400 cars accessing Leslie off of this roadway. Twenty-four hundred is, like was
pointed out, is the ADT projected to come out of this site. Fifteen percent of that is
destined westbound on Ustick, which means in total that's about 400 vehicles a day.
Half of it would be entering off of Ustick or coming into the site, not using Leslie to get to
the site. Therefore, the maximum if everybody that turned right out of here had to go
back to Ustick using Leslie, that would be 200 a day and that's not going to happen.
The signalized -- the difference in time between the 90 and the 20 seconds, again, it's
an average. Again, some of it from the furthest distance would take a little longer.
Some of it from the closest point would not take as much time. We are talking a
difference between what they are talking about on their street access to Ustick there is
unsignalized. In other words, they have to wait for the traffic on Ustick. There is a
signal proposed at this access. It's being designed right now by a consultant for W.H.
Moore. It's going in as part of the Kohl's project and this one will have access to that
signalized intersection. It would be foolish for these people, again, that turned right to
go all the way through the subdivision to get to Ustick Road and wait at a stop sign for
the same traffic that they come out to the northbound and get out on a signal where
they are guaranteed time to get out. Again, the state is going to -- as part of Eagle
Road is going to allow u-turns. U-turns at the quarter mile points along this area. U-
turns are no different than left turns. So, if it's not safe to make a left turn, the state
should not be putting any u-turns allowed at those points either. Again, I'll point out that
it's easier to make a left turn and get off the roadway quicker than it is to make a u-turn.
You got to almost slow down to nothing to make a complete u-turn around and
accelerate out. So, if that is such a safety issue they should not be putting that in as
part of their concept, but that is their concept to allow those at certain points along that
roadway. And, again, the improvements will take care of your two way left turn
situation. It's more of an enforcement issue. In other words, if people are using it for
passing lanes or for something other than what it is, that's an enforcement issue. And,
again, that falls back on the city's shoulders. You got ordinances that allow them to go
only certain distances and two way left turns and that's what needs to be enforced out
there to try to make it a safer situation to use those two way left turn lanes. And, again,
it's development -- the City of Meridian is adding traffic to Eagle Road. It's not just this
development, it's all developments, so --
De Weerd: I don't think it's just Meridian either.
Ewing: Oh, no, it's the whole valley.
De Weerd: Now, if you want to use all of Rob's time, you're getting close to it.
Haggett: Rob Haggett. 787 East State Street, Eagle, Idaho. Anna, can you, please,
put up the slide that shows our proposed access? I want to clarify, Mr. --
Councilmember Borton's question about the discussion of actually moving the access.
Meridian City Council
August 22, 2006
Page 39 of 81
We are currently asking for a temporary full access. We were willing, based on
discussion with Anna Canning and also the developer to the north, to move that
temporary full access further north, so that it might assist getting into the project to the
north of us might be a better location. ITD is not willing to do that. ITD states that they
will approve the full access point where it's currently located. And I did speak with an
engineer at ITD today and they reiterated that fact. If there is any questions in regards
to that --
Borton: At the quarter mile?
Haggett: At the quarter mile mark. Exactly. As far as, Mayor de Weerd, your concern
about safety, we are very concerned as well. This project is 27 acres total, which is a
part of Mr. Ewing's piece of property and also a part of property that is owned by
Red cliff. We are not just -- we don't have this under contract and we are going to close
at some time that we get this approved. We own the property and we want to develop
the property and we are coming to the city with a project that's very minimal impact. It's
a mixed use project. If you look at every corner out here at Eagle and Ustick, we are
the least impact project based on our mix of uses. We have a number of -- can I
continue? I'll make it short.
De Weerd: Yeah. We've had a couple of questions, so make it short, please.
Haggett: It's a little bit unclear to me what the neighbors want to see here and I have
been involved in development in this valley for over ten years and I have done projects
in every city and I have always worked well with neighbors to answer questions. We did
that with these neighbors. It's been very difficult getting any kind of agreement, but
that's not your issue. What I'm unclear of tonight is that they are opposing this access
completely, which means if you vote based on what they are asking for, we have no
access to our property. We are landlocked. There is no way to get to it and that's
unreasonable. We have to have some type of access. So, if you grant the least
restrictive access, which is a right-in, right-out, then, more traffic will travel through their
subdivision. What we are asking for is a temporary full access that will, eventually,
when everything happens over the next five years with the improvement of Eagle Road
and potentially the project developing to the north of us, where at some point we will
have access to Ustick Road, it will relieve a lot of that stress in the area and our impact
is very minimal based on the size of the project that we were doing. Another thing just
real quick -- as far as the piece of property -- our development property remaining
undeveloped, there is impact from all sorts of different things and most recently I have
had three calls from homeowners where there is a bug issue right now, because our
property has not been developed yet. It's a vacant field. Which there are bugs, there
are mice, there are rodents, there are things that cause issues. There are three
different homes that I have talked to the homeowners already that say they have an
incredible cinch bug issue where they are coming in their back doors, literally thousands
of bugs. As we develop this property that will go away. Development in some cases is
good and that's a really good thing to look at. I mean I -- that's in all seriousness. So,
those things will change for the better for these folks. We did take the time to study this
Meridian City Council
August 22. 2006
Page 40 of 81
property. We didn't just come in and say, well, we will just throw our money around.
We can't develop like that. We are not a Winston Moore. We borrow, we beg and steal
and we try to get developments done that are good projects and this is a good project
and what we are asking for tonight is something that is safe, it's as safe as it can be.
We are asking for a temporary full access that eventually will be restricted to right-in,
right-out and left-in. I would be happy to stand for any questions. Hopefully you have
some. I'm sure you do.
De Weerd: Council, questions?
Bird: I do, Madam Mayor.
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Rob, as you probably know, the developers have been asked to redo the left-hand
turns on Eagle onto Ustick. The northwest corner and the southeast corner, have
agreed to participate in that. Would the southwest corner, if it is approved, agree to
participate in that, too?
Haggett: Yes, sir. I've had a number of meetings with Jonathan Seal. We have looked
at the plan and we have already agreed to participate if we have this access approved.
Bird: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Bird, I didn't catch your question. Participate in what?
Bird: In putting in two left-hand lanes out there for -- by the developers. This has been
done six, eight months ago.
Haggett: Mr. Moore has already started construction on those improvements and went
ahead with it knowing that he needed to have those done to do his project. We have
met a number of times, he said -- and we have been -- there is a condition of our
approval with ITD that states we will participate in the cost of those improvements if we
get this access granted we are more than willing to do that.
Bird: Thank you.
De Weerd: But you're only doing it if you get this access.
Haggett: If we don't get the access we can't develop. So, then, we can't participate in
those site improvements.
De Weerd: So, you're telling me -- now, maybe, Mr. Nary, my question is to you. So,
can we not ask for access through the development to the north if this developer were
to put that road in where the access is allowed? And I know it's an off-site
improvement, but just a question.
Meridian City Council
August 22, 2006
Page 41 of81
Nary: Madam Mayor, I guess the portion of that northern piece is already annexed, so
there isn't any condition that requires them to develop that property at this time. So we
can't require -- if the northern piece would allow this developer to have access to build a
roadway and these folks were agreeable to build a roadway, but those were all
consentual agreements, so we don't have any means, otherwise, to require that that
property develops to the north. I think as Mr. Haggett has stated that their concern was
they don't have access otherwise. I think when this Council previously reviewed this
that wasn't a discussion point that was made at the time. In fact, it was the opposite
point that was made, that it wasn't an issue. It appeared that all of it was going to be
done at approximately the same time. Circumstances have since changed and I think
that's the reason they are here. But we don't have a means from the city, since the
portion of that northern piece is annexed already to require that they, then, develop it
now or require that they grant an easement to allow a road to be built and, then, require
this developer to build it.
De Weerd: I know we don't have the -- we can still ask; right?
Nary: You can ask anything you want. Whether we can require it -- your question was
can we make them and, no, we can't.
De Weerd: Okay. Okay. So, I will rephrase that question. If that opportunity presented
itself would you participate?
Haggett: And can you clarify the opportunity?
De Weerd: The opportunity for the access to Ustick before they are ready to develop.
Haggett: I have been in contact with the attorney that represents that project and as far
as they are concerned legal advice to that property owner is to not grant a construction
easement until such time that that property is developed or that it's sold to a developer
that's willing to do it. It doesn't make sense for them as a property owner to allow us to
come in and put a road in that eventually will be there. If a buyer comes along and
says, you know, I'm going to buy this piece of property as a speculative piece of ground.
I don't want to develop it for ten years, that's a possibility in this case. It's not -- there is
no guarantee that their property will be developed in any certain time.
De Weerd: So, you can't even have access for construction access, so all of the
construction trucks will be coming in off of Eagle?
Haggett: No. Unless they grant a construction access -- and when I say construction
access, it means that the condition of approval that this Council placed on their plat to
grant access on Sadie Creek Avenue, which is now called Centre Pointe Avenue. It will
be -- at the time that they do their development that is, when that road has to go in
where the signal is on Ustick and it lines up with Mr. Moore's property to the north.
There is no guarantee that that property owner to the north will start that project in
Meridian City Council
August 22, 2006
Page 42 of 81
anytime. As far as construction goes, while we start development, we are asking for a
temporary full access. It is currently the only way to access our property. What I'm
hopeful for is that at some point in the future when that property develops to the north
and we have a temporary full access, at some point that they start developing they
realize that, okay, let's go ahead and get this road in and get it done, because it will
benefit all of us. And our current plan has been changed to allow better traffic flow
throughout the properties. I think the plan that was up there before was an older plan.
So, if somebody wants to transit from Eagle Road at the full access -- the proposed full
access point and come through our project and exit out to the north, it would make
sense to go north to Ustick where the proposed signal is or potentially another access
point across our property.
De Weerd: Now, I agree your flow is a little bit better, but it concerns me those straight
lines that -- I hope it's not going to be a strip mall. But I guess I would go back to my
statement on access to the north to get to Ustick. If -- I know we all put attorneys in --
keep them in business and --
Nary: God love it. Got to love that.
De Weerd: Oh, yeah, I'm sitting between two of them. But if they were to grant you a
construction access and easement to get to Ustick, would you participate to see that
that happens?
Haggett: At this time we are asking for a temporary full access that eventually will be
reduced once that access to Ustick Road happens. There is -- I think it would be --
De Weerd: I guess it's either a yes or a no question.
Haggett: Well, it's not really a clear question, only because -- participate, yes, we will
participate. When will it happen? Nobody knows. How will we participate? Nobody
knows. It's not -- it's not that easy and that's one of the reasons why we are back here
tonight, because initially we did work together with the property owner to the north and
we worked very well together. We still work very well together, but I can totally
understand their situation and if we don't have some kind of access to Eagle Road,
which is very reasonable, what we are asking for, then, who knows what's going to
develop on our piece of property. We could potentially have to come in change and the
plat and, then, they don't know what type of traffic ends up transitioning their site.
De Weerd: Anna, because this is a change, do they need to come in for a plat revision?
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I think the approved plat for them
actually did have an entrance shown down there. It's been awhile. I can't remember.
Generally on the commercial projects we look at the number of lots, the amount of open
space, the number -- this one actually had a large residential component, so we would
look at the number of residential units, things like that. Potentially it could still be
consistent with the approved plat, but this one looks like that the flow of traffic is quite a
Meridian City Council
August 22, 2006
Page 43 of 81
bit different, so I hadn't evaluated it yet. I can't give you a definitive answer. I forget
which version was approved. There were layouts and I'm not exactly clear in my
memory which one was approved, so -- that was a waffle answer. I don't know.
De Weerd: Well, I'm getting used to those kinds of answers.
Canning: Sorry, ma'am.
Haggett: I'd like to address that, based on a meeting that we had with Anna and Mr.
Nary. There was discussion that coming back in for this proposed access point, would
that be a substantial change to the plat and the answer I remember from staff was that
that -- what we are proposing tonight is not a substantial change. So, it can be dealt
with at the final plat review. And correct me if I'm wrong, Anna, but that's --
Canning: Well, I already stated I'm not sure, Mr. Haggett, because I don't know if I
evaluated it against exactly this proposal. As I recall, the approved plat had a street
running approximately in the middle of the property that came out and, then, dog legged
down to Eagle Road. So, in that sense it may be a change -- a substantial change. I
need to -- I have not done the evaluation, so --
Haggett: And that is correct and that's one of the main reasons why we met and
discussed potentially moving the full access point to the south --
De Weerd: Okay. That's a -- sorry I asked. Okay. Any questions, Council, for the
applicant?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: Rob, I apologize. I know you answered it and I probably didn't understand it.
Are you telling me that -- or telling us that access to the north of the quarter mile point is
not permitted whatsoever by ITD or that it's unknown, but you'd just rather not have it to
the north?
Haggett: Well, as far as what ITD engineers have stated to us that a temporary full
access point, which is what they have approved, would not be supported by their
executive committee north of this quarter mile mark.
Borton: And -- Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Borton: Did you get any information whether or not a right-in, right-out to the north, by
way of example at the -- just for example, the 860 foot center point location, whether or
not that would be --
Meridian City Council
August22,2006
Page 44 of 81
Haggett: As far as I know they -- in fact, I believe the executive committee is meeting
tomorrow for the variance application that Landmark has in right now for a right-in, right-
out. And I haven't discussed with the executive committee -- we have discussed with
the engineers and they stated that that would not be supported. And those were Kevin
Sublon, Jon Ogden, and Matt Ward. That application still has to go to the executive
committee and the executive committee makes the final decision. But those three
engineers make the recommendation to the executive committee, similar to the way
staff does here.
Borton: Madam Mayor. Maybe this is something that needs discussed with additional
information. Do you know why -- why those individuals deny any -- or would suggest
that there not be any access provided north of the quarter mile point?
Haggett: Because what they see in this proposed plan is the best -- the best potential
for access to the property. It's the safest. It's got the least amount of curb cuts. There
is only one curb cut here as compared to potentially seven from the corner of Eagle and
Ustick south to our south property line. And I believe that's the basis of it, but as far as -
- I'm not clear on that as well.
Borton: Okay. Thanks.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions? Okay. Thank you.
Haggett: Thank you.
Canning: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Anna.
Canning: I did want to clarify -- and I think Mr. Borton got to it, but the compromise was
just for a right-in, right-out only, not for the full, and we haven't heard anything official
from ITD on that and I don't think the applicant has either. I think that the question has
always been with regard to the full access point. I would feel uncomfortable not having
ITD provide some information on that directly, rather than through the applicant. Also,
any change in use on this property would require a variance by the UDC. So, if it were
developed as residential it would still require a variance applicant.
De Weerd: Thank you, Anna. Any questions for staff? Staff, do you have anything
further?
Canning: No, ma'am. I believe Mr. Overton would like to say something. And he has a
rank and I always forget it.
Overton: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I'm going to put my chairman of the
traffic safety committee hat on for this one, because we address left turn in and left turn
Meridian City Council
August22,2006
Page 45 of 81
outs constantly throughout the city. A little history, though. My folks were transferred
with Hewlett-Packard in 1977 to this valley and a bunch of Hewlett-Packard families
moved into Leslie Drive in 1977 when it was developed. I have been in several of those
houses. It's a beautiful development. But Eagle Road was a two lane road at that time
and even by ITD predictions in 2003 they stated that Eagle and Chinden wouldn't have
34,000 vehicles until 2020. They exceeded that in 2003, 17 years ahead of schedule.
The Eagle Road we deal with today is far different from the Eagle Road we had 20, 30,
45 years ago. We deal on the traffic safety committee with three ways to handle
accidents. It's based on Northwestern University's Traffic Safety Institute. They call it
the three E's, it's engineering, education, and enforcement. With full knowledge
engineering is the single most effective way of reducing traffic collisions and injuries and
enforcement is the least. For an example, on Eagle Road there is two of them. One of
them was a driveway that was placed at the Krispy Kreme at Eagle and Fairview. We
didn't want it. We were nervous when it was put in. We did manage to get a barrier put
in that turned that into a right-in, right-out, which reduced the left hand in and the left
hand out collisions. The second intersection we dealt with on this same exact setup, left
in, left out collisions was Magic View and Eagle Road, and in that case we tried
everything. We had right turn only signs at the intersection, across the intersection,
right turn arrows painted on the intersection and we still had a high number of collisions
left turn against traffic. Even with the signs. People will do that. Unfortunately, we had
to deal with the accidents. We put up traffic cones for anybody that saw them at Magic
View and Eagle. Big cones. They looked really good with all the tire marks and they
were run over. People still turned left to cross those cones. It wasn't until ITD put up a
center lane barrier restricting access that we took what was approximately -- and I say
approximately, because I did this six, seven months ago, 34 injury accidents on left
turns down to zero with limited access with the barriers that ran down Eagle Road. I'd
love to see that barrier all the way to Chinden to prevent left turn ins and left turn outs,
except at signalized intersections that regulate where you can turn safely, because left
turns, whether they are in or out, have the highest degree of injury. Now, with that said,
we will be dealing with all these other intersections that have left turns and left turn outs
eventually, because we are going to have more development as it travels north on
Eagle Road. We have dealt with Magic View. We have limited access now to Franklin
Road. We have dealt with Krispy Kreme. We will be dealing with Presidential very
soon as they continue to work on accesses to Eagle Road. But we have to remember
as we deal with these left turn accesses, they have the single highest degree of injury in
an accident, because of the way cars are designed and the fact they are either struck
on the driver's side or the passenger side. And I don't want to offend anybody on Leslie
Drive if it causes increased traffic, but right-in, right-out would be the safest solution and
although I don't know that ITD would recommend it, we eventually end up with right-in,
right-outs and we have to go and try to make these intersections safe. And as Council
and the Mayor are considering what to do on this, we are going to deal with it in the
future if we allow it today, because that's what we did at Magic View and that's what we
did at Krispy Kreme. And I would have to agree wholeheartedly with Anna's denial
earlier from a simply safety aspect, because we deal with these constantly. I stand for
any questions from Council.
Meridian City Council
August 22, 2006
Page 46 of 81
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Thank you, lieutenant. You are always the last word and I almost shutter to
ask, but do you have any comment to those remarks?
Haggett: Briefly. Yes. Mayor and Council Members, Rob Haggett, 7870 State Street,
Eagle, Idaho. As Mr. Overton has mentioned, it is an issue, which is why we are asking
for temporary full access at some point that we can have better access to the property
when the entire area is developed and Eagle Road corridor plan is put in place by the
state, it will be reduced. The left turn out will be gone. Temporarily it needs to be full
access in order for all people to turn into our project and also to relieve the stress of
potential traffic going through to Carol Subdivision. What we are asking for isn't
unreasonable. It's low impact, as we stated earlier, and it's been approved by ITD, as
have all of the other access requirements in this area have been supported by lTD.
That's what we are asking for. Not asking for anything different. And this Council
should feel somewhat comfortable in the fact that ITD has approved all of these. We
are not asking for anything different. It's low impact. It's the lowest impact of this
corner. And that's alii have.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Haggett: Thank you very much.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, if you need any further information.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Certainly we have taken a lot of information on these specific items and I
certainly do feel I have enough information to make a decision. However, I have heard
from staffs presentation and this applicant's addressing that, that there may be a
compromise that could be reached, but it would -- in fact, the next application that we --
that we are hearing. I'm wondering if we could continue this item for action -- I'm asking
legal counsel to now continue this item for action, hear it at the next application and see
if we haven't heard from the property owner to the north to see if that's even a question
for them, then, to take action later on this item.
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilman Wardle, certainly you can
table this decision and hear the other action. The testimony -- part of the testimony in
front of you was that that was discussed and that wasn't an option from this developer's
standpoint, although it wasn't -- it wasn't adverse to them, they indicated that that was
ITD's opinion about that. But certainly to hear more testimony about that, you can do
that. You could also, if you wanted to, if you -- if the decision of the Council is to grant
Meridian City Council
August 22, 2006
Page 47 of 81
an access, you can -- you do as you have done in the past of setting where
approximately that access is. If there is an opportunity to move that access through
agreement, then, that's something you could also certainly make that part of the
conditions. So, you could do it either way.
Wardle: With that, Madam Mayor, I would move that we continue the Public Hearing on
Item 16.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to continue Item 16.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton.
Borton: Are we -- the motion is to continue it for an hour? For a week?
De Weerd: You know, I'm sorry, you really aren't allowed to discussion this motion, so -
- this is a motion you don't have discussion on.
Nary: Well, he can't -- since they didn't make -- all he's asking is for clarification as to
when they are continuing it to.
De Weerd: Oh. Okay.
Nary: Is it after Item 17 --
De Weerd: I think that's what Mr. Nary had talked about before the motion, so --
Bird: But we didn't say it in the motion.
De Weerd: Was the motion intended to continue this after Item 17 discussion?
Wardle: Yes.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Borton.
Bird: The second's got a clarification. After a decision on 17 or just after 17?
De Weerd: Thank you for making this complicated. Okay. Mr. Wardle, what was your
intent?
Wardle: Madam Mayor, thank you. I would like to continue Item 16 until after the Public
Hearing on Item 17, which is what we have scheduled on the agenda.
Meridian City Council
August 22, 2006
Page 48 of 81
De Weerd: And before any decision on Item 17?
Wardle: Yes.
De Weerd: Okay.
Bird: Okay. Second agrees.
De Weerd: Second agrees and that clarifies it for Mr. Borton?
Borton: It does.
De Weerd: Okay. Sorry. All those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY.
Item 17:
Public Hearing: VAR 06-017 Request for a Variance for a right-in only
access from Eagle Road to Sadie Creek Promenade for Sadie Creek
Promenade by Landmark Development Group, LLC - Southwest corner
of Eagle Road and Ustick Road:
De Weerd: Okay. It is continued until after Item 17. So, I will go ahead and open the
Public Hearing on VAR 06-017 with staff comments.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Sadie Creek Promenade
project. It's located on the west side of Eagle south of the Ustick. It is a variance
application. The applicant is requesting one new right-in only approach to Eagle Road.
Specifically the new approach is to be located approximately 660 feet south of Ustick
Road, the Ustick-Eagle intersection. As I mentioned previously, ITD has -- will not grant
any approach permits on this site. That's -- our current letter says that, because it is too
close to the intersection. Staff recommendation is for denial. Again, the access is not
supported by the Comprehensive Plan or the Unified Development Code. The request
also does not meet the required findings for a variance. As noted previously, we have
seen an increase in the number of accidents at the Ustick-Eagle intersection since 2004
and it is currently rated either number four or number five in the top ten accident areas.
With regard to the required Findings, the first one is the variance shall not grant a right
or special privilege that is not otherwise allowed in the district. This is currently
prohibited in the C-G zone and along this highway corridor and, in this case also, ITD
has specifically said that they will not allow an access point for this property from Eagle
Road. With regard to the variance relieves an undue hardship because of
characteristics of the site, this project has three deeded access points to Ustick, so they
do have quite a bit of access to a major arterial road. With regard to the third point, the
variance shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare. You have
heard testimony in the last application about left-in, left-out turn movements and the
increase that they cause in safety concerns and the severity of those accidents as well.
Just to get it on the record again for this hearing, staff has proposed -- although staff is
Meridian City Council
August 22, 2006
Page 49 of 81
recommending denial of this, they have proposed a compromise that provides better
access for the Sadie Creek Promenade project in that it moves the right-in, right-out
only to -- closer to their property. It would line up with the Gateway Marketplace right-in,
right-out only on the east side of Eagle Road, so it would move it quite a bit closer to
this project and would provide that right-out as well, rather than just a right-in. So, staff
does have the compromise included in the memo for this project. And with that I will
answer any questions.
De Weerd: Council, any questions for Anna?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. I can say right off you look very different from the last time we saw
you.
Thompson: Thank God.
De Weerd: Congratulations.
Thompson: Thank you. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, my name is Tamara
Thompson, Landmark Development Group, 1882 Taluka Way, Boise. 83712. Sadie
Creek Promenade is designed as a very beautiful project and we are committed to
quality tenants. Since we were here last we -- well, we were here last six months ago
almost to the day. I think it was February 21 st. And our right-in, right-out variance was
denied. Since, then, our tenant interest to the project has dramatically decreased. The
lack of access has hurt the commercial viability of the site. There is a couple of things
that I want to clarify, that this is not a reconsideration of that previous variance, this is a
completely new application for a right-in only, instead of the right-in, right-out, and the
letter that you have from ITD was for that previous application. This is a new application
to ITD also and that goes before their executive permits committee tomorrow, which I
don't believe is a coincidence. They have told me on several occasions that they want
the city to act first and, then, they will act second. So, I think they are looking to see
what you do tonight. The other changes that have happened since -- in the last six
months is the designed speed on Eagle Road has changed from 55 to 45. So,
previously for a right-in, right-out application we were right on the cuff of having enough
deceleration length in the 660 feet and with the design speed change to 45 miles an
hour for the right-in only we more than meet that deceleration speed. So, what we
would be looking at is a dedicated deceleration lane for a right-in only, with no rights
out. As far as safety, safety's everybody's number one goal here. And when we are
talking about left turns, if you're looking at traffic heading northbound on Eagle Road,
making a right-in turn is -- from the memo there is -- or I guess it was from our previous
hearing that there is one conflict point for a right-in only and if you don't have that right-
in you're taking all of that traffic, putting it onto Eagle Road and making them do left
turns, which he have heard repeatedly is the less safe option for access. So, we
believe that what we are asking for is much safer than funneling all the traffic to Ustick
to enter the site and exiting the site. If you're trying to get back to Eagle, they are right
Meridian City Council
August 22, 2006
Page 50 of 81
turns, SO it's kind of sixes on that. So, that's why we have given up the right-out aspect
of what we are requesting. Additionally, the UDC language, as I read it, is -- specifically
says it limits access points to state highways. So, I don't know if that's -- if that's a
distinction that -- if it's just semantics or whatever that this is actually from Eagle Road,
not to Eagle Road. So, anyway, I'm not sure if that's -- if that's something that -- if we fit
into that category or if -- you know, if a variance is actually required for that if we get ITD
approval. I'm going to make this short and sweet. So, in conclusion, our right-in only
,we believe, is a safer, more convenient access for our tenants. It will help us get the
quality tenants that we are looking for. And, again, Mr. Bird, I know you have been
wanting to know if everybody is participating in the improvements that are going on out
there and that would allow us to participate in those off-site improvements. It would be
a -- if we get ITD approval it would be a continue of approval from them as well. And we
look forward to bringing a beautiful quality project to the City of Meridian. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Questions from Council?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Wardle: Tamara, if I could -- staff has suggested in their presentation some sort of a
compromise with the property owners to the south. Is that something that you have
considered, discussed, been a part of?
Thompson: As far as what staff brought up as a right-in, right-out somewhere in
between us that aligns with the -- the eastern side of the road, since I know that one
intimately, that would be an approximately 880 feet from the center line of Ustick and,
yes, we would -- we would be agreeable to something like that. I have not -- I don't
know from ITD what they would think about that. I haven't talked to them directly.
Because tonight's the first I really heard of it.
Wardle: Madam Mayor, just to clarify. But you would be willing to -- because we have,
obviously, two applications. You would be willing to, essentially -- if it could be reached,
look at -- at taking access through some sort of a joint shared right-in, right-out, which --
or some sort of access which staff has suggested?
Thompson: On the surface, yes. But, you know, there is a lot of agreements that have
to be made there, because -- and it's the same thing that they deal with -- with the
property owner that I represent is that until development is certain, you don't want to be
giving away cross-access points or having other people come onto your property to
build roads and that kind of thing. So, if we go first, you know, the approach at Ustick
gets put in and that turns into a public street. If we go first, you know, we don't -- even
Meridian City Council
August 22, 2006
Page 51 of 81
though -- even if they grant cross-access through their property, that doesn't give the
right to physically go on somebody's property to construct a road. So, it kind of -- I
mean it's the same situation and who goes first is at the mercy of the other property
owner and there is a lot of agreements there, a lot of cost-sharing agreements, that kind
of thing that come into play. So, yes -- the answer is yes, but -- there is a lot of moving
parts. .
Wardle: Thank you.
Nary: She's not even a lawyer.
De Weerd: You know, I don't know if I can legally ask this, but I -- I guess that's why we
have an attorney sitting there telling me -- if I have to stop, please, stop me. If we were
to continue these two variance requests and ask you to get together and find -- if you
were to get right-in -- I think the right-in is certainly safer, you don't have some of the
concerns that the neighbors and Leslie Way would have an issue at. If you could get
together with the other applicant, discuss access or -- to Ustick for them, if you were
granted the right-in and they were also granted a right-in only, as long as they had
access through your property, so like you were saying, it answers the question who
goes first, because they need access to Ustick. So, Bill, could I ask if they would
consider discussing between the property owners if those kind of ideas would work for
them? Can I ask that?
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, you certainly can. I think the testimony
that you have heard both from Mrs. Thompson and Mr. Haggett is that they have
already done that. I think the problematic person that we don't have any really authority
over or control over is ITD and I think one of the things that Mrs. Thompson stated in
her testimony that may be something you and the Council want to consider is the fact
that ITD may be waiting for the city to make a decision. Now, the city doesn't have
authority to grant access to the federal -- or to the state highway, but we can -- but the
city can limit access to the state highway. So, if ITD is truly waiting, then, what the city
may -- may want to be doing is giving them some direction over what your preference is
on this particular stretch of Eagle Road. Whether it's access that is joint, and if that it
isn't going to be approved by ITD, then, you either want to hear these matters again to
make a decision that isn't going to -- that is going to relate to the separate properties,
but that your decision that your access point that you want is one access at no more
than -- no less than 880 feet from the corner -- or from the center line of Ustick and
that's -- that's your decision. You continue these matters for these variance decisions
until ITD makes a final decision on whether they will grant that, because, again, if you
grant -- if the city grants them an access and ITD doesn't, then, it really doesn't make
any difference. That's something you consider. But if you do what you're proposing,
Madam Mayor, I think they have it already. So, I don't know that that gets you any
further on a final decision untillTD makes a final decision.
De Weerd: Well, I guess if ITD is kind of waiting until the city makes a recommendation
and because there is three Council members up here I know I won't be breaking a tie,
Meridian City Council
August 22, 2006
Page 52 of 81
so I will just throw out my idea and -- for what it's worth, which isn't much, when I don't
have a tie opportunity. But if you were to look at just getting right-in access and
negotiate or work with the property owner to the south to give them access to Ustick,
that I know I would certainly be willing to write a letter to ITD with full support of right-in
only. It's the right-out and it's the left-in that has the biggest heartburn, I think, for the
safety aspects and I think for the neighbor issues. So, would you consider those kind of
discussions with the property application to your south?
Thompson: The first thing that that brings up for us is that -- I believe that for what they
are trying to develop, they have to have more than egress point and I don't know this for
sure, but I think that it's -- you can't do more than 55 residences without having two
pOints to get out. So, if something happens to the public street here, these guys aren't
just totally landlocked and have another way to get out. And I think that asking the --
the smaller property that's a third of the size to bear all of the traffic through its
development where the public street doesn't handle all of it, is -- is too much of a
burden. But I don't know this for sure. So, we need -- we need clarification on that.
That is one access point acceptable for the amount of residences that are going to the
south, because we have given a secondary cross-access point. But the intent of that
was just for the convenience of customers, so for the retail along the front, you know, if
we have retail in here and if they have retail, then, those retail customers -- it's
convenience for them to be able to shop back and forth and not have to go out onto a
public street to -- to get there. But if it's actually a condition that they have to have two
egress points, I don't think a right-in only works for their development. But, again, this is
-- this is --
De Weerd: Well -- and the fire department might have a threshold on building permits
allowed until that additional access would be allowed. I guess I'm just suggesting that
discussion -- I think probably the neighbors would even be more amenable to the right-
out if this development had an access to Ustick, because it would be the quicker route
to Ustick, rather than through their subdivision. I'm just asking for those discussion
opportunities, so that Council might have a better opportunity as well to have the whole
picture.
Thompson: And I think -- I mean I know that we want to get started on something, but
there has been so -- there is so many unknowns out there about, you know, is all the
traffic -- because, you know, we were all denied access onto Eagle -- is all the traffic
going to be coming through there, is that adequate, and for us, for our development, the
15 acres to the north, a right-in only is adequate for us and if it's on our property line or
200 feet to the south, that probably doesn't matter. But if it's at the quarter mile point
where you go a quarter mile past and have to come a quarter mile back, then, that is
problematic. So, I think, you know, the closer -- that 880 is probably the threshold that
we are going to be willing to work within.
De Weerd: Thank you. Ron, did you have any comments? Or chief. I'm sorry.
Meridian City Council
August22,2006
Page 53 of 81
Anderson: Madam Mayor, I was just going to confirm that you are correct, the Uniform
Fire Code in residential development says anytime you have over 30 residents that we
require two access points. Meridian has fudged on that and we allow 50 residents and
with commercial it's the same thing, we require two pOints of access. But it doesn't
matter to us whether they are both off of Ustick or one's off of Eagle, so that wouldn't
matter.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, chief. This is a Public Hearing and I do have two people
signed up to indicate for or against. Candy Seeley signed up for. Would you like to
provide testimony?
Seeley: Candy Seeley. 1567 North Leslie Way. I, actually, am very much in favor of
this project. They have done everything that we have asked in discussions trying to get
the whole thing together. They put in light retail and -- up against the properties that are
backing up my subdivision and they have been very magnanimous in the back and forth
going -- and the communication between the two. I had an idea, which was the same
idea you came up with, grant both the different properties that we are talking about
tonight the right-in access and give them the signalized access out onto Ustick as the
full circle around and that would solve our problem and probably solve all the problems
if we could do something to that effect. So, that's all -- I was, you know, the same mind
with you trying to do something like that. Because that would solve our problem of the
right-out people coming in down our roadway and, then, they have the signal, which is
away from our street already, to direct them north -- I mean east or west, whichever way
they want to go. Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Tim Reed signed up for.
Reed: Good evening, Madam Mayor and Council Members. Jim Reed with Idaho
Commercial Group. I represent a purchaser -- we have the property under contract, the
northern property. One of the things that just needed to bring up and it all boils down to
me. I'm a commercial real estate broker and this access and ingress and egress and
stuff, it all boils down to what we see the property, you know, values and prices per
square foot of dirt and all of those things and since we put the property under contract
and through our due diligence period, which we are still under now, some of the things
that concern me would be the time table iri which what we have done so far, if we could
get a decision to move forward with the project. The other issue is that we had
numerous tenants interested in the property and when we first looked at the property in
discussing whether we could get access onto or off of Eagle Road, we had a
tremendous amount of interest, especially, you know, for that hard corner area and
since then, until that's all been figured out, that's all dried up. So, right now we are
looking at the economic feasibility of doing a project there, you know, with the right retail
mix with what's going on on the other three corners, which is, you know, very nice
developments and a lot of commercial space, without that access somehow into -- into
that northern piece that we have under contract, it doesn't look like it's going to happen
on our end. Then some of the safety things -- and I have learned a lot sitting here
tonight and I don't need to be a traffic engineer to kind of just understand logic. I drive
Meridian City Council
August 22, 2006
Page 54 of 81
the roads every day, I drive Eagle Road every day -- the fact if we had a hundred cars
coming south on Eagle Road and those hundred cars wanted to come into that
development, they would have to go right onto Ustick and, then, left into our
development, which causes the highest injury rates and everything that we heard here
tonight. If by chance from a safety standpoint, which is-- seems to be the paramount
issue here, if half those cars or a third of those cars, a quarter of those cars could make
the right-in to our project it would be much safer, in my opinion. But I'm not a traffic
engineer, so -- but with that that's, really, all I had. So, is there anything -- any
question?
De Weerd: Any questions from Council?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. I had only two people sign up to testify. Is there anyone
else who would like to provide testimony on this application?
Graham: Madam Mayor, Council Members, my name is Steve Graham, I live at 1534
Leslie, which, as you probably know, borders the western part of this project. I
submitted my written testimony, which you have probably already reviewed and I just
wanted to verbally say that we do support -- I do support this project, I think the right-in
is a good solution for everybody. You just heard from the developer or a potential buyer
that it probably works for them and I think that's the right thing to do. So, I just wanted
to verbally state that and hope that you'll take that into consideration. Any questions?
De Weerd: Thank you, sir.
Graham: Thanks.
De Weerd: Okay. Anyone else? Thank you. Any closing remarks? Okay. Council?
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I guess I will begin. Just a question for legal staff, I think that we have got a --
or in my opinion we have a potential compromise. Is it -- but I'm going to be talking
about both applications. Should we close the Public Hearing on this application or leave
it open? I mean, I guess -- where is the process for us to do that?
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I mean you're going to have to -- at the
point that you're ready to make a motion or decision, then, you would probably close the
Public Hearing. You have the other one left that's still to make a decision on, unless
you feel you need to have -- to hold them both open for more information before you
can make a decision, there is no reason to keep it open. So, you can close the Public
Hearing on this if you don't think anymore information is necessary to be able to make a
Meridian City Council
August22,2006
Page 55 of 81
decision. If you -- I guess as your -- are you wanting to know if you can go to the other
one first?
Wardle: Well, my -- Madam Mayor, my intention would be -- and I have heard a couple
different things. We have heard the comment about the Idaho Transportation
Department having final authority over access to the state highway. I have also heard
both applicants agree that a shared common access could work for them. However, we
don't know if the highway district would even entertain that -- that sort of an idea. That
would be the only additional information that I would need to have, if that makes sense.
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I guess the dilemma that we have -- and
I -- I think what you may have to consider doing is if you're going to make a decision so
that the Idaho Transportation Department knows what your preference is, then, your --
the best way to do that is to, then, close your hearing, make a decision. Does that
mean you may have to rehear them if that decision isn't approved by ITD? Yeah, you
will have to, then, bring them back to make an alternate decision, because we can't at
the end of the day leave the decision with -- leave a decision that doesn't allow access
to Bienville and doesn't -- and doesn't answer the question that's been requested by
Sadie Creek.
De Weerd: Mr. Nary, though, could we not continue these, make a recommendation to
ITD, and see what comes back?
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I mean' guess that's the only place that
I don't have a specific answer to. If ITO will accept your recommendation -- as a
recommendation and make a decision -- I just don't know if they will. You know, I guess
for -- as long as these developers -- this has been a long process and I'm going to
guess that time isn't totally of the essence for them, as long as we have been talking
about this and I have been trying to -- I have been sitting here trying to think of some
way that you didn't have to hear this again, because I thought maybe that would be your
preference, but I don't know that there is any way to avoid that. If your -- if the decision
of this Council is the compromise that's been discussed and that both parties in principle
agree to, subject to some conditions and such, then, that can be your decision. If ITO
won't grant that, they will have to come back, because there won't be any way for them
to continue with the project, either one of them, with your decision that isn't going to
allow them access.
De Weerd: Council, I guess right now I'd like to call a ten minute recess and perhaps
give an opportunity for anything new that might come within that ten minutes, but
because I can call a recess, I'm going to call a recess. Ten minutes.
(Recess.)
De Weerd: Okay. I will go ahead and -- I know there is a lot of discussions going on,
but -- okay. I will go ahead and ask if there is any new information.
Meridian City Council
August 22, 2006
Page 56 of 81
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I guess the discussion went like this
-- I'll do it this way. ITO will probably not -- would not make a comment on anything that
wasn't in the specific applications that are before you tonight. So, if we did, indeed,
recommend some compromise, they would probably have to reapply have ITD act on
that compromise. However, they did approve a right-in, right-out only immediately
across the street, so -- for Gateway Marketplace. So, that may be a solution. The other
thing that was talked about was to go ahead and approve the right-in for Sadie Creek
Promenade. To have a temporary full access at the quarter mile mark for Bienville until
such time that they had access through Sadie Creek Promenade property and, then, it
would become right-in, right-out. I had concerns about that. We had this discussion at
Gateway Marketplace hearings about these temporary access points, knowing when will
that be constructed. If all the development occurs before Sadie Creek, then, there is no
mechanism for actually getting those improvements done to regulate that right-in, right-
out only, because, otherwise, it's just going to be an un -- kind of an unstructured
access there to -- that won't direct people in the place they need to go. So, I have been
leery about the temporary access points and how we get those finally approved in past
hearings and I still voice my concerns about that. Sometimes ITO, by them building the
median, would solve that problem. In this case I don't believe it would, because they
are constructing it for u-turn access at the corner mile. So, unless there is some
physical barrier to folks entering the Bienville Square property to prevent the left-in, it
may -- the problem won't be taken care of by ITD putting in barriers -- or medians is I
guess the point. So, I do have concerns about any temporary full access and how and
when and where and why that goes away. Why we know. How and when. So, those--
that was the only alternative that was raised to me during the break.
De Weerd: Okay. Okay. Council?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I don't know about the other two, but this is one councilman that is ready to make
a decision and get down the road and let ITD tell us whether we are right, wrong or
indifferent.
De Weerd: I'm certainly willing to write a letter.
Bird: I think -- Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Bird: Follow up on that. I think if we don't make a decision one way or the other, right,
wrong, or indifferent, it's -- they are not going to -- they are just going to throw it back at
us. They are waiting -- they have -- they have waited all along for us to make a decision
before they make a decision, so I don't believe we need to keep these two developers
hanging in the wind any longer. And I know that time probably isn't very essentially to
Meridian City Council
August22,2006
Page 57 of 81
them, but time is dollars in construction, so I -- I'm for going ahead and making a
decision.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: I agree we need a decision tonight from my perspective as well. I think with
regards to the specific comments and ITO and Meridian, the decision and our roll here
with regards to what takes place on -- at least Sadie Creek right now is open and
Bienville, as we heard before, and do what's best for Meridian and we will make our
decision accordingly and ITO will get it and deal with it and if they don't like it, then, they
can come back and if they do, then, they deal with it. I agree with Councilman Bird that
the chicken or the egg doesn't help anybody, doesn't solve anything, it just costs the
developers time and money, which we are very sensitive to, so -- Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton.
Borton: My comments and remarks to this particular project and, then, from what I have
heard, first and foremost -- and I'm sure the other Council members are as well -- I'm
extremely sensitive and appreciative of the comments and different hats that everyone
wears when we talk about this particular project from homeowners whose concerns are
traffic and not necessarily the development of the property. Developers who might be
concerned about a development foremost. Brokers or agents who might be concerned
about the greatest commercial value. There is a great mix in our roll as well and on
Council to try and control access to these roadways. I think Lieutenant Overton's
remarks were particularly important when we talk about a variance and has indicated
prior instances where we try and review something like this, of the varying standards,
one of the three primary elements that we focus on is whether or not the variance would
be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare and of the three that's one in
particular that I think Lieutenant Overton's remarks were very important and made an
impression upon me. I think with regard to Sadie Creek -- and legal counsel stop me if I
should speak only to Sadie Creek, is that --
Nary: Councilmember Borton, yeah, at this juncture that's the only matter in front of you
is Sadie Creek and the hearing is still open, so--
Borton: I want to -- while the hearing is still open, make a remark to Sadie Creek on the
right-in only access. I know in other instances there was reference, I think -- Tamara,
you might have made a comment about your ability to perhaps provide temporary
access. In this particular project does a temporary right-in, just for discussion purposes,
is that feasible, temporary meaning until something else happens. And I'm just -- as
Anna talked about a concern about how you would ever manage a temporary access,
what I'm getting at is would be temporary until some additional potential access upon
Eagle Road is available for your project to utilize?
Meridian City Council
August22,2006
Page 58 of 81
Thompson: Madam Mayor, Councilman Borton, like I said before, I think it depends on
what that other anomaly is that would close it. If it's another access between that and
880 feet, I think that's something that would be a yes. But, again, if it's at the quarter
mile point I think a half mile -- you know, quarter mile there and quarter back is too far
for convenience for retailers.
Borton: Okay.
Thompson: But to answer your question on how -- logistically how do you take care of
temporary, you know, the only thing I have seen is bonds and most surety bonds are
pretty hard to collect on. So, cash bonds is what I have -- what I have done in other
jurisdictions.
Borton: Okay.
De Weerd: Okay. Did you have anything further?
Borton: Not at this time, I guess.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, we have an open Public Hearing on Item 17.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Hearing no more public testimony, I move that we close VAR 06-017.
Wardle: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to close the Public Hearing on Item 17. All those in
favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, I guess in the motion to continue Item 16 it was -- through
clarification it would be before a decision is made on Item 17. I believe we still have an
open Public Hearing on Item 16. Is there any additional information needed? Okay.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I would move that we close the Public Hearing on Item 16.
Borton: Second.
Meridian City Council
August22,2006
Page 59 of 81
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to close 16. All those in favor say aye.
All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: For purposes of discussion I will open up with my thoughts on Item 16 and,
certainly, that when we made our prior decision on this application to deny access,
evidence was presented that there was certain access to Ustick Road and the property
was not landlocked. Obviously, we have heard this evening that that is not the case
and certainly it is, in my opinion, our need to provide access to that property probably
for Eagle Road. The question that I have is really one that is what is best for the
community, how to -- how to achieve that request, along with staying within our goals as
a community to move traffic and keep safety and so I have heard both applicants on
application 16 and application 17 discuss the potential to share an access. We have
heard some testimony that the transportation department mayor may not accept that
and I think that we have talked about the fact that we need to make a decision and to
move forward from there. I would be in favor of granting an access which would be
shared and no more than 880 feet from intersection of Eagle and Ustick Road for these
two properties. I'll put that up for discussion.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: In addition to I guess some of my remarks in the prior hearing and dovetail on
what Councilman Wardle has said, I agree -- I agree with, again, the role that we have
to play, weighing these competing interests. I think from my perspective providing
access to this Bienville project with a right-in, right-out, I think that the temporary access
issues create problems. I think it -- as we have discussed it's going to be, eventually, a
right-in, right-out. Again, what Lieutenant Overton talked about with left turns and the
safety hazards of that particular movement on Eagle Road makes, I quite frankly know
that from experience, as everyone in the room does, when you try and make a left turn
across Eagle Road, it is uniquely different. My suggestion and preference in this
particular project and applaud both projects, their cooperation in the past and their
future cooperation, they know they are going to have to work together to make this
corner successful. But I agree with Councilman Wardle -- I'm butchering his name
tonight. Councilman Waddle -- that a right-in, right-out access at this particular 880 feet
-- I think that's from center line -- it lines up with -- and that's not the reason why, but I
think it does happen to line up with the Gateway across the street to provide access to
the parcel and hopes that both projects as they develop and flourish will utilize it. I'm
mindful of the concerns of the residents and the fear that people might turn right and,
then, right, it's most likely a reality. I don't discount that whatsoever. But I know you,
Meridian City Council
August 22, 2006
Page 60 of 81
too, also were mindful of the challenges of a City Council that has to weight competing
interests and continued growth and development. Every Tuesday we hear very valid
concerns and discussions with growth and development in any particular project in
anyplace, in any fashion always creates traffic, which always creates more potential
traffic hazard than without development and I know we all understand that and we just
try and manage as best we can. I see this to be the most reasonable middle ground to
provide viable and valuable access to Bienville. So, that will be my preference.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
Nary: Madam -- oh, sorry.
Bird: Go ahead.
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council -- and I heard what Councilmember
Borton said. My only concern from the city's standpoint is the issues that have been
raised by Bienville and their -- and the way their land is situated, that -- although I agree
with what you're saying about the temporariness and maybe the challenge in dealing
with that, is that part of the testimony in front of you by Bienville's application is that they
are landlocked and subject to the other property's development to allow full access and
so if you only grant right-in, right-out, they will not have full access to Eagle Road and,
therefore, all of the traffic has to head south and find it's way north in some other
fashion until the other property develops and I think -- I think what Mrs. Canning had
stated was, you know, that what the parties had talked about was at the point when
there is the access to Ustick to allow that northern access, then, the right-in, right-out
makes more practical sense. But I just am concerned from the city's perspective that if
we only grant right-in, right-out, that you are limiting that access to the degree that that
property still might be challenged in being able to be used at all, because of that and I
don't know that you're not going to end up with this hearing back in front of you again
saying that's still not going to work. I understand your concern, Council member Borton,
about the temporariness, but I'm just -- I'm equally concerned that if you don't grant full
access at least until the northern piece develops, that the Bienville is going to be back in
front of you again with the same concerns that they are still subject to the other
property's development, so --
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I agree with Councilman Borton. I hate to give full access on Eagle Road, but in
the same token, as Mr. Nary stated, they would be landlocked until the northern section
is developed and gets them a way out of the -- onto Ustick. I guess at 880 feet, which
is, you know, a little over an eighth of a mile from the center line of the intersection, I
take it, is what you were suggesting, that gives us -- that gives you about halfway
Meridian City Council
August22,2006
Page 61 of 81
between there and Leslie. Leslie Drive is a full access drive and I'm sure there has
been wrecks there. I don't know. I can't -- I hate to have a full access deal but I hate to
,
also landlock up the deal. I think the ideal thing is right-in and right-out, but until they
get something to Ustick, there is no way I -- that I could land lock them that bad and I
think if we -- I don't think full access is going to be used that much, to be truthful with
you. I think you're looking at something like --
De Weerd: I guess Council -- and I would ask either Anna or Chief Anderson, but if
there is only one access you will be limited with your building permits until a second
access is available.
Bird: That's right.
De Weerd: And so just keep that in mind. I guess one of those -- this Council has kind
of adhered to a mantra of maybe the Councilman that's not here, but we are not in any
hurry. I think that there was an opportunity to address the concerns of Bienville in
getting their access to Ustick and giving the access to Eagle in a form that doesn't
compromise the surrounding neighbors. There is an opportunity there and I guess ad
nauseam I just had to say that one more time and I appreciate that Council continues to
put up with me. But, Anna, did you have a comment as well?
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, yes, I did have a comment. I think
you have heard testimony, I'm just -- I'm afraid that Councilman -- or that counselor
Nary's comments made it a little more confusing, because to do a full access at 880 we
are pretty sure is not going to fly, so -- with lTD. So, with regard to a right-in, right-out,
with -- by providing permanent access to this, we heard from the developer to the north
that that right-in, right-out only location was probably sufficient to go ahead develop that
northern property, so we are not hearing that we won't have that cross-access and so I
just -- it's all getting very confused and things are a moving target, certainly, but I just
wanted to make that clarification as well. I understand Mr. Nary's concerns about not
landlocking this parcel. But we have heard from the developer to the north that right-in,
right-out only is an acceptable alternative for her to move forward with developing that
property.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary, I guess the question to my left is can we be having this discussion
when the Public Hearing is closed?
Nary: All you're asking about is options and so at this point, yeah, all you have asked of
staff are what potential options do you have.
De Weerd: Okay.
Nary: If you're going to concern as to whether -- and it's my error. When I was listening
to the testimony or the staff report about the compromise that -- it talked about right-ins,
Meridian City Council
August 22, 2006
Page 62 of 81
but the question wasn't to Bienville, if -- can you only live with a right-in from this point
forward. If you're comfortable that that was what Bienville was agreeing to, then, that's
up to you. I mean that's -- that's your decision. If you feel that's what they have agreed
to -- if it isn't they'll tell you, they will ask you to reconsider it and you will have it again.
So, I mean if that's what it was. My only concern -- my only concern is that there is
access and that it is not land locking this parcel. If you're comfortable that they were
agreeable to that compromise and the compromise was right-in, right-out only from this
point forward, not temporary and not contingent upon some other access, that's your
folks'decision. Again, if Bienville doesn't agree with that, they ask to reconsider it. I do
think it was stated pretty clearly by Mrs. Thompson they were agreeable to that. So, if
that's your recollection that's perfectly fine.
De Weerd: Okay.
Nary: Less muddy?
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: One additional question of staff. Anna, you have stated ITD's policy on full
access. Permanent full access. Do they have any sort of a policy regarding temporary
nature of access?
Canning: Members of the Council, Councilmember Wardle, I can't state from policy. I
was just reiterating what the applicant had said earlier. So, perhaps temporary is okay.
I don't know.
De Weerd: Okay. Council?
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I have a motion. Madam Mayor, I move that we approve Item 16, VAR 06-018,
to approve a temporary full access no greater 880 feet from the center line of the
intersection of Ustick and Eagle Road. The temporary nature of the access being that
the access to Eagle Road becomes right-in, right-out when public street access to
Ustick Road is available.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion. Do I have a second?
Borton: I'll second, Madam Mayor, with some discussion and perhaps clarification. The
motion mentions full access. I take it that did not intend left-out access. Was it left-in
only? Am I muddying the distinction? Full access, as I heard from the public testimony,
meant all directions.
Meridian City Council
August22,2006
Page 63 of 81
De Weerd: Okay. Any further discussion?
Bird: Call for the question.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Okay. Item 17.
Wardle: Madam Mayor, question for legal counsel. We heard testimony from the
applicant on Item 17 that a shared access, which was approved in our previous motion,
would be sufficient for them if it were no less than 880 feet, which the motion included.
What sort of action do we need to take on Item 17?
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council member Wardle, I suggest if -- I
suggest you make the same motion. I mean you have the ability to grant under a
variance if you feel the Findings are available -- or can be made, whatever is
reasonable in light of those Findings, that you can make the same motion if you wish.
De Weerd: Okay. I guess -- I know I said we are on Item 17, but on Item 16 do we
have a clear understanding of when that temporary is lifted? Is that -- was the part of
the discussion that that is when there is access to the north?
Canning: It was stated as public street access.
De Weerd: Okay.
Wardle: Madam Mayor, public street access to Ustick Road from the parcel.
De Weerd: Okay. Okay. Sorry. I just needed clarification. Okay. Item 17.
Canning: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Canning: I think the applicant is willing to withdraw that application, if Council would like
that option open as well.
De Weerd: Okay. Okay. Council, I guess there would need to be a motion to accept
withdrawal.
Meridian City Council
August22,2006
Page 64 of 81
Nary: Madam Mayor, for the purpose, since it's not a hearing, for purposes of that you
might want to have Mrs. Thompson put that on the record.
De Weerd: Okay.
Thompson: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we will withdraw our application.
De Weerd: If you will just, first, state your name for the record.
Thompson: Tamara Thompson, Landmark Development Group, 1882 Taluka Way,
Boise. 83712.
Nary: Madam Mayor? I'm sorry. Before Mrs. Thompson does that -- I hate to be so
legal about stuff, but there is a concern, of course, that you have all discussed on
whether ITD will grant that.
Thompson: Well, yeah, that's--
Nary: And if they don't, then, the Council may want to reconsider their action. If you
withdraw this application, then, you'd have to start all over. What you may want to do is
continue this for a month, you will get those Findings and decision and order within
three weeks and if you continue this matter -- if ITD denies this access request or it
appears that that may happen or something, then, you could at least keep this alive.
You still have to notice up a hearing, you still have to do that if you're going to hear it,
but you wouldn't be starting over. And maybe it's not as complicated as that from the
planning side, I'd just hate for them to withdraw it and, then, ITD denies it and, then,
they are just starting over again. So, that might be more preferable to --
De Weerd: And that was free advice.
Thompson: I like it. I like it.
Nary: It's worth what you paid, but it certainly might make it easier.
Thompson: Mr. Nary is thinking clearer than I am at this point. Yes, we would -- I think
postponing it or continuing it for a month to see where we are going.
De Weerd: We do appreciate your offer and, then, would ask Council to continue this
item. Just one more thing on Item 16 is, chief, we do limit the number of building
permits until there is a second access; is that correct?
Anderson: Yes. We would do that on the residential portion and on the commercial
stuff at the front we would not allow them to get a building permit, because they can't
provide two access points.
Meridian City Council
August22,2006
Page 65 of 81
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you for that clarification. Okay. Council, the applicant on
Item 17 has asked for a continuation. Do I have a motion?
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I move we continue Item 17 to September 26th.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. There is a motion to continue this to September 26th on Item 17. All
those in favor say aye. All ayes. motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Berg: Madam Mayor, just a clarification. We are really just tabling a decision on this
application, not to get mixed up with continued public hearings or tabling --
De Weerd: That's correct.
Berg: Okay.
De Weerd: I guess at that point, depending on what we hear back from ITD, we may
need to open the Public Hearing or not. Okay.
Berg: Thank you.
Item 18:
Item 19:
Item 20:
Public Hearing: AZ 06-028 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 4.43
acres to an R-15 (Medium High-Density Residential) zone for Touchstone
Place Subdivision by Horizon Development - 1187 East Fairview
Avenue:
Public Hearing: PP 06-028 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 2
residential lots (proposed to contain 48 Multi-Family units) and 2 common
lots on 4.43 acres in a proposed R-15 zone for Touchstone Place
Subdivision by Horizon Development - 1187 East Fairview Avenue:
Public Hearing: CUP 06-021 Request for Conditional Use Permit
approval to construct a multi-family development consisting of 48 multi-
family dwelling units (8 plexes) on 2 lots totaling 4.43 acres in the
proposed R-15 zone Touchstone Place Subdivision by Horizon
Development - 1187 East Fairview Avenue:
De Weerd: Okay. Items 18, 19 and 20 -- and I am sorry I kept going back and forth to
Item 16. I just wanted to let the neighbors know what was happening next.
Meridian City Council
Augus122,2006
Page 66 of 81
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird.
Bird: On 18, 19 and 20, we received a letter today from Pamela Ferry that represents a
trust that is involved with these two properties -- with properties between these two
properties, I believe, and according to her there is -- they were not notified or
something. I don't know. And I'm sure that somebody within that got -- got a letter.
De Weerd: It is a part of the public record. We will let the applicant, if they received a
copy of that, and see also if staff has had an opportunity to preview that as well. I will
open the public hearings on Items 18, 19 and 20 for AZ 06-028, PP 06-028, and CUP
06-021. We welcome Councilman Rountree back. And I will open these three public
hearings with staff comments.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Touchstone project and
you do have a letter before you from Pamela Ferry. I did give the applicant a copy of
the letter when she arrived at the hearing and we have briefly discussed it. It is not a
new issue, so it is one we are familiar with and I think we can shed some light on as my
discussion -- or my presentation continues.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Anna.
Canning: The project is located on the south side of Fairview Avenue across from North
Jericho Road. It's approximately 1,300 feet west of Locust Grove Road. Excuse me.
The application includes annexation, zoning, preliminary plat -- it's a two lot plat. And
Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development. And the need for the plat was
generated by the fact that they are connecting a public roadway through the property.
So, this is accessed primarily from a public roadway. The applicant is requesting
annexation and zoning of 4.43 acres to R-15. They are asking for preliminary plat
approval of two multi-family building lots with two common lots and, then, conditional
use approval for 48 multi-family dwellings. These are contained within six eight-plex
units -- or six buildings, each of those buildings has eight dwelling units within it.
Approximately 10.8 percent of the site is being set aside for open space. And, Will, you
just really can't see anything. Sorry.
De Weerd: Where do we order these light bulbs? Siberia?
Canning: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. The two lots as shown here are here in this -- the road
comes in and kind of makes an L with a dog leg, so this is one lot and this is the second
lot for the preliminary plat. I'm going to zoom in -- I have cut off the portion going out to
Jericho Road, so that you can see this a little better. It's really a subjective term tonight.
What you have here are -- these are the structures -- there is one, two, three, four, five
and six. These other things that look like structures are garages and carports. So,
there are -- they might all be garages. There are a number of other structures -- they
Meridian City Council
August 22, 2006
Page 67 of 81
are garages. Yes. Excuse me. Then here is the road coming through the property.
The landscape plan -- you can see the open areas. They kind of create a common
open area here at the center of most of the units. This one building on the south side of
the road -- you can see the open space on either side of it. With regard to how it relates
to the neighbors, they have used the garages to kind of muffle the noise and to provide
that transition into the property, so you see those on the perimeter of the site. The two
properties to the north are shown as commercial. The Comprehensive Plan designation
for this property is commercial. However, the commercial designation of the
Comprehensive Plan allows for multi-family development. So, the R-15 zoning is
consistent with the commercial designation on the property. The drive aisles -- you
come in, they loop and connect back to the public street. This one is a smaller loop. It
completes it there. Staff has recommended a development agreement. The unusual or
not usual, anyway, portions of that development agreement would be that -- that only
multi-family development and allowed accessory uses in the R-15 zone would be
allowed on the property. That there be a maximum of 48 units constructed on the site
and that a street buffer be installed along Fairview Avenue prior to occupancy of any
new dwelling units. And that cross-access to and from the North Jericho Way be
provided to the parcel to the west for future development along Fairview Avenue. That's
this property here. And they have shown a cross-access location, an easement from
Jericho Road to that property. We do have elevations and the applicant has some
boards that will provide a much better look of this today. If you will note that they look
very different from our multi-family four-plexes that we usually see. There are a number
of materials here and different -- again, the applicant has some better elevations. They
are three stories, that's why the applicant moved them interior to the property to get
them away from the property lines of the surrounding property owners. Wow. You
really can't see that one today. This is the -- the Planning Commission did recommend
approval at their July 20th, 2006, hearing. Jeff Mack and Sabrina Whitehead spoke in
favor of the application. Greg Bastabin spoke in opposition. And Caralee Blough and
Marinda Williams commented on the application. The key issues of discussion by the
Commission were the proposed height of the buildings and the residential
condominiums. These are proposed to be condominiums for the units, not -- well, they
are just proposed to be condominium units. Key Commission changes to staffs initial
recommendation is they did require six foot high solid fencing along the perimeter of the
property lines. The outstanding issues before the City Council are the property dispute
brought up by Pamela Ferry and, then, just as far as accommodating that dispute as far
as getting legal descriptions of the proposed annexation. Staff has met with the
applicant several times on this issue. Some of the previous annexation applications are
in dispute by these property owners as well. Mrs. Ferry represents the property owners
of this -- the property kind of -- the middle property let's call it for the sake of this
discussion and there were previous annexations that they allege took portions of their
property, so the annexation description matches and completes what's missing. This is
kind of -- this is a large part of the missing link along Fairview here. So, the annexation
description would include that, but, then, there is still this question about what the
proper lines are. To summarize, the root of the problem was that probably one came
from the east and one came from the west and there ended up being a discrepancy and
where this discrepancy hit was right in these properties. So, you have deed lines and
Meridian City Council
August 22, 2006
Page 68 of 81
the deed lines don't reflect where the fence lines were. What I think is -- further
confuses this issue is that the property owners entered a private agreement to resolve
these issues prior to any development occurring and that's what Mrs. Ferry is
commenting on with regard to her letter. What it boils down to is this area here is in
dispute, as well as a portion of this area also. If you look at the plan for that area, you
will see it's the roadway coming in and, then, down below it's a couple parking lot
spaces right there. So, those are kind of the two contentious areas. The discrepancy
seems to be -- wait a minute. I'm going the wrong way. Sorry about that. Regarding
ten feet along here. As the applicant currently has the road coming -- shown coming
into the property, it is ten feet from the property line, the green line. So, basically, the
road as shown would sit right on the red line. ACHD has said they need to shift it three
feet further west, so -- but what could occur and what often happens is that an applicant
will build -- and Mr. 'nselman can correct me if I'm wrong -- an applicant will build most
of the roadway, ACHD will let this property owner -- in this case the middle property
owner build the sidewalk on that side to complete those road improvements. So, they
could certainly get the half plus 12. They could even get the full travel lane, but they
would just be missing sufficient area to get the five foot sidewalk. And that's if this
property owner disputes those ten feet or wins in that dispute, then, they would be
gaining ten feet of land that they had to build five feet of sidewalk on. So, there seems
to be a lot of reason for this middle property owner to want work with the current
property owners to resolve this issue. It's really in their best interest, because these
folks don't need that five feet of sidewalk necessarily or the other five feet on the other
side of it, they are just going to landscape it and it will be there, where the middle
property owner would have that available for their five feet of perimeter landscaping for
their parking lot or for their -- their landscaping adjacent to the roadway. So, it's really in
the best interest of the middle property.
De Weerd: Anna, I guess I have a question.
Canning: Yeah.
De Weerd: Do we have a legal description?
Canning: We do currently. Yes.
De Weerd: And it's in -- this is in conflict, is that what I understand?
Canning: Yeah. These red lines represent kind of the conflict areas. I guess where
staff is going is -- it's not fully resolved yet, but when -- when there seems to be an
advantage to the folks to resolve this -- a mutual advantage, which there clearly is in this
case, if they don't -- it would be a win to this property -- to the middle property owner for
this property owner to develop the full roadway and they are wanting to develop this as
commercial property. They are not saying that they want it to stay residential or
anything like that. So, actually, the fellow that has the property to the west tied up also
an agreement to develop this property. It's moving forward very slowly, but--
Meridian City Council
August 22. 2006
Page 69 of 81
De Weerd: Okay. I guess my question is since we have a legal description, is this of
concern to us?
Canning: It is to Mrs. Ferry. I mean there is some question about -- there is an
unresolved property dispute here.
De Weerd: And can you move forward with this application with that dispute?
Canning: I feel they can, because I feel it's in the best interest of all the property owners
to resolve it, even if it means these folks -- especially if it means these folks end up
building the entrance road and access to their property. So, I don't -- in other cases
where it is clearly somebody is disadvantaged by the property dispute, Council has said,
you know, you can't do this last plat -- Windsong is a perfect example. You can't do
these last five lots until you resolve this property dispute. Those are difficult in that
there is never any incentive for the person that may not really have a valid case to
resolve it, because it's in their best interest to keep that 15 feet of land or whatever it is.
But it's not necessarily in the best interest of these folks to maintain ownership of that
ten feet, because, then, they'd have to develop it. So, I think you could move forward.
You could condition it on these -- them revolving it. I think they will come to a
resolution, because I think it's in the best interest of all the property owners that this
project move forward. That's what I was trying to get at and I guess I was just going too
slow. Sorry.
De Weerd: I just thought I'd help you along.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Bird.
Bird: While you're having questions in -- part of your information, I -- I have problems
annexing something that is in -- having disputes over legal lines. As the famous old
saying goes, I'm not that anxious to annex something like that and get ourselves in the
middle of a deal. I'm sure the county has some records on this and I don't believe they
have probably wanted to do anything with it, so we are going to get in the middle of it.
I'd prefer not to. I'd sooner see them come in with a clear legal description than a
clouded one.
Canning: Madam Mayor? To further complicate issues, this property to the west has
been annexed and this is one of the disputed boundaries. So, to resolve this question
all three properties need to be in the same entity and currently it's the center -- I can't
remember if the centerpiece is annexed currently. No. So, really, the only way to
resolve the property boundary adjustment is to do an application with an entity. It
already can't be in the county, because this property doesn't -- isn't already annexed to
the city.
Bird: The other one isn't?
Meridian City Council
August 22, 2006
Page 70 of 81
Canning: The middle one is not.
Bird: Then, the one to the west isn't either.
Canning: That's the subject application.
Bird: That's the application right now.
Canning: Right.
Bird: Okay.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Nary.
Nary: And I don't know if this helps Councilmember Bird's concerns, but the city has
annexed property -- applications before where there have been some boundary
disputes. I mean there is two issues of concern. I mean, obviously, they raise this
issue and I think, as Mrs. Canning stated, the city can condition their final approval on
getting those issues resolved. I guess I would caution on taking a position that just
because there is a dispute you will invite people to simply raise a dispute that mayor
may not have any legitimacy just to derail some other consensual annexation and I don't
think that's what you would want to encourage to do. And, again, we have done it
before where people have been required to clear this up and it's -- the burden is on the
applicant to do that. It mayor may not happen. But legally it's -- I think to go back to
the Mayor's question, I mean legally you have the right to agree to consensually annex
all the property owned by the applicant and if the adjustment has to be made because
they don't own five feet that they thought they owned, you can adjust that, but we can fix
that. The other issue that the attorney, Mrs. Ferry, has raised is notice and it appears at
least from the city's perspective that notice was properly done. The property was
posted, proper legal notice in the paper was done. They were -- appeared to have been
mailed notice, which they are on the mailing list, they have been mailed notice and the
applicant has certified that they have done all the posting and everything they needed to
do. You know, you certainly -- if someone -- if someone showed up at the last minute or
sent a letter saying even though you think I got notice I didn't and I'd like some time to
formulate a response, we certainly have considered that. So, I would just ask that you
at least take that into some consideration in your decision on whether you want to go
forward tonight, but you certainly want to hear from the applicant, I understand, but
that's something at least to consider as you ponder this one.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I did speak with Ms. Ferry at 5:00
o'clock and I had told her that in the past Council has put conditions on it, saying that
this needs to be -- this issue needs to be resolved. She was, actually, pretty
comfortable with that. She just wants the issue resolved is all. And I think that she
Meridian City Council
August 22, 2006
Page 71 of 81
could see that there was some benefit and she just wanted to the make sure Council
was aware of those concerns. but--
Nary: A reasonable attorney.
De Weerd: Councilman Wardle?
Wardle: Madam Mayor, thank you. I have two just quick comments. One, the planning
director said that, you know, she's made a determination that this mayor may not -- this
wouldn't affect -- adversely affect the property owner. I'm a little bit uncomfortable in a
matter of a legal description making that determination from our perspective. The one
thing that I can say is -- and I have heard staff say -- one of the issues in question is
where the potential sidewalk would be. We are considering a family development and
we are going to have pedestrian traffic, I would -- my preference would be if we could
wait just a little bit of time to resolve that issue and hear the application with that issue
resolved, that would be my preference.
De Weerd: Yes, Anna.
Canning: Madam Mayor, as long as -- as long as the resolution could just be an
agreement with the property owners, because, again, all three of them need to get in
the same jurisdiction before we can completely resolve it. But the ultimate resolution is
a property boundary adjustment and that is physically impossible right now, so --
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: If I can clarify my comments. We have had a -- we have had a memo from one
of the property owners asking for some additional time. I didn't see in there that we
needed recorded -- I think it can be resolved very quickly. I'm not looking to hold this
application up any farther; I just -- in my opinion I need to have that issue -- at least
some sort of comment or initial resolution.. Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: My follow-up question would be what would be a reasonable amount of time
for that action to take place?
Canning: I get the feeling that reasonable for Ms. Ferry is a hard thing. So, I would say
at least a month, probably. But you can ask -- the applicant might have a better
estimate.
De Weerd: We can ask the applicant. Are you done with your comments, Anna?
Canning: Yes.
Meridian City Council
August 22, 2006
Page 72 of 81
De Weerd: Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward? It's always a challenge to
listen through our questions when you have the answer; right?
Whitehead: Absolutely. Good evening. I know it's a long evening. For the record,
Sabrina Whitehead, Briggs Engineering. Office address 1800 West Overland Road,
Boise, Idaho. 83705. I just want to clarify the Public Hearing will still continue and we
can still have comments; is that correct? Okay. I'm going to put my elevations up real
quick.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Wardle: If I could maybe -- I think maybe we misunderstood the applicant. What we
were looking for is comment on -- or what I specifically am looking for is comment on
the matter of the legal boundary in question before we hear your presentation, your
application to make a decision.
Whitehead: And that's fine. I will personally want to defer that to the developer. This
has been going on for years and I think that he can better explain the time line and what
has been going on, so --
Mack: I'm Jeff Mack from Horizon Development. This matter has been going on for
probably the last year. I optioned this property October in 2004. The previous month --
I would say in the last three months we have had two meetings called with Mrs. Ferry.
The first one she -- the first one we called. We had a conference call with her, she kept
the meetings short due to she had another appointment. Called the meeting for the
following week. Everything went to Dick Morup's office, our attorney, and she was a no
show to the meeting. We have heard nothing since from her and my attorney has sent
letters contacting her about this so we can get the thing resolved. What Anna was
showing up here, we are not encroaching on her property at all. There was a -- I
believe it was an 18 foot property line dispute from a fence line agreement back in the
'40s. So, what we have done, we have brought it back the 18 feet so we could proceed
forward and over in this southwest corner here our plat is to the west of that property
line. So, we are not encroaching on her property at all. That's why we feel we can
continue to move forward with this matter.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird.
Bird: So, the dotted line is the -- is the actual legal description that you put in?
Mack: Correct.
Meridian City Council
August22,2006
Page 73 of 81
Bird: And that is the disputed line with her?
Mack: Yes. And we have given everything that she's asked for and there was 18 feet
from this fence line agreement from right here. It was a -- I believe it was 86 feet from __
there was a pin out here over, which it should have came from here -- no. From here
over, which now is from here over. And we have given the 18 feet back, which would
adjust the property line to the west of us and shift all properties back. We have
complied with every request from Pamela Ferry.
De Weerd: Did that answer your question?
Wardle: Madam Mayor-- and I guess I -- just my time on the Council I haven't
necessarily felt that it's our role to address property line disputes or be the legal body
that decides those, understanding that we hear from this applicant that they have been
working with this for a period of time, I would wonder if two weeks -- I'm looking at our
September 5th schedule. It's doesn't look too onerous. If that would be enough time to
allow at least comment or -- that would be my preference. Certainly, Council, if you'd
like something else.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: I agree that continuing it makes sense to me. I guess also from the perspective
that, as Mr. Nary said, we can go forward an annex whatever it is they own to be
determined, but I don't know if that necessarily speeds up the process at all for the
applicant, to complete an annexation. We still have -- and the applicant still has to wait
to resolve that boundary line dispute before any development can occur anyway. So, it
seems to be sixes. Which maybe makes sense to me that to continue it, try and get that
resolved, with the understanding that that -- that's a hurdle that's going to stall this
project indefinitely, I guess -- unfortunately, too. I feel for you in the delays. It doesn't
seem to be any benefit to you to have an annexation go forward right now. I am
concerned, all things being equal, that we set it out far enough for -- to have an
opportunity to get this resolved once and for all.
Mack: Okay.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, anything else?
Canning: Madam Mayor, I know it's late, but was the applicant -- did Council not want
the applicant to make a presentation on the project? Are you going to consider that at a
later date? Because if you're going to ask for changes it would certainly -- they could be
working on it at the same time they are working on this property boundary dispute.
De Weerd: Council, what would be your preference?
Meridian City Council
August 22, 2006
Page 74 of 81
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: It makes sense to me, Anna, I think that all things considered, unless the
applicant would just like to wait -- I don't know. If we hear it, we hear everything now
and it will probably be fine. If you wait a month, then, we will probably gripe about
something and wish we would have said it earlier, so -- that's my thought, would be to __
De Weerd: Well, thank you for your thought, Councilman Borton.
Rountree: Madam Mayor that would be my thought as well. Let's -- they are here, we
are here, let's do it.
Bird: Let's do it.
De Weerd: Thank you. We won't put that time on your time.
Whitehead: Thank you. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Again, Sabrina
Whitehead, 1800 West Overland Road, Boise, Idaho. 83705. And tonight, as you
know, I'm in front of you concerning annexation and zoning, preliminary plat for the
road, as well as a Conditional Use Permit to a 48 unit multi-family development, which is
going to be called Touchstone Place. The current zoning is R-1 M within Ada County
and we are requesting a zoning of R-15. We personally feel that this is a great location
to have medium density for -- we are not -- more appropriate location than to be located
adjacent to commercial, as well as to Fairview Road to the north. The subject property
down -- is located from the south is medium residential of R-8. We feel that R-15 would
be a logical transition from single family residences to adjacent commercial and to
Fairview Road. As staff has commented on page five of the staff report, they think there
is a strong argument for saying that the policy set forth in the Comprehensive Plan
supports the multi-family residential use on the site. Now, while the Comprehensive
Plan supports the multi-family for this area, I would like to note that this is -- while it is a
multi-family development, this development is going to be a condominium. Therefore,
leaving the development owned by individual homeowners, instead of renters. By
having the development retained as condos, it is also going to help allow the City of
Meridian to offer to its citizens a wider variety of housing options, instead of offering
their traditional home with a yard and garage, you're offering your citizens a lifestyle that
will be affable to more -- other people, not just the traditional families. Our development
is also offering open green space, with meandering walking trails, community
clubhouse, bike racks, playgrounds, designated barbecue park areas to allow the
residents a quality of life that the City of Meridian wants to offer to its citizens. Now, I'd
like to note the developer has taken great time and consideration with this layout, as
well as the private quality of the buildings themselves. Originally the developer was
planning on having two story four-plexes that would have been placed along the
perimeter of the subject property. On January 5th, 2006, we conducted our first
neighborhood meeting. The concerns were the following: One, having the buildings so
Meridian City Council
August22,2006
Page 75 of 81
close to their own homes. Two, wanting a solid six foot privacy fence. Caralee Blough
requested nonwood, because it distorts. She's wanting to see the fencing to be solid
and help protect and secure her dogs. And, three, landscaping around the perimeter of
the fence, also offering additional mitigation for buffering. The developer took all these
concerns into consideration and went back to the drawing board. He revised the layout
to provide a landscape buffer, garages, service drives, placing the homes a total of 62
feet from the existing residences. In order to accommodate these changes the four-
plexes were converted into four story condo units. However, the condo units adjacent
to Stonehenge was modified to be three stories to help insure the privacy of the
residents. On April 6 we held another neighborhood meeting with the revised layout
and received favorable responses from the neighbors. The layout that we showed them
offers two and three bedroom units, which will have their own two car detached garage.
This development is also offering diverse architectural characteristics, as Anna has
pointed out, and as I'm hoping that our color elevations show that there is a wide variety
of building materials, sloped roofs, and a variety of -- that allows this development to
have character and multi dimension. Now, not only does this development offer a
variety of housing options, but we have ten percent of the site is dedicated to open
space, which shows the open common area meandering walking trails and we also will
be having a clubhouse, which I brought an elevation of as well. Just to basically
summarize, we feel that this is going to be a quality development and it's going to --
personally, I find it is really exciting, I think it will really diversify Meridian's housing
options and we have reviewed and agree with the recommended conditions and I thank
you for your time and consideration. I just want to know if we do defer this a month out,
I have a feeling it's going to be deferred again. I don't know how hard it's going to be to
get an exact date to work with Mrs. Ferry on her concerns, since they have been
working over a year right now. So, I'm kind of cautious. We can try to -- my hope is to
have it situated by a city council date and, obviously, it hadn't been. So, I'm just kind of
-- I'm cautious of putting an extra date on it and not being able to achieve clarification by
then.
De Weerd: The Council can continue it to a date certain.
Whitehead: Okay.
De Weerd; If it is not resolved by that time, we just need an update and we can take
appropriate action.
Whitehead: Okay.
De Weerd: Council, do you have any questions for Sabrina?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. I do have one other person signed up for the project.
Candy Seeley.
Meridian City Council
August 22, 2006
Page 76 of 81
Seeley: Hi, Madam Mayor, Council people. Candy Seeley. 1035 East Fairview,
Meridian. I just wanted to say I'm in favor of the project, but I believe that the developer
actually worked really well with us and took into account the different people's concerns
that they had about -- regarding the placement of them and the line of sight into their
backyards and stuff and it seemed to work out fine after he did revisions, which he
actually listened to the people and went back and did revisions, which was really nice,
and I just wanted to let you guys know I thought he did a good job. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Is there any further testimony on this application?
Canning: Madam Mayor, I forgot to mention in my discussion that there was an
amended comment sheet from Mr. Silva via e-mail yesterday and it did ask for the
westerly drive to be widened from 25 to 26 feet, but it did remove the requirement for a
third access point, so we will make those changes accordingly. And the applicant just
stated that she believes she's already amended that drive aisle width.
De Weerd: Okay. Okay. So, I guess, Mr. Nary, the appropriate action would be to
continue this, if Council desires in regard to the legality of the legal description.
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, yes, it's probably that specific -- that
specific reason to bring it back, so that you're not going to re-listen to all the testimony,
but just information regarding this boundary dispute, if that's what your desire is, so --
De Weerd: Thank you.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton.
Borton: Just for the record, I, for one, am not particularly fond of the letter that Mrs.
Ferry sent and I would hope that between now and this next hearing not only that Mrs.
Ferry be sent the minutes, but I'm sure the applicant would clearly let her know of this
new hearing date, but the allegations in this letter are completely opposite of what we
are being told here today and I would hope that the representations in this letter don't
cause -- unfairly cause undue delay to the applicant. I'm sympathetic to that and the
tone in this letter with regard to there being absolutely zero -- what is the phrase?
There has been no response and no attempt to resolve these problems, is the exact
opposite of what we are hearing today from the applicant and so that's a concern to me
and just wanted that put on the record.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would concur with Councilman Borton and I also -- whatever date we set it for,
that will be the date, unless it's something besides a lot line adjustment that we would
Meridian City Council
August22,2006
Page 77 of 81
continue it. It's going -- in my opinion, will be decided and if she wants to be here, she
can be here. If she isn't, she isn't.
De Weerd: Okay. I guess I would ask staff as well to make sure they know of the date
when this is continued to, so we take away that argument. Okay. Council, I would
entertain a motion to continue these three public hearings.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Borton: I would move we continue Items 18, 19 and 20 to Tuesday, September 26th.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to continue these there items, 18
through 20, to September 26th. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 21 :
Public Hearing: MI 06-005 Request for a Miscellaneous application to
amend the previously approved Development Agreement (AZ 03-038 and
concurrent files PFP 03-007 & CUP 03-071) by removing a provision
requiring all future uses on the site to be approved through the Conditional
Use Permit process for Mussell Corner Subdivision by Brian Holleran -
Northeast corner of Victory Road and Meridian Road:
De Weerd: Okay. Item 21 has been requested to continue to September 5th. Do I
have a motion?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we continue MI -- Public Hearing MI 06-005 until September 5th, 2006.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to continue Item 21 until September 5th. All those in
favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 22:
Ordinance No. 06-1237A : Amendment to Ordinance No. 06-
1237: AZ 06-010 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 11.50 acres from
Meridian City Council
August22,2006
Page 78 of 81
Item 23:
Item 24:
Item 25:
RUT to a R-4 and R-2 zones for Cardiaan Bay Subdivision by Big River,
LLC - 5450 and 5500 Larkspur Way:
Ordinance No. 06-1252 : AZ 06-014 Request for Annexation
and Zoning of 20.16 acres from RUT (Ada County) to R-4 (Medium Low-
Density Residential) for Cabella Creek Subdivision by A TM
Development, LLC - northeast corner of East Victory Road and South
Mesa Way:
Ordinance No. 06-1253 : AZ 06-021 Request for Annexation
and Zoning of 77.66 acres from Ada County RUT to C-G General
Commercial and R-15 Medium-High Density Residential zones for Kenai
Subdivision by Kenai Partners, LLC - south of East Overland Road and
west of South Eagle Road:
Ordinance No. 06-1254 : AZ 05-058 Request for Annexation
and Zoning of 49.95 acres from RUT to a R-8 zone for Keeao Sprinqs
Subdivision by Todd Campbell - 5910 North Black Cat Road:
De Weerd: Items 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26 are ordinances 06-1237A, 06-1252, 06-1253,
06-1254 and 06-1255. Mr. Bird.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Bird: Before you -- can we read up to 25 and, then, pass on them and, then, do 26 by
itself, because this is the first of three readings. We can't do it by suspension of rules.
De Weerd: That's correct.
Bird: Is that okay with you?
De Weerd: Uh-huh. I'm just going to ask him to first read these by title only and, then,
you can take the appropriate action. Okay. Mr. Berg.
Berg: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Ordinance 06-1237A, an
amended ordinance 06-1237 for annexation of property located in the southeast quarter
of Section 30, Township 4 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as
described in Attachment A and annexing certain lands and territories situated in Ada
County, Idaho, and adjacent and contiguous to the corporate limits of the City of
Meridian, as requested by the City of Meridian, establishing and determining the land
use zoning classification of said lands from RUT to R-4 and R-2 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
Meridian City Council
August 22, 2006
Page 79 of 81
by law, and providing for a summary of the ordinance and providing for a waiver of the
reading of the rules and providing an effective date.
Berg: Ordinance 06-1252, an ordinance for annexation of property being lots three,
four, five and six of Block 1, Kachina Estates, located in a portion of the southeast
quarter of Section 19, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County,
Idaho, as described in Attachment A and annexing certain lands and territories situated
in Ada County, Idaho, and adjacent and contiguous to the corporate limits of the City of
Meridian, as requested by the City of Meridian, establishing and determining the land
use zoning classification of said lands from RUT to R-4 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 of
the rules and providing an effective date.
Berg: Ordinance 06-1253, an ordinance for annexation of property located in a portion
of the west half of the northeast quarter of Section 20, Township 3 North, Range 1 East,
Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as described in Attachment A and annexing certain
lands and territories situated in Ada County, Idaho, and adjacent and contiguous to the
corporate limits of the City of Meridian, as requested by the City of Meridian,
establishing and determining the land use zoning classification of said lands from RUT
to R-15 and C-G 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 of the rules and providing an effective date.
Berg: Ordinance 06-1253, an ordinance for annexation of property located in the west
half of the northwest quarter of Section 27, Township 4 North, Range 1 West, Boise
Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as described in Attachment A and annexing certain lands
and territories situated in Ada County, Idaho, and adjacent and contiguous to the
corporate limits of the City of Meridian, as requested by the City of Meridian,
establishing and determining the land use zoning classification of said lands from RUT
to R-8 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 of the rules and providing an effective date.
Berg: And that's those.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: I'm sorry, I thought you read just to 1253 and so I was--
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird:
Meridian City Council
August 22, 2006
Page 80 of 81
Bird: I move we approve Ordinances 06-1237A, 06-1252, 06-1253, 06-1254 and 06-1 --
no.
Berg: No. No.
Bird: Five four. Stop there. With suspension of rules.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to approve Items 22 through 25. If there is no
discussion, Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 26:
Ordinance No. 06-1255
Impact Fee Ordinance:
1 st of 3 Readings of Amendment to
De Weerd: Thank you. Item 26.
Berg: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Ordinance 06-1255. Okay.
An ordinance to amend the municipal code of the City of Meridian, County of Ada, state
of Idaho, by retaining existing Title 10, Chapter 7, Meridian City Code, and by adopting
a new Chapter 10 -- or Title 10, Chapter 7, Meridian Code, to be known as the Meridian
Impact Fee Ordinance to provide for the imposition, computation and payment of a
police impact fee, a fire impact fee, and a parks and recreation impact fee on future
developments, providing authority, intent, and definitions, providing for the
establishment of separate impact fee funds for each of such fees, providing for
exemptions, refunds, credits, and waivers with respect to such impact fees, providing
general provisions, applications and appeal and providing for conflict, severability, and
effective date.
De Weerd: Thank you. You have heard this item read by title only. It will be on our
next two agendas for additional reading and no action is needed at this time.
Item 27:
Executive Session per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1)(c) - (to conduct
deliberations concerning labor negotiations or to acquire an interest in real
property, which is not owned by a public agency):
De Weerd: Item 27 is Executive Session. Do I have a motion?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Meridian City Council
August 22, 2006
Page 81 of 81
Bird: I move we go into Executive Session as per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1 )(c).
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to adjourn into Executive Session. Mr. Berg, will
you call role.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
EXECUTIVE SESSION:
De Weerd: I would entertain a motion to come out of Executive Session.
Rountree: So moved.
De Weerd: Do I have a second?
Borton: Second.
De Weerd: All those in favor, say aye.
ALL AYES. MOTION CARRIED.
De Weerd: I would entertain a motion to adjourn.
Rountree: So moved.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay, all those in favor.
ALL AYES. MOTION CARRIED.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:49 P.M.
DE WEE~~\\\III 111111111
,\\...1 ~ ~",
,\ "'-, '...
';;:"'A'~ ;0;.....
~ \F ~ ~ ~
.... ..-
... <::>....
f 8ufiTT T~' ~~~~
\ ~ ....1 I~~IAM G. BERG JR., CITY LE K
~ "';~~r lS"i . i' ,f'
-;. ~~ "
',.. ~ "
""/ "
1111 1'<, ""
11", t I r" I .11\\\\"
00 / ! 0{ / 00
DATE APPROVED