HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010 03-02Meridian City Council Meeting March 2, 2010
A meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:05 p.m., Tuesday, March
2, 2010, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd.
Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, Keith Bird, Brad Hoaglun, and David
Zaremba.
Members Absent: Charlie Rountree.
Others Present: Bill Nary, Jaycee Holman, Pete Friedman, Caleb Hood, Sonya Wafters,
Tracy Basterrechea, Joe Silva, Steve Siddoway, Bruce Freckleton and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll-call Attendance:
Roll call.
X David Zaremba X Brad Hoaglun
Charlie Rountree X Keith Bird
X Mayor Tammy de Weerd
De Weerd: If I could get everyone's attention, please. I would like to call this meeting to
order. Excuse me. If we could, please, get this meeting to order. Thank you. For the
record, it is Tuesday, March 2nd. It's five minutes after 7:00 o'clock. We will start
tonight's meeting with roll call attendance.
Item 2: Pledge of Allegiance
De Weerd: Thank you. Item No. 2 is the Pledge of Allegiance. And tonight we have
the honor to be led by Troop 151 with the Meridian LDS stake and we have Carter
Andrew and Jared Gibson who will be leading us in the pledge. If you will all rise.
(Pledge of Allegiance recited.)
De Weerd: Boys, I would like to present you with a City of Meridian pin. There you go.
Thank you for leading us.
Item 3: Community Invocation by Dave Duron with Meridian First Baptist
Church.
De Weerd: Item No. 3 is our community invocation. Tonight we will be led by Pastor
Dave Duron with the Meridian First Baptist Church. If you will all join us in the
community invocation or take this as an opportunity for a moment of reflection.
Duron: Let's pray. Father, we thank you for this evening. Lord, I am thankful for the
civil servants that you have placed here in our community. I ask that you would guide
and direct in this meeting. May we sense your leading in all decisions for the citizens of
Meridian City Council
March 2, 2010
Page 2 of 76
our city of Meridian. Bless everyone that is here and the business that will follow to your
glory, in Jesus' name, amen.
Item 4: Adoption of the Agenda.
De Weerd: Thank you, pastor. Item No. 4 is adoption of the agenda.
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: A couple additions in the agenda here before we adopt it. Under the Consent
Agenda, Item 5-H, that resolution number is 10-712. Under Action Items, 8-A and B -- A
is a public hearing AZ 08-005. They are requesting to continue to May 25th, 2010, and
the public hearing on VAR 08-008 has also requested to continue to May 25th. And
also under 8-G, that resolution number is 10-713. And under 9-A, Ordinances,
ordinance number is 10-1442. So, with that, Madam Mayor, I move adoption of the
agenda.
Zaremba: 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: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 5: Consent Agenda
A. February 23, 2010 City Council Meeting Minutes
B. Professional Service Agreement between Schindler Elevator
Corporation and the City of Meridian for an Extended Warranty
on Elevator Services for an Amount Not-to-Exceed $6,000.00
C. Cooperative Agreement with ITD for Ten Mile Road and Tasa
Drive Lighting
D. Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement -Diamond View
Assisted Living
E. Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement -Diamond View
Assisted Living (Roger 8~ Teresa Taylor)
F. Final Decision and Order for Approval: AP 10-001 Pet Care
Clinic by BRS Architects Located at 1151 E. Fairview
Meridian City Council
March 2, 2010
Page 3 of 76
G. Development Agreement: AZ 09-004 The Baby Place by Brent
& Coleen Goodwin Located at 270 North Linder Road
H. Resolution No. :Adopting Standard
Operating Policy No. 6.17, Response to Request for Public
Records or Information
De Weerd: Item 5 is our Consent Agenda.
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Just to note under the Consent Agenda 5-H, that resolution number is 10-
712. And with that I move approval of the Consent Agenda and the Mayor to sign and
Clerk to attest.
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: I have motion and second to approve the Consent Agenda. If there is no
discussion, Madam Clerk, will you, please, call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 6: Department Reports
A. Planning Department: Traffic Impact Analysis and Request for
Additional Access Considerations onto Ten Mile and Franklin
Roads
De Weerd: Before I get to Item No. 6, I do want to comment on two of our agenda
items. Item 8-C, which is a public hearing on MDA 10-003, we are not discussing a plat,
it's only opening up the development agreement for a couple of things. This will not
discuss any access into a neighborhood. The city remains uninterested in accessing
into that neighborhood. So, I did want to clarify that. We love to see a lot of faces in our
audience and would love to have you join us for the presentation on this park, but if
you're here because you're concerned we will be opening access into your
neighborhood, we will not be doing that. If Ada County Highway District has an interest,
I don't even think they will have an opportunity. So, just -- that's an FYI on that one.
The other item that probably has some interest is Item 10, which is a presentation by
DEQ regarding the emissions testing in Ada County. This is only a report. We will not
be accepting any public testimony. There will be no decisions made and so I wanted to
Meridian City Council
March 2, 2010
Page 4 of 76
clarify that as well. So, thank you all for joining us here today. We appreciate always
having our public in our City Hall and our City Council chambers.
De Weerd: With that I will move to Item 6, our Department Reports, and tum this over
to our planning department for A and B.
Hood: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Item 6-A is -- under
Department Reports, David Tumbull is here, along with some folks from both Brighton
and HDR and I'll tum over a lot of the heavy lifting to them, but I do want to set the stage
for them regarding some additional access points out in Ten Mile. Primarily what I'm
going to do tonight is just go through the history and kind of why we are here and I'll let
them, again, run through their proposal to you. During the Ten Mile specific area
adoption hearing in 2007 Mr. Tumbull testified that he wanted a different land use for
the subject property than what the consultant through the Charrette had planned. The
Council accommodated this request for different land use and acknowledged that the
traffic impacts HDR had performed for the city did not reflect this modified land use.
Therefore, more detailed impacts of traffic was needed to address this last minute
change in the land use. So, based on the revised land use being more intense than
originally planned, Brighton also hired HDR sometime ago to do some more, again,
detailed traffic analysis and they have some additional access points proposed. Again,
I'll let them go through the details of that. I also just want to take a minute, though,
again, setting the history of what's in the plan today. So, there is a few elements in the
Ten Mile specific area plan and I'm just going to read them very quickly. Transportation
element of the plan is to guide transportation decisions in the Ten Mile interchange
area. It was developed concurrently with the land use and design elements and has
been designed to, one, preserve the integrity of the arterial road system and the
proposed Ten Mile interchange over the long term. To enhance pedestrian-bicycle
mobility and accessibility. Three, support new development in accordance with the land
use element by emphasizing the importance of developing activity centers, housing, and
attracting key employers that will benefit the city and the area and minimize the negative
impacts of transportation on existing and future neighborhoods. Establishing a sound
and effective transportation system for the Ten Mile interchange area will involve
significant coordination among the various interested parties. How and where street
access is allowed is one of the greatest influencing factors on the overall performance
of the streets. Direct access to properties must be balanced with the use of the
thoroughfare to move traffic. The Ten Mile interchange specific area plan has proposed
a complete network of arterial and collector streets to insure reasonable connectivity
throughout the area and support the development of a local street system in association
with the development of individual properties. Based on our proposed street networks,
in order to facilitate traffic and optimize performance, direct property access to arterial
streets is prohibited. And I think Brighton hits on a lot of those key elements that I just
mentioned. What I have got on the screen right now is a transportation map that talks
about, in the text I just read, your arterials and your collector street system that's
planned for this area. I'm zooming in now to the southeast quadrant, essentially, of Ten
Mile and Franklin where the detailed analysis and traffic study was primarily performed
and, again, where Mr. Tumbull will go through some more details. So, this is not a
Meridian City Council
March 2, 2010
Page 5 of 76
Comp Plan amendment. Again as the City Council previously agreed to evaluate
potential other access points here due to the difference in land use types and the City
Council is not approving an access plan tonight, but ACRD has requested that if they
are to -- to consider any access points that are different than the Ten Mile Specific area
plan, they want to have a letter from the city stating just that, that we are -- we do want
ACRD to evaluate and we are okay with considering additional access points in this
area. So, if the Council does support a proposal tonight that's what we will do, we will
draft up a letter and have that for the Mayor's signature that, then, will go over to ACHD.
So, that's kind of background of why we are here today. It's not a public hearing, it was
just a -- again, the developer would like to get some feedback from the Council on how
you all feel about this access plan that's on the table. So, do you have any questions of
me at this point?
De Weerd: Thank you, Caleb. Council, any questions?
Bird: Not at this time.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Tumbull. Good evening. if you will, please, state your name and
address for the record.
Tumbull: David Tumbull. 12601 West Explorer Drive, Boise, Idaho.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Tumbull: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I'd like to thank Caleb for the
introduction that we received -- that he just gave and state that we are in agreement
with all of the things that he just read to you regarding the plan. As you know, we have
been involved in support of the Ten Mile interchange specific area plan from the
beginning. I'd note that when we bought this property that the whole area was -- on the
land use plan was just ared -- a red for commercial, but we recognize the city's desire
to make this an appropriate gateway to the city and we have been supportive of that. At
the April 2007 hearing I testified about the access restrictions and the need for the city
and ACHD to consider some enhanced accesses that would adequately serve the
scope of the development that was being proposed in your own plan. In other words, in
order to get the scope of development that you were desiring, we needed some access
that was in addition to the ones being proposed. Since that time we have been
wrestling with a myriad of design related issues. As you know, there has been a lot of
work going on out there. We have been working for a couple of years with ITD just
trying to figure out one access point and I can't say that it's been a painless process, it's
been very complicated. So, it's been, you know, almost three years since this plan was
adopted and we have been working pretty diligently on it since that time. In 2009 after
we had solved the first pieces of the puzzle, which was the access on the southerly --
what we call the southerly road, we met with HDR -- no. Excuse me. We met with
Meridian city and ACHD staff to outline a process to move forward and at that time we
talked with Anna and Caleb and since HDR has done the original study for the Ten Mile
area plan, we decided to retain them to do this more detailed analysis and by -- and that
Meridian City Council
March 2, 2010
Page 6 of 76
was by mutual agreement. So -- let's see. If I can figure out how to use this. I think this
-- okay. This just outlines a bit of the study process. In May we scoped the process
with the city and ACHD and for the next several months we developed a concept
development and approval to study the methodology that we were going to use,
including -- including the use of the COMPASS model. In October through January we
-- HDR worked on the development of the trip generation tables and the approval by
ACHD and, then, in January through February they proceeded to do the modeling for
the area development. And, then, just toward the latter half of February we met with the
city, we went over the analysis, we met with ACRD and we went over the analysis and
that's what we are here to present to you tonight after going through those details with
staff. Just want to emphasize that there are, basically, three key points -- summary
points that came out of this analysis. The first one is that the restricted access scenario
that's currently in place would not allow for the uses and the development densities
indicated in the Ten Mile specific area plan or the city's Comprehensive Plan. Second is
that an enhanced access scenario would solve significant queuing and delay issues on
the south road of Ten Mile Road and the intersection of the north road. And I need to
probably get to a map and explain where those are to you in a little bit better detail. And
the other key point is that other issues such as esthetics, pedestrian and bicycle safety
can actually be mitigated through proper design or even enhanced through this plan.
Okay. So, this gives you a map of the area and I will try to outline -- we are dealing in
detail with this area right in here. Can you see that if I point there?
Bird: You bet.
Turnbull: That's a 40 acre parcel that we own on the comer of Ten Mile and Franklin
Road. We also own this 80 acre parcel down here along the interchange and what we
are calling the south road -- so, you see the -- the -- oops. Touchy. How do I get back
there, Caleb? Okay. So, you see where the interchange is, it's a SPUI design and we
were supportive of that, because of what it does to alleviate -- you know, to promote
cross-traffic between the north and the south side of the freeway and it does cause
some complications for our property in that the SPUI raises the elevation of the whole
interchange and causes the grade down to our property to be more severe, but we have
worked through those issues with ITD. So, what we are calling the south road is this
area right here. That's the first access point coming off the interchange and we refer to
that as the south road. What we are referring to as the north road is the next one to the
north here and those were the main circulators that were -- have always been part of
the Ten Mile specific plan. So, when I refer to south road and north road, those are the
ones that I'm talking about. We worked through the numbers with COMPASS and
ACHD and city staff. This shows you what the actual numbers are for that area in 2008
for this -- what they call TAZ number 278, that's that southeast quadrant of the Ten Mile
Franklin area. What the 2030 projections are -- and this proposed development just
includes the 40 acre parcel on the hard comer of Franklin and Ten Mile. But if you have
any questions on that I can open it up to Miguel from HDR, but move forward if you
don't. Okay. These two slides show -- again on the left side is the Ten Mile area
specific plan access points and I want to be clear that when we got together with the city
and, then, we brought in HDR, HDR made it very clear that their task, as part of the
Meridian City Council
March 2, 2010
Page 7 of 76
specific area plan, was only to consider the collector road system, not any other
accesses, and they had quite a restricted budget to be able to do that. So, it was our
task to go into more -- a higher level of detail to show the functionality of that internal
system. So, that's the restrict -- what we are calling the restricted accesses on the left,
what we are calling enhanced accesses on the right. And it includes some significant
differences. On the north road right here, that includes a signalized intersection. The
south road is already planned as a signalized intersection and, then, you have going
north aright-in, right-out, a full access -- excuse me. A full access is what was being
proposed there at the -- about the 660 foot south of Franklin Road and, then, moving
around to Franklin Road, aright-in, right-out at 220 feet, a full access at 660 and, then,
a signalized intersection at the quarter mile section of Franklin Road. Is there any
questions on that? Have I explained that clearly enough? Okay. So --
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Real quick. That right-in, right-out on Franklin that looks like that's right near
that bridge. Is it back a ways from that?
Turnbull: It's back a little bit. I'll explain that a little further as we go along.
Hoaglun: Thank you.
Turnbull: That was a good comment, though. Okay. This is an exhibit from a letter that
we received from Gary Inselman of ACHD back in September of 2007, where we were
trying to get some indication from ACHD about what accesses would be approved
under -- under their policies and it, essentially, shows those accesses that I just pointed
out in the enhanced access scenario in the previous slide. Accompanying that letter --
and Ican read that, but Gary made it clear that these access points would need to be
supported by Meridian city for them to consider them. So, that, essentially, is a graphic
of the previous slide. And I can have HDR explain these numbers better. This is just
the background work that went into it. It shows traffic counts at various road segments
throughout the network and this is the trip generation table that was approved by ACHD.
Again, I can have HDR go into details if you need to, but if not I'll continue on. I think
what you're going to need to see is probably the synchro models that shows what
happens under various scenarios. Okay. On the restricted access -- this gets into the
heart of the matter that -- and we will show this a little bit better later. On the south road
what the restricted access model showed -- at total of -- a level of service I believe F. Is
that right, Miguel? On the south road. Primarily because all of the traffic from the
development area would stack up and I think the queues would be in excess of a
quarter of a mile long trying to get out onto Ten Mile Road, because that's the only place
in this whole TAZ in this whole quadrant to where they could get left out of this quadrant
onto Ten Mile Road and the -- the traffic count moving left is 890, with a dual lane left
turn. It actually failed with about 700 vehicles at the peak -- that's the peak hour count.
The other issue is on the north road where under the plan it's restricted to a right-out
Meridian City Council
March 2, 2010
Page 8 of 76
only, without that -- without that signalization there they can't get any access to the road
and, likewise, on the westerly side of that road traffic backs up -- Miguel can give you
harder numbers than this, but it backs up about a quarter of a mile in the peak hour.
So, those two roads fail under that restricted access scenario. Is there any questions
before I move on from that? Okay. This shows the project levels of service in the 2030
-- at 2030 with the restricted access scenario. Without those it operates at a level of
service D, but it actually fails when you consider the traffic coming out of the
development, because the left-outs can't -- can't get out. The right-in, right-out at the
north road fails at the level of service F. The intersection of Ten Mile and Franklin is at
a level of service D and, then, the accesses off of Franklin Road actually operate at a
level of service A. That's assuming there is -- yeah. That's assuming signalized
accesses. Miguel, is this -- okay. Caleb, you're going to run that synchro model there?
Okay. Miguel, you want to explain this a little bit?
Gaddi: What the video is showing --
De Weerd: Excuse me. You will first have to state your name and address for the
record.
Gaddi: Miguel Gaddi. 1486 South Loder Place, Boise, Idaho.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Gaddi: So, basically, what we are seeing on the video, they describe -- this is the south
intersection there and you see this queue of cars -- this is the left turning movements
already considering two left turn lanes. So, you can see pretty good amount of vehicles
trying to make that movement and, basically, this is a main movement that would cause
that intersection to fail. The access, of course, which is increasing signal timing for that
movement, but that would affect movement on Ten Mile. The other movement that's
constrained is here. This is a right-in, right-out in the constrained model, so, therefore,
all these vehicles have to wait for a gap on the Ten Mile oncoming traffic to be able to
make that movement if there is no signal there. So, that's what's generating -- you see
it again here. You know, that queue on that right=out movement. And as you can see,
Ten Mile and Franklin and the other intersections on the Franklin function, you know, at
a -- at a good level of service and you don't see any queues there.
De Weerd: Okay. Miguel. I'm assuming that's not just dirt, but that this is full build out
of the contemplated plans?
Gaddi: No. This is 2030, so -- because we -- the official mall community choices from
COMPASS that goes to 2030. So, we took those numbers and do those numbers that
COMPASS had -- we added the ones for this specific development.
De Weerd: So, Caleb, this considers to 2030 with our area specific plan, then?
Hood: Correct.
Meridian City Council
March 2, 2010
Page 9 of 76
De Weerd: Okay.
Gaddi: Yes. But, for example, we look -- we broke this PAC 278 into smaller PACs of
the Ten Mile study and just to give you an idea what COMPASS has today for -- I think
it's office jobs is slightly over a thousand. Can we go back to that slide, Caleb? I'm not
sure how we get out of the video. Yes. The office jobs COMPASS had 1,321 and what
we estimated for build out for the Ten Mile specific area plan was, you know, closer to
3,000. Most of those office jobs would be located closer to the interchange towards the
south portion off the PAC. So, again, this is a moment in time, but we still have
additional traffic and additional development that we estimated to happen after 2030, if
that answers your question.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: And, Miguel, if I might ask, on the north street, the right-in, right-outs as
originally proposed, would that -- the backup of traffic be helped by Ten Mile having an
acceleration lane? Ten Mile is, I think, designed to be a five lane and you're expressing
that the backup would occur because there wouldn't be enough gaps in traffic to make
that right tum. Would it help to have an acceleration lane, an additional lane?
Gaddi: That would alleviate it a little, but by no means it would be able to handle the -- I
think it was over 400 vehicles.
Zaremba: That wouldn't be enough, then?
Gaddi: To make that movement. Plus, I see some here, I know that ACHD is this --
well, it's not, you know, completely in favor of an acceleration base lane, they -- the
deceleration lanes, they are okay with those, but acceleration lanes I think they have
some more reservations. I don't know. Gary, do you want to elaborate on that or --
Zaremba: Okay.
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba, do you need Mr. Inselman to comment?
Zaremba: No. I'm happy with Miguel's answer. Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay.
Gaddi: Again, even if we were to implement that, by no means it would a solution to the
scale of the problem that is --
Zaremba: And that's what I was asking. It would help, but not enough. Okay.
Meridian City Council
March 2, 2010
Page 10 of 76
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Turnbull: And, Madam Mayor, this next slide show the turning movements and the
segments -- vehicle segments given the enhanced access scenario and, then, this slide
shows you what the level of services are under that enhanced access. So, if you go
back again to the south road, it's a level of service D, but it's really a full level of service
D, because it didn't fail on the left-outs. In other words, we can get traffic out of the
development onto Ten Mile Road without the virtual parking lot of queuing going back
onto the south road. The signalized intersection at the quarter mile, the north road,
operates at a level of service C, which is, you know, better than our typical threshold.
The right-in, right-out at the 660 operates at a level of service B and, then, we had the
full access at the -- at the 660 and that operated at a level of service E on Ten Mile and,
then, the one up on Franklin operated at a level of service F and that was one of the
points we brought up in our last couple of weeks with the city and with ACHD and we
determined to go back and analyze those, restricted to athree-quarter access. So, in
other words, left-in, right-in, right-out, but no left-out of the development. And we will
show you that model, but, essentially, those are the two trouble points, those 660 full
service accesses. So, we went back and remodeled those and that's -- this is what you
get with the three-quarter access -- what we are calling the enhance three-quarter
access where the 660s are at athree-quarter. Which is similar to what you have at
Portico. It's alevel -- it's alert-in, but no left-out at the 660. Those showed very good
levels of service. I don't think we have the legend on here, but they are -- throughout --
throughout -- other than the south intersection, which is still at a D, all the others are
level of service A, B, or C, which are very good. And this is a synchro model showing --
it's really kind of hard to see on this scale. I don't know if you can really appreciate it,
but we can run it for you and it just shows that the queuing lines shorten up significantly
and things tend to operate much more efficiently. So, as Caleb mentioned, you know,
we understand the balancing act that we need to do between moving the general
commuter traffic on the arterials, but still accommodating the development that's been
envisioned in the plan. So, if you have any questions on this, we can go over those.
But that, essentially, shows you -- this was peak hour traffic and how -- how traffic is
moving along. You can see that the queues are significantly shortened. Okay.
Network performance. This is the balancing act we are talking about. So, what
happens to the total network performance? Under the three-quarter access scenario
we have an average delay time per vehicle -- all vehicles of 70 seconds versus 77.9
seconds. So, it's, actually, an improvement for the overall network of 7.7 seconds or
nine percent. On the average number of stops per vehicle, all vehicles, we have a slight
degradation, but less than two percent. So, it's 1.57 versus 1.55. And the average
speed under the three-quarter access versus the restricted access actually is an
improvement of three percent. So, I think HDR has done a pretty good job of analyzing
the network impacts and they show that -- that the system is well balanced. The
question came up what are the Ten Mile corridor specifics. In other words, what's the
travel time to get from Franklin to the interchange I think, isn't it Miguel? From Franklin
to the interchange going north to south and, then, south to north and you can see those
statistics there. Each one of these is five percent or less. So, it's very minimal
degradation of moving that traffic. So, we think it's well balanced. Any questions here?
Meridian City Council
March 2, 2010
Page 11 of 76
De Weerd: No.
Turnbull: So, in summary, submit the following, that without the enhanced access
scenario development densities that meet the city's Comprehensive Plan can't be
achieved. In the restricted access scenario the intersection of Ten Mile and south road
shows long queues on the side street approaches. This intersection would require
massive storage lanes to accommodate left turning traffic queues. The enhanced
access scenario resolves that issue. In the restricted access scenario the right-in, right-
out at the north road fails on the west approach and it's also the reason why it fails on
the south left getting out, because they have nowhere else to get out, because that's a
right-in, right-out only. In the enhanced access scenario queues do not cause additional
congestion between Ten Mile and Franklin intersections and adjacent access roads with
the expected volumes. The enhanced access scenario allows for safer and more
efficient pedestrian and bicycle movements across Ten Mile Road and that's because
we can create some queues -- some queues and some breaks that will allow crossing,
not just at Franklin and Ten Mile, but at intervening spots as well, if that's the desire of
the city and ACHD. And, then, I guess our request today is -- you can see we have
been working at this for quite a long time and in the meantime ITD is moving forward
with their plans, ACHD is -- for Ten Mile interchange. ACRD is moving along with theirs
for Franklin Road. We'd like to get an expeditious resolution of this, so that we can
avoid any wasted dollars in retrofits as much as possible. So, we appreciate a strong
letter of support from the city. I know that this is a lot of information to digest. We have
been over this in detail with Anna and Caleb and Tim and at your staff level and I
believe there is support of this plan and the work we have done. So, we would
appreciate the Council's letter of support moving forward to ACHD, so we can keep this
moving along. Thank you.
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Zaremba: I do.
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: One of them I probably would direct to Gary Inselman. And while he's
coming forward I'll actually direct the same question to our acting police chief Terry --
Tracy. The three-quarters .access intersections are kind of a new thing to our citizens
and my question to both of you -- and I will start with Tracy -- is are the citizens getting
it? I mean we have one on Franklin now near Eagle. What's our accident statistics or
are people understanding it? I have driven by it a few times and it appears to me to be
working well, but I'm kind of hit and miss as an observer.
Basterrechea: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we haven't had any major
issues with the three-quarters access. People seem to be figuring that out. Obviously,
Meridian City Council
March 2, 2010
Page 12 of 76
we are always concerned with left-in access, because the access -- but more
importantly left-out access is what -- where most accidents occur. And so those are
always a concern for us. With this one of the concerns I guess I would have is -- is we
would want to know is the right-in, right-out access that is currently on Franklin Road
going to go away, because we would prefer that if we are going to have the three-
quarter access not much further down the road from there, that would cause us some --
more likely congestion and accidents at that intersection.
Zaremba: It looks like he wants to respond to that before I get to Gary.
Turnbull: Madam Mayor, Mr. Zaremba, I forgot to address that point in our last meeting
with the city staff and ACHD down at ACRD. That access became a topic of
conversation, primarily because they were concerned about -- and I don't think the
traffic -- the traffic analysis didn't show that, but they didn't want any potential for traffic
stalling to go right-in, right-out backing up into Ten Mile Road. And we have proposed --
and, then, there is also the little bit of a conflict issue with the bridge and it's probably
not the best place to put it, so we propose moving that around the comer to -- and
moving it back to 330 feet from the Ten Mile intersection to provide the right-in to that --
to that quadrant and eliminating it on Franklin Road.
Zaremba: Okay. Gary.
Turnbull: So, we moved it around the comer, instead of 220, it's 330. Pretty much the
same question. How is ACHD's experience with athree-quarter access intersection?
Inselman: For the record, Gary Inselman, Ada County Highway District, 3775 North
Adams, Garden City.
De Weerd: Thank you, Gary.
Inselman: Councilman Zaremba, we believe the -- the three-quarter accesses are much
safer than the full accesses and if designed properly will operate much safer than the
three-quarter. I'd concur with what the police officer stated, that the left-outs are a much
greater concern as people try to shoot across the lanes to challenge the oncoming
vehicles. We haven't had time to analyze all of the data presented to you tonight, but in
general when the situation calls for it we are in favor of those three-quarter type
accesses.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird.
Bird: David --
Meridian City Council
March 2, 2010
Page 13 of 76
De Weerd: Are you -- any further questions for Gary? Okay. Thank you, Gary.
Bird: David, what you're telling us is the right-in, right-out that's on Franklin you want to
move around 330 up south of the intersection there, so we have a signal light and, then,
we have aright-in, right-out, and, then, the three-quarter and, then, aright-in, right-out
between the signalized and the -- and the Franklin -Ten Mile intersection?
Turnbull: Madam Mayor, Councilman Bird, that's correct.
De Weerd: Any further questions from Council?
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: And this may be a question for Caleb, maybe. I just -- in visualizing what this
area will be, I'm thinking of equating this to -- similar to what Eagle and Overland are
doing now. The two large developments that are on the south side, one on the east --
southeast side and one on the southwest side, don't have access to Eagle Road for a
considerable distance, like a quarter of a mile. At full build out they will be less dense
than this area is proposed to be; am I correct on that?
Hood: I would have to -- Madam Mayor, Councilman Zaremba, Council Members, I
would have to look a little bit closer at the densities, the intensities that are at, if you will,
Silverstone, EI Dorado complexes. But this is pretty intense. So, this would be, in my
estimation, a little bit more intense than what you see there. I mean this is pretty -- this
is cutting edge for the City of Meridian at this -- in this area, so, yeah, it's a little more
intense.
Friedman: Madam Mayor, Council Members, I think just to supplement what Caleb was
saying, when we did approve the mixed use commercial designation in the Ten Mile
plan, that designation contemplates, as Caleb said, a much more intense use, because
it has a much more intense commercial retail component, as opposed to sort of the
ofFce park development that Council Member Zaremba was referring to. Hopefully,
also, there may even be a more intense residential component, too. But it certainly
does contemplate more retail in this areas than we have in either one of the two
developments that you're refemng to.
Zaremba: Thank you.
De Weerd: Well -- and I guess, Mr. Zaremba, the other thing that is different is what we
tried to do was create a spine, so it connects almost the whole -- it's not a square mile,
but that whole area to interconnect, whereas you see in some of these other areas, the
Silverstone and EI Dorado, they are confined to just those developments and they are
not necessarily the collector or maybe a minor arterial. I don't know what they will be
designed or designated, but I think they would carry more traffic, because it's to serve
Meridian City Council
March 2, 2010
Page 14 of 76
that entire area, not just one development. Is that what the modeling contemplated,
David, do you know?
Turnbull: Yes. That's correct. You know, I go back and I'd say that HDR, in the
conceptual when they designed the network system, the basic collector system
internally, did an excellent job, but it was just that, it was just a collector system. It's
kind of like the main arteries running through the system, not just the veins and
capillaries and things that have to service the whole system. So, we went to that finer
level of detail on this study.
De Weerd: Anything further?
Zaremba: No more questions, I guess. Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Turnbull.
Hood: Madam Mayor, I have maybe one more question for David while he's still here.
Through our staff level discussions I asked him to put together an exhibit basically
showing -- and I hate to bring this up, because it's like the third meeting I have been at
that's talked about center medians. But ITD is constructing center medians in Ten Mile
Road and I wanted them to maybe show just the schematic of maybe how much of that
median would have to be cut to accommodate this three-quarter access and what that
could potentially look like. Did you guys -- were you able to come up with some
diagram that kind of shows, you know -- it would have to be 100 or 300 feet of the
median being cut or anything that kind of shows that?
Turnbull: We can certainly provide that, but, essentially, there would have to be -- at the
north road there would have to be a break in that with turning bay movement and, then,
at the three-quarter accesses we discussed that queuing level isn't very long, so it
would be kind of minimal left-hand turn bay through that. But there probably will already
be a significant -- I guess -- or how would Isay -- minimization of that median at dual
lefts on Ten Mile going onto Franklin already. So, I think -- I think once you get to that
point you already have significant removal of the median. And we would probably just
be tucking in behind that to provide alert-in at the 660.
Hood: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Anything further for Mr. Turnbull? Thank you. Okay. Council, what
direction do you want to move on this? Caleb, do you have any final comments? Pete?
Friedman: None from me.
Hood: No. That was it, Mayor. I just wanted you all to be aware that -- to make this
work you will have breaks in those big medians that ITD will potentially be constructing.
So, that's just the -- that's really aside from making sure we have all the safety factors
figured out and that it's sufficient. Esthetically it's not going to be -- it's not going to look
Meridian City Council
March 2, 2010
Page 15 of 76
the same as what is currently moving forward. So, I just wanted that to be -- just you
guys to be aware of that as well, so -- not that I don't think we can make it look nice and
pretty, but it's not going to look exactly the same. That's all.
De Weerd: We want it to be safe. Yeah.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: Just a question about process, I guess. If by some chance we were to say,
yes, this is something we would like to have ACHD consider, that would be a letter to
ACRD and, then, ACHD would repeat the engineering study to see whether it works or
not?
Hood: Madam Mayor, Councilman Zaremba, we may have to have Gary come up here,
but I think I know the answer. We will send a letter to ACHD and what I think will shortly
follow is some development application, then, from the developer that justifies some of
those, as well as the traffic study and the traffic work that HDR has already done. So,
they will review that, not necessarily do their own, but review that work and, then, give a
thumbs up, thumbs down kind of concurrently with some type of development
application. So, maybe some other behind the scenes review, but I think that's how the
official review will play out, but if anybody else wants to step up and say, no, that's
totally wrong, I'm -- but that's how I understand it will play out, too.
De Weerd: Well, this is the first step in the approval process.
Hood: Madam Mayor, Members of Council, as Mr. Turnbull mentioned, he needs to get
the ball rolling, because they are starting construction out there on some of these
things, so if you want to start waving the red flag saying hold on a minute, we are talking
about doing something a little different here. So, yeah, it's one of the earlier stuff that
needs to occur.
De Weerd: Thank you. Mr. Turnbull.
Turnbull: Well, I guess I'd just modify Caleb's comments a little bit. We -- it's the
chicken and the egg kind of a thing. We have to determine what kind of an access
allowance we are going to have before we get into really detailed plans on a
development application. So, really, what we are looking for is support for the type of
access that will allow us to move forward with development and once we get that, then,
we can submit the more detailed development applications that will get into more of the
design issues. So, I guess that's kind what we are looking for.
De Weerd: But your assertion is that by these changes this would accommodate what
was contemplated in the area specific plan at not the 20,000 foot level, but more in
terms of the development level.
Meridian City Council
March 2, 2010
Page 16 of 76
Turnbull: Yeah. Well, without appropriate access we will probably be grazing that
property for quite some time. So, we have internally called it the no build -- the original
plan the no build scenario, because we weren't going to build anymore accesses and
we probably weren't going to build any development either, because the system fails for
our development -- for development purposes. It's just not possible to accommodate
the types of development that are in the Comprehensive Plan without the appropriate
accesses.
De Weerd: Well, the idea was with the area specific plan is all of that would be
contemplated, so that the road infrastructure network would support whatever came at
whatever phase and we wouldn't have to do something over again. We didn't want to
do do-overs, we wanted to get it right and if this analysis shows that at the build out with
all of the land uses contemplated, we certainly want to do it right the first time. Thank
you.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: As this chart we are looking at right now, they moved the one over to the Ten Mile
Road. I'm sure we are going to have the same problem when they start development
on Franklin. There is a lot of landowners over there that they are going to want to have
access and I agree with -- with David, that what we'd like just to have a couple of
accesses there, it's not practical to development and go forward with our comp plan,
unless .you want to just have some big commercial buildings out there. So, I would
move that we draft a letter to ACHD showing that we agree with the chart that shows
two right-in and rights-out at three-quarter and two signalized between Franklin Road
and the interchange.
Hoaglun: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second and this would be to authorize the
drafting of the letter and signature by the Mayor?
Bird: That's what -- to draft a letter.
De Weerd: Okay.
Bird: For the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest.
De Weerd: Just as part of a discussion, I hope, you know, if Council chooses to
approve this in moving forward, staff, I would appreciate if you could have a discussion
with Ada County Highway District in looking at the whole specific area plan and looking
at where those access points are going to need to be and -- because we don't need to
bit and piece this one together. This will open the discussion for consideration perhaps
Meridian City Council
March 2, 2010
Page 17 of 76
at future areas and we want to make sure that we are fair and consistent and the
integrity of that system is kept intact and that was the vision for that area. So, if it needs
to be something that -- that we look at in partnership with our road agencies, certainly
would like to see it as part of a budget enhancement in the coming year, if Council,
then, would consider it. I think that's the only way we can do this. Okay. Any further
discussion?
Zaremba: I guess this is a separate question. Should we also write a letter to ITD
suggesting that they hold off on building the medians while this is being finalized?
Yeah. I hesitate to hold it -- we could always cut the median back out again, I suppose,
but --
De Weerd: We will put that in ACRD and Mr. Turnbull's capable hands.
Zaremba: Okay.
De Weerd: So, if there is no further discussion, Madam Clerk, will you call roll on this.
Nary: Madam Mayor? Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, before you call roll, the
motion was for a letter to be signed by the Mayor and attested by the Clerk?
Bird: No. Just signed by the Mayor.
Nary: Okay. And I didn't think you --
Bird: I thought we was passing an ordinance.
Nary: Right. I didn't think you meant that, I just thought I'd make that clear.
De Weerd: Well, that's why I clarified it was just a letter.
Nary: Okay.
De Weerd: Okay. Madam Clerk.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
B. Planning Department: Airport Road -Overland Road
Alignment Study: Overview of Scope, Timeline and Process of
a Transportation Study That Will Evaluate Alternatives for
Connectivity Between Meridian (Overland Road) and Nampa
(Airport Road)
Meridian City Council
March 2, 2010
Page 18 of 76
De Weerd: Okay. Item 6-B is also on transportation --all things transportation, Caleb.
Hood: Not under that heading. I know you guys have other things going on this
evening. This one should just take a minute. Susan Graham is here this evening. Clair
Bowman was supposed to be here, but he got double booked and decided you guys
weren't as important, so he's doing his whatever else he had on his agenda, so -- but,
no, Susan has come this evening to, basically, ask for a volunteer. I'll let her get to that
part of it. I attended a meeting early last week on a plan that's getting kicked off to look
at a way to tie in Overland Road at Ten Mile with the airport in Nampa and so some
alignment study to make Overland fit in with the airport. So, that is a very, very high
level overview of this study. I'm going to turn it over to Susan, she can give you just a
little bit more details on that and, then, talk to you about a policy committee that is part
of that study.
Graham: Hello. Susan Graham. Parametrics. 7761 West Riverside Drive, Boise. I'm
going to be really quick. I know we are here talking about new roads and more access
and the next agenda item is talking about less roads, so I want to get to that, too.
De Weerd: And less access.
Graham: Yes. So, I'm just providing you with a little bit better graphic than the quality
that you have in that one, because we had to squish it down and I can't see it anymore,
so I'm assuming that you may not be able to either.
De Weerd: Right.
Graham: I'm actually here tonight on behalf of Clair Bowman and I'm managing this
corridor study for the city of Nampa, which has impact and influence on the City of
Meridian and, basically, what we are looking to do is find the best route to connect the
realigned intersection of Ten Mile and Overland with Robinson at one of three locations,
either Stamm Lane, Airport Road, or Victory Road and we will be going through a
process developing evaluation criteria, talking to stake holders and major property
owners as we do that and you will see me several more times updating you over the
course of a year on where we are with that and Caleb sits -- he has been invited it sit on
our project team monthly meeting. So, the city will definitely be in the loop as this
project moves forward and will have many opportunities for input on it. So, tonight the
main request that Clair had of the city, Madam Mayor, is to appoint someone from the
Council to sit on our policy committee. The policy committee will include representation
from the cities of Nampa, Meridian, the Nampa highway district one, ACRD, and the
airport. And so that policy committee will direct things like what the evaluation criteria is
that we measure the preferred alignment against.
De Weerd: Thank you. I'm glad you asked for Council, not Mayor. Council? Mr.
Zaremba.
Meridian City Council
March 2, 2010
Page 19 of 76
Zaremba: I am very much
disqualify me from being an
would volunteer to be on that.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Bird: I would second that.
Hoaglun: Well, I third that.
in favor of making that connection and if that doesn't
objective participant as to how that connection is made, I
De Weerd: I think we are all very excited to hear that. So, you have your volunteer.
Graham: Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Zaremba. And that first meeting will be
in May --
Zaremba: Okay.
Graham: -- that we will be coordinating. Thank you very much.
Zaremba: What's the matter with March?
Graham: We are hardly doing anything in March.
Item 7: Items Moved From Consent Agenda
De Weerd: Avery eager participant. Thank you. We did not move any items from the
Consent Agenda.
Item 8: Action Items
A. Public Hearing: AZ 08-005 Meridian and Amity by Hawkins
Companies Located at NW Corner of W. Amity Road and S.
Meridian Road, south of Harris Street Request for Annexation
and Zoning of 73.10 acres from RUT in Ada County to R-15
(Medium High Density Residential) (5.68 acres), L-O (Limited
Office) (3.22 acres) and C-C (Community Business) (30.72
acres) and C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial) (33.47
acres) Zoning Districts
B. Public Hearing: VAR 08-008 Meridian and Amity by Hawkins
Companies Located at NW Corner of W. Amity Road and S.
Meridian Road, south of Harris Street Request for Variance to
UDC 11-3H-4 which prohibits new approaches from directly
accessing a state highway to allow 2 right-in /right-out access
points (approximately 660 feet from the north and south
intersections) and 1 right-in /right-out, left-in access point at
Meridian City Council
March 2, 2010
Page 20 of 76
the 1/4 mile to State Highway 69 /Meridian Road
De Weerd: We will move to Item 8. Both A and B have had a request to continue to
May 25th. I will go ahead first and open these two public hearings. Public hearing on
AZ 08-005 and VAR 08-008. And, Council, I would entertain a motion to continue these
two items to May 25th.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we continue AZ 08-005 and VAR 08-008 to May 25th, 2010.
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion
carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
C. Public Hearing: MDA 10-003 Julius M. Kleiner Memorial Park
by City of Meridian Parks and Recreation Department Located
NE Corner of the intersection of E. Fairview Avenue and N.
Eagle Road Request for Modification to the Development
Agreement to remove the requirement that public streets be
extended into the site at the north and east property
boundaries and waiver from Council to allow the irrigation
ditches within the site to be tiled
De Weerd: Okay. Item 8-C is a public hearing on MDA 10-003. I will open this public
here with staff comments.
Friedman: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Council Members. Just a couple of general
comments before we get into the specifics on the development agreement modification
request. The Mayor indicated the application before you tonight is for modification to
three items on the development agreement for the development of Kleiner Park. They
have to do with emergency turnarounds at the end of the two streets, as well as an
issue dealing with the tiling of a ditch. But what I -- and Sonya will get into that and you
will also be hearing from the applicant, which will be our parks department. In my
review of the development agreement I came across an interesting provision and it said
the development of the area for the city park, in review of the site plan, shall be the
subject of review and approval by the City Council on a noticed agenda with notices
sent to the property owners within 300 feet of the property boundaries. Well, we know
that you have been through the process, you have reviewed the site plan, pretty well
bought off on it. We feel that tonight's hearing, because it was noticed, even though it's
on specifically the development agreement, truly satisfies that -- that condition of the
Meridian City Council
March 2, 2010
Page 21 of 76
development agreement. So, unless Council wishes to hold another public meeting with
notice to the adjacent property owners, we feel that we have satisfied that particular
provision of the development agreement. And with that I'm going to turn the specific
request over to Sonya and, then, you will hear from the parks department and our
consultant.
De Weerd: Thank you, Pete.
Wafters: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the property before you is located
northeast of the Fairview-Eagle intersection. The applicant is requesting a development
agreement modification as follows: Section 4-C of the development agreement, the
applicant proposes to remove the language requiring Tweed Brook Avenue to be
extended into the site and connect to a public street or a public cul-de-sac for a
tumaround. The applicant proposes to add language requiring a pathway connection
instead. Tweed Brook is located at the north boundary of the subject property. Having
a little technical difficulties here. Can't point to that for you.
Hoaglun: Sonya, is that off of Tahiti Drive that --
Wafters: It is.
Hoaglun: Okay.
Wafters: And, then, the next item is number 4-D. The applicant proposes to remove
the language requiring additional right of way to be provided for the construction of a
street to link Green Meadow and Meadow Wood streets together on the east boundary
of the site. Instead the applicant proposes to add language requiring hammerheads or
cul-de-sacs to be constructed at the west end of both streets for tumaround.
Additionally, the applicant proposes to remove the language requiring the remaining
portion of unused right of way, if any, to be vacated. On this site plan here it shows --
the red circles indicate on the east boundary of the property where the hammerheads
are proposed and on the north boundary where the pathway connection is proposed.
Actually, pathway connections are proposed on each one of those. Section 4-F of the
development agreement, the applicant proposes to add a provision clarifying with
Council approval that the Stokesberry Lateral and the Finch Lateral, South Slough,
along the north boundary of the site -- you can see that here on this map -- will be tiled
where it crosses the subject property. The UDC requires natural waterways to remain
as a natural amenity and not be covered. All other waterways, unless they are
approved as a water amenity, are required to be covered. There has been some
confusion as to whether or not the portion of the South Slough on the site is considered
a natural waterway. Initially the applicant wanted to leave the waterway open as an
amenity, but Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District requires fencing along both sides of
waterways. Both the applicant and staff believe this will be detrimental to the park
design and the function. Therefore, the applicant requests Council approval to the the
waterway. Exhibit A-2 of the staff report includes changes to the development
agreement proposed by the applicant, along with those recommended by staff. Written
Meridian City Council
March 2, 2010
Page 22 of 76
testimony has been received on this application from Larry and Juanita Brook, Oggie
and Carol Hyatt, John Thiebald, Lynn Thiebald, Joann Rayberg, Don and Linda
Huffman, Jamie and Wendy Letterman -- excuse me if I mispronounce your name.
Robert Allen. David Kleiner. Angela and John Shindler. Nona and Robert Doyron and
Sarah Wright. All in favor of the proposed changes to development agreement that
would not require Meadow Wood, Green Meadow, and Tweed Brook Street to be
extended into the park site as public streets. ACHD also submitted a letter requesting
City Council defer action on this application as the proposed modifications conflict with?
ACRD policies and previous actions. They further request that if action must be taken
that Items 4-C and 4-D be approved as previously proposed without the requested
modifications. The Meridian Fire Department submitted comments stating they do not
feel there is a need for emergency access points to connect Tweed Brook to Green
Meadow and/or Meadow Wood Streets. Staff is recommending approval of the
applicant's requested changes to the development agreement, along with staffs
recommended changes as noted in Exhibit A-2 of the staff report and as shown on the
screen here. Staff will stand for any questions the Council may have at this time.
De Weerd: Thank you, Sonya. Any questions at this point?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay.
Siddoway: Thank you, Madam Mayor.
De Weerd: Good evening.
Siddoway: Members of the Council.
De Weerd: You do have to state your name and address for the record, even though
you are an employee.
Siddoway: Steve Siddoway. Shall I give the work address?
De Weerd: Yeah. I would.
Siddoway: 33 East Broadway, Meridian, Idaho.
De Weerd: I think Dean knows who you are, but --
Siddoway: I -- first of all, I just want to say that I have been in contact with the Kleiner
Park trustees, including Mr. Eugene Kleiner in Seattle and we are in agreement with the
staff report as proposed tonight. As stated, there are three specific modifications to the
development agreement that we are requesting. At Tweed Brook from the north we
propose not extending the road into the site, nor a cul-de-sac on that road. The Fire
Department does not require a turnaround in this location, because the stub is not more
Meridian City Council
March 2, 2010
Page 23 of 76
than 150 feet in length. We will provide the pathway connection for nonmotorized use
as per the staff report. And in 4-D regarding Green Meadow and Meadow Wood
Streets, we will construct hammerheads as per Fire Department requirements in place
of the cul-de-sacs mentioned in the development agreement. And since we intend to
build the hammerhead turnarounds, we have proposed striking the option to connect the
existing roads. Similarly, we have also struck the requirement to vacate the unopened
right of way, which I don't believe is an issue at this time. Under 4-K regarding the tiling,
as stated we -- we did hope to keep those waterways open and we have been before
the Council before as we reviewed modifications to the master plan. As we met with
Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District we did learn of their requirement to either the them or
if we would keep them open we would have to fence both sides, which would cut off one
side of the park from the other. So, we -- given those options we propose tiling the --
the existing waterways, including the South Slough and the Stokesberry Lateral and we
seek Council's confirmation on that decision. Regarding the ACHD comments, we are
aware that ACHD has submitted a letter and have met with them. They requested the
DA modifications not be approved tonight, so that they can weigh in on the need for
roads to connect during the development application process. While I will allow ACHD
to address their desire to keep the language as is, I would point out that in the ACHD
staff report, dated September 28, 2007, for the annexation of the property, it does state
that the district is not supportive of tying these rural residential streets into the proposed
commercial development. Speaking of Center Cal, because it was annexed at the
same time. The district is supportive of providing the existing residences access to the
proposed park. We certainly hope and feel that the proposed design complies with
those original comments. You do have the Fire Department's comments regarding
emergency access, stating that they feel there is already sufficient emergency access in
the area and my final point is regarding the neighborhood meeting as part of the DA
modification process, we are required to notice and hold, prior to this meeting, a
neighborhood meeting. We did notify neighbors beyond the 300 foot requirement. We
had a great attendance with approximately 16 lines signed in. Most of those were
multiple individuals. We probably had -- we had 30 -- between 30 and 40 people attend
that meeting. During that meeting the comments were positive and the proposed
changes to the DA were well received by the neighbors. A copy of the comments we
received that night should have been provided to you as part of the application. In
general, the neighbors supported not -- vacating the existing right of way and supported
building the hammerheads, as opposed -- as proposed and not connecting the roads
into the site and there are several here tonight. We support the modifications and
clarifications that are proposed by the planning staff in Exhibit A-2 of the staff report and
would accept those into the DA modifications that were proposed and at this time I'd like
to turn the balance of our presentation to Susan Graham from Parametrics to address
the timeline, relationship to the upcoming CZC submittal and address comments
received regarding Park Lane, after which Eldon Gray from the trust also has a few final
comments and I'It stand for any questions.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Council, any questions for Steve at this time?
Bird: I have none.
Meridian City Council
March 2, 2010
Page 24 of 76
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor, I have one quick one, Steve, and I don't know if you can
answer it, because, you know, as the parks works on the pathways we do have some
waterways that we work on and there have been developments that have improved the
sloughs and have pathways along there. Do you know why this change, why this one is
different than some of the others that we have had? Have they had a change of policy
or have they given you any reason?
Siddoway: I. know some of that and part of it is that their policy allows pathways without
a fence adjacent to facilities that they consider drains only. Both the Stokesberry and
the South Slough, which they call the Finch Lateral, they deem to carry live water and
any irrigation facility with a pathway adjacent to it that they deem as a live water facility,
they require fencing. They would allow a pathway, but they require the fencing adjacent
to that if it's considered a canal.
Hoaglun: Okay. I guess I understand that. I don't like it. I thought that would have
been a very nice amenity to have as part of that park, but --okay. Thank you.
Siddoway: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Graham: Good evening. Susan Graham. Parametrics. 7761 West Riverside, Boise.
Madam Mayor and Councilmen, on behalf of Kleiner Park trust we are requesting that
the city process a development agreement modification as soon as possible. The DA
allows the park to be annexed into the city, which would allow the trustees to officially
submit a CZC application. We intend to submit the CZC application as soon as the DA
has been processed and the ordinance signed. Hopefully as soon as next week. This
will allow us to remain on schedule and begin construction this summer. The CZC will
trigger a formal review by ACHD on the proposed roadway network to serve the park. A
traffic study was submitted to ACHD today. We fully understand the need to comply
with the formal ACHD review and comment process for the public roadways related to
the park and we look forward to a public hearing at a future ACHD commission meeting
that we will invite comments from the neighbors. We are also aware that there are
comments that the Council has received from David Kleiner on behalf of the Kleiner
family trust in regards to Park Lane. Park Lane has been specifically located along the
southern border of the park in order to provide multiple emergency access points to the
site and to accommodate future east-west travel once left turns are no longer allowed
from Venture onto Fairview.
De Weerd: Excuse me, Susan. Staff, can you pull up the map of the park, so we can
see what's being referred to. Thank you.
Graham: The roadway is currently proposed as a two lane collector. Forty feet of Park
Lane is accommodated on the park property. The remaining 18 feet, which includes
three feet of pavement, a five foot bike lane, a five foot planter strip, and a five foot
Meridian City Council
March 2, 2010
Page 25 of 76
sidewalk, would, then, be constructed on the Kleiner family trust park -- oh -- part of the
property upon development of their site. ACHD has provided preliminary feedback that
Park Lane is appropriately located based upon their criteria. It's also important to note
that an access further south, which would be closer to Fairview, would likely not be full
access as the left tum out of there would likely conflict with left tum movements on
Records Road that are queued to make that tum. Eldon Gray is now going to provide
some feedback that we have received from the two public meetings that we have held
over the course of the summer and fall, as well as the many personal contacts that he
and Orville Teak have made in their outreach with our neighbors. Eldon would also like
to state that the trust position in regards to the fact that they do not support the
connection of residential roads through the park. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Good evening, Eldon.
Gray: Good evening.
De Weerd: If you will state your name and address for the record, please.
Gray: Eldon Gray. 12022 Chinden Boulevard, Boise, Idaho.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Gray: Mayor, Councilmen, thanks for the time. We -- this has been a great experience
to work with the city in this project with the Parks Department. The -- our concerns as
we talk with the community at the east of us, they see no value in a road connection
there. We see no value in a road connection there. The one thing that seems
interesting as a trustee is that it's just a little narrow piece of ground. What are you
concerned about? The fact is it's not a little narrow piece of ground, it's -- we have to
make a decision to build the road or something else in the park, because we are to a
point where any additional things simply take away. So, it's not a case of a little strip of
ground. There is a lot more to it and I'm sure your people are totally aware of that. But
our concern is that this is where that is from the trustee's side is that we are spending
money that really is not an advantage to anyone and we don't want to do that now. We
want to put all that in the park if we can. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Council, this is a public hearing. I do have 36 people
who have signed up indicating their support. No doubt I think a park of this caliber is
kind of once in a lifetime thing that we have ever seen and they are intended to do it
right and they have appreciated the involvement of the neighbors and certainly the
support. If any of the 36 people who have signed up have a desire to provide
testimony, I would invite you up at this time. It is a public hearing. Otherwise, your
names -- your indication of your support of this project and of the applicant's position to
not extend those roads will be noted for the public record. Is there any member of the
this public -- of the public that would like to provide testimony at this time? Yes, sir. If
you will, please, come forward. And, sir, if I could ask you to state your name and
address for the record.
Meridian City Council
March 2, 2010
Page 26 of 76
Allen: My name is Robert Allen. My address is 12366 West Clovermeadows Drive.
De Weerd: Thank you, sir.
Allen: I am a relatively new property owner on West Clovermeadows Drive, but my and
my wife's background is years of farming and when we came to Boise we were
delighted to find rural type property in the -- in the environs of a fairly large city and I'm
very adamant and so is my wife that destroying that -- that atmosphere would be
devastating to us. To open that West Clovermeadows Drive to through traffic would
destroy the kind of character that we feel our property has and I speak as a relatively
new member of that particular community. Most of my neighbors have been there for
25 or 35 years, since the inception of the property, and it never goes up for sale,
because they are so happy with the area they are in. Please don't destroy our
atmosphere. And we feel that -- that that proposed roadway going through would do
that. We also are there because we have acreage and -- well, all of us do. And that
acreage allows us to have livestock and livestock sometimes is out even in the streets,
along with our children. This is devastating. So, that's my comment.
De Weerd: Thank you, sir.
Allen: Thank you. Any questions?
De Weerd: I think we all support that statement.
Allen: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: Is there any further testimony? Yes. If you will, please, state your name
and address for the record.
Luderman: Wendy Luderman. 4040 East Meadow Wood Drive, Meridian.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Luderman: Mayor and Members of the City Council, I'd just like to add to what Bob
stated and just say as somebody who grew up in that neighborhood from 1978 through
1991, I graduated high school from Centennial and now I'm married and have a son
who is two years old, a house did actually come up for sale in that neighborhood and
my husband and I instantly snapped it up for the exact reason Bob stated. We knew
what a great neighborhood it was, obviously, since I grew up there from the time I was
six years old until I graduated high school. If such streets were to be extended I feel it
would allow for increased criminal activity, vandalism, littering, decreased water fowl
and wildlife habitat, as well as the possible degradation of home values. I also feel that
it would take away from the esthetic appearance of the park itself, which I think would
be very detrimental and could also be a safety concern for people in the park and
Meridian City Council
March 2, 2010
Page 27 of 76
people in our neighborhood. So, that would be my comment and I would hope that
ACHD would pay attention to that in their thoughts of public hearings in the future.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Luderman: Thank you.
De Weerd: Any further testimony? Yes, sir. I know we have an enthusiastic audience
here, but if we can -- yeah, I know it's hard not to applaud, but if we will hold that.
Thank you. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record.
Rayberg: Madam Mayor, Council Members, my name is Jim Rayberg. 4075 East
Meadow Wood Drive, Meridian. I got here late. I didn't get a chance to sign that. I just
want to get my name on the record as being affirmative.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Rayberg: That's all I had to say.
De Weerd: You know, it's very rare that we get a whole lot of people that are signed up
in favor of anything, so we appreciate you all being here. This is -- this is certainly a
testimony to the public out reach and to the caliber of this project. It's -- it's heart
warming to see this. Any further testimony? Yes, Mr. Inselman. If you will state your
name and address for the record.
Inselman: Sure. Gary Inselman, representing ACHD, 3775 North Adams.
De Weerd: And we have never portrayed you as the enemy.
Inselman: Thank you. I just wanted to clarify for the record that the highway district has
not taken an action on that larger annexation from '07, '08. The comments that Steve
referred to are from the staff letter stating that we hadn't received a traffic study to date
that would provide some very generic comments. Later in January '08 we sent a letter
requesting that the city wait until we had an approved traffic study, but we never
received that. We still don't have an approved traffic study. So, we -- our commission
hasn't taken an action on the annexation. So, I just wanted to clarify that. And, then,
also just to clarify that, we -- the highway district has not reviewed or taken an action on
any application for the park, so we have made no proposals or taken no action to date
and do look forward to receiving that application.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Staff, any comments?
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Meridian City Council
March 2, 2010
Page 28 of 76
Zaremba: I -- since you came forward and I appreciate that, I would comment that way
back when I think ACHD issued -- instituted its policy that stub streets could connect to
something at the request of the city, because it made a difference to our Fire
Department, it made a difference to our Police Department, it made a difference to our
sewer department, to have those kind of connections. This is a case where our Fire
Department in particular has said they don't feel this connection is necessary. It would
be helpful to have the walkways there, which, of course, our Parks Department also
wants. So, I understand why the policy is in place and in general normally thank ACHD
for having that policy. I do believe this is a case where it makes sense not to make
those connections and our Fire Department has said they don't need it, I believe our
Public Works Department doesn't need it, so -- also, in response to the overwhelming
support for not having them connected, I suspect that's the direction we are going to
take. But I just wanted to say there was a reason for that being a requirement and it's a
good requirement most of the time and thank you very much.
Inselman: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Any further testimony? Council, any questions for staff
or the applicant?
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: While the public hearing is still open I would ask our acting police chief again
a question. On a hammerhead I know we are going to put up signs that say no parking.
Is that an enforcement issue? Do we have trouble with that? Do we have to tow cars
away?
Basterrechea: Yes.
Zaremba: So, we should be prepared for that.
Basterrechea: We should be prepared for that if we posted no parking and they -- they
won't be towed away, they will be cited, and that's always a contentious issue whenever
we have parks and -- but we deal with it and we are not always on the supportive end of
things when the phone calls roll in, but we are used to that.
De Weerd: Well -- and, you know, on the east side it's Boise city police that have to
deal with it; right?
Basterrechea: It is. But we will get the calls. But we will direct them appropriately.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Bird: No. It's --
Meridian City Council
March 2, 2010
Page 29 of 76
De Weerd: Oh, bummer.
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Hoaglun: Question for staff. I want to go back, since we received it today, the
comments from David Kleiner, the trustee on behalf of the Kleiner family trust, on that
road issue. Can you go through that again? I want to make sure I understand that
there is -- it sounds like there is two different -- there is a proposal what they have
agreed to build a road and, then, there is another proposal. Can you just quickly
enlighten me on that?
Friedman: Certainly. Madam Mayor, Council Member Hoaglun, Council, as
Councilman Hoaglun indicated, you received testimony from Mr. Kleiner, who indicated
that, essentially, they are really in favor of not having to construct any kind of
improvement. When all of this property was annexed into the city as part of the Center
Cal annexation there were three separate development agreements. One, obviously,
for the Center Cal property, one for the park property, and, then, one for the residual
Kleiner properties and the property that is south of the park is the one that he is
referring to. In that development agreement it says that the owner shall provide a
minimum of one private or public road or drive aisle connecting Venture Street with
Records Road. Well, the park plan, as has been reviewed and pretty much accepted by
Council, has placed Park Lane, that east-west road between Records and Venture,
along the center line. So, part of it -- the bulk of it, actually, will be developed through
the development of the park. It will be the standard travel lane -- street plus 12 -- half
street plus 12. So, the park will develop sidewalk, curb, gutter, travel lane and, then, an
additional 12 feet to accommodate the other -- the other way -- traffic. Mr. Kleiner feels
that really it shouldn't be forced on them to have to provide the additional right of way,
which would be curb, gutter, sidewalk and about six feet of pavement in order to
accommodate some future development, because they may choose to put their road
somewhere else on the property. I think it's interesting that the development agreement
says a minimum of one private or public street connecting the two. It didn't say -- it
didn't restrict it to that, it says -- it didn't say a maximum, it said a minimum. So, really,
what we are forced with is moving the -- potential would be moving the road entirely
onto the --onto the park property. Physically we could accommodate it, but that means,
then, the park trust would be responsible for building the full road -- full road section,
curb, gutter, sidewalk on both sides, therefore, obviating any responsibility from the
property to the south. So, that's the crux of -- in my conversations with Mr. Kleiner
leading up to the letter that we wrote today. So, his feeling should be that his -- the
Kleiner family trust is that they just want to simply be held to the provision of their
development agreement, which talks about the minimum of one public or private road
and not possibly be required to build a small portion of Park Lane in the future as that
property develops. That's pretty much the crux of his testimony, if I answered your
question.
Meridian City Council
March 2, 2010
Page 30 of 76
Hoaglun: Okay. Thank you, Pete.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I understand the description of -- and the problem. If we approve what is
being presented to us tonight, Park Street or Avenue is not mentioned in what we have
discussed so far. How do we impact what happens to Park?
Friedman: Okay. Madam Mayor, Council Members, Council Member Zaremba, that's
very correct. When I was speaking with Mr. Kleiner I said, you know, there is three
issues before Council tonight. They all have to do with the development agreement
modification. But since you are expressing your concerns and because it is an open
public record, if you have concems, submit them to the Council, we will put them on the
record and he's done that, there is nothing in your actions tonight that affect that and, in
effect, you have agreed on a park master plan and I anticipate that when the CZC is
submitted to the city that that park master plan will show a -- you know, half street plus
12. And when the property to the south develops, depending on how it develops, it's
likely that we would recommend that that street be completed. Or maybe, in fact, they
may determine that, hey, you know what, it makes more sense just to do the other
portion of that street than have to build the whole street somewhere else through the
property. But as far as your action on the development agreement tonight, there is
really nothing in the testimony presented that impacts that.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor, one other question. And this is kind of what Pete led off with
and maybe I need to ask our city attorney Mr. Nary. We are at some point required to
have a hearing on the concept plan and my question is does this hearing satisfy that?
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Zaremba, I think that
was part of Mr. Friedman's original portion of the presentation that from the staffs
perspective they believe this is adequate to satisfy that condition, but it, really, also if it's
the Council's desire to have another hearing that certainly is fine. It is in the conditions
of annexation that they have a hearing with notice to the neighbors. The previous one
where you -- the Council reviewed the concept plan at the 30 present or whatever it
was, was a noticed hearing, but it wasn't sent specifically to the neighbors, but it was
noticed on your agenda. Tonight's the same. It was noticed on your agenda, but not
sent specifically to the neighbors. They were, obviously, able to figure out that's what
we were doing, so they are here, but it really is your -- your decision on whether or not
you want to have another hearing on the plan as it progresses and, then, provide, again,
specific notice to the neighbors.
Friedman: Madam Mayor, Council Members -- and just to follow up on this from what
Mr. Nary was saying, it looking -- as we discussed earlier this morning, the condition
talks about that the park site shall be subject to review and approval by the Council on a
Meridian City Council
March 2, 2010
Page 31 of 76
noticed agenda and as we discussed it doesn't specify that it has to be a public hearing,
it simply says a noticed agenda with notice sent to the neighbors. Well, since the night
of the public hearing we did provide notice to all the abutting property owners -- I think
well beyond the 300 feet that would normally be required for the public hearing. So, we
have had a public hearing on a noticed agenda with specific notice to the property
owners. But, again, as Mr. Nary has indicated, if it's the Council's pleasure to have
another review of the site plan at a publicly noticed hearing -- meeting, not necessarily a
hearing -- we leave that up to you and we certainly would be prepared to accommodate
everyone at that meeting.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: Since we have many of the neighbors here, would it be appropriate to ask for
a show of hands if they would be satisfied with this being the concept meeting?
Bird: Sure.
De Weerd: Okay. By show of hands from the neighbors that this satisfies your curiosity
for the site design concept plan. These are all in favor, I assume. Thank you. Any
opposed? Would you like to provide public testimony? Okay. I just thought I would
offer that. Does that work for you, Mr. Zaremba?
Zaremba: That satisfies me.
Bird: It satisfies me, Your Honor.
De Weerd: Okay. Okay. Again, I would ask for -- if there is any desire to -- for further
testimony on this application from the public? To the applicant, any final comments?
Graham: Thank you. I would just like --
De Weerd: Please state your name again.
Graham: Oh. Again?
De Weerd: Yes. Thank you.
Graham: Me again. Susan Graham, Parametrics, 7761 West Riverside Drive, Boise.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Graham: I would just like to thank the City Council for hearing this and thank the
neighbors for coming. I do want to assure them, although we might not be required to
have an additional hearing, we do fully intend to have additional public meetings that the
Meridian City Council
March 2, 2010
Page 32 of 76
neighbors will be invited to as we progress. So, we do intend to continue to engage our
neighbors as we have throughout and just, again, to reiterate that once the DA
modification is approved and the ordinance is signed and we are annexed, we intend to
move through the formal CZC process and we will work with the other jurisdictions and
agencies to make sure that our plans are processed as they would in any other
development. So, again, thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Council, any further questions for Council -- or for staff I
mean. Sorry. Any additional staff comments?
Friedman: No, ma'am.
De Weerd: I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I move that we close the public hearing on MDA 10-003.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close Item 8-C. All those in favor say aye.
All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I move that we approve MDA 10-003 as presented, with the addition of the
two statements that were provided in the staffs addendum and with the addition of the
comment that we believe this satisfies the DA provision requiring a public hearing on the
concept for the park.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have motion and a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, Madam
Clerk, roll call.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Meridian City Council
March 2, 2010
Page 33 of 76
De Weerd: Thank you for coming this evening to the neighbors. We appreciate your
support and your involvement.
Bird: They don't have to leave.
De Weerd: You know, you can leave, but you can stay. We are really entertaining.
Bird: We are going to be here a little while longer.
D. Public Hearing: TE 10-002 Emerson Park by Kuna Victory, LLC
Located at 2910 & 3030 S. Meridian Road Request for an 18-
month Time Extension to obtain the City Engineer's signature
on the Final Plat
De Weerd: Okay. I will go ahead and move on to Item 8-D. It's a public hearing on TE
10-002. I will ask for staff comments at this time.
Wafters: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. The next application
before you is a time extension request on Emerson Park. The site is located at 2910
and 3030 South Meridian Road, northeast of the south Meridian Road, East Victory
Road intersection. The applicant is requesting approval of an 18 month time extension
for the preliminary plat in order to obtain the city engineer's signature on the final plat for
Emerson Park. The plat consists of 34 building lots and one common lot on 17.84 acres
of land, zoned C-G. Excuse me just a moment. My computer is doing funny things
again. Well, anyway. A little background on this project. An 18 month time extension
was approved by the planning director in December of 2009. A condition of the time
extension required submittal of a letter of credit for a proportionate share of the Black
Cat sewer trunk line construction as originally required with this development along the
project's frontage on Victory Road. The letter of credit was required to be submitted by
January 31st, 2010, in order for the extension to remain valid. The applicant failed to do
so and, consequently, the extension has expired. The reason the applicant allowed the
previous time extension to expire is because they disagreed with the condition requiring
the letter of credit and failed to request City Council review of the director's decision
within the allowed time period. The applicant requests an 18 month time extension to
obtain the city engineer's signature on the final plat, be approved without the
requirement for the letter of credit. Staff recommends approval of the time extension
request with the conditions of approval in Exhibit B of the staff report, including the
condition of approval for the applicant to submit the letter of credit. Staff will stand for
any questions that Council may have at this time.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions at this point?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
Meridian City Council
March 2, 2010
Page 34 of 76
De Weerd: Okay. Would the applicant like to comment? Good evening. If you will,
please, state your name and address for the record.
Oaas: Eric Oaas. 519 West Front, Boise.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Oaas: Madam Mayor and Members of the City Council. Eric Oaas here representing
the development entity of Kuna Victory, LLC, which is an entity owned by both -- by two
parties. Our company and another development partner of ours. Before I get started I
was really actually a little disappointed. I thought all these people were here to show
their support for us, but I guess not. The -- we really appreciate you listening to us
tonight and -- and at least being willing to hear us out. We appreciate staffs report and I
guess I would say this, that to begin with we -- we all are painfully aware of the sort of
the economic development issues that we are all facing today and our -- I guess our
conversation here with you tonight is really sort of -- it's sort of structured with that
thought in mind, that we are all -- we are all sort of in this together and we are trying to
do -- trying to do our part to keep economic growth happening and jobs happening and
property rolls -- tax rolls increasing for the city and that's the spirit that we are talking to
you about tonight. In our -- we have had some discussions with our development
partner on this -- on our application or our request for you tonight and we very much
appreciate staff recommending at least a 30 day period between now and when our
actual preplat application would expire. We have had some preliminary discussions
with our -- with our partner and because of the fact that -- that we cannot -- we don't
have any firm demand for any -- any economic development projects or development
activities I should say on this site, we are struggling really directly with the -- or the
requirement to put up 150 -- approximately 150,000 dollar letter of credit, because there
just isn't any -- there just isn't any activity to really support that and we just can't -- we
just -- realistically we haven't made a final decision and we will over the course of the
next 30 days. But it's highly unlikely that we would -- that we would -- or could put up
that 150 K LLC or LOC, because there just isn't the activity there to justify it. Now -- so,
from our perspective there is really -- there is really two decisions to -- to be made
tonight. One is that either -- you know, either the City Council would -- you know, would
support these -- the staff recommendation to -- to require us to put this up and in the
event that happens, as I said within the next 30 days we will make a final decision, but
in all likelihood we will have to let that preplat application expire. We want -- as sort of
alternative -- and we haven't talked to staff about this, so we are -- we are sort of -- sort
of stepping out in new ground here,. but as an alternative we want to -- to sort of
propose another way of looking at this and that proposal would be that we would be
asking the city to, essentially, work with us on that 150 -- roughly 150 K letter of credit
and sort of take some risk with -- with us, if you will. And by that I mean we -- we would
-- we would be willing to -- to sort of take a step forward, step out on the limb, if you will,
and even though the demand isn't there for any tenants in that development, that we
would be willing to step forward, construct the building, and we think that -- we believe
that if we took that step, that, you know, quite likely there would be some tenants and
businesses that we could -- you know, that we could provide some opportunities for.
Meridian City Council
March 2, 2010
Page 35 of 76
Today, as you know, businesses are just not willing to take that step forward and -- you
know, and take a real risk and buy and build a new building, because they just don't
know what's going to happen. If we, on the other hand, give them -- give them a
building to potentially move into, it makes it an awful lot easier. We, however -- we,
however, can't -- we can't take that entire risk on our own and pay the 150 K -- roughly
the 150 K in -- in off-site improvement costs and what we would like to -- the city to do is
to -- one of two things. That if -- if, in fact, we -- we have to walk away from the preplat
and the city needs to move forward with the sewer anyway, that maybe there is another
way of looking at that 150 K that the city potentially could have to come up with and one
way to --one way to --one of two things is what we would propose. That -- that the city
defer the 150 K into five equal payments over the next five years. So, 30 -- 30 K per
year over the next five years, that way we are not having to carry that additional burden
today or the city would defer that 150 K to the end of the development -- or the
reimbursement agreement that we currently have in place and if the amount that we
would have been reimbursed doesn't cover that 150 K, we would pick up the difference,
pay it at that time, as well as any accrued interest. So -- so, at the end of the day what
we are saying is we are asking you to work with us and allow us to sort of -- to take a
risk -- take a risk, step forward, put up a 10,000 square foot building that's going to
increase the city's tax rolls and we think -- we think that it will attract -- attract some
businesses, but at the end of the day we are just -- we are just not able to -- to do both,
to take the risk on the building and to pay that 150 -- roughly the 150 K in off-site
improvement costs. So, it's a -- I know it's throwing a lot at you without your having
opportunity to see this ahead of time, but -- but at the end of the day we are -- you
know, we are just -- we are looking for you to partner with us, rather than just flat out
require us to pay this 150 K today. So, I will stand open to answer any questions. I'm
sure it's a little confusing.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, questions?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Eric, did I -- maybe it went over my head, but, then, it isn't hard to do, but you're
asking for 30 days to work with the staff and, then, have a decision made, is that what
I'm understanding? Either that or we partner with you now.
Oaas: Yeah. Councilman Bird, the staff has recommended that -- that we would have
30 days in which to put up this 150 K letter of credit and that's -- that's, essentially, the
recommendation that they are making to you tonight. What I'm saying is that rather
than making that decision, we are asking you to, essentially, look at that -- to look at that
150 K in a different way and allow us to defer that over a -- over a five year period or to
defer it at the end of the reimbursement period and whatever we would not have been
reimbursed we would make up the difference at that time with any accrued interest.
Does that make sense?
Meridian City Council
March 2, 2010
Page 36 of 76
De Weerd: Mr. Oaas, you haven't talked with staff about these options --
Oaas: No.
De Weerd: It would -- I think what Mr. Bird was getting at is if -- if these options you're
looking at them to consider probably needs to be vetted through staff first and, then,
come back without the -- the expiration to extend that until staff can come back with a
recommendation and we can hear it again then. I don't know, Council, it seems like that
would be probably the best way to look at this. We can continue this public hearing, ask
you to work with staff, and, then, come back at a date certain.
Bird: I would agree on that. But I think we got to include our Public Works staff, as well
as Planning and Zoning, because that, as we all know, is a very important area out
there and I certainly want their input. And how long do you suppose we do it --
De Weerd: Pete, do you have --
Friedman: Madam Mayor, Council Members, yeah, I concur with both comments made
tonight. Obviously, given the newness of this information, Public Works hasn't had a
chance to analyze it and make an informed recommendation for you since we had
originally recommended that in approving any time extension that the letter of credit be
submitted in 30 days, I guess it would seem reasonable that if we continue this perhaps
to your first hearing next month that we give time for Public Works to analyze the
proposal and, then, formulate a recommendation back to Council if that's your pleasure.
De Weerd: So, that would be April 6th. Okay.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: Not to confuse the issue, but I would add a couple other things to consider in
what you would work out during a continued period. If I am understanding right, this
was already expired; is that correct?
Friedman: Yes and no. What happened was -- Madam Mayor, Council Members,
Council Member Zaremba, the -- when the extension was applied for and it was granted
it was a staff level extension and it had the letter of credit requirement on there, that the
applicant did not choose to request the Council review in a timely manner, so it may
have expired, but what we said is if you can get -- because what we really need and
would like to get before Council and they said, fine, if you can get an application for a
time extension in before the date that had for that to expire, which I believe was January
31st, then, in essence, we have kept it alive by making that request for the extension, so
since the second extension application was filed in a timely manner, it pretty much has
stopped the clock and given us all time to -- time for us to make our staff report and
recommendation and now it seems like you will continue the hearing, everything is
Meridian City Council
March 2, 2010
Page 37 of 76
pretty much on hold until we can formulate a recommendation back to you and you can
act on the time extension, whether conditionally or not.
Zaremba: Follow up. Yes. I think I understood and you reconfirmed how I thought
about it. So, that leads me to question -- if, eventually, an extension is approved is that,
then, 18 months from the day we approve it or 18 months from the original expiration?
Friedman: It would be 18 months from the day you approved it.
De Weerd: That's consistent with what we have -- yeah.
Zaremba: All right. I'm just not asking in this particular application, but all applications.
De Weerd: Right.
Zaremba: Okay.
Friedman: Well, I may have spoken too hastily on that. I would need to research that
for you. We can have that for you at the next meeting.
Zaremba: Okay.
De Weerd: I think that is what we have done in the past. Follow up?
Zaremba: Well, it's a separate question and, actually, it's just a comment, I guess. I
would be happy if there was a way that we could work something out, but I'm very
protective of the reason behind the letter of credit and there is a couple other similar
things, performance completion bonds and just giving us cash to hold -- I mean there is
several different instruments by which we make sure that we don't -- that we and our
taxpayers don't get left holding the bag for something that we were promised and -- not
that I doubt you, but you sell the property and the next guy says, well, I don't want to do
this and if we find a way around the letters of credits and the other things, we have a lot
of people out here that are in the same situation that are going to come back to us and
say this is expensive to do and, like I say, I don't have a problem if there is a way we
can work out something that works, but we do need to protect the citizens for the reason
that this requirement exists in the first place and not open up a can of worms with
everybody else who is your competitor, we need to be fair to everybody. As long as we
can meet those requirements I'm happy to listen.
Oaas: Councilman Zaremba, I think the -- it seems -- and correct me if I'm wrong, but I
think it used to be a surety or a letter of credit only; is that correct?
Freckleton: Sony. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Mr. Oaas. The city used to
be able to accept bonds or letters of credit as an instrument for surety. We several
years ago -- I think it was with the UDC changes that we removed the bond as an option
for the reasons that they are very difficult to exercise. Essentially with a bond you're
Meridian City Council
March 2, 2010
Page 38 of 76
dealing with an underwriter and the underwriter makes the decision or determination
whether they are going to cash the bond. They are problematic for that reason. And so
in the UDC the letter of credit is the -- is the instrument for surety.
Oaas: And that's --
Freckleton: And cash. Cash works, too.
Oaas: Well, yeah, they are really kind of the same, but thank you.
De Weerd: Well, Council, if it sounds feasible to continue this discussion, certainly I
would -- it looks like Mr. Oaas and staff are ready for those discussions. I would
entertain a motion to do so.
Zaremba: And, Madam Mayor, just a feeling. Does this need to be continued for a
month or would March 23rd -- how much pressure are we putting on people to work this
out?
Friedman: Since Public Works will be primarily involved with this and they have
indicated that March 23rd seems to be a reasonable day, we could continue it to March
23rd.
Zaremba: Okay. Madam Mayor, I move we --
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba, just let me take a look at -- I think the 23rd --
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Is that where we moved our discussion? Yes, Mr. Nary.
Nary: I was going to say, that's the night we were going to have a discussion about the
solid waste collection and it may be a fairly lengthy meeting.
De Weerd: Yeah. I would suggest April 6th.
Nary: And also your purchasing policy is back on there, too.
Zaremba: All right. That works forme. The 6th, is that what you said?
De Weerd: Yes.
Zaremba: Okay. I'm not flipping my calendar fast enough. All right. So, I move that we
continue public hearing TE 10-002 on Emerson Park to our regularly scheduled meeting
of April 6, 2010.
Hoaglun: Second.
Meridian City Council
March 2, 2010
Page 39 of 76
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to continue this item. All those in favor say
aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Oaas: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Councilmen.
E. Continued from February 23, 2010 MFP 09-004 Southridge
Subdivision No. 1 by Linder 109, LLC, Meridian Library District
and Joint School District No. 2 Located at Southwest Corner of
West Overland Road and South Linder Road Request for
Modification to the Street Sections Shown on the Final Plat to
Include the Addition of Detached Sidewalks Along Spanish
Sun and Spanish Fork Streets; and Modification to the
Roadway Improvements Along the South Boundary of Phase 1
to Reduce the Amount of Asphalt and Concrete Curb
De Weerd: Okay. Under Item 8-E is a continued -- was continued from February 23rd.
MFP 09-004. I will ask for staff comments at this time.
Wafters: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the next application before you is a
modification to the approved final plat for Southridge Subdivision No. 1. The property is
located on the southwest comer of West Overland Road and South Linder Road. Some
highlights of the request and staff recommendation following. The applicants request
approval to construct the northern half street section of Heavy Timber Drive, plus an
additional 12 feet with an interim gravel shoulder, instead of the full street section as
shown on the construction drawing approved with the final plat. As you can see on the
overhead here, this is the approved street section for Heavy Timber. It was a condition
of approval that the subdivision improvements shown on the construction drawings be
constructed with development of the final plat. Therefore, staff does not recommend
approval of the requested modification that would allow for only a portion of the street
section to be constructed at this time. The second modification, the applicant requests
approval to construct five foot wide detached sidewalks with eight foot wide landscape
parkways along South Spanish Sun Way and South Spanish Fork Way, instead of ten
foot wide attached sidewalks as previously approved. Staff is recommending approval
of this proposal for the following reasons: The first, the proposed design is consistent
with the previously approved street section for Spanish Fork Way south of American
Fork Drive. And, second, the UDC requires a minimum of five foot wide detached
sidewalks with eight foot wide landscaped parkways along collector streets as proposed
by the applicant. So, staff is supportive of this modification to the final plat. And this is
the proposed street section on the overhead here. The next request by the applicant is
a clarification that the following items are required to be completed with the first phase
of development as depicted on the master plan. Included in the development
Meridian City Council
March 2, 2010
Page 40 of 76
agreement and as conditions of approval of the preliminary plat be deferred until such
time as the applicable phasing within which they are associated are platted. The first is
construction of a multi-use pathway and five foot wide buffer along the Ridenbaugh
Canal, as depicted on the plan in front of you. The second is the construction of the
club house and swimming pool. And the third is the dedication of the private park and
landscape buffers and approximately 8.9 acres of common area. Staff realizes that due
to market demands the developer would not able to include the larger area designated
on the phasing plan of phase one, in which the above listed items are located within the
first phase of the final plat. Staff envisions these amenities being constructed with the
applicable phase in which they are associated prior to the development of the mega
lots. However, in order to officially defer the requirements for these items, the
modification to the development agreement is necessary. Therefore, staff is
recommending the applicants apply for a modification to the development agreement to
update the timing of construction of these items. Staff does not feel that Council action
on this item is necessary. The next item is in regard to the street light requirement,
which I will tum over to Public Works to address.
Kerns: Tim Kems with Public Works, engineering division.
De Weerd: Thank you, Tim.
Kerns: The third request is for approval of streetlights within the platted area to be
installed as required in the preliminary plat general requirement 119, as opposed to the
plan previously approved by Public Works and staff recommends that the applicants
install street lighting on the site consistent with the minimum guidelines stated in
preliminary plat condition of approval 2.31 as shown on the approved street light plan
included in Exhibit A-6. Old background on how -- with this item how we get to
streetlight layout. It's the standard practice of Public Works that we provide a streetlight
layout to the developer when they are ready at that time and they request it, not for the
consulting engineer the developer to provide it. So, we actually provide the street layout
for them and approve it, so we provided a layout for Southridge with 100 watt interior
streetlights and 250 watt exterior streetlights to safely light the streets and the sidewalks
with that subdivision shown there in Exhibit A-6. Mr. Jewett asked if we could further
reduce the lights that we had out there possible -- if it was possible. And so I stretched
the spacing as far as we were comfortable with. He felt it was still an excessive amount
of streetlights and asked if we could reduce it some more and staff wasn't comfortable
reducing the locations and number any further. So, given the safety benefits of the
streetlights, we just didn't feel like any further reduction could be done. So, that's just
kind of a brief rundown on the streetlight layout.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none at this time.
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor, quick question for Tim. So, the sheet that we see and that's
before us on the screen, is that the revised addition that you guys worked on?
Meridian City Council
March 2, 2010
Page 41 of 76
Kerns: Correct.
Hoaglun: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Tim. Any further comment from staff?
Kerns: None.
Friedman: None.
De Weerd: Okay. Would the applicant like to comment?
Jewett: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Council. For the record, Jim Jewett, 1560 Carol
Street here in Meridian. With permission from the Mayor, I would like to take each item
individually and, then, stand for questions, so I can try to keep them separate, if I could,
if that would be okay.
De Weerd: Okay.
Jewett: Thank you. So, on the first item where the -- the staff is in agreement, I will
only stand for questions at the end for that one. So, I will go onto the -- the half street.
So, I'm going to start by giving the background. When we were first working through
this subdivision in a preliminary plat stage, we originally were proposing I believe 181
lots in the preliminary first phrase. That was back when we were all crazy developing
too many lots and we all see our error of our ways now. So, subsequent to that we
asked for a reduction or a phrasing plan that would phase that first preliminary plat into
three phases, with the first phase that we submitted of 54 lots. That street that's in
question was at the southern boundary of that division, butting on a nonpreliminary plat,
which would generally be built as a half plus 12 to allow for that future development to
dictate what happens on that side of the street as far as approaches, utilities, that's just
generally what we would do. So, when the final plat was submitted, the engineers just
included it. I did not catch that until pre-con with ACRD and so we needed to correct
this, because there is a lot of utilities and a lot of planning that has to go in that
preliminary plat to the south boundary that I don't want to tear out curb, landscaping,
and gutter, sidewalks, to not -- not knowing what that preliminary plat would -- layout
would look like. So, although I agree the UDC requires that any plat -- any improvement
that we show in the preliminary plat must be improved, that's why we are requesting the
modification to that final plat. That road would still be improved, it simply will be
improved when that next preliminary plat goes forward. Just as you heard earlier
tonight -- or a half plus 12 was going to be built with a future development building the
rest of it. We are asking for no different than that. We are not asking to reduce our
requirements on our plat, simply to adjust the sequencing of when certain improvements
occur. Also in consideration of why we are requesting that it not be built -- obviously
finances and the cost of our lots is important. In today's market lots are being
discounted by banks that are foreclosing as well below what it costs for us to replace
Meridian City Council
March 2, 2010
Page 42 of 76
the lot without including land. That's what we have to compete against. We have
decided in this phase to go forward to get it started, even though that we will lose
money on the first phase, getting this project going I think is a better benefit than waiting
for the market to change. So, I'm going to have our engineer come up and talk to you
about what discussions he's had with ACHD about whether or not we can or cannot
perform the half plus 12 and give you his history and, then, we will stand for questions
on that particular issue.
Densmer: Madam Mayor and Members of the Council, my name is Jason Densmer, I'm
with The Land Group. Our address is 462 East Shore Drive in Eagle. As Mr. Jewett's
engineer, he's correct that customarily where streets abut properties that are likely to
develop in the future and in this case a mega lot a subsequent preliminary plat
application that will have to come to the city, we would normally design that street to be
the half that serves the lots on that side. Put 12 feet of asphalt and an interim gravel
shoulder to allow for flexibility in the future. We have discussed this at length and over
some time now with ACHD and they agree that there are really three different options
available moving forward and that the half plus 12 section is certainly a viable
alternative that they would support. In doing that they would request that instead of
dedicating the full 50 feet of right of way, in which case ACHD would receive some
unimproved right of way, that the plat boundary on the south side be adjusted to only
result in an overall 45 feet of right of way, basically, allowing ACHD opportunity in the
future to assure that that right of way gets developed to a full street section when they
receive southerly five feet of right of way. If you have any questions I can address
them.
De Weerd: Council, any questions at this point?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Jewett: Thank you. One more comment on the street. I do recognize that we did
submit our final plat with the construction drawings that were approved by both ACHD
and the city with that full street. That we did do that. So, I do recognize it's -- it's a
request of the city to us that we remove that portion from it. Secondly, the street
lighting. In our original conditions of approval it talks about our street lighting, that
doesn't -- what it speaks of in the street lighting is a minimum requirement of
intersections, fire hydrants, the entrance at collector roads and no greater than 400 feet
and that was consistent with every plat that had went forward before that and as I drove
in tonight I drove through a couple of them and some of them didn't meet that standard.
But when we submitted our construction drawings we like to submit our lighting plan,
because we need to know where our sleeving is going to be and where we can provide
that to cross the road. We were asked to remove that street lighting plan when we
submitting our construction drawings and got our final plat approved. It wasn't ayear --
it wasn't a year later until we got something from the city after many requests on what
the street lighting was going to be, what the street lighting was going to be. When we
Meridian City Council
March 2, 2010
Page 43 of 76
got the street lighting plan we were completely shocked. There was considerably more
lights than what we would expect, considerably more lights than the standard as you
read it would require and considerably more lights than required on any developer in the
past. And also during the construction and design of Overland Road we raised the
question of street lighting several times with the city. What was wanted, what was
required. ACRD finally approved the street lighting plans, because we got no
comments from the city and we did a conduit plan, because there was nobody to pay for
those street lights. So, we provided a conduit plan that was put in, it was installed.
Then, the street lighting plan comes out for Overland that's completely different and
more intense than what was approved that was seemingly approved with some set of
standards that ACHD and my engineer used. So, we met with staff and my concerns
were that where did these standards come from. I had not been informed of any
change of standards, whether a policy change was going forward or where it was
coming from, although we had requested several times within the year what those were
going to be. And when we came out we said can we compromise, so we can just get
this project moving. They did provide a compromise, I felt that it was still excessive to
what our conditions of approval are and to where the standards are coming from. I
mean was there a public process which adopted some policy on what the street lighting
plan would be? And also the type of lighting. There is now a standard for alight -- and
Jason will show it to you in a minute -- for these collection roads that potentially I don't
really want in front of my subdivision, but if it's going to be a city standard I'd like to see
it uniformly adopted. I can leave my project and drive to Eagle Road and only see a
signal light at every signal. Excuse me. Streetlight at every signal. No street lighting. I
can drive down Fairview, I can drive down Locust Grove, all new roads in front of my
office that don't have streetlights, but yet I'm being requested to put streetlights on both
Linder and Overland at some 150 to 200 foot spacing that I don't believe anybody has
been requested or required to do in the past and I guess I need to seek clarification of
where those requirements are coming from and how they were adopted without the
development community that I can know every was aware of. The staff talks about
unsafe. Boy, if the lighting that I'm submitting is unsafe, then, what are you going to do
with the rest of the city that has far inferior to what I'm submitting? We are covering
every intersection, we are covering every fire hydrant, and we do not exceed 400 feet
and Jason has a map that shows you what we have submitted and has all the
dimensions on it that shows that. As far as this very issues is what are we going to do
about section line roads? Am I going to be required to put all those streetlights up
Overload Road? And who is going to be required to put all the streetlights down Ten
Mile? I'm understanding, I don't know for sure on what ITD's is, but I think ACHD only
has signal lights on Ten Mile north of Franklin at the signalization again. So, why are
we building new roads there and yet I'm being required to put lights on it every 200 feet
at a cost of, you know, 3,000 dollars apiece to me. So, with that I'll have Jason come up
and show you what we have submitted and what we have been provided.
De Weerd: I would ask not yet. I would like comment from staff on what testimony we
just received in terms of the time frame it took us to provide comment on the light plan
and are we really asking this developer to do more than we have asked anyone else to?
Meridian City Council
March 2, 2010
Page 44 of 76
Kems: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the original plan that was provided I
believe was provided sometime in the -- towards the end of the summer. I believe the
turnaround time on that may have been a few weeks. The second plan -- or the request
to have it revised was made sometime in the mid fall and I believe we provided that at
the beginning of December.
De Weerd: Okay. Tim, I guess we are hearing a suggestion that these requirements
are more than what we are asking of others. Do we have a policy and is this consistent
with it?
Kerns: We do have a policy. Our new policy is not the policy which we used for this
particular subdivision. It was previous to our new policy. Our new policy would require
street lighting on whatever street the subdivision's affecting -- what the development is
affecting. The previous policy was, basically, to set lights at a spacing so that we don't
have large dark spots in between and that was the procedure that was used for this
subdivision. As far as lights along the section roads, we haven't frequently required
those. In fact, I'm not sure quite how often we have. This is the first one I did myself.
But that was exactly the point was that we wanted it -- we wanted to be able to provide
a streetlight layout that was based on something and for that we used the American
Society of -- American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials guidelines
for street lighting as a guide to make sure that we meet some kind of minimum lighting
levels.
De Weerd: Well, certainly I'm an advocate of lighting, but I do agree that as we look at
policies that we do it through the public process and allow for comment. I know we had
this discussion, especially with the energy efficiency block grant and how we can have
better street lighting. It is an issue and certainly as we have seen 19 percent decrease
in our crime rate, I think a lot of that was probably in crime in new construction areas
that probably aren't well lit. So, there is a reason to have it, I just don't know if we can
impose it on something without having gone through the process and I guess that's
certainly Council's decision tonight, but --
Jewett: So, Madam Mayor, Council, for point of clarification, I don't know when -- when
Tim specifically got involved in the street lighting. We submitted a street lighting plan
with the construction drawings for the final plat that was over a year and a half ago and
it wasn't until late last summer through Jason's insistence that we get something back
from them. So, we waited over a year. But I'm not saying that Tim -- I don't know when
he got involved. We were introduced with Tim last summer. That's the first involvement
we had with him. But we requested it a year prior to that. So, that's the point of
clarification. The other point I want to -- I want to clear up -- it -- I want consistency in
our project. You know, the project is going to be multiple phases for multiple years and
what I want and I spoke to Tim about it, I want a standard that we can adhere to
throughout the whole project and say, okay, we know what we got to do. We got to do
this, this and this and it's just going to be uniform. The other side issue is how we are
going to address -- as Tim spoke I don't know -- he said I don't know if anybody's
required to have done section line roads and I don't know of one that was. Not that
Meridian City Council
March 2, 2010
Page 45 of 76
there hasn't been in the past, but I don't know one that was and with that requirement
on us I think there is five additional lights being required on us that are section line
roads that are non-entrance and the conditions of approval say section line roads at the
entrance.
De Weerd: Okay. Jim, I guess in -- just to make an observation. You can't have your
cake and eat it, too. If you want to do phase one without all of the necessary
improvements you do leave yourself open to -- if there is a new policy that is a policy
that your new phases would adhere to. So, you want some here and you don't want it
there. I think that is an unfair request that you're making, just for the record.
Jewett: Madam Mayor, Council, what I want to do is make it fair. And what I want to do
is -- if we are going to have a standard that's going to be adopted citywide, that it go
through the public process.
De Weerd: I understand that.
Jewett: But for our particular plat, I just as soon find an acceptable mechanism in which
the conditions of approval can be uniformly set across the entire plat at this point. I
don't know exactly, but I would believe that something new would not be retroactive
back to this plat, but, you're correct, the future plats within Southridge are not
preliminary platted yet, so they are not bound by any old ordinance, they are going to be
bound by any ordinance that's been in effect when we actually ask for those preliminary
plats. So, one of my suggestions might be is that we can find some middle ground. We
are going to have to do another DA mod. We will just adjust these conditions of
approval to set a standard that's going to be uniform across the entire plat. I just got to
find out what that uniformity is. I believe that we can accept all the interior lights that
he's asked, it's just the section line roads is the one we are having the real heartburn
with. So, with that, again, I'll have Jason show you what we have.
De Weerd: I would ask Council any questions before Jason comes up?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Jim, the only thing I fear is this -- we approve something here and, then, every plat
that comes in we are going to have this same argument. It's not -- it's going to be --
want to move from this standard, because we are doing it this way or something like
that. That's my one fear, to be truthful with you.
Jewett: Madam Mayor, Councilman Bird, I agree with you one hundred percent and
that's why codified in some ordinance and, then, we all live by the same standard and
we can't come and ask for different things and the only thing we can fall back on is the
conditions of approval that I have today, which our map meets that requirement and so
Meridian City Council
March 2, 2010
Page 46 of 76
-- but I agree with you, we should have it, that there is no question that anybody can
come forward and say, well, he, she, shouldn't have them.
De Weerd: Okay.
Densmer: Madam Mayor, just to --
De Weerd: If you will just state your name once again.
Densmer: Jason Densmer.
De Weerd: Every time you get up and down, you know, I'm sorry.
Densmer: That's fine. If you can bear with me, I kind of expected a document camera.
De Weerd: There is --
Friedman: Jason, we can put it up over here.
Densmer: That would be fine.
Nary: Madam Mayor? Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, just while they are
setting that up, many of the policies or standards that Mr. Jewett is talking about -- not
all of those are encapsulated in ordinances and so I think we are talking about two
different things here and so not all of those things are in ordinances for a variety of
reasons and one of them is flexibility, one of them standards do change for a variety of
reasons. I don't disagree that a process is appropriate in making sure the Council
adopts that as a standard or a policy for the city, but for every standard or requirement
or policy of the city to be encapsulated into an ordinance is not practical or reasonable
and it's not common in my experience. So, I think there is a little disconnect here about
what standards are, what's necessary to require that Mr. Jewett adhere to and it does
not have to all be in ordinance as he's asking.
De Weerd: Okay.
Densmer: So, on the overhead you can see the layout that we propose to staff. It
meets the conditions of approval and providing a light at entrances and intersections
and fire hydrants and spacing not exceeding 400 feet, which seems to very much in
conformance with the conditions of approval. The direction we were provided by Mr.
Kerns is on a second overhead. He had proposed 17 fixtures in total and we are
directed that 31 would be better. Although I didn't measure the distance between the
recommended locations, if you were providing --
De Weerd: Excuse me, but that's not the one that is in front of us.
Densmer: No. That was the initial one.
Meridian City Council
March 2, 2010
Page 47 of 76
De Weerd: Okay. We saw it, so --
Densmer: Since then it's been take down to 25.
De Weerd: Okay.
Densmer: But still includes a number of fixtures along the arterials of Overland and
Linder particularly that are of fairly large concern. It may be concerning to you also -- I
don't know to the level that any of these fixtures have been installed before, but the
particular fixture type that we were directed to use is a -- specifically it's a GE model
M400, which I agree they are everywhere, I just don't see them in Meridian very often.
They are called a cobra head fixture and they remind me of Los Angeles in about 1960
or so.
De Weerd: If you want to give it to staff they can put that also up.
Densmer: It doesn't seem correct, but it doesn't seem negotiable either, to provide
those along the collector roads inside the subdivision. I certainly don't see them in other
projects in Meridian, so --
De Weerd: You know, fortunately, we don't always do what we have done in the past
and I could cite a number of things that we have -- we have teamed from and so just
because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it's -- there doesn't have a good reason
behind it.
Densmer: Well, Madam Mayor, I agree, there is a lot of things that I haven't seen and
that doesn't mean that only the things I see are good ideas.
De Weerd: Have you asked for explanation from staff?
Densmer: We have.
De Weerd: And that has not satisfied your questions?
Densmer: No, ma'am.
De Weerd: Okay. Tim, if you could satisfy at least the question that's been raised.
Kerns: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council that particular light there that is shown
is a suggested model. We can't, as a government agency, require a specific model.
We can -- we basically state you can use this one or an approved equal and we are
willing to look at any other types. This particular type is also only for use on the section
line roads exterior to the development, not on the inside. That would be a standard
shoe box light that we use in all of our other developments.
Meridian City Council
March 2, 2010
Page 48 of 76
De Weerd: Thank you for that clarification.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Did the applicant give you -- or equal or something to look at, Tim?
Kerns: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilman Bird, no, I did not receive a
request to look at a different model.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Jewett: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Jewett.
Jewett: Council, we provided cut sheets on our plan that specifies what lights we
wanted to use specifically and that's the standard lights you see in every subdivision
and they are right on our plan. I don't know how to illustrate, but you will see on the
right-hand side the two cut sheets, one is a section line road and one is the interior. So,
we have submitted and it's just what you see in every subdivision.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Did you submit this with cut sheets and specifications on this light?
Jewett: Yes.
Bird: Is that the same type of -- you submitted the same type as the Luminair -- what
we see on the Luminair?
Jewett: What we are providing up here on the illustrator is what we submitted.
Bird: And it's got all the specifications and stuff on it?
Jewett: It's right out of the specifications book.
Bird: Okay.
Hoaglun: So, real quick, before we leave that, Jim, you said you were -- you did plan for
having lighting on section line --
Jewett: At the entrances.
Meridian City Council
March 2, 2010
Page 49 of 76
Hoaglun: At the entrances. Okay. Thank you.
Jewett: Having said that, I don't agree that whatever I put at the entrance should be
different than the rest of the street, it should be all consistent. But as Jason said, I don't
think I have seen this particular galvanized matched on cobra head used in the city to
date. It's used a lot in Boise. I mean it's what you see predominately in Boise on all
their new streets.
Hoaglun: And, Jim, if I -- just to clarify, when you say consistent, do you mean style or
the lighting wattage -- I can't remember the correct term. When you say consistent --
Jewett: I have a -- you know, I have a problem of being frank. They are ugly. They are
just not very attractive.
Hoaglun: The arm that --
Jewett: And my objection to it -- but at the end of the day, if it's the city's desire to have
this consistent on this section line road, then, so be it. I will adhere to it. But I haven't
seen that consistency and I haven't seen any type of public forum that even discussed
it. I believe Ten Mile is being built without street lighting. I don't know how much of it
north or south of Franklin -- and I guess I'd just like to see it consistent. I leave my site
and I drive Eagle Road and there is not a streetlight from when I leave until I get to
Eagle Road, except over the signals and yet now I'm being required to put them at the
spacing that's provided here. And to me -- if it's safety I'm not going to argue safety,
because I'm all for that, but there has got to be a balance who pays. You know, it's -- I
think it's my understanding in talking in Boise -- the city of Boise pays for their
streetlights on section line roads when ACHD does projects. So, I'd simply like to be
involved in -- if there is going to be some public forum in which to discuss this, that we
discuss it. But here we are today. I have a set of conditions of approval that I interpret
the way Jason interprets and the staff has -- has taken a revised stand based on policy
change that's post the -- our plat being approved. How do I blend that with what's going
to happen in the future with our project is what I need to find out, how we do that, and I
don't know. I'm here saying I think it's excessive, but I haven't had enough research in it
to say one way or another that it's unsafe. It just seems like the amount of lighting that
is provided in the original plan, which has been revised by six, and we do appreciate
that. And I think if we could deal with the section line roads I don't think there would be
an objection, but I'm hearing that in the future it's going to be back to what the original
plan they submitted and I'm saying, okay, I don't want to do phase one different than the
rest of the phases and it's not I want my cake and eat it, too, I just want consistency.
Hoaglun: Okay.
Jewett: But if that's truly the policy, then, I guess I have to adjust.
Meridian City Council
March 2, 2010
Page 50 of 76
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor. Let's try to knock some of these off the table, if you will, and
we can deal with the ones that we need to deal with. Internal lots. When I looked at the
plan submitted that Jason put up there I think on yours you had 17 lights on the intemal
sections, what -- the nonsection lights, leaving the ones at the intersection as you
propose. On the plan that we have here, again, not counting the section line lights, 21
are required. Did I hear you say correctly -- did I correctly hear you say that you're fine
with that -- with that 21, it's the section line lights that you have the biggest problem
with?
Jewett: It is.
Hoaglun: Are you regretting that you said that?
Jewett: No. I want to have consistency and if that's going to be the requirement going
forward, I'm not going to short change a phase to have phasing two look different.
Hoaglun: Well, you know, last night I -- it was a beautiful evening, my folks live a mile
away in the same development, and I took a walk down, my dad needed help moving
something, so I was getting my exercise. It's exactly one mile and that's the thing when
you're on City Council you pay attention to things like streetlights, because I had read
about this over the weekend, doing my study and I start looking at streetlights and by
what I see that Public Works has here and this development is less than ten years old,
about -- that area would be about five, six years old, what they show here is about what
they had on that development. So, to me that was, okay, that's consistent. What I see
being required here was consistent with what was applied five, six years ago. So, to me
there hasn't been a lot of change for what they required. Now, it sounds like there is
change for future developments and, again, as we talked about and the Mayor talked
about, future plats, that if it's not platted you're going to fall under those guidelines for
what's platted and what's been discussed I think we have met the minimum
requirements, so we can -- we can take out the lights that are intemal and say, okay,
Public Works says you need 21, plus the entrances, we are not talking about design for
those entrances, you don't like -- they are ugly, that sort of thing, so if now the section
line lights and what they look like at those entrances, is that -- are we that far yet?
Jewett: Madam Mayor, Commissioner Hoaglun, yes.
Hoaglun: Okay.
Jewett: That would be acceptable.
Hoaglun: Okay. Thank you.
Jewett: I would say that that's where we are at.
Hoaglun: Okay. Now, for the section line lights at the entrances, those were in your --
youroriginal thing that you sent to them.
Meridian City Council
March 2, 2010
Page 51 of 76
Jewett: In the conditions of approval.
Hoaglun: It's in the conditions of approval. Now it's just a matter of what type of lights
those are and Tim or Bruce, whoever wants to answer this, is there a reason why we
have -- have the arms or are we trying to get more light out onto a major roadway?
Kems: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilman Hoaglun, that's exactly
correct. The light -- the two light types that Mr. Jewett submitted there on the right,
those are drawings of some of the state standards and they are pretty typical for what
you would find in Idaho and the top one with the mast arm, the reason for using those
on the entrances and external roads is simply because they project the light. So, they
are designed for a high speed facility, a larger facility, and they project the light farther
out. If you were to put them internal to the development they would project light into
people's windows and whatnot, so --
Hoaglun: Which -- okay. I understand that. Now, the section lines, the Mayor asked a
question -- section line lights that are not at the entrances, those were also the same --
they would also be the projecting type lights --
Kems: Correct.
Hoaglun: -- but I want to go back to a question she asked earlier to make sure I
understood the answer. Is that something we have required in the past and have we
gone through a process to say that will be a requirement?
Kems: I don't believe we have required those in the past. The new standards that we
now have are the -- were developed the AASHTO standards that I mentioned earlier, so
they are the minimum lighting levels that were -- that AASHTO suggests as a guide and
that particular lighting guide is widely accepted throughout the United States.
Hoaglun: So, to follow up, Madam Mayor and Tim. So, future developments, future
plats, whether it's here or other parts of Overland Road or down Ten Mile, they will be
subject to that --that design -- that requirement -- not design. Requirement.
Kems: As it stands now.
Hoaglun: Okay. I think we are getting somewhere.
De Weerd: Okay. Anything further?
Jewett: Well, I don't know if anything was decided on the section line road.
De Weerd: They don't need to yet.
Meridian City Council
March 2, 2010
Page 52 of 76
Jewett: Okay. Then what I'd ask -- and it does not have to occur tonight -- is that -- and
whoever you direct me to engage this with, is to come up with a lighting plan for
Overland Road on our side of the road that we can come up with some mechanism to
get all those lights in, so that it matches the other side of Overland Road, which I think
ACRD is going to move forward to finish the north side and then -- so, we can -- so they
can include that in their plan, so that we get Overland, at least on this section,
completed. And however you direct me to go forward, that's -- I really would like to see
that happen, since we have already got the conduit plan started on our side and so we
can get it finished on the other.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. This a public hearing. Is there public testimony on this
item? Any further staff comments? Council, any questions for staff or the applicant?
Zaremba: I assume you're asking on this one bullet point. There is two more bullet
points.
De Weerd: Did you have further comment, Mr. Jewett? I figured since he sat down he
was done.
Jewett: I did say at the end --
De Weerd: We knew it was hopeful.
Jewett: Yeah. I did say at the beginning that at the end I would stand for questions on
the other items that I did not have any issues with, so --
De Weerd: Okay.
Jewett: -- with that I would stand for any questions.
Zaremba: Actually, my question on the second bullet point would be directed to our
parks director Mr. Siddoway.
De Weerd: And if you could explain what the second bullet point is, so --
Zaremba: The second bullet is that the applicant requests approval to construct a five
foot detached sidewalk with an eight foot wide landscape, which is something that
sounds appealing, but that is instead of a ten foot wide attached sidewalk that was
previously approved and whenever I see the ten foot wide immediately comes to mind
pull amulti-use pathway and what I'm asking the parks director about is did we originally
ask for a ten foot wide -- because we think that's amulti-use pathway connecting to
something else?
Jewett: Madam Mayor, Council, let me -- let me clarify that. That ten foot attached
sidewalk had tree wells taking take up five feet of that ten foot.
Meridian City Council
March 2, 2010
Page 53 of 76
Zaremba: Okay.
Jewett: Still only leaving five foot of usable area. We decided to have -- and the rest of
the subdivision would simple be eight foot detached. So, we decided that consistency --
and staff agreed with us that a consistency in that area was better. The multi-use
pathway that we specifically asked to be sequenced in those -- in those phasings is still
going to be constructed, it's just in a later phase and, then, I'll let Steve --
Zaremba: So, if I understood that, there is a multi-use pathway, but it's not along the
two streets that we are talking about.
Jewett: That is correct.
De Weerd: Mr. Siddoway.
Zaremba: I would ask if Mr. Siddoway has anything to add to that. I know we are
putting you on the spot here to remember all the maps, but --
Siddoway: Yeah. I did not come prepared to -- I have not looked at the multi-use
pathway, but I know there is one along the Ridenbaugh Canal. I do believe that is in a
future phase. And there is also one along Ten Mile. That would be for a portion of this.
As to this specific sidewalk, I would defer to planning staff.
Wafters: Council -- Councilman Zaremba, Madam Mayor, Councilmen, that is not a
multi-use pathway along Spanish Fork Way and Spanish Sun Way. The reason it was a
requirement for a ten foot wide sidewalk was because the applicant originally showed
that on their plans, thus, making it a requirement now.
Zaremba: Okay.
Wafters: So, they are just asking to provide a detached sidewalk with an eight foot wide
landscape parkway instead, which we agree is consistent with the rest of the
development and we would rather see that than just pavement.
Zaremba: And that's even an improvement and I -- just trying to protect our pathways, if
that's what was the original thought, so thank you. And this is kind of unrelated, but I
have noticed that it looks like you are realigning the Ridenbaugh Canal at some point in
a future phrase of this --
Jewett: Oh, I think it's done.
Zaremba: Oh, it's done? Okay. But what I meant was the plat will be a future phase.
Jewett: Correct.
Meridian City Council
March 2, 2010
Page 54 of 76
Zaremba: I assume that the multi-use pathway is going to go along the new alignment
of the Ridenbaugh; is that correct?
Jewett: Well, I'm glad you asked that, but I'd like to put my two cents in on one other
issue. I hope all your --
De Weerd: Unrelated to this application.
Zaremba: It is unrelated to this, but --
De Weerd: But thank you for the side road question.
Jewett: I'm sure most of you are aware that ACHD is now moving forward with
completing Ten Mile all the way to our realigned entrance, which calls into question the
multi-use pathway down that. Currently it does not show that multi-use pathway down
that alignment and across the freeway. I'd ask the land engineers to talk to ACHD
about that and I just don't know if you guys were aware of that. We had proposed
realigning the multi-use pathway up along Overland, across the new intersection of
Overland and back to down Ten Mile. So, we -- our plans are a ten foot multi-use
pathway in that location. I hate to see our -- and, then, ACHD put something in that has
to be tore up. If some input could be put on that, I'd appreciate it.
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor, I have a question for Gary Inselman from ACRD and this is
related to the Heavy Timber Drive and request to --
De Weerd: Can we get the different map?
Hoaglun: Yeah. There is a different map that interim gravel shoulder, instead of a full
street section. And this is bullet point one. What is ACHD's position on -- on that sort of
thing? There was some comment about what they would require for right of way and
different things. Can you explain that?
De Weerd: Can we get the different slide?
Wafters: It's on your screen, Madam Mayor. The applicant did not submit a proposed
street section. This is the approved street section.
Inselman: Madam Mayor and Council Members, Gary Inselman again. ACHD. Our
position has been -- it was originally submitted as a full street section, that's the way the
plat was submitted. If the plat remained with the full right of way, then, we wanted to
see the full street. If the city approved amending the plat to reduce the right of way, we
would approve the reduced street section. But as submitted and as approved -
previously approved, it was the full street section. So, that's what -- where we were at
with the plans.
Meridian City Council
March 2, 2010
Page 55 of 76
Hoaglun: Okay. Thanks, Gary. You got a good workout tonight. To follow up on that,
Madam Mayor, staff, I'm trying to think and I don't have a long history here on this
Council, but how often has this occurred? I can't think of any streets in Meridian in
developments going in that we have done that, but I could be wrong. Like I said, I don't
have a long history.
Friedman: Madam Mayor, Councilmen -- Council Members, I can't give you specifics,
but I can give you circumstances and typically when we do have a situation where we
have the half plus 12 occur is where we have development occur and we have that
development occurring by one particular property owner, but we don't have a
development application on the other side of the street. That really kind of comes back
to I think the example we talked about tonight with Park Lane is a very good example.
We have the Kleiner Park being built on the north. You have the Kleiner family trust
property to the south, who currently has no development plans on that. So, in order to
accommodate the two-way traffic on that Park -- future Park Lane, we get the half street
plus 12. So, that's the typical situation where we have that occur. Again, in this
situation we have one developer, even though it's a development that's occurring in
phases and that the full street section was portrayed on the preliminary plat and it's
approved as part of the preliminary and final plat. The code says the responsibility and
liability to construct the improvements as shown on the public record, if you will, before
the Council rests with the developer, unless, of course, waived by the Council. So,
that's kind of a long winded way of I hope answering your question.
Hoaglun: Got it. Thank you.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: The two examples that I can think of would have -- would be Pine east of
Black Cat. There is a portion of that that I think was built as half plus 12 and the other --
it doesn't connect to Ten Mile yet, but if you start at Black Cat and go east, there is a full
section and, then, I think a little bit farther down it's a half plus 12. I'm not absolutely
sure of that, but I think it was. And that's a case where there are different owners on the
opposite side of the street. The other one would have been a connection between
Lanark and Pine that never got built. It was a requirement of what somebody was going
to put in and, then, they ended up not doing anything and, therefore, I think that one has
disappeared. But it was, again, a case where there were different owners on opposite
sides of the street. This is a little unique to have that request by somebody who owns
both sides of the future street and I guess I can understand the phasing, but to me that
does make it unusual from the other times that that has been required.
De Weerd: I think there is a couple of other developments, but, you know, I -- I do know
it's difficult economic times and, then, those and I guess my opinion is if ACHD doesn't
have an issue with it and it doesn't provide a safety issue, I guess my comments are
more geared towards the lighting and some of the ideas behind -- we have to start
Meridian City Council
March 2, 2010
Page 56 of 76
addressing some of our lighting issues and it seems like staff has been working towards
solutions in that regard. I'd rather see the complete road money. If you want to limit the
up front expense to go to lighting and wait to get the full road, if it doesn't hamper safety
services or ACHD requirements, but that's a personal opinion. Any final comments from
the applicant?
Jewett: Madam Mayor, Council, I just appreciate the time tonight and appreciate your
consideration in the matter. We want to just be part of the city and be a future part of a
growing Meridian and be proactive in that and, again, as to the lighting on Overland
Road, I really would like to engage the city and come up with a plan that we can provide
ACHD for their -- they are going to handle the north side of Overland Road and, like I
say, have provided a conduit on our side, so we'd just like to find some -- some staging,
phasing, financial consideration as far as how all that is going to get done.
De Weerd: And I understand that and I guess, Jim, you have to understand, too, that
this is a new part of town and there is nothing out there. I think there are some real
legitimate safety concerns to make sure that we do have light and that we can help
protect your investments as you're building out there, too. And that's going to be
equally important.
Jewett: I agree. And because there is nothing out there it gives us the opportunity to
lay down the foundation for going forward and I want to be a part of that, so that we are
consistent.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Jewett: Again, thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, if you have no further questions for staff or applicant, if
you're ready to close this public hearing, I would entertain a motion. Okay. Mr.
Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Tim, to go back to lighting on our section lines, then, does ACRD have a
particular plan in place that you're aware of or what they are to look like? We talked
earlier about the arm. Is that what they are going for? Do we know that for certain
that's where they are headed?
Kerns: Madam Mayor, Council Members, Councilman Hoaglun, ACHD only provides
conduit in their roadway projects for the cities or if we require development to, then,
install the lights, so they won't be installing any lights. The type of light that we have
specified for these roads is similar to ACHD does use at their intersections, but with the
mast arm. I don't know if that totally answers your question.
Hoaglun: No. That's good. Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Anything further.
Meridian City Council
March 2, 2010
Page 57 of 76
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: I move that we close the public hearing on MFP 09-004.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on this item. All
those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carves.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor, for discussion, start with the lighting. I really do want to see
where this plan that Public Works has brought forth with the 21 lights that are within the
development and at the intersections to go in. I think that's -- the minimum standard, I
think as Tim indicated earlier, that's as far as they want to go. It provides the safety and
this -- this is operating under the old standard and that's -- that's what we have to deal
with. I'm a little tom on the section lighting. That was something that's new and in the
process that we go through to -- to bring folks into that, we want to have comments, we
want to have a plan, we want to make sure everyone knows what the rules are ongoing
forward. But this being a major development that a --South Linder and Overland Road
in a location where there will likely be an overpass some day, you know, we want to do
this right from the get go. I'm willing to trade the half of the street -- I didn't think I would
be, but if -- for all of the lighting required and only half construction on -- on that road,
but Ijust -- that's where my thoughts are right now.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Regarding the lighting along Overland Road, I -- I think that it's important that we
go along with that and also on Linder for the simple fact because we got Ten Mile and
Franklin coming up we are going to -- I'm sure going to want them - we do need to get
a policy in place that -- or a standard that covers this. I have a real problem of not doing
that road complete. I -- I don't know. I just -- I have a real problem with that, the 21
interior lights, but lalso -- I think that we need to go along Overland and Linder with
some lighting, too.
De Weerd: You know, I guess I understand your hesitation, Mr. Bird, but in terms of -
we have had these half roads in the middle of subdivisions before and the only
difference is between ownership and that's the only difference. So, I guess just to
restate, you know, it is a give and take and, you know, I agree with Mr. Jewett and the
need to make sure that there is consistency along the -- both Overland and Linder in
regards to the lighting and certainly we need to make sure as new development moves
Meridian City Council
March 2, 2010
Page 58 of 76
forward there is an understanding of there will be an expectation to plug something into
that conduit that ACRD lays along those road improvements, so it doesn't catch
someone off guard and it does have to be part of that business pro forma and I guess in
terms of that, so that business pro forma has a chance to work itself out I would agree
with Mr. Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: And just to comment on that further, Councilman Bird, I recognize the fact it is
unusual, because it is one owner. It hasn't been done, it's always been between the
two. I look at it as part of the economic times. I know staff isn't recommending that. I'm
not excited to do it. At the same time, I have to be prepared that if -- if a future
developer comes in I'd have to be consistent. It's -- I could still be persuaded, but that's
where I'm leaning right now. So, I'm open to your best argument.
Bird: I don't have no argument, Ijust -- I just think that we talk about economic times,
it's going to -- I don't think construction is any cheaper than it's been in 40 years right
now. So, you're not saving -- you know, a year or two years from now asphalt might be
twice what it is now. I just -- I just think it could cause some confusion on the way down
on out on this, as you start developing the rest of it. I really do. Pretty soon it's going to
be every time you come in with a phase we only complete half of a road and that's
exactly what's going to happen. You're setting a precedent here.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: And this is a question for staff. ACHD has made it plain that the only way
they would not require the whole road to be built is if the plat boundary was moved.
That's an entirely new re-application process, isn't it?
Friedman: Yes, Madam Mayor, Council Members. I think that's -- I mean the real issue
tonight is just amending that plat condition and, yeah, to move that plat boundary is
going to required anew -- require a new plat.
Zaremba: So, in fact, the roadway agency isn't going to allow them to build half plus 12
anyhow it sounds to me. That's the roadway authority.
De Weerd: I heard Gary say it would -- they would look at what our recommendations
are and, you know, then, that's a different application.
Zaremba: But I felt he based that on the requirement that the plat line had to move.
De Weerd: And if we were to change that requirement that would probably follow what
requirement ACHD would have and, then, if that wasn't done, it would remain the same.
Hoaglun: Well, that was good information, Councilman Zaremba. I don't think we want
to go into a new plat. It opens up -- if I might ask Pete or Sonya, whoever --
Meridian City Council
March 2, 2010
Page 59 of 76
De Weerd: You can't.
Hoaglun: Oh, I can't. That's right.
De Weerd: Certainly we can reopen the public --
Hoaglun: No. I think I'm ready. I think I'm ready here. Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: I move approval of MFP 09-004 with the following modifications: That the
applicant be required to construct a full street section of Heavy Timber Drive. That the
request to construct a five foot wide detached sidewalk with eight foot wide landscape
parkways along South Spanish Sun Way and South Spanish Fork Way, instead of ten
foot wide attached, be approved. That modification to the development agreement
move forward. I don't think we need Council action on that, but just as a comment that
that will move forward for modification. And that the streetlight requirements be met as
provided by the information given to us by Public Works that there would be 21 lights in
the interior of the project and at the intersections and that the section line lights also be
provided as shown. Or the lights on the section line roads be provided as shown.
Zaremba: I will second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Madam Clerk, will you,
please, call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
F. Public Hearing: Proposed 2010 Fee Schedule of the Parks and
Recreation Department
De Weerd: Okay. Item 8-F is a public hearing on the proposed 2010 fee schedule for
the Parks Department. I will ask staff for comment.
Siddoway: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, hopefully, will be quick and easy on
you. I was before you a few weeks ago with staff to talk about our fee schedule. It was
presented to you in detail #hat night, along with discussion about the nonresident fees.
At that time we received instruction from Council to work with legal department to draft
up the -- I believe it's an ordinance, is that right, Mr. Nary?
Nary: Resolution.
Meridian City Council
March 2, 2010
Page 60 of 76
Siddoway: Resolution. And get it properly noticed in the newspaper for two
consecutive weeks. That has been done and tonight is the required public hearing for
those fees. The only item I would like to add is that in subsequent discussions with
legal we have discovered that we need to alter our annual process. We have been in --
up until now we have been coming to you on an annual basis to update fees that have
been added to our activity guides, things like that, over the course of the year. We -- it
sounds like we may need to come before you in association with each activity guide to
do this correctly. So, we will be before you more often than once a year this year. So,
with that I will stand for any questions.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, questions?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Steve, I like your fees. They are very fair and very equitable and I take it that our
team fees actually stayed the same and we just added the resident and nonresident, am
I correct there?
Siddoway: They didn't stay the same as they were last year. They were reduced to the
levels they were close to the previous year when we had player fees. So, they went
down. So, the team fees went down and to reflect the approximate break even point,
including the player fees.
Bird: Okay. Thank you.
Siddoway: Yes.
De Weerd: Any other questions from Council?
Siddoway: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you, Steve. This is a public hearing. Is there any member of the
public who would like to provide testimony on this item? Okay. Seeing none, Council?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we close the public hearing on proposed 2010 fee -- recreation fee
schedule for Parks and Recreation.
Zaremba: Second.
Meridian City Council
March 2, 2010
Page 61 of 76
Hoaglun: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on Item 8-F. All
those in favor say aye. All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
G. Resolution No. :2010 Fee Schedule of
Meridian Parks Sz Recreation Department
De Weerd: Item 8-G is resolution 10-713. Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve resolution number 10-713, the fee schedule, dated
February 12th, 2010, for Parks and Recreation.
Hoaglun: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve Item 8-G. If there is no
discussion, Madam Clerk, roll call.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 9: Ordinances
A. Ordinance No. : AZ 09-004 The Baby
Place by Brent & Coleen Goodwin Located at 270 North Linder
Road: Request for Annexation and Zoning of 0.98 of an Acre
from R1 in Ada County to C-C (Community Business) Zoning
District
De Weerd: Item 9-A is ordinance number 10-1442. I will ask the clerk to, please, read
this ordinance by title only.
Holman: Thank you, Madam Mayor. City of Meridian Ordinance No. 10-1442, an
ordinance AZ-09-004, the Baby Place, for annexation of a tract of land situated on Lot 5
of Hepper Acres Subdivision, situated in the southwest quarter of Section 12, Township
3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as described in Attachment
A and annexing certain lands and territory situated in Ada County, Idaho, and adjacent
and contiguous to the corporate limits of the City of Meridian, as requested by the City
of Meridian, establishing and determining the land use zoning classification of said
lands from R-1 to C-C, Community Business 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
Meridian City Council
March 2, 2010
Page 62 of 76
providing for a summary of the ordinance and providing for a waiver of the reading rules
and providing an effective date.
De Weerd: You have heard this ordinance read by title only. Is there anyone who
would like to hear it read in its entirety? Seeing everyone nodding off in the audience, I
assume that no. Council, do I have a motion to approve this ordinance?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve ordinance number 10-1442 with suspension of rules.
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve 9-A. If there is no discussion,
Madam Clerk.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: I am going to recess for five minutes to allow our next presentation to set up
and to take a quick break.
(Recess 10:15 p.m. to 10:21 p.m.)
Item 10: Presentation by the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and
SysTek International LLC. Regarding Emission Testing in Ada
County
De Weerd: Okay. I will go ahead and call this meeting back to order. We appreciate
you tolerating our five minute break. Our next item on the agenda is Item No. 10. We
do have a presentation by DEQ and, Pete, do you want to introduce -- kick this off?
Okay. Just, again, I know I noted this at the beginning of the program. This is just a
report. Council is not expected to take any action. It is information only and this will not
be for public testimony. Thank you for being here.
Wagner: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. My name is Pete
Wagner. I'm the regional administrator for the Boise office of Idaho Department of
Environmental Quality in Boise, Idaho. I appreciate you asking us to come to present
information to you tonight and we are here to do that. I just wanted to back up a little bit
and refresh your memory. We actually came in late December, early January, and
actually presented to you to give you an overview at that period of time and so I was
Meridian City Council
March 2, 2010
Page 63 of 76
going to start from that point on, if that's okay with the Council, to expedite things here.
At that point in time, actually, we were in the process of the RFP, the request for
proposal, and so we couldn't talk a lot about that request for proposal, because it's a
confidential bidding process. We actually went through that process. We actually had
six different bidders actually bid on the contract for Canyon county and Kuna. We
scored those with a team of personnel. It was based on the technical merits of their
proposal. After that we actually invited the finalists back for oral presentations. They
gave an hour presentation and, then, an hour question and answer. Final step of the
way was actually checking the references of the finalists, so we actually split that work
up among the people who were on the committee and actually contacted every
reference. We did speak to most of those references, not all of them called us back, but
most of them did. The other thing we did -- we had our financial administrator for the
agency -- actually he is a CPA, actually review all the financials for the finalists. With
that it was a unanimous decision. We actually chose SysTek, Intemational, to be our
contractor for the Kuna .and the Canyon county emission testing program. So, the
reason we are here before you today, actually, through exchanges of letters actually
with the Mayor and actually the director in accordance with the state law 39-116(b), we
had, actually, told the Mayor and the city, actually, that we would pick our contractor,
basically, and, then, look to sign a joint powers agreement with the city and at that time
the city would have the choice in signing the joint powers agreement to either choose to
use our contractor or to use the existing contractor and program with the Ada County Air
Board. So, tonight we are just here to present information to you, so you can make that
decision. And with that, actually, I would like to introduce Bill Dell, he's actually a
member of SysTech, been intimately involved with us since signing the contract. I
would like to state, actually, we did some of the criteria, actually. We did choose
SysTech on was the price, the convenience to the customer and, actually, the
credentials of SysTech and I think Bill will address all those.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Good evening. If you will, please, state your name and
address for the record.
Dell: I will. My name is Bill Dell. I am executive director of business development for
SysTech Intemational, 1121 West Grant Road, Tucson, Arizona. 85705. Madam
Mayor and Council Members, I admire your stamina. I'm going to try to keep this really
brief, since it's getting so late. I do have a presentation which you have copies of and
I'm going to just try to step through it pretty quickly, so we can have time to answer any
questions you might have. I wanted an opportunity just to introduce SysTech, let you
know what we bid in our proposal to DEQ, which was primarily a proposal to provide
services in Canyon county. The proposal also included an option to provide the same
or similar services in Ada County. And that's entirely up to you all as whether or not you
want to proceed in that direction and we are here to support the process. SysTech has
been around since July 1999. Vehicle emission inspection programs -- vehicle
inspection programs are the only thing we do. That's our entire business. We are the
only company in the industry that's totally vertically integrated, that is we control all
aspects of the inspection process from building equipment, designing software,
networking the facility, telecommunications, staffing, training, certification, auditing, et
Meridian City Council
March 2, 2010
Page 64 of 76
cetera. It's all done within our corporate structure, so we can control the pace and
process and cost of delivery and I think those are things that help us come out to be
successful in our bid here. And this isn't working well, so, Steve, I'll just say next slide
and next slide. Okay. And as I just said, we -- we can skip this slide. Next slide. We
are -- what we propose in -- for -- to do in Canyon county was to -- was to establish an
inspection program where we will select local businesses as subcontractors to SysTech.
We are going to -- in the Canyon county case we are going to -- and Kuna, we are going
to select 20 -- 20 subcontractors in Canyon county and two in Kuna who will actually
perform the inspections. SysTech will provide each one of our subcontractors with a
complete hardware and software solution that is networked and integrated to our central
database, which will be located in the Nampa area. All of the equipment that will be
supplied, all of the service on that equipment, all of the maintenance, the consumables,
the supplies, everything needed for the subcontractor program will be provided at no
cost to them. So, there is no barrier or no threshold for them to get into the program.
Next slide. This is just a quick picture of where we are in the country, various other
programs, and it included Idaho and that's the Canyon county program. Next slide. Our
corporate structure, as I said, we are fully integrated in-house. On the right-hand side
our engineering team, to the left-hand side our accounting team on this chart. The
green boxes indicate resources within the company that are already working on the
program for Idaho and this -- this slide indicates the staffing specifically for Idaho,
including positions will be hired locally. And next slide. So, with the participation of
local businesses, what we have done and what we will be doing is selecting the 20
based upon convenience. We run a rather detailed demographic model to insure that --
that over 98 percent of the population will be within five miles of a station, most of them
much closer, and also within 15 minutes drive time of a station. As I said before, we are
going to provide a computerized centralized system called a VID or Vehicle Inspection
Database and a network that ties each one of those stations together real time through
the intemet for management control by DEQ, as well as our staff, the ability to do instant
auditing and trigger reports, et cetera, which I will cover in just a minute. Next slide.
Part of our station -- part of how we are going to go about selecting the station is to
actually go out and interview each potential business candidate -- subcontractor
candidate to -- that will become part of our program and I personally, along with other
members of my team, will go and visit each and every one that -- that could participate
and would be interested in participating. I suspect that we will -- in Canyon county, for
example, probably interview about 40 businesses. In that interview process we will be
using a grading system to identify such things as how they are at customer service,
whether or not they have the basic things we need for them to be a subcontractor, such
as intemet -- intemet service, compressed air, things like that. Comfortable waiting
areas, et cetera. So, that when -- at the end of all those interviews we will put those --
we can rank order the potential partners and match them together with the geographic
considerations and come up with the final 20. If Ada County decides to join the
program, we will go through a similar process here. We will come up with a standard
grading system -- it may not be exactly the same as what we use in Canyon county, the
demographics are different, the geography is different, but we will come up with a
standard system in consultation with DEQ, so that we will go out and meet with all the
possible participants, whoever they are, no one is to be excluded at this phase, no one
Meridian City Council
March 2, 2010
Page 65 of 76
is -- no decisions have been made as to who to include or not include. Next slide.
Once we have selected our subcontractor partners, we will provide inspector training
and licensing services under our contract to DEQ. We will be holding classes to train all
the inspectors and license them. They will have hands-on training, as well as written --
hand -- written test to pass before they can actually begin testing vehicles. Next slide.
This is just a picture of a -- the first prototype. We have already assembled the first
prototype of the Idaho 2010 analyzer. This one hasn't been painted a pretty color yet,
but this was just done last week. The analyzer will be capable of doing both tail pipe
test, that's a two speed idle test, so within this box is the complete plumbing system and
analytical system. It also does OBD tests for the 1996 and newer vehicles, which is just
connecting the vehicle's on-board computer to the analyzer and interrogating the
system. We will have bar code reader and other -- and biometric systems to
authenticate the inspectors. Next slide. Biometric options, we looked at several of them
that we are capable of implementing and in consultation with DEQ we have selected
fingerprint scanning as the biometric tool. Every analyzer will have a fingerprint scanner
on it. Every inspector will be logged into our central database with their fingerprint ID
and will have to identify themselves securely using fingerprints before every single test.
That's part of our audit trail process, so that we can insure that every test can be
traceable back to an actual person that did it. Next slide. We will be providing -- as I
think I already said earlier, a complete tum key solution with no out-of-pocket cost to the
stations that will participate and that each of our -- since -- since each of the analyzers
will, essentially, belong to SysTech, they won't be selling those to the -- to the inspection
stations, we will be the single point of contact for DEQ if anything goes wrong, we are
the only place that one has to contact for solving any problem. In terms of hardware or
software problems, we guarantee a four hour or less service response time to all of our
subcontractors if there is any problems with their system hardware or software. We are
providing an end-to-end solution, go the left box here. The analyzer is traditionally what
is -- has been done in past inspection programs where a contractor will come in and sell
an analyzer package. We are providing much more. We are providing not only that
package, but the entire IT network connectivity and the central database system that I
talked about. And next slide. And this is for the technology geeks, so I won't dwell on it,
but it is a design for our central database system, high level of redundancy, both on site
and off site. Basically, our database systems -- vehicle inspection databases and other
programs around the country built just like this one, we will achieve a 99.8 percent up
time standard. So, they don't go down. Very, very rare. Part of the software solution is
to provide a dashboard of applications for DEQ to manage the program. This is a bit of
an eye chart, but just as an example, some -- some of these tools will allow the DEQ to
know exactly what's going on in inspection at any station by any inspector at anytime
instantly. For example, let's say -- let's say an inspector is testing a Ford, you know, a
'98 Ford. The computer system is watching this real-time and says, gee, that really
looks a lot like a -- like a Volkswagen to me. If that happens, the computer system can
instantly -- does instantly notify DEQ and our staff by a-mail or text that there is an issue
with a test occurring and that allows us to jump into action and identify whether or not
that test is valid, to go see if the inspector needs additional training or if that inspector
needs something other than training and occasionally you do undercover a fraud and
that's an important part of managing one of these programs is to insure the integrity of
Meridian City Council
March 2, 2010
Page 66 of 76
the data and the integrity of the system. So, that's just one example of the various tools
that are provided for the dashboard system. Under the contract with DEQ SysTech is
going to provide an extensive auditing program. We are going to do covert and overt
audits of the stations. We are going to go look at the analyzer equipment itself,
software, triggers, everything associated with managing the program. The same audit
tools will be provided to DEQ on a laptop computer, so that their own auditor can
perform those audits as well. Overt and covert. Next. Also under contract with DEQ
SysTech will provide a complete waiver and referee service for the public. This is to
provide the consumer with a confirmatory test in the case of a referee test, so that if
they go to one of our subcontractors and aren't satisfied at all with how the test was
done for any reason, they call us on our 800 hotline, we will dispatch our technician to
the consumer at the location where the inspection was done or the consumer can come
to our headquarters in the Nampa area where we will have a full test lane as well that
we operate and get a confirmatory test and a corrected record if necessary. Same thing
with waivers. If a consumer spends, for example, you know, over a certain threshold on
trying to get a car repaired and still can't get repaired, there is a repair cost waiver that
is available and our technicians will, once, again, meet the motorist or the motorist can
come to us. Next slide. We are committed to start this program on June 1st. It's a very
tight timeline. We have done this kind of thing before. An example is the Missouri
program where we implemented a program very similar to this, decentralized -- although
in that case it had 700 stations. We rolled out 700 analyzers, trained over athousand --
well, over two thousand inspectors and got the whole thing up and running in about four
months. So, we know how to do it and we are already underway and we commit to do
the same thing in Ada County, assuming that Ada County joins at least soon enough
that we can get the long lead items into the pipeline. But things like the software, the
database system, those that are under development right now will be sized to handle
Ada County if Ada County chooses to join. Next slide. Also under contract to DEQ
SysTech is going to be doing a public information education program. It's, basically, a
four phase program. It starts with grass roots outreach. It's an organization. You might
even call this part of that process. Phase two will be earned media. We will meet with
the editorial boards and the press conferences and do new medias as well. Phase
three shortly before the initial mailing of postcards goes out we will do a mass mailing,
direct mail, with information about the program brochure style, tri-fold and, then, finally
just before the program is launched there will be some paid advertising to make sure
the public is aware that things are changing or things are happening and what the
requirements are. So, that's pretty much it. We are committing to start on June 1st.
We know how to do it. We are going to have a tailored system that DEQ is going to be
proud of and we are ready to get going. We are already starting in Canyon county. So,
with that. Next slide. Any questions?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I got a couple. Where is Opus group out of?
Meridian City Council
March 2, 2010
Page 67 of 76
Dell: Sweden.
Bird: And on your 11 dollar breakdown how much goes to DEQ?
Dell: Three dollars -- Madam Mayor, Councilmen, three dollars goes to DEQ.
Bird: How much to the operator?
Dell: That is actually not determined yet, because we have not finished our subcontract
agreement. We will expect to have that done next week.
Bird: If 11 -- what can your subcontractors -- they -- that leaves us with eight dollars left.
Are we going to split it or -- do you have any idea?
Dell: Yeah. We will split it somehow, but I don't know the exact split yet.
Bird: Okay. You certainly know what you need to break even on your --
Dell: I hope we do a little better than break even, Councilman.
Bird: I beg your pardon?
Dell: I hope to do just a little better than break even, but --
Bird: That's what I mean. You need to -- you know what you have got to have -- how
much you got to have out of a machine. Four dollars? Five dollars? Two dollars? One
dollar?
Dell: In order to supply the equipment and all the service and everything else, we will
be -- we will be providing our subcontractors with somewhere between two and three
dollars a test. The exact number hasn't been issued yet.
Bird: Okay. Is DEQ open for questions, too? The system we got in place right now,
are we having a hard time policing it or are we having a lot of problems with it or why do
we want to go to a one source contract?
Wagner: Madam Mayor and Councilmen, actually, the choice is entirely yours whether
you want to utilize the DEQ contract or stay with your own program. DEQ is not a
member of Air Quality Board. You, actually, are members of that, actually, and I don't
want to speak for them by any means at how their program is running.
Bird: But what made you want to go to a single source operator. DEQ. Because you
went to it -- you evidently started in Canyon and Kuna, so --
Wagner: Madam Mayor and Council Members, actually, we are not looking to go to a
single source, if I understand your question correctly. All we are doing is -- we were
Meridian City Council
March 2, 2010
Page 68 of 76
mandated to the state law and Canyon county and Kuna, actually -- there are three
options that all cities have and one of those options was to implement a vehicle
emission testing program themselves. They could have DEQ implement a program or
they could submit an alternative program. Canyon county actually submitted an
altemative program and, unfortunately, the emissions that they proposed were about
four to five tons of emissions reductions. They needed to propose somewhere around
252 tons of emission reductions. So, because they didn't meet the state law, actually,
the state law, then, says that DEQ has to implement a vehicle emission testing program
in those areas, so, actually, that's what we are doing. Your city and, actually, many of
the other cities in Ada County, except for Kuna, actually opted to send the director a
letter saying that you wanted to sign a joint powers agreement with the director to
continue with a vehicle emission testing program. So, all we are doing today is
providing the information to make a choice and it's your choice clearly of whether you
want to continue with your existing program or you wanted to use the DEQ contractor.
Bird: Thank you very much.
Hoaglun: Question, Madam Mayor.
De Weerd: Mr. Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: For either one of you. But if I'm driving around, I have got the card, I have got
to get it inspected, we have got our current setup with the City of Meridian and I happen
to be visiting friends out in Kuna and I realize, man, today's Saturday, last day, I see a
testing station, can I go in there, since it's Ada County, even though it's adifferent -- and
I'm from Meridian, can I go into the station at Kuna and have it tested?
Wagner: If there are two different programs is what you're asking?
Hoaglun: Yes.
Wagner: If there are two different programs, actually, the director will move in the
direction to have reciprocity, actually, between the two programs and we would plan to
work with Ada County Air Board to try to do that.
Hoaglun: Okay. Thank you.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: Question on the registration enforcement and appeal process and, actually,
included in that notification in the first place. I know there are many states where,
actually, the Department of Motor Vehicles won't issue a registration unless you have
had the emissions test. We haven't gotten to that in Idaho yet. It's kind of after the fact.
And the way the current Ada County system works, the Air Quality Board sends out a
Meridian City Council
March 2, 2010
Page 69 of 76
notice to each car owner that needs to bring their car in this month. If they don't
respond that's when we tray to revoke their registration. How does your process work
first and how does a person get notified that they need to come in and test and what do
you do if they don't?
Dell: We plan to implement a program, essentially, exactly how it's done in Ada County
currently. The -- we will be sending out post cards to Canyon county residents and if
they don't respond they will get a second notice and if they don't respond, then, we will
prepare a data tape to go to ITD and ITD actually does the enforcement.
Zaremba: Uh-huh.
Dell: So, it will be the same.
Zaremba: Okay.
Wagner: And I guess the only thing I would like to add, Madam Mayor and Council
Members, is before we do any revocations, actually, in the business rules that we have
set up with the contractor, DEQ will have the opportunity to review those revocations.
De Weerd: So, Pete, what do you do with the three dollar portion that DEQ receives?
Wagner: Good question. Madam Mayor and Members of the Council, the three dollars,
actually -- some of that is statutory. There is an air quality education fund that is
required by the statute and so money will be placed in that fund and would be used to
help educate the greater Treasure Valley area about air quality issues. It's specific to
that, actually, by statute. The other part of that fund would be for the revocation cost,
actually, for ITD and that's print materials and things like that to do the revocation and,
then, thirdly, actually, we will be hiring one staff person to oversee the Canyon county
program.
De Weerd: So, David, how does that break out with our current method with the Air
Quality Board? What portion goes to them?
Zaremba: What the Air Quality Board has instituted beginning January 1st of this year
is a similar cycle. The vehicles would be tested every other year, excluding the first four
years, and also excluding vehicles older than I think 1981. For which the individual
operator -- well, let me back up. People are not necessarily licensed by the Air Quality
Board, they are certified to be a tester and allowed to be a tester. The Air Quality Board
doesn't put any limit at the moment on how many of those stations there are. That's
pretty much left up to the economy to determine how many stations there are. Along
with that change we instituted the fees that the Treasure Valley Air Quality Council had
recommended to the legislature and which they adopt, which is the maximum fee that
the station charges per person coming in to be tested each time is 20 dollars. That
would be every other year. They could be charge 20 dollars. Many of our stations even
now at what was the old rate give a discount and the place that I go has been charging
Meridian City Council
March 2, 2010
Page 70 of 76
me 12 dollars I think and -- but we also have to realize they were testing every car every
month -- every year. So, the reason that we allowed the raise to the 20 dollars on their
behalf was they will be testing less than half as many cars that they have been. Out of
whatever they charge, if it's the 20 dollars or some discounted amount, they send to the
Air Quality Board -- I forget what we settled on, either three dollars or 3.25 -- 3.50. As a
maximum.
De Weerd: 3.75.
Zaremba: 3.75. That sounds right to me. We specified that as the maximum and I
believe, in fact, that is what we are charging. Nothing goes to DEQ out of that, because
this was a program that was already existing and DEQ is not forced by state law to step
in and take us over, because we have a program. I think the question that we have is if
there is going to be reciprocity -- yes. Thank you. Somebody else used that word
already. How viable is it for us to be charging 20 dollars in Ada County and another
system to be charging 11 dollars right next door, which means that the Ada County
system needs to seriously consider whether we can even consider operating and we do
operate currently under a joint powers agreement signed by five of the six cities, not
including Kuna, and the county. So, there are six jurisdictions that have given the joint
powers agreement to the Air Quality Board. We would cease to exist if the cities
withdrew that joint powers agreement and reformed another organization that included
the Canyon county group, which is the city's right to do and that is one avenue. And the
other avenue that the Air Quality Board will need to be discussing is how viable are we
and how viable are our stations if they can give a discount that brings their cost down --
brings the citizens testing cost down to 11 dollars. So, that's a discussion we are going
to have to have.
Wagner: Madam Mayor and Council Members, if I might.
De Weerd: Yes.
Wagner: I just wanted to clarify one thing. Councilman, you actually had talked about a
joint organization with Canyon county. Canyon county actually made a choice, actually,
not to sign a joint powers agreement, actually. So, they potentially aren't included in the
-- they are not included in the joint powers agreement we would be signing with your city
and with the other Ada County cities, excluding Kuna, because Kuna also is not part of
that joint powers. So, I just want to make that clarification.
Zaremba: Good point. Thank you.
De Weerd: We have a choice, they don't.
Zaremba: Yes. Our choice would be to withdraw our joint powers agreement with the
current Air Quality Board and set up a new one that incorporates this program or to
leave it the way it is.
Meridian City Council
March 2, 2010
Page 71 of 76
De Weerd: Well -- and it doesn't make sense that Ada County would do it differently
with the five cities and county. And certainly it's not like our community is going to say,
yeah, we want to go with you, because you're less expensive. I think this is a
countywide thing and right now we have a structure to it.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: If I understood right, we can go with joint powers with DEQ, but we can stay under
the existing emission testing that we are doing right now within the city, am I not right?
De Weerd: Yeah. We already do.
Bird: Yeah.
Wagner: And just -- Madam Mayor, Councilmen, that is correct, actually. The joint
powers agreement that you have to sign with DEQ gives you the option to continue with
your program or to join and use our contractor. Again, I want to make it extremely clear
that is your choice. DEQ -- you know, it doesn't matter to us, to be perfectly honest,
which you choose, we just need to know which one you want to go down. Our hope is,
like the Mayor said, is all of the cities within Ada County and Ada County itself choose to
do the same thing, so we have consistency among the program. Canyon county and
the other cities actually did that in their decision making also.
Bird: Madam Mayor, can I ask one other question?
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Bird: This is of Bill. Bill, the -- you go in brick and mortar with your machine. It don't go
in vans or anything like that, because we do have a lot of people that have their vans
set up and make their living -- they are a small business, they -- you know, they
contribute a lot of taxes and money to our economy, but -- and this is strictly rumor. I
understand you're just going to go brick and mortar store front?
Dell: Well, we haven't made any decision at all on what we would do in Ada County.
There are no vans in Canyon county. So, that may be where the rumor came from. I'm
only talking to who exists as business partners in Canyon county so far. We haven't
ruled out anything. I have no -- no opinion at all as to the vans or brick and mortar.
What SysTech wants to do is find the best business partners to implement this program
and there are a lot of good businessmen and women and I want to meet with all of them
and, then, choose the best of the best.
Bird: Okay. Thank you.
Meridian City Council
March 2, 2010
Page 72 of 76
Dell: And the equipment will -- if I may, Madam Mayor, Councilman, the equipment
certainly could go anywhere. We -- the system we are implementing requires Internet
connectivity, so that's something that we would want to have at every location, whether
it's a van or a brick and mortar. The system also -- in order to maintain a high degree of
accuracy, uses something called a zero air and a zero air generator which requires
compressed air. So, that would have to be done. But, then, again, there is no reason
why that can't be done at any location.
Bird: Thank you.
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor, a question for Pete. Is there a time frame when this has to be
-- a decision has to be made?
Wagner: Madam Mayor and Council Members, technically, no, there is not a time frame
from a legal standpoint for you to make a decision. However, we are getting the
Canyon county program up and running June 1st, so there is a time frame if you like the
Ada County program to be up and running by June 1st, we have a e pretty much a drop
dead date of March 12th to be able to get the Ada County program up and running by
then, but there is nothing that says it has to.
Hoaglun: If I heard you correctly, you said that all the cities within Ada County have to
agree to do it, is that --
De Weerd: By March 12th.
Hoaglun: By March -- I mean we don't -- I mean we agree on a lot of things, but not
everything and --
Wagner: Madam Mayor and Council Members, your point's well taken and, again, that's
only if they wanted to start -- if you wanted to start your program up by June 1st there is
nothing that says you have to. We could do phase in, things like that. So, I would like
to clarify a point earlier if I might, actually, on the -- the criteria used in the scoring. We
actually listened to like officials in Canyon county and, actually, worked with the
SysTech, actually, for the scoring that Bill was talking about, so that is another option for
you to be able to provide some input to DEQ and we could actually use that and work
with SysTech to score the different businesses.
Hoaglun: Okay. Follow up on that question. I mean what if Meridian was the hold out?
Let's say we said, yeah, we like what we have, we got small business people and --
does the rest of the county move forward or does it kill the whole thing? I mean does
one city have veto power over the rest of them?
Wagner: Sure. First off, I will clarify, I am not an attorney. But, actually, the Attorney
General's office that works very closely with us actually in reading of the statute actually
has said that each city actually and the county has independent authority to make that
decision. That's how the statute is written. So, theoretically you could make the
Meridian City Council
March 2, 2010
Page 73 of 76
decision to utilize our contractor and say the city of Boise could continue with the
existing program. Again, we, actually, would hope that the cities and the county would
work together and move forward as one entity, so we don't have disjointed programs.
De Weerd: In whatever you decide.
Wagner: Correct.
De Weerd: And, you know, I guess the economies of scale to make the Air Quality
Board work can be able to -- to run an operation you have to have more than one city
involved.
Hoaglun: What -- Madam Mayor, just to kind of follow up on that, then, Pete or -- and
maybe, Bill, you looked at the -- at the numbers. I mean Ada County is bigger than
Canyon county, the numbers are -- there is a difference there. What type of difference,
though, are we looking at in number of cars between the two counties. Does anybody
know that off the top of their head?
Wagner: It's about 67 to 70 thousand cars in Canyon county every year would be
tested and in Ada County it's about --
Dell: About 120. Excuse me. About 120.
Wagner: About 120.
Hoaglun: So, we are talking almost double in Ada County than what would be done in
Canyon county. Okay. And that -- is that with the every other year now testing, that
120,000?
Wagner: What I gave you was actually every year.
Hoaglun: Every year. Okay. Okay. So, it would drop down to 60,000 cars per year.
Wagner: No. No. Let me clarify. I'm sorry. So, in Canyon county there is actually
about 120 to 140 thousand cars that would be tested total and so if you divide that in
half, because half the cars are tested each year.
Hoaglun: Okay.
Bird: Actually, 120 every year.
Wagner: Correct. Yes. Because that's the statute and the state law requires testing
every other year. Correct. And also just want to clarify, too. The rules from DEQ in the
rule making -- actually, different cities participated in that and there is minimum
standards that are in those rules. So, one of the things that we have heard -- and I just
want to clarify is the stations, no matter if they are with the Ada County program or the
Meridian City Council
March 2, 2010
Page 74 of 76
Canyon county program, are not allowed to be test and repair stations. You get your
test done atone of the emission testing stations and if you fail you would have to go get
repaired somewhere else. That's just a misconception that's been thrown out there.
But it's clearly in our rules.
Bird: That's what I understand. Yeah.
De Weerd: And this isn't a question of if we do emissions testing. Canyon county -- or
Ada County has to do emissions testing.
Wagner: You do actually. There is a state law, so that is one reason, but also --
De Weerd: Saw the big debate and everyone says, well, we shouldn't be doing it
anyway. We don't have that choice.
Bird: You know my feelings. The whole state should be doing it. If one does it, the
whole state.
Wagner: And just to clarify a little bit more, Madam Mayor and Council, actually -- you,
actually, were a nonattainment area at one point in time and you are now a
maintenance area, so in addition to the state law, you, actually, are required by a state
implementation plan to continue with a vehicle emission program.
De Weerd: But we chose our own program.
Wagner: According to the state law you did. That is correct.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, any other questions?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: We appreciate you coming and joining us tonight and when you were last
here it was reporting that as the RFP went out it was open to Ada County and that is
why we asked you to come and share what the details were on that one. Certainly you
are talking to the other cities and county as well?
Wagner: Madam Mayor and Council Members, if those cities or organizations invite us,
we have told them we have a contractor and the choice is theirs. So, like you, you
invited us out here tonight and the other cities have -- not all of them have those, so we
will go at their request.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Council, anything further?
Zaremba: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you for being here.
Meridian City Council
March 2, 2010
Page 75 of 76
Wagner: Thank you very much. And, again, if you need more information we would be
happy to come back anytime, meet with you or any of your staff.
Item 11: Executive Session per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1) - (fl - (to consider
and advise its legal representatives in pending litigation)
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Item No. 11 is an Executive Session per Idaho
State Code 67-2345(1)(f).
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we go into Executive Session as per the code you just reported.
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second. Madam Clerk, roll call.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
EXECUTIVE SESSION: (11:02 p.m. to 11:30 p.m.)
De Weerd: I'll entertain a motion to come out of Executive Session.
Bird: So moved.
Hoaglun: Second.
De Weerd: All those in favor say aye. All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Do I have a motion to adjourn?
Bird: I move we adjourn.
Hoaglun: Second.
De Weerd: All those in favor? All ayes.
Meridian City Council
March 2, 2010
Page 76 of 76
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:30 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
3 i a3 i ao~v
MAYOR T Y De WEE~j.RI I DATE APPROVED
\`\\\~~~1~ I ' ~.
F
r •
AY_EE . HOLMAN, CITY CLERK
~E~L
~T 1S'S • ~ .
/''~/II/If 1111111 ~~, eM•