HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009 04-07Meridian Citv Council Meeting April 7, 2009
A meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:03 p.m., Tuesday, April
7, 2009, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd.
Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, Keith Bird, Charlie Rountree, Brad
Hoaglun, and David Zaremba.
Others Present: Bill Nary, Jaycee Holman, Anna Canning, Bob Stowe, Bill Johnson,
Keith Watts, Kyle Radick, Sonya Wafters, and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll-call Attendance:
Roll call.
X David Zaremba X Brad Hoaglun
X Charlie Rountree X Keith Bird
X Mayor Tammy de Weerd
De Weerd: Good evening. I would like to welcome you to Meridian City Hall and
apologize for being a few minutes late. We have next door a celebration for mothers.
They started with the first annual What My Mother Means To Me essay writing contest
and so the winners and their mothers are next door. It's always great events to be a
part of. So, thank you for joining us. For the record it is Tuesday, April 7th. It's four
minutes after 7:00. We will start tonight's meeting with roll call attendance.
Item 2: Pledge of Allegiance:
De Weerd: Councilman Hoaglun is joining us from out of town and so we have all four
Council Members present. We should put a little stick figure or something up by his
name. Okay. Item No. 2 is our Pledge of Allegiance. If you will all rise and join us in
the pledge.
(Pledge of Allegiance recited.)
Item 3. Community Invocation
De Weerd: Okay. Unfortunately, Item 3, our community invocation, is going to be
postponed or tabled because Pastor Burton Roberts is sick today. So, I apologize.
Item 4: Adoption of the Agenda:
De Weerd: So, we will skip to Item No. 4, adoption of the agenda.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Meridian City Council
April 7, 2009
Page 2 of 41
Zaremba: On the agenda, beginning with the Consent Agenda, Item D, the resolution
number is 09-655. Item E, the resolution number is 09-656. Item F, the resolution
number is 09-657. Item G, the resolution number is 09-658. Item H, the resolution
number is 09-659. Item I, the resolution number is 09-660. Item Q we have had a
request to remove that from the Consent Agenda and actually put it into Department
Reports as Item 6-A-2. On the regular agenda, under Department Reports, we now
have a new Department Report, Item 6-A-2, which was originally Item Q on the Consent
Agenda. Item 9 regarding Zebulon Heights Subdivision No. 2 has been requested to
continue until April 14th. Next week. Item 12, the ordinance number is 09-1396. And
with those changes I move we adopt the agenda.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda as amended. All those
in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 5: Consent Agenda:
A. Approve New Beer License for Lira, LLC dba Dickey's
Barbecue Pit at 2845 E. Overland Rd., Suite 190:
B Approve License Transfer of Owner Beer License for Meridian
Speedway
C. Approve Beer, Wine and Liquor License Renewals:
Buffalo Wild Wings 3223 E. Louise Dr. #103 Beer 8~ Liquor
Ultra Touch Carwash 835 E. Fairview Ave. Beer
The Cigarette Store 200 E. Fairview Ave. Beer
EPI's Restaurant 1115 N. Main Beer ~ Wine
Strikers 324 S. Meridian St. Beer 8< Liquor
Idaho Pizza Co. 405 E. Fairview Ave. Beer 8~ Wine
127 Club 127 E. Idaho St. Beer $ Liquor
Goodwood BBQ 1140 N. Eagle Rd. Beer & Liquor
Wingers 1701 E. Fairview Ave. Beer Bz Wine
Quick Stuff 3010 Goldstone Dr. Beer Sz Wine
Applebees 1460 N. Eagle Rd. Beer & Liquor
Jacksons #1 412 E. Fairview Ave. Beer & Wine
Jacksons #11 1585 S. Meridian Rd. Beer & Wine
Jacksons #35 522 Cherry Lane. Beer & Wine
Jacksons #56 66 E. State Ave. Beer & Wine
Jacksons #97 3100 Magic View Dr. Beer 8~ Wine
Jacksons #98 1950 E. Fairview Ave. Beer S< Wine
Meridian City Council
April 7, 2009
Page 3 of 41
Jacksons #99 180 E. Central Dr. Beer & Wine
Jacksons #105 3291 E. Pine Ave. Beer & Wine
Jacksons #118 1625 W. Franklin Rd. Beer & Wine
EI Tenampa 906 N. Main St. Beer & Liquor
New Vintage Wine 1400 N. Eagle Rd. #104 Beer 8~ Wine
Dupus Boomers 790 Progress Ave Beer & Liquor
Sizzler #215 3380 N. Eagle Rd. Beer & Wine
Ustick Chevron 770 W. Ustick Beer & Wine
Tobacco Connection 450 S. Meridian #25 Beer & Wine
Harrys Meridian Grill 2032 E. Overland #130 Beer 8< Liquor
Its All About You 2951 E. Overland #100 Beer $ Wine
Fusion Asian Grill 3161 E. Fairview Ave. Beer & Wine
Dickey's Barbecue Pit 2845 E. Overland #190 Beer
The Busted Shovel 704 N. Main St. Beer & Liquor
Red Robin 1475 N. Eagle Rd. Beer $ Liquor
D. Resolution No. 2009 Parks 8~
Recreation Fee Schedule:
E. Resolution No. On Call / Call Out
Duties & Compensation:
F. Resolution No. CPA 08-013 Request to
change the text of the Comprehensive Plan revising the name of
the Mixed Use WWTP designation to Mixed Use Non-Residential
for the Mixed Use Non-Residential Text by City of Meridian
Planning Department:
G. Resolution No. CPA 08-012 Request to
add 54.9 acres of land to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use
Map with designations of "Public/Quasi Public" and "Low Density
Residential" for River Planning Area by City of Meridian Planning
Department:
H. Resolution No. CPA 08-014 Request to
re-designate approximately 265 acres from Low Density
Residential, Medium Density Residential, and Mixed Use Regional
to Mixed Use Non-Residential for State Highway 69 & Amity by
City of Meridian Planning Department:
I. Resolution No. CPA 09-003 Request to
change the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designation
on 2.051 acres of land from "medium density residential" to
"commercial" for Goff by Garland Goff and Shannon Hamrick -
1665, 1705 and 1725 West Pine Avenue:
Meridian City Council
April 7, 2009
Page 4 of 41
J. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 09-
001 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 0.76 of an acre of land
with a C-N zoning district for Goff by Garland Goff and Shannon
Hamrick -1725 W. Pine Avenue:
K. Development Agreement: AZ 08-012 Request for Annexation
and Zoning of 5.03 acres of land from RUT in Ada County to an R-4
zone for Shays Cove by Landmark Engineering & Planning, Inc. -
3155 South Mesa Way:
L. Change Order No. 1 with ACRD for Locust Grove Road Water
& Sewer Improvements for $24,812.39:
M. Chance Order No. 2 with ACHD for Overland Road Water 8~
Sewer Improvements for $17,959.65:
N. Chance Order No. 1 with Pipe, Inc. for FY09 Sewer Manhole
Retrofits for $32,250.00:
O. Agreement with ITD for Roadway Construction /Sewer and
Water Line Improvements for ITD Project No. A009 (815), I-84
Ten Mile Interchange for $324,001.60:
P. Task Order No. 10005 with Civil Survey Consultants, Inc. for
Meridian Road and Main Street Split Corridor Phase 2 for
$74,450.00:
Q. Award of Bid and Contract with JC Constructors for Tertiary
Filters Proiect for a Not to Exceed Amount of $2,869,000.00:
R. Award of Bid and Contract with JC Constructors for the DAFT
Retrofit Project for a Not to Exceed Amount of $210,300.00:
S. Change Order No. 1 with Cascade Pipeline Corporation for
2008 Water System Flush Lines for $7,037.45:
De Weerd: Okay. Item 5 is our Consent Agenda.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: On the Consent Agenda, as previously noted, Item Q has been removed and
do I need to read the resolution numbers again?
De Weerd: No, sir.
Meridian City Council
April 7, 2009
Page 5 of 41
Zaremba: Okay. In that case I move that we approve the Consent Agenda as
amended and for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda. If
there is no discussion, Madam Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 6: Department Reports:
A. Purchasing Department:
1. Budgeted Contract Amendment No. 4 with Hobson
Fabricating for a Not to Exceed Amount of $36,068.00:
De Weerd: Item 6 under Department Reports, I'll tum this over to Mr. Watts with the
Purchasing Department.
Watts: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Council Members. The first item that I have is -- is
change order number four with Hobson, which we had brought before Council two
weeks ago and were requested to bring back after we had renegotiated that contract.
The city has met -- Keith Bird -- Mr. -- Councilman Bird and myself have met with Petra.
They have agreed to reduce the contract -- or the change order amount by $8,079.50,
for a new amount of 36,068 dollars for change order four and just bringing that for final
approval today.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions for Mr. Watts?
Rountree: I have none.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approved the amendment number four.with Hobson Fabricating for the
amount of 36,069 dollars.
Rountree: Second.
Meridian City Council
April 7, 2009
Page 6 of 41
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 6-A-1. If there no discussion,
Madam Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
2. Award of Bid and Contract with JC Constructors for
Tertiary Filters Project for a Not to Exceed Amount of
$2,869,000.00: Approve
De Weerd: Okay. Item 2 -- and Mr. Bird and Mr. Watts, thank you for getting together
on that one item and addressing it.
Watts: Thank you.
Bird: Thank you.
Watts: You're welcome. The next item is the tertiary filter bid that was done for the
wastewater treatment plan. Now only reason Ipulled -- wanted to have that pulled off
the Consent Agenda is the second low contractor had a couple of questions on
regarding the subcontractors listed on that bid. I'll give you a rundown of the -- the
timeline. On the 17th of March we opened bids and the preliminary low bidder showed
J.C. Constructors as the low bidder. They were low by 98,000 dollars. On the 19th of
March I confirmed the bid documents and posted the bid results -- official bid results on
our webpage. On March 23rd I got a phone call from the second low bidder, who was
Hill Construction claiming that the low bidder needed to show an HVAC subcontractor
on his bid document. The item in question was simply an exhaust fan that was a
louvered exhaust fan that amounted to the edge of a shed. I called the state public
works HVAC chief inspector at the public works licensing board and spoke to him
regarding this and he said that absolutely was not necessary to have an HVAC
contractor. Typically the electrical contractor would install that, which the low bidder
had listed and everything was fine. I, then, called the second low bidder back and let
him know who I spoke to and gave him the phone number and told him the discussion
that we had and he was fine with that. He admitted that he was not sure, but he wanted
me to check, so we did that. I let him know that the bid was still coming to you today for
approval to go with J.C. Constructors, the low bidder. I, then, received a call yesterday
from that same bidder who was claiming -- or was questioning the fact that the low
bidder also did not put a plumbing subcontractor down. There was a sum pump in the
same shed that we were talking about before and he thought that was commercial
plumbing. I, then, called the state chief plumbing inspector at the public works board
and talked to him about that, along with the design engineer as well. We discussed it
and it was a process typing the sump that simply fed right back into itself. It was not a
commercial plumbing issue. And they also told us that we did not need that
Meridian City Council
April 7, 2009
Page 7 of 41
subcontractor as well. And I called the second bidder back again, Hill Construction, and
spoke to them again. He was fine with that. He admitted again that he wasn't sure, but
he wanted me to check on it. I let him know that it was coming tonight for bid and he
was fine with that. I just wanted to bring that information back to you, since it wasn't just
a straight bid, there were some questions on it. So, I'm bringing it for approval and
enter into the contractor with them, J.C. Constructors.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Watts. And I appreciate your response to the question.
Watts: Thank you.
De Weerd: Any questions from Council?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Hearing none, do I have a motion?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve the contract with J.C. Constructors for the filter project at the
wastewater treatment plant for the amount of 2,728,000 dollars.
Watts: Excuse me. Could I interject, Mr. Bird? That was 2,869,000 with the two
options that they chose as well. It is in the --
Bird: I beg your pardon?
Watts: They chose two options, option one and two that were on the bid documents as
well. The total amount should be 2,869,000. It's on the agenda that I have.
Bird: Well, let me look back here. I was looking at the bids and that would --
Watts: Okay.
Bird: 2,869,000.
Watts: Correct.
De Weerd: And not to exceed.
Watts: Not to exceed. Yes, ma'am.
Bird: Okay. Change my amount. Second agree?
Meridian City Council
April 7, 2009
Page 8 of 41
De Weerd: I have a motion and --
Rountree: What are you changing it to?
Bird: To 826 -- 2, 826,000.
Rountree: Okay. I agree.
Watts: 869. Excuse me. 869.
Bird: All right. I'm sorry. 869.
De Weerd: Okay. So, I have a motion to approve the original Item Q off of the Consent
-- or the Consent Agenda that was moved to Department Reports and that amount is
2,869,000 dollars. Not to exceed. Okay. If there is no discussion, Madam Clerk, will
you, please, call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Watts: Thank you, Madam Mayor.
Item 7: Items Moved from Consent Agenda:
De Weerd: Thank you. There were no items moved from the Consent Agenda to this
portion of our agenda.
Item 8: Tabled from March 24, 2009: FP 09-002 Request for Final Plat approval
for 21 building lots on 12.62 acres in a C-G zoning district for Una Mas by
Una Mas, LLC - 3475 East Ustick Road:
De Weerd: So, we will go to Item 8, which was tabled from March 24th on FP 09-002.
We will ask for Mrs. Canning's comments.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the final plat substantially complies
with the preliminary plat and we do have a letter from the applicant stating they are in
agreement with the conditions of approval.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions on this item?
Rountree: I have none.
De Weerd: Hearing none, do I have a motion?
Meridian City Council
April 7, 2009
Page 9 of 41
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we approve the final plat for Item No. 8, FP 09-002.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 8. Hearing no discussion,
Madam Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 9: Public Hearing: TE 09-012 Request for approval of an 18 month Time
Extension to obtain the City Engineer's signature on the Final Plat for the
second phase of Zebulon Hei~thts Subdivision No. 2 by Engineering
Solutions, LLP -south side of E. McMillan Road, west of N. Eagle Road:
De Weerd: Okay. Item 9 has been requested to continue to April 14th. I'll need a
motion after I open this public hearing. So, I will open the public hearing on TE 09-012.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I move that we continue this item to our regular scheduled meeting of April
14th, 2009.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to continue Item 9 to April 14th. All those in
favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 10: Public Hearing: VAR 09-001 Request for Variance to allow 1 right-
in/right-out access point to State Highway 20/26 and to reduce ITD right-
of-way adjacent to Chinden Boulevard from 100 feet to 70 feet for
Kniahthill Center by James Wylie - SWC of W. Chinden Boulevard and
N. Linder Road:
Meridian City Council
April 7, 2009
Page 10 of 41
De Weerd: Item 10 is a public hearing on VAR 09-001. I will open this public hearing
with staff comments.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Knighthill Center variance
project. Forgive the red circle that's showing up on the screen. I forgot to erase it after I
was showing someone how to work the pen. So, that has no relevance to this hearing.
Sorry about that. It is -- the parcel is located at the southwest comer of Chinden
Boulevard and Linder Road and the applications before you tonight are avariance --
there are two variances. The applicant is requesting approval of a variance to allow a
right-in, right-out access point to the State Highway 20-26 and also a reduction of the
ITD future right of way adjacent to Chinden Boulevard. They want it reduced from 100
feet to 70 feet. Council may recall that in 2008 you approved a new concept for the
commercial development at this comer. However, the owner has not initiated the
addendum to the existing DA yet, because he has decided to seek direct access to
Chinden Boulevard with this application. The applicant has submitted a new concept
plan depicting the proposed access location and the reduced right of way for Council
review. That's the orange diagram here, the access would be just on the west side of
the property. You can see the reduced right of way going toward the intersection with
Linder Road.
De Weerd: Can those in the audience hear our planning director?
Canning: Can you hear? Can you hear me now?
De Weerd: Okay. Yeah. Will you, please, speak into your microphone.
Canning: Yes, ma'am.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Canning: The UDC restricts access to the state highway if the intensity of the use
increases and also access must be taken from roadways other than the state highway if
those access points are available. You will note on this site that there are three access
points, Everest Lane, Gertie Place, and Linder Road. And the preliminary plat was
originally approved with those three access points. In addition, West Everest Lane
parallels State Highway 20-26 and -- oops.
Bird: That's pretty flowers.
Canning: Yeah. What's going on?
De Weerd: Nice landscaping.
Bird: Yeah.
Meridian City Council
April 7, 2009
Page 11 of 41
Canning: You can see West Everest Lane parallels State Highway 20-26 and at Long
Lake Way there is a signalized intersection for Chinden at that location at the half mile.
And that's consistent with the Unified Development Code. It is also consistent with the
access management plan for State Highway 20-26 corridor that was approved by
COMPASS. They do view Chinden and Linder intersection as a high volume
intersection and they do call for 200 feet of total right of way through this section of
roadway. Hence, the hundred feet from center line on this property. Further, the
corridor study prescribes access points every half mile between Black Cat Road to
Eagle Road and that is, as stated before, consistent with the Unified Development
Code. Planned and existing developments in the area were also responsible for
preserving a hundred feet of right of way and had not been granted access to State
Highway 20-26. Finally, staff would like to note that ITD's chief engineer Tom Cole has
denied the applicant's request for access to State Highway 20-26. That came
yesterday. Staff is recommending denial for both requests. Staff could not make the
required findings and I will briefly go through those for you. The first finding in
approving the variance is that the variance shall not grant a right or special privilege that
is not otherwise allowed in the district. Staff finds that if City Council did grant the
requested variance to allow the right-in, right-out access to Chinden and reduce the
right of way from 100 to 70 feet, a special privilege will be granted to the subject
property that would not otherwise be allowed and, as mentioned previously, we have
made that requirement of others. More specifically, it was the property across Chinden
Boulevard to the north and west of the site were also required to preserve the 100 feet
of right of way. The second finding is that the variance relieves an undue hardship,
because of characteristics of the site. Staff finds that there are no undue hardships that
would prevent the applicant from developing the site by restricting access to State
Highway 20-26. As mentioned previously, there are access points to Linder Road,
Gertie Place and Everest Lane. And, then, finally, the variance shall not be detrimental
to the public health, safety, and welfare. Staff finds that allowing the right-in, right-out
access to State Highway 20-26 will be detrimental to the public health, safety, and
welfare based on information from the transportation authority, ITD in this case. Staff
believes adding additional access points to Highway 20-26 would impact the traffic
mobility on Chinden and interfere with the future roadway expansions planned for the
intersection. Staff has received an a-mail from Justin Martin, who is the owner of the
commercial properties to the west, requesting cross-access if the right-in, right-out
access is granted. The outstanding issues before City Council are, one, does the
reduced right of way width and access interfere with future roadway improvements and
the Chinden-Linder intersection, as identified by ITD. Two, are the three approved
access points to the site sufFcient to serve the approved preliminary plat. And, then,
three, if the applicant -- if the Council were to grant the applicant's -- the applicant's
request, the applicant will need to modify the existing DA and submit for a new
preliminary plat.
De Weerd: Anna, you're fading out.
Canning: If the Council were to grant a variance, the applicant will need to modify the
existing development agreement and apply for a new preliminary plat.
Meridian City Council
April 7, 2009
Page 12 of 41
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none at this time.
Rountree: None right now.
Zaremba: None.
De Weerd: Is the applicant here this evening? Good evening. If you would, please,
state your name and address for the record.
Wiley: Good evening. James Wiley. 1676 North Clarenden Way, Eagle, Idaho.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Wiley: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Thank you for taking the
time to review this for us. After we came in 2008 with this revised concept plan, we had
some meetings with ITD and with the adjoining neighbors -- the adjoining comers, those
neighbors, and we are trying to put some -- a development plan together to allow
development of that comer with ITD's approval and to -- and in our concept of that we'd
like to be able to get access on right-in, right-out to Chinden Boulevard. The West
Everest Lane access is more of a driveway than -- than a street. It's aprivate -- private
drive. And we are also concerned with Linder becoming too congested and we feel that
the access to Chinden will actually help that comer's traffic, rather than make it a
negative. I have -- I have Dan Thompson from Thompson Engineers here today, who
can go through some of the site specific stuff and I'm here to answer any questions if
you would like.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. I don't see any questions at this point. If you'd like your
engineer to make comment, that would be -- now would be the time.
Wiley: Thank you very much.
De Weerd: Thank you for being here. If you will state your name and address for the
record.
Thompson: My name is Dan Thompson. I'm with Thompson Engineers. Business
address at 181 East 50th Street in Garden City.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Thompson: And if I could just pass these out. As was mentioned, we have been
denied by ITD for the access and we are appealing that denial at this time. So, we
would like to address that so you can understand our position on that. The first reason
Meridian City Council
April 7, 2009
Page 13 of 41
for the denial was that we -- claim we have three access points and we do, actually, but
if you look at them, the first one we want to address is the Gertie Place, which is --
Canning: I got it. Hold on.
Thompson: Right in here. And that's to get out as an access onto the transportation
system and get, actually, end up having to come down through there, it ends up going
deeper into the subdivision and we end up having to drive past some 40 homes, all local
roads, and it ends up driving to get back out to a transportation system, you can actually
see the full length on that handout -- I give the first page of the handout, end up almost
4,500 feet of additional travel to get to the trans -- to get to Linder Road and, one, I don't
think somebody that really wants to go anywhere on the transportation system would
use that. I think this is really kind of intended for subdivision people to access the
development and the development to access that, it's not really intended as an access
in between the two. The second access is Everest Lane, which has -- as is shown and
that, again, is -- it does serve afunction -- will function for people that wish to travel to
the west, but I do think we are going to have a large portion of our people trying to travel
to the east and to the north and for them to use Everest Road would actually require
them to come almost 2,000 feet out of direction, another couple hundred feet, north an
additional couple thousand feet, they'd end up almost a mile out of direction and we
don't believe people would be willing to do that. Furthermore, if I could switch to the
overhead at this point. This is Everest Lane. I don't know if that's in focus for you or
not. Is this autofocus? While she's doing that, Everest Lane is really a 24 foot wide
roadway and it's not really -- doesn't meet any ACRD design standards as a roadway
for accessing it. Furthermore, it's not a crowned roadway, it's slanted to one side and
this is more similar to a roadway that would be accessed to a parking lot or something
like that. The building you can kind of see on the right there is the -- is the Challenger
school, which will be going in front of that and, again, it's our opinion that this roadway
here is not really intended to act as a collector road or a service road for this project, but
it's really intended to provide an interaction between the developments. Now, before we
address the third entrance, I guess the question is kind of, you know, what kind of
changed between when we first started this process and when we asked for another
one and the answer is actually quite a bit. If you have been out there, these are some
of the things that have come in since I just started updating the study there in 2008. We
are seeing several developments here. One further on the northeast comer, that is the
Eagle Island Marketplace, I believe it is, and I believe that is in the approval process
through the county and through the city of Eagle and in the county right now. Some of
the other ones that have submitted -- I don't think they have actually submitted
applications, but they have submitted traffic impact studies and things of that nature.
So, trying to get the handle on exactly what was going to be happening out there has
been a bit of a moving target and as Mr. Wiley has mentioned, they are trying to
coordinate this to try to make it work. And one of the big things that kind of occurred to
us is that there is -- you can see on the south comer of our site all of a sudden we have
a proposal from the SEC development to try to align with our -- with our development
and what that did to us -- because we had our traffic pattern there on -- at the south -- at
the Linder Road entrance changed from a T intersection, as is shown here and was
Meridian City Council
April 7, 2009
Page 14 of 41
originally studied, it becomes more of a full intersection with a fairly decent amount of
traffic in that. When we started analyzing that .traffic with the intersection at Linder and
Chinden, we end up with cues that are going to get well past our entranceway, making it
very difficult -- making us rely on the good will of some of the other people there for our
people to get out of that and what it does to the level of service to our entrance -- again,
the question is what development is in our analysis, what traffic is in, what
improvements are, and that was, again, a moving target, so if we just kind of look at the
-- if there is none of the other developments we don't have a real problem, that is true.
If we add the developments, we do end up with -- without trying to expand the roadway,
it goes -- fails fairly quickly, so we are trying to assume that if there is any development
there will be improvements to the intersection and once we look at the one line it's
entitled with SEC and five lanes I finally assume that we do have the intersection as a
full intersection, as opposed to the T intersection and what that happens is if we just
have -- do not have access onto Chinden Boulevard, we end up with a delay at that
intersection of over 200 seconds, a level of service F. And if we do apply -- allow some
of that traffic to go and use aright-in, right-out, we are not looking for a full access there,
it still operates at a level of service F during the peak hour, but it's a substantially
reduced delay and probably what would actually end up happening is there would still
be a couple more vehicles that would end up using the --the access, which does have
-- the Chinden Boulevard access, which still does have excess capacity and it's
operating at a level of service B. Mr. Wiley has offered to construct deceleration lanes
and tum lanes with the property radius and everything else to mitigate the safety impact
of that. We also believe that the -- the vehicles trying to turn left onto Linder Road,
trying to cope with a serious delay is probably a very serious safety consideration also
that would like to think this would help mitigate that and offset some of the impacts onto
Chinden Boulevard. The other issue we had is we recognize the ITD's desire for 200
feet of right of way on there, but I think it -- my experience is if this is -- it's kind of hit
and miss on that and it's going to put an extra burden on this site, especially being the
size that it is. I do know I was the signal designer for the Tree Farm and Bainbridge
signal just a mile down the -- a mile and a half down the road from here and I know they
did not provide a hundred feet of right of way for those developments there. I do know
that the Eagle Island Marketplace is not providing a hundred feet of right of way. They
are working with them and providing landscape buffers and things of that nature within
some of the hundred feet, but not all of them are providing a hundred feet of right of
way. And the size of this project, that extra 30 feet of right of way, does make a
significant impact and causes some serious problems for that. Other than that, Mr.
Wiley has shown a lot of interest and a desire to participate with the other developers in
trying to improve this stretch of highway, they are not just looking at this intersection,
they are looking at, basically, this corridor and trying to participate in this improvement
there and he is just looking for -- trying to be fair to him on this, too, as far as that goes.
The -- there is the policy of limiting the access onto Chinden Boulevard. We recognize
that, but it's also being granted for Eagle Island Marketplace and we just feel that that
can be made, it's not a hard policy, so we do request that consideration. And with that
I'd like to stand for questions.
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Meridian City Council
April 7, 2009
Page 15 of 41
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I was not aware that Eagle Island Marketplace had been granted anything. I
know they are proposing something, but are you saying that the county and ITD have
approved that?
Thompson: The -- ITD has approved an access on Chinden Boulevard. That is correct.
It is my understanding that Eagle Island Marketplace has been approved as a Comp
Plan amendment at the city of Eagle. But it is still in the county right now, so it has to be
approved at the county.
Zaremba: So, it has not been approved for a narrower cross-section, then, at that
point?
Thompson: Not by the county. The city has approved their site plan.
Zaremba: The city doesn't have jurisdiction on it.
Thompson: Well, I understand that, but there is that interaction between the two, since
it is in Eagle's area of impact.
Zaremba: Okay.
De Weerd: Any other comments? Questions?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Mr. Thompson, you made a rather interesting comment in your testimony
when you showed the best guess at what's happening in the four quadrants at Eagle
and -- or at Chinden and Linder. You said folks are trying to make it work. I don't have
any evidence that it's going to work. We don't have any approvals out there, other than
this property with the development agreement that's already been entered into. Given
the rejection or the denial by ITD for this access, my comment at this point is that at
best you're premature in your request for a variance. And I say that, because we have,
in effect, the ordinance that protects access to state highways for safety of our citizens
and until we are assured by the appropriate authorities, be it ACHD or ITD, and in this
case ITD, that there isn't a safety issue, I'm not sure we can even consider a variance at
this point in time and with your statement that folks are out there trying to make these
four different concepts in four different quadrants to work -- I'd like to see it all come
together myself and try to see a solution, but I'm -- I guess I'm hesitant at this point in
Meridian City Council
April 7, 2009
Page 16 of 41
time to move forward with a variance. That's just my position based on what I have
heard.
Thompson: I understand your position and respect that. I guess as far as the desire, I
think there is this desire among the developers -- there is this recognition that there will
not be development unless there is some improvements to that intersection out there,
as well as probably the Meridian Road intersection and the Fox Run intersection and I
think if we had had the same economy that we had in 2005, 2006, there would be a
pretty hard consortium there putting something together very hard. They have been hit
by the recession, as all developers have there, and they are not sure where they are
going now, so that's why they can't commit at this point in time. But there is a desire
and a recognition that something will have to be done, that if there is nothing done there
will be no development.
Rountree: Thank you.
De Weerd: I would share Councilman Rountree's comments that -- and (certainly -- we
are aware of what's happening on the northeast comer outside of our jurisdiction, but as
far as I'm concerned until all four comers can get together and ,put together a
comprehensive plan that shows equity for all four comers, we will testify against any
variance to that, so not one is disadvantaged or has an advantage over the other. So, it
would be to your advantage to work with the other three comers and see if you can
make that unique and distinct that goes against the corridor's plan for limited access
and show that it is different and it does warrant different type of treatment. But until
then we don't have anything to make a determination of, other than what our ordinance
currently states.
Thompson: Well, unfortunately, we don't have I guess the jurisdiction or control over
them to force them to move ahead or make a move. We have had some productive
meetings and, again, all very positive, but nobody has got the ability right now to, you
know, put a pen to paper and say, yes, we agree to do this, because they just don't
know what's going to be happening with their properties at this point and in all honesty I
have also been working with properties to the east of the Eidenberg properly and it is
difficult sometimes to get some cooperation with that development there, so any
development we can get we are certainly willing to do that.
De Weerd; Well, I hope you would understand that it's not in the city's best interest to
piecemeal a plan together. It needs to be a collaborate plan that considers all four
comers.
Thompson: That would ask this development to delay until an unknown time.
De Weerd: Not our jurisdiction I don't think, so -- any other comments, questions from
Council? Thank you.
Thompson: Thank you.
Meridian City Council
April 7, 2009
Page 17 of 41
De Weerd: This is a public hearing. I would invite any member of the public that wishes
to testify specifically on this item and this topic. Seeing that there is no public comment,
would you like to give us closing remarks? Do you have any final remarks?
Just restate your name for the record. Thank you.
Wiley: James Wiley. And we have been working with the developers for the other
comers trying to put together a plan. Part of our problem is that ITD will say that we
can't grant you access because the City of Meridian won't allow it and the City of
Meridian will say we can't grant access, because ITD won't allow it or it's not in the -- in
the plan. So, that has been a situation we are trying to work through with ITD and I
guess at this point we are looking for some help -- or not help, but at least affirmation
from the city that if we can work something out with -- with ITD we can proceed with the
city's at least recommendation. Any questions?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I can give a history lesson if -- if you'd like it.
Wiley: Sure.
Rountree: We do have the ordinance with respect to state highways. On projects that
come in and request access that are other than half mile we usually deny it at the city
level and request either frontage roads or backage roads and signalized intersection at
the half mile. Oftentimes that occurs before the applicant is through any kind of traffic
analysis with ITD. In some cases they have never done a traffic analysis and ITD's
never seen them. Usually what happens is the applicant's go back, do an engineering
traffic analysis, submit it to ITD, and work through whatever process they have -- I think
there is some magic there -- and ultimately get a decision and, occasionally, that
decision is appealed and when the decision or the appeal results in ITD being satisfied
that there isn't a safety issue and grants access, then, applicants have come to the city
and requested a variance and I cannot think of a case where we have denied the
variance in that case. Your statement about ITD not doing anything because Meridian
won't allow it is a first.
Wiley: My statement what?
Rountree: That ITD will not grant access because Meridian won't allow it is a first as far
as I know.
Wiley: Okay. It's one of -- excuse me. It's one of the reasons that they are saying no.
Rountree: But historically that's never been an issue for them in making a final decision
about access. And, typically, they will -- again, based on the engineering analysis and
Meridian City Council
April 7, 2009
Page 18 of 41
the statement that your engineer made of trying to make things work, I assume some of
an engineering analysis that looks at Linder and Chinden and four accesses near that
intersection within a hundred feet, it looks like that's probably going to be the case with
all four concepts.
Wiley: You mean it's 600 feet?
Rountree: Or 600 feet. Excuse me. It looks to me like that analysis has to be done in
total, not piecemeal, and that's probably what ITD is looking for, so they can make a
decision. Once again, it sounds like you're going to be appealing their decision. If in
your appeal you get satisfaction that they will, in fact, allow aright-in and right-out, then,
that would be the appropriate time for you to come to the city and request a variance,
because, then, we would have something to base a variance on. Right now we have
nothing to base a variance on. We believe it's unsafe. ITD said it would be unsafe.
And the decision we have to make to make a variance can't be done. So, I guess at this
point, having seen nobody else testify, you have the option of us closing the hearing
and making a decision either agreeing to your variance request for both right of way
width and access, or continuing the hearing until such time as you have the results from
your appeal with ITD and, then, having that information brought back to us and
continuing our dialogue and discussion and ultimate decision about whether or not to
access would be granted from the city's ordinance perspective. Does that make sense?
Wiley: Uh-huh.
Rountree: Okay.
Wiley: At this time we will go ahead and request a vote.
De Weerd: So, you would like to request a vote this evening?
Wiley: Yes.
De Weerd: Okay. Any further questions by Council?
Bird: I have none.
Zaremba: No.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Wiley: Thank you.
De Weerd: Council, hearing no further questions, I would entertain a motion to close
the public hearing on this item.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
April 7, 2009
Page 19 of 41
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I move we close the public hearing on VAR 09-001.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on Item 10. All
those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Thank you, Brad.
Hoaglun: You're welcome there.
De Weerd: Okay. Any discussion? Do I have a motion?
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I would just comment before I will happily make the motion, that I agree with
President Rountree that this is premature. I would also have to say that this intersection
at some point will easily be the same as Eagle and Fairview is or will be and preserving
the right of way -- rights of way and preserving the safety accesses --the safety aspects
of not having extra accesses I think is important and like President Rountree, if
somebody could prove that this is going to be okay, I would listen to it again. But at this
point I think we need to stick with our statute and in that case I am going to move that
we deny VAR 09-001.
Rountree: I will second that and question of the motion maker.
Zaremba: Yes.
Rountree: Includes both the access, as well as the right of way?
Zaremba: Yes.
Rountree: Okay.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Rountree: That's what I'm seconding.
Meridian City Council
April 7, 2009
Page 20 of 41
De Weerd: Thank you for the clarification. Any further discussion? I'd ask for roll call
on this item.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 11: Public Hearing: AZ 08-016 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 36.27
acres of land from the RUT zoning district in Ada County to the M-E
(Mixed Employment) zoning district in the city for Southridge 31 by
James L. Jewett -northeast comer of Overland Road and Ten Mile Road
De Weerd: Okay. Item 11 is a public hearing on AZ 08-016. I will open this public
hearing with staff comments.
Wafters: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. The next item before you
is a request for annexation and -- excuse me. I'm one ahead of myself here. Let me
back up. It's a request final plat of 21 commercial building lots on 12.62 acres -- okay.
Excuse me. Let me just start over again. I didn't realize you covered that one. Okay.
The next project is Southridge. It's located on the northeast comer of Overland and Ten
Mile. This is an aerial view of the property. It's an annexation request of 31.27 acres to
ME, mixed employment. The application is only for annexation and zoning. No
development is proposed at this time. The applicant has submitted a conceptual
development plan showing how this site may develop in the future. However, the
applicant has stated that future concept and development plans will be submitted based
on the market and economic conditions. The recommended conditions for approval
require a development agreement and modification as necessary to revise the concept
plans. While development is not proposed with the annexation, there will be site
construction for the reconstruction and realignment of Tasa Drive as part of the Ten Mile
interchange project. ITD plans to extent Tasa eastward under Ten Mile Road through
the subject site to the existing Overland Road. Right of way has already been obtained
to construct Tasa, Market Square, to the existing Overland Road location. The
Commission recommended approval of this annexation request at their March 5th public
hearing. The applicant's representative testified in favor of the application at the public
hearing. Nine people testified in opposition, one commented, and two letters and a
petition signed by 45 neighbors were submitted. Key issues of discussion by the
Commission. The legal status of the current operation of a batch plant in
unincorporated Ada County. Construction activities related to the widening of I-84 on
the site. Hours of operation of the batch plant. Term of operations. Method of dust
control. Traffic control at the Ten Mile -Overland intersection. And whether or not it's in
the best interest of the city to allow the batch plant and construction activities to
continue to operate on the site if it is annexed. The key Commission changes to staff
recommendation were adding a DA provision for the contractor to provide flaggers at
the Ten Mile -Overland intersection during peak hours to insure smooth traffic flow for
Meridian City Council
April 7, 2009
Page 21 of 41
both residential and construction equipment. Add a DA provision for the contractor to
alleviate dust issues from the construction activities on the site by watering the area.
And a modification of DA provision F per staffs recommendation to remove the concrete
batch plant terminology and just leave it at construction activities related to the widening
of I-84 and construction of the Ten Mile interchange. Outstanding issues for City
Council is to determine what the peak hours are that the contractor is required to
provide flaggers at the Ten Mile -Overland intersection. And to determine if it's in the
best interest of the public and the city to allow the current batch plant use to continue on
the site as an accessory use as allowed in UDC 11-3E-2 for the I-84 widening project.
The Commission recommendation requires that the batch plant and all activities
associated with the I-84 project and Ten Mile interchange construction to cease once
the interchange is completed. Written testimony since the P&Z Commission meeting
are letters from Joyce Baker and Melvin Baker. Staff will stand for any questions the
Council may have at this time.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions for staff at this point?
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I'm sorry to show my ignorance, but I was not aware that we had a zone that
was called ME. Mixed employment. Is that a real zone?
Wafters: It is a new zoning designation that was adopted awhile back. I don't know the
date.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Zaremba, it was
adopted last summer in response to the Ten Mile interchange -- the Ten Mile specific
area plan where it's listed as a specific designation. So, we did come up with a zone to
match that. This would be the first property with that zoning.
Zaremba: I remember doing that. I guess I wasn't aware that it was a real zone, so
thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any other questions at this time?
Rountree: I have none.
De Weerd: Is the applicant representative available? Thank you. If you will, please,
state your name and address for the record.
Elg: Thank you, Mayor. My name is Van Elg. I'm with The Land Group, 462 East
Shore, No. 100, Eagle, Idaho.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Meridian City Council
April 7, 2009
Page 22 of 41
Elg: Representing the owners this evening for this development. I think I can keep this
fairly short. There will be plenty of testimony and questions I'm sure as we proceed
through this discussion tonight, but the application that you had before you is South --
it's Southridge in name only. Not to be confused with South Ridge, which is to the south
of this project. It so happens that some of the same owners own the project and it was
-- it got -- received the name of Southridge, so, anyway, that's neither here nor there,
but I hope we haven't confused anybody with -- with that name. The -- as Sonya
mentioned, it's a 37.27 acre -- or 36.27 acre annexation and rezone request from RUT
in the county to an ME, mixed employment, in the city. And it is one of the first -- or the
first ME zone for this new land use planning area. As -- in discussing this with Jim, one
of the owners in the project -- I guess I need to point out that we have been in no real
hurry for the annexation, but there is a need for this piece to annex. We had been
under some design with it that's obviously been put on hold, because of some of the
recent economic changes. Down turns. But the plan that you see before you tonight is
simply a plan for illustrative purposes only. It's a -- it was required as part of the
annexation and so we are completely comfortable with the staffs condition of approval
that a revised or new concept plan be submitted prior to the commencement of any new
development or new development proposals on the site. We understand that and
support that with those conditions of approval. The -- the use that you have before you
is -- we have got the Knife River, who is operating the batch plant, or when it shut down
last fall, but they are here tonight if you have any specific questions about the operation
of the batch plant. We have other contractors and owners associated with the project
here as well, if you have anymore specific questions about surrounding development or
this site as well. Mr. Jewett's here this evening as well. We also understand that with
future development it would require a DA modification and that's acceptable to us. As
mentioned, the annexation is essential for the -- the ITD interchange. It's viewed
essential for the ITD interchange project, because in Ada County the batch plant and
operations that are proposed for this site are not allowed and can be considered as an
accessory use under Meridian's code. That's the purpose of the annexation when it
comes right down to brass tacks I guess right now. We understand, again, and support
that we will come back in later for -- for additional review. The -- give you a little history
of -- can't remember how this thing works, but can you see my pointer when I point up
there?
De Weerd: Yes.
Elg: Oh. Don't tap. How does that get back?
Wafters: What did you do with it?
Elg: Yeah. Tapped too hard. Okay. You can see that Tasa Drive extends to the west
underneath the Ten Mile Road. Tasa -- the right of way for Tasa has been dedicated
and purchased and exists today. The plans have not been -- the construction has not
started on that, but, obviously, with the construction of the Ten Mile interchange that
Tasa Road construction will have to be completed early on in the project to provide
Meridian City Council
April 7, 2009
Page 23 of 41
those residents with the access that they need through that and back up to Overland
Road. We have been coordinating that with ACRD and with ITD both and if you have
any additional questions about that perhaps you can ask me or Jim later on. As I
mentioned, we have got Knife River here as well tonight and I think they -- they have a
small presentation that they'd like to give to you to talk about the operation and some of
the history of the operation, the batch plant out there. But my part -- my part of this is
fairly simple. I'm here tonight to request an annexation and rezone of a piece of
property and along with that we understand that there will be a temporary use for the
operation of the batch plant there, which will expire with the completion of the -- of the
Ten Mile interchange project or the I-84 construction as it's needed. But with that I'll
open myself up for any questions that you might have.
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: Madam Mayor, just a comment. It seems to me that any -- anything beyond
the I-84 reconstruction and expansion project is premature, at least with Knife River,
because there will be multiple projects go out for bid for the remainder of the
interchange and possibly some of these other structures. So, I'm not sure how -- how
we can approach that.
Elg: Okay. I think Knife River could probably answer that better than I could address
that issue for you.
De Weerd: Do you want to tum the rest of your time over to Knife River then?
Elg: Sure. I will.
De Weerd: Okay. Good evening. If you will, please, state your name and address for
the record.
Rosen: Good evening. Jesse Rosen with Knife River. Located at 5450 West Gowen
Road. Here representing Knife River and our concrete batch plant located on the
Southridge project. Basically our plant we intend to have that plant in operation
approximately about 15 days of utilization plant production. The plus side of having that
plant located there is our trucks aren't using the City of Meridian roads, they are
accessing the interstate, egressing from a location provided by ITD and Jim L. Jewett's
property. We expect when the production is done approximately around May 15th the
plant will be shut down and it will be removed at the completion of the project. Looking
through the comments from the last P&Z meeting, Knife River agrees to abide by dust
control for the project and maintain and keep the dust to a minimal amount. We agree
to provide traffic control at the intersection as necessary and we agree to abide by City
of Meridian noise ordinance. That's all I have. And I implore the project.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions?
Meridian City Council
April 7, 2009
Page 24 of 41
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Are there not requirements from DEQ on air quality emissions as it relates to
the operation of your batch plant and our -- and certification requirements and if that's
the case do you meet those?
Rosen: I believe we do. Our subcontractor is available to answer that question.
Rountree: Okay. I'd like an answer sometime this evening.
Rosen: Like an answer sometime?
Rountree: Sure.
De Weerd: If you will, please, state your name and address for the record.
Burke: I'm Mike Burke. 6451 West Gowen Road, Boise.
De Weerd: Thank you. Councilman Rountree, will you restate your question?
Rountree: My question relates to the operation and air quality requirements and
certifications from DEQ on your batch plant. Are they required and, if so, do you have
them and what --
Burke: The DEQ does require air quality permits for that plant. It was first permitted in
1994 with -- it was located there at the Eagle interchange and it's been permitted ever
since.
Rountree: Okay. And you're in compliance with the permit requirements?
Burke: Yes, we are.
Rountree: Okay. Are there any other permit requirements with respect to operation in
and around the batch plant for primarily particulate matter, dust, or does it only relate to
the operation and the batch plant itself?
Rosen: The permit that we have from the DEQ requires dust abatement during the
operation of the plant, but that also includes the aggregate piles that are there.
Rountree: Okay. And if you're not in compliance what are the penalties?
Rosen: Pardon me?
Meridian City Council
April 7, 2009
Page 25 of 41
Rountree: If you're not in compliance what are the penalties?
Rosen: I'm sorry, I missed that last --
Rountree: What penalties are there for you if you're not in compliance?
Rosen: That I'm not aware of. We -- most recently at an inspection when the plant was
operating in Twin Falls didn't have any compliance issues.
Rountree: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: For Mr. Rosen. I just first want to make sure I heard correctly. Are you
saying that the plant will go out of use something like May 15th, what, six weeks from
now? Is that what I heard?
Rosen: Approximately May 15th is the date that we anticipate being done with the
concrete paving.
Zaremba: Then I --
Rosen: Our contract --
Zaremba: I think I would expand on a question that President Rountree asked earlier.
Wouldn't it make sense to keep it there for the interchange being built and some other
things that are going on there? I'm not -- my understanding was the reason for putting it
there was the alternative is that trucks would have to go as far as seven miles one way
to get the materials and come back and this is saving a lot of money for building --
Rosen: You're absolutely correct. I mean I was just speaking on Knife River's -- our
contract right now. There will be another project let for the Ten Mile interchange project,
which we may be low bidder or another contractor could be low bidder, and they may
want to utilize the site for the same uses.
Zaremba: Okay. So --
Rosen: So, that is a correct statement.
Zaremba: So, it's not a dead issue on May 15th and --
Rosen: Yes, sir. You're correct.
Meridian City Council
April 7, 2009
Page 26 of 41
Zaremba: Just your contract ends.
Rosen: My contract. Knife River.
Zaremba: All right. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. There is a few minutes left to the opening remarks. Any further
comments by the applicant or a representative? If you will just restate your name for
the record.
Elg: Sure. Van Elg with The Land Group. I guess I need to clarify one thing that I may
have misled you on. The rezone is also -- the purpose of it is to allow for the
development within the Meridian city limits according to the ME zone in the future and
we -- we hope you understand that. We are just not annexing it just for the batch plant.
We intend to develop it. The plan that you see before you here is one of many
iterations that we have gone through as we have tried to come up with a plan that might
fit, but may not fit them ultimately. You will most likely see another plan before -- when
things tum around a little bit and you will see another plan that comes in that tries to
integrate the ME standards and we understand will in several discussions with staff as
we go through that process and, ultimately, back before you folks again.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Elg: Thank you.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
Zaremba: Madam Mayor? Go ahead.
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Van, this question is probably for Jim, but on the -- the graphic that we have
in terms of the concept in the area that's proposed for annexation, the most recent
information we have seen on the Ten Mile interchange does, in fact, show Tasa Drive
and the roundabout and the connection with Overland, but what we have not seen on
any proposal is the connection of Tasa Drive, Market Square Way, to the new location
of Overland Road and my question is -- I guess I need a refresher. Is that on the
preliminary plat for South Ridge -- and Jim looks like he's getting ready to jump up here
and tell me what I need to know.
Jewett: Jim Jewett. 1560 Carol Street in Meridian, Idaho. I'm best suited for that
question. You're referring to the extension from the existing Overland to the realigned
Overland for Mark --
Meridian City Council
April 7, 2009
Page 27 of 41
Rountree: Market -- yeah. Market Square as it connects to the existing alignment with
Overland and, then, crosses over on that slight curve and hooks up with the realigned
Overland Road.
Jewett: ITD in February agreed to move forward with the design of that portion, but they
wanted to get the original project out to bid and an addendum, because they didn't want
to slow the bid process down. If they changed that now they felt they would lose a few
months -- several months, so they will do that as a change order and right now I think
they are just finishing up getting that -- the original project out to bid out to
advertisement, so they can bid it and, then, they will jump right in and finish the design
and the acquisition of additional right of way. We have already committed to work with
them on that right of way. The last -- the other remaining components from them was
the notice to proceed from ACHD on the realignment and all the signed bonding and
contracts for all the contractors for the realignment were delivered to ACRD today and
their security instrument will be delivered tomorrow, so PreCon should be a day or so
away and, then, notice to proceed.
Rountree: We are still looking at the later part of June for completion?
Jewett: The contract that I signed today had a June 30th termination date -- not
termination date, completion date. Substantial completion.
De Weerd: That's a big difference.
Rountree: Substantial -- traffic on the road.
Jewett: And the latest letter I got from ITD indicated late July now, early August start
date for the interchange. If any of you have been out you will see the trees are all down
and the houses getting ready to demo. That bid is out next week for the demo of all the
homes, 16 in total.
Rountree: Thank you.
De Weerd: Any other questions for Mr. Jewett?
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: Is the batch plant going to continue to be used? I mean I'm -- I'm among
those who don't want it to be there forever, but I certainly see the value of having it stay
there through the building of the interchange.
Jewett: We are working with Knife River and other contractors that are bidding the Ten
Mile project. All the same players are going to be there. You know, the bidding process
is the low bidder and then -- so once they award that bid -- we certainly have no other
Meridian City Council
April 7, 2009
Page 28 of 41
use in the interim right now, so it seems to be an appropriate use for us, since we have
no other use. Just the extension of Tasa just -- you can't farm it anymore, it cuts right
through the middle of where the irrigation fields were. So, having some other use on
the north side of that Tasa extension, Knife River used all the excess fill coming off of
the interchange and filled that site anywhere from five to six feet, which, again, kept
those trucks from going onto the road and going elsewhere and the batch plant was on
the south side of realigned Tasa, so it was designed to stay there with Tasa being built.
So, it just depends on who wins -- before May 15th we will know who will win the
contract on that project. So, we have no objection.
Zaremba: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. This is the public hearing portion of this item. I would
ask -- I do have asign-up sheet that indicates your support or your opposition. So,
when I read your name if you wish to provide testimony at that time, I would invite you
forward. We have already heard from Jesse Rosen -- Rosen, so -- who signed up for.
Jana Puga signed up against. If you will, please, state your name and address for the
record.
Puga: Jana Puga. I live at 3325 West Davis Lane --
De Weerd: Thank you.
Puga: -- in Meridian. Mayor de Weerd and Council, I appreciate this opportunity to talk
with you. I live within 300 feet of the property that's in question. First I want to say that I
do support the Ten Mile overchange and the widening of the interstate. The issue I
have is that the industrial operation, the concrete batch plant, has been operating
without proper permits or zoning since June. I could talk about the noise that we have
had to experience as residents. The size of the equipment. The trucks operating within
300 -- you know, approximately 300 feet of our house. The vibrations. The banging to
keep you up at night. The flaggers that had to be called in to handle the traffic. But
what I want to focus on is the key issue -- and I think the key issue is that in May of
2007, last spring, Ada County staff informed the concrete placing company, which is a
subcontractor of Knife River, that a concrete batching plant, quote, was not allowed on
parcels residing in the RUT district and they were given three options. They either had
to find an industrial zoning designation elsewhere -- and I want to point out they said
industrial zoning designation. They could propose a zoning amendment to use within
the residential district or they could approach Meridian for zoning. And there is more
detail and I'm sure you have seen the write up. They were told that in May and
operations started this summer and throughout the summer we had the problems of
noise and that sort of thing. But, again, I want to focus on the legal -- what I consider
illegal operation. Due to the residents complaints Ada County finally followed up seven
months after they had been in operation and they indicated they were prepared to move
forward with code enforcement action. They gave Knife River until December 31st to do
something about it, nothing happened, so on February 20th Ada County said they must
have their annexation application heard before April in -- with Meridian zoning and
Meridian City Council
April 7, 2009
Page 29 of 41
planning. So, when the representative from Land River says that it was essential that
this annexation happens, well, it is essential, because the permits and the proper zoning
were not followed when this operation -- this batch plant went into operation. James L.
Jewett, the developer or the land owner, began tearing down buildings, the old bam that
was there, the trees -- I'm not saying he did it personally, I don't know if he hired it out.
But the residents knowing they hadn't followed permits in the past, contacted EPA, who
came and I have to commend them, they immediately had them stop operations,
because they didn't have the proper permits. The buildings hadn't been inspected. So,
at that time -- may I continue?
De Weerd: If you can summarize your remarks.
Puga: Okay. So, basically, I'm asking you -- your rezoning is to mixed employment.
The definition for that is light industrial. Anyone that has seen this will know it's not a
light industrial operation. So, I'm asking you to deny the annexation until that batch
plant is removed, because I think there is two things that are happening. One, people
that didn't follow the Idaho Code and permits are being rewarded by, basically, allowing
this annexation. I don't think that's the vision we want for Meridian, that you don't have
to follow codes and permits and we will welcome you with open arms, because it's
convenient to the Idaho Transportation Department. And the other thing is I think you're
setting up a precedence. If ME use is going to actually be industrial, then, let's call it
what it is, call it industrial zoning and rezone it for industrial. That plant they want to
keep there for a long time, I'm asking you to deny it, because the developer, Knife River,
and the concrete placing are all people that have been in this business for a long time
and they know what's required before you start the operation. So, ignorance and
convenience, in my mind is no excuse. And I do hope you will take this under serious
consideration. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Joyce Baker signed up against. Oh, we probably could have found a
microphone and brought it to you. If you will, please, state your name and address.
Baker: I'm Joyce Baker. I reside at 3350 West Davis Lane, Meridian, Idaho. 83642.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Baker: I want to thank you, Madam Mayor and Council Members, for inviting us here to
be heard this evening. I, too, along with my husband, live within 300 feet of this site
that's being operated with heavy industrial use. We feel that we have been duped over
the last nine months we have been given the run around. I have spent hundreds of
hours trying to uncover what -- what started, how it started, why it started, and enough
Meridian City Council
April 7, 2009
Page 30 of 41
of that. This is not a congenial site at all. There are -- the down side -- I heard
someone mention the plus side. The negative side is that there are 20 plus affected
residents by this heavy industrial use. Many of them are so weary from the anxiety they
have gone through this past year, let alone what we -- we already knew we were facing
coming up in the next couple of years with the interchange. This was snuck under us
without permits. We didn't know what was going on. I would like to invite any and all of
you to my home to view what I look at all day long and what I listen to and what I hear in
the night. I trust that you have all had a chance to read what I submitted. It's rather
lengthy. Have any of you not had a chance to review my --
De Weerd: It is part of the record.
Baker: Okay.
De Weerd: Yes. Thank you.
Baker: I also would like to know if you could put on the overhead the Commission's --
Council's review application for annexation submitted by the landowner on December
30th, 2008.
De Weerd: If you will give us a minute. I think --
Canning: Ma'am, could you repeat that? What are you looking for?
Baker: I would like to have someone put on the overhead the Commission and Council
review application or the landowner's application that he submitted on December 30th,
2008.
Canning: If you have a copy you can set it --
Baker: I have a copy of it.
Canning: Can you set it on that --
Baker: If you notice there very close to the top of the page it says current land use,
what do you see there? It says vacant to me. Have any of you and all of you seen the
colored submitted photos of this property with dates on them? Not just copies in black
and white, but the colored submitted photos with dates of this property. I mean there
has been a lot of verbal reference to the batch plant, but it's been very troubling to me
and all of our neighbors that this states vacant. That's not forthcoming. Why is there a
hung to annex these proposed parcels when the economy does not support the need
for growth and new business for at least several years or longer? Again, as Mrs. Puga
stated, this is -- and I stated in my previous submitted testimony that this is a premature
application, because it was given as an ultimatum for improper land use in Ada County.
Another question that's troubling and I'll wind this right up here in just a second. A
deputy from the Ada County Sheriffs Department told us that an -- that annexing these
Meridian City Council
April 7, 2009
Page 31 of 41
parcels would cause confusion for them, because they would -- we would have to call
them when they violated codes and if you have read my earlier submitted statement,
codes have been violated since the P&Z hearing and they talked strongly to Knife River
about the violation of the dust and dirt and keeping it watered and the noise and they
have been served due to a noise ordinance in the night since that hearing, which was,
basically, just a few weeks ago. We would like to know who we are to call if you choose
to annex this. Are we to call Ada County or City of Meridian for code enforcement?
Another thing, Knife River got up at the P&Z hearing and they seemed to be
embarrassed and apologetic for the noise and nuisance that they had been creating
and, then, they turned around and continued to break those. Thank you very much for
considering my testimony and I do ask you to deny this and turn it back to Ada County
for code enforcement. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Melvin Baker signed up against. Good evening. If you will,
please, state your name and address for the record.
M.Baker: I'm Melvin Baker, 3350 Davis Lane, Meridian.
De Weerd: Thank you.
M.Baker: Madam Mayor, City Council Members, you have a very nice city and I enjoy
working in it and being a part of it. You also have a very elaborate development code.
Two hundred forty-one pages of it that I have been looking at. I have no objection to
this parcel being annexed to the city when the timing calls for it and if UDC guidelines
are followed. Current use is not at all consistent with your Comprehensive Plan or the
allowable uses under ME zoning. The current use has been demonstrated to negatively
impact all the nearby neighbors. According to your UDC an accessory use is one that is
incidental and subordinate to the principal use and is conducted on the same property.
If the principal use of this property is vacant, how can heavy industry be an accessory
use to that? To say that the operation of a batch plant is incidental and subordinate is
quite a stretch of the imagination. Your UDS prohibits uses of property that are not
specifically listed and operation of a batch plant is not a listed use. It also requires
activities associated with the proposed use to be in substantial conformance with the
goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Chapter one goes on to guarantee
equal protection to citizens from undue encroachment by their neighbors. Chapter three
prohibits noise, air pollution, and vibrations that can be felt without instruments. You
better believe that when this batch plant is in operation the vibrations can be felt inside
of our homes without instruments. Chief Stowe, does your code enforcement officer
really need this additional challenge? If this misuse of land was illegal in Ada County,
how can you set aside your own Unified Development Code and call it legal in the City
of Meridian? If the applicant had followed proper channels in the first place he wouldn't
have been knocking on your back door December 30th. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Mike Burke signed up for the project. Thank you, sir. Scott
Nichols signed up for. Good evening. If you will, please, state your name and address
for the record.
Meridian City Council
April 7, 2009
Page 32 of 41
Nichols: Scott Nichols. 2730 West Val Vista Court, about a half mile south of the
project and just a little bit to the east.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Nichols: I'm testifying tonight in behalf of this annexation and I didn't present any -- or
provide any prepared statement, but I just wanted to, I guess, express my feelings
about the batch plant down there in the annexation. I think I have talked to Jim and
Jesse and others about -- about issues like this and it really comes down to, I believe,
not a question of whether the work needs to be done, whether the interstate's going to
be built, where Ten Mile and Tasa is going to be rebuilt, it's really how it's done. And I
want to tell you that from the Knife River standpoint, from Jim's standpoint, everything
that they have committed to me has been done and I live less than 50 feet from
Southridge that was stripped off and has been regraded and prep'd for development. I
don't doubt that all of us at some level are inconvenienced by development, but I think
that you as -- as the Mayor and the Commissioners or the Councilmen need to look at
the bigger issues and the impacts to the community. Yes, there is dust associated with
construction. I have to live with it. The question is has the applicant done the proper
job in responding to that and I believe they have. Will there be vibration? Yes. Has
there been traffic control because of issues with traffic? Absolutely. Ideal with it every
night, every morning. No big deal. But the bigger issue at hand in terms of safety --
health and safety and environmental impact, costs to the remaining community in terms
of taxpayer costs, road rebuilding and use and abuse -- not abuse, but use of the
remaining Ada County road system is also an important aspect of your decision and I
think there is no better choice, regardless of how you get it done, but to have the batch
plant located right where it is, where we can minimize road traffic, where we can
minimize safety hazards, the implications of hundreds of trucks hauling gravel from
another site -- I'd much rather have them be able to come into that site and access not
only the freeway operations, but Ten Mile -- the Ten Mile interchange operations from
that site right there. I, too, will be impacted by it, but I'm willing to put up with that and
testify in favor of this annexation in that batch plant based on the other issues that are
prevented by having this source or this operation so close to the source of the use.
Maybe not said too eloquently, but I appreciate the time. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. The last person signed up on the list is Larry Van Hees. Hess.
Sorry. Signed up in favor.
Van Hees: My name is Lany Van Hees. I live at 2540 South Del Rey. Our property
borders on the south side of Southtidge Subdivision. Madam Mayor, Councilmen, it's
unfortunate that things like this happen during times, you know, when -- when
something major in an area is trying to happen. I'm not going to repeat what Scott said,
but I agree with him very, very much. We are all being impacted by the work that's
going on. It would be nice if it didn't have to be there, but also, on the other side, I have
spent many years in construction, I understand costs and I understand who does the
paying of those costs, and it's the taxpayers in this case -- we are all getting benefit from
Meridian City Council
April 7, 2009
Page 33 of 41
that batch plant being so close to that operation. It just makes really, really good sense
to pull right onto the freeway there and not have to move those trucks so far and I just
want you to know it's not going to last forever, it's going to be done here in a couple of
years and, hopefully, we will all forget all the strain and all the problems that happened
because of it, but we are in favor of it. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Those are the names that signed up to testify. Is there anyone
in the audience who would like to provide testimony that did not sign up? Okay. The
applicant does have the opportunity to have the last word. If you would like to do wrap
up remarks you're invited forward at this time. State your name for the record again.
Jewett: Jim Jewett.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Jewett: I'll try to touch on as many of those issues as I can. If there is any that I forgot
just remind me and I will touch on them. I don't want to -- to undermine the impact that
the direct neighbors have. I recognize that I asked that all the contractors, going in,
please, talk to the neighbors, inform them, try to have dialogue, so that we can
minimize, unlike a lot of projects, we get going and we are on a time frame and I think
maybe that we drop the ball on occasion there and for that I apologize to some of the
neighbors. I first was introduced to the Bakers -- it was December before they
contacted me and I listened to their concerns and I talked to Knife River about hours of
use and our lease agreement does recognize that there has to be some hours of use
and some traffic control and I am asking to, please, work with the neighbors to try to
make sure we mitigate as best we can. There was one comment about where to code
enforcement. Well, code enforcement should start with me and my office. If there is an
issue, you know, my door's open, they need to come talk to me, but I will deal with it on
issues on site. If we have dust that they want taken care of, it needs to start here. If I
don't do my job, then, I believe that it does go to the next step, so it does stop here.
There was some comments about EPA in our demolition of the buildings. For some
time we were considering and moving towards preservation. With the economic change
there just wasn't the financial support to do that, so a decision was made and we have
contacted all the resources that had contacted us in the process about the historical
registry of the building to insure that everything that they needed had been documented,
so that we could go forward with demolition. The EPA requirement is that if you're
demolitioning -- demolishing for the purpose of commercial use, you must have an
asbestos abatement. We don't consider the demolition a commercial use. We are not
building anything and replacing it. So, under our interpretation we were exempt. When
EPA was notified they called us and said we'd gladly do the asbestos abatement. We
hired it done. There was no asbestos. We got our ten day waiting period and we
continued on. So, we complied, even though we thought we were exempt. There was
some discussion about the accessory use and I just wanted to clarify that annexation is
not just our property, it's Tasa, Marketplace -- it's the interchange. Those are all part of
the annexation. Most of the Ten Mile interchange or a good section of it is part of this
annexation. We are required to annex all those properties as part of that. I don't
Meridian City Council
April 7, 2009
Page 34 of 41
necessarily agree with the comment that annexation must wait until we are ready to
develop. You are getting a brand new interchange there. You are having public
services, sewer, water, and utilities that are going in to some of the infrastructure and
requires going through my project, so annexation seems to be the most to
accommodate all those utility construction. The last thing I will touch, then, is the Ada
County and why the annexation, why Ada County. When -- when we were first
approached by several contractors prior to the bidding of the original widening of the
interstate, we inquired about where and what they could use on the property. Clearly
the choice was annexation. We dropped the ball in not getting the annexation done
early on. There was some hiccups with ITD and the right of way and making sure all
the design of Tasa was right, which slowed us down. That is our fault. We do
apologize for that. It should have been done in the summer. It should not have been
waiting until after the fact. But it was always our intention to annex. I think that we have
been very clear on that, that with the Ten Mile specific area plan that we are a part of it
and we want to be a part of it and a part of the city and we want to annex this property.
With that I would stand for any questions.
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Rountree: Mr. Jewett, would you give us your office phone number for the record?
Jewett: I'll give you my cell phone. 794-0070.
De Weerd: 794 --
Jewett: 0070.
De Weerd: Do you have that, lieutenant? Okay. Any other questions?
Rountree: I don't have any for Mr. Jewett, but I do have a question for Mr. Rosen.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, while Mr. Rosen is coming up, I did
want to say Mr. Rosen came to me last spring to ask about the construction activities on
the site and he did verify the appropriateness of those within the City of Meridian and it
was assumed that annexation would take place a little sooner than it is.
Rountree: If you will, please, state your name for the record.
Rosen: Jesse Rosen.
De Weerd: Thank you. Mr. Rountree.
Meridian City Council
April 7, 2009
Page 35 of 41
Rountree: Under the contract you're working now is there a construction timing
schedule or limits listed? In other words, are you allowed to work at night? Are you
allowed to work after 6:00, before 6:00 in the morning?
Rosen: Yes, we are, according to the ITD contract.
Rountree: Okay. So, there is no -- no provisions in the contract for that?
Rosen: That is correct, sir.
Rountree: And since it is a federal aid project, I'm assuming that all of your equipment
that you utilize meet EPA's noise emission standards?
Rosen: That is correct.
Rountree: They have all been certified as such? Okay. We don't have anybody from
ITD here I don't recognize anyway. I have a question for them as it relates to the future,
the next couple years, in terms of how the new contract will be written, what kind of
stipulations there will be in that as -- and, Jim, you might know about after hours -- after
normal work hour work --
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Rosen.
Rountree: --that sort of thing.
Jewett: Having -- Jim Jewett again. Having sat on the steering committee I do have
direct information on that. Ten Mile interchange had to go through an environmental
where the widening of the interstate did not, because it was inside the existing confines
of their right of way, so there was additional noise and hours of operation that was
placed on the Ten Mile project that's not on the interstate widening project, if that makes
sense. So, there is -- there will be in the document that comes out here soon, all the
specifications of when -- when you can operate and there will be -- I believe it's daylight
hours only.
Rountree: That's an environmental mitigation that's incorporated in that project.
Jewett: Yes.
Rountree: I assumed there was, but I have not seen a document at this point.
Jewett: I can gladly forward the staff the environmental impact statement. I have the
entire copy in my office.
Rountree: If you would do that I would appreciate that. And, Madam Mayor, I have a
question for Mr. Nary. Assuming, when we act on this particular application, at what
point in time, if we approved annexation, would this property be annexed?
Meridian City Council
April 7, 2009
Page 36 of 41
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council,
be -- findings would come back probably within
there a development agreement? I forgot.
Council Member Rountree, there would
two weeks -- I can't recall now -- was
Wafters: Yes.
Nary: Okay. So, a development agreement get processed. After that it usually takes
another couple of weeks for that to get done, so you should have it back for the
ordinance and the -- that within four weeks, approximately.
Rountree: So, the reality is is the use out there, whether we annex it or not, will
probably be done and the annexation, though, some think is a curative for the illegal, if
you will, or unauthorized use out there, probably won't be and that a future use out
there, if we do annex, should and probably. would come back to the city to determine
accessory use and compliance.
Nary: Council Member Rountree, I have to ask Director Canning if the accessory use --
It would only go back to the planning staff, would it not? It doesn't come back to the
Council.
Rountree: To the director.
Nary: To the director.
Bird: That's right.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, for that particular accessory use
there is no requirement. There is no review process.
Rountree: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, any further questions for staff, the applicant, or any of the
people that testified? Hearing none, do I have a motion to close?
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I have one comment and one request of Mr. Jewett and it
has no bearing on this at all, but would you, please, notify ITD that you have, in fact,
provided surety or are providing surety to ACHD on the Overland relocation project,
because they have been waiting for that. Before you get away.
Jewett: I would defer -- I think they are waiting for it from Gary, so I think --
Rountree: Well, Gary is here as well, so, Gary, when you get it. All right. Thank you.
De Weerd: When you get it would you also let us know. Thank you. Okay. Anything
further from the Council?
Meridian City Council
April 7, 2009
Page 37 of 41
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Staff, any further comments?
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I guess in making your motion it
might be helpful to acknowledge that the Council does feel that the construction
activities associated with this active construction site are appropriate. If that's the way
the Council and Mayor are headed that would be helpful.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: Assuming that I'm not going to be the maker of the motion, which I could be,
but it looks like President Rountree is preparing, I would add to what Director Canning
said, the word temporary, and I do believe it's appropriate, but not forever.
De Weerd: Thank you. Mr. Hoaglun, do you have any questions or comments?
Hoaglun: Thank you, Madam Mayor. I -- can you hear me okay?
De Weerd: Yes.
Hoaglun: Okay. No. I'm just a little bit concerned that we are being asked to take over
something that -- we are being handed Ada County's problems with this -- with this
batch plant here and I'm a little concerned by that. I think the testimony from the
neighbors raised some questions that need to be addressed. I certainly understand the
need for close access to these construction projects for the freeway and eventually Ten
Mile Road, but it -- how this motion is made is going to kind of go a long ways with how I
end up voting on this.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Hoaglun. So, I guess the motion maker has a little pressure
there. Do I have a motion to close the public hearing?
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I move to close the public hearing on Item 11, AZ 08-016.
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on Item 11. All
those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carves.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Okay. Discussion?
Meridian City Council
April 7, 2009
Page 38 of 41
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: Does staff still want us to determine the peak hours that the contractor will be
required to provide flaggers?
Wafters: Yes, please.
Zaremba: That was a question that was provided for us. Have we discussed that?
Just a comment on it. It sounds like under the -- that the rules that will apply to the
interchange building will be different from the rules that apply to the widening of the
interstate and that the new rules do include some hours limitations. I don't know
whether flaggers are needed all of those hours, but it doesn't sound like this is going to
be a 24 hour operation once we get past May 15th. So, I guess I don't have an opinion
either way.
Rountree: Madam Mayor, given the timing that has been outlined here, depending on
our action, if we do move forward with this, to me that's almost a moot point, because of
the major construction activities are going to be over on the interstate by May 15th in
terms of the batch plant operation. So, identifying flagging for that operation is
something that we wouldn't be able to enforce anyway until it is annexed and officially
part of the City of Meridian. I don't have a problem with setting some hours for that, if, in
fact, we do move forward and there is a window when we would have enforcement.
And as it relates to the future, by June 30th there will be a new Overland Road and it's
my understanding Ten Mile will probably be closed a good portion of that two years
during the construction. So, there won't be a necessary need for a flagger, with the
exception of moving traffic on Tasa through that construction zone. So, I think for that
maybe temporary period beyond when it might be zoned and the 15th and when they
might shut down -- we could specify a time when flagging needs to be provided on -- on
Ten Mile of the annexed site. Those would be -- if somebody has a suggestion.
Zaremba: Well, I agree with your point, by the time we actually have jurisdiction this --
that part of it may be over and the situation will change with the interchange building,
so --
Rountree: And I guess the question was asked if, in fact, if it is annexed who has
enforcement. Meridian has enforcement. Meridian will enforce whatever ordinances we
have, as opposed to what the county does, which seems to want to put the burden on
somebody else. I guess the buck stops here and Lieutenant Stowe, for your promotion
this evening, you can pass this onto Lieutenant Overland for consideration if we move
forward.
De Weerd: Overland or Overton?
Rountree: Overton.
Meridian City Council
April 7, 2009
Page 39 of 41
De Weerd: Okay. Council?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I'll attempt a motion here. I move that we approve the request for annexation
and zoning on AZ 08-016 with the addition of a DA provision for the contractor to
provide flagging on Ten Mile and construction site access points between the hours of
6:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. through the completion of the
operation of the batch plant for the current interstate widening project. Motion is also
made with the understanding that future accessory uses on this property to be annexed
will be subject to review and approval by City of Meridian's Planning and Zoning
administrator and that all DEQ, Idaho Department of Lands, Idaho Transportation
Department, and federal highway administration environmental regulations are complied
with. That all EPA air quality and water quality provisions are complied with, if the site is
proposed for future use for the expansion of the Ten Mile interchange.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, we have a motion.
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: And a second. Any discussion? Hearing none, Madam Clerk, will you,
please, call role.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea.
De Weerd: Okay. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 12: Ordinance No. AZ 08-012 Request for
Annexation and Zoning of 5.03 acres of land from RUT in Ada County to
an R-4 zone for Shays Cove by Landmark Engineering & Planning, Inc. -
3155 South Mesa Way:
De Weerd: Okay. Item No. 12 is ordinance number 09-1396. I'll ask Madam Clerk to,
please, read this by title only.
Holman: Thank you, Madam Mayor. City of Meridian Ordinance No. 09-1396, an
ordinance AZ 08-012, Shays Cove for annexation of a parcel of land being a portion of
Lots 1 and 2 of Block 2 of Kachina Estates on file in Book 35, page 36, in the office of
the recorder, Ada County, situated in the southwest one quarter of the southeast one
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 territory situated in
Meridian City Council
April 7, 2009
Page 40 of 41
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, Ada County, to R-4, Low Density
Residential District, in the Meridian City Code, providing that copies of this ordinance
shall be filed with the Ada County assessor, the Ada County recorder, and the Idaho
State Tax Commission, as required by law, and providing for a summary of the
ordinance and providing for a waiver of the reading rules and providing for an effective
date.
De Weerd: Okay. You have heard this ordinance read by title only. Seeing there is no
one who would like to hear it read in its entirety, I will ask for a motion from Council to
approve.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve ordinance 09-0396 with suspension of rules.
Rountree: Second.
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 12. Madam Clerk, will you,
please, read -- or call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Before I ask for a motion to adjourn, I don't know -- usually I give a City of
Meridian pin to any teenager that can last through the whole meeting. Ralph, have I
ever given you one of these things? Two. Well, good. Well, I will not give you another
one.
Rountree: Anna would like one.
Zaremba: We missed you last week, though.
De Weerd: But you still earn our gratitude for putting up with us from start to finish. And
you, too, Frank. Have I given you one?
Thomason: Never.
Meridian City Council
April 7, 2009
Page 41 of 41
De Weerd: Never? Well, if you will, please, come forward I will present you with a pin.
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I move that you present a City of Meridian pin to Frank and
Anna and upon completion I move we adjourn.
Bird: Second. Brad, go home and go to bed.
Hoaglun: It's been a long day.
Bird: I bet it has.
Rountree: It's only 11:00.
Bird: It's only 11:00 back there, Bud.
Rountree: I moved to adjourn, so --
De Weerd: All those in favor to adjourn say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:01 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
MAYOR T Y De WEERD
ATTEST:
JAYCEE L
DATE APPROVED
~~``\,`J ®~ ~~~ }rte/~/
.,~ ~~ ~ -~ti -,,
~ = ~ ~®
CITI~ CL
r
%x,.90 '..~~~~.~ ~O~`:
'/'~~~~~i~rrrrrri nn~~~~ ~~4~\`