2014-04-08Tuesday, April 08, 2014 at 3:00 PM
1. Roll -Call Attendance
X David Zaremba X Joe Borton
X Charlie Rountree Keith Bird (arrived at 3:93 p.m.)
X Luke Cavener Genesis Milam O
® X Mayor Tammy de Weerd
2. Pledge of Allegiance
3. Adoption of the Agenda Adopted
4. Proclamation
A. Proclamation for Meridian Middle School Future City Champions Day
5. Consent Agenda Approved
A. Approve Minutes of March 25, 2014 City Council PreCouncil Meeting
B. Approve Minutes of March 25, 2014 City Council Meeting
C. Approve Minutes of April 1, 2014 City Council Meeting
D. Approval of Task Order 10489 for "Water Meter Survey" to Civil Survey
Consultants in the Not -To -Exceed Amount of $109,344.00
E. Approval of Task Order 10481b for. Meridian Heights Water Sewer District -
Water Meter Design" to Civil Survey Consultants in the Not -To -Exceed
Amount of $58,618.00
F. Memorandum of Agreement with Iona, Idaho for Incident Tracking System
and E -Citation Software
G. Professional Services Agreement for "Kleiner Park Live" Concert Series
Production Services Between Sona Productions and the City of Meridian
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda — Tuesday, April 08, 2014 Page 1 of 3
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing,
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
H. License Agreement Between the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District
(NMID)and the City of Meridian for a Pathway on the Ten Mile Stub Drain
Within the Canterbury Commons Subdivision
I. Final Order for Approval: FP 14-009 Olson & Bush Subdivision No. 3 by
Ronald W. Van Auker Located 2950 E. Franklin Road Request: Final Plat
Approval Consisting of Six (6) Building Lots on 6.81 Acres of Land in the C-
G and I -L Zoning Districts
J. Final Order for Approval: TEC 14-003 Seyam Subdivision by Volante
Investments Located North Side of E. Franklin Road and East of N. Eagle
Road Request: Two (2) Year Time Extension on the Preliminary Plat
K. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Approval: MDA 14-003 Kennedy
Commercial Center by Derk Pardoe Located North Side of W. Overland
Road and West of S. Stoddard Road Request: Amend the Recorded
Development Agreement (DA) (Instrument #108119853) for the Purpose of
Excluding the Property from the Recorded DA and Incorporating a New
Concept Plan and Building Elevations Consisting of Office, Retail and
Multi -Family Residential into a New DA
L. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Approval: MDA 14-002 Da Vinci
Park by CS2, LLC Located Southwest Corner of N. Locust Grove Road and
E. McMillan Road Request: Amendment to the Development Agreement to
Allow a Mix of Single Family Attached and Detached Lots Instead of all
Attached Lots and Update the Conceptual Development Plan
6. Items Moved From Consent Agenda None
7. Department Reports
A. Mayor's Office: Resolution No. 14-983: Appointing Rich Nesbit to Seat 5 of
the Meridian Historic Preservation Commission Approved
B. Fire Department: Budget Amendment to Purchase Cardiac Monitors for a
Not -to -Exceed Amount of $42,365.12 Approved
C. Continued from March 11, 2014: Community Development: Review and
Approve City Roadway, Intersection, and Community Program Project
Priorities for 2014
D. Community Development: Communities in Motion 2040, the Regional Long -
Range Transportation Plan, Public Comment Period Update
E. Public Works: Nampa Meridian Irrigation District (NMID) Project Agreement
- Well 21/Watertower Fiber Optic Conduit Crossing at the Eight Mile Lateral
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda — Tuesday, April 08, 2014 Page 2 of 3
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing,
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
F. Public Works: "Wastewater Program - National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System Permitting (NPDES)"
8. Ordinances
A. Ordinance No. 14-1601: An Ordinance Amending Meridian City Code as
Codified at Title 11, Entitled the Unified Development Code Pertaining to
Modification of the Dimensional Standards of the R-15 Zoning District (ZOA
14-001) Approved
9. Future Meeting Topics
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda — Tuesday, April 08, 2014 Page 3 of 3
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing,
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
Meridian City Council Workshop April 8, 2014
A meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 3:00 p.m., Tuesday, April
8, 2014, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd.
Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, Charlie Rountree, David Zaremba, Keith
Bird, Genesis Milam and Joe Borton.
Members Absent: Luke Cavener.
Others Present: Bill Nary, Jaycee Holman, Caleb Hood, Warren Stewart, Tom Barry,
John Overton, Mark Niemeyer, David Miles, and Tracy Crane.
Item 1: Roll -call Attendance:
Roll call.
X David Zaremba
X Charlie Rountree
X Genesis Milam
X
X Joe Borton
X Keith Bird
Luke Cavener
Mayor Tammy de Weerd
De Weerd: Welcome to our Meridian City Council meeting. We appreciate always
seeing young faces in our audience and so we would like to welcome our students from
Meridian Middle School. So, thank you for joining us and to all the other as well.
Including you, Ralph. For the record it is Tuesday, April 8th. It's 3:00 p.m. We will start
with roll call attendance, Madam Clerk.
Item 2: Pledge of Allegiance
De Weerd: Thank you. Item No. 2 is our Pledge of Allegiance. If you will all rise and
join us in the pledge to our flag.
(Pledge of Allegiance recited.)
Item 3: Adoption of the Agenda
De Weerd: Item No. 3 is adoption of the agenda.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: A couple items to add or note on the agenda. On Item 7-A, the resolution
number is 14-983 and Item 8-A, the ordinance number is 14-1601. With those noted
change, Madam Mayor, I move that we adopt the agenda.
Meridian City Council Workshop
April 8, 2014
Page 2 of 34
Borton: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda. All those in favor say
aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Item 4: Proclamation
A. Proclamation for Meridian Middle School Future City
Champions Day
De Weerd: Item 4 is a proclamation. I am going to head down to the podium. So, this
is in recognition of some pretty amazing students that represented our city at national
with great poise and great talent and a lot of imagination. We were very honored to
have these students present what they were going to share at the national competition
at the State of the City address and -- and since the students have come to our
Community Development Department and shared their model and their information,
there is no doubt that these students are very passionate about what they put together,
very knowledgeable about it, and we have no doubt that the future of our community,
our state, and our country are in good hands. So, I will ask those students to come
forward and join me as I read this proclamation. Don't be shy. Come on up. Because
this day is yours; right? And, then, after I read this if I can have each of you introduce
yourself and say what roll you played in preparing the Future City in putting together
your application and your model. Okay? Okay. So, whereas the Future City program
gives young people the opportunity to do things that engineers do and to improve
students' understanding of science, technology, engineering, and math and whereas the
Meridian Middle School Future City team and their city named -- okay. What is the
name? Okay. That recently competed against 24 other teams and came in first place
at the 2014 Idaho region competition and whereas this victory earned them the
prestigious privilege of representing our great state in the 2014 National Future City
competition on February 15th in Washington, D.C., whereas they won the special award
for best management of water resources and whereas the guidance of the team's
engineer mentor Jay West and teacher representative Krista Schwartz helped team
members Macey Smith, Hannah Gray, Conner Wittmuss, Sydni Merrill, Quinn McEntire
-- and if I mess up your names I apologize. Just join me, because most people say my
name wrong, too, so -- Josie Sanford, Olivia Pluim, Grace Ellis, Leah Cadillac, Ethan
Cash, and Cody David, focused on work ethic and desire and transformed them into a
winning team with each team member making valuable contributions. Therefore, I,
Mayor Tammy de Weerd, of the City of Meridian, Idaho, do hereby proclaim Meridian
Middle School Future City Champions Day in the City of Meridian and call upon the
community to join me in congratulating this team on their remarkable achievement and
for representing Meridian so proudly in the recent competition and I did sign this today
and I would like to be the first to congratulate these young members. Now, do you have
a team captain? Okay. Well, I will present this, then, to the closet standing to me and I
will tell you that I will make one of these for each of you, so you can do what you would
Meridian City Council Workshop
April 8, 2014
Page 3 of 34
like with it. I won't assume you save them. You can hang them. You can draw on
them. You can throw darts at it. But we are very proud of what all of you have been
able to do in representing our community and showcasing the talent that we have right
here in Meridian. So thank you. And if you will, please, take the mike and introduce
yourself.
Merrill: I'm Sydni Merrill and I work in private home addition and help to write an essay
and so I worked on that with Conner.
Ellis: I'm Grace Ellis and helped to work on the narrative for the competition.
Pluim: I'm Olivia Pluim and I worked a little bit on the buildings on the model and on the
poster for the presentation.
Cash: I'm Ethan and I mostly worked on small details, like the palm trees and all of
other ones like that.
McEntire: I am Quinn McEntire and I helped Grace out with the Narrative and it's cool
that we have a holiday now.
Davis: I'm Cody and I -- for a little while I was helping with SimCity, which is another
part that is required in the competition and I also helped Ethan with the palm trees on
the model.
Smith: I'm Macey and I worked on the models in the competition.
Wittmuss: I'm Conner. I worked on the Essay with Sydni.
De Weerd: Now, could any of you -- can you give a brief explanation of what your
model was about?
Smith: Our model was part of our city or like our island. It was just part of it that was
like our city and like all of our districts and buildings just parts that were part of our city.
And transportation.
De Weerd: And why did you win the award for your water --
Smith: I don't think that's a question for me.
Wittmuss: We won that award because we used a lot of different really creative ways to
manage all the different wastewater in our city.
Merrill: Like we were a man made city and, then, we located in the middle of the
Mediterranean and so used water for -- so we desalinated the water around us for
drinking water and, then, we used -- and, then, we recycled all of our drainage water,
black water for -- in the sewage.
Meridian City Council Workshop
April 8, 2014
Page 4 of 34
De Weerd: Future employees. Thank you so much.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Borton: I see a lot of cameras out there. Is there a chance that they might want a
picture with you and the whole crew together?
De Weerd: Okay. Are you game? Come on up.
Parent: I just want to acknowledge Krista Schwartz as a teacher who has been with
these students for the last three years developing their love for this competition and it is
a huge amount of time and commitment to these students, as well as the travel and the
organization involved in doing that, so, Krista Schwartz, thank you so much for making
Meridian Middle School shine.
De Weerd: Thank you. And you don't have to stay here unless you want to. Although
you will be hearing about wastewater and -- we know how to clear a room. Okay.
Item 5: Consent Agenda
A. Approve Minutes of March 25, 2014 City Council PreCouncil
Meeting
B. Approve Minutes of March 25, 2014 City Council Meeting
C. Approve Minutes of April 1, 2014 City Council Meeting
D. Approval of Task Order 10489 for "Water Meter Survey" to Civil
Survey Consultants in the Not -To -Exceed Amount of
$109,344.00
E. Approval of Task Order 10481 b for "Meridian Heights Water
Sewer District - Water Meter Design" to Civil Survey
Consultants in the Not -To -Exceed Amount of $58,618.00
F. Memorandum of Agreement with Iona, Idaho for Incident
Tracking System and E -Citation Software
G. Professional Services Agreement for "Kleiner Park Live"
Concert Series Production Services Between Sona
Productions and the City of Meridian
H. License Agreement Between the Nampa Meridian Irrigation
District (NMID)and the City of Meridian for a Pathway on the
Meridian City Council Workshop
April 8, 2014
Page 5 of 34
Ten Mile Stub Drain Within the Canterbury Commons
Subdivision
I. Final Order for Approval: FP 14-009 Olson & Bush Subdivision
No. 3 by Ronald W. Van Auker Located 2950 E. Franklin Road
Request: Final Plat Approval Consisting of Six (6) Building
Lots on 6.81 Acres of Land in the C -G and I -L Zoning Districts
J. Final Order for Approval: TEC 14-003 Seyam Subdivision by
Volante Investments Located North Side of E. Franklin Road
and East of N. Eagle Road Request: Two (2) Year Time
Extension on the Preliminary Plat
K. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Approval: MDA 14-
003 Kennedy Commercial Center by Derk Pardoe Located
North Side of W. Overland Road and West of S. Stoddard Road
Request: Amend the Recorded Development Agreement (DA)
(Instrument #108119853) for the Purpose of Excluding the
Property from the Recorded DA and Incorporating a New
Concept Plan and Building Elevations Consisting of Office,
Retail and Multi -Family Residential into a New DA
L. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Approval: MDA 14-
002 Da Vinci Park by CS2, LLC Located Southwest Corner of
N. Locust Grove Road and E. McMillan Road Request:
Amendment to the Development Agreement to Allow a Mix of
Single Family Attached and Detached Lots Instead of all
Attached Lots and Update the Conceptual Development Plan
De Weerd: Okay. Item 5 is the Consent Agenda.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we approve the Consent Agenda as published and authorize the
Clerk to attest and the Mayor to sign.
Borton: Second.
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda. Madam
Clerk will you call roll.
Meridian City Council Workshop
April 8, 2014
Page 6 of 34
Roll Call: Bird, absent; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea;
Cavener, absent.
De Weerd: All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Item 6: Items Moved From Consent Agenda
De Weerd: Okay. There were no items moved from the Consent Agenda.
Item 7: Department Reports
A. Mayor's Office: Resolution No. 14-983: Appointing Rich Nesbit
to Seat 5 of the Meridian Historic Preservation Commission
De Weerd: So, we will move right to Item 7-A. Council, in front of you you have a
resolution appointing Rich Nesbit to Seat 5 of the Meridian Historical Preservation
Commission. Rich right now is involved with our historical society and has been
involved for the last several years. He's been a great contributor and I know he will
bring a new level of energy to this commission. I stand for any questions. Okay.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: I agree. I was very pleased to see him come forward to be appointed to this
position. He's a fantastic fit and with that I would move that we approve Resolution No.
14-983 appointing Rich Nesbit to Seat 5 of the Meridian Historic Preservation
Commission.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve the appointment in front of you.
Madam Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll Call: Bird, absent; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea;
Cavener, absent.
De Weerd: All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT.
B. Fire Department: Budget Amendment to Purchase Cardiac
Monitors for a Not -to -Exceed Amount of $42,365.12
Meridian City Council Workshop
April 8, 2014
Page 7 of 34
De Weerd: Item 7-B is under our Fire Department. I will turn this over to our chief.
Niemeyer: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, thank you. This budget
amendment -- I will give you a quick back history on this. This current budget year we
had replacement of six cardiac monitors, as well as the addition or enhancement of two.
When we got the initial bid prior to bringing that to you last year for approval, we
included in that the trade-in value, if you will, which was what we understood was kind
of common practice. Since then we have a legal opinion based on the state code that
does not allow us to actually trade those in when we get the new ones purchased. So,
with that, the amount of 42,365 that we had planned for trade-in value we cannot use.
We are going to take those cardiac monitors, put them on the auction block, if you will,
to specific bidders, because we can't just turn those out to the public. We don't want
those in the hands of the public. So, that is what the budget amendment is -- is for
today is 42,365 difference in what we had planned on for trade-in value and Bill and his
team took a look at it with a very fine tooth comb, if you will, on what the state code
allows and, unfortunately, the state code does not specify that municipalities can bring
in that -- that trade-in value. So, we want to stay with the legal side of things and do it
the right way, so that is a budget amendment.
De Weerd: Thank you, chief. Council, any questions?
Rountree: I have none.
Milam: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Milam.
Milam: I move that we approve a budget amendment to purchase cardiac monitors in
the amount not to exceed $42,365.12.
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: That was very specific. I have a motion and a second. Any discussion?
Madam Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll Call: Bird, absent; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea;
Cavener, absent.
De Weerd: See, we do things down to the penny in this city. Pretty cool, uh? Good
stewards.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT.
C. Continued from March 11, 2014: Community Development:
Review and Approve City Roadway, Intersection, and
Community Program Project Priorities for 2014
Meridian City Council Workshop
April 8, 2014
Page 8 of 34
De Weerd: Item 7-C is continued from March 11th. I will turn this over to Caleb.
Hood: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. As the Mayor just stated
and as noted on your agenda, we discussed priority roadway intersections, highways
and community program projects on March 11th. I have made some amendments to
the priority list that you reviewed in March and am here today to, hopefully, seek your
endorsement of the revisions or some form of the revised list today. Changes from
what the transportation commission recommended during their March meeting and what
is before you today is in the far right-hand column. Similar to last month when we
discussed this, any change from -- so, in the 2013 priority range any change that the
transportation commission made that was plus or minus five points different than what
we had the year previous was highlighted yellow. I used a similar methodology to show,
quote, unquote, significant changes from what you saw last time to what is being
proposed now in the far right-hand column. So, for example, last year's priority project
number seven, Linder Road, Ustick to McMillan, was proposed by the transportation
commission to be priority project number three. It's since been revised to be priority
project number 11. So, again, because the change was more than five percentage
points -- or five spots I have highlighted those yellow throughout the -- all four of the
project lists. The other thing that we discussed and was requested last month was a
map. So, Brian helped me come up with a map. It should also be in your packet.
Hopefully you have that in color, because if it's in black and white it probably isn't as
much help for both the table and this map. But this map, hopefully, is what you all were
hoping for or get at least some of what you were hoping for. As you can see in the
legend the intersections are -- are circles and the roadway projects are squares. The
higher the number or the higher the priority the bigger the box or the circle and, then,
the smaller the circle the lesser priority it is, at least right now on the draft priority rank.
So, we can toggle back and forth. Again, you should have this map in your possession.
What we have done, again, is taken those lists and put them on a map to show where
the priority projects rank out or stack up or however you want to view that. So, again,
my hope for today is that we can have a list that everyone's comfortable with. I also
have a draft letter that I would like to have the clerk pass out to you. A cover letter that,
again, assuming we can -- we can get through this this afternoon, I have got a draft
cover letter that I would like as part of the motion authorization for the Mayor to sign a
letter. What we can do is take a little time and if you have tweaks to this letter --
realize you're seeing it for the first time, maybe you can e-mail me with any tweaks or
changes to that letter or e-mail the Mayor's chief of staff. But I would like to hand that
letter out. Again, I don't necessarily expect you to read it right now. If you have time, if
there is a lull in this discussion and want to, that's certainly okay, too. I tried to
incorporate some of the discussions from our last meeting and incorporate that, again,
into a draft letter, so have that as well. So, I'm not quite sure what the pleasure, Madam
Mayor, is of the -- of the Council. I'm not planning on running through project by project
again. I think we spent over an hour, if memory serves correctly, last time on this. I'm
hoping you have had a chance to review -- review the changes from last time. Maybe
just a little bit more background or insight into what's changed since last month. The
only comments I received from any Council persons were from Councilman Rountree
and so, essentially, what you see on the far right-hand column represents a lot of --
Meridian City Council Workshop
April 8, 2014
Page 9 of 34
pretty much all his comments. So, if you're wondering what has changed over the past
30 or so days, we met, sat down and kind of went through all three of the lists. So,
again, Madam Mayor, I'm not quite sure how you want to tackle it. You were absent last
time, so if you want to -- if you want to go through it project by project we can do that,
too. I would just stand I guess and see what you would like to do at this point.
De Weerd: You know, Caleb, I did go through the list and we have so many priorities
that it's -- it's really hard to -- can we just put all in the circles one and call it good?
Hood: Madam Mayor, if I may, ACHD actually asked me to go the other way, what --
what they would like to do is - well, sort of. Right now we have got an individual list for
roadways and intersections and they would like us to get to an overall top 15. So, now
we are pitting intersections against roadways a little bit there. So, if you can give me a
little direction. I don't know that we have to -- if you want to we can spend the time
doing that, if you want to give me the top five or ten or if you want me to just kind of --
you know, I kind of looked at it and to me our top four or five roadways are -- are right
up there, in my opinion. If you look at the top five intersections I don't think these top
intersections are as critical. That being said, I mean this one is getting some
improvement right now, so just for me I think our top five roadways kind of are more
important and we typically get a bigger bang for the buck doing intersections, but our
roadways -- again, the top three roadways seem to be -- but I will take any direction you
have that way, too. But ACHD has asked for a top 15 list, too.
De Weerd: Okay. When I looked at it I didn't look at it to -- to try and do that, so --
when -- when is this to be turned in?
Hood: Madam Mayor, the deadline is April 30th. Matt Edmond I'm sure would take it as
soon as we can get it to him. That top 15 1 think we can probably -- you know, if we
could finalize these lists today I think that would be great. I know Ryan is here as well, if
he wants to add anything to that. I can maybe supplement these with the top 15 later,
too, if you want to give a look at it and let me know what the top 15 looks like.
De Weerd: Well, Council, what I would propose is to go ahead and submit this and,
then, next week put it on for narrowing to our top 15 roadway projects and intersections
and that way they can see this list and we can try tackling the top 15. Does that sound
reasonable?
Bird: We are busy next week.
De Weerd: Okay.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Meridian City Council Workshop
April 8, 2014
Page 10 of 34
Zaremba: I was going to say that works for me. For sake of discussion, I would like to
throw in one more idea here. We go through this exercise every year and we very
carefully consider what's being proposed. The last several years we have had a
downturn in development, which is changing. We are having an up turn in
development. And my concern is that -- as the Mayor said, you look at the top priorities
and a whole lot of these are top priorities that need to be done pretty soon or maybe
even last year and I guess what I would like to suggest that's -- somewhere in here or
maybe in the cover letter we have a paragraph that says that we really would support
ACHD in seeking greater funding, so that they are able to do more of these projects, as
opposed to seeing some of them probably aren't going to be done in the next ten or 15
years as you look down the list a little ways and that we would certainly support them in
an effort to seek their own greater funding to be able to do more projects -- not only for
us, but the other cities are presenting projects to them as well. We feel it's important
that we get many projects, because we are right in the center of the valley and
everybody's traffic comes through here. So, I think we are justified in wanting a high
priority for many of our projects. But I just -- I'm suggesting that we suggest to them that
the list needs to be getting shorter with greater funding and that we would support their
effort to do that. Any other opinions on that?
De Weerd: It's a fine question, Mr. Zaremba. Council, any comment?
Rountree: Well, I agree.
Milam: I agree.
Bird: I agree with him. I do.
De Weerd: Okay. I do believe it's probably at that point, Caleb, where it would be
helpful to have a meeting between our Council and the commission and so if you and
Madam Clerk could work on getting some dates identified that we could fine one that
might work for everyone that would be helpful, because I do think it is time for a
discussion and when we get together I think we need to have information in terms of
where development applications have come in, what has been final platted and start --
the whole idea behind Blueprint For Good Growth was to look at the -- not just what is in
the -- right in front of you right then, but the cumulative impact of all developments,
whether they are in and around us. South Meridian certainly is impacted by the growth
from Kuna and in the south -- southwest Boise and we are seeing a lot of building
permits in north Meridian as well. So, I think it's a timely discussion.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: One question for Caleb on the letter. The last paragraph references a great
priority. It's listed as number 13 and I think it -- I was curious what the purpose of that
paragraph is in light of its ranking. I wouldn't be opposed to that project being ranked
Meridian City Council Workshop
April 8, 2014
Page 11 of 34
higher. I think you state the argument for it. I just didn't know what that was trying to
convey to them if it's not ranked any higher.
Hood: Madam Mayor, Councilman Borton, I believe that project is actually ranked
number four on our community programs projects. So, it's this new project that would
be a community program. Pine, Locust Grove to Main Street. So, it's fairly high on that
list and it's new. So, that's another reason to kind of call it out. It came out of nowhere,
if you will, and jumped up higher. So, yeah, it's on the community program. And, I'm
sorry, there is -- it's two sided, that letter as well, so it's the last paragraph on the first
page. There are a couple of other -- there is a back side there.
Borton: Madam Mayor? When I look at the roadway project, Item 13, then, am
confusing two different --
Hood: Madam Mayor, Councilman Borton, you're not confusing them. Those are the
same --
Borton: Right.
Hood: -- if you look in the comment section we have that make community programs
and/or economic development applications. This project will most likely score better on
our -- the community program side of things, because it is geared toward and will really
benefit pedestrians and bicyclists.
Borton: Okay.
Hood: But still -- there is still a need there, too, for the roadway to be -- to be widened
and some turn lanes and those types of things. So, there is some duplication in that for
sure.
Borton: That makes sense. All right. Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions or comments? So, Council, if you're willing
probably need for the record to have a motion on the list to move it forward to Ada
County Highway District.
Hood: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Hood: I know you weren't talking to me there, but can I just -- are we coming back next
week? Is that still the plan?
Bird: Yes.
De Weerd: Yes.
Meridian City Council Workshop
April 8, 2014
Page 12 of 34
Hood: Maybe I can update the letter with the one comment I have heard. If you have
others if you get them to me in the next couple of days so I can get it in your packet, we
will look at that letter and get a final buy off on the letter and I will even put together
maybe a draft top 15 to get us started and, then, hopefully, that will expedite things next
week and approve the final list, then, if that's --
De Weerd: So, we have to give them the final list combined?
Hood: I would like to do that. If you want to go to a different direction we can. I just
think that may help things move along. But either way. Or you can adopt this and we
can come back and talk about top 15. The letter I still need to -- if we are going to
include something about funding I need to make those changes.
De Weerd: Okay. So, Council, if you will get your comments into Caleb we can bring
something back to next week's meeting. Okay. Very good. Is that all you needed on
that?
D. Community Development: Communities in Motion 2040, the
Regional Long -Range Transportation Plan, Public Comment
Period Update
De Weerd: Okay. Item 7-D is also in our Community Development under Communities
In Motion.
McClure: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. I'm here to discuss the
Communities In Motion 2040. This is an informational item for you and if you like you
could participate in the public review processing going on right now. Staff will be back
later this year to discuss in more depth the outcome of this process and I have to
apologize in advance if some of this is low level for you, but I wasn't sure the familiarity,
so -- COMPASS is a regional metropolitan planning organization. One of the
responsibilities is to create and maintain long range transportation plans, which are
required to receive federal transportation funding. The plan Communities In Motion
2040 is for both Ada and Canyon county and must have a 20 year horizon and be
updated every four years. By anticipating areas and densities of future growth it helps
conserve roads, bridges, transit services, pathways, sidewalks and trails are ready for
future. The plan also includes optimal regional performance measures and goals in
topics like housing, health, public safety and economic development. The current
version of CIM, Communities In Motion 2035 was adopted by the COMPASS board in
September of 2010. CIM 2040 is expected to be adopted later this year. City staff has
been involved with CIM 2040 from the beginning. This includes helping to staff the
workshop tables during the three day public visioning process in 2012. The workshop
included over 170 participants, which developed 27 scenarios. Each scenario was,
then, evaluated for trends, which helped to establish a vision of CIM 2040. Staff helped
and is continuing to help to make sure this vision plan is supportive of Meridian's
Comprehensive Plan. There are overlapping -- or overarching and objectives for CIM
2040. This includes new housing and jobs in major activity centers. Focus is on
Meridian City Council Workshop
April 8, 2014
Page 13 of 34
maintenance, existing recreation and open space. Focuses growth outside of prime
farmland environmental constraints. Insures a variety of housing types. Supports local
comprehensive plan. Supports a high capacity transit for Interstate 1-84. And supports
multi -modal infrastructure services. What you see here is the -- there is a map for CIM
2040. This plan is intended to support a projected population of 1,020,000 people,
which is 422,000 more people than now and 462,000 jobs, which is 210,000 more jobs
than now. For Meridian this is a projected population of 154,780 people and 65,642
jobs.
Bird: Thank God I won't be here.
McClure: This map helps to identify locations in need and sort of sets the stage for
future transportation systems. CIM 2040 isn't just about transportation routes. It
recognizes that planning for transportation can't take place in a vacuum. It affects and
is affected by other things. It's reflected in the 2040 vision descriptions on the previous
slide and now you will see them in the elements above. The transportation, housing,
farmland, open space, health, community, infrastructure, land use and economic
development are all very important to this plan. Compass is fond of pointing this out, so
will as well. But the icons you see on the right correspond to the numbering on the left.
They use those in all of their marketing. There are goals for each of the elements listed
on a previous slide. These were developed by the COMPASS board and through public
comment in late 2012 and early 2013. There were 17 goals which support the eight
previously mentioned elements. Additionally -- and to make these goals more
manageable -- performance measures were created. These were developed in addition
to anticipated federal performance measures and identified through scenario planning
workshops. Each performance measure had to target something that is measurable
that we can compare to and see if we are making progress. There will be regular
monitoring reports to track progress and so that we can hold ourselves accountable.
COMPASS is also going to be preparing a dashboard online so anyone can go on there
and check out these matrix and in CIM 33 projects corridors and projects were
identified. The important thing to note is that they are all considered regional. That is
they have federal funding opportunities and, then, they also have air quality impact
considerations involved. This doesn't mean, for example, that not seeing Ustick Road
on here means Ustick Road isn't going to be built. Ustick Road is a local project, so
these are -- these are regional projects with federal funding. Numbers five, ten, 11, 16
and 29 have some overlap in Meridian's area of city impact and this is the same map
zoomed into Meridian's area of city impact. During the planning process it was
continually stressed that items lower on the list were going to be very difficult. The
federal funds could be used just in the top three. Councilman Zaremba made a point
earlier, which is timely here. This is the funding -- this is funding that COMPASS
projects will be available in the CIM to plan our transportation system. All funds shown
are in current dollars. There is no inflation accounted for. Those people support all
types of transportation funding, railway transit, capital maintenance and alternatives like
bicycle and pedestrian improvements. There is an annual shortfall of 159 million dollars
or 4.3 billion dollars over the life of the plan. Given that there is not enough future
revenue to build this infrastructure, the COMPASS board voted to focus all of its federal
Meridian City Council Workshop
April 8, 2014
Page 14 of 34
funding on maintenance. That is federal funding over -- only, as I mentioned before,
local projects can still occur. ACHD can still build roads in Ada County and Meridian,
but federal funds are basically not available. Even with all federal funding going
towards maintenance there will still have to be local, state, and federal funding
combinations to handle that and it's still not enough just to maintain what we have and
what we will be building. That is a quick overview of CIM. If you'd like to be involved
there is an open house at COMPASS just down the street on Thursday and you can, of
course, also go online anytime and review the material and also fill out comment forms
there. There is the full array of resources on their website, so if you're looking for more
information that is all available and it's all organized on compassidaho.org and with that
I will stand for any questions.
De Weerd: Thank you, Brian. Council, any questions? Thank you. So, you do see the
open houses. You can go online and take a look at those. Those that haven't been as
intimately involved as their representative on the COMPASS board, I would strongly
suggest that you go on there. As you can see from the map that Brian showed, you
don't see Highway 16 connecting Chinden to the interstate and there is certainly a
concern in south Meridian with the road needs and the growth pressures that are going
on down there and I guess, Caleb, one of those in south Meridian certainly was
something that I know we will be having a meeting with ACHD on later regarding south
Meridian, but Locust Grove corridor continues to be one of those areas that have been
-- that our citizens down in that area have concern about, so that might be something
that we could discuss next week, too, but as you can see from -- from the map there is
serious need, as Councilman Zaremba mentioned, in terms of the funding shortfall.
E. Public Works: Nampa Meridian Irrigation District (NMID)
Project Agreement - Well 21/Watertower Fiber Optic Conduit
Crossing at the Eight Mile Lateral
De Weerd: So, if there is no further questions on that item, we will go ahead and move
on. Item 7-E is under our Public Works Department. David.
Miles: Good afternoon, Madam Mayor, Council Members. I will be very brief. I'm here
to bring you the first Nampa -Meridian Irrigation District project agreement.
De Weerd: You know, it's more important that Tom starts out that way. Oh, sorry. Is
Tom here? Oh, good. That wasn't -- or there he is.
Miles: This project is for a fiber line under the Eight Mile Lateral to connect Well 21 to
the water tower. As you know we entered into a new master agreement for
encroachments with Nampa -Meridian a few weeks ago and this would be the first
project under that agreement. Nampa -Meridian has assembled that packet and
delivered it to us and I'm happy to report that the terms and process has worked as we
suspected and planned within the document. With that, really, I only have two items for
you to consider. One is to consider and authorize Public Works staff to sign the initial
project agreement for Well 21 and second is your consideration and direction moving
Meridian City Council Workshop
April 8, 2014
Page 15 of 34
forward for future agreements whether or not Council wishes to hear a future agreement
or direct staff to go ahead and begin processing all future agreements moving forward.
As part of our plan, as you might recall, we are trying to do some time saving, as well as
some other things with a new master agreement and so with that in that process is
having staff sign rather than bringing the documents to Council if that's your direction
and pleasure. So, with that I will stand for any questions. That's really all I have and --
De Weerd: Thanks, Dave. Any questions from Council?
Bird: I have none.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I would comment that I appreciate all the work that has gone into this getting
to this point and I appreciate having the first one being brought to us, but beings that it's
operating the way that we hoped it would operate and I would be comfortable with not
bringing future ones to us. Personal opinion.
De Weerd: I would agree.
Rountree: I agree.
Bird: I have no problem with that.
De Weerd: Okay.
Miles: Thank you very much.
De Weerd: You're welcome. Well, congratulations.
Borton: Good job.
Bird: Thank you.
Miles: You're welcome.
F. Public Works: "Wastewater Program - National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System Permitting (NPDES)"
De Weerd: It's nice to see we are at that point; right? Okay. Item 7-F is also under our
Public Works. The long awaited NPDES update.
Barry: In the spirit of being brief we need lots of money and that's all I have. Any
questions?
Meridian City Council Workshop
April 8, 2014
Page 16 of 34
De Weerd: Thank you. We are at the end of our agenda --
Barry: Fantastic. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this has been a presentation
long time in the making, because the work that we put into this has spanned a number
of years in preparation for what appears to be the final chapter in the NPDES permitting
saga for our wastewater treatment plant after years and years of delay with regard to
administration -- and administrative extension on its behalf of the EPA. We are finally at
the point where the EPA is ready to release a draft permit for the City of Meridian. So,
we thought it would be prudent to prepare you for that release and to share with you the
plans that we have developed in addressing our response in certainly the strategies and
actions and tactics that we are going to have to employ in order to keep the wastewater
treatment plant within compliance with this new anticipated permit. So, to that end our
agenda looks like this: We are going to go over the goals and objectives of the
wastewater program. I want to also introduce the staff and also the consultants that
have been primarily involved with this particular project. We will talk about NPDES,
which is National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permitting and the wastewater
program history and current status. Also discuss new compliance requirements. That
will be largely done by our consultants at HDR and, then, talk about the options that we
are going to be evaluating to meet the new compliance requirements and, then, develop
a foundation for sort of what comes next. Now, in anticipation of today's conversation
took the liberty to develop a decoder sheet for you and I'd like to pass that out for you
now. It's a list of acronyms that you're going to run across in the presentation. I will try
to disclose those as we go through the presentation, but we will be referring to them
several times throughout the presentation, so it will be nice I think to have a little
acronym sheet here, so -- all right. So, with that the goals and objectives of the
presentation today are to do three simple things. The first one is to inform the City
Council and the public for that matter of the complexities and the impacts of the
potential decisions that are going to be coming our way over the next several months
and into the following years. We also want to make sure that we educate the Council
and the community, so that they are prepared to make and support future decisions that
we are going to have to make, which will be generational. I mean we will be impacting
generations to come with the decisions and the changes that we have to make in the
wastewater treatment plant and in the program and, therefore, to develop a foundation
for what comes next from today going forward. So, with that I will give a brief
introduction to the team members that have been part of this team for the last couple
years. They include myself, our deputy director John McCormick; engineering manager
Warren Stewart; Clint Dolsby our assistant city engineer; Mollie Mangerich our
environmental programs manager; Tracy Crane our superintendent of wastewater.
Laurelei McVey our assistant wastewater superintendent and Travis Kissire our
laboratory manager. From HDR we have David Clark, who I wanted to read just a little
bit about. He's the principal on this particular project for HDR Consulting. David is a
senior vice-president. He also serves as HDR's market sector director for wastewater
leading strategic efforts and understanding wastewater market issues as they affect
wastewater utilities. Mr. Clark's participated in wastewater planning, nutrient
management planning, water quality analyses, total maximum daily loads, also known
as TMDLs and the NPDES discharge permitting on the Spokane River, the Clark Fork
Meridian City Council Workshop
April 8, 2014
Page 17 of 34
River, the Yellowstone River, the East Gallison River, Boise River, Wenatchee River
and almost a dozen more. He's well qualified to be helping us navigate these waters,
so to speak. He's supported also by Michael Cash who is here today from HDR. Both
have been instrumental in helping us to navigate as I mentioned. We have also been
working intermittently with our regulatory agency personnel. Those include Jim Werntz
from the regional office, as well as Bill Stewart of the regional office of EPA. Christine
Psyk, David Domingo and Brian Nichols is our permit writer. Pete Wagner, Troy Smith,
Lance Holloway, Lauri Monnot and Todd Crutcher are also representing for Idaho
Department of Environmental Quality and that represents, really, the personnel that we
really have been working with as we have been evaluating these options and for
planning and preparing for the ultimate issuance of our next NPDES permit, which will --
as I mentioned is going to be quite a bit different than the last permit issued. So, let's
talk briefly about wastewater treatment in Meridian. Wastewater collection and disposal
is an essential and fundamental city service which allows our city to prosper and to grow
by responsibly collecting, treating, and disposing of our citizen sewage in a healthful
and sanitary ways and in a way that protects the public health and the environment, for
that matter. To provide the service we must comply with a variety of federal, state and
local requirements and some of them appear here. The Clean Water Act, which was
established in 1972, is -- mandates or prohibits I should say anyone from discharging
pollutants from a point source into surface waters unless that particular person or facility
has a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit issued by the EPA or a
state that has primacy for issuance of such permits. IDAPA rules for the state of Idaho
are developed to establish procedures and requirements for wastewater facilities and
discharge of wastewater and human activities which may adversely affect public health
and water quality and, then, there is several ordinances that we have on the books as
well. One I will point to you, which I kind of found interesting in our research -- Title 9,
Chapter 4, says under city authority that the wastewater system shall be under the sole
and exclusive control the Mayor and the City Council. Obviously, that's been delegated
to staff in the Public Works Department and the wastewater division. Obviously, the city
made a decision many, many, many, many years ago to provide wastewater services
and we have invested accordingly for the reasons aforementioned, in addition to others,
and at this point in time we have a vested interest in wastewater equally on the order of
300 to 400, 450 million dollars in assets on the books for the wastewater treatment
facility. So, obviously, this is important to us. It's important to our community and the
health of our citizens. But we know that there are big changes ahead -- enormous
changes and that's what we wanted to, essentially, develop a primer for today to talk
about these changes. So, as we do that let's talk about some of the activities that we
have been undertaking over the last couple of years to plan and prepare for these
changes. We have developed models and have been supporting a variety of local and
regional models. We have been doing an enormous amount of planning and studying.
We have made significant treatments to the wastewater treatment plant and we have
also engaged our regulatory partners quite frequently during this process. Specifically
as it relates to modeling, we have done TMDL modeling support. We were actually
instrumental in helping EPA to embrace a new water quality model that is a little bit
more characteristic we believe in representing the intricacies of the lower Boise River
watershed. Our activities with the help of HDR have been instrumental in moving this
Meridian City Council Workshop
April 8, 2014
Page 18 of 34
region towards the embracing of that particular model and getting EPA to embrace it.
We have also done independent modeling to understand the city's impact and how
those impacts directly impact that overall model and the water quality constituent, as
well as the macroi nverteb rates and other biota that are involved and have to be
modeled over these -- in the lower Boise River watershed. We have been engaged in
our planning side in facility planning. You have been aware of that. We have also been
putting together an implementation plan, which is being -- we are being consulted with
by HDR and have to be committed to the Department of Environmental Quality, which
outlines our compliance with the permit requirements over the compliance window,
which we anticipate to be ten years at this point in time. We have also been positioning
ourselves financially. As you know we set up regulatory reserves back in 2009 and '10
and have been saving up for these types of costly improvements to the wastewater
treatment plant and we have really been instrumental in pushing the envelope both with
regulators and with nonprofits and our other colleagues in and around the Treasure
Valley to develop opportunities for trading and offsets and making sure that those
opportunities get preserved in NPDES permits going forward as a strategy to comply
with these constituent limits. We have been performing a series of upgrades. Tracy
Crane will talk to you about some of those upgrades on the order of tens of millions of
dollars planning and preparing for the improvements which have ultimately allowed us
to have a leg up over a lot of the other jurisdictions in the lower Boise River watershed
and have -- are going to position us well in embracing improvements that need to come
forward as a result of permit issuance. And, lastly, we have been heavily involved with
the regulatory agencies and this isn't just calling them up and talking with them every
once in awhile and asking them questions about what it is we think we should be doing,
it's actually establishing a leadership role and amongst the lower Boise River watershed
council. We have been instrumental in developing the TMDL. We have got
representatives from our -- from our city on the watershed advisory group of the Lower
Boise River Watershed Council. We have also been able to position strategically --
petition rather strategically an additional municipal board member to help round out that
board and make sure that those municipal insights that were being fully addressed in
the -- we have also participated in the total maximum daily loads, again TMDL, pack for
the lower Boise River watershed technical advisory committee. So, we have also been
involved in the TMDL municipal sub group and we have been very attentive to the
issuance of other permits in and around the lower Boise River to insure that those
permits don't become templates that might dictate or overallocate certain types of
capacities for water resources. A good example is the city of Boise recently had a
modification to their permit, which allowed in that particular permit for full assemble
capacity of the south channel of the Boise River and we called that into question,
because that, essentially, left no capacity available for the City of Meridian, which also
discharges into the south channel and had that been allowed we would have had no
additional capacity whatsoever for ourselves to be utilizing for compliance in the permit.
So, those type of activities are instrumental. This isn't just about being Meridian
specific, it's about being regional and looking at this thing as a watershed and therefore
adjusting accordingly. Let's talk very, very quickly about NPDES permitting in
particularly the City of Meridian. We talked about the importance of wastewater
treatment. A couple things you should know about the City of Meridian's program. We
Meridian City Council Workshop
April 8, 2014
Page 19 of 34
discharged into -- by three different ways. The first one and the primary one is we treat
our wastewater and, then, discharge it to Five Mile Creek. Currently that's pretty much
where the majority of all of our discharge goes once treated. We do have a secondary
outfall known as the Boise River outfall and we have used that outfall on occasion and --
but it is not our primary outfall. And, then, lastly, the development of the reclaimed
water program has allowed us to divert certain percentages of flows during the irrigation
season for irrigation demand and that has, therefore, become a tertiary disposal method
for us. But because Five Mile Creek and Boise are considered waters of the United
States, they are regulated under the Clean Water Act administered by the
Environmental Protection Agency and, therefore, a National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System permit is required for those discharges. Now, the federal Clean
Water Act was established in 1972. It requires this permit as I mentioned. EPA Region
10 administers that for the state of Idaho, because we do not have primacy, although
that is in the works for the state of Idaho currently. DEQ certifies our permit and our --
and establishes the permit compliance schedule, which is important, because we need
to make sure that we are given adequate time to not only design, construct, test,
operate, but also plan for these types of improvements and that planning includes
financial planning as well. These permits will dictate the required water quality of our
discharge, meaning we will have to meet certain characteristics that are going to be
defined in this permit that is effluent limits, if you will, and many of these will require
technology upgrades to meet the new water quality standards and we also will see the
TMDL allocation incorporated into our permit and let's talk a little bit about what that
specifically means, a TMDL allocation. This is what the regulatory process looks like
very quickly. Essentially if the state -- so, the state is supposed to monitor water quality;
right? And if it monitors water quality and finds a problem and that particular body of
water does not meet the beneficial uses that have been designated by the state for that
particular water body, then, that water body, by requirement under the Clean Water Act,
is added to the state's 303(b) list and 303(b) is a section of the Clean Water Act
numbers and letters, but it's, essentially, the authorizing section which requires the state
to report limitations on the -- on these water bodies. Then there is a requirement for the
state to develop a total maximum daily load. This is a pollution allocation, really, and it
is, essentially, just that. It is the maximum allowable pollutants that can be discharged
on a per day basis by per discharger inside that particular water body. Those TMDLs
are incorporated into the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit and
those permits, then, govern how much the particular -- or that particular agency is able
to discharge based upon the maximum daily load that's been established for -- by the
state for that particular water body. These permits are supposed to be issued generally
on a five year cycle as you know. Our permit was last issued in 1999. We reissued and
reapplied for a permit in 2004 and have been waiting ever since and that was -- the sort
of the stage here, that in 2004 we had the renewal, we had administration --
administration extensions from 2004 current, then, Idaho Conversation League sued the
Environmental Protection Agency for failing to issue permits in a timely basis. That
preempted the EPA to, then, go ahead and begin to issue permits and here is the
juxtaposition. Typically total maximum daily loads are established and, then, permits
include those total maximum daily load on a per discharge basis. Well, what's
happened with this ICL lawsuit or the settlement is that agencies are now having to find
Meridian City Council Workshop
April 8, 2014
Page 20 of 34
permits or actually get permits before this total maximum daily load is developed and
that has been a big challenge for this region, because what it does is it sets into motion
compliance requirements by each of these agencies before we even know what the
allegations are going to be. And the EPA can do this by surrogate, which is what it's
doing with the Snake River Hells Canyon TMDL into which the Boise River flows and
so, therefore, that surrogate of 70 micrograms per milliliter is what we are going to have
to meet until we can prove that that's not the right allocation, if we can even prove that.
But until then we have to comply with this surrogate number, which is a big challenge
for us. So, next here I think I -- I have learned from IT that if you just turn it off and turn
it back on it will work. There we go. All right. So, here we go. As we are approaching
the process year of getting our new permit we have requested a courtesy pre -draft
permit. Now, this has not been communicated directly from EPA, this comes from the
Department of Environmental Quality and so when we say we have a draft permit, it's
not quite true. It's what we call a preliminary draft. Okay? This preliminary draft is
more like a discussion document and this discussion document is what's created a lot of
recent activity for us and our consultants to insure that the data that we have supplied is
appropriately integrated and appropriately interpreted and that the EPA's understanding
of our systems and their impacts are also appropriately understood. Now, after we get
through with this courtesy pre -draft permit discussion and sharing of information, a
formal draft permit will come out to which a 30 -day comment period will be issued and
that 30 -day comment period will allow anyone in the community, anyone in the valley,
anyone from other dischargers or whatnot to include comments in and around our
particular permit. After that 30 -day comment period is completed the new permit will be
finaled and issued to the City of Meridian. The agency functions -- and, you know, I'm
not going to read all of this, but, essentially, there is a lot that goes into NPDES
permitting and each jurisdiction has a different roll in each of those activities and must
be diligent in order to insure that the permit is as reflective as possible and is as
meaningful as possible to achieving the water quality standards that the state and the
EPA ultimately agree on. So, with that I'm going to stop. I'm going to turn it over to
Tracy Crane, our wastewater superintendent. He's going to talk a little bit about our
program and the implications that this is going to have on our program and, then, Tracy
will turn it over to David Clark, who will talk about the nuances of NPDES permitting in
particular, what the preliminary draft looks like for the City of Meridian and, more
importantly, what the implications of that preliminary draft look like and what the
meaning of that is for the City of Meridian going forward. At the end of this presentation
I will open it up for questions by everyone who is in attendance. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you, Tom.
Rountree: Thanks, Tom.
Crane: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council --
De Weerd: Tracy.
Crane: -- good afternoon. I will be brief.
Meridian City Council Workshop
April 8, 2014
Page 21 of 34
De Weerd: Thank you. It's a complex --
Crane: Okay. It really is. As you can see from the pictures on the slide here that there
has been dramatic changes at the wastewater plant since conception. It was actually
built on the current site in '76 and it's been -- been under continual construction quite a
lot, especially in the last 15 years. I showed up in 1996, so I'm just off the upper left-
hand corner here, but I will say that most of the major improvements have happened in
the last 15 years, which, incidentally, is the amount of time since we had a discharge
permit renewal. So, a little timeline here starting with that discharge renewal -- or the
current permit that's been administratively expended in '99 and, then, 2004. One of the
things that likely held that up was around 2000 -- late 2004, 2005, the word started
coming down that phosphorus is going to be a big deal in future permits and so we kind
of knew and had that vision that, hey, nutrients, meaning nitrogen and phosphorus, are
going to be a big deal in future permits, although at that time I would say we had no idea
how low or how extremely stringent these new limits were going to be. So, we tried to
do things in anticipation and as you know we are part of a growing, thriving community
and that growth has led to the need for capacity improvements, so a long the way we
have tried to add technology that would be complimentary to low nutrient discharges,
such as the -- it says BNR, that's biological nutrient removal and simply said the ability
to remove phosphorus and nitrogen would be biological activity. Also the tertiary filters
and reclaimed water program and along the way we have made those kinds of
improvements to try to improve technology as well. A couple other things that I would
point out that I think are pretty important on this timeline is in 2009 when we really
stopped and took a look at the rate model and rate impacts to the rate payers and
created the rate model, as well as operational and regulatory reserves, so that we
started saving knowing that this new permit was coming, so, you know, we haven't been
standing out idly by, that's for sure. You can see that since 2006 60 capital projects, 55
million dollars, has been invested in our facility and these investments have not just
been growth. Again, it's not just been driven by growth, but also technology and plant
optimization as well. So, Tom mentioned that we do have three discharge options.
They all have some different -- sort of brings us to today and where we stand and what
our discharge options are. Once the flows reach the facility it can go one of three or a
combination of three ways and they all have a little bit of nuances to them. I will discuss
them each briefly. The first two are the NPDES -- the permitted outfalls. Five Mile
Creek, which, as Tom said, is our primary one. The nice thing about it is it's a gravity
flow, so the flow leaves the plant and goes right to Five Mile Creek and there is some
good things that -- it's classified as secondary contact recreation, which means the rules
are a little bit less stringent. It's not listed for temperature, which is going to be a big
concern on the Boise River. However, it's a very small stream, so, therefore, it has very
little assemblage or dilution capacity so that kind of offsets the fact that it's secondary
contact recreation. The Boise River outfall, on the other hand, it has to be pumped like
six miles over to the Boise River. It's a much larger stream, so it has some assemblage
capacity and Tom mentioned the -- the deal with Boise and their assemblage capacity,
that we did have a favorable outcome where it was agreed that Meridian would share
the assemblage capacity of the south channel of the Boise River. On the down side it is
Meridian City Council Workshop
April 8, 2014
Page 22 of 34
a primary contact recreation, so -- and salmonoid spawning, which I'm not sure what
that -- a little fish. But it has strict temperature limits and, actually, the limits -- the
criteria -- temporary criteria is nearly impossible to meet. I believe it's 13 degrees C in
April and May and wastewater is inherently warmer. It comes out of people's houses.
It's people's showers and their dishwashers and their dishes and things like that and it
flows into the plant warm and we -- I don't know that any plant that -- so, there is going
to be some -- some definite work that we would have to do to meet those temperature
limits. Also one small complication, too, is our reclaimed water system. Part of our
outfall that we use on the Boise River we repurpose that line -- or it's actually dual
purpose and it's used as part of our reclaimed water distribution to get the water down
to Heroes Park. Heroes Park and the reclaimed system requires chlorine and a chlorine
residual where the discharge to the Boise River does not allow chlorine residual,
therefore, those two cannot be used simultaneously unless we were to come in and put
in a second line for the reclaimed water line or vice -versa, the Boise River discharge.
On the other hand, we do have Idaho's leading reclaimed water program. It is the
premier program in the state. It was the first Class A municipal program that there was.
It has a lot of beneficial uses indirectly that prevents or offsets the nutrients from
reaching the river. Every pound of phosphorus or nitrogen that we can send to the
reclaimed water is prevented from going to the river. It's a great program, but this new
permit specifies concentration and mass limits, so the structure kind of diminishes the
capacity of reclaimed water to be the sole solution to our nutrient issue. But we do have
options. We have several options -- C-3 and we are looking at others, too, including
aquifer recharge and possible trading and those kind of things. So, I want to say that
the news here isn't necessarily all bad. The main point is these regulations, although
they are a significant challenge, with some foresight and some good financial planning
and the help of some amazing talented team members, most of which are in this room --
and not to be -- you know, probably most important, the leadership and guidance of this
Council. We are well positioned to meet these future limits. So, with that I will turn it
over to one of those amazingly talented team members, Mr. Dave Clark.
Clark: That's very kind of you.
Crane: Well, I figured after -- you know, it's all good.
Clark: Tracy had the upbeat part of this --
Crane: I got to deliver the good news.
Clark: Yeah. I'm afraid we will have to take a venture down a little bit darker pathway in
some of the regulatory requirements. I will tell a little bit about the regulatory drivers
and talk about how that affects the permit, talk about the city's options for getting a
compliant schedule. That leads to this implementation planning discussion where there
can be some strategies for the city on how to comply. What are a few of the city's
choices and towards that end we share a little bit on the potential financial impacts and,
then, Tom will come back up to wrap up. So, you have gotten a pretty good overview
so far of the facilities from Tracy and Tom and the bigger picture. We have mentioned
Meridian City Council Workshop
April 8, 2014
Page 23 of 34
phosphorus. You have heard some of the parameters kicked around. Go a little deeper
there. Big picture here we have got two of these total maximum daily loads that drive
these phosphorus requirements. One is from the Snake River Hells Canyon TMDL,
that's been done for ten years or so now. And, then, the Boise River has a phosphorus
TMDL that's going on right now. So, we have had a period of time where we didn't have
to deal very seriously with phosphorus. There has been some time for the city to get
prepared. We are now approaching that point where it's going to become a part of the
effluent permit limits. Phosphorus is important, because it's a plant nutrient, creates a
number of problems in waters, because when you fertilize the water, things grow and
they die and, then, they consume oxygen, they interfere with the other biology that you
would like to have for favorable quality. So, that's how the phosphorus becomes an
issue for us and it's always present in the wastewater we discharge. It's not the only
issue on the Boise River. It's probably one that comes to the fore now and we will talk
about ammonia as a toxic, but there are other toxics and there are other water quality
issues on the Boise River, some impact some stakeholders more than others, but we
have to deal with bacteria, sediment, temperature, so there is a lot there. I think what
want to tell you about this slide is that the city has been working to prepare for this point
in time for quite awhile. So, this isn't a complete surprise and we have that Snake River
Hells Canyon TMDL on the books for quite awhile and so we have been able to avoid
maybe some of the financial impacts of that for quite a period of time. That's probably
been nice from a financial standpoint at least. So, these total maximum daily loads --
this is like putting the river on a diet. It gets a certain amount of phosphorus that it can
handle. The Snake River Hells Canyon TMDL established a real low concentration
target downstream at Parma. This 70 micrograms per liter, that's -- that's probably a
hundred times lower than the wastewater that comes into the treatment plant and it's,
you know, five or ten times lower than what we are able to treat to now without making
too great an operational effort. That's a pretty low target. When Tom mentioned that
EPA was going ahead with regulatory requirements, even though the Boise River TMDL
wasn't completed, what he meant was EPA is writing the discharge permits now with the
in point at Parma in the discharge permit. So, discharges have been getting permits
that they need to meet that's 70 micrograms per liter concentration in the pipe and that's
about the limit of treatment technology. Everything we can throw at it from the
standpoint of treatment technology. And it makes the plant -- the amazing part is we
can actually accomplish that level of treatment, but it's very expensive to do that. On
the Boise River TMDL the in points aren't determined yet. We have been trying to find
some flexibility there to get a little bit more room. I think Meridian is going to make out
here with more flexibility than other discharges that go directly in the river because of
the Five Mile discharge, but that TMDL isn't done. So, the city issues are how do we
best shape or influence what DEQ is doing to give us more opportunity here to come up
with a better way to comply, figure out what that treatment technology is, the schedule
and the budget that we can actually accommodate to get that into place. So, that's what
we are working on. Again, the phosphorus kind of comes to the fore, because that's
real present and it affects wastewater dischargers, but there are other diets that the
river's on here, so to speak, so there is a bacteria TMDL that's been done, a sediment
TMDL, that affects some of the -- the nonpoint sources and agricultural more than it
does our wastewater facility, but we have an allocation for solids and, then, we have got
Meridian City Council Workshop
April 8, 2014
Page 24 of 34
these pending allocations, but part of that -- that diet or budget for the river that the City
of Meridian will get in the discharge permit. Tracy mentioned temperature. It's a vexing
issue throughout the northwest, because the trout and salmon require really low
temperature water to reproduce, so the city has a strength there and some flexibility to
choose whether to discharge into the Boise River or Five Mile. We don't have that kind
of cold water resources in Five Mile, so it's a lot more lenient for us in terms of
temperature. The discharges directly to Boise River, if we choose to use that outfall, we
face a more challenging situation, because it's not easy to get that warm water, as
Tracy said, coming out people's showers down to 13 degrees C. You would have to
build a powerplant next to the wastewater plant to cool the effluent. So, it's a problem
throughout the west and we are hoping that we will be able to avoid that stacking on,
but I think fair enough we should advise you that that's still out there and we are not
quite sure about how DEQ is going to handle the temperature. So, now picking up
where Tom left off in this longer flow sheet about the discharge permitting. We have got
this courtesy copy of a pre-release permit and we started to talk to EPA about it, so I'm
going to pickup a little on that part of the dialogue and go a little bit deeper there. I think
we have been able to accomplish some things so far that are beneficial to the city, even
in the informal discussions with EPA. We know the permit writers pretty well. They
don't like to turn out a public notice permit that has any errors, so there is a need for
information exchange and as you heard a 1999 permit, that's a pretty old permit, so the
facts that they have to work with for writing a permit they need more information. We
have got some good things in that some obsolete portions of the permit that expired in
2004, a cap on flow to the city, is going to be removed and that's a good thing, because
your utility needs that capacity to grow, because we need to have capacity for a good
treatment here, otherwise, other negative things happen in terms of water quality. We
are hoping that we have shaped the permit writers' view of the structure, the effluent
limits in a way that will help us take advantage of some of the other programs the city
has, like the reuse program. The seasonality of the phosphorus requirements is coming
into play. It may turn out that we have an advantage going to Five Mile in that we are
going to get a more lenient concentration limit for phosphorus, but we don't know how
long the seasonality where we just have to control phosphorus during the summertime,
there is some things that have been telegraphed through the other permits that indicate
that EPA wants to see year around phosphorus requirements and the permit writers
have actually written something into the Meridian pre -draft that says we would have to
treat the phosphorus year around. I think the permit writers overreached there, but we
are not to the end of that story yet. And, then, Tracy mentioned we have got two
outfalls. So, we have preserved the ability to discharge to either and that may be or
may not be advantageous for some parameters in the longer term for the city. We will
have to see. The permit here, kind of big picture, it includes a lot. So, there are effluent
limits that you have to comply with, but there are things you have to monitor and there
are standard conditions and supplemental conditions that EPA includes where we have
to write reports for them, we have to meet interim milestones if we get a more generous
schedule to comply to show that we are making progress and there is -- there is actually
quite a bit to do there. So, to show that I guess in an even more complicated slide, I
have got a tabulation here. The table on the top, down the left-hand column, the
treatment levels in the '99 permit, garden variety secondary treatment. That's what
Meridian City Council Workshop
April 8, 2014
Page 25 of 34
everybody had to do in the country under the Clean Water Act. Now, we are going to
have to have advanced levels of treatment, have to remove more things. So,
phosphorus, ammonia, control toxics. The effluent limits in the 1999 permit -- there
were six things we had to comply with. All pretty basic stuff. We are going to have ten
more. So, that's 16 things that we have to comply with in multiple combinations of
monthly and weekly and daily limits for those. Those monitoring requirements, all the
other things you get hooked with, we think we had about 32 things that we had to keep
track of. If we totaled up limits and different constituents and plans to report on from the
1999 permit, we think they will have over 120 things to juggle around and you can see
how we kind of compared in the bars on the base here to look at the old on the left and
the new. One of the things we will have to do a lot more on is going and out taking
samples in Five Mile Creek and the Boise River and reporting that. So, we have burden
shifted to us, so to speak, to keep track of what not only our effluent quality is like, but
also the quality of the receiving waters we discharge to and that makes more work for
staff and more work in the laboratory. So, if you look at what we had in the 1999 permit,
we had six parameters we needed to keep track of. Now this what the new effluent
limits table looks like for limits and monitoring, stacks things up, and I think the message
here is that overall you're going to have a lot more restrictive limits to deal with, you're
going have a lot more monitoring to do, you have a more complex operation at the plant
overall and we are going to be subject to quite a bit more regulatory scrutiny than we
have in the past. So, now just to drill down to the next layer on the two big parameters
that will drive a lot of the cost investment. First of all, on phosphorus. On the left-hand
side in the stream, the phosphorus is a nutrient, so we have got these in -stream targets
at .07 milligrams per liter and there is a benthic algae. The algae goes in the bottom of
the stream, there is a way to go sample that and keep track of how much growth. That's
the kind of targeting we have in the total maximum daily load. On the right-hand side
you see how the permit writer has interpreted this in this preliminary draft permit. So, if
we go to Five Mile Creek we have to get to 0.12 milligrams per liter. That's why I say
that's a little more lenient than the mainstream dischargers will get if they get that .07.
So, we have got a little bit of flexibility there, but current performance is around one
milligram per liter. So, the things we are doing now, we are controlling phosphorus.
That's good. But we got to get it down by a factor of about ten to meet the new
requirements. So, that's a pretty big requirement. More than 90 percent additional
removal at the plant and that's going to require a significant amount of engineering and
analysis to figure out the facility's design and construct them. So, there is a significant
investment that goes with phosphorus. On ammonia nitrogen it's a little bit different
story. Ammonia, if you get lawn fertilizer it can be a plant nutrient, but the issue in the --
in the surface water is that it's toxic to the aquatic organisms. So, fish and fresh water
mollusks, mussels and snails, and it's toxic at very low concentrations. So, if
wastewater comes into a treatment plant, maybe it has 30 milligrams per liter of total
nitrogen, most of that is ammonia, we discharge now -- you see over on the right-hand
side how permit writer has interpreted those in -stream standards. If we are discharging
at five or six milligrams per liter now, we getting quite a bit of the ammonia out, but not
nearly enough to meet the discharge requirements either for Five Mile or for the Boise
River. In fact, this .307 milligram per liter, that's a very low effluent limit. What that
means -- that's code for the engineer says you would have to be very conservative in
Meridian City Council Workshop
April 8, 2014
Page 26 of 34
sizing things to get that performance and the performance is required even in the
wintertime when the bacteria we are using in the treatment process, their kinetics are
lousy, they are moving slow, that means that from a capital standpoint the reactors get
bigger and it costs more. So, these are very challenging effluent limits. They are at or
below the in -stream criteria for toxicity. We are not quite sure we have drilled to the
bottom of this with the permit writers to understand whether or not his calculations are
appropriate. I'm not sure that they are. We are going to look at that pretty carefully.
But these are very challenging effluent limits and they are lower than what the city had
anticipated in the past. So, again, there is a significant effort here to figure out the
treatment process, design and build it. The city needs time for those things. You can't
comply with those immediately. One of the things we saw that was disturbing in the
preliminary draft permit is the permit writers' perspective is we should be able to meet
these effluent limits now and we can't do that. So, we know we have got an effort to put
a shoulder into to negotiate a compliance schedule to give the city time to figure this out
and to make the investment and financial provisions to make it possible to build things.
The last thing at the bottom left-hand of the slide here is to say that we will probably be
back to talk more about ammonia in the future, because the fed EPA has changed the
federal ammonia criteria and it's even more stringent than the basis for this permit. It
hasn't been adopted in Idaho yet, probably will before the next permit is renewed for
City of Meridian. So, we have got something more challenging here with ammonia
that's going to have a long story line, just like the phosphorus is. Combination of the
phosphorus and nitrogen are going to drive most of the cost of the facility and I guess
that's not the end. We have new requirements in the permit for toxic. So, copper,
cyanide, Mercury and zinc have effluent limits. That's not especially welcome news, not
uncommon, though, to have permits in Idaho that have metals limits. We have got an
unusual one on the organic side, this phthalate, the permit writer proposes effluent
limits. This is a plasticizer used in PCB. We think the data that the permit writer used is
bogus. Most of the values are nondetect. I think the plant staff is going to show that it's
unnecessary to have any effluent limits at all, but we need do a little bit of monitoring
work to show that to the permit writer here in the near term and maybe we will get at
least that one out of the permit. The permit writer has already indicated some flexibility
in modified cyanide and how we comply. So, maybe things will get a little bit easier
here on some of the toxics. Longer term again just to say that you don't want to let
down your guard on any of these. The year around phosphorus requirements are
probably something that's going hang over our heads a bit here, so we need to be
prepared for that and think about that in terms of planning for the facilities. I mentioned
this revised federal ammonia criteria is even going to be more restrictive, maybe, than
we had as a basis for the current permit. Temperatures unresolved on the river and,
then, you will hear a lot I think in the news this year about Idaho and the negotiated rule
making process with EPA. On human health criteria are about 100 different toxic
constituents based on how much fish people eat. So, region ten has been moving
through the northwest stage. Oregon did rule making in 2011. Washington is in the
middle of rule making. It's been quite controversial and Idaho is stepping into that
beginning this year with some surveys of different populations and how much fish they
cook -- if you can imagine this, it's not just toxicity that we are worried about for
ammonia to the fish, it's human feeding fish that accumulate toxics that may govern the
Meridian City Council Workshop
April 8, 2014
Page 27 of 34
water quality criteria that come back into NPDES permits. So, given all of that, there is
a lot to do. It's not easy to handle new challenges that come with lower effluent limits in
ammonia and phosphorus, because there is no knob to turn at the treatment plant just
to turn those down. You have got to build new facilities and operate them in a different
way. The good news here is that the federal permitting regulations say that you have to
comply as soon as possible. So, there is room for interpretation of that. Idaho DEQ
makes that interpretation for us in Idaho and they informed EPA we need to make a
case, then, if we want a compliance schedule that's longer than one five year permit
cycle, we need to explain and justify why we need that, which means we need to have a
good plan of attack for what Meridian does to comply, so that it's substantive enough
that it convinces DEQ and EPA that we need more time than five years and I think we
certainly do, but at the same time we need a strategy there that is one we can actually
afford to comply with and one that makes sense technically. So, there is quite a bit
there in this compliance schedule discussion. I think an important thing to mention to
you is that once we have those compliance schedule discussions and a permit is
issued, there will be some folks there from milestones to comply with and we will have
make sure we comply with those, even if we get a longer period of time, those interim
milestones are binding and we have to keep pace. There is serious consequences to
not keeping pace. Okay. So, a little bit, then, on that implementation plan to figure that
out. The idea of an implementation plan is -- is a synthesis of everything we need to do
and there is -- there is two main purposes. Again, to convince the regulatory agencies,
but the other part if it-- and maybe more importantly is that we know exactly what it is
we are going to do and it's in a formula that we can actually afford to do and, technically,
it makes sense. The big issues to prioritize are the facilities that go with making sure
the plant is reliable, making sure that we have the capacity to serve the city's needs,
and, then, doing that in a way that complies with all these water quality requirements.
Now, if you ask EPA what they want, they want all of the water quality requirements up
front in the implementation plan. We need to make sure that we have got a treatment
plant that the guys can actually run and will always comply in a reliable way and that we
always have capacity available. Meridian is in kind of a unique position that is valid,
because you have got more capacity need probably than some of the other
communities and EPA doesn't necessarily always see capacity in terms of water quality,
but that's a very important thing to explain to them, because if there is not adequate
capacity for you to offer service, it drives things into water quality problems. So, that will
be part of our challenge is explaining that in a way that makes sense to EPA that we get
the compliance schedule that we need. We are trying to structure the implementation
plan so that some of the engineering work that has the potential to result is a better
solution to save money is done up front, so that you can capitalize on that, rather than
the inverse to do the big capital expenditures up front and, then, lose the opportunity to
have some smart discovery that would reduce the cost of compliance. That's why this
view that the permit writer has that ammonia should be complied with immediately is
important for us to push out, because that will consume quite a bit of investment. So, in
terms our strategy here, that's an important thing to accomplish is the time to figure out
how to do this in a way that's economical and not have already spent all of the capital
money. So, that treatment technology part, figuring that out, is an important aspect of
our strategy that those kinds of studies and early decisions are built into the front, as
Meridian City Council Workshop
April 8, 2014
Page 28 of 34
opposed to all the capital expenditures. So, options here -- a little bit of an overview of
what the choices are. So, there are some different things you can do and, of course,
you can do different things now, you don't discharge entirely to Five Mile Creek, you
have got that option for the Boise River, you have got the option for reuse, so you can
treat discharge -- if you just treat discharge and do nothing else it really leaves you with
only using the treatment technology and that can become expensive. Although that's a
pretty good way to comply if you know that the technology is available. There are many
in the valley that are attracted to these ideas of doing some water quality trading or
finding offsets in other locations. They may help us meet the effluent limits in a way
that's a little more creative. That might be a way we find some cost savings. There is
also more regulatory uncertainty that's associated with that. The city has a study
underway to look at not discharging to surface water, but saturating the ground and
infiltrating the groundwater, which is an interesting one, but it might change what
effluent parameters we need to control. It might shift the emphasis on phosphorus on
surface water to controlling nitrates for the groundwater. If you get in between we might
wind up with both and so figuring out what that combination is is an important part of
this early decision making. So, we need to put these things together in a way that we
can frame decisions for the city and decide what to do and what program makes the
most sense and, then, figure that out know in a way that -- that really is custom fit to
what Meridian needs to do and not necessarily others, but when you look at others it's
interesting to see what they are looking for. You know, Boise has less need for new
capacity than Meridian does, but they look outside of their service area and way
downstream to find offsets that they can trade with their discharge to the river. It's a
pretty creative thing. Nampa is looking at recharge. They have a different situation on
Indian Creek. Caldwell, I'm not quite sure what they are looking at for options. They
discharge in an area which is a little bit of a sticky wicket in terms of water quality,
because the worst water quality in the river is down near the segment they discharge
and Kuna has gone a hundred percent into the treatment technology part. So, they
treat and discharge, but they are able to meet that kind of 70 micrograms per liter limit.
So, there are a couple of different ways of doing that. Now, here is the part about cost.
The big circle on the right-hand side shows how we break down all the costs over the
next ten years according to whether or not they are driven by water quality, reliability, or
capacity and so the total dollars here in terms of present worth where we meld annual
operating costs with capital costs, you know, we are more than hundred -- nearly two
hundred million dollars. So, we are talking about a lot of investment to be made here.
The biggest driver there is water quality. That's the lighter blue 54 percent in the right-
hand circle. We pulled that out over on the left-hand side and we broke that out to look
at where we are spending the money, so we could see what's spent on capital, 88
percent. By and large the biggest part of the program were the capital costs. We have
got five percent there on some of the operation and maintenance and staffing. The
study part that we are saying we need to prioritize up front in a strategic way, that's only
a couple of percentages so we will wind up spending quite a bit of money on that, but
that's a small part overall. So, we want to do that up front, so we can get an opportunity
to tackle this big capital part and look and see if we can do in a more economical way.
We tried here to take a look at these planning level costs and see how they accumulate
over time. So, this is the synthesis, again, of capital and annual operating costs
Meridian City Council Workshop
April 8, 2014
Page 29 of 34
together. There is a band there, because these are planning level estimates. We don't
have detailed cost estimates. So, they may vary a lot. And so we have kind of shown
how that evolved over time, at least according to a preliminary kind expenditure
schedule. So, it's a significant amount of money, a commitment over an extended
period of time and it's got regulatory hooks. So, we will have to make sure that we
accomplish the things that we commit to in the compliance schedule and the discharge
permit. This is a little bit redundant, but a comparison of options, you know, what could
we do. We can treat and discharge. A good part of that is you have got certainty that
you're going to meet the water quality requirement. The true to technology part, you get
that certainty in performance, but it comes at a price. The regulatory risk is low,
because you're certain you can get there. If you get a little more creative and you
incorporate the things with offsets or trading, you're dependent upon some things that
maybe give you an opportunity to safe some money, but come with a little bit more
regulatory uncertainty, you're dependent on others, and EPA may discount those
through trading ratios and other things that dilute the value of things that initially appear
to be valuable. The aquifer recharge I mentioned. Hey, that's the one entry here in our
matrix. It looks like it could reduce costs, but there is a lot of uncertainty there about
whether it complies and whether it invites more regulatory requirements. So, that's kind
of a summary of the choices that we tackle in -- in looking ahead. So, on that high note
-- I know it's kind of a downer to talk about costs, so we will get back on a positive note
here with Tom.
De Weerd: So, they gave you the bad news to deliver and --
Clark: But I got a nice compliment there from Tracy, so I appreciate that part.
Barry: Thank you, David. So, as you heard, the challenges that we are facing are
daunting and they are significant. They are monumental, if you will, and the way that
our program will have to mature over the next ten years to meet these challenging
environmental needs. These implications, including incorporation of new treatment
technology and additional equipment in order to meet some of these ultra low
phosphorus and other constituent requirements are going to be, as David mentioned,
costly and the reality here is that we have to be very diligent about the treatment
technology we choose, because some technologies compliment well one another, while
others actually compete with one another. So, insuring that we get the right technology,
which is compatible with existing technology and even future technologies for limits that
may be coming beyond these setup requirements is critical to us. So, as you know, we
are going to have to enhance and upgrade our existing treatment components in
addition to adding those new ones. We will have to modify our methods and processes
significantly and this will be an ongoing challenge for us over the next decade. That will
cause us to have a more complex operation and that complexity will bring with it the
need to add staff and to enhance the expertise of existing staff, as well as acquire staff
with additional expertise. And, of course, all of these will have future implication on our
financial operation. So, what's next? There is no decision that's being requested from
the City Council tonight. This is really a primer to discuss and to plan and prepare you
for the decisions that will be many, often, and soon. Ongoing, though, we plan to
Meridian City Council Workshop
April 8, 2014
Page 30 of 34
provide a number of studies that some of them are already in process. Others need to
be defined and developed, which will help to inform the decisions that we are going to
have to make. Obviously, that's going to cost money and if you saw what Mr. Clark
provided, we have got on the order of anywhere between one to two million dollars in
studies alone, which is really a small amount when you compare that to the capital
improvements that are going have to be made, the decisions that will likely come from
those engineering plans and studies. We are working with the EPA currently on the
pre -draft to make sure that we have the correct information that establishes the public
draft that's soon to come. We are developing and finalizing an implementation plan
that's been discussed before with the Department of Environmental Quality and working
to develop the compliant schedule that will obligate us to the improvements for the next
ten years during the compliance schedule window. Again, I should say it's not a
foregone conclusion. We are still working with DEQ and we do hope that you have a
compliance window of around ten years, which has been similarly offered to other
wastewater dischargers in and around the lower Boise River. We will get that draft
permit issued here fairly soon. We expect probably July, August, somewhere in there,
plus or minus a month. That will start a clock that's a permit period clock -- a comment
period I should say clock, after which we will get a final permit, which we are expecting
to receive certainly by the fall of this year. There are possibilities for appeal and I didn't
include any of that in this process, but certainly a discharger or anyone else for that
matter could appeal our permit and if that were to happen there is a whole set of
different timelines and processes that go into all of that, which I assume at this point is
not of interest until at least we see where we stand with the permit itself. We are going
to have to continue to evaluate the staffing, the infrastructure, the financial, the
technological, the operational component of the wastewater division and insure that we
are planned and prepared accordingly and to that end you will be hearing more and
more about the type of improvement, the permit itself, and other sorts of related and,
hopefully, interesting information associated with the changes that are going to be
required as of this issuance of the new permit that we are expecting. So, with that that's
all we had to share with you today and we bring this to a close and ask you for any, you
know, questions, comments that you might have while we have got the experts in the
room and anything that you might need in order to close any gaps in information sharing
today will be welcomed by myself and the staff. So, with that I will turn the time back
over to you and answer questions.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Tom. And 1 want to thank your staff. I think that the
wastewater treatment plant has had a long time reputation and vision for stewardship.
We certainly want our kids to enjoy the same Idaho that we do and that's what this is all
about. We do want to make sure that the standards and what we are being asked to do
is relevant to the watershed we preside -- or we exist in and it is unfortunate the timing
with the TMDL and some of the requirements that we might be asked to look at that are
not applicable to our current situation. I think that our staff and under your leadership
has shown an approach that thinks out of the box and looks for solutions that -- that
certainly address the concerns at a lower cost to our citizens. That's greatly
appreciated. And certainly appreciate that you have been looking at this in anticipation
of this draft permit and what we will be looking to enroll or roll out over the next permit
Meridian City Council Workshop
April 8, 2014
Page 31 of 34
time frame. So, I guess with that said, Council, I would ask if you have any questions at
this time for Tom or our consultant or our staff?
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I do have one and if I may I would direct it to Mr. Clark and while you're
approaching I will give a disclaimer to Tom Barry that he and I have had a conversation
-- a couple of conversations about the question I'm going to ask.
Clark: So, you know the answer, then; right?
Zaremba: Well, he has been very polite, but he has not given me much optimism that
anything is going to happen, but I'm going to put you on the spot with a question.
Clark: Okay.
Zaremba: It's specifically about phosphorus and we focus on what we are going to have
to do and the increasing expenses of taking phosphorus out of the water that is being
presented to us with phosphorus in it and the increasing cost of meeting increasing
regulations and tighter and tighter and my question focuses on the beginning part of the
process. How do we get people to stop putting less phosphorus in the water in the first
place and I relate that to what are a number of legal products that have undesirable
aspects on which we charge use taxes and I'm thinking tobacco and gasoline and some
other things like that. Is there any possibility of getting a movement to have use taxes
on phosphorus? I mean it's soaps that we all use in our homes, but we can make
choices to have lower phosphorus soaps. It's fertilizers and stuff, but is there any
possibility of getting a movement to have -- maybe change behavior by charging a tax
or not putting it in?
Clark: I think so. I think that's a great question and, you know, because of these water
quality drivers over the last 20 years, without a tax, there has been big changes in
products. So, about 20 years ago we had quite a move in some of the watersheds in
the country, including the Spokane River to the north, to eliminate phosphorus that --
the Spokane and the Clark River had some of the early movements to ban laundry
detergent and phosphorus and because of the way these grocery distribution systems
work, if you get a watershed or two that needs to limit that product coming into the
wastewaters, just as you say, you might affect the marketplace in a pretty big way and
that's, essentially, what's happened around the country is that when Proctor & Gamble,
these companies reformulate their laundry detergents they don't make a different
version just for the Spokane watershed, it goes in these big grocery distribution chains
and so you look across the country where there have been problems with phosphorus in
the Chesapeake Bay and the Great Lakes and the Spokane River, well, essentially, we
have had a laundry detergent phosphorus ban in place for more than 15 years anyway.
It's evolved in the way without -- without a tax. Interestingly from some work we had
Meridian City Council Workshop
April 8, 2014
Page 32 of 34
with Spokane county in the early 2000s, we had a Spokane county commissioner Todd
Mielke that had a question just like you and he was very frustrated with the low in end
points on the Spokane River and he had been to the state legislature and thought in
Washington state he could write a bill. He wrote a bill to ban phosphorus content in
dishwashing detergent. That bill was signed by Christine Gregoire, the governor, in
about 2006 or so. Sixteen states did a copycat version of that bill and by 2012 we have
effectively got a dishwashing detergent ban on phosphorus across the country. So, if
you go in Costco now, like the Clark family does, and you look at those detergents and
you look at the Cascade dishwashing detergent, they substituted sulfates in their
formulations. They don't have phosphate. And the wastewater influent at treatment
plants around the country have fallen from the seven or eight milligram per liter range to
four, four and a half milligrams per liter. So, had we have had quite a reduction. The
Sierra Club got quite interested in this on the Spokane River TMDL and they thought
that this was an important thing and it is a very interesting development. I think the part
that they may have missed in tangling with the dischargers about having product bans is
that the orthophosphate that's used in laundry detergent or dishwashing detergent is the
easiest of the phosphorus to us to remove. The effect, though, of having these product
bans really helps us on the nonpoint source phosphorus out of the areas that are on
septic systems on site and don't come into a treatment plant. It probably saves us
money at the treatment plant, but at the core in municipal wastewater where we are
going to have these organic phosphorus compounds that come in from the things we
metabolize in our bodies, so, you know, about one percent of you and me and the food
we eat -- one to two percent is phosphorus, nine or ten percent is nitrogen. So, even if
we get all these commercial products out we still are going to have nitrogen and
phosphorus in influent wastewater. We may have got the low hanging fruit out of it
already and benefitted from some of the other watersheds that have already tackle this.
So, I think we have probably got a benefit here now. Did I get the answer right or
anything close to --
Zaremba: Verythorough. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any other questions from Council? Okay. Thank you, Tom, for
being so thorough and giving the background, bringing up some of our Council
Members to speed and, again, we appreciate your staff and look -- we appreciate your
taking this all very seriously and being on top of things, because we know what an
impact it's going to have.
Barry: Thank you very much.
Bird: Thanks, Tom.
Rountree: Thanks, Tom.
Item 8: Ordinances
Meridian City Council Workshop
April 8, 2014
Page 33 of 34
A. Ordinance No. 14-1601: An Ordinance Amending Meridian City
Code as Codified at Title 11, Entitled the Unified Development
Code Pertaining to Modification of the Dimensional Standards
of the R-15 Zoning District (ZOA 14-001)
De Weerd: Okay. Item 8-A is Ordinance 14-1601. 1 will ask our city clerk to, please,
read this ordinance by title only.
Holman: Thank you, Madam Mayor. City of Meridian Ordinance No. 14-1601, an
ordinance amending Meridian City Code as codified at Title 11, Entitled the Unified
Development Code of the Meridian City Code pertaining to modifications of the
dimensional standards of the R-15 zoning district 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? Council?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Hearing none, I move we approve Ordinance No. 14-1601 with suspension of
rules.
Milam: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 8-A. If there is no
discussion, Madam Clerk.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener,
absent.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 9: Future Meeting Topics
De Weerd: Council, are there any topics for consideration in future agendas?
With that I would entertain a motion to adjourn.
Rountree: So moved.
Milam: So moved.
Bird: Second.
Meridian City Council Workshop
April 8, 2014
Page 34 of 34
De Weerd: All those in favor say aye. All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 4:48 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
10
de WEERD DATE APPROVED
�E IDIAIV<--
The Office of the Mayor
Whereas, the Future City program gives young people the opportunity to do things
that engineers do and to improve students' understanding of Science,
Technology, Engineering, and Math; and,
Whereas, the Meridian Middle School Future City Team, with their city named
Urbem Paridiso, recently competed against 24 other teams and came in 1st
Place at the 2014 Idaho Region competition; and,
Whereas, this victory earned them the prestigious privilege of representing our great
state in the 2014 National Future City competition on February 15th in
Washington, D.C. where they won the Special Award for Best Management
of Water Resources; and,
Whereas, the guidance of the team's engineer mentor Jay Witt, and teacher
representative Krista Schwarz, helped team members Macey Smith,
Hannah Gray, Connor Wittmus, Sydni Merrill, Quinn McEntire, Josie
Sanford, Olivia. Plum, Grace Ellis, Leah Cadillac, Ethan Cash, and Cody
David focus on work ethic, and desire, and transformed them into a
winning team, with each team member making valuable contributions,
Therefore, I, Mayor Tammy de Weerd, do proclaim April 8, 2014 as
Cham ims
Day
in the City of Meridian and call upon the community to join me in congratulating this
team on their remarkable achievement and for representing Meridian so proudly in the
recent competitions.
Dated this 8`I' day of April, 2014
Tammy de Weerd, Mayor
Charlie Rountree, City Council President
Keith Bird, City Council Vice -President
David Zaremba, City Council
Luke Cavener, City Council
Genesis Milam, City Council
Joe Borton, City Council
DATE:A• 1
Proclamation for Meridian Middle School Future City Champions Day
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
11111111 ;,11111111l I 111111111�Illill 111 111111111111111111111111 11
A III I ;�
Ill• !
� 'ii III' , #
DATE: April 8, 2014 ITEM NUMBER: 5A
I a ff 03 1 # Eel d T I IN N NY";
ITEM TITLE: Consent Agenda
Approve Minutes of March 25, 2014 City Council PreCouncil Meeting
MEETING NOTES
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
Meridian City Council PreCouncil March 25, 2014
A meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 5:00 p.m., Tuesday, March
25, 2014, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd.
Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, Joe Borton, Genesis Milam, Luke
Cavener, Charlie Rountree and Keith Bird.
Members Absent:
Others Present: Bill Nary, Jaycee Holman, Bruce Chatterton, Caleb Hood, Warren
Stewart, John McCormick, Tracy Basterrechea, Mark Niemeyer, Robert Simison, and
Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll -call Attendance:
Roll call.
X David Zaremba X Joe Borton
X Charlie Rountree X Keith Bird
X Genesis Milam X Luke Cavener
X Mayor Tammy de Weerd
De Weerd: Okay. I will go ahead and start this evening's meeting. I would like to first
begin by thanking you all for being here with us. We greatly appreciate having faces out
in the audience. So, thank you. For the record it is Tuesday, March 25th. I will start
with roll call attendance, Madam Clerk.
Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda
De Weerd: Item No. 3 is adoption of the agenda.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move we adopt the agenda.
Bird: Second,
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda as stated. All those in
favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Bird: I move we go into Executive Session per Idaho State Code 67-2345 (1)(f).
Meridian City PreCouncil
March 25, 2014
Page 2 of 3
Milam: Second.
De Weerd: A motion and a second to go into Executive Session, roll call vote.
Roll Call Vote: Zaremba, aye; Milam, aye; Bird, aye; Cavener, aye, Rountree, aye,
Borton, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 3: Executive Session Per Idaho State Code 67-2345 (1)(f): (f) To
Consider and Advise Its Legal Representatives in Pending Litigation
EXECUTIVE SESSION: (5:02 p.m. to 6:07 p.m.)
De Weerd: Okay. I would entertain a motion to come out of Executive Session.
Rountree: So moved.
De Weerd: Do we have a second?
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye? Any opposed? We
are out of Executive Session.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: I would entertain a motion to adjourn the meeting.
Rountree: So moved.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: We have a motion and second. All in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: We are adjourned.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:07 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
City of
MAYOR�AMMY DEWEER j D4TE APPROVED
V
/
�ihe TRC ',"
Meridian City PreCouncil
March 25, 2014
Page 3 of 3
ATTEST:
J EE flpLIVIAN, CITY
li� IF 1� 1111111111111111 �illillilillill�lillillililill 11
! A
A dini j
D. April 8, 2014 ITEM NUMBER: 5B
ITEM TITLE: Consent Agenda
Approve Minutes of March 25, 2014 City Council Meeting
MEETING NOTES
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
Meridian City Council March 25, 2014
A meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:08 p.m., Tuesday, March
18, 2014, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd.
Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, Keith Bird, Charlie Rountree, David
Zaremba Joe Borton, Genesis Milam and Luke Cavener.
Others Present: Bill Nary, Jaycee Holman, Bruce Chatterton, Sonya Watters, Justin
Lucas, Warren Stewart, Dennis Teller, Jamie Leslie, Mark Niemeyer, and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll -call Attendance:
Roll call.
X David Zaremba X Joe Borton
X Charlie Rountree X Keith Bird
X Genesis Milam X Luke Cavener
X Mayor Tammy de Weerd
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you for your patience. We appreciate your joining us this
evening and so with that I will just launch right into our regular meeting. For the record
it is Tuesday, March 25th. It's 6:08. We will start with roll call attendance, Madam
Clerk.
Item 2: Pledge of Allegiance
De Weerd: Item No. 2 is the Pledge of Allegiance. If you will all rise and join us in the
pledge to our flag.
(Pledge of Allegiance recited.)
Item 3: Community Invocation by Michael Pearson
De Weerd: Item No. 3 is our community invocation. Tonight we will be led by Pastor
Michael Pearson. He is with the Seventh Day Adventist Church. Please join us in the
community invocation or take this as an opportunity for a moment of reflection. Thank
you for joining us tonight.
Pearson: Thank you. Almighty God, in that you choose by grace to not only create us,
but to redeem us and one day restore us to -- fully to you, we humbly invite your
presence here this evening. We pray that in the deliberations this evening, the
discussions, the votes, the conclusions will be in line with your will for Meridian city. We
ask your blessing on all those present this evening in Jesus' name, amen.
Item 4: Adoption of the Agenda
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 2 of 59
De Weerd: Thank you so much for leading us. For the record let it be noted that
Council Borton is with us. Item No. 4 is adoption of the agenda.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Item 5-A the staff has requested to vacate that particular item from the
agenda. Item 5-D is resolution number is 14-982. And with those suggested changes I
move that we adopt the agenda.
Milam: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda as noted. All those in
favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 5: Consent Agenda
A. Interagency Agreement with Ada County Highway District for
Roadway ConstructionlWater Construction Located at Pine
Ave., N. Haven Cove PI. to N. Rotan Ave. (ACRD Project No.
812011.005) Vacated.
B. Approval of Contract Amendment No. 1 to the Professional
Planning Services Agreement for "Fields District Phases 2 &
3" to Pegasus Planning & Development for the Not -To -Exceed
amount of $74,500.00
C. Approval of Professional Services Agreement for "Economic
Development Analysis and Plan" to Pegasus Planning and
Development for the Not -To -Exceed Amount of $45,000.00
D. Resolution No. 14-982: A Resolution for the Vacation (VAC 14-
001) of a 10 foot wide Public Utility Drainage and Irrigation
(PUDI) easement along the Shared Lot Line of Lots 3 and 4,
Block 3 Platted with the Leisman Addition Subdivision
De Weerd: Item 5 is our Consent Agenda.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we approve the Consent Agenda as previously noted.
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 3 of 59
Milam: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda as changed.
Madam Clerk, will you, please, call roll.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener,
yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 6: Items Moved From Consent Agenda
De Weerd: There were no items moved from the Consent Agenda.
Item 7: Action Items
A. Continued from March 18, 2014: Public Hearing: TEC 14-003
Seyam Subdivision by Volante Investments Located North
Side of E. Franklin Road and East of N. Eagle Road Request:
Two (2) Year Time Extension on the Preliminary Plat
De Weerd: So, we will move right into our Action Item, to 7-A, which is a public hearing
that was continued from March 18th on TEC 14-003. 1 will ask for staff comments.
Watters: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. The first item before you
tonight is a request for a time extension on the preliminary plat for Seyam Subdivision.
This site consists of 39.28 acres of land. It's zoned C -G and I -L and is located east of
North Eagle Road at the northeast corner of North Guadians Avenue and East Franklin
Road. This is the fourth time extension requested by the applicant. As with all
extensions Council may require the preliminary plat to comply with current provisions of
the Unified Development Code. Since the previous time extension request the city
standards pertaining to street lights, performance surety, and warranty surety, as well
as the Public Works construction standards have changed. As provisions of the subject
time extension request, staff recommends the applicant comply with these updated
standards. Brad Miller, the applicant's representative, has submitted written testimony
in agreement with the staff report and staff is recommending approval of the subject
request with the conditions in the staff report. Staff will stand for any questions Mayor
and Council may have.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions?
Rountree: No.
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 4 of 59
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Does the applicant have any comment? Always nice to see you, Brad. If
you will, please, state your name and address for the record.
Miller: Brad Miller. 3084 East Lanark in Meridian.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Miller: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I'm a little bit embarrassed to come
back for another time extension, because it is a little bit excessive, but I would like you
to know that we have already had the final plat signed off by ACRD, by DEQ, and it will
hit the city here in the next couple weeks. So, our objective is to get this thing recorded
ASAP and get the improvements put in this summer. So, that's what our plan is. So,
apologize that we are coming back again, but with the economy and a few other things
thrown in there it's kind of been one of those things.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Milam: I have none.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Rountree: Thanks, Brad.
De Weerd: This is a public hearing. Is there anyone who would like to hear -- or
provide testimony on this item?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Seeing none, I move that we close the public hearing on Item 7-A.
Bird: Second.
Zaremba: Second,
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 7-A.
Rountree: Close the hearing.
De Weerd: I'm sorry. Close the public hearing. All those in favor say aye. All ayes.
Motion carried.
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 5 of 59
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we approve Item 7-A, TEC 14-003.
Bird: Second.
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 7-A. Is there any discussion
from Council?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Madam Clerk.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener,
yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES,
E. Public Hearing: NIDA 14-002 Da Vinci Park by CS2, LLC
Located Southwest Corner of N. Locust Grove Road and E.
McMillan Road Request: Amendment to the Development
Agreement to Allow a Mix of Single Family Attached and
Detached Lots Instead of all Attached Lots and Update the
Conceptual Development Plan
De Weerd: Item 7-13 is a public hearing on MDA 14-002. 1 will open this public hearing
with staff comments.
Watters: Thank you, Madam Mayor. The next application before you is a development
agreement modification -- and if I can find my PowerPoint. This site is located on the
southwest corner of North Locust Grove Road and East McMillan Road at 47 North
Locust Grove Road. The applicant requests an amendment to the approved, but not yet
recorded development agreement for Da Vinci Park. The applicant proposes to update
the development plan for the property with a new concept plan for a mix of single family
attached and detached lots, instead of all attached lots. The amendment includes
changes to the applicable text of the agreement to include detached building lots,
updated lot number references based on the revised plan, a revised conceptual
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 6 of 59
development plan, as you see here the approved concept plan currently is on the left,
the proposed concept plan is on the right. The removal of the provision that requires
the property to be subdivided prior to issuance of building permits. The configuration of
the commercial and residential portions of the development have changed slightly on
the revised concept plan from that previously approved. The residential area has
increased by .39 of an acre and the qualified open space has decreased slightly, but still
complies with the minimum UDC standards. The total number of building lots has
decreased from 38 to 34 dwelling units, resulting in a slight decrease in density from
4.89 to 4.38 dwelling units per acre. With the amendment a mix of housing types are
now proposed consistent with the mixed use neighborhood and medium density
residential land use designations for this site. Because the site currently consists of two
legal parcels, the applicant would like to start construction on two homes, one on each
parcel, after demolition of the existing house and accessory structures. Provided that
access to the building site meets the fire department standards and any other applicable
life safety requirements, staff does not object to the applicant commencing construction
on these two structures. These structures should be located so that they comply with
the setbacks of the R-8 zoning district for the future platted lots. Prior to issuance of
certificate of occupancy for these structures the final plat should be recorded and all
improvements completed. The applicant has also submitted conceptual building
elevations for the detached units as shown here. Written testimony has been received
from Bob Unger, the applicant's representative in agreement with the terms in the staff
report and staff is recommending approval. Staff will stand for any questions Mayor and
Council may have.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, do you have any questions for staff at this time?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Does the applicant have any comments?
Unger: Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Bob Unger with ULC
Management, 6104 North Gary Lane, Boise, Idaho. 83714. It's a pretty simply, cut, dry
application. We have spent time with staff to make sure that this amendment would
comply and we really don't have a lot more to add to it. So, we'd ask for your approval.
De Weerd: Council, do you have any questions?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Unger: Thank you.
De Weerd: This is a public hearing. Is there anyone who would like to provide
testimony on this item? Okay. Council, seeing no testimony --
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 7 of 59
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: -- any questions? Mr. Bird.
Bird: If we have no questions or testimony, I move we close MDA 14-002.
Milam: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on Item 7-B. All
those in favor say aye. All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve MDA 14-002 and to include all staff and applicant comments.
Milam: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 7-13. If there is no discussion
from Council I would ask Madam Clerk to call roll.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener,
yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
C. FP 14-009 Olson & Bush Subdivision No. 3 by Ronald W. Van
Auker Located 2950 E. Franklin Road Request: Final Plat
Approval Consisting of Six (6) Building Lots on 6.81 Acres of
Land in the C -G and I -L Zoning Districts
De Weerd: Item C is Final Plat 14-009. 1 will ask for staff comments at this time.
Watters: Thank you, Madam Mayor. The next application before you is a request for
final plat. This site is located at 2950 East Franklin Road on the north side of East
Franklin Road west of Eagle Road. The proposed final plat depicts six building lots on
6.81 acres of land in C -G and I -L zoning districts. The proposed plat is in substantial
compliance with the approved preliminary plat. Written testimony has been received
from Brad Miller, the applicant's representative. He is in agreement with the terms of
the staff report and staff is recommending approval. Staff will stand for any questions
Council may have.
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 8 of 59
De Weerd: Thank you, Sonya. Any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Milam: No.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: It's not a public hearing, so --
De Weerd: It's not a public hearing and the applicant didn't have any comment.
Bird: I move that we approve FP 14-009 and include staff comments.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 7-C. Madam Clerk, will you
call roll.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener,
yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
D. Continued from March 18, 2014: Public Hearing: PP 13-042
Centre Point Square by Center Point Square, LLC Located
West of N. Eagle Road and South of E. Ustick Road Request:
Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Forty (40) Single -
Family Buildable Lots and Four (4) Common/Other Lots on
Approximately 5.28 Acres of Land in an R-15 Zoning District
Continued to April 1, 2014
E. Continued from March 18, 2014: Public Hearing: MDA 13-025
Centre Point Square by Centre Point Square, LLC Located
West of N. Eagle Road and South of E. Ustick Road Request:
Development Agreement Modification to Change the
Development Plan from Multi -Family to Single Family
De Weerd: Item 7-D and E are continued from March 18th, public hearing on PP 13-
042 and MDA 13-025. 1 will ask for staff comments at this time.
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 9 of 59
Lucas: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. I'm filling in tonight for Bill
Parsons, who wasn't able to be here on this project. I know he presented to you last
week. Just to bring everyone up to speed, this -- this is a continued public hearing
related to these items. The primary purpose of the continuance was, one, to give staff
some time to discuss with the applicant and the fire department traffic calming
measures on East Picard Lane and, two, to provide more specificity within the design
requirements in the development agreement. Staff has -- has done that. I'm going to
go ahead and move through here and show you where we landed and we have come
up with the following development agreement provisions related to those -- to those
issues. As you can see here we struck out the -- the proposed elevations that we were
-- that were requested by the Council, so those have been removed from the package
and we have provided the following language related to the addition of a chicane, which
is an off -setting bulb out, as proposed by the fire department and also have added quite
a bit of language related to the design of the structures. Staff is confident that this
language addresses the concerns of the Council. I'm not going to read it all to you, but
can stand for any questions at this time.
De Weerd: Council, any questions for staff at this time?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
De Weerd: I think it needs to be noted in the record that we did receive several new
written testimony, as well as there is a letter in front of you that we received today as
well. So, any questions for staff at this time?
Rountree: Madam Mayor? Do you have an illustration of the roadway alignment, the
chicanes that are suggested?
Lucas: Madam Mayor, Councilman Rountree, let me see if I actually have a graphic of
the roadway alignment. The way that condition read -- this is a -- here you go. Here is
a conceptual picture. This is not, I just want to emphasize, the exact alignment of how
these would work. The development agreement provision states that the chicane needs
to be designed by a certified civil engineer who is, you know, familiar with traffic calming
devices and at the time of final plat staff will have the chance to review the final design,
but will give an illustration of what a chicane could look like. Whether it is two bulb outs,
whether it's three, all of those things would need to be identified at the design phase of
the project with the final plat.
Rountree: Madam Mayor, follow up.
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Rountree: We have had some experience with this approach on a subdivision that
accesses Ustick. Do you have any information with respect to that on how effective it's
been or not?
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 10 of 59
Lucas: Madam Mayor, Councilman Rountree, I'm trying to think of the subdivision that
accesses Ustick that has the chicanes. There is not a lot of chicanes within -- in the
City of Meridian.
Rountree: It's a single street.
Lucas: Okay.
Rountree: It's east of Meridian.
Lucas: East of Meridian Road --
Rountree: And north --
Zaremba: West of Locust Grove I think.
Lucas: You know, I think -- I think I am familiar with the -- the chicane that you're talking
about. At this point staff hasn't received any regular complaints in that area, so it
appears that those chicanes have helped to meet the concerns of the neighbors
regarding traffic calming. We are not in any active investigation that I know of related to
that and I don't know -- I know we have someone from ACHD here tonight and I don't
know if they could shed light on that. It's a little different situation where that's a public
street and this would be a private street, so -- I don't know if that exactly answers your
question, but I guess in short I don't really have anymore detailed information on that
specific chicane in the City of Meridian.
Rountree: Thank you.
De Weerd: So, Justin, I know you weren't at the last hearing, but Councilman Rountree
did bring up a very valid concern and I don't know if between last week and this week it
was really discussed, so I'm going to throw this out to you. There is great concern with
the connecting points that this private road provides between two public roads and with
both maintenance and liability with having the traveling public and -- and we already
know that it's well used as a cut through as -- in both directions, either from Eagle to get
to Ustick or Ustick to get to Eagle and the businesses on that. What is the legal liability
for this public -- or private road as it accommodates people who wouldn't normally be
there to visit these residents?
Lucas: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the question related to legal liability -- I
don't know if I can speak directly to that, we might need counsel to weigh in. I do know
that typically a configuration where you have a private street connecting to public streets
isn't ideal. In this specific situation it was approved in this manner and as you know on
this development site there has been some -- some changes over time to the plan out
there. Now, when it comes to liability, private streets are, obviously, not under the
jurisdiction of the Ada County Highway District, therefore, the -- the public liability there I
believe is removed from them. They are not under the jurisdiction, really, of the City of
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 11 of 59
Meridian, those are private streets, just like a commercial drive aisle or a driveway.
Maybe counsel would like to weigh in on the -- on the question of liability further than
what I have clarified.
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I would say the same thing that Justin
just said. I mean these are no different than a drive aisle -- yeah, there is, obviously, a
number of different areas around town that have public access through them that are
still private drive aisles of -- you know, the rear of a number of shopping facilities have
delivery areas and drive aisles back there that allow public access and they are using
an easement or -- but they are not right of way. So, it is the private property owner's
responsibility for both the maintenance, as well as liability. Now, roadway liability
generally is only going to go to the construction and maintenance of the roadway itself.
So, just because somebody gets in a collision in a private drive doesn't necessarily
mean the people who own the asphalt have a responsibility towards that collision, but --
but it is a private -- but it is -- Justin is correct, it's no different than any other private
aisle or private drive that exists around other commercial areas in the city.
De Weerd: And -- and I know that the -- the public would not be responsible, but what
are we setting up in terms of -- to my recollection we did not really anticipate that this
would be a connector between two different areas of the public road. Certainly it was
anticipated that cars would access through the northern commercial area for the
commercial and the residential would go out to Ustick using that same connecting point.
I think the city does have some -- some ownership in the predicament that this property
is in, so -- and I don't know if a chicane would slow the traffic. It slows it where we can't
enforce it, but it's almost to me -- I know Planning loves to hear gated community, but
the only solution I see is gating this private area, so that it's not accessible to the public,
so -- and that's just, I guess, my opinion and throwing it out there, but it is concerning
having this public -private -public type of situation.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, part of where this originated back about
eight years ago was when these properties were approved originally there was no
cross -access between them and if you recall the northern property was approved and,
then, this property was approved at the same time, but there was no cross -access. So,
this became a landlocked parcel and so there was a concern by the property owners at
the time that they now had an undevelopable piece of property. So, that roadway that
was -- that was constructed is a future roadway I think for public access. It's just that
the north piece hasn't developed the rest of it to provide further access like you're -- like
you're talking about. But the access was intended to connect these two, knowing the
private street was already there, because -- because the developer of this parcel
wanted to make sure they had access to Ustick or they couldn't develop it. So, it was
the compromise that was reached back in about 2005 to allow them access. So,
would agree with you that there is a long history as to how this got the way it is, but part
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 12 of 59
of it was, basically, the -- the desire to develop it and the designer or the owner in the
northern piece was willing to grant the public road access immediately -- originally they
weren't intending to have that access open until they opened up the -- or developed the
entire north piece and that was the problem. So, they agreed to that as a compromise,
so that puts us in a predicament. I don't know if it does -- I don't think it answers your
question, but I mean that's partly the reason why it's here.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions at this point?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: Mr. Nary, are you referencing the -- that corner piece between Picard and --
right there. That connection.
Nary: Yes.
Borton: All right.
De Weerd: And it was built -- oh. Okay. Anything further? Would the applicant like to
make comment? Please state your name and address for the record.
Unger: Madam Mayor and Council, my name is Bob Unger, ULC Management, 6104
North Gary Lane, Boise, Idaho, 83714. As far as the traffic calming device, the chicane
that we are showing on this -- on Picard Lane, that particular design is a designation
that I got out of a traffic manual and I did review this with Chief Palmer and he was
comfortable with that, but also staff put it as a condition that that be reviewed and
approved by a traffic engineer and we are fine with that. There is an alternative that can
go in that the chief told me about. There actually are speed bumps that can be installed
that have a specific spacing, so that emergency vehicle tires will -- will not hit the bump
and there is a specific ACHD standard for that design. If the Council's preference is to
go with the speed bumps we are open to that and Chief Palmer indicated that he would
be open to either one. So, I don't think we have an issue there. In -- I'd like to just
review the private road connection that -- that you have been discussing here. Back
when this project was approved, the overall project of Bienville Square in 2005, 2006,
the particular street alignments that are shown today, those were approved and it was
understood that they were private roads from Eagle Road -- excuse me -- down to North
Le Blanc Way, which is where it becomes a public road again and that -- that we would
connect to Ustick via the Centre Point Way, which is exactly what we did, and the
development of the property to the north -- this Cajun Road or Cajun Lane was going to
extend through over -- all the way over to Ustick when they did their development and
they were only a month ahead of us, so everything we did had to align with them. So,
that's exactly what we did. And, in fact, the roundabout and the northern portion of
Cajun Lane there exists a cross -access agreement between this development and the
property to the north. So, they would have -- in fact, it comes all the way in from Eagle
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 13 of 59
Road, so that they would be able to use this access to get into their development also
and at that time the -- the center portion of the project -- the master plan for that called
for 28 condominium units adjacent to Le Blanc Way and that's where the 28 attached
living units are currently built and the balance of this -- the master plan showed 17 four-
plex structures, a total of 68 units, and what we are proposing is 40 units. So, it
certainly is a reduction in what the original proposal -- the original master plan that was
approved by the -- by the Council back in '05, '06. So, we feel that the overall project
that was originally approved, including the private streets, it was understood that these
connections were being made and that these specific densities that were going to go in
there were the 28 units and the 68 units and in reality we are asking for a reduction in
the number of units. So, we feel that we have more than complied with the original
master plan of the project and we have actually put together a much more desirable
product than what was originally proposed. So, having said that, I will stand for any
questions that you might have.
De Weerd: Well, Mr. Unger, I think you have put a more desirable product in for the rest
of it and I guess I would say that we don't always have all the answers, but if we don't
live and learn from what we observe, we wouldn't be doing our job and upholding our
commitment to the public that elect us and I think there have been lessons learned out
there. Right now because the northern piece is not developed, it's putting a lot of
pressure on a private road that you're not going to have to deal with, because once
you're done with this you're gone. The homeowners and the people that live there will
be dealing with it and they are the ones that will have the cost imposed on them in
maintaining a private road that's used very publicly and I guess that is -- is the largest
question in front of this Council at this time. So, we may have understood that the
connection that was made at that time, but time has shown us and taught us something.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I'm still concerned about the traffic flow on private -public parcels. You made
mention that the master plan was approved with the understanding that these are
private roads. I believe it was also made with the understanding that the master plan
would be built and that the public roads would be provided as well to and including the
inclusion of a cross -access agreement to the property to the north. In my opinion that
road needs to be done in order to accommodate any further development in the interior,
because that was the intent of the master plan. I can't -- I can't deny that you have put
together a better proposal. I think you have scaled it up considerable. And that's
because you have learned from the past project. So, I guess -- that's just my
observation, Bob. I feel strongly that way.
De Weerd: Any other questions for Mr. Unger?
Bird: I have none.
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 14 of 59
De Weerd: Any other comments at this point?
Unger: No. Madam Mayor, I will --
De Weerd: Save it for the --
Unger: That's fine.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone who wishes to testify this evening?
Yes, sir. If you could, please, state your name and address for the record.
Lemay: Yes. My name is Joseph Lemay. My address is 2989 North Centre Point Way,
Meridian. 83646.
De Weerd: Thank you, Joseph.
Lemay: Madam Mayor, Council Members, thank you for having us. You have
mentioned chicanes may calm traffic and speed bumps may calm traffic, but as you
have also mentioned they do nothing to alleviate the maintenance and responsibility of
the private roadway. As a homeowner in the subdivision there I don't find it fair or
reasonable that the City of Meridian -- and I'm not pointing fingers, but I'm saying I don't
find it fair or reasonable that the city, nor ACHD, should put that maintenance cost on
myself, the other homeowners that are here and the general public around there for a --
as you indicate, a very publicly used roadway. To that end we are asking the city to
stop the further development until either the road can be proved that it was constructed
properly and handed to ACHD for their -- so that they can maintain that and, then, we
would be fine with Bourbon Street, which is the southern most roadway that goes
around the new development. We are okay with that being a private road. It's at the
very southern end of the -- of development. It's also private. There is no public access
there per se, because they would have to go around all of the buildings, all the homes,
to get there. It's not a cut -through through affair as Picard is. We are asking that no
more development go in until this can be addressed to either be turned over to ACHD
for their maintenance and control or another access, as you have pointed out, Cajun
Road being brought out the north and cut across where it cuts into Centre Point. And,
again, we are -- we are concerned. Traffic calming is a great thing. There is a lot of
people that think that is the Indianapolis Speedway through there. Our bigger concern
is the maintenance of the road and saddling that cost on 51 homes to the west. Thank
you very much.
De Weerd: Thank you. Please. Let me first thank you for your service to our country
and if you will, please, state your name and address for the record.
Bailey: My name is Bob Bailey and my address is 2925 North Centre Point Way and
thank you for your service. I really appreciate the fact that all of you -- your insight and
your knowledge of this situation, I really appreciate that. I am a resident and I will tell
you it scares me to see some of the things that are going on on that roadway there. I
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 15 of 59
don't know if you know, we have a Jimmy John's right up there. The only way they can
get north, east, or west of their location is down that road. They drive very fast, they
don't stop at the stop signs and what's a bigger concern is now we are going to have all
these additional units and these units are small units, we expect that there is going to be
families in those units, small kids running around. Speed bumps may help, but, then,
there is the liability of damage to vehicles and stuff. Are we going to incur that cost as
the residents there? I would like to see us, you know, just hold this off, take our time,
make sure we make the right decisions here. We all have a responsibility to the
citizens. I do that on a daily basis and I know you do, too, and I'm asking as a citizen for
your help in making sure that we do this right, we take our time, we plan it correctly and
we make sure the community is safe and we make sure that the residents are
protected. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Sir? Did you have a question? No? Okay. Yes, sir. Good
evening. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record.
Hysmith: I'm Larry Hysmith and I live at 2903 North Centre Point Way.
De Weerd: Thank you, Larry.
Hysmith: Also being a resident of this area I have the same concerns that everyone
else has, but the larger concern is the liability of a potential accident. The burden of
rebuilding, repairing, maintaining that would go a long way -- I'm a retired individual -- in
hurting my budget, let alone the others that we have in the development -- the other
residents. But this liability -- should an accident happen we are responsible, we are tied
in with the other -- the way this development occurred and, again, I also would
appreciate if we could stop further development until we could resolve this issue. If we
turn it over to the city that would be wonderful. Or possibly get the contractor to absolve
us in Jackson Square of all liability and I don't know if that could be brought up, but I
appreciate it very much. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Good evening. If you will, please, state your name and
address.
Gammon: Yes. My name is Elizabeth Gammon. 3305 Centre Point Way and actually
own the home with my daughter, who put in just about all her money into the home.
Last meeting I said I was ashamed that I helped her find this home, because of all these
problems coming up and now I'm terrified, because I wasn't aware of all the liability with
this road. As far as the cars go, our -- Cajun Road going out, I don't know how that's
going to solve many of the problems even with that if it goes straight out, but I wanted to
tell you that today for ten minutes, not during rush hour, I watched the cars coming in
and out of the area. I did not count the cars that belonged to residents. There were 11
cars in ten minutes. There were nine coming from Ustick -- not Ustick -- Eagle Road.
Of those nine one person stopped at the stop sign. There were a number coming off of
-- or one that came off of -- from the shopping center. They came and just turned
around there, which I have seen quite frequently. There were two cars that came --
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 16 of 59
other -- two other cars that came off of Eagle Road. One -- no, two -- there were three.
Two were Jimmy John's -- and I have to say they get a fairly bad rap, because they are
not the only problem, they are only part of the problem. The only reason we know is
because they have a sign. We don't know where the other cars are coming from. I can
only assume that many are either patrons or business people from the business section.
And I want to tell you when I was writing this information down I looked down at my
paper and I'm writing it down and looked up again and saw four cars waiting to -- at the
light at Ustick Road to get out. That's how bad the traffic is now. What it's going to be
like when they put something in and it -- the issues aren't taken care of I don't know.
don't -- the speed bumps -- I agree with the others that it will calm things, people will
slow down and maybe even stop at the stop sign, but I don't think it's going to solve the
problem and I wish that this is stopped until we -- we don't have to have liability for the
roads. And I was going around this Saturday trying to get some of the residents to
come to the meeting and there are retiring, there are young people, and there are
growing families and in talking to many of these people they can't even afford the
upkeep and wear and tear that the public is causing to the private road. And I
appreciate all of your input and how you're doing research on this and how you are
actually listing to us. So, thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Yes, sir. Good evening.
Holsinger: Good evening. My name is Barry Holsinger. I live at 2836 North Centre
Point Road in the development we are talking about. I recently moved here from
Federal Way, Washington, about six months ago and because I really knew that Boise
was a great community to live in and retire in and still do and I hope that it stays that
way and I'm an educator and I realize the liability that happens with children and with
streets and so on. In Federal Way we had a recent incident where a kid rode a bike
across a road and was killed and the question of liability in that situation came up and
certainly the biggest question was whether the signs were in the right spot and whether
the -- whether the kid was properly protected and it was a private road and big
questions about whether liability lied with the city of Federal Way or the city -- private
owners in that particular spot. I'm concerned about whether, you know, this -- this road
is going to be properly signed as a private road, because it has public access. Whether
it's going to be -- speed bumps are going to cause some accidents or not. The snow
removal and other things that are involved with the cost of that. I'm concerned that they
are going to wipe out me as a retired person in our community of Meridian. So, thank
you very much for letting me speak to you tonight.
De Weerd: Thank you. Is there any further testimony? Good evening.
J.Hysmith: Councilmen. My name is Julie Hysmith. 2903 North Centre Point Way.
Also a resident and retired from Seattle area also. It sounds like we did not do -- many
of us did not do our due diligence when we purchased our homes, but every person I
spoke with had requested copies of the CC&Rs way before we sold our paper -- signed
our papers. Not one of us knew we were responsible for that road. Not one. And we
talked to almost every homeowner this last week after we met with you. We took over
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 17 of 59
the Jackson -- the residents of Jackson Square took over the CC&Rs and the
homeowner association less than a year ago. At that time we were just given a stack of
papers as you can imagine. There is no place in those papers that actually states that
we are responsible for that road, but there is a joint maintenance agreement, which we
didn't even know we had. Did we do our due diligence? I think we did. We had title
companies searching these things out also. There is a lot of questions that now when
we move here to retire and try and survive we could be held responsible for that road.
Here, again, I hope you do not approve it the way it is. On top of that, if you ever drive
that -- you should probably all go take a drive. They have two way traffic and parking on
one side. You're asking for a car accident. It's not wide enough for three cars abreast
and by putting 40 units in there, there is no room for their cars. The ones that are -- the
interior are exactly like the front. Every driveway, every garage is full and both sides of
the street are packed with cars from the -- those duplexes. So, that is very concerning
right there. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Good evening.
J.Bailey: Janet Bailey. 2925 North Centre Point.
De Weerd: Can you pull the -- yes. Thank you.
J.Bailey: I, too, am very concerned. In fact, I just found out about the liability on the
road just from the board last week. I am a board member as well. And I am -- I have
been mostly concerned about the traffic in there. I am neighborhood watch. I have
been working with Ken Corder. He has been instrumental in helping get a bus stop
moved. At the beginning in the interest of the Centre Point we moved it further in,
because there is small children and with the proposed units he's putting in the traffic is
already -- it's doubled from when we bought. So, now with what he's proposed, the
traffic is through the roof. They -- nobody stops. The kids -- it worries me to death
about the small children in there trying to walk around. People -- it's really bad. And I
am in complete agreement to put a stop to whatever to fix the traffic. The speed bumps
-- I vote for speed bumps. I don't think the chicanes will work the way these drivers are.
They don't pay attention. They just blow right through those stop signs. I think that we
need something to impact to make them stop or slow down or reroute the roads. I'm not
sure. So -- but thank you. I appreciate your help.
De Weerd: Thank you. Is there any further testimony? Yes, sir. Good evening.
Morton: My name is Tyler Morton. I live at 2906 North Centre Point Way. Thanks for
having us here today.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Morton: I won't reiterate too much of this stuff, I just wanted to hammer away a little bit
more. It seems a little ludicrous that so few houses would be responsible financially for
such a public -- publically used roadway. Some I believe back there used the argument
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 18 of 59
or the comparison that you have all those shopping centers with roads behind them --
well, I imagine the Home Depot or Kohl's could deal with the burden of that sort of
maintenance or liability much easier than several retired families, you know, living on a
set income. And thanks for your time.
De Weerd: Thank you, Tyler. If you have new testimony -- you know, if you have
something that someone else has not said at this point I would ask that you come
forward, but -- okay. You can't talk from back there. If you will state your name again
for the record.
Gammon: Elizabeth Gammon. 3305 North --
De Weerd: In the mike.
Gammon: Okay. Thank you. Elizabeth Gammon. 3305 Centre Point. I just want to
make a comment about the shopping center. You realize it's not really in the same area
that our homes are. It's actually across the road. But it still is a problem. So, it's not
like a road behind it or anything like that, it's actually not in the same area.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Yes, please.
Johnson: Marita Johnson. I live at 2940 North Centre Point Way and I'm a new
resident there, I just bought the home in June, and I picked this just because of the
location with being a -- you know, home family kind of residence. I just recently retired,
so I'm looking at living there for the rest of my life. I know when I purchased the home
they had talked about maybe there was an assisted living going to go in that place by
the roundabout and I thought, well, that's great, I will just move from there to the
assisted living in time. But had I known that there would be multi -dwellings there and
then -- one of the reasons I wanted to buy a house is because I wanted get away from
that sort of environment. I sold a house years ago when -- after I -- well, finished my
graduate work and have been staying in different places like that and I know that the
traffic and -- you know, a lot of them turn into rentals and, you know, I don't have
anything against people finding, you know, affordable housing, but I do know you create
a very different atmosphere as far as the traffic and, you know, just safety issues. So,
yeah, this was a surprise to me when I found out that we might have that responsibility
also to pay for that road and I thought -- if it's our road and it's a private road, I like their
idea like a gated community, you know, can it just be blocked off. I wouldn't mind just
going through the Ustick one to get back and forth, but the other traffic, the more it
increases like that, the less desirable the house is for me to want to stay there and I
love Meridian, came to this area because I already have children who live in Meridian
and have loved it and they are -- some as close as Sundance. So, anyway, they have
been paying taxes and being involved with it. So, I'm hoping to keep that same kind of
atmosphere as what Centre Point Way was when I purchased it. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Is there any further testimony? If not, I would ask wrap
up remarks from the applicant.
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 19 of 59
Unger: Madam Mayor, Bob Unger representing the applicant again. First of all, I -- boy,
when we had our neighborhood meetings we discussed traffic, we discussed some of
those issues, and we all came to an understanding that we would put in traffic calming
devices and everybody indicated they would be very happy with that. So, I'm a little bit
surprised to get kind of blasted here this evening with this issue. The cut -through traffic
that we are talking about does not go through the subdivision itself, it goes -- they come
in -- any of this traffic comes in, you know, off of Eagle Road, comes down to Cajun,
they taken a right, they go down Picard and, then, they get to Centre Point and they
take a right to get out to Ustick. They are not -- this traffic is not traveling through the
actual subdivision itself, it's traveling along this northerly road -- the northerly street.
just -- I want to, you know, get that point out. It's -- and if we were to gate Picard we
know what everybody would do, they would take a left and, then, they would go down
through the subdivision in front of everybody's homes. I mean I would have a concern
about that. The original project -- that homeowners association -- an association called
Mason Creek Property Owners Association. Mason Creek Property Association is a
blanket association over the entire project and that's where every owner is required to
maintain the private streets. They pay dues to the association for maintenance of the
private streets. So, when people who now have the Jackson Square Association, which
is an association on top of Mason Creek Association, when they bought -- I don't know
what happened with their title company, but that title company should have provided
them with the CC&Rs for the Mason Creek Homeowners Association, so that they were
made aware that these are private streets there and that they were responsible for the
continued maintenance of those streets. Included in those dues is a liability insurance
policy that is being paid for the private streets. You know, I understand it's -- how easy
it is to purchase a house and, then, find out later that you have responsibilities that you
weren't aware of and I'm sorry that that happens. I'm sorry it happened in this situation.
But I think -- I think everybody now apparently is aware that there is that over -- the
Mason Creek Association that is responsible for the maintenance of the private roads
within the development and in addition what we are proposing is 40 additional lots -- is
40 additional residences. That's going to put more money -- I mean they are going to
become contributors to that fund also. So, I think -- I think there is a win there. At our
hearing last week I think I did explain to you that we did go to the highway district and
we did ask them if they would take over these private streets and I was told by Gary
Inselman that the chances of that were between slim and none and don't waste my time
applying to ACHD to do that, because staff would recommend denial. I really feel that
what we are proposing -- and if you look at your trips per day for 40 units it's 320 trips
per day. In the existing homes over there it's the same situation. Eight trips per day.
That's how it's calculated by ACRD. I can put in traffic calming devices to slow people
down. I can even go talk to Jimmy John's, but I can't make it go away. So, we are
asking the Council to consider our situation where we had a project that was approved
for development years ago, reiterated just a year or so ago when we did phase two.
The development agreement allowed for multi -family on this next phase and at no time
was it brought to our attention that we were going to have a problem with these roads.
So, I'd ask for you all to take that into consideration and let us move forward. I will
stand for any questions.
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 20 of 59
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Not to put all the blame on ACHD, tell us why they would not accept your roads.
Unger: Madam Mayor, Mr. Bird, the construction standards are not to their width. Their
minimum right of way width is 44 feet with a 33 foot road section that's back to curb,
back to curb. We are at 30 feet. And since they were not the inspectors on the actual
construction compaction, et cetera, of the sub base, it would all have to -- they would all
have to go back through and be totally tested. In essence it would have to be
reconstructed and widened to all of their standards, which -- that's an expensive -- we
just -- last year we just built the -- the section of -- the southern section of Bourbon --
you know, Bourbon Lane and the balance of North Cajun.
Bird: Thank you.
Cavener: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Cavener.
Cavener: Bob, just maybe walk me through this. You have got Mason Creek
Homeowners Association. Under that you have Centre Point Square HOA, Jackson
Square HOA, and the Bienville HOA; is that accurate?
Unger: Madam Mayor, Mr. Cavener, no. What we have is -- overall is the Mason Creek
Property Owners Association, Okay? And the -- a quick history of this thing. I'm sorry.
A quick history is that in -- in 2008 when the crunch hit the bank took back the property.
All right? And they finished the -- the project and actually started building the homes on
the western portion of the project and they established an additional homeowners
association, which is the Jackson Square HOA and it was strictly for those homes
located on -- on the west side of Le Blanc and on either side of Centre Point Way and
those are the only two associations at this time. Our plan was to establish the Centre
Point Square Association, which would encompass the 28 attached units that are there
now and the additional 40 that we are proposing.
Cavener: Madam Mayor, just a quick --
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Cavener: Are there any residents of this neighborhood on the Mason Square HOA
board?
Unger: Madam Chair, Mr. Cavener, I do not know.
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 21 of 59
Cavener: Okay.
De Weerd: Any other questions? Okay. Thank you.
Unger: Thank you very much.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, any further questions for staff or the applicant?
Cavener: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Cavener.
Cavener: I have a question and I'm not sure if this is for Justin or for Bill. I'm trying to
wrap my head around who -- who owns these private streets then. Is it the Mason
Creek Homeowners Association that owns them? Is it the residents that are -- that are
taking ownership of the street? Who owns these private streets and is able to make
decisions regarding its -- the liability?
Lucas: Madam Mayor, Councilman Cavener, the private streets are owned by any
property owner within the boundaries of this -- of this original development, as Mr.
Unger was saying. And so if you own property within that development, basically, you
have some sort of stewardship over the private streets. But they -- actually, a private
street is much like a common lot where a common lot is owned and maintained by the
homeowners association. Most of the time common lots are grass or their irrigation
access or something like that. In this case, because it's a mixed use development, you
will have home homeowners who help pay for this, you will have maybe owners of
multiple buildings -- let's say you have in this situation where you may have one owner
who owns multiple of those townhomes, the owner is openly responsible for that -- for
those private streets and so it's just the way that this development was originally
approved with the -- for the City of Meridian. Typically you don't have this situation and
as I stated earlier, there is ultimately going to be different circulation options in this area.
I think that's a key point and something as a planner I'm taught to do, which is to take
the long view and that certainly doesn't mitigate the issues that we have now, but there
are going to be other circulation options in this area when this -- when this piece of
ground develops. I don't know when that's going to happen and ultimately don't know
what the plans are for this development. Roads will be extended and will -- these roads
and the circulation pattern in here will be the responsibility of that property owner or
group of property owners in the future and so it's -- I don't know if that exactly answers
your question, but that's the best I can do.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I would just comment -- and this expands a little bit on the question that Mr.
Bird asked. Developers know when they submit their application both to the city and to
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 22 of 59
ACHD that if they propose a substandard road and -- and intend it to become a private
road, they are not building it at that point to known ACHD standards, which they already
knew and, unfortunately, this isn't the only place this happens where the developer
makes the decision before any house is built and anybody's bought the house or moved
in that they are going to have a substandard road that ACHD will never take charge of
and I don't know -- because we don't have authority over the road what -- what part the
city can take and at some point maybe saying we will never approve a private road. I'm
not sure we can do that, because there are circumstances where a private road is
reasonable. I believe we did at one time have a rule that a private road couldn't connect
two public roads and maybe that rule has gotten lost in some of the other changes that
have happened in our thing, but I -- I do want to, I guess, provide a little defense of
ACHD that they let developers know that when they choose to do a substandard road
not only will ACHD not take that road over then, they will never take it over and the only
option for the developer, if they are still involved, would be, essentially, to tear that road
out and start over to ACHD standards, which, as Mr. Unger has mentioned, means it's
got to be wider and it's got to be a better base under it. So, they usually don't choose to
go that direction. I'm not really offering any help, but I am sort of trying to defend ACRD
and their position in it and the knowledge that the developers know this when they --
when they build them in the first place.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Zaremba. Any other questions or --
Milam: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mrs. Milam.
Milam: I have more of a comment. Justin, could you put that other picture back up and
-- my concern --
Lucas: Be just a moment. I was actually searching our code for something. I will bring
up that map. I apologize.
Milam: Oh. Thank you. A lot of my concern is based on bringing that -- is it Cajun
that's supposed to go through eventually? Maybe another map. Based on some things
that we have seen with ACHD recently, I don't know where they would allow that to
come out, because it will be too close to the intersection, unless it -- I mean I guess it
comes to here, but, then, that's too close to -- it's going to come into Centre Point, not to
Ustick, because it has to be, what, 700 -- I mean 700 feet from there or something?
That's an ACHD question, but I wouldn't want to make a decision based on assuming
that they are going to allow a road to go through at a later date.
Lucas: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I might be able to clarify that a little bit.
This -- this piece of ground here does have some previous approvals on it to vest it with
access points to -- to Ustick Road. So, there are some existing access points that were
built with the Ustick and Eagle intersection and coordinated with this property owner that
are anticipated to occur there. You can see they, basically, align directly with what was
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 23 of 59
provided to the Kohl's property on the other side. So, there will be the opportunity when
this develops for access to -- to Ustick Road. Do those access points exactly meet
ACHD's current standards, you're right, they probably do not, but since they are
previously approved they are -- there is -- at this point they are vested with that property
and I believe this one is -- is a full access. I go to Kohl's all the time and I think that's
how it works. That's a full access. This one is a right -in, right -out. There is an existing
median that is there. So, just a clarification. It's also very likely that they will have
access to North Centre Point Way on this property also. So, there will be multiple
access points provided to this property when it develops.
Milam: Thank you.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: It seems like the unique challenge that -- that arises with private streets in an
undeveloped area, to Councilman Rountree's point, is the sequence of events that's
required to take place in order to be successful. You know, a private street in an
otherwise developed area poses less risk because you have got a more known quantity
of traffic counts and -- and who is going where and when. This access point heading
north back when this originally was approved, is a critical component to the exception
that makes these private streets in this context less problematic. I think. In talking out
ideas of compromise I -- I appreciate what Mr. Unger has to do with this project to make
it more appealing and address all the other issues in addition to traffic. I don't know if
it's a feasible option in a development agreement to place a cap on the number of
buildable lots or -- or permits until a second access point to the north is provided. If
you're able to approve and allow for, for example, eight lots, ten lots, something to that
effect to be built, no further permits until a second access point from Cajun to the north
connects to Ustick Road. I'm not married to that number, I'm just trying to think of
different ways to try and address some of the -- the good concerns that the public has
brought up with adding additional traffic to this private street. When we were originally
comfortable with having the traffic there, but it was premised upon a second access
point to Ustick. I don't know if that's a middle ground to solve some of the concerns.
And I don't know if the applicant even likes that idea. It's an idea.
De Weerd: Well, certainly if you would like we can ask the applicant.
Borton: I don't know if anybody up here likes that idea, so -- might be a mute point,
but -- Madam Mayor? Yeah. Mr. Unger, if you will come up and tell me that's a terrible
idea in your eyes or not. I'm not saying it's a good one, but I don't like the chicane idea
and the speed bump idea. I understand the original concept and the use of the private
roads more narrow as they may be, still could have been and can be successful, but it --
out of sequence it creates problems. When the entire property is developed it can be
successful, so --
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 24 of 59
Unger: Madam Mayor, Council Member Borton, I truly do not believe that a strict
number of lots until the development to the north punches through a road -- since day
one of this project that northern property dictated everything we did. We had put in over
800 feet of wall, because they offered a month earlier to our review to put in 150 feet.
We were dictated by the architectural design of their development and they never
developed. We -- we had to build Centre Point Way out to Ustick Road on an easement
in order to access that portion of our property with an understanding that they would
participate years ago and they still haven't developed their property and it's affecting the
development of our property. The development of our property that we were
guaranteed to in a development agreement and a second development agreement from
a year ago and I'm really upset and I know that my client feels the same way -- that at
this late stage in the game that this Council wants to deny our project because of the
private roads that they approved and reneged on the development agreements that
then have approved in the past to allow us to develop this property. It's very very
frustrating. We have bent over backwards. We have spent hours with staff designing
this project, revising the development agreement as per your request last week,
meeting with the fire department to put in traffic calming devices or more if need be, not
only at he Council's request, but also at the property owner's request out there and it's
very very frustrating to be at this point and being asked to hold off on developing it or
even a portion of it until the piece to the north develops. So, I --
De Weerd: So, imagine if you had bought a house, one of the first in this development,
and all of the things that have changed since then happened as well. Things change,
Bob. There is no absolutes. But this is not a good scenario and unless you really can
convince us that this is a good scenario -- is it?
Unger: Madam Mayor, I do not believe that this is a bad situation -- a bad scenario. I
do not believe that the traffic issues that are being discussed this evening really warrant
a denial, because there isn't as much traffic on there as there actually is capacity on that
road.
De Weerd: Do you want responsibility to pay for this?
Unger: I would be more than glad --
De Weerd: Do you want -- if you will accept responsibility to pay for all maintenance on
that private road I think you could probably find some resolution tonight.
Unger: Madam Mayor, that is exactly what the Mason Creek Property Owners
Association does. Precisely what it does. There are funds on a monthly basis going
into that account. There is a liability insurance required and maintained. I mean the
funds are going in there. We are paying funds and we are paying money in there, too,
at this point right now and as -- as lots are developed and bought there is more and
more funds put into the account for maintaining these private streets. So, to answer
your question, I think -- I think it is a very acceptable situation. I don't think we are
exceeding any capacities of these streets whatsoever. The cut -through traffic is not
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 25 of 59
going through the actual residential subdivision, it's bordering along the edge and when
and if some day somebody buys this piece of property to the north and the extension is
taken across to Ustick, it will improve the situation. But I firmly do not believe that the
situation as it stands today, including 40 more lots, is going to exceed the capacity of
the streets.
De Weerd: Well, I think you stood in front of us last week and said you were pretty
surprised by the product that was built. It wasn't what you anticipated and I don't think it
was what any of these homeowners anticipated either. So, a lot has changed and --
Rountree: Madam Mayor, to that point, yes, you have been through multiple steps and
you have been multiple steps because you have changed and you have indicated what
you're going to do and, then, you have changed again and indicated what you wanted to
do and every time you have done that it's brought out issues related to your previous
changes. Now, I'm not going to say it's -- I'm not going to characterize it as a bait and
switch, but that's kind of how it happens. You come in and get an approval for this and,
then, you come in and ask for a modification and get approval for that with conditions
and, then, you come back and say we want to change it for these conditions and, then,
all of a sudden what you have done is the past is reflecting on what it is you want to do
in the future and I think that's where you are, Bob. It's not a matter that we have
changed our minds, the conditions have changed significantly. Your concepts have
changed. Your densities have changed. To the better.
De Weerd: Eagle Road has changed.
Rountree: Eagle Road's changed. The development on Eagle Road's changed. So, I
appreciate your frustration, but you got to appreciate ours as well. And I'm not going to
say that that's what this Council is going to do, but --
Milam: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Milam.
Milam: Bob, so a lot of the -- the opponents tonight have been complaining about the
cost -- cost of the road going in and a lot of the frustration that we heard was based on
that, but we haven't really heard any specifics. You're saying it's being taken care of in
the homeowners association. Are the homeowners association dues going up? Is the
same money that they are paying now going to fund the road or they expected to come
up with a huge amount of money out of pocket now to pay for this or did I miss
something? Sorry.
Unger: Madam Mayor, Mrs. Milam, no, their dues aren't going up. Their dues are what
they were when they bought their property. Their dues did not go up. This doesn't
change anything as far as the Mason Creek Association dues and the maintenance of
the streets.
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 26 of 59
Milam: And Jackson Square HOA is under Mason Creek -- or you say they are
separate -- we are a little bit confused by that. So, there is the umbrella. There is a
property owners association and, then, there is the HOA, but what I have heard tonight
is that these retired folks and whoever -- non -retired or people that live there, the
residents, are going to have to come up with a huge sum of money to pay for the roads
going in. Is that --
De Weerd: No. Mrs. Milam, the concern expressed by Jackson Square HOA or
Jackson Square Homeowners, who it sounds like Mason Creek joined the Jackson
Square HOA, is now -- they have all responsibility for maintaining and repairing, if
necessary, that private road and that's -- that's the concerns that they are expressing.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
Milam: But it's the same money that they are already paying now.
Bird: Yeah. Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Well, my biggest concern on this is -- is the incomplete -- and all the homeowners
-- they are very smart people out there, but if I was them tomorrow morning I would be
talking to my title company and my mortgage company and find out why that stuff wasn't
there. But in the same token with as many owners and stuff as this project's had I can
see why it could have got missed. I think that things have changed out there. I realize
that. I have -- I have problems with -- I don't have problems with private roads, but I --
think a developer that's thinking of the people that are going to buy it from him and
going to be there, would make roads that are like public roads -- I can tell you the width
of those. You have -- if you get three trucks down there you're taking out -- as long as
you stay on the roadway you're taking mirrors off. It's -- I don't know. I have got a --
have got to feel more confident about everything being done right up front. I mean are
these homeowners when they go to their title company are they going to see CC&Rs
that tells all this stuff or are they going to get what these other people -- there is too
many of the other people that didn't get to see it and I mean, like I said, I would be -- in
the morning I would be to the mortgage company and the title company, but that's their
privilege.
Unger: Madam Mayor, Mr. Bird, I would certainly hope -- hope that the title company
would provide that. Now, the CC&Rs that -- that we have prepared acknowledge the
Mason Creek Association and those CC&Rs.
Bird: Acknowledge them, but give them to them.
Unger: And I don't know -- I don't know if -- if the other association -- whether theirs
acknowledge it or not. Those were prepared by Idaho Mutual Trust, as a matter of fact.
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 27 of 59
So, I don't know what theirs say, but I know that our CC&Rs acknowledge the Mason
Creek Association.
De Weerd: Any other questions for Mr. Unger?
Rountree: I don't have any.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Unger: Could I make one other comment, please?
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Unger: Madam Mayor and Mr. Rountree, I understand we have come back before this
Council and made changes from the original plan. Instead of going with 28
condominium units, we came in and asked to go to 28 attached units, which we felt was
an improvement. Granted, they were not built to everybody's happiness, including ours.
And when that was approved our development agreement acknowledged that this next
phase would be an R-15 multi -family. And, yes, we have come back to you and said,
you know, multi -family just isn't right there and going to an attached single family living
unit is more compatible with the area and less density. So, I don't feel that we are
asking for anything special, we are actually asking for a reduction in density and
something that we feel is much better for the area. And I appreciate the fact that you do
understand my frustration and my client's frustration on this. I think I have said enough
and I will bite my tongue and sit down. Thank you.
De Weerd: And I imagine you have information about the HOA that has been brought
up from Council. If you will, again, state your name for the record.
J.Hysmith: Julie Hysmith. 2903 North Centre Point Way.
De Weerd: Thank you.
J.Hysmith: I'm speaking as the treasurer of the HOA currently.
De Weerd: And that's Jackson Square.
J.Hysmith: Jackson Square Homeowners Association. This is the first time we have
heard or seen that we are connected to Mason Creek at all. Mr. Unger just said he's
been using that in his CC&Rs. We have gone through the -- the documents, the
corporation docs, the CC&Rs for Bienville Square, the joint maintenance agreement --
there is no mention in there that we are part of this in any way and we are not paying
anything to this either.
De Weerd: So, you didn't take Mason Creek -- I understood that you kind of merged the
two HOAs.
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 28 of 59
J.Hysmith: To my knowledge not -- Jackson Square was set up as its own corporation
in December of 2009. The CC&Rs were done in March I believe it was of 2010 and
that's what we have been -- you know, that's what we were given last year in June of --
June 5th of last year is when we took over and we have been going through those docs
and meeting with an attorney right now trying to get -- you know, make sure we have
everything done properly. But here again no knowledge ahead of time of this.
De Weerd: Mr. Bird?
Bird: Madam -- to your knowledge -- and you're secretary -treasurer?
J.Hysmith: I'm the treasurer.
Bird: Treasurer. You are not paying for any road liability, any road maintenance, your
dues are strictly going to maintain open space and --
J.Hysmith: The Jackson Square -- we have one alley in Jackson Square that is access
for two lines of the homes. That's the only road maintenance we have that we take care
of.
Bird: And nowhere in your bylaws or any of your papers refers back to Mason Creek?
J.Hysmith: None.
De Weerd: It's a mystery. Thank you.
J.Hsymith: I mean we are just -- we are sitting here and everybody back there -- I'm
sure you're looking at their faces going what's going on.
De Weerd: That's what we are trying to figure out, too.
J.Hysmith: Yeah. And I mean it's just -- it's compounding every day. I mean last week
it was -- we found out we are totally responsible -- or 50 percent responsible for this
private road. You know, our people didn't know that. We didn't know it. When our
board started setting -up the reserve accounts we didn't set anything up for this. We did
for our irrigation water, but it tied with Bienville and we are a subsidiary of Bienville as
far as we understood. But nothing other than that.
De Weerd: Okay. So, I guess, Mr. Unger, we do have -- I have another question for
you then. But thank you so much.
J.Hysmith: Thank you.
De Weerd: I don't know if it clarified it or just made more questions for Mr. Unger. So --
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 29 of 59
Unger: Bob Unger.
De Weerd: I'm sorry, I'm just -- so Mason -- or this had one HOA, but when the bank
took over did they split it, then, into Mason Creek and, then, Jackson Square, two
different HOAs? Can you maybe shed some light on this?
Unger: Madam Mayor, I would -- you know, I wasn't involved in that, what the bank did.
don't believe that -- I don't believe that they could actually -- well, I guess they could
eliminate Jackson Square from the Mason Creek Association. I wish I had a copy of the
recorded plat, because I believe there is actually something on -- in or on the recorded
plate, the original Bienville Square plat, that -- that said something about the CC&Rs.
De Weerd: In your opinion who -- who has responsibility for this private road?
Unger: In my opinion the Mason Creek Property Owners Association, because that's
the only thing that I -- you know, the only CC&Rs and ownership that I am aware of. I
don't know the Jackson Creek. The owners have told me in our neighborhood meetings
that we have had -- numerous ones -- that -- you know, that theirs -- you know, theirs
don't include anything about the private roads. So, maybe when the bank established
the Jackson Creek Association they -- they removed them from the Mason Creek. I just
-- I don't know for sure, Madam Mayor. I wish I did. Madam Mayor?
Milam: It sounds like a legal issue.
Unger: Can we ask for a continuance -- to continue to maybe answer some of these
questions. Because now you have got me -- I want to dig into this now. So, I want to
find out the true story on this.
De Weerd: Certainly if I have a motion and a second, then, Council agrees.
Unger: I think it would help us all.
De Weerd: I'm sure the homeowners would love to know what kind of liability they are
holding as well, so --
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we continue the public hearings on MDA 13-025 and ZOA 00 --
Milam: Second.
Bird: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. That's the wrong one. And PP 13-042 --
Milam: Second.
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 30 of 59
Bird: -- to date certain. To April 1 st, 2014, and come back with some information --
De Weerd: I hope that's not indicating -- April Fools Day doesn't indicate anything;
right?
Lucas: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, is there anything specific that you
would like staff to do or is this a directive to the applicant to provide this information?
The reason I ask is I just want to make sure that we are providing you with the best
information we can. As you know, the city does not maintain records of CC&Rs, we do
not review CC&Rs and have no real easy access to those type of documents. If,
indeed, you want us to do that, you would have to provide us the funds to do title
searches, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, because we are --
De Weerd: Justin, I think the applicant wants to do some research. I guess my
question is -- again, it goes back to whether Council denies this or agrees or passes it,
there is still a private street between two public streets and if it's denied that doesn't go
away.
Lucas: It does not.
De Weerd: If it's approved are there additional options than just the traffic calming that
would help this -- this connection point, because something that someone said that
these businesses here, if they want to go north or west, they don't have an option and
so this is their option and so that problem is not going to go away. I guess I would ask
staff, in addition to what -- Mr. Unger's research he's going to do on the question of the
liability is what can be done to -- to make that situation safer, either on that private road,
as long as whoever the responsibility -- responsible party is for that private road agrees,
just what are some of the choices. Does Council have something else for staff? Mr.
Zaremba.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor, I would just add I agree that the city doesn't even want to get
into the business of reviewing CC&Rs. We appreciate that they exist when and where
they do, but we don't want to be involved in either approving them or enforcing them.
But I think I would -- Mr. Unger has offered to do a little bit more research into the
CC&Rs specifically and I wouldn't mind having those answers from him. But I would
ask Mr. Unger in your exploration of this -- I think you have called it the Mason Creek
Property Owners Association an overall umbrella of all property owners and you don't
need to answer this today, but -- but find out whether those commercial properties are
part of that property owners group. My recollection is this was originally all one project
that included the commercial properties as well and if they are members of that property
owners association, then, maybe they need to step up a little more liability if they are
using private roads more and just -- if you could research that piece of it I would
appreciate it.
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 31 of 59
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to continue these two items to April 1 st. All
those in favor say aye. Any opposed say nay. Okay.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Any further instructions to staff or applicant in what we hope to see come
back?
Cavener: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Cavener.
Cavener: Ultimately what I would like to come back with is who owns these streets.
Who owns the private streets.
De Weerd: Who is responsible for their maintenance, repair, and liability. Okay.
Milam: Madam Mayor, I would --
De Weerd: Mrs. Milam.
Milam: -- like to see the opposition and developer maybe get together and compare
their CC&Rs or review them together somehow, so that we don't end up in a situation
where they are saying this is what they say and they are saying -- they are still, you
know, believing that theirs don't say that and have some agreement on -- on what they
read. They may not have any liability if it's -- if there is nothing in writing. At least with --
De Weerd: I'm sure Mr. Unger will -- will do his end of it and I would imagine that the
homeowners are going to look into their CC&Rs and liability as well. I take full trust in
that. I think we have an active group over here that's going to make sure and we
appreciate the communication, too. Okay. Thank you so much.
F. Public Hearing: ZOA 14-001 Medium High -Density Residential
District (R-15) Unified Development Code (UDC) Text
Amendment by Tahoe Homes Request: UDC Text Amendment
to Modify the Dimensional Standards of the R-15 Zoning
District
De Weerd: Okay. Public hearing on Item 7-F is on ZOA 14-001. 1 will ask for staff
comments as I open that public hearing.
Lucas: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, thank you. I will go ahead and move
on here. If I might pause just for a moment as people leave the room, if you don't mind.
The next item before you is a UDC text amendment, a zoning ordinance amendment
specifically to amend one of the dimensional standards of the R-15 zoning district.
Typically staff brings forward text amendments to our unified development, but we do
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 32 of 59
have a process by which developers or other members of the public can apply for
modifications of our code. The specific request before you tonight is to change the
interior side yard setback in an R-15 zone only from five feet to three feet. The
applicant has provided a street scene rendering, which I can show you, which depicts
how that could look when you reduce the side yard setback from five feet to three feet.
Essentially what you get with two homes next to each other -- typically in the City of
Meridian they are ten feet apart. In this -- with this change they would be allowed to be
six feet apart between two homes. The applicant believes that the requested change
would align with other adopted city codes, such as the International Building Code,
International Fire Code, and the International Residential Code. Staff has discussed
this proposal at length with the fire marshal, our Meridian city building official, and they
have both confirmed that these -- this change would not conflict with any adopted codes
-- other adopted codes within the City of Meridian. They have both indicated that they
believe this would be -- present any life safety issues within the City of Meridian. Staff
has analyzed this request holistically, looking at the UDC as a whole and believes that
the proposed change does not conflict with other sections of the code and staff believes
that as written and proposed to you that this will allow for the R-15 zoning designation to
meet its goal which is to achieve higher density residential development. The
Commission recommendation on this project was for approval at their February 20th
meeting. At that public hearing Jim Conger spoke in favor of the application and also
submitted written testimony. There was no one presenting any testimony in opposition.
I would like to note that the Building Contractors Association of Southwest Idaho
submitted a letter supporting this request and that the only key item of discussion was
related to encroachments allowed into any setback, which is a part of our code, and
both the fire marshal and the building official and staff work with the applicant to land on
the language that is before you tonight regarding encroachments into setbacks below
five feet. At this time there is no other outstanding issues and I can certainly stand for
any questions.
De Weerd: Thank you, Justin. Council, any questions? Mr. Bird?
Bird: Madam Mayor. Justin, you're telling me that their overhang can only be one foot?
Lucas: Madam Mayor, Councilman Bird, yes. In the encroachments, which would -- will
be -- that's like a vertical plane, you know, going up from that setback, would be -- would
be one foot.
Bird: So, we go down from six feet to four feet?
Lucas: Yes. Yeah. There would be four feet of clear space between the buildings.
Correct.
Bird: Is that -- I'd have to ask a roofer. Does that meet the roofing deal. But, anyway, if
the fire department and the building department is for it -- I don't want the fire
department coming back a year from now and taking us out there and saying look what
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 33 of 59
1 got, I can walk between here and put my arms and there is two windows up there, one
gets fire, five seconds we got another fire.
De Weerd: But you need only one ladder to fight both of them.
Bird: Can't get a ladder in between there.
Lucas: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, just some points of clarification. There
are certain restrictions when you do a building that close together and anyone who
proposes to build to the three foot setback would have to meet all of those restrictions
outlined in our code. There is restrictions related to the glazing, windows, there is
restrictions related to how close the eaves can be. Right now under current code we do
five feet and allow for two foot encroachments in the setback. So, if you think -- if you
just do the math we are really not making -- we are not really changing that distance
between the building --
Bird: You are. You're doing six feet. You have got six feet now. You have only got
four to -- and that extra two feet closer -- they can jump -- fires can jump from roofs that
fast. Windows, yeah, you can put the wire glass in there and stop the fire from coming
out, but that don't help that vinyl window that 99 percent are sold in the houses from
melting and going through. I think it's a bad call.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: We have had similar discussions like this before. At one point our code was
five feet per story, so if you had a two story building you had to have ten feet on each
side of the property line. Developers have been trying to chip away at all that and we
have gotten down to less and less. There are exceptions to -- when you talk about the
building and encroachments from the building and you're talking about whether or not
there is a baker's window that could encroach or whether there is a roof overhang, it's
my understanding that things on the ground, such as an air conditioning unit, don't
count. In other words, that comes out of this space as well and if you have six feet from
building to building and, then, somebody puts their air conditioning unit in that six feet,
that's allowable. However, that doesn't change the fact that the fire department
sometimes still needs to get through there with a ladder and I -- one of the times when
we had a situation where somebody was building multi -family houses -- and I'm trying to
remember. This was years ago. We allowed a diminished space between the two
walls, but we also added the requirement that nobody could ever build a fence there.
My concern is if we don't all say that, I'm -- I'm not comfortable with this reduction. I
guess we will at some point ask the fire chief to weigh in on this, but apparently he's
already been asked and it meets fire codes and stuff. I don't see how. I'm with Mr. Bird.
But I think we also need to make sure that whatever rules are allowable in our
ordinances about other things that can go in there, we need to make sure that if we are
going to allow this narrow of a space and the fire department says, okay, it doesn't
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 34 of 59
become a chimney, but we also need to say that, okay, there can't be an air
conditioning unit in it, there can't be a fence in it that splits it in half and other
requirements like that. That's an opinion, but a strong opinion.
Lucas: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Councilman Zaremba. Currently it does restrict
fencing. Just to speak specifically to that point, it already talks about any setback under
five feet you cannot have a parallel fence between the two units, so that is covered
within -- within current city code as you -- as you recall. So, that would apply in this
situation where if you, indeed, choose to allow this reduction, there would be no fences
allowed. Code is silent on -- on mechanical units. It doesn't specifically speak to that.
Those types of issues are taken care of through the building permit review of where the
mechanical unit is located and how it will be located. Mr. Conger is here tonight, can
speak to many of these issues that are being brought up, but I certainly can stand for
any other questions.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
Zaremba: Thank you.
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Justin, you're saying no fencing between, but how about across the back and the
front butting up.
Lucas: Yeah. Across the -- across the front, no, you wouldn't be allowed to and across
the back to secure the backyard, yes, you would be allowed to -- to have a fence there.
Bird: But not in the front.
Lucas: Correct.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: What does that do to utility easements that are often on lot lines?
Lucas: Madam Mayor, Councilman Rountree, we also coordinated very closely with our
development services. Those easements typically are five feet to run with our setback
and will be reduced to -- to three feet to coincide with the back. There is nothing that
mandates the five foot easement and with subdivision, obviously, if there is any public
utility lines that need to be brought between there those -- those six foot setbacks
wouldn't be adequate. Typical the easements on the side between two homes are for
drainage and public utility access for irrigation or other things that are in the back of the
property and all of those would be maintained.
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 35 of 59
De Weerd: I think you're brilliant, chief. You have had the Council members you're
your arguments with -- and be the good guy and say we are okay with it. It meets code.
Way to go. Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? With the -- I mean for staff.
Would the application like to make comment? Sorry about that. It seems like it's been a
long evening already.
Conger: It does seem like a long evening.
De Weerd: Welcome.
Conger: Madam Mayor, thank you. Jim Conger, 1627 South Orchard Street in Boise.
Again, Madam Mayor, thanks -- thanks for letting me be here. Members of the Council.
First and foremost, I will go into -- into all those answers of the questions, but first I want
to thank the Planning and Zoning staff. We have had Justin and Bill Parsons, we have
had numerous meetings throughout this process. It's taken upwards to three months to
write this pretty simple, as far as writing the code goes and also a big thanks out to not
only the fire department, but the building department. We have had many meetings
with the fire department and many meetings with Daunt in the building department and
kind of to clarify, we -- we are asking for a modification to the Unified Development
Code. We are not asking for any modifications to either the building code or the fire
code. We were just simply trying to get all three codes to the same page. We are just
simply trying to get all three codes to the same page. We are clearly only asking this in
the R-15 zone. Our goal has been with Tahoe Homes as we continue to try to find
these in -fill parcels that are in the R-15 and denser, they are in the core and we are
trying to compete, basically, at the end of the day, with apartment type projects, as the
land value is what it is, it's all in what you can pay if you can pay to get the product you
want. Just as far as fire code, I mean in the R-15, obviously, and in the R-8 -- I mean
we can be at zero and we have the same concerns with roof fires and things of that
nature, we are just simply trying to be at three foot. So, we can be a five, we can be all
the way down to zero. We are just trying to be at the three foot mark. As fire spreading
we definitely do not want that, but, again, we could be at zero. Fencing. Justin hit that.
I had that on my list. There is no fencing allowed. Definitely no fencing in the front.
Fencing at the rear would start, basically at approximately four feet from the back of the
house, because the gates would be at angles, so you wouldn't even have fencing flush
with the back of the houses, they would be approximately five foot back from the back of
the house. As far as the clear span and access and utility easements or -- or, God
forbid, the fire access in an emergency, right now, yes, you would have ten foot, but you
don't have ten foot, you have five -- everybody puts a fence down the side. There is
very few homes that don't. So, really, we have five foot with two foot encroachments.
So, really, at the end of the day we have three feet that's available to go between a
typical house and the chimney pop out. What we are suggesting and what everybody
has come to and said it before me here is we end up with four foot of clear space. We
think we are actually gaining a foot at the end of the day and I'm not trying to look like a
hero here, we are trying to reduce that back. So, I'm not being a total wise guy. But at
the end of the day we are at four foot clear versus the three foot clear that you have in
any typical house that's being built with a five foot setback. I think at the end of the day
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 36 of 59
I think this type of product -- we like the marketability of the single family product, we
like the people that buy the single family product and we are trying to continue to
compete with the four-plex and the apartment type land prices. With that I will stand
with any questions -- or stand for any questions for sure.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Thank you. Mr. Bird.
Bird: Mr. Conger, what would be the objection to making the side walls -- they are not
fireproof, but fire rated like two pieces of 5/8ths sheetrock on each -- on the walls, like
we do for fire breaks up in attics? Would that be -- would that be something -- I still
have a -- and you can -- you know, you can come up with the three foot against the four
foot and all this stuff. I'm still trying to figure out where I have ever seen a one foot
overhand, but I guess there is one foot overhangs around somewhere. Eaves I mean.
Conger: Yes. Yeah. Madam Mayor, Council Member Bird, I think that the biggest
problem with exceeding the fire code, which was what that request would be on there,
just some -- we have -- you know, we have a responsible charge from -- coming in with
a single family product, we -- we have a -- we are fighting a price point and we are not
trying to hurt people and, you know, clearly that's not the goal. But we think the fire
codes are extremely stringent. We don't think they are too stringent, but we think they
are very stringent and that's not required for the -- per the fire code, so I think we would
be well above and beyond that. I think, you know, I'm comfortable, because I'm here on
behalf of Tahoe Homes and I do a lot with Tahoe Homes and I think as far as the
architect, things of that nature, and making the eaves work and the pop outs, you know,
we went away from the two foot pop out to the one foot pop out. Really what that's
costing us is a foot inside the house, but we can live with that foot and we were very --
very blessed to get both the fire and P&Z to go with the foot pop out, but I think the
eaves and all that nature with the ability of Tahoe Homes I'm comfortable to say that I'm
not concerned at all from an esthetics standpoint, but --
Bird: But we are not doing it for Tahoe Homes. We are doing it as a UDC change. So,
mean if Joe Blow Homes comes in here, we -- we still live by this same thing, this
same code. And I understand your reasoning, don't get me wrong, and we are not here
to -- to stop economic growth, as long as it's done right. I just -- I have some real
concerns -- not right now, new homes and stuff, but we haven't -- we haven't had any of
these that are 20 or 25 years old to start having the fires and stuff, you know, and you
see a whole block go down or something, which you have seen in the -- back east and
stuff where they have this kind of stuff, but -- I just have some real concerns of being so
close.
Conger: Sure. Madam Mayor, Council Member Bird, I -- I get your east reference.
See, I have got a 16 year old in a prep school back there and I'm telling you I have been
back there a lot this last year and they aren't six feet apart.
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 37 of 59
Bird: No.
Conger: They are one and a half.
Bird: Yeah.
Conger: So, I think that's maybe not a fair representation of what we are going to have
down the road and I think what the safety of this -- and we talked long and hard with
your staff, you know, we talked about are we doing this with R-8, are we doing it R-15,
and everybody, even us, came to the realization, no, this is R-15 zoning. We are not --
we are not messing in the R-8 category and with the R-15, yes, I'm comfortable with
Tahoe Homes, but, yes, the city should be comfortable, because when you start putting
in R-15 applications in comes the architectural drawings -- you require quite a few
things through the process that you already have that you will not have a product that
you don't like or you won't make it through the process that we all go through. So,
think from a safety standpoint I think -- I get it, but I think we have to rely heavily upon
the fire code. The fire code can go to zero. The first code -- and right now it's the -- the
three foot is the magic number for fire code. The building code is at three foot. We are
simply trying to take just the R-15 zone and match your UDC with what currently exists
with the fire code and the building code and I think there are numerous safety factors
put into that fire code that allows three foot to be the right number and the smart
number.
De Weerd: Any other questions? Mr. Zaremba? No?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I have one for Justin. Tell me what this means. It's the -- it's the last
sentence on your -- summary here that you have provided to Council. The developer
and staff will have to coordinate more closely on the front end of development review if
this were in place. What does that mean?
Lucas: Madam Mayor, Councilman Rountree, the reason that was written in there was
that as these come in, you know, when there is a modification like this, we will need, as
the first few come in, to look carefully at these when it comes to location of mechanical
units and working with our building official and fire marshal to make sure that this is
being implemented as -- as is -- as is discussed tonight and as is anticipated. So, that's
the intent of that -- that statement is to say that, you know, when you make a change
like this we will have to do some pretty close coordination as these homes come in to
make sure that everyone understands this is a new rule and there is the one foot pop
out, used to the two, and there is just changes that are made there. Over time, as the
building official becomes more familiar with this and as staff becomes more familiar with
it, I would anticipate that we would be able to run these pretty straight forward just like
every other development that we do. But there is certainly a transition period, especially
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 38 of 59
when you're changing something like a side setback. I hope that answers your
question.
Rountree: Follow up not on that subject, but -- as we have adopted the codes that are
being spoken to tonight, have we waived those portions of the code that are potentially
conflicting with our ordinance? So, do we have a -- or have we just adopted them and
not addressed the fact that we have an ordinance that's above and beyond what -- the
codes that we have adopted.
Lucas: Madam Mayor, Councilman Rountree, typically in a situation with an
international code, fire code, cities can adopt more restrictive regulations, such as five
versus three, but typically wouldn't adopt less restrictive. So, as Mr. Conger stated, a
five foot setback is generated not based on building code or fire code, it's generated
based on fit and feel for the City of Meridian and it's been five feet for a long time. As
you might remember it was four feet in the R-8 zones for a period of time at City of
Meridian and it was changed to five feet. And so there have been some modifications
over the years to this. But five feet is a relatively typical setback in the state of Idaho if
you look at any code, but if you look internationally across -- even across the, you know,
the west, the five feet is not necessarily the typical setback, it's just something that we
have done and ultimately it's up to you guys to decide whether you feel comfortable
going lower than that or not. Staff is comfortable with it for many reasons. Number one,
it does -- the concerns with safety and access and all of those things, we feel like those
other codes -- the International Fire Code, the building code, are good at addressing
those issues and are ever confident in those codes and that's why we are for them.
Staff also looks at density in our R-15 zoning designation -- in our higher density zoning
designations as a positive and that's from the perspective of trying to get higher
densities in these areas of R-15 near transportation corridors, near busy intersections.
We feel like that's a positive, because it has an overall positive impact on transportation,
on -- on many other things that -- on providing public utilities, et cetera, et cetera. So,
staff looks at it kind of from a holistic view of what does this really do for the city and
certainly there are concerns there and staff doesn't necessarily have all these answers,
but we think it's a reasonable request and that's why we recommended approval on this
-- on this request.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Rountree: Question for Mr. Nary. This is just a procedural question along the lines of
what I just asked Justin. I don't recall when we have approved most recently the fire
code or the building code, the international codes, that we have indicated in our
approval that we also are approving City of Meridian to have a more restrictive
component of that and my question is which one rules? If we have not approved an
international code and not specifically said, oh, by the way, our ordinance has
something more restrictive and that rules or that's in effect.
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 39 of 59
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Rountree, remember,
all the international codes are the minimum standard that's required.
Rountree: Right.
Nary: So, if the city has higher standards, as here -- and I think that's what Mr. Conger
is getting at, is that here they are trying -- the proposal is to essentially marry those up.
But you wouldn't see, unless somebody specifically wanted to request a waiver of some
sort, you wouldn't likely see it, because it wouldn't get past the staff's review, because it
didn't meet the UDC requirement. So, you may not have seen any. I would agree with
you, Council Member Rountree, I don't recall any recently that's asked that, but it
wouldn't have come to you. But, yeah, the city code UDC requirement would control
and I think that's the reason for the request.
Rountree: Okay.
De Weerd: Any other questions from Council? Anything further comment?
Conger: Madam Mayor, Members of Council, if I could just say two things. On -- on the
change in the setback -- so, we won't have to go as far as east -- in Boise -- and I'm not
ever comparing Meridian and Boise, but we do --
De Weerd: Thank you for not doing that.
Conger: I just don't like doing it. But we do a lot of three foot setbacks in Boise. I'm not
saying that makes it right, I'm just talking on the safety thing and as far as watching the
news and things of that nature and nobody -- our latest one, so you know, we did I think
four years ago in side the middle of Mill District in Harris Ranch around the pizza parlor,
those are all at three foot. They are a different architecture style, so some like them,
some don't, but I mean as far as the life safety, things of that nature, that is done quite a
bit within 20 minutes drive of here and I think the last thing I will close on is back to
competing with the apartment people. You guys have -- not a new designation, but
fairly new to me, it's that medium high. It's not medium, it's not high, but it's medium
high and if you look in your code book that gets anywhere in that eight to 12 -- it's
physically impossible to get there with detached product without some of these benefits
to marry up the development code to the -- to the fire codes. We just simply can't get
there on density when it's in the right spot.
De Weerd: And this way you also allow a rental homeownership that -- that I think the
new -- the new older person is looking for. Does that make sense? The new older
person? Okay.
Conger: Madam Mayor, said with the rental product.
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 40 of 59
Conger: Yeah. Which we agree. But I think that rental product starts at about the 15
units per acre and does start going north from there. Now, when we come in with rental
product I'm usually not that popular, so we are trying to detach here tonight and still not
that popular. So somewhere --
De Weerd: No. You can own it then.
Conger: Oh, a condo.
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Conger: Yeah, we are not brave enough to make condos yet and I don't know many on
the market that are, but some day we might get amnesia and come in with one.
De Weerd: That is what I'm hearing out there. People want to own it, but they don't
want to maintain a yard.
Conger: Yeah. I agree. Yeah. I agree.
De Weerd: Any other questions?
Conger: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone else who would like to
provide testimony on this item? Okay. Council, what would you like to do?
Milam: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Milam.
Milam: Move that we close public hearing ZOA 14-001.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on Item 7-F. All
those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Now, Justin, we are just -- we are just asking for R-15 change; right? I know there
is some other codes that we have got. I think Mr. Nary hit upon that, that our code is
more than the international code. I'm not a real international code person, but we are
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 41 of 59
not going to affect them and we are not going to affect the -- our code setbacks and
stuff in anything but R-15; right?
Lucas: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, that's correct. This would only be
within the R-15 zoning designation.
De Weerd: And Joe Blow Homes.
Bird: And Joe Blow Homes.
De Weerd: Uh-huh. Would you like to make any comment?
Niemeyer: Madam Mayor, yes. Sitting here listening to the discussion -- first, let me --
let me say, Councilman Bird, I completely appreciate your comments. Higher density is
a struggle for us, because we get into these issues of how close are things being built
together. As we look at what we are going to approve or what we are not, to go beyond
the fire code in our opinion requires analysis and data and conclusion and,
unfortunately, we don't have the tools to be able to burn buildings and look at fire temps
at various widths. We do know based on the science that the NFPA has done and the
ISC is that when you get within a certain distance it doesn't matter if you narrow it or
widen it, that heat, when a fire is burning at 14, 15, 16 hundred degrees, it's going to
spread -- if we had our way we would have a nice 30 foot separation and I know we are
not going to get that. We do try and balance the needs of the city. We know the city is
going to continue to grow and we know that our R-15 densities are going to continue.
So, I do appreciate and I would like I guess to support the comment that we are looking
at R-15 right now and not anything else, because we need to try and limit this. We just
have only so many tools that we can fight these fires with and in these closer densities
and higher densities it is going to be a challenge as we continue to develop the city and
so, Councilman Bird, I completely appreciate your comments and my gut reaction is let's
make it 30 feet. I know that's not possible, so --
De Weerd: You want to drive a truck through it.
Niemeyer: I would like to, yes, but I know that's not possible, so -- I don't know that I
added much to the conversation, other than my support of -- this is an isolated situation
that we are looking at. I would like to not have this proceed onto other zonings.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: And, Chief, I can -- I can appreciate that and, you know, we are very fortunate
here where less than five percent of our fire calls are fire --
Niemeyer: Uh-huh.
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 42 of 59
Bird: -- and probably two or three percent is structure fire, thank God, because we have
improved on our building materials and stuff to keep from having this, but, like I said, I
don't want a year from now you take us out to this place and say look at this, we can
walk down -- I can hardly -- I could probably hardly get through it.
De Weerd: Now you want new equipment and -- you know.
Niemeyer: You caught me.
De Weerd: I think our firefighters are just as thin as Boise's, so we will be okay.
Bird: I said me, not the firefighters.
De Weerd: Anything -- any comments?
Bird: No further questions.
Rountree: No.
De Weerd: Okay. I don't have a motion.
Milam: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Milam.
Milam: I move that we approve ZOA 14-001 with all staff, application, and public
testimony.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 7-F. Is there any discussion
from Council? Madam Clerk.
Bird: Aye just because of Justin.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener,
yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
G. Public Hearing: NIDA 14-003 Kennedy Commercial Center by
Derk Pardoe Located North Side of W. Overland Road and
West of S. Stoddard Road Request: Amend the Recorded
Development Agreement (DA) (Instrument #108119853) for the
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 43 of 59
Purpose of Excluding the Property from the Recorded DA and
Incorporating a New Concept Plan and Building Elevations
Consisting of Office, Retail and Multi -Family Residential into a
New DA
De Weerd: Well, Justin, that's -- that's impressive. Okay. Item 7-G is a public hearing
on MDA 14-003. 1 will open this public hearing with staff comments.
Lucas: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. The final item before you
tonight -- at least final action item is a development agreement modification for what's
commonly known as the Kennedy Commercial Site. This site is located on the north
side of West Overland Road, west of Stoddard Road. It's currently the home of the
University of Phoenix, the Western Electronics building, and I don't know if there is
another buildings out there or not. I think that's -- that's the two buildings that are
primarily out there. In 2008 this property received a change to its comprehensive plan
designation and a rezone to accommodate commercial development. A development
agreement was required at that time which tied the application to the specific concept
plan and building elevations. I just put those up on the screen. This is the current
approved concept plan and elevations for -- for that entire site. You can see the
Western Electronics building. You can see the University of Phoenix site. And the
remainder of this site -- except for this area, which is where I believe ITD has built a
drainage pond. There is an existing pond on this -- on this site also. So, before you the
applicant has applied to amend this development agreement for two primary purposes.
One, they would like to remove the subject property from the existing overall
development agreement and enter into a new development agreement that would just
cover these properties here. This at one time was all under one ownership, but due to
various issues with the economy and other things, this -- a portion of this site was lost
from that owner and was owned by a bank and has been subsequently purchased. So,
one time is they want to be removed from the overall development agreement and just
have the new development agreement apply to them. The second item is that they
would like to change the conceptual plan and develop this property as a mixed use
development consisting of office, multi -family, and retail uses. They are requesting a
multi -family use on this site, which wasn't anticipated with the original development of
the property, but it is a conditional use within our C -G zone and is something that our
Comprehensive Plan anticipates within commercial areas, which is the multi -family
developments. So, the applicant has submitted a new concept plan, which I would like
to show you tonight. It's not as big as this one, because it actually takes -- if you orient
yourself around Western Electronics, that would be right here and the applicant is
prosing a concept plan here, which shows the multi -family development. This is that
pond site owned by one of the transportation agencies. This would be a future office
complex and this is a future retail area within the development that they are proposing.
These are various -- buildings of various size. Currently it shows approximately 180
multi -family units that they anticipate sitting on this site with multiple buildings of about
three stories. The applicant has submitted some photos -- some conceptual elevations
of both the retail slash office components and the multi -family development with tuck
under garages, some brick or stone accents, obviously patios and other architectural
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 44 of 59
elements. So, these -- this is the -- this is the proposal before you, which is to change
that development agreement and -- and allow for this type of development there. One
key point on this is that the -- the applicant would still be required to seek conditional
use permit approval for the multi -family development. So, your action tonight does not
automatically guarantee that they will be able to build multi -family here. What it does is
you're, basically, giving your yea or nay on whether you think it's appropriate at this site.
If you do go in that direction they would have to submit application which would go
before our Planning and Zoning Commission, which would get into much more detail on
the design aspect and the site layout of that multi -family development, the amenities
and all those other things that are discussed in our code. The applicant chose to come
to you to seek your take on whether that was appropriate here or not prior to going
forward through our conditional use permit approval. That being said, staff does have
some new development agreement provisions that we are presenting tonight. Basically
we are tying them to the concept plan, at least the -- when it comes to the buildings, the
bulk scale and the elevations submitted. There are a couple things here that the
applicant's going to address related to points two and three. Staff, if you look at this
concept plan, there was no access shown on the plan to Overland Road and staff kind
of ran with that and went with this provision which restricts direct lot access, unless
waived by City Council. But all those platted lots -- and there was an access point
approved by the city and platted with a final plat are basically located right here and the
applicant is requesting to keep that access point which was previously approved. I can
show it to you. It's about right here on the -- on the site. Because this was previously
approved by the city and it was actually discussed and approved through a final plat,
staff is amenable to that request and it does not believe that allowing that access to
remain is going to be a major issue for the city. Along with that the third point it talks
about cross -access and shared access between these properties, which are here, and
this undeveloped industrial property here. Staff does believe that's an important
element between these two sites is to have cross -access so they can share a driveway
and we believe that condition should remain. The final plat for this property talks about
cross -access and might be sufficient enough to meet that requirement, but staff -- so,
staff is supportive of cross -access between those two -- those two properties. We did
receive some written testimony from Mr. Jay Storey, who represents the owner of this
industrial property and he didn't have -- isn't really for or against the project, he just
wanted to raise the -- he is an industrial property and is concerned about having
residential property next to him and it's a valid concern and something that staff believes
through the conditional use -- permit process for the residential product that we can deal
with, because this, as I say, is not a final entitlement, there has to be a conditional use
permit for that multi -family. With that being stated, staff is recommending approval of
this development agreement modification and I will certainly stand for any questions you
have.
De Weerd: Thank you, Justin. Council, any questions?
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 45 of 59
Zaremba: Two questions if I may and the first one -- the request is to remove the
current subject parcels from the previous DA that applied to much more area. Does the
old DA still apply to the other areas that are not -- okay. So, that -- that doesn't change
that DA that the other properties are under. Okay. So, that answers that and I see you
nodding your head yes, so I will --
Lucas: Affirmative on that.
Zaremba: -- I will say that answer is on the record. The other one is about the
residential development in this area, somewhere -- and I don't remember -- I don't think
it's in our ordinances, but it's something in ITD's requirements or the Federal Highway
Administration requirements that if you build residential units this close to an interstate
facility they have sound deadening and vibration requirements that they apply to the
resident building, at least on the wall that faces the roadway. Has that been explored?
I don't think that's our ordinance, but I --
Rountree: It is.
Zaremba: -- somewhere it sticks in my mind that it's around somewhere.
Rountree: It's our ordinance.
Zaremba: It is ours?
Lucas: Yeah. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, there are -- there are some
concerns, obviously, with residential this close to the freeway and there are
requirements that those units be constructed in a way that reduces those -- those
impacts. I don't know exactly where that is in our ordinance, I'd have to dig a little bit to
see, but I believe as Councilman Rountree states that it is, I'm sure it is.
Zaremba: I know it's somewhere and I -- it could be in our ordinance, which is fine.
just want to make sure the developer was aware that there are such requirements and
that answers my question.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Just to clarify that point, it is in our ordinance. It's a requirement that any
development adjacent to a state highway facility is required to do noise mitigation in the
form of buffer -- buffering berms or walls or a combination of both, so that's our
ordinance. I don't know what section, but it is there. Madam Mayor, I do have a
question.
De Weerd: Okay.
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 46 of 59
Rountree: But I guess it will be for the applicant, it's not Justin's question.
De Weerd: Okay. Would the applicant like to make comment? Good evening. Thank
you for patiently waiting. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record.
Shrief: Good evening. Wendy Shrief. I'm with Horrocks Engineers and my business
address is 5700 East Franklin Road, Suite 160, Nampa, Idaho. 83687. I'm here
representing a developer whose name is Derk Pardoe. He's an award winning Salt
Lake City developer, he's somebody that's kind of taking a chance out here in this part
of Meridian where development has largely stalled. He's purchased 14 acres in this
area adjacent to the University of Phoenix and he's proposing a mixed use project,
which, hopefully, we will get into later on when we submit our CU and master site plan
application and we wanted to go ahead and put up a copy of our preliminary site plan
and kind of run through some of our designs. You can see this is actually a -- it's a fairly
large site, it's 14 acres in size. We were proposing the residential. We are actually
going to be using our commercial buildings, office and retail to buffer our project -- the
residential portions from the freeway, from Overland and from any potential industrial
uses in the area. So, the project is tucked away safely. You can see here in the -- the
corner almost in line with the cul-de-sac there on Tech Lane. So, we will be using the
mixed use nature of the project to buffer the residential. So, the developer purchased
the property with the C -G zoning and we are not asking for any -- any modifications in
C -G zoning, just do residential in the future with a master site plan. We had a couple
issues that -- the noise mitigation again, I don't believe we are -- actually, the residential
will be close enough to the freeway for it to be necessary, but we are fine with that being
a condition of approval and that would, I think, automatically be the only way that we
would have to meet all those regulations with the project. And I wanted to also point out
the -- the picture that we showed of those projects in Utah, our client built those. This is
the Riverwalk project in Midvale, Utah. It's an award winning project and these are his
buildings. So, he's hoping to build a high quality project mixed use out here in this area
where, you know, that -- but hasn't seen a lot of activity since the downturn in 2007. So,
he's excited to be working out here. This is his first project out here in Idaho and
excited to be here. Just to kind of run quickly through, the access issues we -- the
property owner purchased this property with there being existing access points off of
Overland Road and he would like to preserve the right to use that access point, so we
are not asking for any changes from the final plat, just to convey to you that access
point in a project that we are going to be proposing. We were preparing a traffic study,
Horrocks is, for -- for the project for the master site plan application and our preliminary
findings show that it's between level service A and B with a full functioning access point,
so we think we are definitely in good shape and we just want to keep what we -- what
we are already entitled with the original preliminary plat and final plat. So, we are here
-- I'm here for any questions regarding the project.
De Weerd: Thank you, Wendy. Any questions?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 47 of 59
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Why, in your opinion, is this a better concept than the concept that's
approved for this site?
Shrief: Than the original concept? I think in this location we thought it was -- rather
than bringing in -- it's a large parcel where it would be difficult to bring in a major tenant
on that 14 acres, so rather than bringing in one single tenant we wanted to bring in kind
of a mixed use concept, similar to what you have seen -- some of them around Eagle
Road, some of those where you have got mixed residential, retail, office, that's this
developer's projects to not just do a single -- a single product. I think -- I think it's an
asset to the City of Meridian to -- to have that -- to have this housing -- actually, higher
quality housing in this area. It will be -- but to have it adjacent to the University of
Phoenix, easy freeway access, to Locust Grove and the Walmart and it's a good
location in a lot of ways for -- for rental housing. You would have attached garages.
They have a lot of features for higher level rental housing.
Rountree: On your concept plan --
Shrief: Uh-huh.
Rountree: -- are the apartments that -- the buildings to the -- to the north with the office
space to the northeast.
Shrief: So -- wish I had a pointer here. But the properties at the -- along the edge of the
freeway -- this is all retail and the residential is all internal, basically lining up with -- with
the bulb of the cul-de-sac.
Rountree: Okay.
Shrief: So, we will be buffering the residential with -- with future office and retail. So, in
-- you know, the person that purchased this property, he does residential and
commercial and he wanted to do a mixed use project. So, I think it -- I think it will be an
asset to the City of Meridian and I think it will -- it will develop well with that mix of uses.
And it's a large enough site where I think we can buffer the residential well.
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor. Two questions, actually. Staff mentioned that should there
be an access to the west and you're saying there currently is that already approved --
staff raised the issue of whether or not you would be willing to make a cross -access
agreement with the neighbor to the west and is that a possibility?
Shrief: Mayor and Council, in talking with Justin this afternoon and looking more into
the final plat that's been approved, we have already granted one. That's already in
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 48 of 59
place, we don't want to change what there is. There is an existing cross -access
easement between our property and that property to the west. So, we don't want to
change any of that.
Zaremba: Okay. And the other question probably is for Justin and that is, again,
thinking of the contact from the neighbor to the west who intends to stay industrial, we
would require a greater buffer between residential and industrial and my thinking is
since it's this property that we are changing, the neighbors should not have to make that
buffer and what accommodation do we need to make on this property to provide that
buffer between residential and industrial?
Lucas: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilman Zaremba, it's a really good
point and something that Council has brought up in the past not to somehow reduce the
use on an industrial -- existing industrial property due to the approval of residential and
with that Council direction, through the conditional use permit process staff is planning
to require -- which we can through the CUP -- for this development to provide that 25
foot buffer -- basically a 25 foot buffer from the property line to those residential units
and, then, when the property to the -- to the west develops they would be able to come
forward through alternative compliance and say, hey, city, you required it of them to
build this, because we were already here and we feel like that's a fair way to -- to
approach that. We can't simply waive the requirement for that piece who is to the west,
because they are not before us with an application, but we can anticipate that and
because of the location of the lateral, which -- which actually runs right up through here,
providing that buffer from the residential because the way the lateral is and for where
the easement is for the lateral, it looks like that's not an unreasonable request for the --
for the applicant. So, you certainly can make that a condition of this development
agreement, but staff, based on this direction tonight, will look at that through the
conditional use permit process. But if you want to put it in there you certainly can.
Shrief: Mayor and Council, I think we would like to request that we could have parking
in that -- in that 25 foot buffer.
De Weerd: Other questions?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Shrief: Thank you.
De Weerd: I also had Kelly Hogan sign up in favor of this application. Would you like to
provide testimony? Thank you for patiently waiting. If you will, please, state your name
and address --
Hogan: Long night.
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 49 of 59
De Weerd: Yes, it has.
Hogan: Kelly Hogan, office address is 943 West Overland, directly southeast of the
proposal. And my thoughts on this is it's a good idea. I have been there now for about
three years. I have the three acres just southeast. It would be a nice shot in the arm to
see this area start to develop out. You know, there is a lot of stuff on the west that
pending. I know there is a couple things directly to the west of me that are proposed
and have been approved. So, I guess I'm in support of this. I have a commercial
building there. I'd like to see some of the services in the commercial side of it enhance
my business office there for patrons of my office complex, maybe a closer sandwich
shop or things like that. So, in general I think it's a good idea and -- I like the high
density of it. Looking directly across the highway and some of the comments earlier
there is housing right on the other side of that highway that's not high density, but it's
single family homes as well and it's much closer. Phoenix University right there. Multi-
family housing, things like -- there might be people going to school, it would be really
nice to be able to be right there next to the university and when Western Electronics and
some of that other building for some of the manufacturing space kicks up it could be a
good employment option for some of the people that may be doing some of the work
there, so in general, Council and Madam Mayor, I think it's a great idea. I would be in
full support of it as an adjoining business owner.
De Weerd: Thank you, Kelly. Is there any further testimony on this? Okay. Council?
Milam: Madam Mayor?
Rountree: Madam Mayor? Go ahead.
De Weerd: Mrs. Milam.
Milam: I was just going to say -- I was going to close --
Rountree: I was just going to make a comment, but I can make it after you close the
hearing, if that's what you're going to do.
Milam: I move that we close public hearing MDA 14-003.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on Item 7-G. All
those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rountree: Madam Mayor. Thank you. I do not believe it's wise to build multi-level
residential adjacent to the interstate and it's a clear shot across that pond and most of
the commercial lots to eight lanes of interstate traffic. I don't think that that is going to
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 50 of 59
result in a highly desirable place to live. Having it adjacent to an industrial site has the
same consequences for multi-level residential. No matter what you do in that 25 plus
feet in a buffer the second and third stories are going to see what's going on in the
backyards of whatever industrial development is there, which we desperately need. I
heard no reason why this is better than the original concept that was primarily
commercial, which would be compatible with the noise generated from an interstate
facility. We have an ordinance that would require noise buffering, which, essentially,
can't be done with multi-level residential. It's -- it's not feasible economically to do it. At
about five million dollars a mile to provide noise buffering it's rather expensive and it
only works for single level residential to some degree. For those reasons I'm not in
favor of this and I will not be supporting it.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: I agree with Councilman Rountree. I think the applicant has brought forth a
very attractive product and it probably is also very appealing, but it just doesn't seem to
be, all things considered, the appropriate location in light of the concept that was
previously approved.
De Weerd: I guess I will give my two cents worth. Maybe even one. But I -- I like the
idea next to the University of Phoenix. I have visited Western Electronics a number of
times and it's clean manufacturing, it doesn't emit a lot of noise. If you put residential
next to any kind of industrial this -- this is probably the best case scenario for it. I do
think it also adds to the housing options in the area. You look at the single family
housing across the freeway, they don't have the view these -- these have an amazing
view, so I can understand why -- why it's of interest. There is a lot of supporting
services for housing in this area and -- yeah, I would rather see an employer there, too,
but it's been available for an employer for that kind of development for some time.
Maybe it was a half cent worth.
Rountree: Maybe a nickel's worth.
Milam: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Milam.
Milam: I tend to agree with you. I -- I like the concept. I personally would not choose to
live there, because the noise would bother me. However, a lot of people are not
bothered by that and would prefer to have the view and access and would choose to
live in -- I think it's a good -- it is a good location, other than the freeway. But -- you
know. But I think that's the thing with housing, nobody is forcing anybody to -- to live
there and I think it does have a lot -- the development itself as a whole has a lot to offer
the community in that area.
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 51 of 59
De Weerd: You have urban areas that have multi -family housing along a freeway
across the United States. I don't think this would be the first of its kind, but --
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: And I would agree with Ms. Milam, I wouldn't live there. The noise would
just drive me nuts, but that's -- I have seen people that don't necessarily like where I
live, if you can believe that.
Milam: Quiet. Very quiet.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Well, let's not drag this meeting out any longer. But I wouldn't want to live there
either, because I wouldn't want multiple family, but --
De Weerd: Well, then, quit mumbling and make the motion.
Bird: I move that we approve MDA 14-003 and include all staff and public -- applicant
and public comments.
Milam: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor, I would like to ask the maker of the motion -- I know he
included all staff comments, but to clarify that any required buffer between residential
and industrial be placed on this property, not on the industrial property.
Bird: Yes. It would be placed on this property. And also the -- the entrance off of
Overland stays on the west side.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other discussion? Madam Clerk.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, nay; Zaremba, yea; Borton, nay; Milam, yea; Cavener,
yea.
De Weerd: Four ayes. Two nays. The ayes have it.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO NAYS.
Item 8: Department Reports
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 52 of 59
A. Public Works: Budget Amendment for Replacement of a
Backhoe for a Not -to -Exceed Amount of $105,000.00
De Weerd: Okay. Under 8-A is our Public Works Department. I will turn this over to
Dennis. Mr. Barry is -- is on vacation, so in light of -- in his honor we have a 50 slide
presentation on this next item.
Bird: I was going to ask where is Tom. When they are over there telling Justin to get the
PowerPoint up I'm going holy Toledo.
Teller: Good evening, Madam Mayor and Members of Council. Thank you for your time
tonight. I was going to say, you know, I'm going to try to keep this under 50 slides and
less than an hour.
De Weerd: Thank you for that.
Teller: You're very welcome. We are going to run it here about 12 slides, so hopefully
we can get through this quickly. What I would like to discuss with you tonight is
basically our current backhoe that's assigned to the water division -- and more
specifically its history, conditions and reasons for bringing this amendment in front of
you tonight. See if I can do this. So, just a little history on our backhoe. Right now it's
about 25 years old. It was built in 1989. In 1998 it was purchased actually used from
Western States Caterpillar here in Meridian. Originally for the wastewater and when we
purchased this backhoe it already had about 4,700 hours on it and in 2010 it was
transferred over to the water division to replace the 20 year old backhoe that was
purchased actually new in 1979. Since then this machine has been heavily used and is
starting to rapidly deteriorate on us. It currently has over 11,000 operations hours on it,
which is, basically, equivalent to about 1,400 days of continuous use. It has become a
concern. Repair parts are rapidly becoming obsolete. They are hard to find and they
are a little bit -- well, actually, difficult to locate, but expensive. Additionally the state of
the machine's current condition -- it's got some really worn out joints in it and hydraulic
lines that are starting to fail. It's kind of a safety concern to staff and anyone working
around it. Additionally, repairs were made in 2012 trying to keep this machine going.
We had a transmission failure that cost us about 12,000 dollars to get repaired.
Unfortunately, less than two years later now the transmission has again failed and a
major structural component on the back of the backhoe, the boom, has broken. Now,
these two failures have rendered the machine basically inoperable. We have got some
quotes and cost to perform these repairs and get it back up to running condition prior to
is about 27,800 dollars. These costs, combined with the previous cost of repair equal
about 40,000 dollars and it's almost half the cost of a new machine. We are considering
the current value of the machine. We had it appraised. Its net worth right now is about
9,000 dollars. So, these repair costs are very substantial and not really recommending
them. The machine is now currently out of order and we are dependent on the
availability of rental machines and contracts to perform our routine maintenance and
emergency activities. This actually slows our response time and increases our
interruption of service to our customers when we do have main breaks and failures.
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 53 of 59
This slide is a picture of our existing backhoe with some -- some things pointed out on it.
Of course we had a transmission failure. The boom which I talked about earlier is
actually the large back portion of the -- the machine that does all the digging. The
failure point there is pointed out. It's where one of the large hydraulic arms connects to
this point and in this slide -- this is a close-up of the point where that hydraulic ram
actually attaches and you can see the slit and separation there where a pin goes
through to hold this in place. If this were to fail any further this would drop and that's
where we have our safety concerns. This could actually just completely come down
and cause some really bad damage or injuries. The problem with this cast piece is that
it is cast and it's not repairable. We cannot weld on it and, unfortunately, this boom is
not available new, since the machine is so old. So, we did a little bit of research and we
have found a used piece out of Texas. It's not cheap and, of course, it is used and the
condition and life expectancy of this used piece is unknown. So, we are, basically,
trading one old piece for another old piece. So, basically, what are the benefits of us
having a backhoe. Some of the benefits for us is to have critical equipment on site and
available for completing emergency repairs and responding quickly. It also provides us
the access to 850 plus miles of not only water lines, but wastewater lines when we need
to. Just a note that over the past five years -- or past year we have performed all of our
repairs and routine maintenance in house and if you have seen the photos here, this is
actually our distribution crew working on a -- a line that failed last fall. This is a 12 inch
main right by the Coca Cola over on Overland. This line failed about 5:00 o'clock in the
morning and we were drawn attention to it by customers calling for low water pressure
complaints and it was, basically, the entire south side of town was dropped, including
the hospital, of their critical water pressure that they need to get all the way up to the top
of that building. If you look at the top picture of this you can see an irrigation ditch that's
right next to this main and how much water is flowing in that. This was, actually, during
the nonirrigation season and we had a full ditch running. We estimated about 4,500
gallons a minute were flowing out of this main and down this ditch. So, luckily we have
the equipment available and we started work on this immediately. We had this back up,
excavated and complete within five hours with our crews. So, we have saved a
substantial amount of money and got everybody back into service quickly. Another
benefit of a backhoe is -- like I said before this is going to reduce our dependency on
contracted services who can be either out of town or unavailable. Our contractors are
starting to move out of the valley to get work and they might not be here immediately
when we need them and we might have to wait several hours up to days to get them in
here. Another benefit of this is that it will help us to fulfill our strategic objective to
develop an in-house and routine emergency and repair program. And, additionally, cost
savings are realized by completing routine maintenance repairs in house versus
contracting them out. In this chart you can see the cost of those routine activities that
we have completed over the last six months and contracted activities and we have
annualized these over the last year. And conservatively this shows that we will have a
60,000 dollars annual savings realized by performing these repairs in house. As our
system starts to grow and our maintenance activities expand, these savings will only
increase with our activities. So, what are our options? We know that we need a
backhoe. We know that we need to replace the one that we have. So, we have looked
at four separate options and the return on investment for each. And the first one we
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 54 of 59
looked at was a repair and as I spoke of earlier repair for this machine is pretty costly at
27,000 dollars. The repairs are, basically, three times the cost of the machine's value
now. Life expectancy is estimated to be less than two years and we are just not
considering this as a viable option at this point. However, we did look at three additional
options which would be rental, leasing, and new purchase. So, focusing on these three
options, we made some assumptions for O&M costs and useful life expectancy of a new
machine. Annual O&M costs were based on an estimate of two dollars per operating
hour and 250 operating hours per year. Useful life was assumed at 12 years. As
shown in this analysis the lowest cost was determined to be a new purchase with an
overall cost of 76,000 dollars. Return on investment for this machine is estimated to be
less than two years. The annual savings realized of 60,000 dollars to bring the repairs
in house. So, in summary, the new machine purchase was more economical to repair,
rental, leasing option. Return on investment for the new purchase is estimated at less
than two years. Safety will increase with a new mechanically sound machine.
Completing routine maintenance and emergency repairs in house was more economical
than contracting, with an estimated savings of 60,000 plus annually. We have the ability
to handle emergency situations without relying on contractor or equipment availability.
And we have the necessary equipment needed to fulfill our strategic objection, which is
to respond quickly to emergency repairs and provide the best customer service
possible. So, with that I request approval by Council to amend the current FY -14
Enterprise Budget to allow for the purchase of a replacement backhoe through
competitive bid in the amount not to exceed 105,000 dollars.
De Weerd: Thank you, Dennis. Council, any questions?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Dennis, I have got quite a few questions. As I take it this old one we have -- if my
math is right we have used -- we have used it less than 500 hours a year over 16 years.
We go 6,300 hours and -- and 16 work years would be 32,000 hours, so 2,080 is a work
year for normal people. Anyway --
Teller: Okay.
Bird: And also you have got 105,000. 1 don't see anywhere where we have got three
bids from -- have we got bids from manufacturers or are we just going off of Western
States?
Teller: Madam Mayor, Councilman Bird, yes, we have obtained at least one quote just
to kind of give us a base of where we would be. We have not gone out for three
competitive bids without your approval. And as for the hours, there is a discrepancy in
the hour meter on that machine has been changed and with the records through
Western States Cat it's a little over 11,000 hours that it --
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 55 of 59
Bird: Okay. When you got it there was 47,000, so that makes 6,300 hours in the water
department for 16 years. You got it in '98? Well, a working year is 2,080 for the
average person -- for the normal. That's a year's work for an employee. You multiply
that by 16, 32,000 hours. Divide that by your 6,300 hours comes to about 500 a year.
Teller: Okay.
Bird: And another question. If we -- if we do all this in-house maintenance are we doing
it with existing personnel?
Teller: Madam Mayor, Councilman Bird, yes, we are doing that with in-house persons --
personnel right now.
Bird: Okay. So, we have got plenty of people on board that -- to do this and their
regular duties, too?
Teller: We have been building up for this. Not that we -- as we do develop this program
we are going to probably need additional staff in years to come and because, of course,
the city is definitely growing and I would say ten years ago I would be confident and say
we are completely fine, but as our system is beginning to age we have seen, of course,
over the last year three main -- major main failures that were totally unexpected and
multiple service failures that are continuing to arise on us, so --
Bird: And I -- I personally as one go back to the old way we did it. You come in with
three bids, ask for a budget amendment at that time -- I'm just going to -- I'm just not
going to vote for a blank budget amendment. I am in favor of buying it. I'm not in favor
of leasing or renting, because at the end of the lease you own nothing and you have just
paid a lot of money. So, I want to see -- we make -- we have it done with the other
departments when they buy vehicles they have bids. I mean, you know, 105,000 and it
only costs 90, let's just have a 90,000 dollar amendment.
De Weerd: Mr. Bird, this -- this only amends the budget, it doesn't approve the
purchase. That would have to come through with the bids as well.
Bird: And why would you want to amend the budget when you're just stating the
backhoe for a not to exceed number when it's going to come in at a bid number?
De Weerd: Well, just to answer that -- and it's not a political answer, it's because there
has been a history about that -- our backhoes, so they just wanted to make sure to -- to
get approval and know that you're supportive of it before they move forward with the
bidding process and that -- so, this was a suggested approach, Mr. Bird, just to make
sure we are all on the same page. But this will come back to Council, but definitely
wanted to make sure they had good Council support on it.
Bird: Do you want some ocean front property in Phoenix?
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 56 of 59
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I'm fine with the request. It's a not to exceed amount. I guess if you do three
bids and it comes back more, you're going to have to do another budget amendment.
So, if you get general consensus from the Council to move forward with getting three
bids and getting a new backhoe and, then, come in with a number, I'm fine with that as
well, so --
Teller: Thank you.
Rountree: And whatever it costs to get a piece of equipment that's going to do what it is
we need to do I'm all right with that.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
Rountree: Mr. Borton.
Borton: One of the reasons -- and we have gone through this -- this material with Public
Works -- that I thought it was ripe for discussion is because this prior backhoe was so
old it's usage is over 20 plus years, whether or not an option made sense to lease one,
even for a year to two, have new equipment for the 9,000 a year and, then, have some
current accurate data and our current usage on what that new backhoe is being used
for, how frequently, how not frequently and it does make sense, then, to charge one or
continue to lease. I didn't know if that option made sense. As opposed to going out and
buying one now.
De Weerd: Well, I guess, Mr. Borton, there is no doubt that a backhoe is an essential
component and tool in the water department -- not only daily basis, but also emergency
service. So, a lease to me is throwing money out the window.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: You had up there on the deal fire hydrants. How much -- how often do we have to
use a backhoe on fire hydrants? I thought we bought that real nice expensive truck with
the boom for fire hydrants.
Teller Yes. Madam Mayor, Councilman Bird, yes, we do use the truck for fire hydrants.
That is to perform the maintenance activities, the crane portion to repair primarily daily
maintenance activities, if one gets ran over. But we have used one several times this
year as they have been hit beyond repair and we have actually had to dig them up
completely to the main. So, that's what we use the backhoe for is to excavate to the
main and replace it all the way up.
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 57 of 59
Milam: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Milam.
Milam: So, just to clarify this, because I haven't done this a lot. So, we are doing it not
to exceed amount. Now, does the actual budget amendment come in for the purchase
price? We do a preliminary approval and, then, the amendment is made after the bids
come in and the purchase -- if it comes in at 90,000 is that what the actual budget
amendment is?
Bird: That would be the budget.
Milam: Okay. And to clarify what Keith said, we don't have somebody that is a full time
operator; right? A full-time employee just to run this --
Teller: We have multiple -- it's actually a three man crew that's dedicated to
maintenance and repair.
Milam: That always --
Teller: Yeah.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Dennis, now we have got the trailer -- we got a trailer?
Teller: Yes, sir.
Bird: And we got a rig to pull it with?
Teller: Yes, sir.
Bird: Okay.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: If there is no further discussion, I would move that we approve Item 8-A, the
Public Works budget amendment for the replacement of the backhoe not to exceed
105,000 dollars.
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 58 of 59
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 8-A. Any discussion from
Council? Madam Clerk.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener,
yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
B. Public Works: Budget Amendment for Meridian Split Corridor
Phase II - Meridian Development Cooperation (MDC) Historic
Streetlights for a Not -to -Exceed Amount of $75,000.00
De Weerd: Item 8-B is also under Public Works. This is more of a clean-up item. I will
turn this over the Warren. You don't have a slide show?
Bird: How many slides?
Stewart: I don't have any. Madam --
Bird: You're falling down, boy.
De Weerd: I would entertain a motion.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: In light of the lack of slides, I would move that we approve Item 8-B, Public
Works Budget Amendment for the Meridian Split Corridor in an amount not to exceed
75,000 dollars.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 8-B. Madam Clerk, will you
call roll.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener,
yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 59 of 59
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Now, Warren, I would use this every time possible. See what no slides
grants you. Instant action.
Item 9: Future Meeting Topics
De Weerd: Under Item 9, Council, any items for consideration for future agendas?
Okay. I would entertain a motion to adjourn.
Rountree: So moved.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: All those in favor say aye. All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:10 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FIL THESE PROCEEDINGS)
6�
MAYOR TAMMY Y DE WEERD DATE APPROVED
ATTEST:
HOLMAN, CITY CLER
1611
/r < ;ry of
t�1tDf'U�nd
ti
` t 1AL
Q
�� 1b,
0 11 1 -.- A 11, 1 1 1 1 1 "
DATE: April 8, 2014 ITEM NUMBER: 5C
ITEM TITLE: Consent Agenda
Approve Minutes of April 1, 2014 City Council Meeting
UIEETIAG NOTES
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
Meridian City Council April 1, 2014
A meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:00 p.m., Tuesday, April
1, 2014, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd.
Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, Keith Bird, Charlie Rountree, David
Zaremba, Genesis Milam and Luke Cavener.
Members Absent: Joe Borton.
Others Present: Jacy Jones, Bill Nary, Justin Lucas, Clint Dolsby, John Overton, Chris
Amenn and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll -call Attendance:
Roll call.
X David Zaremba Joe Borton
X Charlie Rountree X Keith Bird
X Genesis Milam X Luke Cavener
X Mayor Tammy de Weerd
De Weerd: Thank you all for joining us here this evening. I will go ahead and get this
meeting started. I appreciate you joining us. For the record it is Tuesday, April 1 st, and
this meeting is really happening and decisions made today will really be true. So, it
won't be a joke. It's 6:00 o'clock. We will start tonight's meeting with roll call
attendance. Madam Clerk.
Item 2: Pledge of Allegiance
De Weerd: Thank you so much. Item No. 2 is our Pledge of Allegiance. If you will all
rise and join us in the pledge to our flag.
(Pledge of Allegiance recited.)
Item 3: Community Invocation by Rhonda Harding with Four Square Gospel
Church
De Weerd: Item No. 3 is our community invocation. Tonight we will be led by Rhonda
Harding. She is with Four Square Gospel Church. I will ask you -- yes, please, come
forward. I will ask you to, please, join us in the community invocation or take this as an
opportunity for a moment of reflection. Thank you so much for joining us. Yes.
Harding: I want to tell you, first of all, that it's an honor to be here and pray for God's
presence in a government situation. Amen? Lord Jesus, I want to thank you and I
invite your presence into this place and, Lord, I pray for wisdom in all the decisions that
have to be made. I pray for unity and, Lord, I pray for discernment into the necessary
Meridian City Council
April 1, 2014
Page 2 of 20
things here tonight and, God, most of all I pray for your blessing as you direct our
thoughts, direct our hearts, direct us individually and I give all praise and all thanks in
Jesus' name, amen.
De Weerd: Rhonda, I would like to offer you a City of Meridian pin for leading us.
Harding: Well, thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you for joining us.
Item 4: Adoption of the Agenda:
De Weerd: Okay. Item No. 4 is adoption of the agenda.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: Under the Consent Agenda, Item 6-C, we would like to reword that item --
amend the title to read approval of purchase of eight Zoll X series manual monitor
defibrillators from Zoll Medical Corporation for the not to exceed amount of two
thousand -- I'm sorry -- $282,365.10 and along with that amendment we are deleting
Item D, 6-D, from the Consent Agenda. Other than that I move we approve the agenda
with those two changes.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve the agenda as changed. All those
in favor say aye. Any opposed? All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT,
Item 5: Proclamation
A. Parkinson's Awareness Month
De Weerd: Item No. 5 is a proclamation and I will ask those that are representing the
Parkinson's Awareness Month to join me in the front. Lisa, if you will join me. Okay.
I'm going to read this and, then, I will ask for a comment. This is something that we
have had the privilege of doing each year. It's a timely reminder. So, with that:
Whereas Parkinson's Disease is a progressive neurological movement disorder of the
central nervous system, which has a unique impact on the more than 100 Americans --
or one million Americans diagnosed. Whereas symptoms include slowness, tremor,
difficulty with balance and speaking, rigidity, cognitive and memory problems, and
whereas new medicines and therapies may enhance life for some people -- for some
time for people with Parkinson's, more work is needed for a cure. And whereas
Meridian City Council
April 1, 2014
Page 3 of 20
increased education and research are needed to help find more effective treatments
with fewer side effects and ultimately a cure for Parkinson's disease and whereas multi-
disciplinary approach to Parkinson's care includes local wellness, support, and
caregiver groups and whereas April has been proclaimed as worldwide Parkinson's
Awareness Month for all to recognize the need for more research and help in dealing
with Parkinson's disease, therefore, I, Tammy de Weerd, Mayor of the City of Meridian,
do hereby proclaim April 2014 to be Parkinson's Awareness Month in the City of
Meridian and we call upon all of our citizens to increase awareness of this disease and
the continued need for research, better treatment, and an eventual cure. I have signed
that this day and I am honored to present this to you, Lisa, and ask if you would like to
say a few words.
Bain: I would love to. Madam Mayor, City Council, and everyone here, thank you
again. We have been so appreciative of the support we have received from the City of
Meridian. For those of you that don't know anyone with Parkinson's disease, say thank
when you say your prayers tonight, because this is a disease with no cure and it's a
disease that's progressive, that continues to get worse. To put things into perspective
for you, for those of you that only know Parkinson's through Michael J. Fox and
Mohamed Ali, every nine minutes someone in the United States is diagnosed with
Parkinson's disease and it's not an old person's disease. The youngest case that we
have found documented in the U.S. is seven years old. But you will have a lot of
teenagers as well. We still don't know what causes Parkinson's disease, because we
need to continue bio medical research and we need the funding for that. But with the
quality of life we still need to move forward. In Idaho you actually have a 12 percent
higher likelihood of developing Parkinson's, because we are an agricultural community.
But it's just one of those things that we continue to learn more about. And, lastly, my
one point about why we must continue to push towards a cure. The number one
medicine still prescribed today to treat Parkinson's was developed before we put Neal
Armstrong on the moon. We have not made much progress and that's really
unacceptable, but it's through proclamations like this and through the support we
continue to receive from our community that we are able to continue to raise awareness
and if you do know someone affected by Parkinson's disease we have two very vibrant
and active support groups here in Meridian that meet and our whole focus is on living
well with Parkinson's, because we can do that. So thank you very much. And we have
fliers in the back. We have got a couple of members of our community here, John and
Leona. Some of you may know them from their work in the community, but living
examples of living well with Parkinson's disease and huge supporters of our Parkinson's
community.
De Weerd: We would like to thank you for joining us and certainly for your passion. I
think with people like yourself that continue to push for that cure we will find it.
Bain: We will find it.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Meridian City Council
April 1, 2014
Page 4 of 20
Bain: Thank you.
Item 6: Consent Agenda:
A. Approve Minutes of March 11, 2014 City Council Meeting
B. Approve Minutes of March 18, 2014 City Council Meeting
C. Title Amended to read: Approval of Purchase of (8) Zoll X
Series Manual Monitor/Defibrillators from Zoll Medical
Corporation for the Not -to -Exceed Amount of $282,365.10
E. Memorandum of Agreement with Ucon, Idaho: Incident
Tracking System and E -Citation Software
F. Police Department: Dog Licensing Designee Agreement for
Linder Pet Medical Care
G. Police Department: Budget Amendment for Full-time Lateral
Police Officer
H. FP 14-011 Paramount Subdivision No. 25 by Brighton
Investments, LLC Located West of N. Meridian Road and South
of Producer Drive, North of W. McMillan Road Request: Final
Plat Approval Consisting of Fifty (50) Single Family Residential
Building Lots and One (1) Common Lot on 9.17 Acres of
Land in an R-8 Zoning District
I. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 13-015
TM Creek by SCS Brighton, LLC Located Southeast Corner of
W. Franklin Road and S. Ten Mile Road Request: Annexation
and Zoning of 45.34 Acres of Land with C -G (34.82 acres), R-40
(3.94 Acres) and TN -C (5.58 Acres) Zoning Districts
J. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 13-030
TM Creek by SCS Brighton, LLC Located Southeast Corner of
W. Franklin Road and S. Ten Mile Road Request: Preliminary
Plat Approval Consisting of Forty -Nine (49) Building Lots and
Three (3) Common/Other Lots on 41.03 Acres of Land in the
Proposed C -G, R-40 and TN -C Zoning Districts
K. Final Order for Approval: FP 14-007 Spurwing Orchard No. 3
by Brighton Investments, LLC Located North Side of Chinden
Boulevard, West of N. Ten Mile Road Request: Final Plat
Approval Consisting of Sixty -Three (63) Single Family
Meridian City Council
April 1, 2014
Page 5 of 20
Residential Lots and Four (4) Common Lots on Approximately
25.85 Acres in the R-4 Zoning District
L. Final Order for Approval: FP 14-008 Solterra by Conger
Management Group Located Northeast Corner of E. Fairview
Avenue and N. Hickory Way Request: Final Plat Approval
Consisting of Four (4) Commercial Lots, Forty -Three (43)
Residential Lots and Eight (8) Common/Other Lots on
Approximately 16.22 Acres in an C -G, L -O and R-15 Zoning
Districts M. Sale and Purchase Agreement for Ada County
Highway District (ACRD) Surplus Property "Parcel 23"
Adjacent to City Well 19 for a Cost of $18,000.00
N. CableONE Movie Night in Meridian 2014 Single -Night
Sponsorship Agreement Between RC Willey and the City of
Meridian for a Not -to -Exceed Amount of $350.00
De Weerd: Okay. Item No. 6 is our Consent Agenda.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: As previously mentioned, there are two changes to the Consent Agenda.
Item C should read approval of purchase of Zoll -- I guess that's a ten, not an X -- Zoll X
Series manual monitor defibrillators from Zoll Medical Corporation for the not to exceed
amount of $282,365.10. And the other changes that Item D is vacated, removed from
the agenda. With those I move that we approve the Consent Agenda and for the Mayor
to sign and the Clerk to attest.
Rountree: Second,
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda as changed.
If there is no discussion from Council, Madam Clerk.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, absent; Milam, yea;
Cavener, yea.
De Weerd: Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 7: Community Items/Presentations
A. Mayor's Youth Advisory Council Update
Meridian City Council
April 1, 2014
Page 6 of 20
De Weerd: Item No. 7-A is our monthly report from our Mayor's Youth Advisory Council
and they are very active -- a very active group this year and we are excited to get your
update.
Harris: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Madam Mayor and Members of the Council, I'm
Danielle Harris, the at large representative for MYAC and I'm here to give you a brief
update on the council's activities. Our last update was on January 28th. Regarding
membership, we have an active roster of approximately one hundred youth. The
average attendance at meetings is around 50 members. When we last reported it was
70 members, but due to spring sports the number has decreased. One of our events
was the State of the City address where MYAC members assisted with set up for the
stations, table vendors and the delicious Taste of Meridian reception. About 20
MYAC'ers participated in this annual event. This year we tried something new by
bringing impromptu comedy sports to one of our general meetings. Their anti -bullying
message infuses clean humor and games, encourages team work and is altogether
very engaging and a new favorite of the group. We plan on having them back for the
future and we plan on incorporating them into our youth summits. In February our teen
activities committee or Attack for short, organized a roller-skating outing at the Nampa
Rollerdrome in order to offer a constructive Saturday night for our kids. The theme was
Decade's Night and with an attendance of 30 MYAC'ers and guests. There was plenty
of bell bottoms and tie dye shirts. These past few months we also partnered with the
Meridian Library District to hold a teen version of their current project Community
Conversations. Here we gave them input on the current state of Meridian and what we
would like to see for our future in addition to discussing resources on how to achieve
these decisions. Next we partnered with the Village at Meridian and utilized the fountain
square to hold a family friendly dance party to celebrate those who do not smoke. This
is part of our Supporting Teens Against Nicotine Dependency or our STAND program.
We always hear what not to do, so in this case we celebrated people for making healthy
decisions. We had a tremendous turnout and the Village was so impressed by our
event that they actually left us an open invitation to come back there in the future.
Another event MYAC participated in was community planning or the COMPASS
presentation. Since we care deeply about Meridian we took a fabulous opportunity to
partner with COMPASS to lend our teen perspectives to development of a regional
long-range transportation plan for Ada and Canyon counties. Since city transportation
largely affects our age group we took this seriously. Just last night at our general
meeting we heard the Mothers Against Drunk Driving and Focus on the Drive with
interactive and movie presentations to help kick start the National Distracted Driving
Month. Now I will give a brief summary on what to expect from us as we close out this
year. As part of our seatbelt safety advocacy we are making our commercial featuring
different community members stating I click while the camera captures them buckling up
as part of a seatbelt public service announcement. Stay tuned for this as Mayor Tammy
and Councilman Zaremba might be wearing cameos. We also have four more events.
Middle School Youth Summit, which we -- which we tend to hold that at Wahooz for
sixth, seventh, and eighth graders in order to introduce them to MYAC and equip them
with leadership skills that are pertinent to all areas of life. This event is produced and
directed by MYAC seniors, including yours truly. Our second event the Dance Your
Meridian City Council
April 1, 2014
Page 7 of 20
Heart Out fundraiser for the American Heart Association. For this we will partner with
the Village at Meridian to host a dance competition in fountain square to raise
awareness and much needed funds for this nonprofit organization. In addition we are
hosting Meridian's Ignite Youth. Our annual ignite competition as it were is this month
and we are excited to host at the Idaho Party Barn, which will allow us to have an after
party to get to know each other. Finally we will producing our second annual Ball at the
Hall, which is, essentially, a prom for parents. This is our end of the year celebration for
MYAC in addition to our last fundraiser. This year we are directing our funds to Buckle
Up For Bobby and I hope to see you there. As you can see we are near the finish line,
but there is a lot left to do. I will now stand for questions.
De Weerd: Thanks, Danielle. And she's our at large representative, but she's from
Compass Charter School and we have appreciated having her on our leadership team.
Any questions for Danielle?
Cavener: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Cavener.
Cavener: Great presentation, Danielle.
Harris: Thank you.
Cavener: I thought it was great. I'm really impressed with some of the things you guys
are doing. Can you let us know, everyone here, the dates for Ignite Youth and the
dates for Ball at the Hall?
Harris: Those dates are still up in the air, but tentatively our date for Ignite Youth is April
25th and Dance Your Heart Out is May 2nd. But, again, that is tentative. And Ball at
the Hall is still tentative I believe.
Cavener: Okay.
De Weerd: I think Ball at the Hall is Saturday, May 17th and we are looking for
donations for silent auction items and so any of you out there looking for areas to
donate we certainly would invite you to join us and certain -- you don't have to be a
parent. Adult is fine. And it's from 7:00 to 11:00 and MYAC'ers turn this Council
Chambers into a beautiful dance area with a chocolate fountain out in the lobby and all
kinds of goodies. They know how to throw a great party. So, I would invite you to join
us. Danielle, we appreciate you joining us here tonight and you don't have to stay. I will
-- I know you have homework. She is a senior and we appreciate your work on behalf
of the MYAC and on behalf of the city.
Harris: Thank you, Madam Mayor and thanks Members of the Council.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Meridian City Council
April 1, 2014
Page 8 of 20
Rountree: Thank you.
De Weerd: And this is a very ambitious and active group. We continue to get really
good attendance at our meetings, too, and I will just tell you that Ken Corder, Patrick in
our Parks Department, and Officer Gomez, they are just outstanding in their -- the
leadership and mentoring that they give our kids, so --
Item 8: Items Moved From Consent Agenda
De Weerd: Okay. There were no items moved from the Consent Agenda.
Item 9: Action Items
A. Continued from March 25, 2014: Public Hearing: PP 13-042
Centre Point Square by Center Point Square, LLC Located
West of N. Eagle Road and South of E. Ustick Road Request:
Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Forty (40) Single -
Family Buildable Lots and Four (4) Common/Other Lots
on Approximately 5.28 Acres of Land in an R-15 Zoning
District
B. Continued from March 25, 2014: Public Hearing: MDA 13-025
Centre Point Square by Centre Point Square, LLC Located
West of N. Eagle Road and South of E. Ustick Road Request:
Development Agreement Modification to Change the
Development Plan from Multi -Family to Single Family
De Weerd: So, we will move into Items 9-A and B and I will turn this over to staff at this
time. We did continue this public hearing specifically on an item and I will turn this over
to Justin.
Lucas: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. This is a continued public
hearing from the -- it was originally opened at the March 25th City Council meeting. The
application before you tonight is Centre Point Square preliminary plat and development
agreement modification. I'm not going to do a full presentation. We have had a lot of
discussions about this project, but I will just briefly highlight the two issues that were
requested by the Council to bring back further information tonight. One of those issues
was some further analysis of the most effective traffic calming measures that could be
employed on the private streets that are existing out in this application area and the
other one was direction from the Council to the developer to research and provide more
information as to the responsible party for ownership and maintenance of the private
roads. Those are the two primary issues. I will briefly speak to the traffic calming on
the private streets. I was able to conference with John Watson, who is the traffic
calming expert at the Ada County Highway District. He had a chance to look in detail at
this site and recommended what are called speed cushions, not a chicane, which was
Meridian City Council
April 1, 2014
Page 9 of 20
proposed last -- last time. Speed cushions are like speed bumps -- there is all kinds of
different names for speed bumps, but these are called speed cushions. They are just a
little bit -- longer, a little bit bigger than a normal bump you might drive over in a parking
lot. The key feature with a speed cushion also as they have been employed in Ada
County is they have a cut out spacing so the emergency vehicles, fire trucks, can get
through without having to go over a big bump, but a car, which has a different wheel
base, has to -- can't make it work, they have to go over the bump. So, that was John's
recommendation. He's the technical expert in that area and I wanted to share that with
you tonight before handing off the remainder of the time to the applicant to further
answer the questions regarding the maintenance and ownership of the private streets.
That's what I had for you tonight and I will certainly stand for any further questions.
De Weerd: Thank you, Justin. Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: I have none at this time.
De Weerd: Okay, Bob. Good evening.
Unger: Mayor and Council, Bob Unger. ULC Management. 6104 North Gary Lane,
Boise, Idaho. 83714. Representing the applicant. What I'd like to do is just go through
the items so we can clarify some of the information that we were lacking last week. The
first thing I'd like to discuss with you is -- the question came up why did we go with
private streets and I found out why. Did some research, went back through the original
staff reports and recommendations, specifically from ACHD, and ACHD would not
support a public road accessing Eagle Road. They did support accessing a public
street coming in off of Ustick and that would be Centre Point and the -- essentially, the
loop road that is within the existing residential section. That would be Centre Point, La
Blanc, Bourbon Street and Picard Street. So, based upon their not allowing the access
to Eagle Road it was recommended that -- that the other roads be private roads, which
was in alignment with the proposed development to the north. So, that kind of clarifies
why we ended up with private streets instead of public streets, because our original
proposal was public streets throughout the entire project. Okay. If anybody has any
questions on that subject I will be glad to take those right now. Okay. Thank you.
Okay. Now, associations. Boy, what a mix that is and I believe you all got copies of it,
so -- you know, the original Bienville Square CC&Rs were recorded January 7th of '09
and they were -- the way they were stated was Bienville Square Commercial, commonly
known as Mason Creek Commercial -- so, that's where I misunderstood and told you
last week that it was Mason Creek. So, it actually is -- was recorded -- the CC&Rs as
Bienville Square Commercial. Okay. Which encompassed the entire project. It also
identified the common areas, including that alleys and private streets. Then in February
25th of 2010 they amended those and specifically -- now I will read the way it's stated.
So, one of the primary functions of this first amendment is to redefine the real property
covered by declaration. More particularly, the following lots are no longer subject to the
declaration and they spell out, you know, specific lots and block numbers in the Bienville
Meridian City Council
April 1, 2014
Page 10 of 20
Square Subdivision. These are all of the residential lots on the western portion of the
project, which are now being covered by the Jackson Creek CC&Rs. So, they were
completely removed from the Bienville Square CC&Rs. The following day the Jackson
Creek CC&Rs, which is the CC&Rs for the residential section, those were signed on --
yeah. 2/26/10. And it specifically identifies those same lots that were removed as being
the Jackson Square -- actually they call it Jackson Square Subdivision, which I don't
know why they did that, but that's the Jackson Square CC&Rs. And then, there was a
second and third amendment in 2011, but those pertained to architectural committee
guidelines, et cetera, for the Bienville Square CC&Rs. So, we met -- we met -- or let me
-- I'm sorry. In May of 2010 there was a shared maintenance and use agreement
prepared between Bienville Square and Jackson Creek and in Section 3 of that shared
maintenance and use agreement it talks about shared use and 3.1 talks about, you
know, the common areas and the private roads and that each jurisdiction being the two
different HOAs, would be responsible for their common areas and things of that sort.
Section 3.2 specifically states that each party, which they call the indemnator, shall
indemnify, defend and save the other party, the indemnee, harm from any and all
claims, liability losses, costs, charges or expenses, including reasonable attorney fees
and costs, judgments, proceedings and causative action of any kind whatsoever claims
arising from injury or death or any person or damage to any property occurring on or
resulting from the use of private alley, private roads, common open spaces by the
indemnor, its agents or assigns, and any negligence or tortious acts of indemnator.
Which essentially says, you know, the -- the one association indemnifies the other
association for anything that might happen within their jurisdiction. It's a -- it's a tough
way -- a confusing way to say, you know, you're not responsible for our private streets,
nor are we responsible for your private streets or in the Jackson Square Association
with their alley that they have. So, with that first amendment to the CC&Rs and, then,
this shared maintenance and use agreement, it pretty well identifies and releases the
Jackson Square Homeowners Association from any liability resulting from occurrences
that may happen on the private streets within the Bienville Square Association
ownership. Okay. Okay. So, let me stop right there and see if you have questions on
-- on that -- just those issues.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I think I'm clear on what you're saying and I don't know if you're going to go
farther or this is the time to explain the question that I asked at the end of last week,
which is whether or not the commercial -- the commercial properties that are actually on
Eagle, but were originally part of this overall thing, are they subject to either one of
these agreements -- and the reason I'm asking is is there any leverage for the people in
the residential part of it to say to the people in the commercial part of it, look, these are
your streets, too, and we want you to control the speed of your customers that, if
possible, certainly your employees and -- is there any cross -leverage there and is the
commercial property part of one of these agreements?
Meridian City Council
April 1, 2014
Page 11 of 20
Unger: Madam Mayor, Mr. Zaremba, the commercial out there along Eagle Road, they
are all members of the Bienville Square Association.
Zaremba: So, there is some leverage there.
Unger: So, they have liability responsibility for the private streets within the Bienville
Square Association ownership I think is the way to put it. As I -- we are also
responsible, because we are an owner in there, too, as is Idaho Mutual Trust, who owns
the -- I believe there is vacant lots still out there. Okay?
Zaremba: Thank you.
Unger: Does that answer it?
Zaremba: Yes.
Unger: Great. Okay. We were -- Mr. and Mrs. Hysmith, who are members of the
Jackson Square Association, were kind enough to host a meeting this past Saturday
with us and some of the members of the association. We had a great meeting. We
discussed a lot of these -- this information and shared a lot of this information in an
effort to see if we could not -- if we could resolve some of the issues and come back to
you folks with answers. So, we did prepare a memorandum of understanding between
us and the Jackson Square Association. I hope you folks have a copy of that and I
believe I got it to staff. And in there -- and these are -- this is a big concern of the
neighbors and I -- I understand. Their concern is the liability of the private streets, those
being Picard Lane, Bourbon Lane and Cajun. Their sole concern is that they do not
want to have any liability for anything that happens on those three private streets. They
don't want to get sued over somebody being injured or something like that or anything to
that effect and although we feel that the amendments and the shared maintenance use
agreement pretty well clarifies who is responsible for what, we have agreed that we
would move forward and make -- you know, make the effort to get some additional legal
clarification that really spells out that they would not -- that they would be released from
any liability concerning the private streets. And, then, the second thing that we
discussed -- and also that -- that first item was that we would get this document
prepared and approved by the association prior to the City Council approving our final
plat. That gives them assurances that -- that we will move forward and take care of this
and -- and that we can't move forward without it. Okay. And, then, the second item was
that we would agree to put two of the speed cushions on Picard Lane and that's the one
that seems to have the -- the bulk of the traffic that brings the concerns to everybody,
that we would put two of those on Picard Lane and also we would put one on Bourbon
Lane, which is the other street that would access the backside of the residential
development. And also what was kind of brought up during this discussion was that
there were -- there were some problems with the pathway along the southern portion of
the project where there was some sloughing off of the -- of the -- of the earth under the
pathway and it was starting to fall off and roll off and we agreed that we -- while we were
doing our work and we had asphalt machines out there, that we would make repairs to
Meridian City Council
April 1, 2014
Page 12 of 20
that section of the pathway and -- and the hopes were that if we agreed to do that --
this, then, in exchange the association would support our applications. Now, this was a
draft memorandum of understanding. So, it hasn't been signed by either party and I
think there might be some folks here that would like to speak to that. Okay? So -- but
we have certainly worked with them and so far up to this point they seem to be
agreeable. One of the things that -- that was brought to our attention by them is that
any amendments to the Bienville CC&Rs would have to be done by the Bienville HOA
and Dan Bureau with Idaho Mutual Trust is the president of the association. They own
three properties. So, they have at least three votes. We have a vote, because we have
the large property -- we have probably more than one vote. And, then, there is the three
commercial people out there that also would have a vote. Okay. But Dan -- I spoke
with Dan just before coming over here and Dan said that he would be more than glad to
assist in facilitating an amendment to the CC&Rs that would better clarify and exonerate
the Jackson Square Homeowners Association from any responsibilities or liabilities on
the private streets that would be specifically named also. So, I think -- I think we have
something very good here that can move forward and I hope that, you know, the
association -- the Jacksonville Association would be happy with -- in my discussions
with them this evening before the hearing that seemed to be acceptable with them, so --
and I will let them address that with you. The speed cushions I think, you know, Justin
kind of reviewed those. We did get specifications from John Watson at ACHD. These
are the ones that he recommended and we are proposing, like I said, two on Picard and
one on Bourbon. In addition -- and I want to speak specifically, because Council
Member Bird had a concern about the width of these streets. The streets as
constructed are 30 foot back of curb, back of curb, which is four or six feet less than
ACHD approved local streets. And although the private street requirement for the city is
25 feet, we did build them larger. But in order to -- in order to make sure that we have
better flow with the additional residences, we would propose to not allow parking along
one side of each of those streets. Okay. We would post it as no parking. Okay. And,
my goodness, I think I -- I think I have covered it all, so -- oh. And one other point.
Picard and Bourbon Lane, I don't know if you have a realistic scale on how long those
streets are. They are only 420 feet long. So, they are really not that long, drawn out
streets. Okay. So, I will stand for any questions.
De Weerd: Thank you, Bob. Council, any questions?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Yeah. You spoke with some certainty previously about there being
insurance and there being funding and funding has been gathered. Has that, in fact,
been done, both with respect to the liability insurance and the funds and if that's the
case who has been doing it and where does it reside?
Unger: Madam Mayor, Council Member Rountree, yes, those funds are being paid.
They are a part of the Bienville Square Association and their dues and included in those
Meridian City Council
April 1, 2014
Page 13 of 20
there are -- their monthly fees -- they are paid on an annual basis -- basis and there are
funds that are being held for the maintenance of not only the private streets, but also of
the common areas, the landscape areas, and those funds are being held by Idaho
Mutual Trust for -- for the association and I know that when we -- when we picked up
this piece of property a little over a year ago, you know, we paid our dues then and our
dues are due again and I did speak with Dan Bureau at Idaho Mutual Trust and the
president of the association and those fees are being paid and it does provide for the
liability insurance also.
Rountree: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions?
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: If I could just ask a question. I was looking at the documents that I think the
Council may have in the packet and I just -- one was just lacking some clarity from the
documents we were able to locate and that's the one that's titled Shared Maintenance
and Use Agreement that begins -- that has a date at the beginning that's -- that's not
entered, which says May of 2010, and it's a signed document and it is -- a couple were
made and I was just going to ask either from Mr. Unger if he has proof that this was
actually recorded and, if not, if maybe it would be appropriate for the Council to direct as
part of the resolution of this that this also be recorded, because I think the portions you
read about the indemnification are located in this document, but they are not located in
any other document and so it appears that this was signed by Dan Bureau and Ben
Slaughter, but it's undated and they won't record it without a notary and a date. But all
the other documents seem to match the documents we were able to locate and this is
the only one that doesn't. So, I don't believe it's recorded, but if we just didn't discover
it, we might want to make sure that it is recorded, because it does reflect what Mr.
Unger has stated about who is responsible and who is indemnifying who and such,
because everything else I could location, but this is the one piece that we could not, so
-- unless you had a concern about that, it seemed like that might cover the one piece of
the puzzle and seemed to be very confusing to a lot of the public in this and, again, if I
just missed it or somewhere else, fine, but if you're okay with that I would suggest to the
Council that we make that a direction as well, that it get recorded.
Unger: Madam Mayor, you know, I do not have a recorded -- recorded copy of it either.
I don't see that being an issue as a condition of approval that -- that we provide a
recorded copy of this. And if it isn't we will -- we will get it recorded and we will work
with -- with Dan Bureau and get it recorded.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Nary. Thank you, Bob.
Unger: Thank you.
Meridian City Council
April 1, 2014
Page 14 of 20
De Weerd: Okay. We are looking for testimony just on this particular item that is being
discussed and focused on. Is there -- does the homeowners association from Jackson
Square have any comment? Is there a representative? Okay. Good evening.
Lamay: Good evening.
De Weerd: If you will, please, state your name and address for the record.
Lamay: My name is Joseph Lamay. My address is 2989 North Centre Point Way in
Meridian.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Lamay: As a member of -- and owner of Jackson Square and a member of the board,
speak as a private citizen to thank you for pulling this together and based on the
meeting that we did have with Bob and information that I got just like two minutes into
this meeting from Dan Bureau with Idaho Mutual Trust, it is my considered opinion that I
would further support the continued efforts based on our memorandum of
understanding and I would -- I would back Mr. Unger's proposal provided that the
Council has in that -- and I believe they do exist -- architectural and landscape controls,
so that we don't end up with the same type and style of building or fit and finish maybe
that is there. We have made great progress with all of our research. We have a ways
to go, but we are going in the right direction. So, as Bob has indicated, making part of
the -- of his development agreement contingent on a recorded release -- complete
release from Jackson Square Homeowners Association and its ownership there of the
private roads being recorded as a document that relieves our liability and the bigger part
of that is not necessarily the liability, but the defense thereof of that liability, because I
think it's pretty clear that we are not ultimately liable, but I'm sure a good attorney could
drag us through a lot of court battles and spend a lot of money, which that's our larger
concern and, again, with Bob's help and with the Dan I think we can come up with an
agreement that absolutely absolves us of that.
De Weerd: Thank you. And certainly we appreciate everyone coming together and
having a discussion and trying to really find a resolution to address all concerns. So,
thanks to -- to all of you.
Lamay: Yeah. As far as myself -- and I can't speak for the other homeowners, but it's
not that I have ever seen -- our feeling was never that we did not want this developed, it
was never -- well, we are not antidevelopment whatsoever, but it's got to be done
correctly and -- and make sure that we are not compromised in our investments and our
futures. So, thank you very much.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Council, do you have any questions for staff or any of
the parties at this point? Okay. Any further comment from you, Mr. Unger?
Meridian City Council
April 1, 2014
Page 15 of 20
Unger: No, Madam Mayor.
De Weerd: Okay. It's all yours, Council.
Lucas: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Justin.
Lucas: Just a point of clarification. So, I have not made any modifications to the
existing staff report, so the items in the memorandum of understanding as of right now
are just items before you to potentially include in a development agreement, which is
being modified tonight. So, I just want to make that clear that in a motion if it were to be
for approval of the project and you like these items, I need that to be specifically stated
in your motion. A couple of things that are not in the list of that memorandum of
understanding. One of them is what Mr. Nary stated about recording that shared
maintenance and use agreement. That's one thing that's not in the list. The other thing
is the no parking on one side of the private streets is also not listed. So, just to throw
that out there for your consideration.
De Weerd: We appreciate the coaching over there. Mr. Bird.
Bird: Bill, that MOU is that in the PP or would it be in the DA modification?
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Mr. Bird, so we would probably include
that as a condition both for the plat, because they were saying that that was a condition
on signature for the final plat.
Bird: Okay.
Nary: But we would probably want to reference also in the development agreement that
that would need to be accomplished as a requirement for future developments. So, that
we would probably include it in both.
Bird: And in the plat we would also include the parking on one side of the street?
Nary: Yeah. We probably would do that in both.
Bird: In both.
Nary: Because, again, the same --
Bird: All the stuff in both of them?
Nary: Yes.
Bird: Okay.
Meridian City Council
April 1, 2014
Page 16 of 20
De Weerd: Okay. If you have all the information you need I would entertain a motion to
close the public hearings on both these items.
Cavener: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Cavener.
Cavener: Seeing no further public testimony, I move that we close the public hearing on
PP 13-042 and MDA 13-025.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearings on Items 9-A and
B. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Cavener: All right. Here we go. Let's try it. Finagle my way through this. Madam
Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Cavener.
Cavener: I move that we approve PP 13-042 and include all staff and public testimony,
including the -- or, excuse me, including the memorandum of understanding and a
recorded copy of the -- what's that word? Oh. The CC&Rs and the no parking on one
side of the street.
Milam: Second.
De Weerd: And just for the record it is a recorded copy of the shared maintenance and
use agreement.
Cavener: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second. Any discussion from Council?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Does the maker of the motion also include release of the Jackson Square
Subdivision of any road liability, the addition of two speed cushions on Picard and
addition of one speed cushion on Bourbon and that the pathway south of the
subdivision be repaired?
Meridian City Council
April 1, 2014
Page 17 of 20
Cavener: Yes. That's --yes.
De Weerd: And those items and to -- for staff as you draw up the DA and the Findings
those are the items that are in the MOU.
Nary: Yes.
De Weerd: Okay. Any further discussion?
Cavener: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Cavener.
Cavener: Maybe a question for Bill or for police, but if we put in a no parking sign on
those streets and they are a private street, law enforcement won't have any way to
enforce that no parking sign; correct?
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, no, but no different than what you see
sometimes in private parking lots like in a shopping center. I mean those are all
suggestions, not necessarily mandates, but yet people will adhere to them. Because of
the way the roadway is structured it's not practical sometimes to do that. So, you're
correct, we wouldn't be able to cite them for that, but I don't -- you know, we don't see a
lot of people violating those most of the time.
Cavener: Okay.
De Weerd: I guess you could always tow them. That would be the private property
owners, so --
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: The comment that you just made I would expand upon that. The
homeowners association would be able to establish fines and police it themselves.
De Weerd: That's frightening. Okay. If there is no further discussion, Madam Clerk,
will you call roll.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, absent; Milam, yea;
Cavener, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Meridian City Council
April 1, 2014
Page 18 of 20
Cavener: All right.
De Weerd: Mr. Cavener.
Cavener: Madam Mayor, I move that we approve MDA 13-025 and include all staff and
public testimony, including the memorandum of understanding, as well as -- try and get
through this. The recorded copy of the CC&Rs, known as the shared maintenance
agreement, and no parking on one side of the street.
Milam: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second. Any discussion?
Rountree: Madam Mayor, just a question. From my understanding does the MOA
include the design considerations?
Lucas: Yes. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we -- we had already come to
agreement on what was going to go into the DA last time on -- on all those design
considerations and so that would be part of the staff and applicant testimony last time
and so I think it's clear in your motion that that would be included.
De Weerd: Anything further? Madam Clerk.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, absent; Milam, yea;
Cavener, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Again, I would like to thank the neighbors and the applicant for working
together and finding an agreement and resolution. That is how the process is supposed
to work. So thank you.
Item 10: Department Reports
A. Fire Department: Budget Amendment for Apparatus Repair for
the Not -to -Exceed Amount of $19,068.00
De Weerd: Okay. Item 10-A is a Department Report. I will turn this over to our -- Chief
Amenn.
Amenn: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. We have before you this
evening a budget amendment in the amount of 19 -- not to exceed amount of 19,068
dollars. This is for unanticipated repairs to three different apparatus. One is a type six
brush engine, which needs a foam system replaced. One is a type six engine which
Meridian City Council
April 1, 2014
Page 19 of 20
needs a pump housing replaced. It was cracked. It's 19 years old. The other is a 3,000
gallon water tender that also has a pump housing crack that needs to be replaced. I will
stand for any questions.
De Weerd: Council, any questions? Hearing none, do I have a motion?
Milam: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Milam.
Milam: I move that we approve budget amendment for apparatus repair for the not to
exceed amount of 19,068 dollars.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 10-A. Madam Clerk, will you
call roll.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, absent; Milam, yea;
Cavener, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 11: Future Meeting Topics
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any topics for consideration under Item 11 for future
meetings?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: I have none.
Milam: No.
Item 12: Executive Session Per Idaho State Code 67-2345 (1)(0: (f) To
Consider and Advise Its Legal Representatives in Pending
De Weerd: Okay. I would entertain a motion, then, under Item 12 for -- to adjourn into
Executive Session.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Meridian City Council
April 1, 2014
Page 19 of 20
needs a pump housing replaced. It was cracked. It's 19 years old. The other is a 3,000
gallon water tender that also has a pump housing crack that needs to be replaced. I will
stand for any questions.
De Weerd: Council, any questions? Hearing none, do I have a motion?
Milam: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Milam.
Milam: I move that we approve budget amendment for apparatus repair for the not to
exceed amount of 19,068 dollars.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 10-A. Madam Clerk, will you
call roll.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, absent; Milam, yea;
Cavener, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 11: Future Meeting Topics
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any topics for consideration under Item 11 for future
meetings?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: I have none.
Milam: No.
Item 12: Executive Session Per Idaho State Code 67-2345 (1)(f): (f) To
Consider and Advise Its Legal Representatives in Pending
De Weerd: Okay. I would entertain a motion, then, under Item 12 for -- to adjourn into
Executive Session.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Meridian City Council
April 1, 2014
Page 20 of 20
Bird: I move we go into Executive Session as per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1)(0.
Milam: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to adjourn into Executive Session. Madam
Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, absent; Milam, yea;
Cavener, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
EXECUTIVE SESSION: (6:55 p.m. to 7:10 p.m.)
De Weerd: I would entertain a motion to come out of Executive Session.
Bird: So moved.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: All in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Do I have a motion to adjourn?
Bird: So moved.
Milam: Second.
De Weerd: All those in favor say aye. All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:10 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF -THESE PROCEEDINGS)
MAYOR TAMMY DE WEERD DATE APPROVED
ATTEST:
OLMAN, CITY CLEOL-
SEAL
t ,q
ITEM TITLE: Consent Agenda
Approval of Task Order 10489 for "Water Meter Survey" to Civil Survey Consultants in
the Not -to -exceed amount of $109,344.00
MEETING NOTES
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
To: Jaycee L. Holman, City Clerk,
From: Keith Watts, Purchasing Manager
CC: Jacy Jones, Dennis Teller
Date: 4/2/14
Re: April 8t' City Council Meeting Agenda Item
The Purchasing Department respectfully requests that the following item be placed on the
April 8t' City Council Consent Agenda for Council's consideration.
Approval of Task Order 10489 for Professional Services for "WATER METER
SURVEY" to Civil Survey Consultants for the Not -To -Exceed amount of $109,344.00.
This Task Order is issued in conjunction with the Master Agreement with Civil Survey
dated October 22, 2013.
Recommended Council Action: Approval of Task Order 10489 to Civil Survey
Consultants for the Not -To -Exceed amount of $109,344.00.
Thank you for your consideration.
Page 1
Pursuant to the
CITY OF MERIDIAN (OWNER) AND CIVIL SURVEY CONSULTANTS (ENGINEER)
This Task Order is made this 8th day of April, 2014 and entered into by and between the City of
Meridian, a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of Idaho, hereinafter
referred to as "City", and accepted by CIVIL SURVEY CONSULTANTS, hereinafter referred to
as "Engineer" pursuant to the mutual promises, covenant and conditions contained in the
Master Agreement (Category 9a) between the above mentioned parties dated October 22,
2013. The Project Name for this Task Order 10489 is as follows:
The Engineer shall provide professional services related to the survey of approximately 18,105
(±1 %) existing water meter pits.
Task 1 — Administration
1.1 Set up the contract and submit written communication through the City's project
management software (E -Builder). This includes but is not limited to the following:
® Reports
® Requests for Information
® Request for Action by City
® General Project Documentation & Communication
® Pay Invoices
The City shall provide the Engineer with an E -Builder user's license.
TASK ORDER ???? —Water Meter Survey Page 1 of 4
Civil Survey Consultants
Task 2 — Surveying
2.1 Locate and record meter pit location. Shall include a single measurement to the
center of the meter pit cover. All work shall be completed on the Ada County
modified Idaho State Plane datum with GPS. Task shall include redefining point
files provided by the City.
2.2 Download and prepare new point files. Provide an ASCII comma delimited text
file of redefined meter pit locations to the City. File shall include the following for
each meter pit: northing, easting, elevation, MXU number.
• Point file provided by the City shall include accurate MXU numbers.
• Mapping and programs provided by the City shall allow the Engineer to identify general
location of existing meter pits and associated MXU number.
• Engineer shall not be required to identify if meter pits are single or double meters.
• Engineer shall not be required to identify if meter pits are for potable water or irrigation
purposes. When two meter pits are assigned to one address, one for potable water and
one for irrigation, the City will physically identify the type of service use in advance of
survey for incorporation in spatial data collection. Engineer shall coordinate with the
City to identify areas scheduled to be surveyed. Engineer shall provide the City a
minimum of five days advance notice prior to surveying area.
• Engineer shall not be required to remove meter pit cover and verify MXU number. If
uncertainty arises about the MXU number of a particular meter pit, the Engineer shall
contact the City to request physical verification.
• The City will provide an employee from the Water Division as needed to assist the
surveyor with locating and exposing meter pit covers. It is not expected that the Water
Division employee shall be available for an on-call basis. The Engineer shall keep track
of problem areas and coordinate with the City to schedule days that the Water Division
employee shall be available to provide a day of meter pit locating and exposing at
locations identified by the Engineer.
• Traffic control will not be required to complete the survey.
• All meter pit covers are exposed and easily accessible.
• All meter pits are located within the public right-of-way or an easement.
DELIVERABLES BY CONSULTANT
Deliverable under this task order shall be as follows:
1. ASCII comma delimited text file of redefined meter pit locations. Text files shall
be provided as each square mile section is completed. This will allow the City to
update MXU numbers as meters are changed out for operational purposes.
TASK ORDER ???? — Water Meter Survey Page 2 of 4
Civil Survey Consultants
Deliverable under this task order shall be as follows:
1. ASCII comma delimited text file (MXU number, northing, easting, address) of
meter pit locations as previously identified by City staff. An individual file shall be
provided for each square mile section.
2. 8 1/2" x 11" printouts of text file. File shall include: MXU number, property
address, and helpful notes about meter pit location.
3. Program created by the City that allows an address to be typed in and the
corresponding MXU number is identified.
4. Printout of square mile section maps that show current meter pit locations and
corresponding MXU number.
0�10111-E !1111!.
The following schedule is based on a Notice to Proceed (NTP) from the City by March 2014
and resulting in survey being completed by September 30, 2014. A NTP issued on a different
date will change the schedule accordingly.
COMPENSATION AND COMPLETION SCHEDULE
Task Description Due Date compensation
I Administration ■ September 30, 2014 $1,000.00
2 Surveying ® September 30, 2014 $108,344.00
TASK ORDER TOTAL: $109,344.00
The Not -To -Exceed amount to complete all services listed above for this Task Order No.
10489 is One Hundred Nine Thousand Three Hundred Forty -Four dollars and 00/100
($109,344.00). No compensation will be paid over the Not -to -Exceed amount without prior
written approval by the City in the form of a Change Order. The hourly rates for services and
direct expenses are per the Master Agreement (by this reference made a part hereof) and will
be the basis for any additions and/or deletions in services rendered. Travel and meals are
excluded from this Task Order unless explicitly listed in the Scope of Services and Payment
Schedule.
TAMMY de W X
Dated:
TASK ORDER ???? — Water Meter
Civil Survey Consultants
A
CIVIL SURVEY CONSULTANTS
'a BY:
j' �Gle
City of
v i
..,d
rh�
Bennett, President
z2nd,
Page 3 of 4
Approved by Council: q - -N
Attest:
JAYC H AN, CITY CLERK
Purchasing Department Approval Publ' ,- rks D artment Approval
BY: 'r"f BY: %
Keith VVatts, Purchasing Manger Joh McCor ie
z-,
DATE: ; £r' DATE: a �1
TASK ORDER ???? —Water Meter Survey Page 4 of 4
Civil Survey Consultants
DATE: April 8, 2014 ITEM NUMBER:
ITEM TITLE: Consent Agenda
Approval of Task Order 10481 b for "Meridian Heights Water Sewer District -Water Meter
Design" to Civil Survey Consultants in the not -to -exceed amount of $58,618.00
MEETING NOTES
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
To: Jaycee L. Holman, City Clerk,
From: Keith Watts, Purchasing Manager
CC: Jacy Jones, Warren Stewart
Date: 4/3/14
Re: April 8th City Council Meeting Agenda Item
The Purchasing Department respectfully requests that the following item be placed on the
April 8th City Council Consent Agenda for Council's consideration.
Approval of Task Order 10481 b for Professional Services for "MERIDIAN HEIGHTS
WATER SEWER DISTRICT PHASE 2 — WATER METER DESIGN to Civil Survey
Consultants for the Not -To -Exceed amount of $58,618.00. This Task Order is issued
in conjunction with the Master Agreement with Civil Survey dated September 18,
2012.
Recommended Council Action: Approval of Task Order 10481.1b to Civil Survey
Consultants for the Not -To -Exceed amount of $58,618.00.
Thank you for your consideration.
Page 1
C:>WN!�AN,
Under
MASTER AGREEMENT • PROFESSIONAL
BETWEEN
This Task Order is made this 8th day of April, 2014 and entered into by and between the
City of Meridian, a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of Idaho,
hereinafter referred to as "City", and accepted by CIVIL SURVEY CONSULTANTS,
hereinafter referred to as "Engineer" pursuant to the mutual promises, covenant and
conditions contained in the Master Agreement (Category 1b) between the above
mentioned parties dated September 18, 2012. The Project Name for this Task Order
10481 b is as follows:
City of Meridian, Idaho
The Engineer shall provide professional services related to the design, bidding, and
construction phase work necessary for the implementation of a project to install water
meter pits and to abandon Well #1 in the Meridian Heights Subdivision within the
Meridian Heights Water and Sewer District.
The Kentucky Ridge Subdivision currently has meter pits installed. There will be no
design or construction phase work in Kentucky Ridge.
The ultimate goal of this project is for the City to integrate the Meridian Heights Water
and Sewer District (MHWSD) into the City infrastructure. The program is based off the
Three Party Agreement executed in October of 2013.
Task 1 — Administration
1.1 Set up the contract and submit written communication through the City's project
management software (E -Builder). This includes but is not limited to the
following:
• Reports
• Requests for Information
Task Order 10481 b - MHWSD - PHASE 2 -WATER METER DESIGN Pagel Of 7
CIVIL SURVEY CONSULTANTS
Request for Action by City
General Project Documentation & Communication
Pay Invoices
The City shall provide the ENGINEER with an E -Builder user's license.
1.2 Project Management - Provide ongoing management of the project including
regular status updates, coordination, and budget/schedule compliance.
1.3 Engineer staff that shall be onsite shall attend conflict resolution training at City of
Meridian Police Department.
�-VMS Z=1iL#
2.1 This task includes:
Field work associated with establishing existing public right-of-way and
property lines.
2. Office work associated with drafting existing public right-of-way, property
lines and utility easements.
Note: We anticipate that we will be able to define the existing public right-of-way,
property lines and utility easements from Meridian Heights Subdivision plats
recorded with Ada County.
Task 3 - ®esign
The goals of the design are to:
® Communicate with residents about the process and document pre -construction
conditions.
® Install the meter pits in a timely and efficient manner.
® Restore the surface conditions to pre -construction condition or better.
® Disrupt only one lane of traffic at a time.
® Minimize the disruption of water service to residents.
3.1 This task includes conducting a site review of every meter pit location and
providing an indexed digital photograph of each proposed meter pit location to
verify pre -construction surface conditions. Photographs shall also be included as
part of project bid documents.
3.2 Verify that each proposed meter pit will be located within an existing easement or
the public right-of-way. If existing conditions make this task not possible then
Engineer shall contact the City about the need to obtain an easement. Easement
preparation is not part of this scope of services but can be provided as a
supplement to this scope of services.
Task Order 10481 b — MHWSD — PHASE 2 — WATER METER DESIGN Page 2 Of 7
CIVIL SURVEY CONSULTANTS
3.3 Engineer shall accompany City Public Information Officer as they knock on each
residence door and assists with communication of project to resident. Engineer
shall accompany Public Information Officer on one trip to each residence and
there will be no follow up visits to residences that were not home on first attempt.
It is assumed that no meetings will be scheduled and task shall involve walking
the neighborhood and talking to residents that are home over one or two days.
Meetings shall address the following:
® Review of the Water Meter Project Fact Sheet.
® Proposed Meter Pit Location
® Surface/Feature Repair
® Traffic Disruptions
® Water Service Disruptions
® Project Schedule
This task shall also include providing written documentation of meeting with each
resident.
3.4 This task includes designing meter pit installation per City of Meridian Standard
Specifications on existing water service lines that do not currently have meter
pits. It is anticipated that 190 meter pits will need to be installed. Previous field
work performed by the Engineer (Phase 1) shall be used to identify existing
services lines that need meter pits and location of existing curb stops. Data
provided by MHWSD Operator shall be used to determine if existing services are
single or double services.
There are 38 lots that will have meter pits installed under an ongoing project
being performed by the MHWSD, these lots shall not be included in this scope of
work.
Design shall include removal of existing curb stops (if necessary), connection to
existing service line, and related work required to provide a functional meter pit
that is ready to receive a meter to be installed by the City.
3.5 Well #1 Demolition and Abandonment. Design work will also include plans for
the demolition and abandonment of Well #1 and transfer of water rights to the
City of Meridian. All materials are to be removed from the well house, the well
house shall be demolished and the well is to be abandoned per IDWR
requirements. Engineering work includes processing an application for IDWR
well abandonment and transfer of water rights to the City of Meridian (the City will
pay any IDWR fees for this work).
3.6 This task shall include coordination with the City Water Division and MHWSD
operations staff about how to service lots within the "Service Verification Area".
Specifically, Engineer shall work with the City to determine how to best service
the lots in the "Service Verification Area" shown on map previously provided to
Engineer. The design of services within the verification area is not part of this
Task Order 10481 b — MHWSD — PHASE 2 — WATER METER DESIGN Page 3 Of 7
CIVIL SURVEY CONSULTANTS
scope of services. Design of the services shall be provided under a supplement
to this scope of services once the necessary design parameters are established.
4.1 Develop plans, specifications, cost estimate and bid schedule that meet current
design standards and standard specifications of the City and ISPWC. Technical
Specifications shall conform to the formatting of the ISPWC.
Plans shall be developed to show the Contractor the proposed meter pit
location on each lot and pre -construction conditions. Each lot shall be
identified with its street address. It is the intent that the plans will be
incorporated into the 8.5"x11" contract document book and will consist of
the following:
o An overall key map (or maps) in 11 "x17" format with each lot
identified by the street address including the approximate location
of property lines, easements, and proposed meter location overlaid
on an orthographic photo of the area. Orthographic photo shall be
provided by the City.
o An 8.5"x11" sheet for each lot identified by the street address that
includes a digital photograph of the pre -construction conditions with
the proposed location of the water meter identified on the
photograph.
o A detail sheet showing a typical meter installation.
o A plan sheet in 11 "x17" format showing the work associated with
Well # 1 demolition and abandonment.
o An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESC) will be developed per
the City of Meridian CSWMP Standard Requirements and IDEQ and
ACRD requirements.
® Specifications shall include the following:
o Provision to restore surface conditions to pre -construction or better
condition. All surface restoration shall be made incidental to the
meter installation.
o Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESC) per the City the City of
Meridian CSWMP Standard Requirements and IDEQ and ACHD
requirements.
o Minimize traffic disruption to one lane. Contractor shall obtain an
ACRD right-of-way permit prior to starting work.
o Contractor shall communicate with residents about water system
disruption schedule.
o Minimize water service disruption to any one lot.
o Construction time frame as established by the City prior to project
bidding.
o Work hours as established by the City prior to project bidding.
Task Order 10481b — MHWSD — PHASE 2 —WATER METER DESIGN Page 4 Of 7
CIVIL SURVEY CONSULTANTS
4.2 At 95% completion, submit seven (7) sets of plans and specifications to City
Engineering for department review and comment by Construction, Water,
Development Services and Environmental Departments. The City may choose to
use the 95% plans to advertise the project for bid and issue an addendum based
off review comments.
4.3 Prepare final construction documents with inclusion of any changes from the
review phases and provide the following copies during and after the bidding
phase. Engineer shall assist the City with the preparation of any necessary
addendums during the bidding phase.
Twenty copies for bid and distribution purposes.
Up to five copies for contractor's use.
NOTE: Per IDAPA, these plans will not require DEQ or ACRD review or approval. At
worst case, a QLPE review will be required. J -U -B will service in that capacity, if
needed. It is not anticipated that IDWR will require plan approval once the well
abandonment paperwork is completed.
5.1 Engineer will attend the pre-bid meeting.
5.2 Engineer will attend the pre -construction meeting.
5.3 Answer BFI's from Contractor during bidding and construction about the design.
5.4 Review material specifications submitted by Contractor.
5.5 Prepare record drawings meeting the City of Meridian Acceptance of
Record/Electronic Drawings, dated October 25, 2012.
5.6 Provide one set of construction stakes for each meter pit. We anticipate that all
staking shall be completed in no more than five trips to the site.
1. Five sets of site review photos indexed by address (one photo for each lot on an
8.5" x 11" page).
2. Three copies of meeting notes with Residents.
3. Complete Construction Plans and Specifications for meter pit installation and
Well #1 Abandonment.
4. Well #1 abandonment and water rights transfer application to IDWR.
5. Record drawings per item 5.5 above.
Task Order 10481 b — MHWSD — PHASE 2 — WATER METER DESIGN Page 5 Of 7
CIVIL SURVEY CONSULTANTS
Provide clear direction to Engineer for timely resolution of pertinent policies or
other action items.
2. Provide assistance and coordination on interaction with the public during the
design and construction work.
3. Provide record drawings of the existing infrastructure in the annexed area, plans
of the improvements already installed or to be installed in the area by the City, or
by third parties, and plat maps showing existing easements.
4. Create a "Water Meter Project Sheet" for public communications.
5. Pay all IDWR well abandonment and water right transfer application fees.
6. Provide all information about Well #1 and existing water right required to
complete IDWR well abandonment application and IDWR water right transfer
application.
7. Water Division shall provide any information they have collected regarding
existing service line sizes and materials.
8. All other items not covered in this scope of work or not provided by Engineer as a
supplement to this scope of work.
9. An orthographic photo of Meridian Heights Subdivision.
Assumptions
1. Title Reports are not part of this scope of services.
2. Easement preparation is not part of this scope of services.
3. Size of existing service lines shall be assumed based off original construction plans
and information provided City Water Division.
4. Double water services shall be identified based off data provided by MHWSD
Operator.
5. Existing service lines run in a straight line from existing curb stop to water main.
6. A topographic survey is not part of this project.
Task Order 10481 b — MHWSD — PHASE 2 —WATER METER DESIGN Page 6 Of 7
CIVIL SURVEY CONSULTANTS
The following schedule results in 95% construction documents being submitted to the
City 45 calendar days after receiving a Notice to Proceed (NTP) from the city. rinal
construction documents shall be submitted to the City five working days after receiving
review comments from the City.
CITY OF _KpMMN
BY:
TAMMY d"VERD, MAYOR
Purchasing Apprqk/Val
BY:
KE
=-:IT WAITS
PURCHASING MANAGER
Dated:
Dated:
OV -
City of
Y ,�',,:LSD A j
Task Order 10481b — MHWSD — PHASE 2 — WATER METER DESIGN
CIVIL SURVEY CONSULTANTS
OMM
Dated: q1-3 /I q
/ , I
Page 7 Of 7
D l •NUMBER:
ITEM TITLE: Consent Agenda
Memorandum of Agreement with Iona, Idaho for Incident Tracking System and E -
Citation Software
MEETING NOTES
z
P �
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACI 0 •
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
This MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT: INCIDENT TRACKING SYSTEM
SOFTWARE ("Agreement") is made this day of March, 2014 ("Effective Date"), by and
between the City of Meridian, a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of
Idaho, whose address is 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho ("Meridian"), and City of
Iona, a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of Idaho, whose address is
3548 N. Main Street, Iona, Idaho 83427 ("Licensee") (Meridian and Licensee may hereinafter be
collectively referred to as "Parties").
WHEREAS, Meridian created the Incident Tracking System ("ITS") and E -Citation with
the objective of facilitating communication and information sharing between public law
enforcement agencies using software that can be customized to meet the individual needs and
administrative operation of each agency while also serving the shared need of all law
enforcement agencies to access information gathered by or known to other agencies;
WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City of Meridian to make ITS and E -Citation software
readily available to government entities, for the limited purpose of use by such government
entities, and to prevent exploitation of ITS or commercial gain from ITS by for-profit or other
third -party entities;
WHEREAS, in order to further these objectives, it is Meridian's desire to provide to
Licensee a limited version of ITS and E -Citation software, including compiled binaries and
databases, while also prohibiting dissemination to any person or entity with a differing objective,
such as commercial or private use or profit; and
WHEREAS, Meridian is authorized by Idaho Code section 67-2328 to enter into
agreements with other law enforcement agencies for joint or cooperative action;
NOW, THEREFORE, subject to the limitations of this Agreement and in order to meet
the objectives described above, the Parties hereby agree as follows:
I. LICENSE. Meridian grants to Licensee, and Licensee accepts from Meridian, a non-
exclusive, revocable, royalty -free, non -sub licensable and non -transferable enterprise site
license under Meridian's copyrights for the term of this agreement to install and use the
compiled binaries and databases provided ("Software").
A. Title. Subject only to the license granted by this Agreement, Meridian shall retain all
right, title and interest, including all patent rights, copyrights and trademarks, in and to
the Software and all derivative works. Licensee shall own any data placed in ITS, though
Licensee shall not own the software or any derivative works therefrom. This provision
shall survive termination of this Agreement.
B. Backup copies. Licensee may make copies as necessary for installation in multiple
development, testing, training, and production environments and incident to computer
MOA: INCIDENT TRACKING SYSTEM SOFTWARE PAGE I OF 5
and server backup, including four weeks of daily backup and twelve months of monthly
backup for data recovery purposes and backup for post disaster recovery and operations
restoration purposes. Licensee must reproduce and include the copyright and trademark
notices and any other notices that appear on the original Software on all copies, including
installed, backup, and archival copies, and any media therefor.
C. Restrictions. The following restrictions shall apply to the license granted to Licensee by
this agreement, and shall survive termination of this Agreement. Except with notice to
and written consent of Meridian:
1. Licensee shall not provide, give, lease, lend, use for timesharing, service bureau or
hosting purposes or otherwise use or allow persons or entities not a party to this
Agreement to use the Software;
2. Licensee shall not, and shall not allow any third party to decompile, disassemble, or
otherwise reverse engineer or attempt to reconstruct or discover any source code,
underlying ideas, algorithms, file formats or programming or interoperability
interfaces of the Software by any means whatsoever;
3. Licensee shall not remove any product identification, copyright, trademark or other
notices;
4. Licensee shall not allow any third parry to modify, incorporate into or with other
software create a derivative work of any part of the Software;
5. Licensee shall not use the output or other information generated by the Software
(including, without limitation, output describing the structure of a software program)
for any purpose other than for the exclusive benefit of Licensee and/or other ITS
Licensees.
I1. No WARRANTY. The Software is provided by Meridian "as -is" and with all faults accepted,
with no warranties, express or implied, of any kind. No dealer, agent or employee of
Meridian is authorized to make any modifications, extensions or additions to this section.
Meridian makes no other representation or warranty of any kind whether express or implied
(either in fact or by operation of law) with respect to the software or other materials provided
by Meridian. Meridian does not warrant that the software is error -free or that operation of
the software will be secure or uninterrupted. Licensee may have other statutory rights;
however, to the full extent permitted by law, the duration of statutorily required warranties, if
any, shall be limited to the shortest permissible duration. Moreover, in no event will
warranties provided by law, if any, apply unless they are required to apply by statute. This
provision shall survive termination of this Agreement.
III. TERM. This Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date, and shall continue until
deployment of E -Citation statewide, or until terminated as provided herein.
MOA: INCIDENT TRACKING SYSTEM SOFTWARE PAGE 2 OF 5
IV. TERMINATION. Meridian may terminate this Agreement for convenience or for cause.
Termination shall be effective thirty (30) days following mailing of written notice. Upon
termination, Licensee shall immediately cease all use of the Software and return all copies of
the Software and all portions thereof and so certify to Meridian. Termination is not an
exclusive remedy; all other remedies will be available whether or not this Agreement is
terminated.
V. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. Notwithstanding anything in this agreement to the contrary,
Meridian shall not be liable or obligated, and Licensee shall hold Meridian harmless, with
respect to any subject matter of this agreement or under contract, negligence, strict liability or
any other legal or equitable theory for the following:
A. Any special, punitive, incidental or consequential damages (including, without limitation,
for any lost profits, cost of procurement of substitute goods, technology, services or
rights);
B. Interruption of use or loss or corruption of data; or
C. Any matter beyond its reasonable control.
This provision shall survive termination of this Agreement.
VI. GENERAL PROVISIONS.
A. Cumulative remedies. The remedies under this Agreement shall be cumulative and not
alternative. The election of one remedy for a breach shall not preclude pursuit of other
remedies unless as expressly provided in this Agreement.
B. Governing law. This Agreement shall be governed in all respects by the substantive
laws of the State of Idaho, United States of America (excluding conflict of laws rules) as
applied to agreements entered into and to be performed entirely within the State of Idaho
between Idaho residents. Any dispute regarding this Agreement shall be subject to the
exclusive jurisdiction of and venue within the state or federal courts located in the state of
Idaho, and the parties agree to submit to the personal and exclusive jurisdiction and
venue of these courts.
C. Notices. All notices, statements, and reports required or permitted by this Agreement
shall be in writing and deemed to have been effectively given and received three (3)
business days after the date of mailing by registered or certified U.S. mail, postage
prepaid, with return receipt requested. Notices shall be addressed as follows:
Licensee: City of Iona Meridian: City of Meridian
Attn: City Clerk Attn: City Attorney
3548 N. Main Street 33 E. Broadway Avenue
Iona ID 83427 Meridian ID 83642
MOA: INCIDENT TRACKING SYSTEM SOFTWARE PAGE 3 OF 5
D. Assignment. Licensee shall not assign or otherwise transfer any of its rights, obligations
or licenses hereunder without the prior written consent of Meridian. The provisions of
this Agreement shall apply to and bind the successors and permitted assigns of the
parties.
E. Independent contractor. The relationship created by this Agreement is one of
independent contractors, and not partners or joint venturers. Unless otherwise agreed in
writing, no employees, consultants, contractors or agents of one party are employees,
consultants, contractors or agents of the other party, nor do they have any authority to
bind the other party by contract or otherwise to any obligation, except as expressly set
forth herein. Neither party will represent to the contrary, either expressly, implicitly or
otherwise.
F. Third party beneficiaries. Licensee acknowledges and agrees that there are no third
party beneficiaries of this Agreement.
G. Severability. If any covenant set forth in this Agreement is determined by any court to
be unenforceable by reason of its extending for too great a period of time or by reason of
its being too extensive in any other respect, such covenant shall be interpreted to extend
only for the longest period of time and to otherwise have the broadest application as shall
be enforceable. The invalidity or unenforceability of any particular provision of this
Agreement shall not affect the other provisions hereof, which shall continue in full force
and effect.
H. No waiver. The failure of either party to insist, in any one or more instances, upon the
performance of any of the terms, covenants, or conditions of this Agreement or to
exercise any right hereunder, shall not be construed as a waiver or relinquishment of the
future performance of any rights, and the obligations of the party with respect to such
future performance shall continue in full force and effect.
I. Entire agreement. This Agreement constitutes the complete, final and exclusive
statement of the terms of the agreement between Meridian and Licensee and supersedes
all prior agreements, understandings, negotiations and discussions of the parties, whether
written or verbal. No modification or rescission of this Agreement shall be binding
unless executed in writing by both Meridian and Licensee.
J. Exhibits. All exhibits to this Agreement are incorporated by reference and made a part
of hereof as if the exhibits were set forth in their entirety herein.
K. Presumptions/review. In construing the terms of this Agreement, no presumption shall
operate in either party's favor as a result of that party's counsel's role in drafting the
terms or provisions hereof. Further, it is agreed that Licensee has had a full and fair
opportunity to review the terms herein and to consult with legal counsel before signing.
Accordingly, because Licensee has had ample review opportunities and because Licensee
is and was free to elect not to accept these terms, Licensee acknowledges that this is not a
contract of adhesion.
MOA: INCIDENT TRACKING SYSTEM SOFTWARE PAGE 4 OF 5
L. Attorney fees. The prevailing party in any legal action brought by one party against the
other and arising out of this Agreement will be entitled, in addition to any other rights
and remedies it may have, to reimbursement for its expenses, including court costs and
attorney fees.
M. Authority. Each party represents that all corporate action necessary for the
authorization, acceptance and delivery of this Agreement by such party and the
performance of its obligations hereunder has been taken.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the 1
day of#, 2014.
U.AX
Lo
,4TV Figg,
Atte
Tammy de Wderd. Mavor
Attest:
MOA: INCIDENT TRACKING SYSTEM SOFTWARE PAGE 5 OF 5
11
IIIJI 1 Ir
April i , NUMBER:ITEM
ITEM TITLE: Consent Agenda
Professional Services Agreement for "Kleiner Park Live" Concert Series Produciton
Services between Sonan Productions and the City of Meridian
MEETING NOTES
=Rf"o
C�7�7:•7�C _ _.: �iI•Pl
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
FOR CONCERT SERIES PRODUCTION SERVICES
This PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR CONCERT SERIES PRODUCTION
SERVICES ("Agreement") is made this _ day of , 2014 ("Effective Date"), by and
between the City of Meridian, a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of Idaho
("City") and Danielle Snelson, on behalf of Sona Productions, LLC, a limited liability company
organized under the laws of the State of Idaho, whose address is 33 E. Idaho Street, Suite 102,
Meridian, Idaho ("Promoter").
WHEREAS, City and Promoter are mutually interested in enhancing the Meridian
community's quality of life by providing and supporting opportunities for members of the Meridian
and greater communities to enjoy music in a public venue; and
WHEREAS, City desires that the bandshell (`Bandshell") at Julius M. Kleiner Memorial Park,
located at 1900 N. Records Avenue, in Meridian, Idaho ("Park") serve as such a place, and to that end,
the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department wishes to present a series of concerts entitled "Kleiner
Park Live," to be held in the Bandshell during the summer;
NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of
which is hereby acknowledged and agreed, and in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants
herein contained, the Parties agree as follows:
I. SCOPE OF SERVICES.
A. Concert planning and presentation. Promoter shall plan and present at least ten (10)
concerts, to be held at the Bandshell (collectively, "Event"), in accordance with the concert
specifications set forth herein.
B. Concert specifications. Each concert comprising Event shall comply in all respects with each
and all of the following specifications.
1. Each concert shall be presented on Thursday evenings between June 5, 2014 and September
25, 2014.
2. Each concert shall end by 9:00 p.m.
3. Event or any concert shall be canceled in case of inclement weather, park closure, or by
order of the Director of the Parks and Recreation Department.
4. All set-up, rehearsal, and/or sound checks at Bandshell shall occur between 12:00 p.m. and
6:00 p.m. on concert dates.
5. Amplified sound shall not exceed sixty-two (62) decibels at the perimeter of the park.
Under no circumstances may amplified sound be used after 9:00 p.m.
6. Each concert and all components thereof shall comply in all respects with all conditions of
the applicable City of Meridian Temporary Use Permit and other applicable permits and
permitting requirements, Meridian City Code, state and federal law, and the Declaration of
Restrictions for the use of Kleiner Park dated July 31, 2008, Ada County Instrument
Number 108087271.
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT — CONCERT SERIES PRODUCTION SERVICES PAGE I of 7
II. PROMOTER RESPONSIBILITIES
A. Event planning and production. Promoter shall plan for and provide, at Promoter's sole
expense, all logistics of Event and each concert thereof, including, but not limited to,
performers, instruments, sound system, food and beverage vendors, alcohol permitting, event
security, crowd management, first aid stations, portable restrooms, temporary fencing, signs,
and extra garbage receptacles. Promoter shall be on site at each concert to supervise set-up and
tear -down, and to ensure that use of Park and Park facilities, amenities, infrastructure, and/or
vegetation is appropriate and reasonable.
B. Performers. At least thirty (30) days prior to the first concert, and in any case before
approaching any performer regarding performance in Event, Promoter shall obtain City's
written consent to such performance. Promoter shall engage only performers reasonably likely
to attract no more than two thousand (2,000) people. City shall be entitled to disallow
Promoter's engagement of any performer that, in City's sole discretion, is inappropriate for the
Bandshell venue, Park, or Event. Promoter shall be responsible for ensuring that any and all
performers performing in Event comply with the following requirements and restrictions:
1. Performers shall perform such material and in such a manner as shall be appropriate for all
ages, values, and sensibilities. Performers' performance and attire shall not include
language, attire, and/or behavior that is profane, sexual, violent, or discriminatory in nature.
2. Promoter and/or Performers shall be authorized to sell albums and/or merchandising
material at each concert and may retain the proceeds of such sales.
3. Performers shall not use or consume any alcoholic beverage, tobacco product, or electronic
cigarette until the conclusion of the performance, and in no case shall Performers use,
consume, or visibly possess or display such products on stage or in the Bandshell. The use
or consumption of any such products shall comply in all respects with Meridian City Code
and state law. Specifically, without limitation, Performers shall comply with Meridian City
Code section 13-2-6(W), which states: "No person shall light, use, or consume any tobacco
product or electronic cigarette in any city park, provided that this prohibition shall not apply
to parking lots in city parks. The definition of the terms `tobacco product' and `electronic
cigarette' shall be as set forth in Idaho Code section 39-5702."
Promoter shall be responsible for all contractual arrangements and obligations, financial or
otherwise, with Event performers.
C. Promotion. Event shall be billed by both parties as "City of Meridian presents Kleiner Park
Live produced by Sona Productions." Promoter may, at Promoter's election and sole expense
and effort, purchase commercial advertising to promote Event, and/or may promote Event via
broadcast, online, social, or print media. City hereby conveys to Promoter permission to use
City's name in all forms and media and in all manners, except that City's logo may not be used
in any manner whatsoever without the express, written consent of the Mayor's Chief of Staff.
To the extent practicable, City shall be given the opportunity to review and approve all
promotional materials in advance of their publication, broadcast or dissemination.
D. Food vendors. Promoter may engage up to three (3) food vendors to sell concessions in Park
during each concert. Vendors may arrive at Park no earlier than 5:00 p.m. on the day of the
concert for which they are engaged. Vendors shall not offer for sale or give away snow cones,
shaved ice, Italian ice, or similar product. At least thirty (30) days prior to the first concert,
Promoter must submit an event notification to the Central District Health Department.
Promoter may retain any proceeds collected from food vendors.
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT — CONCERT SERIES PRODUCTION SERVICES PAGE 2 of 7
E. Alcohol sales and service. Alcoholic beverages may be sold or served at Event, at Promoter's
election. If alcoholic beverages are sold or served, Promoter shall be responsible for obtaining
an Alcohol Catering Permit from the Meridian City Clerk's Office, and shall ensure that
persons serving alcoholic beverages hold current Alcohol Server Training certification, as
required by Meridian City Code. Any and all alcoholic beverages purchased at Event must be
purchased and consumed within the designated area as approved by the Meridian Police
Department pursuant to City of Meridian Alcohol Catering Permit, Meridian Parks Alcohol
Permit, and/or City of Meridian Temporary Use Permit. Promoter may retain any proceeds
collected from alcohol sales.
F. Attendees' own alcohol. Promoter may allow Event attendees to bring their own alcoholic
beverages to Event for personal consumption, at Promoter's election. Promoter shall notify
City if Event attendees will be allowed to bring and consume their own alcoholic beverages at
Event, in which case City shall be responsible for obtaining a Parks Alcohol Permit from the
Meridian Parks & Recreation Department.
G. Event sponsorship. Promoter may sell sponsorships of Event, and may retain all proceeds
collected from such sponsorships. Promoter may not engage any sponsor which promotes or
endorses any of the following content:
1. Content that is deemed in violation of this policy or any other applicable City policy;
2. Profane, obscene, indecent, violent, or pornographic content and/or language;
3. Content that promotes, fosters or perpetuates discrimination on the basis of race, creed,
color, age, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or national origin;
4. Defamatory or personal attacks;
5. Threats to any person or organization;
6. Content that promotes, fosters or perpetuates conduct in violation of any federal, state or
local law;
7. Content that encourages or incites illegal activity;
8. Information that may compromise the safety or security of the public or public systems;
9. Content that violates a known legal ownership interest, such as a copyright, of any party; or
10. Any content that contains or perpetuates a message that the Director of the Parks &
Recreation Department deems to be inappropriate and not in the best interest of the City of
Meridian.
If the City becomes aware that any engaged or potential sponsor of Event promotes or endorses
such content, the City may terminate this Agreement, restrict or remove any content that is
deemed in violation of this policy or any applicable law, and/or cancel the sponsored concert or
Event.
H. No admission fees. Event shall be provided to the public at no cost; Promoter may not collect
admission fees for Event or any component thereof. Promoter acknowledges that Park and
Bandshell are public places, and that all members of the public shall be invited to attend. The
public must have general access to all areas of Park at all times, so long as such access does not
unduly interfere with the use of Park for Event.
I. Bandshell. Promoter acknowledges that Bandshell is an outdoor, open, public venue.
Promoter shall be solely responsible for any and all measures necessary to protect equipment,
instruments, and performers from damage due to weather or other conditions that do or may
exist.
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT — CONCERT SERIES PRODUCTION SERVICES PAGE 3 of 7
J. Vehicles. Driving or parking vehicles on non -designated driving or parking surfaces shall be
prohibited, with the limited exception of vehicles driven short distances on non -designated
driving surfaces for the purpose of transporting, loading, or unloading equipment and supplies
during set-up or tear -down. Vehicles may be driven on turf only at the direction of Meridian
Parks & Recreation Department staff.
III. CITY RESPONSIBILITIES.
A. Primary Source of Contact for City. City shall provide Promoter the name, e-mail address,
and telephone number of specific City personnel (hereinafter "City Contact") who shall serve
as City's primary contact between City and Promoter for all day-to-day matters regarding set-
up, operation, and tear -down of Event in Park.
B. Promotion. City shall promote Event in community promotional materials and avenues,
including the City newsletter, City website, Meridian Parks & Recreation Department Activity
Guide, and local media and event calendars. City shall list Promoter as "Sona Productions" in
all promotional materials that are created by City or within the City's control.
C. Bandshell. City shall reserve and make the Bandshell and Park available for the Event.
D. Temporary Use Permit. City shall obtain a temporary use permit for the Kleiner Park Live
concert series.
E. Parks Alcohol Permit. Promoter may allow Event attendees to bring their own alcoholic
beverages to Event for personal consumption, at Promoter's election. Promoter shall notify
City if Event attendees will be allowed to bring and consume their own alcoholic beverages at
Event, in which case City shall be responsible for obtaining a Parks Alcohol Permit from the
Meridian Parks & Recreation Department.
F. No financial obligation. The parties agree that City shall have no obligation to contribute
personnel or funding to the planning or production of Event, and no obligations other than
those specifically set forth in this Agreement.
G. Cancellation. The Director of the Meridian Parks & Recreation Department or his designee
may, in his sole discretion, elect to cancel one or more concerts, with no notice to Promoter,
where cancellation is in the best interest of City or the public health, safety, or welfare, due to
weather, act of God, unforeseen park closure, or other reason. A decision regarding whether to
cancel the concert due to weather shall be made no earlier than noon (12:00 p.m.) on the date
of the relevant concert.
IV. TERMS AND CONDITIONS
A. Term. This Agreement shall become effective as of the Effective Date upon execution by both
parties, and shall expire on September 30, 2014 unless earlier terminated or extended in the
manner as set forth in this Agreement.
B. Time of the essence. Promoter acknowledges that services provided under this Agreement
shall be performed in a timely manner. The Parties acknowledge and agree that time is strictly
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT—CONCERT SERIES PRODUCTION SERVICES PAGE 4 of 7
of the essence with respect to this Agreement, and that the failure to timely perform any of the
obligations hereunder shall constitute a breach of, and a default under, this Agreement by the
party so failing to perform.
C. Notice. Communication between Promoter and the City Contact regarding day-to-day matters
shall occur via e-mail or telephone. All other notices required to be given by either of the
parties hereto shall be in writing and be deemed communicated when personally served, or
mailed in the United States mail, or via e-mail, addressed as follows:
City: Promoter:
City of Meridian Danielle Snelson
Attn: Parks and Recreation Director Sona Productions, LLC
33 E. Idaho Avenue 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Suite 102
Meridian, Idaho 83642 Meridian, Idaho 83642
ssiddoway@meridiancity.org danielle@sona-productions.com
D. City policy applies. Promoter shall comply with all City policies and codes applicable to use
of City property and facilities, including, but not limited to, policies of the Meridian Parks and
Recreation Department.
E. Photography and recording. City shall be authorized to photograph, record, video tape,
reproduce, transmit, or disseminate, in or from the park, the performance solely for educational
and public information purposes. City shall not be responsible for the actions of persons who
are not under its employment or control.
F. Subcontracting or assignment of obligations. Promoter shall not subcontract or assign any of
its obligations or rights under this Agreement related to or that may relate to its professional
event planning expertise. Promoter may subcontract or assign obligations that do not require
such expertise, including, but not limited to, such obligations as transport and set-up of special
equipment and/or instruments. Any subcontractor or assignee shall be bound by all the terms
and conditions of this Agreement.
G. Termination. Grounds for termination of this Agreement shall include, but shall not be limited
to: an act or omission by either party which breaches any term of this Agreement; an act of
nature; other unforeseeable event which precludes or makes impossible the performance of the
terms of this Agreement by either party; or a change in circumstances that renders the
performance by either party a detriment to the public health, safety, or welfare. Either party
may terminate this Agreement by providing fourteen (14) days advance written notice of
intention to terminate. Such written notice shall include a description of the breach or
circumstances providing grounds for termination. A twenty-four (24) hour cure period shall
commence upon mailing of the notice of intention to terminate. If, upon the expiration of such
cure period, cure of the breach or circumstances providing grounds for termination has not
occurred, this Agreement may be terminated upon provision of written notice of termination.
H. Non -waiver of breach. A waiver of any breach or default of any provision of this Agreement
shall not be construed as a waiver of a breach of the same or any other provision hereof.
I. Indemnification. Promoter shall, and hereby does, indemnify, save, and hold harmless the
City and any and all of its employees, agents, volunteers, and/or elected officials from any and
all losses, claims, and judgments for damages or injury to persons or property, and from any
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT — CONCERT SERIES PRODUCTION SERVICES PAGE 5 of 7
and all losses and expenses caused or incurred by Promoter, its assistants, servants, agents,
employees, guests, and/or business invitees, in connection with this Agreement or activities
related thereto. Promoter acknowledges that provision of the services described hereunder
presents risks, some of which are unknown, and do agree to assume all such known or
unknown risks.
J. Waiver. Except as to rights held under the terms of this Agreement, Promoter shall, and
hereby does, waive any and all claims and recourse against City, including the right of
contribution for loss and damage to persons or property arising from, growing out of, or in any
way connected with or incident the performance of this Agreement, whether such loss or
damage may be attributable to known or unknown conditions, except for liability arising out of
concurrent or sole negligence of City or its officers, agents or employees.
K. Relationship of Parties. Promoter is an independent contractor and is not an employee, agent,
joint venturer, or partner of City. Nothing in this Agreement shall be interpreted or construed
as creating or establishing the relationship of employer and employee between Promoter and
City or any official, agent, or employee of City. Specifically, without limitation, Promoter
understands, acknowledges, and agrees:
1. Except as otherwise set forth herein, Promoter is free from actual and potential control by
City in the provision of services under this Agreement.
2. Promoter is engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession, or
business.
3. Promoter has the authority to hire subordinates.
4. Promoter owns and/or will provide all major items of equipment necessary to perform
services under this Agreement.
5. Neither Promoter nor City shall be liable to the other for a peremptory termination of the
business relationship described under this Agreement.
L. Compliance with law. Throughout the course of this Agreement, Promoter shall comply with
any and all applicable federal, state, and local laws.
M. Non -Discrimination. Throughout the course of this Agreement, Promoter shall not
discriminate against any person as to race, creed, religion, sex, age, national origin, sexual
orientation or any physical, mental, or sensory handicap.
N. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding between the Parties.
This Agreement supersedes any and all statements, promises, or inducements made by either
party, or agents of either party, whether oral or written, whether previous to the execution
hereof or contemporaneous herewith. The terms of this Agreement may not be enlarged,
modified or altered except upon written agreement signed by both parties hereto.
O. Costs and attorneys' fees. If either party brings any action or proceedings to enforce, protect
or establish any right or remedy under the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the
prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable costs and attorneys' fees, as determined
by a court of competent jurisdiction, in addition to any other relief awarded.
P. Agreement governed by Idaho law. The laws of the State of Idaho shall govern the validity,
interpretation, performance and enforcement of this Agreement. Venue shall be in the courts of
Ada County, Idaho.
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT — CONCERT SERIES PRODUCTION SERVICES PAGE 6 of 7
Q. Cumulative rights and remedies. All rights and remedies herein enumerated shall be
cumulative and none shall exclude any other right or remedy allowed by law. Likewise, the
exercise of any remedy provided for herein or allowed by law shall not be to the exclusion of
any other remedy.
R. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is found by a court of competent jurisdiction
to be illegal, invalid, or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement shall not be affected.
S. Successors and assigns. All of the terms, provisions, covenants and conditions of this
Agreement shall inure to the benefit of, and shall be binding upon, each party and their
successors, assigns, legal representatives, heirs, executors, and administrators.
T. City Council approval required. The validity of this Agreement shall be expressly
conditioned upon City Council action approving the Agreement. Execution of this Agreement
by the persons referenced below prior to such ratification or approval shall not be construed as
proof of validity in the absence of Meridian City Council approval.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the _ day
of 2014.
PROMOTER, -
Danielle Snels
ROMOTE ,-
DanielleSnels n, President
Sona Productions, LLC
CITY OF MERIDIAN:
HN
Tammy deW rd, Mayo ",.S'-'-
p''L paycee
SEA
TR1,
e - A
City Clerk
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT— CONCERT SERIES PRODUCTION SERVICES PAGE 7 of 7
--FATE: April 8, 2014 ITEM NUMBER: 51
ITEM TITLE: Consent Agenda
License Agreement between the NMID and the City of Meridian for a Pathway on the
Ten Mile Stub Drain with the Canterbury Commons Subdivision
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
1111C I
11111111 11111111111111111 111
• / •
April •
,2014 ITEM NUMBER: 51
■ . • . E,d " •
ITEM TITLE: Consent Agenda: Olson & Bush Sub No. 3
Final order for approval: Final Plat consisting of 6 building lots on 6.81 acres of land in
the C -G and I -L zoning districts by Ronald Van Auker - 2950 E. Franklin Road
MEETING NOTES
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
IN THE MATTER OF THE )
REQUEST FOR FINAL PLAT )
CONSISTING OF 6 BUILDING )
LOTS ON 6.81 ACRES OF LAND IN )
THE C -G AND I -L ZONING )
DISTRICTS ]FINAL
BY: RONALD W. VAN AUKER )
APPLICANT )
HEARING DATE: MARCH 25, 2014
CASE NO. FP -14-009
ORDER OF CONDITIONAL
APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT
This matter coming before the City Council on March 25, 2014 for final plat approval
pursuant to Unified Development Code (UDC) 11-6B-3 and the Council finding that the
Administrative Review is complete by the Planning and Development Services divisions of the
Community Development Department, to the Mayor and Council, and the Council having
considered the requirements of the preliminary plat, the Council takes the following action:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
The Final Plat of "PLAT SHOWING OLSON AND BUSH SUBDIVISION NO.
3, LOCATED IN THE SE 1/a OF SEC. 8, T.3N., R.IE., B.M., CITY OF
MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, 2014, HANDWRITTEN DATE: 1/10/14,
TODD R. WAITE, PLS, SHEET 1 OF 3," is approved subject to those conditions
of Staff as set forth in the staff report to the Mayor and City Council from the
ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT
FOR OLSON & BUSH SUBDIVISION NO.3 (FP -14-009)
Page 1 of 3
Planning and the Development Services divisions of the Community
Development Department dated March 25, 2014, a true and correct copy of which
is attached hereto marked "Exhibit A" and by this reference incorporated herein,
and the response letter from Brad Miller, a true and correct copy of which is
attached hereto marked "Exhibit B" and by this reference incorporated herein.
2. The final plat upon which there is contained the certification and signature of the
City Clerk and the City Engineer verifying that the plat meets the City's
requirements shall be signed only at such time as:
2.1 The plat dimensions are approved by the City Engineer; and
2.2 The City Engineer has verified that all off-site improvements are
completed and/or the appropriate letter of credit or cash surety has been
issued guaranteeing the completion of off-site and required on-site
improvements.
NOTICE OF FINAL ACTION
AND RIGHT TO REGULATORY TAKINGS ANALYSIS
The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-8003, the Owner may
request a regulatory taking analysis. Such request must be in writing, and must be filed with the
City Clerk not more than twenty-eight (28) days after the final decision concerning the matter at
issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition
for Judicial Review may be filed.
Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of
Meridian, pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521. An affected person being a person who has an
ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT
FOR OLSON & BUSH SUBDIVISION NO.3 (FP -14-009)
Page 2 of 3
interest in real property which may be adversely affected by this decision may, within twenty-
eight (28) days after the date of this decision and order, seek a judicial review pursuant to Idaho
Code§ 67-52.
By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the day of
2014.
By: r
Tammy d � eerd
Mayor, °ity of Meridian
Attest:
Citv of
1 -y
aycee lman
City Clerk
Copy served upon the Applicant, Planning and Development Services divisions of the
Community Development Department, and City Attorney.
By: Dated: --A inn
ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT
FOR OLSON & BUSH SUBDIVISION NO.3 (FP -14-009)
Page 3 of 3
EXHIBIT A
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: March 25, 2014E IMAM -
awl
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Sonya Watters, Associate City Planner
208-884-5533
Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager
208-887-2211
SUBJECT: FP -14-009 — Olson & Bush Subdivision No. 3
L APPLICATION SUMMARY
The applicant, Ronald W. Van Auker, has applied for final plat (FP) approval of 6 building lots on
6.81 acres of land in the C -G and I -L zoning districts.
II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION/DECISION
Staff recommends approval of the Olson & Bush Subdivision No. 3 final plat subject to the
conditions noted in Sections VI and VII below. These conditions shall be considered in full, unless
expressly modified or deleted by motion of the City Council.
III. PROPOSED MOTION
Approval
I move to approve File Number FP -14-009 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of
March 25, 2014, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications.)
Denial
I move to deny File Number FP -14-009, as presented during the hearing on March 25, 2014, for the
following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial.)
Continuance
I move to continue File Number FP -14-009 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here)
for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.)
IV. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS
A. Site Address/Location:
The subject property is located at 2950 E. Franklin Road, in the SE 1/a of Section 8, T. 3N., R. 1E.
(Parcel #S1108449095)
B. Applicant:
Ronald W. Van Auker
3084 Lanark Street
Meridian, ID 83642
C. Owners:
Same as applicant
Olson & Bush Sub 3 FP -14-009 PAGE 1
EXHIBIT A
D. Representative:
Matt Munger, Munger Engineering, Inc.
4090 W. State Street, Ste. 29
Boise, Idaho 83703
V. STAFF ANALYSIS
The proposed final plat depicts 6 building lots on 6.81 acres of land with a 35 -foot wide landscape
street buffer easement along W. Franklin Road, an arterial street and entryway corridor; and a 10 -foot
wide street buffer along N. Olson Avenue, a local street. The property is zoned C -G and I -L. The
applicant intends to develop the property with light industrial/commercial uses.
Staff has reviewed the proposed final plat for substantial compliance with the approved preliminary
plat (PP -13-018). Because the number of buildable lots is the same, staff deems the final plat to be in
substantial compliance with the approved preliminary plat as required by UDC11-6B-3C.2.
Note: A pressurized irrigation system is not required to be provided with this development; City
Council approved a iiwiver to UDC 11-3A-1 Swith the preliminary plat.
VI. SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS
1. Applicant shall meet all terms of the approved annexation and zoning (AZ -12-003) and
preliminary plat (PP -13-018).
2. The applicant shall obtain the City Engineer's signature on the final plat within two years of City
Council approval of the preliminary plat (by November 26, 2015), in accord with UDC 11-6B-7.
3. Prior to submittal for the City Engineer's signature, have the Certificate of Owners and the
accompanying acknowledgement signed and notarized.
4. The final plat prepared by Waite Land Surveying, LLC, stamped on January 10, 2014 by Todd R.
Waite, shall be revised as follows:
a. Include the recorded instrument numbers for the access easements proposed on Lots 2-5,
Block 3, Olson & Bush Subdivision No. 2.
The landscape plan prepared by South Landscape Architecture, dated 1/31/14, shall be revised as
follows:
a. The street buffer along Olson Avenue is required to be vegetated with shrubs, lawn, or other
vegetative groundcover resulting in a coverage at maturity of 70% in addition to the required
trees, per UDC 11-313-5N and 11-313-7C.
6. All fencing installed on the site shall comply with UDC 11-3A-6 and 11-3A-7. If permanent
fencing does not exist at the subdivision boundary, temporary construction fencing to contain
debris shall be installed around this phase prior to release of building permits for this subdivision.
7. Staff's failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or conditions from the preliminary plat does
not relieve the Applicant of responsibility for compliance.
8. Prior to the issuance of any new building permit, the property shall be subdivided in accordance
with the UDC.
9. The Snyder Lateral shall be piped in accord with UDC 11-3A-6 across Lot 2, Block 1 upon
redevelopment of Lot 2; the remainder of the waterway may be left open where it crosses the site
as approved by City Council in accord with UDC 11 -3A -6A.3.
Olson & Bush Sub 3 FP -14-009 PAGE 2
EXHIBIT A
VII. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
1. Sanitary sewer service to this development is available via existing mains.
2. Water service to this site is available via existing mains.
3. Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and activated,
fencing installed, drainage lots constructed, road base approved by the Ada County Highway
District (ACHD) and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded, prior to applying for
building permits.
4. Upon installation of the landscaping and prior to inspection by Planning Department staff, the
applicant shall provide a written certificate of completion as set forth in UDC 11-313-14A.
5. A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all incomplete
fencing, landscaping, amenities, and prior to signature on the final plat.
6. All required development improvements shall be installed and approved prior to obtaining
certificates of occupancy, or as otherwise allowed by UDC 11-5C-1.
7. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with
the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act.
8. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting
that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers.
9. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office.
10. All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H.
11. Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building
pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material.
12. 100 Watt and 250 Watt, high-pressure sodium street lights shall be required on all public
roadways per the City of Meridian Improvement Standards for Street Lighting. All street lights
shall be installed at developer's expense. Final design shall be submitted as part of the
development plan set for approval. Applicant shall also include the location of any existing street
lights in the development plan set. Street lighting is required at intersections, corners, cul-de-sacs,
and at a spacing that does not exceed that outlined in the Standards. The contractor's work and
materials shall conform to the ISPWC and the City of Meridian Supplemental Specifications to
the ISPWC.
13. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES permitting that
may be required by the Environmental Protection Agency.
14. Any existing domestic well system within this project shall be removed from domestic service per
City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9-4-8 contact the City of Meridian Engineering Department at
(208)898-5500 for inspections of disconnection of services. Wells may be used for non-domestic
purposes such as landscape irrigation if approved by Idaho Department of Water Resources
Contact Robert B. Whitney at (208)334-2190.
15. Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance
Section 9-1-4 and 9-4-8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and
inspections (208)375-5211.
V. EXHIIBITS
A. Vicinity Map
B. Approved Preliminary Plat (dated: 5/23/13)
Olson & Bush Sub 3 FP -14-009 PAGE 3
EXHIBIT A
C. Proposed Final Plat (stamped/dated: 1/23/14)
D. Proposed Landscape Plan (dated: 1/31/14)
Olson & Bush Sub 3 FP -14-009 PAGE 4
Exhibit A — Vicinity Map
Ll
I
EXHIBIT A
E commercial, Street
L -L
. .... .....
Olson & Bush Sub 3 FP -14-009 PAGE 5
EXHIBIT A
Exhibit B — Approved Preliminary Plat (dated: 5/23/13)
PRELIMINARYPLAT
OLSON& BUSH SUBDIVISION #3
WAITE
Olson & Bush Sub 3 FP -14-009 PAGE 6
EXHIBIT A
Exhibit C — Proposed Final Plat (dated: 1/23/14)
C
L
tE0EA71
\
y
baso ,a xR �
FITNR
Ac.
M' H,
UY F
KM Z-4
Ix`EF;tAr>tinJt
VrFaoAtnj]NuF1otItuPkG
C. 1AT.dtsF2l RtNra,d1xI
� -
'ix
5r� Z
n.
M
\
,
ti
LA1IZLk>1EEgCil-�Tp
'QA
19SIF,+L Yl5 +3Trt
1
4•r'
PLAT SHOWING
OLSON AND BUSH SUBDIVISION NO. 3
LOCATED IN THESE 114 OFSEC. B,
T.M., RAF., B.M., CITY OFAIFRIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, iDAHO
2014
i
r� s`tav �(�,Cj HU,SY ; UErr7r��P�iCV �.2
x—orirq 1 UscE�) +
11H, 22"L
lace
s
0 E U
O R
Fi7
at�rr£,
1 /LLL (UV 5 h9aYW TO .{ 1,2. f?[i C 4-VAY HA4L
IiN 11>) ED 1 KYA t YALtLT nA P.sNli RE
t
to
I tt9 k 1 NA'o A ] FNt ¢3CZ UV SJ. -E Elirc—ii
t •`EA��/t lthy EVAY?IIJ at 'J L i t un t at9.< t
MW A iL fJit MKc 44) G F£ fi'Fi Gt ;111N Atl4G
0.5f_V! A L ldK9 Lit C1RE4 EA1]F.J16 A?E tp 1(
II,UIi/,ICU FV N£ tU.\t t/ t4) ilMICP_
] t"'? thy s13. Ya ".N Y C —to
E—ai FGT RE Eu91M5 /h2S F i fi£ L 4 +ttVi
!4k`,t YAY ppTAry V4T4 J1G7 79C AS k*d"1 LNY'41 [JP
GATALt�P.6S -Jhi Ski?, kD wo — Kb,TY K
d. 4W P9.EON9VJ a PUT Ui)t1 KUY.Y ¢911 UIt
6T,C�4 vm 'Snlro 9la[I I?J sinti.W4}5 (f 14
iiiiN .." .1.t" IV L.LL �t�NU_ STRYTA(L511 tH:S
EI'ht NKt LU IV <Y/FAl1tS 4�T1 1C
Hti9Yl 1FWGh]tE Z];t 1 C[iC At Tii 1tlt 4'
!_CuttJt
T lf[x 1FJYm JI TNl9 Y11Ti 114 NnV>F-AQ¢:AkV
R.2.1$1 L1+TFICT NL' iH3[ t]Y> HLL Bi ¢...E t FU
AE t%Sfii415 W EA,9 OStYCr.
t. Wi? J, a. S, A40 p Ul C{6fk 1 Ah{ [e}U1R=FY.
k' S fLE'Y161T3 N tMIR{ tf, dirc�iu tots VI, fl,¢cN J
CF GS!1! Alli 6USh S�Ep'/eJCV )2
t�LSJrV AH! L7L/_N
UWA vsc=
-------- SibW11-L
as N7 �1 49.91'
tE0EA71
\
a
baso ,a xR �
�•
9
F11'JO M • INN Cil W,
'
UY F
O
VrFaoAtnj]NuF1otItuPkG
C. 1AT.dtsF2l RtNra,d1xI
ro]FnFir
a' _
O
E7&rtT
\lar,ifa
\
fh
ti
LA1IZLk>1EEgCil-�Tp
'QA
19SIF,+L Yl5 +3Trt
1
�n
A
cAtaurw will
5A YSA lATL' A �( """""�• -'—��� mze Ef9—r—t um
pFPtt to,
T'n
rt1a1 ur
0£Qhfll:Ci -A
1 4 g �T X99 c3 BVa�� 8�
PI FLS 7ul}�IL5
77
j/1IFT'.Lt£'
F9ear 3 .. pVOT1
tl N 'T13+ M+f1
t i
S 6ae9cG E a.+A`
SHFLT , c. a
G(YE1_5?CR:
Y.AVAW(M Ltl
MUM.W. 000
RITE
land �wveytng. Slc
fl3 [ PJ•,Itln ❑r, Mtr_ Xa 1+�{
'9 ietf�SF": kz. il]t+.i�i Ma$Vu'
Olson & Bush Sub 3 FP -14-009 PAGE 7
WT-
----- '--- –
waJo unl� EA—n uvF 41ah 1)
s 01SF35
to, LTE
O
LCT YA
M1.
t10
Iil
1p7
�}___.._.—_
:---I
SHFLT , c. a
G(YE1_5?CR:
Y.AVAW(M Ltl
MUM.W. 000
RITE
land �wveytng. Slc
fl3 [ PJ•,Itln ❑r, Mtr_ Xa 1+�{
'9 ietf�SF": kz. il]t+.i�i Ma$Vu'
Olson & Bush Sub 3 FP -14-009 PAGE 7
EXHIBIT A
Exhibit D —Proposed Landscape Plan (dated: 1/31/14)
PLANTSCHEDULE
• m ar..wi+w ruaxsan tsstwa
p � iwy N+w FA x� M,a u
�y •w,aom.son..aw n46P16D
f a6 xuu 9cP lFa �4W�TG s�a� 4rr��0.N'Y.
lW �� aa��F34l.lMcu N �P+{41Fcl.fo t1iRW LLYfWi rt0 r:sle,
# �• Y �r�tSCN�� AMM l Wt N{K*Ni
U �ECaU�IR D� R.�)ite�0 DE7 �
ta-n•
ry=���an wl�crx ra �q yt�p
WiD a9 prM Wia1 MHM
z ora f/LQK J LNSLi% A.VJ dUSf/ .
x unttt
I CJ
- _r
LANDSCAPE PLAN
t-4-tz r.9N.2•
PLANTINi! NOiEe ,•
Olson & Bush Sub 3 FP -14-009 PAGE 8
Sonya Watters
From: Brad Miller <bmiller@vanauker.com>
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 9:15 AM
To: Sonya Watters
Subject: RE: Olson & Bush Sub. 3 FP Staff Report for 3/25 CC Mtg
Sonya...
The staff report for Olson & Bush No. 3 is accepted
Brad
From: Sonya Watters [mailto:swatters@meridiancity.org]
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2014 4:05 PM
To: Holly Binkley; Jacy Jones; Jaycee Holman; Machelle Hill
Cc: Matt Munger (mattm@munger-eng.com); Brad Miller
Subject: Olson & Bush Sub. 3 FP Staff Report for 3/25 CC Mtg
Attached is the staff report for the proposed final plat for Otson It Bush Subdivision No. 3 (FP -14-009). This
item is scheduled to be on the Council agenda on March 25th. The public hearing will be held at City Hall, 33
E. Broadway Avenue, beginning at 6:00 pm. Please call or e-mail with any questions.
Brad - Please submit any written response you may have to the staff report to the City Clerk's office
(jholman@meridiancity.org, mhiit@meridiancity.org, hbinkley@meridiancity.orR and
]'iones@meridiancity.org) and myself (e-mail or fax) as soon as possible.
Thanks,
Sonya
Ty .
DATE: April i
, 2014 ITEM NUMBER: 5J
ITEM TITLE: Consent Agenda: Seyam Subdivision
Final order for approval: Two year time extension on the preliminary plat by Volante
Investments - north side of E. Franklin Road and east of N. Eagle Road
MEETING NOTES
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
IN THE MATTER OF THE
REQUEST FOR A TWO (2) YEAR
TIME EXTENSION ON THE
PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SEYAM
SUBDIVISION IN ORDER TO
OBTAIN THE CITY ENGINEER'S
SIGNATURE ON THE FINAL
PLAT, LOCATED IN THE SW 1/40F
SECTION 9, T.3N., RJE,
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
BY: VOLANTE INVESTEMENTS,
LLLP
APPLICANT
C/C MARCH 25, 2014
CASE NO. TEC -14-003
ORDER OF CONDITIONAL
APPROVAL OF TIME EXTENSION
This matter coming on regularly before the City Council on March 25, 2014, upon the
Applicant's submittal of a preliminary plat time extension application for a two (2) year time
extension within which to obtain the City Engineer's signature on a final plat for Seyam
Subdivision, which preliminary plat was originally approved on February 6, 2007, as provided in
Unified Development Code § 11 -6B -7C, and good cause shown. An administrative time
extension (TE -09-005) for eighteen (18) months was previously approved for this subdivision by
the Planning Director on February 4, 2009 and would have otherwise expired on August 6, 2010.
A second eighteen (18) month time extension was approved by City Council on September 28,
2010 and expired on February 6, 2012. A third time extension for two (2) years was approved by
City Council on February 28, 2012 and expired on February 6, 2014.
ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF TIME EXTENSION
FOR SEYAM SUBDIVISION TEC -14-003
Page 1 of 2
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
The above named Applicant is granted an additional two (2) year extended period of
time, until February 6, 2016, within which to obtain the City Engineer's signature on the
final plat, subject to the conditions of approval as shown in the attached Staff Report for
the hearing date of March 25, 2014 incorporated by reference.
Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of March 25, 2014
By the action of the City Council at its regular meeting on the day of
2014.
DATED this day of , 2014
Mayor Ta?? my de Weerd
Attest:
E pry of
EP,,1�-0A11{..
'a auks o�
aycee Olman, City Clerk
Copy served upon the Applicant, Planning Department, Public Works Department, and City
Attorney.
BY —� Dated:
ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF TIME EXTENSION
FOR SEYAM SUBDIVISION TEC -14-003
Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT A
HEARING DATE: March 25, 2014
(Continued from: March 18, 2014)
TO: Mayor & City Council
FROM: Sonya Watters, Associate City Planner
SUBJECT: Seyam Subdivision — TEC -14-003
I. APPLICATION SUMMARY
CVIEN tj,,�,Zolo
The applicant, Ronald W. Van Auker, requests approval of a two (2) year time extension to obtain the
City Engineer's signature on the final plat for Seyam Subdivision. This will be the fourth time
extension requested by the applicant.
The subject preliminary plat consists of 8 building lots on 39.28 acres of land.
II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of a two (2) year time extension to obtain the City Engineer's signature
on the final plat for the Seyam Subdivision as requested by the applicant, to expire February 6, 2016.
III. PROPOSED MOTION
Approval
After considering all Staff, Applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve File Number TEC -14-
003, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 25, 2014.
Denial
After considering all Staff, Applicant, and public testimony, I move to deny File Number TEC -14-
003, as presented during the hearing on March 25, 2014 for the following reasons: (You must state
specific reasons for denial and what the applicant could to do to obtain your approval in the fixture.)
Continuance
After considering all Staff, Applicant, and public testimony, I move to continue File Number TEC -
14 -003 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (you
should state specific reason(s) for continuance)
IV. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS
A. Site Address/Location:
The subject property is located on the north side of E. Franklin Road, approximately 1,200 feet
east of N. Eagle Road, in the southwest '/4 of Section 9, Township 3 North, Range 1 East.
B. Owner:
Volante Investments, LLLP
3084 E. Lanark Street
Meridian, ID 83642
C. Applicant:
Same as owner
D. Applicant's Statement/Justification: Please see applicant's narrative for this information.
TE -10-019 Seyam Subdivision PP TE.doc Page 1
EXHIBIT A
V. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
Per UDC 11 -6B -7A, approval of a preliminary plat shall become null and void if the applicant fails to
obtain the City Engineer's signature on the final plat within two years of the approval of the
preliminary plat.
Per UDC 11 -6B -7C, upon written request and filing by the applicant prior to the termination of the
allowed time period, the Director may authorize a single extension of time to obtain the City
Engineer's signature on the final plat not to exceed two (2) years. Additional time extensions up to
two (2) years as determined and approved by City Council may be granted. With all extensions, the
Director or City Council may require the plat to comply with current provisions of the UDC.
VI. PROCESS FACTS
A. The subject application is for a time extension. A public hearing is required before the City
Council on this matter, consistent with Meridian City Code Title 11, Chapter 5.
B. Newspaper notifications published on: February 24, and March 10, 2014
C. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: February 20, 2014
D. Applicant posted notice on site by: March 10, 2014
VII. HISTORY OF PREVIOUS ACTIONS:
9 The preliminary plat (PP -06-055) for Seyam Subdivision was approved by the Meridian City
Council on February 6, 2007. Per the conditions of approval, the preliminary plat would have
expired on February 6, 2009 if a time extension had not been granted.
® An 18 -month time extension (TE -09-005) to obtain the City Engineer's signature on the final
plat was approved by the Director on February 4, 2009 to expire on August 6, 2010.
® A final plat application (FP -09-008) for Seyam Subdivision was approved by City Council on
January 26, 2010 but has not yet received City Engineer signature as required by UDC 11-6B-
7.
® A second 18 -month time extension (TE -10-019) to obtain the City Engineer's signature on the
final plat was approved by City Council on September 28, 2010 and expired on February 6,
2012.
® A third time extension (TEC -12-001) for two (2) years was approved by City Council on
February 28, 2012 and would have otherwise expired on February 6, 2014 without submittal of
the subject time extension.
VIII. STAFF ANALYSIS
This is the 4th time extension requested by the applicant. The previous 2 -year time extension
approved by City Council has now expired. The Applicant has met the necessary deadline by filing a
written request for a time extension before the preliminary plat expired.
Per UDC 11-613-7C, with all extensions, the City Council may require the preliminary plat to comply
with current provisions of the UDC. Since the previous time extension request, the City's standards
pertaining to installation of street lights, performance surety and warranty surety, as well as the Public
Works construction standards have changed. As a provision of the subject time extension request,
staff recommends the applicant comply with the updated standards noted in Exhibit B upon
development of the site.
TE -10-019 Seyam Subdivision PP TE.doc Page 2
EXHIBIT A
As conditions of granting the I" and 2nd tune extensions, all future construction within the
subdivision was required to comply with design standards. No new conditions of approval were
added with the Yd tin7e extension.
The applicant shall comply with all previous conditions of approval for this site.
V. EXHIBITS
A. Drawings
1. Vicinity Map
2. Approved Preliminary Plat (dated: 12/7/06)
B. Conditions of Approval
TE -10-019 Seyam Subdivision PP TE.doc Page 3
EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A.1— Vicinity Map
TE -10-019 Seyam Subdivision PP TE.doc
w JrXecuriv" 04
W FRANKLIN RD
tG wt01lGF��.tOyy pR
N
W KEATES DR
bH W tm%soW DR
W BRONTE DR
Page 4
EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A.2 - Approved Preliminary Plat (dated: 8/22/06)
PRET MINARY PLAT FOR
air
p--
-- - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - ------
L44
—1114, GS' t
�z - Z/-� A "
—COD Vf..
P IT -2
TE -10-019 Seyam Subdivision PP TE.doc Page 5
EXHIBIT A
B. Conditions of Approval
1. The applicant is to meet all terms of the approved preliminary plat (PP -06-055), final plat (FP -09-
008), and time extensions (TE -09-005; TE -10-019; TEC -12-001) for this development.
2. 100 Watt and 250 Watt, high-pressure sodium street lights shall be required on all public
roadways per the City of Meridian Improvement Standards for Street Lighting. All street lights
shall be installed at developer's expense. Final design shall be submitted as part of the
development plan set for approval. Street lighting is required at intersections, corners, cul-de-
sacs, and at a spacing that does not exceed that outlined in the Standards. The contractor's work
and materials shall conform to the ISPWC and the City of Meridian Supplemental Specifications
to the ISPWC. Contact the City of Meridian Transportation and Utility Coordinator at 898-5500
for information on the locations of existing street lighting.
3. The applicant shall obtain the City Engineer's signature on a final plat or apply for a time
extension in accord with UDC 11-613-7 prior to February 6, 2016.
4. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a performance surety in the amount
of 125% of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer, water and reuse infrastructure
prior to final plat signature . This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by
the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash
deposit or bond. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211.
5. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of
20% of the total construction cost for all completed sewer, water and reuse infrastructure for
duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the
owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash
deposit or bond. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211.
6. The applicant shall revise the development plans to comply with the 2013 edition of the
Supplemental Specifications and Drawings to the Idaho Standards for Public Works Construction.
TE -10-019 Seyam Subdivision PP TE.doc Page 6
DATE: April i 2014 ITEM NUMBER:
ITEM TITLE: Consent Agenda: Kennedy Commercial Center
Findings for approval: Amend the recorded DA (Instrument #108119853) for the
purpose of excluding the property from the recorded DA and incorporating a new
concept plan and building elevations consisting of office, retail and multi -family
residential into a new DA by Derk Pardoe - north side of W. Overland Road, west of S.
Stoddard Road
MEETING NOTES
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
CITY OF MERIDIAN
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
AND
DECISION & ORDER
EIDIAM:_
In the Matter of the Request for a Development Agreement Modification to Exclude the Subject
Property from the Existing Development Agreement (Instrument #108119853) and Enter into a
New Development Agreement to Develop the Property with a Mix of Office, Retail and Multi-
family Uses, Located on the North Side of W. Overland Road and West of S. Stoddard Road, by
Derk Pardoe.
Case No(s). MDA -14-003
For the City Council Hearing Date of. March 25, 2014 (Findings on April 8, 2014)
A. Findings of Fact
1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of March 25, 2014, incorporated by
reference)
2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of March 25, 2014, incorporated by
reference)
3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of March 25, 2014,
incorporated by reference)
4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing
date of March 25, 2014, incorporated by reference)
B. Conclusions of Law
1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the "Local Land Use
Planning Act of 1975," codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code (LC. §67-6503).
2. The Meridian City Council takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified at
Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has, by
ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of
Meridian, which was adopted April 19, 2011, Resolution No. 11-784 and Maps.
3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-5A.
4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s) received from the governmental
subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction.
5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose
expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed.
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER
CASE NO(S). MDA -14-003
-1-
6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this Decision, which shall be
signed by the Mayor and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Cleric upon the applicant, the
Planning Department, the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice.
7. That this approval is subject to the development agreement provisions all in the attached staff
report for the hearing date of March 25, 2014, incorporated by reference. The provisions are
concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of
approval of the application.
C. Decision and Order
Pursuant to the City Council's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 11-5A and based upon
the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that:
1. The applicant's request for development agreement modification for Kennedy Commercial
Subdivision is hereby approved per the conditions of approval in the attached staff report for
the hearing date of March 25, 2014, attached as Exhibit A.
D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits
Notice of Two (2) Year Development Agreement Duration
The development agreement shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the City
within two (2) years of the City Council granting the modification (UDC 11-513-31)).
A modification to the development agreement may be initiated prior to signature of the
agreement by all parties and/or may be requested to extend the time allowed for the agreement
to be signed and returned to the City if filed prior to the end of the two (2) year approval period
(UDC 11-513-3F).
E. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis
1. The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code 67-8003, denial of a development
application entitles the Owner to request a regulatory taking analysis. Such request must be in
writing, and must be filed with the City Clerk not more than twenty-eight (28) days after the
final decision concerning the matter at issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will
toll the time period within which a Petition for Judicial Review may be filed.
2. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian.
When applicable and pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521, any affected person being a person
who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the final action of the
governing board may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of this decision and order
seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code.
F. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of March 25, 2014
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER
CASE NO(S). MDA -14-003
-2-
By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the day of ,
2014.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT CHARLIE ROUNTREE VOTED
_ f�
COUNCIL VICE PRESIDENT KEITH BIRD VOTED
COUNCIL MEMBER DAVID ZAREMBA VOTED
_T,-�
COUNCIL MEMBER JOE BORTON VOTED
__V—
COUNCIL MEMBER LUKE CAVENER VOTED
COUNCIL MEMBER GENESIS MILAM VOTED
MAYOR TAMMY de WEERD VOTED
(TIE BREAKER)
Copy served upon Applicant, The Planning Department, Public Works Department and City Attorney.
By: __ - Dated:
Cityler 's I
cd
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER
CASE NO(S). MDA -14-003
-3-
EXHIBIT A
STAFF REPORT
HEARING DATE: March 25, 2014_�ew
TO: Mayor and City Council =-
FROM: Bill Parsons, Associate City Planner
(208) 884-5533
SUBJECT: MDA -14-003 — Kennedy Commercial Center
I. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST
The applicant, Derk Pardoe, is requesting to amend the recorded development agreement (DA)
(instrument #108119853) approved with the rezone of the property (RZ-08-003) for the purpose of:
1. removing the subject property from the existing DA and entering into anew DA; and
2. develop the property as a mixed use development consisting of office, multi -family and
retail uses.
For informative purposes the applicant has provided a concept plan and sample elevations that
represents the future design of the proposed development.
II. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the development agreement modification application as detailed in
Section VII of the staff report. The Meridian City Council heard this item on March 25.2014. At
the public hearing, the Council approved the subject MDA request.
aummary of City Council Public Hearin:
1, In favor: Wendy Shrief, Kelly Hoga
m In opposition: None
U Commenting: None
k. Written testimony: Jay Story
y, staff presenting application: Justin Lucas
31 Other staff commenting on application: None
b,. Key Issues of Discussion by Council:
i Multi -Family adjacent to the interstate. Sound impact from the interstate.
e, Key Council Changes to Staff Recommendation:
,h Allowed previously approved access point to Overland Road to remain.
11. Required the applicant to construct a 25' landscape buffer on their property to buffer
the residential uses from the existing Industrial Zoned property to the west.
III. PROPOSED MOTION
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file number MDA -14-
003, as presented in staff report for the hearing date of March 25, 2014, with the following changes:
(insert any changes here). I further move to direct Legal Department Staff to prepare a Development
Agreement for this site that reflects the provisions noted in Exhibit A.6.
Denial
After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to deny file number MDA -14-003,
as presented during the hearing on March 25, 2014. (You should state why you are denying the
request.)
Continuance
Kennedy Commercial Center - MDA -14-003 Page 1
EXHIBIT A
I move to continue file number MDA -14-003 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date
here) for the following reason(s): (you should state specific reason(s) for continuance)
IV. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS
A. Site Address/Location: The site is located on the north side of W. Overland Road, west of S.
Stoddard Road in the southwest '/a of Section 13, Township 3 North, Range 1 West. (Parcel #'s
R4885160020, R4885160030, R4885160040, R4885160050, R4885160062, R4885160070,
R4885160080 and R4885160090)
B. Applicant/Owner:
S.A.N.C. Investments, LLC
3454 Stone Mountain Lane
Sandy, UT 84092
C. Applicant's Statement/Justification: Please see applicant's narrative for this information.
V. PROCESS FACTS
A. The subject application is a request for a development agreement modification. Per Meridian City
Code, a public hearing is required before the City Council on this matter.
B. Newspaper notifications published on: March 3, and 17, 2014
C. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: February 28, 2014
D. Applicant posted notice on site by: March 14, 2014
VI. LAND USE
A. Existing Land Use(s): The subject property is vacant commercial property, zoned C -G.
B. Character of Surrounding Area and Adjacent Land Use and Zoning: The subject property is
primarily surrounded by developed and undeveloped commercial and industrial properties, zoned
C -G and I -L. The property on the south side of Overland Road has been approved for annexation
by the City however; the development agreement has not been executed by the developer to
finalize the annexation of the property.
C. History of Previous Actions:
• In 2001, the property received a conditional use permit/planned unit development approval
(CUP -01-009), under the name of Treasure Valley Technical Center, which allowed for
daycare; office, retail and industrial uses. As part of that approval a conceptual site plan was
approved and any future daycare, office and retail uses require conditional use permit
approval.
® In 2007, a preliminary plat and final plat (PP -07-013 and FP -07-036) was approved for the 26
+/- acre portion of the site to the north and west of Western Electronics that consisted of 11
building lots and 2 common lots.
® In 2008, the property received comprehensive map amendment and rezone (CPA -08-005 and
RZ-08-003) approval to change the land use from industrial to commercial and rezone the
property from the I -L zone to the C -G zone. With the rezone of the property, the City
required a development agreement (DA) that recorded as instrument #108119853. The
recorded DA requires compliance with a specific concept plan and building elevations.
Kennedy Commercial Center - NIDA -14-003 Page 2
EXHIBIT A
VII. STAFF ANALYSIS
The applicant is requesting to amend the recorded development agreement (DA) approved with the
rezone of the property. At the time Council approved the rezone, a concept plan and conceptual
building elevations were tied to the original DA.
The approved concept plan depicts eleven (11) structures; totaling 270,475 square feet. The mix of
buildings consists of the following:
➢ two (2) 3 -story office buildings consisting of 66K square feet (s.£) each, four (4) office
buildings consisting of 31,475 s.£, a 2 -story office building consisting of 45K s.f,
➢ a 2 -story education facility consisting of 35K s.f,
➢ a bank building consisting of 7.5K s.£,
➢ a restaurant building consisting of 5.5K s.f., and
➢ a retail building consisting of 14K s.f.
A variety of building elevations were also provided to coincide with planned uses and structures
mentioned above. The building materials depicted on all of the structures consist of brick and stucco
with a variety of accent materials such as stone, CMU, timber, and metal.
The new owner of the property has purchased approximately 14.81 acres of the site (8 commercial
lots) and wishes to remove the subject property from the original development agreement and enter
into a new DA with the City. The applicant has submitted a new concept plan depicting a mixed-use
development consisting of three (3) retail buildings ranging in size between 7,000 square feet and
11,250 square feet adjacent to Overland Road, 180 -unit multi -family development and a single office
pad site adjacent to Interstate I-84. The proposed concept plan also illustrates access to the
development, site layout, parking and site circulation.
In conjunction with the concept plan, the applicant has submitted sample photos of the multi -family
dwellings and the commercial buildings. The multi -family dwellings depict building materials that
incorporate brick wainscot, a mix of wood siding, private patios, variations in the wall planes and
rooflines and tuck under garages.
The commercial buildings incorporate stucco finish, covered entries, decorative cornices, stone
accents and variations in fenestration, wall planes and roof lines. Staff is supportive that the design
features portrayed in the attached photos. Future structures on the site are required to obtain
certificate of zoning compliance and administrative design review approval and comply with the
structure and site design standards set forth in UDC 11-3A-19 and the design guidelines contained in
the Meridian Design Manual.
NOTE: The proposed multi family development is conceptual in nature and will be evaluated ivith
a future conditional use permit application.
DA Modification: In general staff is supportive of the concept plan, building square footages and
design concepts proposed with the subject application. To move forward with development of the site
as proposed by the applicant, staff recommends the following new DA provisions:
I. Development of the property shall substantially comply with the concept plan and building
elevations attached in Exhibit AA, the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and the
guidelines contained in the Meridian Design Manual.
2. Direct lot access to Overland Road is prohibited unless waived by City Council in accord with
UDC 11-3A-3.
3. The applicant shall grant cross access to the property to the west (Parcel #S1213336006) through
the retail portion of the development. A copy of the recorded cross access agreement shall be
Kennedy Commercial Center - NIDA -14-003 Page 3
EXHIBIT A
submitted with the first certificate of zoning compliance application for the retail portion of the
development.
4. Any future multi -family use on the site must obtain approval of a conditional use permit and
comply with the specific use standards set forth in UDC 11-4-3-27.
5. Sanitary sewer service to the Kennedy Commercial development is currently being accomplished
via a temporary lift station which pumps to a discharge manhole in Overland Road. It shall be the
responsibility of this developer to commission a study of the lift station capacity, and make any
upgrades that are needed to accommodate this new proposal.
Staff recommends approval of the development agreement modification with recommended
provisions attached in Exhibit A.6.
VIIL EXHIBITS
A. Maps/Other
1. Vicinity/Zoning Map
2. Approved Concept Plans
3. Approved Building Elevations
4. Proposed Concept Plan
5. Proposed Building Elevations
6. Proposed Development Agreement Provisions
Kennedy Commercial Center - MDA -14-003 Page 4
EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A.1 — Vicinity/Zoning Map
o 0.0 5 o.�
Vicinity Map Miles
Kennedy Commercial Center - NIDA -14-003 Page 5
EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A.2 — Approved Concept Plan
I
T i
blit nits �x�t t 1 I Idb ITS [ Ifil If Tl i i"CJI 1 i 1 T(Ci17(I it1
17`i;a T It I — — — — —
I, li1D
i�
HUILbIN_(14110.
{1
iAND WK DIN,; antpl.
t p
J � T
"R,'
I t t s Wi kZ'?
0i (}ti! (t t 4 1 lQii`i 11=1 12ii I�EI'Ei,M 3 ill>I 1 E;i i i1' tw�
r i o l 11 s vi a Lii J t -
t I E
r I t I
.....I1 q r=ti-rr 1 n onn I � r7 � 'i.E�i) I tai / '•� ! iJ
en.,s. r ...e
I� �;3it t 11 irti Atlti!
I I
lilli�I lat{C�1 yI' Il��r, i'.'117I'f(�� I
`t' a 1-��`t'�I i ! 0j) 41ca
l
(( ! ;
t 1 I1v 1
el
111
1 -I fJ, ATSM1< 1_ !
' 6,� �
)-A t1.iN1 I j
0VIT :). I ¢¢
t
Li
.. (nti{4`I�n 11 s[ir tr['•!1 qi aiLLnr1
Kennedy Commercial Center - MDA -14-003 Page 6
EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A.3 —Approved Building Elevations
nl111DING n8 & 9
m'n�nnu kan,=slnl
BF1t 1,
M11 v\t vFf!.
1 tA11.11' f I.AM\ie,.\
111�Y.1.\I'1 N;411
t
nU1LUI\G UI1l
I,DING P I I
:Yi t,,\ISM�II,
NAt,.
ail+ f\,aUl4��i1
Kennedy Commercial Center - NIDA -14-003 Page 7
Exhibit A.4 — Proposed Concept Plan
EXHIBIT A
WILK GfNCE
BU LUNG ANS
= PARKING AREA
lop EX �20PLEX
APARTMEf APARIMENI
BlJIIEHNG B NG
LIX
RTME
DJNG
L
— ._
iO�tEX
—
1P
10P1Ef
RVA L` I
APART .$NJ
APARTMENJ
tEXAPARTM[;J1
APARTME
-'-^
BUiT7IfJL
B ILnir G
BUILDING
lRB
BURIANG
I
1 �
ILII
IIIIUIII�IIITuI
JBOTOTAT
APARTMENTS
70 Pi EX
20PLEx
23f1Ex
APART f _
PARTM
ll
APARD, _ t
POOL
wou)IN .
.r
JILUN
311 UN
NG1
%p F"
i AP�I,RJMENT
i B G
lop EX �20PLEX
APARTMEf APARIMENI
BlJIIEHNG B NG
LIX
RTME
DJNG
L
I
_ _ I I 1
Dill TTd
d
� 1 l l 111 11 fl 1 I}
RVA L` I
�RETAILQ
I ffLgll7Nt
-'-^
lRB
="4L0IN
C�
WMC(AN DARO W KAN
Kennedy Commercial Center - NIDA -14-003 Page 8
EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A.5 — Proposed Building Elevations
Conceptual Building Elevations
Kennedy Commercial Center - NMA -14-003 Page 9
EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A.6 — Recommended Development Agreement Provisions
1. Development of the property shall substantially comply with the concept plan and building
elevations attached in Exhibit A.4 and the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and the
guidelines contained in the Meridian Design Manual.
2. Other than the one (1) previously approved access to Overland Road (PP -07-013) Ddirect lot
access to Overland Road is prohibited unless waived by City Council in accord with UDC 11-3A-
3.
3. The applicant shall g ip �ovide cross access to the property to the west (Parcel #S1213336006)
through the retail portion of the development as depicted on the Kennedy Commercial Center
Subdivision Final Plat (FP -07-036) . n eepy of the r-eearded evess aeoess agFeement shall be
submitted with the first ee,-tifieate of zoning eamplianee applioation fai: t4e retail poi:tian of t4e
development.
4. Any future multi -family use on the site must obtain approval of a conditional use permit and
comply with the specific use standards set forth in UDC 11-4-3-27.
5. Sanitary sewer service to the Kennedy Commercial development is currently being accomplished
via a temporary lift station which pumps to a discharge manhole in Overland Road. It shall be the
responsibility of this developer to commission a study of the lift station capacity, and make any
upgrades that are needed to accommodate this new proposal.
6. A 25' wide landscape buffer between uses shall be constructed along the western boundary of this
property adjacent to the residential portion of the development. The buffer shall be constructed in
accord with UDC 11-313-9 and is intended to eliminate the need for the existing industrial zoned
property to the west (Parcel #S 1213336006) to construct a land use buffer.
Kennedy Commercial Center - NIDA -14-003 Page 10
April i 2014 ITEM NUMBER:
ITEM TITLE: Consent Agenda: Da Vinci Park
Findings for approval: Amendment to the DA to allow a mix of single family attached
and detached lots instead of all attached lots and update the conceptual
development plan by CS2, LLC - SWC of N. Locust Grove Road and E. McMillan Road
MEETING NOTES
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
C 1471r+7707yy[•1y/►�/_�1T•3([•]►Tl
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
CITY OF MERIDIAN
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ENIDjIAM�
AND
DECISION & ORDER
In the Matter of the Request for an Amendment to the Development Agreement for Da Vinci Park
to Update the Development Plan for the Property Located at 47 N. Locust Grove Road, by CS2,
LLC.
Case No(s). MDA -14-002
For the City Council Hearing Date of: March 25, 2014 (Findings on April 8, 2014)
A. Findings of Fact
1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of March 25, 2014, incorporated by
reference)
2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of March 25, 2014, incorporated by
reference)
3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of March 25, 2014,
incorporated by reference)
4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing
date of March 25, 2014, incorporated by reference)
B. Conclusions of Law
1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the "Local Land Use
Planning Act of 1975," codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code (I.C. §67-6503).
2. The Meridian City Council takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified at
Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has, by
ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of
Meridian, which was adopted April 19, 2011, Resolution No. 11-784 and Maps.
3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-5A.
4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s) received from the governmental
subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction.
5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose
expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed.
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER
CASE NO(S). MDA -14-002
-1-
6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this Decision, which shall be
signed by the Mayor and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk upon the applicant, the
Planning Department, the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice.
7. That this approval is subject to the Conditions of Approval all in the attached Staff Report for the
hearing date of March 25, 2014, incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be
reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the
application.
C. Decision and Order
Pursuant to the City Council's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 11-5A and based upon
the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that:
1. The applicant's request for an amendment to the development agreement is hereby approved
per the provisions in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of March 25, 2014, attached
as Exhibit A.
D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits
Notice of Two (2) Year Development Agreement Duration
The development agreement shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the City
within two (2) years of the City Council granting annexation and/or rezone (UDC 11-513-31)).
A modification to the development agreement may be initiated prior to signature of the
agreement by all parties and/or may be requested to extend the time allowed for the agreement
to be signed and returned to the City if filed prior to the end of the two (2) year approval period
(UDC 11-513-3F).
E. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis
1. The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code 67-8003, denial of a development
application entitles the Owner to request a regulatory taking analysis. Such request must be in
writing, and must be filed with the City Clerk not more than twenty-eight (28) days after the
final decision concerning the matter at issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will
toll the time period within which a Petition for Judicial Review may be filed.
2. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian.
When applicable and pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521, any affected person being a person
who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the final action of the
governing board may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of this decision and order
seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code.
F. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of March 25, 2014
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER
CASE NO(S). MDA -14-002
-2-
By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the day of
2014.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT CHARLIE ROUNTREE VOTED
COUNCIL VICE PRESIDENT KEITH BIRD VOTED
COUNCIL MEMBER DAVID ZAREMBA VOTED
COUNCIL MEMBER JOE BORTON VOTED
__j',&
COUNCIL MEMBER LUKE CAVENER VOTED
COUNCIL MEMBER GENESIS MILAM VOTED
__t,�—
MAYOR TAMMY de WEERD VOTED
(TIE BREAKER)
4,
Mayor Tammy 4dWeerd
Copy served upon Applicant, The Planning Division, Public Works Department and City Attorney.
Gb —
Dated:_;w�
Cl rl 's ffice
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER
CASENO(S). MDA -14-002
-3-
EXHIBIT A
STAFF REPORT Hearing Date: March 25, 2014
TO: Mayor & City Council (:��`WE
FROM: Sonya Watters, Associate City Planner
208-884-5533
SUBJECT: MDA -14-002 - Da Vinci Park
I. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST
The applicant, CS2, LLC, requests an amendment to the approved but not yet recorded development
agreement (MDA) for Da Vinci Park. The applicant proposes to update the development plan for the
property with,a new concept plan for a mix of single-family attached and detached lots instead of all
attached lots. See Section IXAnalysis fol° more information.
II. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the proposed MDA with the changes shown in Exhibit A.3 and A.4,
attached.
The Meridian City Council heard
these items on March 25, 2014. At the public hearing, the Council
approved
the subiect MDA request.
a. Summary of City Council Public Hearing:
J.
In fa or: Bob Unger
z
In opposition: None
iii.
Commenting: None
i-.
Written testimony: Bob
Unger, Applicant's Representative (in agreement with staff repos tl
Staff presenting application:
Sonya Watters
yj.
Other staff commenting
on application: None
b- Key
Issues of Discussion by
Council:
i.
-None
_, Key
Council Changes to Staff/Commission
Recommendation
one
III. PROPOSED MOTION
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number MDA -13-008 as
presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 25, 2014, with the following modifications: (Add
any proposed modifications.)
Denial
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny MDA -14-002 as presented
during the hearing on March 25, 2014, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for
denial.)
Continuance
I move to continue File Number MDA -14-002 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for
the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.)
Da Vinci Park MDA -14-002
EXHIBIT A
IV. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS
A. Site Address/Location:
The subject property is located at the southwest corner of N. Locust Grove Road and E. McMillan Road
at 47 N. Locust Grove Road, in the NE'/4 of Section 31, Township 4N., Range IE.
B. Owner(s):
Larry C. Harpe
P.O. Box 1638
Eagle, ID 83616
1 x Eagle Investments, LLC
P.O. Box 1638
Eagle, ID 83616
C. Applicant:
CS2, LLC
8921 W. Hackamore Drive
Boise, ID83709
D. Representative:
Bob Unger, ULC Management, LLC
6104 N. Gary Lane
Boise, ID 83714
E. Applicant's Statement/Justification: Please see applicant's narrative for this information.
V. PROCESS FACTS
A. The subject application is for a development agreement modification. A public hearing is required
before the City Council on this matter, consistent with Meridian City Code Title 11, Chapter 5.
B. Newspaper notifications published on: March 3, and 17, 2014
C. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: February 27, 2014
D. Applicant posted notice on site by: March 14, 2014
VI. LAND USE
A. Existing Land Use(s): The existing land use of this site is single-family rural residential/agricultural,
zoned R-4 and R-8.
B. Character of Surrounding Area and Adjacent Land Use and Zoning:
North: McMillan Road, single-family residential/agricultural property, zoned RUT in Ada County and
R-4
South: Single-family residential properties in Havasu Creek Subdivision, zoned R-4
East: N. Locust Grove Road, Idaho Power substation and single-family residential properties in
Settlement Bridge Subdivision, zoned R-8
West: Rural residential/agricultural property, zoned RUT in Ada County
C. History of Previous Actions:
Da Vinci Park MDA -14-002 2
EXHIBIT A
® In 2006, this site received annexation and zoning (AZ -06-041) approval with R-4 and R-8 zoning.
A development agreement was required as a provision of annexation, recorded as Instrument
#107005526.
A preliminary plat (PP -06-042) was also approved for Harpe Subdivision consisting of 22 single-
family residential building lots and 3 common/other lots. The plat has since expire'
D. Utilities:
a) Location of sewer: Sanitary sewer intended to serve the subject site currently exists directly
adjacent in N. Bright Angel Avenue.
b) Location of water: Domestic water intended to serve the subject site currently exists directly
adjacent in N. Locust Grove Road and E. McMillan Road.
c) Issues or concerns: The subject site is obligated to pay $1,465.56 per acre to proportionally offset
costs incurred by the City of Meridian for the Victory Road Gap Sewer Project. Said payment must
be received prior to obtaining the City Engineer's signature on any final plat.
E. Physical Features:
1. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: There are some irrigation ditches that cross this site.
2. Hazards: NA
Flood Plain: This property does not lie within the Floodplain Overlay District.
VII. ANALYSIS
A. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation:
The request is to amend the approved but not yet recorded Development Agreement (DA) to allow for a
change. in the residential component of the development from entirely single-family attached residential
units to a mix of attached and detached units.
The amendment includes:
1. Changes to the applicable text of the agreement to include detached building lots;
2. Updated lot number references based on the revised plan;
3. A revised conceptual development plan; and
4. The removal of the provision that requires the property to be subdivided prior to issuance of any
building permit.
The configuration of the commercial and residential portions of the development has changed slightly
on the revised conceptual development plan from that previously approved. The residential area has
changed from 6.36 to 6.75 acres resulting in a change to the qualified open space requirement from 0.64
to 0.68 of an acre. The approved concept plan depicts 0.74 of an acre of qualified open space; the
proposed concept plan depicts 0.68 of an acre consisting of a 0.38 acre common area and 50% of the
street buffer along the arterial streets in compliance with UDC 11 -3G -3B. Although slightly less
qualified open space is proposed than previously approved, it still meets UDC requirements.
The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designation for this site is Mixed Use Neighborhood
(1.4 acres) and Medium Density Residential (6.36 acres). The approved preliminary plat depicts 38
residential building lots; the proposed concept plan depicts 34 residential building lots resulting in a
change to the gross density from 4.89 to 4.38 dwelling units per acre and a mix of housing types. This
minor decrease in density is not a significant change and will not require a modification to the approved
preliminary plat.
Da Vinci Park MDA -14-002
EXHIBIT A
This site consists of two legal parcels. The applicant would like to start construction on two houses, one
on each parcel, after demolition of the existing house and accessory structures. Therefore, the applicant
requests the existing DA provision is stricken that requires the property to be subdivided prior to
issuance of building permits. Provided that access to the building sites meets the Fire Department's
standards and any other applicable life safety requirements, staff does not object to the applicant
commencing construction on these two structures. These structures should be located so that they
comply with the setbacks of the R-8 zoning district for the fixture platted lots. Prior to issuance of
Certificate of Occupancy for these structures, the final plat should be recorded and all improvements
completed.
Because the proposed change ivill result in a mix of housing o pes as desired in areas surrounding
Mixed Use designated areas, Staff is supportive of the changes to the DA requested by the applicant in
ExhibitA.4.
X. EXHIBITS
A. Drawings/Other
1. Vicinity Map
2. Existing Conceptual Development Plan
3. Proposed Conceptual Development Plan
4. Proposed Amendments to Development Agreement
Da Vinci Park MDA -14-002
EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A.1: Vicinity Map
Da Vinci Park MDA -14-002
EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A.2: Existing Conceptual Development Plan
Da Vinci Park MDA -14-002 6
N
E. MCMI LLAN ROAD
-._.----t a. ----- ----
—.. ------ .. ---.._
CO !.dERCIAL CONCEPT PLAN SHOWING
-
UA VINCI PARK SUBDIVISION
2F
A SuaoiVisioN
-
-
LOCATFD IN THE HE 3/4, Or THE NE I/a,
- -
SECTIMI 3.TAN., RAE., H.M.
ADA COUNTY, IUAHO
2013
a
V.
+ b
—
WI -1
-iA,a Tics J.x w
i +earl
(
4 f
Muir
ILNY3 a cmu rx �._ .Ats
I
o
N'GArtAW
�-
n.
c ai eer •,•" cav wy _� A
�
'�
N
p
,
0
Y Y L5+ SPY tGf Kcsis
L. a' ! vaf a4Y
1
sours r+an
9
�I1'
<[
n
i Y
k
t
i -
IJP
I. �nra
rrvn,rs.ys .> auc
r
J
��
q ue am IMs eve re Yert a -un+
11
-
It
i1
�
f
�_
J
'.
fs
rz
C?
»lL:fJr.Aas>•zc nYn:Ls..�Y.w iLTir. LJr i. a9�.
ltoavC#I+l 0. 40 Le- 1 k L ftpN (A ; rT.!/�;y COIF 1
n
j
C'
5
Ji MtvtiFtlggY��YAM gu. Da e' r UJ.SS D'H'xY2 NVM
19
21'
k mt K e c+ rn
t
5
=�
r •x imcmY -" "°"�`'�'•
E. TERRirGRY DR.
r.
u LGv
o
wo P fcc t L"a�rs. osr s Ys v „^'+sal a 5 £<ow
)I
4,41 Wt Nhr RE4'�:I Yritt4 R^t. tR reW nC Mt:esxp
wwa + camYrnl a ur Aaaarv+u o-varot a A•w.gruuxx ro
i
LJ
2
.3 Atr.� ;.iY�w'vN o• gua �e�u-avaw 4 u��ant twl.5
J i
R e ,CTttOY ML' YR t
a
t
1
5
5
5
f
7
8
3
Lr
,T
IJ) n+3 vzRiT R P t r7 tR ll4fi➢L Y £c
arc'"' a - etau to a ore
-.
.,
r
rr"
a�-
d `kfx mat.
„
f o7 A ^L�i lA E
t.
DA VINCI PAPK
_ f -Ax ,a�±-sn-rg2s
GtA^UER'IA.L GO?JeJEPT FL.4>!
_._ _..
Da Vinci Park MDA -14-002 6
EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A.3: Proposed Conceptual Development Plan
FA V
MASTER PLAN SHOV&IG
DA VINCI PARK SUBDIVISION
A SUBLAVISICIN
LOCATED IN THE F.'E 1/4, OF THE HE 1/4,
T1
SECTIOl -)1, T,4N., PAE., B.M.
ADA CU201, 3MTY, IDAHO
1 J
X1171 �i
nvj
nil it
67-
"M
Lill, 1j11fl2%j l;l'
2!
t7
kk
.. .... .......
? an
Da Vinci Park MDA -14-002 7
EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A.4: Proposed Amendments to Development Agreement
(Applicant's proposed changes are shown in strike-ont/irnderline format)
4. USES PERMITTED BY THIS AGREEMENT:
4.1 The uses allowed pursuant to this Agreement are only those uses allowed under City's Zoning
Ordinance codified as Meridian City Code Title 11 which are herein specified as follows:
Construction and development of an attached and detached single-family and commercial
development consisting of 38 6 attached residential building lots, 28 detached residential
buildinglots, ots, 1 neighborhood commercial lot, and 8 common lots in the proposed R-8 and C -N
zones on 7.76 acres pertinent to the RZ-13-016 and PP -13-036 application.
5. CONDITIONS GOVERNING DEVELOPMENT OF SUBJECT PROPERTY:
5.1 Owner/Developer shall develop the Property in accordance with the following special conditions:
That all future uses shall not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and
conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by
reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors.
2. That all future development of the subject property shall be constructed in accordance with City
of Meridian ordinances in effect at the time of development.
3. That the applicant will be responsible for all costs associated with the sewer and water service
extension.
4. That any existing domestic wells and /or specific systems within this project will have to be
removed from their domestic service, per City Ordinance Section 5-7-517, when services are
available from the City of Meridian. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as
landscape irrigation.
That the following shall be the only allowed uses on this property: single-family attached homes
(Lots 2-7, Block 3), single-family detached homes, and allowed accessory uses of the R-8 zone
and uses as allowed in the C -N zone, except for professional office and healthcare and social
service uses, which are prohibited.
6. That prior to issuatiee of any building peffflit, the subjeet pr-opefty be subdivided in aeeofd with
the—Eity of Meridia-Unified Development Go The applicant is allowed to commence
construction of two homes on the site, one on each of the two existing parcels after all of the
existing structures are removed from the site. Access to these building sites shall comply with the
Fire Department's standards and any other applicable life safety requirements. These structures
shall be located so that they comply with the setbacks of the R-8 zoning district for the future
platted lots. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for these structures the final plat shall
be recorded and all site improvements shall be completed and accepted by the City.
7. Development of this site shall substantially comply with the preliminary plat, conceptual
development plan for the commercial portion of the site and the conceptual residential building
elevations shown in Exhibit A.
Da Vinci Park MDA -14-002
EXHIBIT A
8. The side of the structure on Lot 2, Block 1 that faces E. McMillan Road and the rear of the
structures on Lots 1-87 Block 3 that back up to N. Locust Grove Road shall incorporate
articulation through changes in materials, color, modulation, and architectural elements
(horizontal and vertical) to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines.
The developer shall incorporate some of the same design elements in the commercial portion of
the development as in the residential portion of the development in accord with the design
guidelines contained in the Design Manual.
10. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application is required to be submitted
and approved by the Planning Division for all single-family attached and commercial structures
on the site prior to issuance of building permits.
11. The developer shall provide amenities on Lot 2-5 23, Block 3 as shown on the landscape plan
including a covered picnic area, playground equipment, picnic tables and benches; and a picnic
table and bench on Lot 4-2 10, Block 1 in accord with UDC 11-3G-3.
12. Direct access to/from the site via E. McMillan Road and N. Locust Grove Road was approved by
City Council through a waiver -in accord with UDC 11-3A-3.
13. Hours of operation in the C -N district are restricted from 6 am to 10 pm, per UDC 11 -2B -3A.4.
Da Vinci Park MDA -14-002
April •
, 2014 ITEM NUMBER: 6
Items moved from Consent Agenda:
N�
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
DATE: April 8, 2014 ITEM NUMBER: 7A
Mayor's Office: Resolution No. 1+ 793 -: Appointing Rich Nesbit to Seat
5 of the Meridian Historic Preservation Commission
MEETING NOTES
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
CITY OF MERIDIAN RESOLUTION NO. `-
BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BIRD, BORTON, CAVENER,
MILAM, ROUNTREE, ZAREMBA
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
MERIDIAN, APPOINTING RICH NESBIT TO SEAT 5 OF THE MERIDIAN HISTORIC
PRESERVATION COMMISSION; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Meridian City Code Title 2, Chapter 1 establishes the Meridian Preservation
Commission, its members and terms of their appointments; and
and
WHEREAS, Seat 5 of the Meridian Historic Preservation Commission is currently vacant;
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Meridian deems it to be in the best interest of the
citizens of the City of Meridian to approve the respective appointment of Rich Nesbit to Seat 5 of the
Meridian Historic Preservation Commission as recommended by Mayor De Weerd and described
herein;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY, IDAHO:
Section 1. That, effective immediately, Rich Nesbit shall be appointed to Seat 5 of the
Meridian Historic Preservation Commission, which term shall run through April 30, 2016.
Section 2. That this Resolution shall be in full force and effect immediately upon its adoption
and approval.
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this day of April, 2014.
APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this day of April, 2014.
APPROVED:
0`' Ivjay�Tanmy de Weerd
irtq of
ATTEST:
o 0
a
By:
aycee HolmanCity Clerk
RESOLUTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF RICH NESBIT — HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSIONER - I
DATE: Aprili 4 ITEM NUMBER: 7B
Fire Department: Budget Amendment to Purchase Cardiac Monitors for a Not -to -
Exceed Amount of $42,365.12
MEETING NOTES
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
N
N
c
a)
3'
C
E
c �
d 7
ltl �
O O
it
cl)
E ' 0
c�
(� c O
t6 d U N
cnL
�a0 0 ® c
L .a
Ca 4-
Q L E O
.OG Q O N
7
C
CL O
d
7 E 5
L !C d cn
ii L a
O m m
w
r0, > C v
C
O O cu
v Q C
E O
0 a C
d
t 'd d
U) C r
O0E0
R
�cn
07c
M V M
W 0 m 0
N
a)
N
W
N
7
�ar
CL
C
O
O
c O)
C
O '@C
� r
7 �
O O
U d
d
ami y
a�
U O
C
L
�}
U U
ui
> y
N
l0
Z
O
J
a
O
C
4
N 9
et
U
E g
O N
N
IL
w cU
o
O
C
Z
�
_� co
m
U
}
a
c
d
N
v
C x
O
N W
c
(6
=
O
Q
d
9
c
E
W
2
N C
E
U Ld
N
4`
C
3 o
O
O
O+
NN
N
N
a N
i]
7
U
N
N
0)N
>cu
C
=3
"x a
C
_
fp
r
M
0
D
L U
N
(D .N
O
L
O
O
N
C
O
N
N
O
> >
c amici
v
(6
r�
Q ;N
'N_
y
O
o d)
EE
O
�'
C U
>'
N
N
(6
a) c
a
`
O
(6 N
E
M .
N
r-+
_
a)
4-- a--.
_ O
U
4-
>
m
p
C
®
rn
E N
N
CL
c
C) ''�
N
N
O
IL
N
E
m
0
U
N O
p
N
{—
a) d
N
N
L
E
cUi
m�
C
Q
Z w
L� �a
O)
U
O L
cu
Q
o'er
M
Q
LL
LL
Z
O p
�' m
N
N
Q
ON
W
N Q.
v m
n
N
EA
N C
~Q
N
_
°
r
Cii
L
W
N
U N
C
o
(n
r
®
m
O
a) N
0 N
U
>
N
F-
M
N
N
c
a)
3'
C
E
c �
d 7
ltl �
O O
it
cl)
E ' 0
c�
(� c O
t6 d U N
cnL
�a0 0 ® c
L .a
Ca 4-
Q L E O
.OG Q O N
7
C
CL O
d
7 E 5
L !C d cn
ii L a
O m m
w
r0, > C v
C
O O cu
v Q C
E O
0 a C
d
t 'd d
U) C r
O0E0
R
�cn
07c
M V M
W 0 m 0
O
N
d
A
kr-
J
C
If
I ❑
-j d
Z i�: Z L7
t�< Oco f
u1OO�
-,g<
0- -1 W
H JUS
Z W >-
:E D-
0a-�
W 2'
Oz=O
O O
O O
JI,
W Z
Z
O
Z
Z
0fe
E]
C
LO
a WCl)J
}
Cl)U)
I
A
kr-
J
W t I Z
-j d
Z i�: Z L7
t�< Oco f
u1OO�
-,g<
0- -1 W
H JUS
Z W >-
:E D-
0a-�
W 2'
Oz=O
O O
O O
A
kr-
NLci_
N
e
W
O O
O O
JI,
1
C
( �
O
M
U)
d
LO
O Q
}
I
0
0Z
M
C
d
N
N
O
LO
EA
64
64
64
64
N
C
d
d
M
�
M
cl�
O
7
04
C
d
>
W
d'
0�
o
N
O
O
d
a
E
�
E
W
7
U
`O
,
s`
F'
V-
c
�
O
es
c
C
d
9`
e
r
7
C
O
69-
4N
N
U
O
to
E
O
N
F-
LL
U4--
)
O
N
J
O
N
%)
W
o
U)
(�
0
z
EI
d
N
0
N~'C
Q
I-
QTY
�
O
2
J
®
�aa0
V
U
=
La�wZ
UC
OIL
z
U
e
to
O
c
U
O
r
0
w
O
r
N
M
67
OO
0=r
N
N
N
O
O
O
O
W
a
0
v
U
C
aP
r
r
N
tl
N
d
N
d
N
d
W
QO
=
CL
C
Q
0
U
O
O
AQ)
A
kr-
NLci_
N
e
W
(0
JI,
1
C
( �
CL
k
NLci_
N
e
W
(0
O
M
U)
d
LO
N
}
I
0
M
C
d
N
N
O
LO
f
W
�
us
F
d
M
�
M
cl�
04
d
>
W
d'
0�
d
E
�
7
m
`O
,
s`
F'
V-
�
es
�
C
d
9`
e
r
69-
4N
O
U
O
to
F-
U4--
)
r�
n
J
O
%)
W
o
U)
(�
0
z
EI
S
0
y
Q
I-
�
O
J
N
V
U
=
I -
OC7
UC
U
U
e
z
c
U
O
r
c
(6
>
a
O
0
zC
a
Wtm
a4
CD
CL
r
W
J
=
CL
C
Z
0
U
O
as
C
0
O
'
t-
76
0
Q
Q
c
75 -ffi
T E
O Q v
Q)
CL a
Q
ca
0 m O
ti- U Y
c
U
N � c N
co co � E _O
J O
O rn -ca"
c
U c ,rn
o � N
� � o
caN c
m d
= tm E D
Q •V a _U
O V5 U Q N
rn `o O Ci
c Q o
c � N
E3u,o
0
a � � c
EE E E
QN N > C
Q C E
U) a c Q Q
C O c c m
U � �C C O
o n CL c c>a
0
c�oo4-
NLci_
N
N
(0
O
M
U)
d
LO
N
It
I'
I
M
C
d
N
N
O
LO
f
W
�
us
F
d
M
�
M
cl�
04
d
>
O
d'
0�
t17
�
7
m
`O
,
s`
F'
f,q
�
es
�
C
d
9`
e
r
O
U
O
to
F-
U4--
)
r�
n
J
O
%)
W
o
N
(�
0
z
EI
S
Q
I-
�
O
J
N
V
U
=
I -
OC7
UC
U
N
N
O
LO
N
I
M
d
O
f
us
F
�
k
>
O
0�
m
`O
,
s`
F'
f,q
CO
es
e
9`
e
r
O
U
F-
U
)
}
n
%)
W
o
N
(�
0
z
EI
S
Q
O
d
V
U
=
Z
U
U
e
U
O
r
(6
>
a
O
0
zC
a
[ {
a4
CD
CL
r
J
=
Z
U
O
C
N
LO
O
M
E
r
F-
W
d
z
>
0
d
V
Z
ca
a
O
0
~
J
Z
U
O
DATE:April
Continued from March 11, 2014: Community Development: Review and Approve City
Roadway, Intersection, and Community Program Project Priorities for 2014
MEETING NOTES
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
April 3, 2014
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Tammy de Weerd
City Council Members
CC: City Cleric
FROM: Caleb Hood, Planning Division Manager h 11
-
Mayor Tammy de Weerd
City Council Members:
Keith Bird Joe Borton
Luke Cavener Genesis Milani
Charlie Rountree David Zaremba
RE: Roadway, Intersection, Highway and Community Program Project Priorities
April 8th, 2014 City Council Workshop Agenda Item
During the March l It", City Council meeting transportation priority projects were discussed. The
Council had some concerns with the priorities the Meridian Transportation Commission recommended
and moved to continue the discussion into April. ACHD has asked to have all of the cities'
transportation project priorities by April 30th, 2014. Staff has made some revisions to the priority lists
reviewed in March and seeks the Council's endorsement of the lists so they can be sent to ACHD to be
considered in their programming and budget processes. Changes from what the Transportation
Commission recommended and what staff is now presenting (attached) are shown in the far right-hand
column; priorities that advanced or fell more than five spots since March are highlighted yellow.
Also, ACHD staff sent a correspondence responding to some of the concerns that were raised during the
March 11th discussion. The Council was concerned that ACHD does not account for where growth is
expected in their process. ACHD responded that when they do forecasts for delay reduction they do use
COMPASS' 2018 demographic projections. The LOS map does use existing traffic data, but the ACRD
prioritization worksheet reflects a 2018 demographic. So, ACHD does not completely ignore projected
growth.
On April 8th, staff will present the revised draft project priority lists for roadways, intersections,
and community program projects, as well as the ITD/State priority list. After Council endorses the
project priorities, the lists will be submitted to ACHD by April 30th. Staff will also be presenting a
draft cover letter for the Mayor and Council to consider during the April 8th workshop.
2014 ACHD Roadway Projects
3
7/20
Ustick Road, Meridian to
CN 2017
LOS E
2
2
Locust Grove
Linder Road, Franklin to
Franklin to Pine in PD; to Cherry not in
LOS F
6
3/7
Cherry
IFYWP
JSD#2 SR2S
4
3
11/39
(including RR
CIP = 2022-2026
project too
crossing/signal)
5
29/122
Ten Mile Road, McMillan
Not in IFYWP
6
4
to Chinden
CIP = 2027-2031
4
24/90
Ten Mile, Ustick to
OF in IFYWP
5
5
McMillan
CIP = 2017-2021'
10
4/8
Locust Grove, Fairview to
Not in IFYWP
LOS F
7
6
Ustick
CIP = 2017-2021
12
10/36
Eagle, Amity to Victory:
Not in IFYWP
LOS F
9 '
7
CIP = 2027 - 2031
16
9/26
Ustick Road, Linder to
DSN 2014; CN 2017
LOS E/F
10
8
Meridian
"' CIP = 2017-2021
Franklin Road, Black Cat
Federal Aid project
11
19/72
to Ten Mile
DSN 2013/2014; ROW 2015; CN 2016/17
w/ Frank/Black INT;
11
9
I-84 Detour Route
8
25/96
Linder Road, Cherry to
Not in IFYWP
LOS F
12
10
Ustick
CIP = 2022-026
7 '
16/64
Linder Road, Ustick to
Not in IFYWP
LOS F
3
11
McMillan
CIP = 2022-2026
28
17/63
Linder Road, McMillan to
Not in IFYWP
LOS D/E
20
12
Chinden
CIP = 2017-2021
13
18/70
Pine Avenue, Meridian to
Not in IFYWP
Make CP and/or ED
15
13
Locust Grove
CIP = 2022-2026 to 3 -lanes wide
application
14
13/53
Locust Grove, Ustick to
Not in IFYWP
LOSE
16
14
McMillan
CIP = 2017-2021 to 3 -lanes wide
LOS E
NEW
NA
McMillan Road, Linder to
Not in IFYWP
Badly needs
14
15
Meridian
Not in CIP
sidewalks and bike
lanes too
Linder, Overland to
Not in IFYWP
9
20/73
Franklin (Includes
CIP = 2027-2031
13
16
r
Overpass of I-84*)
*ITD jurisdiction:
17
12/49
Ustick Road, Ten Mile to
Not in IFYWP
19
17
Linder
CIP = 2017-2021
McMillan Road Locust
CN 2015
LOS F; Split
27
1/3
Grove to Eagle
CIP = 2017-2021
between Boise &
i7
18
Meridian
15
5/10
Meridian Road,
PD in IFYWP
LOS F
8
19
Fairview/Cherry to Ustick
CIP = 2017-2021
22
22/83
,'Ten Mile, Victory to
Not in IFYWP
LOS E
23
20
Overland
CIP = 2017-2021
24
NA
Locust Grove, Amity to
Not in IFYWP
24
22
Victory
CIP = 2017-2021 to 3-lanes wide
20
NA
Meridian Road, Ustick to
Not in IFYWP
25
23
McMillan
CIP = 2017-2021 to 3-lanes wide
McMillan Road, Meridian
Not in IFYWP
LOS E;
NEW
NA
to Locust Grove
Not in CIP
Comm. Programs
27
24
App?
21
NA
Meridian Road, McMillan
Not in IFYWP
26
25
to Chinden
CIP = 2022-2026 to 3-lanes wide
26
26/102
Franklin Road, McDermott
Not in IFYWP
I-84 detour route
28
26
to Black Cat
CIP = 2022-2026
29
14/58
Fairview Avenue, Eagle to
Not in IFYWP
29
27
Cloverdale
CIP = 2022-2026 to 7-lanes wide
Split in
Not in IFYWP
Meridian/Eagle;
NEW
28/117
Linder, Chinden to State
CIP = 2027-2031
Expensive ($20M);
31
28
some being built by
LDS Temple
19
23/85
Fairview Avenue, Locust
Not in IFYWP for widening
21
29
Grove to Eagle
CN 2017-2021 to 7-lanes wide
18
15/61
Fairview Avenue, Meridian
Not in IFYWP for widening
CP sidewalks
18
30
to Locust Grove
CN 2017-2021 to 7-lanes wide
project in IFYWP
25
NA
Cherry Lane, Linder to
Not in IFYWP for widening
30
31
Meridian
CIP = 2022-2026 to 7-lanes wide
May be in Boise or
NEW
6/16
Fairview Corridor
CN 2017
Meridian, between
32
32
Linder and Orchard
NEW
27/116
::Ten Mile, Amity to Victory
UF in IFYWP
33
33
CIP = 2027-2031
30
NA
E. 3'd Connection
Not in IFYWP or CIP
2013 City Econ.
34
34
Dev. APPLICATION
31
NA
Broadway Ave/Idaho Ave,
Not in IFYWP or CIP
Extension of local
35
35
E. 6th to Locust Grove
street downtown
-2
215
Ustick Read, Locust
Grove te Leslie Way (near
GN
Under construction;
Deleted'
Eagle/SH 5)
remove
f4A'
ail Ger • er ''
Not in 1F)iVP or rm
Remove; to CP list
Deleted
3
2014 ACHD Intersection Priorities
6
8/75
Amity/Ten Mile
PD
Ultimately a 7 x 7 signalized
6
2
CIP = 2027-2031
intersection
8
5/47
Chinden/Meridian*
Not in IFYWP or CIP;
8
3
CN 2018 in ITIP
NEW
10/92
Chinden/Black Cat*
Not in IFYWP
10
4
CIP = 2027-2031
***2014 and PD
***Developer Coop. Project
3
13/108
Chinden/Ten Mile*
CIP = 2017-2021
w/.partial improvement 2014
11
5
5
12/101
Ustick/Black Cat
Not in IFYWP
4
6
CIP = 2017-2021
7
NA
Overland/Linder
Not in IFYWP
5
7
CIP = 2027-2031
Not in IFYWP
Completed single -lane RAB in
22
NA
Amity/Eagle
CIP = 2022-2026
2013; Ultimate dual -lane RAB
14
8
2
3/14
Ustick/Meridian
DSN 2014; CN 2017
LOS E
1 )
9
12
4/23
Fairview/Locust Grove
Not in IFYWP
2
10
CIP = 2017-21
LOS E
11
2/13**
Cherry/Linder
Not in IFYWP
'=
7
11
CIP 2017-21
LOS C
9
6/62
Chinden/Locust Grove*
Not in IFYWP or CIP;
9
12
CN 2018 in ITIP
Completed interim signal in
15
NA
Victory/Locust Grove
Not in IFYWP
2013
12
13
CIP - 2017-2021
Ultimately a dual -lane RAB
Not in IFYWP
Completed interim signal in
16
NA
Cherry/Black Cat
CIP = 2017-2021
2013
13
14
14
NA
Victory/Ten Mile
Not in IFYWP
Completed interim signal in
15
i5
CIP = 2017-2021
2013
23
7/68
Lake Hazel/Meridian*
PD
CIP = 2022-2026
LOS F
16
16
17
15/129
McMillan/Black Cat
Not in IFYWP
18
17
CIP = 2017-2021
NEW
11/95
Amity/Black Cat
Not in IFYWP
23
18
CIP = 2017-2021
NEW
14/125
McMillan/Star
Not in IFYWP
24
19
CIP = 2017-2021
NEW
NA
Amity/Linder
Not in IFYWP
25
20
CIP = 2027-2031
13
NA
Franklin/McDermott
Not in IFYWP
17
21
CIP = 2027-2031
SH -16
19
NA
Ustick/McDermott
Not in IFYWP
Priority Corridor (Ustick);
20
22
CIP = 2017-2021
SH 16
20
NA
Cherry/McDermott
Not in IFYWP
21
23
CIP = 2027-2031
SH -16
18
NA
McMillan/McDermott
Not in IFYWP or CIP
SH -16
19
24
21
NA
Ustick/Star
Not in IFYWP
22
25
CIP- 2022-2026
i/i
GN 2014
Under remove
'Ustiek/In��
from ;s
DELETED
�0
SIA
Linder/RR Traeks
Net In !IMP or GIP for
irrccr�o
Remeve andnclude
5
DELETED
**Rank Error; *ITD Facility
2014 ITD Priorities
5
Llnmaen/Locust urove intersection
1 Chinden (US 20/26) Widening $50K/year for ROW preservation in STIP
and Chinden/Meridian in [TIP 1
CN FY2018 (Key# 13941)
2 tinder Road Overpass Not in STIP/TIP
2
*Improvements via STARS in
TIP/STIP from River Valley to
Franklin - CN 2014&2015 - add one
3 Eagle Road Corridor Not in STIP/TIP*
northbound ('14) and one
3
southbound ('15) lane (Key# 13349);!
and, add one southbound lane on
Eagle from Franklin to 1-84, CN
2014 (Key 13473) via Federal Aid.
4 SH -16 Extension Phase 1 CN began in 2013
Funding from 20/26 to 1-84 not 4
identified
5
2014 ACRD Community Program Priorities
Create connection from Fairview to
This project has been
Partial CN
Meridian Elementary, and south across'
scoped and is currently
W. 4th,
2013'
Pine. May require pedestrian crossing at
included in the ACHD
Broadway to
Washington to
Pine. Existing pole and flashing school
IFYWP. It connects
1
81
Maple (aka
Carlton;
zoneiight/sign at Pine/W. 2nd; striped:
directly to a school and
1
1
Broadway, to
Remaining '
crosswalk at Pine/W. 1st. Adjacent to
other recently completed
Cher
phases 2017
Meridian Elementary, within 1/2 mile of
sidewalk projects. Staff
dian Middle school.
Meridian
recommends his project '
remain in the top 5.
The section from first to
pine was recently
West side of roadway - extension needed
completed by ACHD
for connection to existing sidewalk
through sidewalk repair
approaching Meridian Elementary school.
funds. The remaining
W. 1st,
W. 1st at Pine is designated elementary
section will extend all the
2
41
Broadway to Pine
CN 2017
crossing with guards; main entrance for
way down to Broadway
2
2
buses and parking. Partial sidewalk
which also recently had
exists, but block between Idaho and
sidewalk installed. The
Broadway missing; other portions
project request should be
substandard.
modified to reflect this.
Staff recommends this
project stay in the top 5.
The primary component
of this project is the
Five Mile Creek
pedestrian signal at
Path - Meridian
Connect Bud Porter Pathway with
James Court and
Rd./Lakes
Fairview Ave. via James Court.
Meridian Road. This is a
6
37
Ave.(Segment
CN 2016
Intersection was recently striped for a
key crossing of Meridian
3
3
G)(James
cross -walk; add signage at James Court
Road for access to the
Court/Meridian
and install RRFB, HAWK signal, or other.
pathway. The Bike
Rd Ped Crossing)
parks Depasti-hent Priority,
signage along James
Court is complete. Staff
recommends this project
be moved into the top 5.
This is a key bicycle
Pine, Ralstin
2 travel lanes exist. CIP has Pine as a 3-
corridor and full
into
lane roadway. Improvements in this mile
improvements on both
Pine, Locust
downtown
will primarily benefit pedestrians and
sides of the street will
NEW
NA
Grove to Main
(E. 5th to
bicyclists. Major investments made in
help pedestrians and
20
4
Street
Adkins)
corridor already;this is a bi
9 gap. (see
bicyclists both east -west
CN 2017
Pine, Ralstin into downtown project)
and north -south along
Parks Department priority,
the Five Mile Creek
Pathway.
Sidewalk section in front
of Church and Baseball
fields recently; was
approved with the Casa
Sidewalk needed on west side of
Bella Subdivision. The;
Locust Grove,
roadway. Two parcel connections
developer should install
McMillan to
needed (LDS Church, Alpha and Allmon)
this section and the
3
58
Chinden
CN 2018
to tie existing 'segments together. Central
req
request should be
5
5
(Comisky to
Academy and foundations/Ambrose
modified to only include
Commander) '
Academy are within the mile. Shoulder
the section between
along Locust Grove is not very wide.
Segundo and
Commander. Alternate'
routes exist - this project
could be dropped in
priority due to the
changes.
Large portion of this
Sidewalk is needed on the north side of
segment will be
McMillan connecting the intersection
completed with the
improvements at L.G./McMillan with the
Tustin #2 Subdivision.
McMillan, Locust
sidewalk and pathway in Saguaro
The remaining portions
8
NA
Grove to Red
Subdivision, connecting to Heritage
will need to be
7
6
Horse Way
Middle School. This will also make the
completed. Staff
connection to Prospect Elementary just
recommends this project
south of the McMillan/Red Horse
be modified based on the
intersection.
eminent development
and remain in the top 10.
Project comes out of the
rd
Fairview, E. 3 to
Missing several pieces of sidewalk in this
Downtown Meridian
Ped/Bike Plan. Project
NEW
31
CN 2018
section. Both sides or roadway. Lighting
8
7
Locust Grove
would be nice too.
scores well in ACHD's
prioritization and is along
a high traffic corridor,
Staff recommends
moving this project up in
NW 2 nd Street,
Sidewalk on both sides of NW 2nd Street,
the priority. The project
NEW
Railroad to
in front of new food bank. Legal Dept. &
will benefit the
6
8
Broadway
Joselyn request.
pedestrians (and
motorists) that use the
Meridian Food bank.
Black Cat and
Safe Routes to School request of JSD2,
is
58
Moon
CN 2016
Pedestrian signal at Black Cat and Moon
9
Lake/Ustick
Lake for kids crossing Black Cat to get to
school '
Ridenbaugh
Need a pedestrian crossing of Eagle
Pathway/Eagle
ACHD Traffic
Road at the Ridenbaugh Canal. Add
Get final word from
9
NA
Rd. Crossing
.
analyzing
signage, stripe crosswalk, install RRFB,
ACHD. Consider removal
10
10
(CopperPt-
crosswalk.
HAWK signal, etc. Part of pathway
if not feasible.
Easy Jet)
system, Segment F. Parks Department
Priority.
There is no sidewalk on the south side of
Ustick near W. 3rd Street, directly across
from the entrance to Settlers Park.
Ustick & West
DSN w/
Residents south of the park currently
Included with roadway
10
NA
3rd HAWK Signal
Intersection
have no "safe" route to get across Ustick
project. Consider removal
11
11
projecL
in this area. Please scope and construct
from this list.
ASAP, possibly with Mericlian/Ustick
intersection or Ustick, Meridian to Linder
widening project.
There is approximately 1,000 feet of
sidewalk missing on the west side of
Eagle Road, River
Eagle Road, between River Valley and
ITD ROW - Consider for
11
NA
Valley to Ustick
Leslie Drive, This connection will allow
TAP funding or other
12
12
Road*
safe passage between existing and new
grants.
development and River Valley Elementary
and Kleiner Park. This Is on an ITD, not
CHD facility.
No good pedestrian connections from
subdivisions on west side of Locust
Work with school district
S. Locust Grove
Grove Road to Sienna Elementary, west
to determine if this
12
NA
at Palermo
To be scoped.
of Eagle Road. Add flashing lights/ped
project is still needed
13
13
signal, crosswalk and signage across S.
based on current bussing
Locust Grove at/near E. Palermo (add
routes.
short section of sidewalk).
ACHD
development
Alternate routes
Locust Grove,
services is
available. Project should
14
NA
Overland to
working with
Out parcel near Mountain View HS with
be constructed with site
14
Puffin
property owner
no sidewalk.
development. See if
14
to get
ACHD would consider an
connection
interim improvement.
made.
Meridian Road
Prioritize out of top 10
and RRX
This pedestrian crossing will be a key
but request ACHD scope
NEW
Pedestrian
component in the first phases of the
these projects as part of
15
1s
Crossing
Meridian Rail w/ Trail project.
the larger crossing study
that the City is funding.
Prioritize out of top 10
Main Street and
This pedestrian crossing will be a key
but request ACHD scope
NEW
RRX Pedestrian
component in the first phases of the
these projects as part of
16
16
Crossing
Meridian Rail w/ Trail project.
the larger crossing study
that the City is funding.
Locust Grove, '
Interim/temporary connection (Paradise
19
NA
Paradise to
to Red Rock) constructed in 2010. Please
No additional comment
17
v
Settlers Bridge
keep long-term solution on radar for
Sub.
more `permanent fix in the future.
Partial CN
Five Mile Creek
2013, Pine to
Fairview to Pine pathway along Five Mile
Pathway - Badley
Badley;
Creek. Construct remaining segment
Not in ACHD ROW,
16
NA
to Fairview
remaining
from Badley to Lakes Avenue. Parks
probably will not score
18
18
(Segment H1A)
segment to
Department Priority,
well when scoped.
Fairview still
needed.
Identified in
Downtown
Lloyd Kennedyprope
Y Y, a P P rtY owner in this
Meridian
block, requests this block be retrofitted
20
NA
E.
EState, 3rd and
Neighborhood
with sidewalk. His is the only property
No additional comment
19
19
4th
Bicycle and
with sidewalk currently and it is in
Pedestrian
disrepair.
Plan. To be
scoped.
School bus stops, the
Development is occurring to the south,
community open space
Kentucky Ridge
east and west of this County subdivision
and the main access to
NEW
NA
Way, south of
that currently has rural street sections.
Victory Road is via
NA
20
Victory
This section of Kentucky Ridge Way
Kentucky Ridge Way.
needs to be retrofitted with at least
Sidewalks (and possibly
sidewalk.
curb and gutter) are
needed.
Duane is currently a rural street with no
curb, gutter or sidewalk. Recently, Duane
was opened up to connect with
Redfeather Subdivision. Duane Is
Duane Drive,
ACHD <
approximately 0.4 miles long and
21
NA
Ustick to
discussing with
straight. Kids (and others) walkup to
No additional comment
21
21
Redfeather
neighborhood.
Ustick to catch the bus and get to other
services. Request for pavement widening
and/or sidewalk, curb and gutter on at
least one side (east probably, due to less
vegetation.)
_v
East-West pathway connection within
and/or adjacent to the RR corridor. This
ACHD Planning
pathway should extend through Meridian
22
NA
Meridian Rall-
coordinating
and connect with Nampa and Boise,
No additional comment
22
22
With -Trail
with City.
creating a regional multi -use pathway.
Main request at ACHD is for crossings at
arterial intersections. Parks' Department
Priority,
Eagle Road,
CN 2017 (east
Property owner request to ACHD. Bus
23
23
Falcon to Victory
side)
stop on Eagle near Falcon. ACHD now
No additional comment
23
23
I
has ROW.
The Hunter Elementary
Need pedestrian access to/from Hunter
School boundary not
McMillan,
Elementary across McMillan. Please
longer goes north of
25
NA
Goddard Creek
consider new cross -walk to access school
McMillan Road, Consider
24
24
to Palatine
south of McMillan,
removing project or
keeping it as a low
priority.
Large sections of this
sidewalk will be built with
future development. This
Citizen request to build continuous
project is not likely to
26
NA
McMillan, Linder
sidewalk on McMillan between Linder and
score well with ACHD as
to Meridian
Meridian. NOTE: There is more sidewalk
a CP project, but may as
25
25
missing than existing in this mile.
a roadway. Consider
removing or keeping a
low priority or amending
scope so not so large,
Broadway, W. 4 th
Spotty sidewalk segments. Segment from
NEW
37
to W. 7t
LIF
4th to Meridian constructed in 2013 b y
Extends recent project on
26
26
ACHD, but not all the way to 7th.
Broadway.
NEW
82
Victory, west of
Safe crossing of kids near Sienna, west
Mesa
of Eaqle Road.
27
27
Crosswalk and speed zone in front of
Rocky Mountain High School, My son
NEW
Linder, McMillan
goes to this school and everyday we
The Linder/Divide Creek
to Chinden
watch helplessly as kids dart across 4
crossing (CN 2014)
28
28
lanes of traffic with cars doing 45 miles
appears to be the same
per hour,
as this request.
Concerns about the potential of a
pedestrian being hit on McMillan Road
near Linder. She says she has seen two
close calls in recent days, involving
school children walking in that area —
NEW
McMillan, Ten
due to the lack of complete sidewalks.
South side of McMillan
29
29
Mile to Linder
She says that the children are walking
correctly at the edge of the road but cars
has 99% sidewalk. North
side has large areas
are coming too close to the pedestrians,
without sidewalk but
in
some cases going around cars waiting
to turn into
staff is unable to identify
subdivisions and then almost
why pedestrians need to
making contact with the pedestrians.
walk on the north side.
NEW
Chinden, east of
Small gap in between 2 subdivisions —
ITD ROW. Consider
ITen
Mile
Spurwing and Tree Farm.
alternate funding source.
30
30
10
c
�
���i��^`
��
��� �r~�
��r
J � r�����J.� ''"'� '�
ry�����
,-w✓
r^-„ f„
r ,-�
,r,„>
,
Between Linder and Ten Mile there is a
small gap in the sidewalk on the south
2695 McMillan
side of McMillan (between Bridgetower
Road
and Caymus Cove Subdivisions), This
Maintain on list until
18
11
(Montellino/
CN 2014
gap is only about 30' long and is part of
ACHD confirms that this
33
33
Pallatine)
the "flag" of a county -zoned parcel. This
will be done in 2014,
gap would create continuous sidewalk on
the south side of McMillan between Ten
Mile and Linder.
E. 3rd Street,
An upgraded crossing of the RR tracks is
NEW
Railroad crossing
needed to tie in with the pedestrian
34
(Pine to Franklin)
improvements existing and planned
34
between Storey Park and downtown.
Safe Reute te School request with HAWK
Ped SWG
REMO
-1-3
der 9i+tide
C"' 2011
nal at
Mountain HS and
Remove, Construction
VE -
Cmek—C i„g,
,
including sfflall in
eminent.
CN
gap sidewalk ep east
sicle-ef Linder Read.
2014
There is a gap In the sidewalk on. the
nefth side of Pine Avenue, between
REMO
Pine Avenue,
Mineral Wells Avenue Retan Avenue
VE-
b
-3
New Haven o
` N 2011
and
(aka
Remove. Construction is
ON 90
�n
that
to MeHdian
eminent.
DAY
children walk
this area. This in in.
BID
gaapp mstrueture is
ab
LIST
Fill in the n the east side f
REMO
Linder-, seath of
gaps
Linder. Veiy small
VE -
47
-13
Ffanklin
GN 2011 ;
aFfleurit ofdews}le
eettl
Remove. Construction
ON 90
(Walt+�an/Pint-ail)
eminent
DAY
♦�{'�� rani 90 DAY BID i IST
BID
-
LIST
10
Legend
M M M
K. . Area of Impact
City Limits
Intersection Rank
Roadway Rank
& Intersection Priorities
0 0.5 1 2
Miles
Interstate
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector
Local
The information shown on this map is compiled from
various sources and is subject to constant revision, The
City of Meridian makes no warranty or guarantee as to the
content, accuracy, timeliness, or completeness of any of
the data provided, and assumes no legal responsibility for
the information contained on this map.
AZT=- I
;� 0��0|P�PCnY�c�T���[�n�dm�m���t��op�d���dR�'�ar���au
�
�P�U�Development, 0 m
19;��
UPUnfunded, nocon�ru��nyear b|dendfiedyet
Eodma¢edProject Cumt:Thi:|ndudespho,eupendhuresunapn�ec�andm/Uatevcrwawpregramnedinthemdopted
iFYVVP.These oumbeoare most subject tmchange du�ngthe update process.
Current Dm|h/Count: The most recent 24'hourvehicle count onfile.
EmdmetedDaily Delay Reduction: The estimated oeducMoninveh\d�
vehicle
facility mon�gurationand the improved configuration whhforecast 2U18volumes during the typical budncssday.
Eo�mmNedAnnual Congestion Bene�t;The expe�edbenefit for ayear (25Obudnessdays) based oothe Eodmatcd
DaUyDelay Reduction and anhoudVdelay cost estimated atC20per veh|deper hour |nAda County based onthe
Texas TranspurtadonInstitute's annual Urban K0obiUtyReport.
Crash Typeo/CootmThese are based on|TDand FHVVAdata that are updated annually
' PDO (Prmpe�yDamogeOnly) $67O0per inddent
�
' Class C(Possible Injury) 58O0}per ioddent '
- Class B(Visible |/�ury) $8800Oper incident
- Class A(|ncapadtahn0|/�ury) 531DOO8per inddcnt
' Fatality',S6KA+per incident, but costed osmOasoAfor priorhizadonpurposes
Crash Rate: Number ofcrashes omafacility per ��ii|iaoEntering Vehides(K4EV) for intersections orKAiUionVeh��
��i|esTraveled (KAVK4T)for road segments. Thobbased ona,oUimQ5vc'yeercrash history.
Average Annual Crash Cost: This isthe esdmanedcost ofcmshesafac|Utyhas experienced onnooDybased onhscrash
higoryand crash costs bysewe/�y.
Estimate([
[roshRedo«dooFectmr:Thisisestimatedbaurdupou|ike|y/mprovementstobemadew|thaprojcctand
the expected oashreduoionrate each improvement isexpected tuyield based onthe Highway Safety ��aoua\.
Exammp[esiodudeadded atmu�wnyleft turn lane (2596),adding adedkmtedright turn lane (1.596per mppmuoch),
signalizing V6
zin8at�o1uay��up(2�),o,inuaOio0aroundabout(7SY�forin]uryc,ashcsond4O9�fnrPDOcmshes).
EodmoatedAnnual Safety Benefb:The reduction inannual crash co$sexpected after aproject.
Raw Benadt/Co^tRado:The total estim�ed Safety and [on8csdombene�csexpected over aproject's i�edivided by
the EsbnoatedPr��ec[Cost. Pr��e(tlife isyeue/a|h/assumed tobc2Oyears, but may be3Ofor improvements such as
concrete intcvsecdons.or|esfor prmc��ssuch asnninterim signal that isexpected tuexceed anacceptable LOS im
less than 28years.
Program Adjustment FectocThis isafa�mrused tnbeapp@edtothe raw benef�ratio
Be*e�l/{notRatio based oocunsideradonsdeemed impm�mntbut not accounted for |nsafety ormonges�no:
Agency Suppu�/0'10points based omagency request ranking; 1Opoints for atop request toUpoints for alow
request,
Importance: 5pmimseach for ACNDphor|tycorridor, Cunnvun/�o/hA�/�onoorhdor,�ecwaydiversion rnut,�
mobility arterial.
Spe�fu�,em64oens&8anaQenent:5poinneach for being located ioaSpedf�Area Plan orbeing amaccess
management project.
Previous Investment: From 0points ��noh/ndshovebeeo�p�mtto10points|nrkg�o�wayacqu\dtinois
complete.
ChvLimizs:From 0points for aproject Unanunincorporated area to10points for aproject g5%ormore |ncity
8mim
Bikeway Points: Up to 10 points based on Appendix H of the ACHD Roadways to Bikeways Plan.
12
I
I
I
m
x
ON A411VAAI4V148
13
April 8, 2014
John S. Franden
Commission President
Ada County Highway District
3775 Adams Street
Garden City, ID 83714
Dear Commissioner Franden:
Mayor Tammy de Weerd
City Council Members:
Keith Bird Joe Borton
Luke Cavener Genesis Milam
Charlie Rountree David Zaremba
On March 11th and April 81h, the Meridian City Council discussed priority transportation projects
for 2014. The City of Meridian appreciates the opportunity to submit the attached lists of
transportation projects for consideration in the ACHD 2015-2019 Integrated Five -Year Work
Plan (IFYWP).
The City is thankful for ACHD staff attendance at both the Meridian Transportation Commission
and City Council meetings in recent months, for the many questions they have answered, and for
generally assisting the City as we navigate through the programming process. With this
assistance the City has been able to develop a greater understanding of all the work that goes into
programming and budgeting for roadway, intersection and Community Program projects. While
we understand that congestion, safety and ultimately cost -benefit dominate the process, the
City's priorities also reflect areas of our community where we are currently experiencing and
anticipate eminent growth. So our priority project lists for 2014 represent both the technical
merits, the reality of where roadway and intersection projects are needed today, and in the near
future, as well as an effort to complete corridors and not necessarily a mile -by -mile approach to
road improvements.
One of the projects we'd like to highlight this year is a Community Program project: Pine
Avenue, Locust Grove to Main Street. This project will help to enhance a key regional corridor
for motorists, pedestrians, and cyclists traveling between Downtown Meridian and Boise. The
Pine/Emerald corridor has been recognized by ACHD as the primary east -west bicycle
connection in Ada County and ACRD has invested, or plans to invest, in several critical projects
throughout this corridor (Pine/Linder Intersection, Cloverdale/Pine Intersection, Emerald,
Orchard to Americana and Pine, New Have Cove to Rotan to name several) which increases its
attractiveness an alternative route to Fairview and Franklin roads. This segment of Pine
represents one of the final pieces of the Pine/Emerald corridor that does not have sidewalks and
bike lanes completed or planned in the near future. In addition to its regional significance this
project also has direct impacts on access into the City of Meridian's Downtown and it connects
• • r
DATE: April 8, 2014 ITEM NUMBER: 7D
PROJECTNUMBER:
Community Development: Communities in Motion 2040, the Regional Long -Range
Transportation Plan, Public Comment Period Update
MEETING NOTES
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
April 1, 2014
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Tammy de Weerd
City Council Members
CC: City Cleric
FROM: Brian McClure, Associate Planner
RE: Communities in Motion 2040
Mayor Tammy de Weerd
City Council Members:
Keith Bird Joe Borton
Lime Cavener Genesis Milarn
Charlie Rountree David Zaremba
Federal regulations require that metropolitan planning organizations (MPO) develop long-range
transportation plans (LRTP), and that these plans be updated every 3-5 years. These plans help to
ensure that roads, bridges, and transportation services (buses, etc.) are planned for and ready for
the future. A LRTP is required to receive federal transportation funds for local transportation
projects. The regional MPO, COMPASS, is underway with the final public comment period for
the newest update to the region's LRTP, titled Communities in Motion (CIM) 2040. The 2040
version will replace CIM 2035, which was adopted in September of 2010. COMPASS expects to
adopt CIM 2040 later this year.
Planning for this version of CIM began in early 2012. Workshops were previously held to gather
public input, who, working in groups and using interactive media, created vision concepts of the
future. These concepts were subsequently evaluated for trends, and used to help identify priority
focus areas. To work towards the vision of CIM 2040, the plan incorporates a variety of new
goals and implementation policies. Performance measures have also been identified, and will
allow for the creation of regular monitoring reports, to track implementation progress. The plan
also identifies 33 priority corridors (see attached table and map) and projects for federal funding
priority, 5 of which are within Meridian.
Community Development Department ® 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Meridian, ID 83642
Phone 208-884-5533 ® Fax 208-888-6854 ® www.meridiancity.org
For CIM 2040, the COMPASS Board has directed that all federal funds which may otherwise be
used towards priority projects/corridors, be used for maintenance of existing roadway
infrastructure instead. This focus on maintenance was made due to funding shortfalls for
maintenance of existing transportation infrastructure. While all 33 of the priority projects have
been identified as needs, there is a significant deficit of transportation dollars to build most of
them, much less all of them. COMPASS estimates an annual transportation funding shortfall, in
Ada and Canyon counties, of $159 million dollars, or $4.3 billion over the life of CIM 2040. If
additional funding becomes available, then projects within these 33 priority efforts will be given
preference for funding.
Meridian has endorsed CIM 2035 by referencing it in the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan.
Staff will come back to Council later this year to review the final version of CIM 2040, and
discuss endorsement.
To review priority projects and participate in the current review process, you can attend the open
house on April 10"', between 4 and Bpm, at the COMPASS office in Meridian, or go online to:
www.compassidaho.org
CIM 2040: 33 Priority Projects
2. State Highway 44/State Street 13. State Highway 45 reroute (City of 24. State Highway 45 (Greenhurst
High Capacity Corridor Nampa - Bowmont Road to Road toBowmont Road)
Interstate 84)
4. State Highway 55 (Snake River to 15. Boise Downtown Circulator 26. US Highway 20/26 (City of
the City of Nampa) Caldwell to City of Parma)
6. Linder Road (includes river
17. State Highway 55 (State Highway
28. Star/Robinson Road (Greenhurst
crossing and new overpass — Lake
44 to Ada/Boise County Line)
Road to Ustick Road)
Hazel Road to State Highway 44)
7. Franklin Road (bottleneck
18. Middleton Road (State Highway
29. CIM 2040 transit, long-term
between Star Road and McDermott
Road)
55 in City of Nampa to Main Street
in City of Middleton)
(capital/operating)
8. CaldweIVNampa Boulevard
19. Overland Road (multi -modal
30. Greenhurst Road (Middleton
(Linden Street to Orchard Avenue);
corridor plan)
Road to McDermott Road /Happy
Valley Road)
10. Regional park and ride lots 21. Cherry Lane (Middleton Road to 32. Bowmont Road to Kuna-Mora
(medium-term improvements) Black Cat Road) Road (new connection)
11. valleyconnect near-term 22. Lake Hazel Road/Amity Road 33. Beacon Light/Purple Sage (new
(capital/operating) (Lake Hazel, McDermott to Linder; connection— preserving land for a
Amity, Southside to Black Cat) future project)
CIM 2040 Vision Map with 33 Priority Projects
----------- -
4 +„
Legend
69 Downtown
Mixed Use
Employment Center
Transit Oriented Development
_
Small Town
Future Neighborhood
Existing Neigborhood
- ±
Prime Farmland
Foothills
Rural
Regional Parks
Regional Pathway
--- State Highways
High Capacity Transit
Existing Corridor
Unique Areas
m « New Corridor
Large Unique Areas
Corridor Preservation
tilt Hospital
Et Airport
10 University
em,
o o b
Prison NORTH
,;,
14
�4 33
Ie
22
7 fis
��� 14 i r--� `•�,
\ t.� ... 1
AO
12
April 2014 ITEM NUMBER: 7E
[a7el"go-&-kn<l11I= 4:
Public Works: Nampa Meridian Irrigation District (NMID) Project Agreement - Well
21 /Watertower Fiber Optic Conduit Crossing at the Eight Mile Lateral
MEETING NOTES
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
TO: Mayor Tammy de Weerd
Members of the City Council
FROM: Clint Worthington
DATE: 3131114
Mayor Tammy de Weerd
City Council Memberso
Keith Bird
)oe Borton
Charles Rountree
David Zaremba
Genesis Milam
Luke Cavener
SUBJECT: Nampa Meridian Project Agreement — Well 21/Watertower Fiber Optic
Conduit Crossing at the Eight Mile Lateral
RECOMMENDED ACTION
A. Move to:
1. Approve a Project Agreement with Nampa Meridian Irrigation District for a
2 -inch fiber optic conduit crossing the Eight Mile Lateral from the
Watertower to Well 21 with terms and conditions as agreed upon under the
Master Agreement executed on March 18, 2014.
2. Authorize the Public Works staff to sign the Agreement.
II. DEPARTMENT CONTACT PERSONS
Clint Worthington, Staff Engineer II 489-0349
Kyle Radek, Assistant City Engineer 489-0343
Warren Stewart, Engineering Manager 489-0350
Tom Barry, Director of Public Works 489-0372
III. DESCRIPTION
The current plan for our SCADA system includes installing a fiber optic line from
the Watertower to the Wastewater Division with connections at City Hall and the
Water Division. This fiber optic cable improves SCADA communication reliability
and capability over radios and antennas to project signals through the air. This
project consists of installing approximately 250 feet of fiber from Well 21 to the
Watertower which allows us to add Well 21 to this fiber network. In order to install
the fiber between Well and the Watertower, a fiber conduit will need to be bored
underneath the Eight Mile Irrigation Lateral.
Page I of 2
IV. IMPACT
A. Fiscal Impact: There are no fiscal impacts associated with approving the project
agreement.
V. ALTERNATIVES
The City could decide not to sign the Project Agreement. This would stall the
project and limit the City's ability to provide a more reliable source for SCADA
communication to the Water Department.
VI. TIME CONSTRAINTS
Due to the upcoming irrigation season, Nampa Meridian Irrigation District has
imposed a deadline of April 15, 2014 for the completion of the work that directly
impacts the Eight Mile Irrigation Lateral.
VII. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
The attached project agreement is a requirement of the Nampa Meridian Irrigation
District. This will be our first "Project Agreement" and contains the terms and conditions
which have been stipulated under the Master Agreement between the City and
Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District on March 18, 2014.
Approved for Council Agenda: r
Page 2 of 2
ate
DATE: 2014 ITEM NUMBER: 7F
--
Public Works: "Wastewater Program - National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Permitting (NPDES)"
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
:1 Z -i
l t
,i
'V,vA
A
W5
7
City Council Workshop
Wastewater Program:
and NPDES Permitting Implications
,}
April 8, 2014
CVE IDIAN - I fi]R
Goals and Objectives
Introduction and Kick -Off
NPDES Permitting and Wastewater Program
History and Current Status
New Compliance Requirements
Options to Meet New Compliance
Requirements
Foundation for What Comes Next
Goals and Objectives
• Inform the Council of complexities and impacts of potential decisions
R Educate the Council so they are prepared to make future decisions
Develop a foundation for what comes next
E I�
Introduction
Am it
Team Introduction
C%WENDIAN^--
Tom Barry, John McCormick, Warren Stewart, Clint Dolsby, Mollie Mangerich
Tracy Crane, Laurelei McVey, Travis Kissire
1 1 J -
Dave Clark Michael Kasch Haley Falconer
J�Rco sial .. .
� � 2
'PPOSE
Jim Werntz Pete Wagner
Bill Stewart Troy Smith
Christine Psyk Lance Holloway
David Domingo Lauri Monnot
Brian Nickel Todd Crutcher
Wastewater Treatment in Meridian
• Wastewater Disposal - fundamental city service
Clean Water Act - protect aquatic life and provide recreation
IDAPA 58.01.16 - Wastewater Rules
"Establish procedures and requirements for ... wastewater facilities
and discharge of wastewaters and human activities which may
adversely affect public health and water quality..."
11 City provides water and wastewater services to citizens
Title 9, Chapter 4 - Sewer Use Ordinance - "...necessary and
conducive for protection of health, safety, and welfare of public and
inhabitants of the city... "
Title 9, Chapter 4 - City Authority - "The wastewater system shall be
under the sole and exclusive control of the mayor and city council... "
• Wastewater Division is largest infrastructure asset in the City
r -
m
Ongoing Activities
WWTP
Upgrades
Planning
Regulatory
Engagement
E I
Ongoing Activities
• TMDL
modeling
support
• Independent
modeling to
understand
impacts to
City's
program
nnlw SA} n. ni., o-ry nnvntw•mv nx�v�YiM
Modeling
�0.
M,.N.
Y 4wM {� PMM
MM i bIM,�YM
IgIMe u.�R.
i
—O
_
-O
nmJ y
,M W!
O
�_
Gkdml9tly_
—
AM.115
O
Mwwfis.
oMfiollMlr
�D.
--
NHRMRI
O
xMt,
M6flm _
RM:11
�O
Q
w
WFn fl
0
,MUD _
VWo
�
_
O
wU
Q
RM.I$
�a
Q
,M.14fi
O
Q
i
Ongoing Activities
Modeling
Planning
• Facility Plan
• Implementation
Plan
• Financial
positioning
• Considerations
for trading/
offsets
E I�
Ongoing Activities
• Performing
upgrades and
improvements
required to
meet final
permit limits
Modeling
WWTP
Upgrades
Planning
L�r-jk f�lzz I - . 0
e-
c
fair
Ongoing Activities
Planning
Regulatory
Engagement
• TMDL
development
• Watershed
Advisory Group
• Additional
municipal Board
position (WAG)
• TMDL TAC
• TMDL municipal
subgroup
• Review/ comment
on other permits
E t�
NPDES Permitting and
Wastewater Program History
�r
E3
and Current Status
City of Meridian Services
Importance of wastewater treatment
Protect public health
Protect waterways
Treated water discharged to
Fivemile Creek
Boise River
Reclaimed water
• Discharge permit is a federal
requirement
s
_ If
NPDES Permitting
Federal Clean Water Act (1972) requires a
discharge permit
EPA Region 10 issues permits for Idaho dischargers
Idaho DEQ certifies permit
Permits dictate the required water quality of discharge
Technology requirements
Water quality standards
TMDL allocations incorporated
Regulatory Process
Water quality
analysis - meet
beneficial
uses?
TMDL includes
pollutant
allocations
Water body
does not meet
beneficial uses
NPDES permits
required by
CWA
Added to state
303(d) list
Permit 5 -year
cycle
Current Status
NPDES permitting is a multi -step, multi-year process
Regulatory
requirement to
develop TMDL
Permits must
include TMDL
allocations
E I�
Current Permit Status
Water quality Water body Regulatory TMDL includes
analysis - meet does not meet Added to state requirement to pollutant
beneficial uses? beneficial uses 303(d) list develop TMDL allocations
NPDES permits Permits must TMDL
required by Permit 5 year include TMDL Implementation
cycle
CWA > allocations Plan
Renewal Administrative New permit
>> Extension ICL lawsuit issued
(2004) (2004 -current) >> >> (est. 2014)
Idaho DEQ has Preliminary Draft NPDES Permit
C�WEN I ')- A J _,
Permit Process
Water quality Water bout' Regulatory TMDL includes
analysis - meet does not meet Added to state requirement to pollutant
X
beneficial uses? beneficial uses 303(d) list develop TMDL allocations
NPDES permits Permits must TMDL
required by Permit 5 year include TMDL Implementation
cycle
CWA allocations Plan
Administrative
Extension
ICL lawsuit
Preliminary Draft permit is time to get early%
comments and requests to EPA and IDEA ' �`
Review and comment on
beneficial uses
Review and comment on
303(d) list
Participate in the TMDL
development process
Submit permit application.
Work with EPA and DEQ to
provide comments. Comply
with Regulations.
Participate in activities
Maintain and upgrade
wastewater facilities
Establish beneficial uses
Update state 303(d) list
every other year
Write TMDLs for impaired
water bodies
Write 401 Certification for
NPDES permits
Write TMDL
Implementation Plan
Review Facility Plan,
Preliminary Engineering,
and Design
City is involved throughout the TMDL and NPDES
permit process and is planning for facility implications
Review and approve
beneficial uses
Review and approve
303(d) list
Review and
approve/disapprove
TMDLs
Develop NPDES permits
Monitor progress
Monitor discharge
monitoring reports (legal
permit reporting)
a �
Cuttent Wastewa I
0,4
V AMA
z 'rl
11 F
`► •Mid_ , .(--lR i
Sludge fermentation completed
Pre -Draft NPDES permit issued 2014
Timeline Return activated sludge denitrification
improvements completed 2013
Secondary clarifier improvements
Bulk chemical feed facility constructed 2012
BNR process online Solids stream expansion complete 2011
Reclaimed water booster station/reservoir
City reviewed potential rate impacts
and began saving for regulatory 2009
challenges
2005
2004
M
2010
Filtration phase 2 completed.
First use of reclaimed water
Plant liquid stream expansion to provide BNR.
2007 Class A reclaimed water permit issued by IDEQ.
Phase 1 cloth media filters installed
City recognizes upcoming challenges with future phosphorous regulations
1998 Submit permit renewal application. Existing permit expires and
is administratively extended by EPA to Present
Current NPDES permit issued
Treatment Plant Improvements
Since 2006, over 60 Capital projects
Investment in excess of $55,000,000 in the Wastewater Division
r is
Discharge Option Overview
Reclaime' /
Water Use El- .• - r
Boise River
i Discharge
Five Mile Creek
Discharge
>
LL
NPDES Permit Effluent Discharge Options
FIVE MILE CREEK OUTFALL
Gravity flow
Smaller stream, reduced
assimilative capacity
Secondary contact recreation
Currently not listed for
temperature impairment
BOISE RIVER OUTFALL
• Pumped flow
Larger stream, increased
assimilative capacity
Primary contact recreation and
salmonid spawning
Strict temperature limits
(13°C in Apr -May)
BRO impacts reclaimed water
distribution
M
Reclaimed Water
• Idaho's leading reclaimed water
program
• Approved uses: Irrigation, dust
suppression, sewer line flushing,
commercial uses
• Reduces potable water volume
produced for non -drinking water uses
• Reduces the amount of effluent being
discharged into the Boise River
• Requires permit from state (not NPDES
permit)
K7
Reclaimed Water Statistics
• 6 miles of distribution piping
• Two 500,000 gallon storage tanks
• 1.1 mgd production capacity
• 1600 gpm pumping capacity to
distribution system
Total flow 2013 =
2,056,881,300 gallons
Total reclaimed 2013 =
39,021,400 gallons
New Compliance Requirements
u
Water Quality Issues
2004 Snake River - Hells Canyon Phosphorus TMDL
Nutrients, Nuisance Algae and Dissolved Oxygen
Pending 2014 Boise River Phosphorus TMDL
Phosphorus Enrichment Impacts
Algae Growth
Suspended in Water
Bottom (Benthic) Coverage
Dissolved Oxygen
Algae Decomposition
pH
Macroinvertebrates
Fisheries
• Recreation/Public Perception
Other Boise River Issues
• Bacteria
• Sediment
• Temperature
• Toxics
Ammonia
Metals
4 Organics
There is a water quality problem and Meridian hasE NI!�A%
been planning and preparing to meet new limits _ JJ ,1'
Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs)
Snake River -Hells Canyon TMDL
Phosphorus allocation at Parma
Seasonal (May through Sept)
Low Concentration (70 ug/L)
Boise River draft TMDL
Phosphorus and nuisance algae targets
Phosphorus allocations under development
by DEQ
Including City of Meridian loading
City issues
Treatment requirements and strategies
Costs
Extent and duration of treatment
(seasonal v. year round)
Schedule for implementation
City of Meridian will be required to upgrade the
treatment facility based on these TMDLs
Sans 2M %0W M al Nos Asan s bo Off+^' Rie�c tPaai d�Inf ms1�/w
ur&V�"Am Yhb a awns. Y1~ 4N1) 123 - 140
E I�
Boise River TMDLs
Bacteria: Water quality standard sets
limits
Sediment: City received allocation
Phosphorus: Pending allocations in
TMDL development
City engaged in TMDL process
Supporting river water quality modeling
Informing treatment dialog
Temperature: Future?
Impairment listing
DEQ undecided
Permit limits v. TMDL v. other?
C � '. E I
Permit Process
Renewal Administrative\\ ICL lawsuit ANew permit
Extension / / issued
Courtesy Public 30 day New
pre-draftcomment comment permit
permit >> draft >> period >> issued
Preliminary Draft permit opportunity to highlight E L�
early comments and requests to EPA and IDEQ
Pre -Draft Permit Accomplishments
• Wastewater discharge flow
Removed flow caps in pre -draft permit`:
• Unique permit structure
Meridian benefits
• Phosphorus seasonality
Seasonal concentration limit
Concentration limit greater than other permits
• Outfalls
Both Fivemile and Boise River outfalls preserved
E I�
NPDES Discharge Permit Requirements
Discharge Permit Comparison
Treatment Level Basic "Secondary" Treatment "Advanced" Treatment
Effluent Limits 6 Constituents 16 Constituents (10 new)
Monitoring
Requirements
60
50
+, 40
c
0 30
v 20
10
0
32 Limits, Constituents, Plans 121 Limits, Constituents, Plans
■ 1999 ■ 2014 Pre -Draft
*no ambient sampling since 2001 1
Effluent Limits Inf/Eff Monitoring Ambient Monitoring Required Plans
Parameters Parameters
Monitoring and Effluent Limits: 1999 vs. 2014
Permit No.: 00020192
Page 18 of47
a4u�a�lmL
2014 Pre -Draft Permit Proposed
Monitoring Requirements & Limits
f47 Page 8 of47
Page l7 of 47 044400:
tame and
sarVIe
her real -
date
ith the application
—_
r mRgw,))asa
t"o
L Mercury Minimivtiov Plan
as the format of
.h.. varve and
ID ®itteemustdnly m kmmia mivimimhov that
epe P cap meravy plata
xv.
caber. s.pk
. or other real-
ofineravp tteaso du or eliminate
otesru
t m t
tion det.tlon
dsee
water quality
plasms loading. the EP
loadrag, nnm s a subm rs DEQ that the
v nd m must be submitkd to the EPA and
It. result units.
F77
—
ethod. date
—
F. ]fethylmessary Requirements
—_
t"o
L Mercury Minimivtiov Plan
ID ®itteemustdnly m kmmia mivimimhov that
epe P cap meravy plata
0M,L
ofineravp tteaso du or eliminate
otesru
t m t
dsee
plasms loading. the EP
loadrag, nnm s a subm rs DEQ that the
v nd m must be submitkd to the EPA and
—
elope avdlmplemevrtd -
da}xofthe eftefivedate of
t
—
thss Arr torstaed
euerrser racy mini ts. plats
lx mthefo forcompliancewiththiserection.
wsthtrmit.Any
h.Pl n.'t
The mmcury minimization plm must include the fv0wmg
—aam
wmlea,
mgt
w=.
a) ANogmm PUvwhich includes the Ciryscommi�mts for
ti
s]}'ot
mdaveemmveme
a'\-
;n, eIar
(i) Idevti6catiw of potevoal sources ofinernuy that wvmbute to
wFy
w+eav+a�a
disfharge conemnatiow,
L
(LL) Reasonable,con{fhch,.,trrvnes toreftenrelsanlnete melemy
Is
w's.dwracnalmn,
loadmCs from identsfled sotarcm
8 1
1
(tai) T,.k.g smartorry sauce reductioniarplearenta¢on and mse e
- 1
'N
ofan}
s.,ernanmltmg:
L
pass
jnRa�'•x
l:ol aa_A1n .......
_
ietul:eL•: �aepL�¢a
More Restrictive Effluent Limits, Increased Monitoring, More Complex Operations, Greater
Regulatory Scrutiny
Phosphorus
Issue: Nuisance Algae Growth
In -stream targets
TP 0.070 mg/L
Benthic Algae 150 mg/m2
F 150 mglmz Chia
D 1,250 mglmz Chia
New Effluent Limits
Fivemile Creek TP 0.120 mg/L
Boise River TP 0.070 mg/L
Current performance -0.9 mg/L
>90% lower than current
discharge
Near limits of treatment
technology
Requires significant engineering
and new treatment technologies
Compliance schedule needed ( WENI!D�ANIT
%
Effluent limits are very low concentrations
Ammonia Nitrogen
Issue: Toxic to Aquatic Life
In -stream criteria
Acute 1.23 mg/L
Chronic 0.60 mg/L
P
New Effluent Limits
Fivemile Creek 0.307 mg/L
Boise River TP 0.242 mg/L
Current performance -5.5
mg/L
>90% lower than current
discharge
Near limits of treatment
technology
Requires significant engineering
and new treatment technologies
Compliance schedule needed
Effluent limits are very low concentrations%
Revised 2013 Federal Ammonia Criteria more restrictive
Additional Parameters with
Effluent Limits -Toxics
Metals
Copper
Cyanide
Mercury
Zinc
Dialog with EPA on validity of assumptions
Compliance schedule needed
Additional monitoring for other parameters
Organics
Bis (2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate
Widely used plasticizer for
manufacturing PVC
Consideration of Future Water Quality Issues
Phosphorus
Potential year-round limits
Ammonia
Revised 2013 Federal Criteria
Temperature
Current Boise River Impairment
Idaho Human Health Water
Quality Criteria Rulemaking for
Toxics
Upcoming Toxics Rulemaking
Visual Comparison
Based on human fish consumption
rates
Immediate Compliance vs.
Compliance Schedule
• Extra time but mandatory compliance
NPDES permit typically 5 year schedule
With justification, expecting 10 year compliance period to meet
some of the effluent limits
Compliance schedules allowed when permits include new
constituents or lower limits
• Allow time to meet new limits rather than immediate
compliance requirements
Legally enforceable
a
Meridian Wastewater
Implementation Plan
Implementation Plan
• Summary of required improvements to meet
anticipated permit limits and provide required capacity
• Rationale for Prioritization
Reliability, Capacity, Water Quality
• Includes projects to demonstrate to Idaho DEQ and EPA
the magnitude and logic of City investments
Implementation Plan must balance phosphorus, ( WENI!DL�IANK%�-
ammonia, and capacity requirements for Meridian ' �`
Strategic Approach
1 Early design development studies
Near-term support activities that inform larger capital
investment decisions
Low cost relative to treatment improvements
Studies include decision points that will help identify the next
step in the capital program
• Benefits
Develop longterm vision
Balance meeting treatment requirements with economic and
life -cycle considerations
Wastewater Treatment
Technology Selection
• Each constituent requires different treatment
technologies
Each parameter has multiple technology options
Some technology options complement one another, others
contradict
Engineering studies are necessary for selection
E I
Options to Idlest New Compliance
Ei
Requirements
r" !J�rs11,j _-
City of Meridian Options to Meet
New Compliance Requirements
Treat and Offsets
Discharge
Combination
Trading Aquifer
Recharge
Meridian Heights Water Is Sewer District
�r•wa wn., r..,aua wowr o.
2012 Annual Fcl-.
IlFIB4
Water Quality Must
Meet or Exceed Class A
Reclaimed Water Standards
Surface Plus Nitrogen Removal
Pe n:olation Basin
Water Quality Must Meet Drinking,
Water and Groundwater Standard,
Approach to Meeting New
Compliance Requirements
• Implementation Plan
Studies provide flexibility in options
• City working to understand best program decision
New compliance requirements combined with
population growth and location require unique
approach compared to other communities
E I�
Hybrid combinations may provide advantages
Comparison of Treasure Valley
NPDES Approaches
• Boise
Considering combination of treatment and trading
Nampa
Considering treatment and recharge
• Caldwell
Considering options
• Kuna
Treat and discharge
E I
Cost Implications Summary (10yrs)
■ Capital
■ Studies
Staffing
Operations
and
Maintenance
■ Capacity ■ Reliability Water Quality
Present worth costs range from $125M -$190M
Majority of capital improvements are aimed at
improving water quality
Schedule of Expenditures
Low to high range
of expenditures
$250 0
►.
$200 N
I
$150 c
a�
a
$1006
$50 E
U
$0
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Year
Comparison of Options to Meet
New Compliance Requirements
Treat and
discharge
Offsets
Trading
Aquifer recharge
High certainty
High certainty
Moderate to High
certainty
Low to Moderate
High
Moderate to High
Moderate to High
Moderate to High
Low
Low to Moderate
Moderate to High
Moderate to High
future Implications
E3
wm
E!
Implications of New Compliance
Requirements on Wastewater Program
Incorporate new treatment technologies
and additional equipment
Enhance/upgrade existing treatment
components
Modify methods and processes
More complex operation
Increased staffing and
expertise
Financial Implications
Foundation -What's Next
• Ongoing near-term studies are designed to inform the
evaluation of options
• We are working with EPA on pre -draft permit
• Development and finalization of the Implementation Plan
with IDEQ (Compliance Schedule development)
Issuance of the Draft Permit with a comment period
• Further development of the Lower Boise River TMDL
• Staffing, infrastructure, and financial impact analysis to
continue
Future Council Updates
E I�
a
Questions/Discussmion
U-11"i'CLER KS OPT
CWA - Clean Water Act
IDEQ or DEQ - Idaho Department of Environmental Quality
EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
TMDL - Total Maximum Daily Load
NPDES - National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Watershed Advisory Group
TAC - Technical Advisory Committ-
r •
DAPA - Idaho Administrative Procedures Act
WWTP - Wastewater Treatment Plant
Idaho Conservation League
Biological Nutrient Removal
BRO - Boise River Outfall
I Urgo,r 0 1 A
DATE: April 8, 2014 ITEM NUMBER: 8A
ITEM TITLE: Ordinances
Ordinance No. d-'iu0( :An ordinance amending Meridian City Code as Codified
at Title 11, entitled the UDC pertaining to modification of the dimensional standards of
the R-15 zoning district
MEETING NOTES
a, A
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. N-1
BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BIRD, BORTON, CAVENER,
MILAM, ROUNTREE, ZAREMBA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING MERIDIAN CITY CODE AS CODIFIED AT TITLE
11, ENTITLED THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE, OF THE MERIDIAN CITY
CODE PERTAINING TO MODIFICATION OF THE DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS
OF THE R-15 ZONING DISTRICT; AND PROVIDING FOR A WAIVER OF THE
READING RULES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Unified Development Code is the official zoning ordinance for the
City of Meridian and provides an opportunity to better support the Comprehensive Plan and
provide a tool that is relevant and contemporary to the needs of the City; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Meridian deems it to be in the best
interest of the health, safety and welfare of its citizens to incorporate changes to the Unified
Development Code within the City of Meridian to provide for orderly growth and
development and to carry out the policies of Meridian's Comprehensive Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO:
Section 1. That Meridian City Code Section 11 -2A -3D.2, Unified Development
Code, be amended in part as follows:
11-2A-3: STANDARDS:
D. Encroachments Allowed In Any Setback:
1. Open structures such as porches, canopies, balconies, platforms, covered patios, cornices,
eaves or other projections, which do not increase the volume of space enclosed by the building
and do not project into any required setback by more than two feet (2').
2. Chimneys, pop out windows, direct vent gas fireplaces, entertainment centers, window seats and
other projections which do not increase the usable floor area and do not exceed eight feet (8') in
width may project up to two feet (2) into any required setback. Where building setbacks are
below five feet (6) encroachments into the required setback may project up to one (1) foot.
3. One detached accessory building that does not exceed one hundred twenty (120) square feet in
area and eight feet (8') or less in height shall be allowed in the required rear yard. In no case
shall an accessory building be allowed in the street yard or the required side yard. (Ord. 12-
1514, 5-16-2012, eff. 5-21-2012)
MARCH 2014 UPDATE
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT AMENDMENT ORDINANCE - ZOA-14-001 PAGE 1 OF 3
Section 2. That Meridian City Code Section 11-2A-7 (Table), Unified Development
Code, be amended in part as follows:
11-2A-7: MEDIUM HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (R-15):
The maximum gross density allowed is fifteen (15) dwellings per acre. Dimensional standards for
development in the R-15 residential district shall be as follows: (Ord. 08-1372, 7-8-2008, eff. 7-8-
2008)
TABLE 11-2A-7
DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS FOR THE R-15 DISTRICT
R-15 Standard Requirement
—---------
Minimum property size/dwelling unit (in square feet)12,400
---
----I
Mum street frontage
�I_--__.—�
r
----
(( 0
Street setback' to garage (in feet):F[
Local
20
rCollector
Street setback' to living area (in feet):
Local
10
rCollector�___�___._.____®_�__.�
Side setback
Rear setback
F[12
Street landscape buffer (in feet):
_
Collector
[2o
;Arterial
Entryway corridor
35
�
Interstate �r50
Maximum building height (in feet) �40
Note:
1.Measured from back of sidewalk or property line where there is no adjacent sidewalk.
(Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005; amd. Ord. 07-1325, 7-10-2007)
MARCH 2014 UPDATE
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE TExT AMENDMENT ORDINANCE - ZOA-14-001 PAGE 2 OF 3
Section 4. That all other provisions of Title 11 as they relate to the Unified
Development Code remain unchanged.
Section 5. That this ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and
publication.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this day of
, 2014.
APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this day of
, ,2014.
APPROVED:
ATTEST:
r.
JAYCEE HOLMAN, CITY
�5 -
'G�Le AMMY-1
ENI -
)IA Nk-
1
m S13_AL
WEERD, MAYOR
MARCH 2014 UPDATE
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT AMENDMENT ORDINANCE - ZOA-14-001 PAGE 3 OF 3
NOTICE AND PUBLISHED SUMMARY
OF ORDINANCE PURSUANT TO I.C. § 50-901(A)
CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 14 -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING MERIDIAN CITY CODE AS CODIFIED AT
TITLE 11, ENTITLED THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE, OF THE
MERIDIAN CITY CODE PERTAINING TO MODIFICATION OF THE
DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS OF THE R-15 ZONING DISTRICT;
AND PROVIDING FOR A WAIVER OF THE READING RULES; AND
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
The full text of this ordinance is available for inspection at City Hall, City of Meridian,
33 East Broadway, Meridian, Idaho. This ordinance shall become effective upon its
passage and publication.
City of Metdlan if
✓/ `"
EI�II- rA1'
Mayor and City Council
By: Jaycee Holman, City Cleric 4 �F. SEAL y�
+rFd a*�fi
First Reading: 4 ® - J� 7x`���
Adopted after first reading by sus ension of the Rule as allowed pursuant to
Idaho Code § 50-902: YES NO
Second Reading: -
Third Reading:
STATEMENT OF MERIDIAN CITY ATTORNEY AS TO
ADEQUACY OF SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 14- (l
The undersigned, William L.M. Nary, City Attorney of the City of Meridian,
Idaho, hereby certifies that he is the legal advisor of the City and has reviewed a copy of
the attached Ordinance no. 14- I of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and has found the
same to be true and complete and provides adequate notice to the public pursuant to
Idaho Code § 50-901A(3).
DATED this day of
2014.
William. L.M. Nary, City Attorney
MARCH 2014 UPDATE
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT AMENDMENT ORDINANCE - SUMMARY PAGE 1 OF 1
• • r
April 8, 2014 ITEM NUMBER:
Future Meeting Topics:
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS