Minutes - 2006 - City Council - 03/21/2006 - Regular
~
EAGLE CITY COUNCIL
Minutes
March 21, 2006
**Note early meeting start time.**
This meeting will be held at the Eagle Senior Center.
1. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Merrill calls the meeting to order at 5:50 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL: BASTIAN, GUERBER, NORDSTROM, BANDY. Bandy absent. A
Quorum is present.
3. EXECUTIVE SESSION: (5:30 - 6:30 p.m.)
A. Pending and Threatened Litigation. I.c. S67-2345(f)
The executive session will be held in Council Chambers, the remainder of the meeting
will be conducted at the Senior Center.
Mayor introduces the issue.
Nordstrom moves to go into Executive Session to discuss pending and threatened
litigation. Seconded by Guerber. BASTIAN: AYE; GUERBER; AYE:
NORDSTROM: AYE. ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIES........................
Council goes into Executive Session at 5:50 p.m.
Council discusses pending and threatened litigation.
Council leaves Executive Session at 6:35 p.m.
4. REQUEST FOR MEDIATION (6:30 - 7:30 p.m.)
A. Consideration of a mediation reQuest pursuant to Idaho Code Section 67-6510
re2;ardin2;: Moffat Subdivision(A-3-05/RZ-5-05/PP-6-05), Park Place Gardens
Subdivision (A-8-05/RZ-12-05/CU-9-05/PP-ll-05), Bella Terra Planned Unit
Development (A-17 -05/RZ-24-05/CU-14-05/PPUD-7 -05/PP-16-05).
Mayor introduces the issue.
City Attorney Buxton: You have before you four (4) Mediation requests. We received by
e-mail today a letter dated March 16, 2006 which we received March 20, 2006 from
Rondo Fehlberg for Park Place Partners. They voice their concern and are opposed to the
mediation. We also received an e-mail from Mr. Huffaker dated March 21st around 11:45
a.m. I did not see this until this afternoon and I believe Mr. Huffaker is representing the
mediation group that has some more information that he submitted with regard to the
request for Mediation. First the parties asked for mediation for the comp plan and notice.
The comp plan in question was approved by Resolution of the Council on September 18,
2004. The time to challenge that Resolution has passed and further since the cornp plan
is only a guideline it does not have the full force and effect. Challenging the comp plan
on its own would have limited value. It was only today when I read this e-mail did I
know the detail of what they alleged in regards to the comprehensive plan notice. It does
not appear that it is anything new from what they have already addressed in numerous
public hearings that have already been held by the City Council on this matter so my
Page 1
K:\COUNCIL\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\CC _03_21_06mindoc
recommendation is that we deny the mediation request on the comp plan implementation
because I don't really see how mediation is going to change the situation or change
anything at this point.
Secondly. The parties request mediation on Park Place Gardens. Again they talk about
the cornp plan notice and implementation of the comprehensive plan and they really don't
go into too many more details other than some of the documentation that was received by
Mr. Huffaker today, and again their constitutional due process rights were violated by
inadequate notice in the comprehensive plan change. We have gone over that several
times and I have reviewed it and have talked about it in public hearing many times and I
again believe and it is my opinion that the City not only met but exceeded the legal
requirements for notice of that Comprehensive Plan 2004.
They also bring up an issue with regard that the area is not addressed in the Soaring 2025
Plan with regard that there is no language or no single word of text regarding the Cities
vision for this defined area. With regard to comprehensive plans, again comprehensive
plans are guides and the City Council has the ability to interpret that as their own guide
and again it does not have the full and effect of law so they interpret the comprehensive
plan within what their vision is and as well as what their ordinances are. In this situation
the zoning ordinance, pud ordinance and subdivision ordinance and all ordinances that
were applicable with regard to that application.
Park Place Gardens had several public hearings. In fact at the City Council level we
actually had two public hearings and you had ample opportunity to hear the issues with
regards to the concerns of the comprehensive plan notice and I do not believe that
mediation will resolve those issues and again I recommend that we do not mediate in this
situation.
Mediation is usually used in a situation where you have an area that you come to a middle
ground and I'm not so sure that, especially with Park Place Gardens, that you are going to
be able to have that. You have tried what you can. If I look at the details, the Council
had a public hearing on the matter and then the applicant asked the project to be tabled
and that was last fall. The applicant came back to Council several months later in another
public hearing with significant reduction in density, change in the road and pathway
configurations and other significant changes. Council held another public hearing on the
project and then another one because of faulty notice. So again you had several looks at
this especially with regards to the comprehensive plan and concerns. So, again, I
recommend denial.
The third is the Moffat Subdivision. The Moffat Subdivision was denied by the Council
in late September, 2005. Mr. Moffat requested mediation in writing which the Council
addressed on October 18, 2005. I looked back at the transcript ofthe October 18,2005
meeting and one of the things that Mr. Huffaker says in his e-mail today is that he does
not believe that the mediation that the City Council conducted was in accordance with
Title 67 Chapter 65] O. What he is saying is that under (2) the applicant and any other
affected persons objecting to the applicant shall participate in at least one mediation
session if the mediation is requested by the commission or the governing board. The
governing board shall select and pay the expense of the mediator for the first meeting. I
Page 2
K:\COlJNCIL\MINUTES\Temporary :Minutes Work Area\CC-03-21-Q6min.doc
don't believe that is reasonable to think that if you did not pay a mediator that your
mediation would not be considered meeting the intent of 67 -6510 and after the mediation
was explained in great detail on the 18th and again in other meetings when you asked me
about the status ofthe mediation on the 18th we went into great detail on what would
happen with regard to mediation, how it tolled the statue of limitations for hearings and
that you would need file a motion for judicial review if you were going to appeal the
decision within 28 days and that if there was a recommendation that came out of the
mediation that it would come back to the City Council in a full blown public hearing
would be held. A full blown public hearing was held on the Moffat Subdivision and that
was held on February 28th. I don't believe that anything else would come out of the
mediation of that subdivision. Reading of the mediation statue certainly would have
allowed other aggrieved parties to ask in writing to come in and be participants in that
mediation and they did not do so. I think a serial mediation and again another mediation
on the same subdivision is not the intent of the law. I think the intent of the law is to try
one set of mediation. I think having several mediations is ajust an additional delay tactic
and I would not recommend another mediation of the Moffat Subdivision at this time.
The last is that the parties have requested a mediation of Bella Terra and I believe that has
been called the Martinez property. My understanding of the status of that is that property
has gone through public hearing at the Planning and Zoning level but has not yet come to
Council. While I do recognize that the mediation statue allows for mediation to be
requested and conducted at any time during the application process I do not believe that it
is a good use of time to mediate a project that has not been before the City Council. It
makes more sense to me to look at mediation requests after a full public hearing process
to see if there are issues that arise that would benefit from mediation to attempt to avoid
litigation or to avoid an intended consequences of the final decision made by the Council.
Accordingly I recommend that you deny the mediation request for the Bella Terra
Subdivision.
General discussion on the Idaho Code statues and the mediation requests.
City Attorney Buxton: I have recommended that all 4 mediation requests be denied at this
time.
Michael Huffaker, 1753 N. Chaucer Way, Eagle, provides Council a review of the
requests for mediations. I disagree that mediation is a voluntary process. We are trying
to go about the process the best way that we know how and we would love to sit down
with each of the developers and see if some compromise can be reached so that we could
avoid litigation for us as and for them. That is what mediation is for. We are seriously
interested in compromise. You have the right to deny the mediation. If you decide to
deny the mediation then we will proceed with what we need to do as well.
Mayor: Last week I pulled the tapes and listen to the October 18, 2005 meeting which
was the mediation request from Mr. Moffat to the City Council and there were a number
ofpeop]e at that meeting that also were on that tape and they participated in that meeting.
So there were people interested at that time. The statute requires a written request from
the people that want to participate in the application of the mediation and at that point we
didn't receive anything except from Mr. Moffat. We keep going back to the notification
Page 3
K:\COUNCIL\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work AreaICC-03+21-06mindoc
on this. I would like to read what this notification says. This was sent to the Idaho
Statesman on August 10th and published on the 14th, 1 th and ] 9th of August, 2004. It is
legal notice given by the City of Eagle. Mayor reads the Legal Public Notice into the
record.
City Attorney Buxton: Provides clarification of the Statute. General discussion.
Council Member Guerber: I've come to the conclusion that you can not un-ring the bell.
There has been something that has happened, we have taken actions, and we can't go
back and change everything the way it was in September 2004. We have to figure out
where we go from here. We need to reopen and revisit the comp plan to see if we need to
make changes. Which is part of the process allowed under our comprehensive plan.
There is no difference between this process and mediation. Another thing that has me
confused is some of the time tables that are involved. I have listen to testimony from
people from some of the subdivision, Cavallo, Henry's and developments like that who
have come in and said "I never knew about this, I didn't get notified, I wasn't allowed to
participate, I don't like what the decisions were you ought to go back and revisit this". I
looked to see what the time tables were and what I found out was that in Cavallo there
were only 4 occupancy permits issued at the time this decision was made so that maybe
why a lot of people in Cavallo did not know what was going on. This decision was made
before they even moved out there. Henry's Subdivision had not even had anyone moving
into it at the time this decision was made. So those who come in and tell us 1 wasn't part
of the process, I didn't get to be involved in the decision, I don't like the decision needed
to live out there when the decision was made if they wanted to get notification on what
was going on in that process. The same is true of Calloway, most of that subdivision was
not occupied at that point in time. I talked to some people at Idaho Smart Growth. They
said we are carrying out appropriate types of transitions. Idaho Smart Growth would have
advocated higher density than what we are allowing.
Michael Huffaker, I think your comments on mediation on the Comp Plan would be as
you stated to reopen the comp plan for discussion. Discussion on transition and the roads
in the area. Discussion on the comp plan being a guide.
Zoning Administrator Vaughan: Discussion on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and
the process the City went through. General discussion.
Further Council discussion on mediation and revisiting the cornp plan for this area.
Rondo Fehlberg, Park Place Partners, we wrote a letter to the City in regards to the
mediation requests. We felt that mediation would not result in any change. We did not
support that process. We went on to say that if the City decided to have mediation that
we wanted to be part of the process. General discussion.
Nordstrom moves to deny the request for mediation pursuant to Idaho Code,
Section 67-6510 regarding the Moffat Subdivision(A-3-051RZ-5-05/PP-6-05), Park
Place Gardens Subdivision (A-8-051RZ-12-05/CU-9-05/PP-ll-05), Bella Terra
Planned Unit Development (A-17-05/RZ-24-05/CU-14-05/PPUD-7-05/PP-16-05)
and include as part of the denial the request to mediate the Comprehensive Plan
Page 4
K\COUNCIL\MINUfES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\CC-03-21-06min.doc
dated 2000 and the Soaring 2025 Comprehensive Plan pursuant to Idaho Code 67-
6510. Seconded by Bastian. Discussion. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES....
Guerber moves that the Mayor be instructed to make contact with Mr. Huffaker
and try to work with those that he represents in creation of proposals for
amendment to the comprehensive plan to be brought forward and considered with
an effort to deal with the remaining areas in question between Floating Feather and
Beacon Light and identify wording that could be considered and possibly some
specifics in regards to mapping. Seconded by Bastian. ALL AYES: MOTION
CARRIES..... ........... .....
Mayor calls a recess at 7:50 p.m.
Mayor reconvenes the meeting at 8: I 0 p.m.
5. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
6. PUBLIC COMMENT: Mary Kay Parse, 857 N. Echo Hawk Way and this is my
husband Mark Echevarria. We live in the Echo Hawk Subdivision and I understand you
don't have the legal jurisdiction in this matter but I'm looking for feedback and support.
The Homeowner's Association has put out two amendments to our CC&R's stating that
only 20% of our homes can be for investment and rental purposes and if there is an issue
that they have the right to impose a $5-$50 fine depending on their decision per day to the
homeowners. This came about because we sold our home and the Buyer was going to use
it for a rental. 3-4 days before the closing it came to our attention that the homeowners
have impeded the sale by saying we could not sell our home because we were in violation
of the CC&R's and that these owners would then be fined. The original CC&R's states
that they can not be changed without a 2/3 vote of the lot owners which has not been done
to my knowledge. Monday I lost the sale of home. I would like to know what I can do
more. My attorney told me that my recourse was to file a civil suit.
City Attorney Buxton: Unfortunately CC&R's run with the land and the City has no
jurisdiction over those types of contracts. The City has no standing to do anything with
regards to this situation. The City can not provide you any legal advice, you would have
to go to your own attorney. I'm sorry but there is nothing that the City can do for you.
Further discussion.
Nordstrom moves to add 7B under Proclamations and Resolutions. Seconded by
Bastian. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES.....................
City Attorney Buxton: I need you to add one thing to New Business as E. The
consideration and signature of Erland Subdivision Plat. So Moved by Bastian.
Seconded by Guerber. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES......................
7. PROCLAMATIONS & RESOLUTIONS:
A. Resolution No. 06-08: A Resolution Of The City Of Eagle, Idaho, Appointing Board
Members And Alternates To The Valley Regiona] Transit Board, And Providing An
Effective Date. (SKB)
Mayor introduces the issue.
Page 5
K:\COUNClL\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Arealer -03-21-06min.doc
Guerber moves to approve Resolution 06-08: A Resolution Of The City Of Eagle,
Idaho, Appointing Board Members And Alternates To The Valley Regional Transit
Board, And Providing An Effective Date. Seconded by Nordstrom. ALL A YES:
MOTION CARRIES...........
B. Resolution No. 06-12: A Resolution of the City of Eagle, Idaho, approving and
authorizing the filing of an application with the Bureau of Land Management for the
acquisition of public lands under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act; authorizing the
Mayor to execute the same; and providing an effective date.
Mayor introduces the issue.
Bastian moves to approve Resolution No. 06-12: A Resolution of the City of Eagle,
Idaho, approving and authorizing the filing of an application with the Bureau of
Land Management for the acquisition of public lands under the Recreation and
Public Purposes Act; authorizing the Mayor to execute the same; and providing an
effective date. Seconded by Guerber. Discussion. Bastian: AYE; Guerber: AYE:
Nordstrom: AYE: ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES..............
8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
A. FPUD-7-05 & FP-ll-05 - Final Development Plan and Final Plat for Corrente
Bello Subdivision No.2 - Corrente Bello, LLC: Corrente Bello, LLC, represented by
Bailey Engineering, is requesting final development plan and final plat approval for
Corrente Bello Subdivision No.2, an 89-lot o I-buildable and 18-common) planned
residential development. The 43.44-acre site is located on the north side of Floating
Feather Road approximately Y2-mile west of Eagle Road. (WEV) This item was continued
from the March 14, 2006 meeting.
Mayor introduces the issue.
Zoning Administrator Vaughan: Staff has had the opportunity to speak to the developer
and Mr. Cockran. Mr. Cockran is here tonight to address you as to their discussion.
Jerry Cockran, 1087 W. Floating Feather, I want to thank you for the opportunity to work
with the developer. We have come to an agreement where he will provide us with a
different drive way approach and landscaping. We are in agreement with Mr. Hall on
this.
Greg Hall, 82 E. State, I did meet with Mr. Cockran today and we are going to do some
berming and landscaping. We are also going to work some type of turn out so he can
come out straight forward.
Nordstrom moves to approve FPUD-7-05 & FP-ll-05 - Final Development Plan and
Final Plat for Corrente Bello Subdivision No.2 with all Site Specific Conditions of
Approval and to record the understanding with the neighbor across the street and
the Developer. Seconded by Guerber. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES.............
B. Findin2:s of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Park Place Gardens A-08-05/RZ-
12-05/PP-ll-05 Park Place Gardens Subdivision - Park Place Partners LLC: Park
Place Partners, LLC, represented by Bill Clark with Clark Development, is requesting an
annexation and rezone from RUT (Rural Urban Transition) to R-2-DA (Residential 2-
Page 6
K:\COWCIL\MINUTES\TemporaI)' r.,finutes Work Area\CC-03-21-06min.doc
units per acre with a development agreement), and preliminary plat approval for Park
Place Gardens a 126-lot (I12-buildable, 14-common) subdivision. The 95.32-acre site is
located between Meridian Road and Park Lane approximately] ,300 feet north of Floating
Feather Road. (WEV) This item was continuedfrom the March 14, 2006 meeting.
Mayor introduces the issue.
Bastian moves to approve Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Park Place
Gardens A-08-0S/RZ-12-0S/PP-II-0S Park Place Gardens Subdivision. Seconded by
Nordstrom. Discussion. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES.................
C. Findine:s of Fact and Conclusions of Law for A-3-0S & RZ-S-OS - Annexation
and Rezone from RUT to R-2 - Chad Moffat: Chad Moffat, represented by The Land
Group. LLC., is requesting an annexation and rezone from RUT (Rural Urban Transition)
to R-2 (Residential- up to 2 units per acre), after participating in mediation, pursuant to
Idaho Code 67-65]0, after the Eagle City Council's denial of the application on
September 13,2005. The 14.6-acre site is located on the west side of Park Lane
approximately one-half mile north of Floating Feather Road. (WEV) This item was
continuedfrom the March 14, 2006 meeting.
Mayor introduces the issue.
Guerber moves to approve Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for A-3-05 &
RZ-S-OS - Annexation and Rezone from RUT to R-2. Seconded by Bastian.
Discussion. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES...............
D. Findine:s of Fact and Conclusions of Law for PP-6-0S - Moffat Subdivision - Post
Mediation - Chad Moffat: Chad Moffat, represented by The Land Group. LLC., is
requesting a preliminary plat approval for Moffat Subdivision after participating in
mediation pursuant to Idaho Code 67-6510, following the Eagle City Council's denial of
the application on September 13,2005. The 14.6-acre, 30-lot subdivision (24-buildable,
6-common) is located on the west side of Park Lane approximately one-half mile north of
Floating Feather Road. (WEV) This item was continuedfrom the March 14, 2006
meeting.
Mayor introduces the issue.
Bastian moves to approve the post mediation Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law for PP-6-0S - Moffat Subdivision - Post Mediation - Chad Moffat
Seconded by Guerber. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES..................
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. CU-I-06 - Conditional Use Permit for BuiIdine: Heie:ht Exception - Meridian
Joint School District No.2: Meridian Joint School District No.2, represented by Wayne
Thowless with LKV Architects, is requesting conditional use permit approval for a
building height exception of 38' 6" for the Galileo Math and Science Magnet School.
The site is located on the southeast corner of West Saguaro Drive and North Linder Road
approximately 1,700-feet north of West State Street at 4735 West Saguaro Drive (Lot 1,
Block 3, Senora Creek Subdivision). (WEV)
Page 7
K:\COUNCIL\MINUTES\Ternpor1ll')' Minutes Work Area\CC-OJ-21-06min.doc
Mayor introduces the issue.
Mayor Opens the Public Hearing
Wayne Thowless, LKV Architects, representing Joint School District No.2, we are
asking for a height exception for the gymnasium. Provides Council an overview the
request and displays presentations boards of the school and gymnasium. General
discussion.
Zoning Administrator Vaughan: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended
approval of the application.
Mayor Closes the Public Hearing
Nordstrom moves to approve CU-I-06 - Conditional Use Permit for Building Height
Exception - Meridian Joint School District No.2 as proposed. Seconded by
Guerber. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES.....................
lOB. Findin2:s of Fact and Conclusions of Law for CU-I-06 - Conditional Use
Permit for BuildiDl~ Hei2:ht Excevtion - Meridian Joint School District No.2:
Meridian Joint School District No.2, represented by Wayne Thowless with LKV
Architects, is requesting conditional use permit approval for a building height exception
of 38' 6" for the Galileo Math and Science Magnet School. The site is located on the
southeast corner of West Saguaro Drive and North Linder Road approximately 1,700-feet
north of West State Street at 4735 West Saguaro Drive (Lot 1, Block 3, Senora Creek
Subdivision). (WEV)
Mayor introduces the issue.
General discussion.
Nordstrom moves to approve the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for CU-
1-06 - Conditional Use Permit for Building Height Exception - Meridian Joint
School District No.2 with a change on Page 7 of 10: the vote needs to show a vote of
3 to 0 with Bandy absent within the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
Seconded by Bastian. Discussion. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES............
A. Award bid for Lexinlrton Hills well house and OK Park restroom. (M. McCurry)
Mayor introduces the issue.
City Facilities Manager McCurry: provides Council an overview of the bid from Golis
Construction, Inc. Discussion
Guerber moves to award the bid for Lexington Hills well house and OK Park
restroom to Golis Construction, Inc. in the amount of $83,472.00 plus the
installation of Heat. Seconded by Bastian. Discussion. Bastian: AYE; Guerber:
AYE; Nordstrom: AYE: ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES.........................
C. Reauest for contribution bv Treasure Vallev Showtime Chorus. The Treasure
Valley Showtime Chorus will be participating in the Festival of States in Washington
D.C., and is seeking financial contribution to help pay for transportation, hotel and meals
for their members. (NM)
Page 8
K:\CDUNCIL\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\CC-03-21-06mindoc
Mayor introduces the issue.
City Attorney: lfyou establish that this is a cultural program it will fall under Title 50
Chapter 3.
Bastian moves to approve $250.00 to come out of the Cultural Arts Budget.
Seconded by Guerber. Bastian: AYE: Guerber: AYE: Nordstrom: AYE: ALL
AYES: MOTION CARRIES.........................
D. Neie:hborhood Reinvestment Proe:ram: (SKB)
Mayor introduces the issue.
City Clerk Bergmann: Mick McCurry put these program guidelines together with the
application and documents to track the project. This information is for your review.
Council Member Guerber reviewed this information and we made the appropriate
changes. We will advertise and mail to the Homeowner's Associations. General
discussion.
Mayor: We need a motion to approve the Neighborhood Reinvestment Program
guidelines and to get going. Guerber so moved. Seconded by Bastian. ALL A YES:
MOTION CARRIES....................
E. Merrill Subdivision No.5 Plat.
City Attorney Buxton: We had a situation arise. The County Engineer, Priester, has
taken a position based on his legal analysis that is not shared by the County Prosecuting
Office nor our office nor any other attorney's that have looked at it and so what has
happened that there has been a plat that has been stuck in limbo, Merrill Subdivision No.
5 and Inland Subdivision No.1 and what they are asking us to do is to agree to some
language on the plat. The language does not give me any heartburn, I don't mind putting
it on. The concern of the Zoning Administration is that we do not want to do this with
any frequency. I'm asking for the Council's approval so that we can get these signed.
General discussion.
Bastian moves to approve Merrill Subdivision No.5 Plat and Inland Subdivision No.
1. Seconded by Nordstrom. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES..................
11. REPORTS:
Mayor and Council's Report:
Nordstrom: No report.
Bastian: I met with Dana our Chief of Police and he indicated that the deputy sheriff s
need about 3,000 sq.ft. of floor space and that there would be a 60/40 split of the lease
with the City picking up 60. The cost of that in new square footage is about $6,000 per
month and we are now paying $1,400 and that would be a substantial increase in rent
which would be build into our contract with them. Dana was suggesting that we appoint
a committee to look for square footage. Dana called me this evening and told me that
people are moving out of the building they are in and that another 900+ sq.ft. has become
available and we can get all of this for $12 a sq.ft. which would be much less than the
Page 9
K\COUNCIL\MIN1.)TES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\CC-03-21-06mindoc
new space. Discussion on the Sheriffs Department space. They are currently doing
community policing on their bikes. They have put the speed trailers out. I asked them
about a street light at Hill Road and Highway 55. I would support any type of action that
we could do to get a light.
Reports on the Library Board meeting. Mountain Home is the newest member of the
consortium.
The satellite dish will be removed from the roof as it is causing leaks and it has never
been used.
Reports on a new automation migration system.
Guerber: Reports on Park and Pathway meeting last week. Steve reads the motion made
by the Committee recommending approval of the Velodrome & Cycling Park. Mr. Tobin
will do a presentation before Council.
Steve moves that the City Council issue a letter of intent to the Idaho Velodrome &
Cycling Park committee indicating that the City of Eagle would be interested in the
possibility of a joint venture for the construction of the Velodrome and BMX park
at the Eagle Sports Complex site on Horseshoe Bend Road. Seconded by
Nordstrom. Discussion. Guerber amends the motion as to the letter to indicate that
the City of Eagle is interested in the possibility and we would like a presentation
before the Council before a decision is made. Seconded by Nordstrom. ALL A YES:
MOTION CARRIES...................
Mayor: we have also had a request for an ice hockey area. If we have the land they will
put it up for the general public to use. This might be good at the Eagle Sports Complex
since the Velodrome would also be there. This would be ajoint venture. General
discussion.
Guerber: Eagle Historical Society is having a series of lectures. The one due to take
place this week is Arthur Hart talking about the barns.
The Arts Commission donated $250.00 to the Treasure Valley Showtime Chorus.
Mayor: Reports on the YMCA request for location of a facility. We are working with the
YMCA to put together a committee. I have talked to a developer today that owns a piece
of property on the comer of Park and State Street to see ifhe would be interest in a
exchanging some land and he said he has actually been thinking about trying to donate
something of substantial size to the City of Eagle and that he would be thinking about it.
General discussion. We are going over to see the Caldwell YMCA.
I helped serve Meals on Wheels to seniors today. It was a rewarding experience. Genera]
discussion.
Reports on the Mayor's Youth Committee putting together the 72 Hours Kits and they
will distribute them to the seniors in the community.
Discussion on an outdoor type ice skating rink in Eagle River.
Reports on the Compass Board Meeting. General discussion.
We have a meeting tomorrOW with the Idaho State Parks. The Bill has not passed yet. I
talked to Lance and he thought we were in pretty good shape. I have been appointed
Chairman of the Eagle Island State Park Committee. General discussion.
Page 10
K:\COUNCIL\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\CC-03-21-06mindoc
City Attorney Report: The water tank agreement with the County was to be approved
tonight. They are going to try and schedule the closing for Thursday.
Mayor: We had a press conference today to approve the GARV Bonds. General
discussion.
Zoning Administrator's Report: I had a chance to meet with Sandy Smith today in
regards to the Chevron Station site. We discussed removal of the building and the
potential that the City could remove the building and place the cost as a tax lien.
Discussion on long term and short term parking. The City would remove the building
and assess a fee for parking to pay back the cost to the City for the removal of the
building. General discussion.
Discussion on the Ballantyne Lane helicopter pad. The property owner was trying to dry
out the dirt to put in Lacrosse playing fields. He has enough land to plant grass on all of
his property. Does the City have any ordinances to restrict the property owner from
inviting kids over to play on their fields? Discussion on parking and becoming a
nuisance. We probably can't do anything unless someone comes in and files a complaint.
General discussion.
Discussion on the Ada County's Foothills meeting. Distributes a staff memo to the
Council.
Reports on a meeting last Friday with ACHD on road planning infrastructure in the
Foothills Area. General discussion.
Next Tuesday at 6:30 ACHD will do a presentation on the Hill Road Alignment. General
discussion.
If you recall back when we did the Ada County Transmittal both on the Master Site Plan
and the Conditional Use Permit request from Idaho Power and Ada County for the
transmission lines and the substation on Eagle Road the direction was to put together a
task force of one-two Council Members, a couple of members of the public and staff. I
have been working on the task force. We may have a meeting the first week in May so
check your schedules and see if you time.
City Clerk/Treasurer Report: Bravo Entertainment has contacted the City in regards to a
summer concert series. If Council would like to pursue this we will need to have contract
and a deposit for damages.
In regards to the landscaping of the fountain plaza at the new city hall we need to know if
the Council wants to incorporate the existing pavers into the landscaping. The pavers
would provide a walking area around the fountain. The cost for the installation of the
pavers would be $9,000.00. There will also be a cost of $2,750.00 for topsoil. These
costs are in addition to the approximate landscaping cost of $7,000.00. Total cost of
landscaping the area would be $18,750.00. Council concurs to use the pavers.
I'm going to be working on a room rental agreement for the conference rooms and the
council chambers at the new city hall. I have some questions that need to be answered
from you. General discussion on the room rental policy.
General discussion on maps, art work and etc. for the City Hall.
Page 11
K:\COUNCIL\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\CC-03-21-06min.doc
City Engineer Report: No Report
12. ADJOURNMENT:
Nordstrom moves to adjourn. Seconded by Guerber. ALL AYE: MOTION
CARRIES...
Hearing no further business, the Council meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted:
,M-I'A-.. ~ (J-;J)~~
SHARON K. BERGMANN
CITY CLERK/TREASURER
"",U"I",.
" ......
,.' Of EAO -",
...." 4. ........ I. ^
..... " .e -. ~-
~ /'.- "I1RA "h -..
= v: .~,' ~~.
::(' 'ir
~: ... i ~ _.- -=
... . ,,' ~.
'-'Lt",l..J~/O
~..J 'V.
C \'<'.-
.~.Okl,,,~.... $
....,.. ...... :Q"-
<1rE 0\'\"
.,......."."
Page 12
K\COUNCIL\MINL 'TES\Temporary Millute~ Work Area\CC-03-21-06mindoc
EAGLE CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET
Subject: CU -1-06 - Conditional Use Permit for Building Heieht Exception -
Meridian Joint School District No. 2:
March 21, 2006 7:30 p.m.
ADDRESS/ TESTIFY
NAME TELEPHONE YES/NO? PRO/CON
7) d i/ Z_ Lit d�C' /1 /111(14 r C c� C7'-
Of\v'v Wiv,6 gcn vio-orvtviv- (nevi
V'tilAt erk6w,1�,(?v(/ N agut-frtme,
Page 1 of
11.\COUNCIL\AGENDA\CCSIGNUP WPD
))
CL 3-,,zJ
INTER
OFFICE
City of Eagle
Zoning Administration
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
Attachment(s):
Copy To:
Mayor Merrill and City Council Members
Bill Verschuren, Planner II
Summary of Ada County's North Foothills Sub -Area public workshop held
on March 14, 2006 at the Eagle Middle School
March 21, 2006
North Foothills Sub -Area Planning Charrette Summary
North Foothills Sub -Area Plan Community Meeting Questionnaire
NA
On March 1, 2006, the City (addressed to the Mayor) received a post card from Ada County
indicating a Public Workshop would be held on March 14, 2006 to discuss preliminary planning
alternatives for the North Foothills area. Again, the North Foothills Area is defined as the area
between Highway 16 to the west, Highway 55 to the east, Homer Road to the south, and the Ada
County boundary line to the north. The public workshop was held at the Eagle Middle School
from 6:30 pm to 8:30 pm. in which approximately 115 people attended.
The consultants, Steve Mullen (ForeSee Consulting) and Matt Hastie (Cogan Owens Cogan)
both hired by the County, opened up the meeting with a discussion regarding the overall
Comprehensive Plan Update and the planning of the specific North Foothills Sub -Area. It was
referenced that a planning charrette "playing the chip game" was held on January 21, 2006 to
begin to identify alternative scenarios for future growth and development for the North Foothills
Area. Nine small groups played the game which was to determine how a future population living
in 2,000 dwelling units should be distributed within the planning area. The intension of the
workshop was to review the results of the nine game boards, look at the summary of the initial
conclusions (see attached North Foothills Sub -Area Charrette Summary, page 2), and to complete
a questionnaire (see attached North Foothills Sub -Area Plan Community Meeting Questionnaire)
intended to verify the game board results.
The consultants, again explained the "chip game" and how it would be evaluated through an
excel program which would finalize the results of the nine game boards. They briefly went over
each of the nine group game boards. It was stated that they expected Ada County planned
communities to occur in the Foothills which would probably produce more density than the
current allowed 2,000 dwelling units. Each proposed planned community (in the future) would
have to demonstrate that they had adequate infrastructure (water, sewer, schools, roads, utilities,
Page 1 of 1
C:1Documcnts and Scttings\bvcrschuren\My Documents\CC Memo - N. Foothills meeting.doc
etc.) to support the community and that the planned community would not impact existing
surrounding areas. It was indicated that the North Foothills landscape could retain and support
more than 2,000 units and the results of "chip game" endorses this. At this point the public
attendants starting asking questions and making statements regarding the entire process. Some of
them included:
"We the public wanted to make up some of the rules of the chip game. The County made all the
rules up with the anticipation of making the results come their way. This is clearly seen in the
way all the rules were stated and presented to us."
"The County has a preconceived idea of what they wanted in the Foothills Area and did
everything they could to force this process and results on the public."
"We all feel we played the chip game under false pretences. As of today the rules changed again.
Today you said we had the choice of using or not using the village concept chips for the game,
while on January 21g, you said we had to use the village concept chips. '
"There is no credibility to your process. We are trying to cooperate and go through this process
with you (county) but you (county) are just not listening to us (public) at all."
"How can you (county) make decisions without enough information (master street plan, habitat
analysis, environmental features, trails plan, drainage analysis, etc.)? I manage a large
corporate office and would never make a decision without all of the needed information. Seems
like you (county) are shoving this down our throats. We need to slow down the whole process,
get more information, and form a good partnership. This whole thing is very poor planning."
"How are the open space and trails going to work in the area? The county should think about a
regional park system."
The County and consultants tried to answer some of the questions and comments, but could not
completely answer them and calm some of the public concerns. The consultant did comment that
the market and local politics will dictate what will really happen in the North Foothills Area, but
they still needed the public's comments and support to see the plan approved. By 8:00 pm at
least 35% of the people (public) had left the workshop or were on their way out.
The County and the consultants indicated that they would tally up the results of the North
Foothills Sub -Area Plan Community Meeting Questionnaire (see attachment) that was presented
at the current workshop and do a more detailed analysis of the nine group board maps using
Community Viz software. It was indicated that another community workshop was tentatively set
up at the end of April for another round of review.
Page 2 of 1
C kDocuments and Scttings\bverschurcn\My Documents\CC Memo . N. Foothills meeting.doc
Adaj]ooutv
COPREHvENSIVE PLAN
Fpdate
BACKGROUND AND MEETING FORMAT
North Foothills Sub -Area
Planning Charrette
EAGLE MIDDLE SCHOOL
1000 FLOATING FEATHER ROAD, EAGLE
JANUARY 21, 2006 9 A.M. — 1 P.M.
SUMMARY
Ada County is in the process of updating its Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan is a
policy document that is used as a guide for making decisions on land use, public facilities and
expenditures, and protection of valuable resources. The existing Comprehensive Plan was last
updated in 1996. Since that time, conditions in Ada County have changed significantly. A
substantial amount of new development has occurred as the population has grown dramatically.
As part of the Comprehensive Plan update process, the County is conducting more detailed
planning for the North Foothills Sub -Area. This area is bounded by the Canyon/Ada County line to
the west, Highway 55 to the east, the Boise /Ada County line to the North, and Beacon Light Road
to the south. The Sub -Area Plan will identify locations designated for future growth, including
types and average densities of development. The Plan also will generally describe public facilities
and services needed to serve projected levels of future growth, as well as strategies for
implementing the sub -area plan.
To begin to identify alternative scenarios for future growth and development, the County and
members of the project consulting team conducted a planning charrette on Saturday, January 21 at
Eagle Middle School. About 120 people attended the event. Project team members Pete
Friedman, Matt Hastie (Cogan Owens Cogan) and Steve Mullen (ForeSee Consulting) presented
information about the Comprehensive Plan Update process, North Foothills Sub -area planning
process, and assumptions and procedures for playing a "chip game" to identify alternative
planning scenarios for the North Foothills area.
The chip game is an exercise that assists participants in creating a common vision for the
community that is creative, practical, and responsible. This game and the process around it are
intended to garner support for a final solution. The chip game combines this inclusive public
process and CommunityViz software into a fun and of festive dedicinn-making method for
Ada County Comprehensive Plan Update 1
N Foothills Planning Charrette Summary
community planning. The game involves the placement of a 'chip set' of land uses onto a game
board of their community with both opportunities and constraints described.
Partidpants spent the bulk of the meeting playing the game and reporting on the results. Nine
small groups played the game. Their job was to determine how a future population living in 2,000
dwelling units should be distributed within the planning area. They used a Targe -scale map of the
North Foothills area as a game board for the exerase. The map showed nearby roads, topography,
steep slopes, floodplains, riparian areas, visually sensitive areas, and possible areas where future
transportation corridors could physically be located. It did not include locations of water sources,
or sensitive wildlife habitat or plant species areas.
The 2,000 units located during the game corresponded approximately to both buildout conditions
under existing zoning (a combination of 40 -acre and 10 -acre minimum lot sizes) and to a simple
population projection for the area. The projection incorporated growth rates from the COMPASS
Communities in Motion process, assumed 15% of the total county population would be located in
unincorporated areas outside areas of city impact, and would be spread relatively evenly
throughout privately owned lands in that area. Project team members stressed that this was simply
a starting point to allow the "chip game" to be played in a consistent manner. This number should
not be inferred as the maximum allowed growth for the area. The ultimate future number of
people and homes in the area could be higher or lower. The main point of the game was to locate
future development and identify development patterns in a manner that is consistent with the
visions and values identified in planning process for the Ada County Comprehensive Plan and to
identify the most efficient locations for future development with the least undesirable
consequences.
OVERALL FINDINGS AND OBSERVATIONS
Nine tables of people played the chip game. Pictures of the resulting game boards can be viewed
on the County's Web site and/or provided upon request via e-mail. Following is a summary of
initial condusions:
tr The existing zoning (mix of 10 and 40 -acre minimum lot sizes) is not consistent with the
goals and objectives of most Ada County residents identified during the Comprehensive
Plan update process to date.
• Growth concentrated in one or more specific areas, perhaps utilizing a village concept was
expressed on all 'games played' during the event.
A strategy of 'protecting open space' was consistently recommended by partidpants as
part of the process of allowing for and concentrating development within the study area;
• Development was predominantly located near existing highways.
• A broad range of land use types was used — a range of densities, mixed use villages, etc.
No table recommended a homogenous land use type similar to existing zoning in the area.
A noticeable effort was made to avoid development in areas with significant environmental
or other constraints.
Access to protected open lands (both public and private) was deemed important for both
existing and proposed development.
Ada County Comprehensive Plan Update 2
N Foothills Planning Charrette Summary
• Significant networks of trails were identified by many participants for much of the study
area. Steep areas immediately north of the front range were considered most sensitive
and identified as trail destinations in many of the alternatives.
• Trails were characterized as multi-purpose trails that could accommodate all uses except
motorized vehides.
E_ The concept of creating an open space framework that used steep lands as an organizing
element was expressed on many of the resulting charrette game boards.
• Habitat protection.
NExr STEPS
Results of the Chip Game will be analyzed in more detail using Community Viz software. The
analysis will identify the relative impacts of each game board on sensitive environmental resources,
as well as access and proximity to existing andlor planned public services and facilities. Results will
be presented at another North Foothills planning meeting, tentatively scheduled for March 14,
2006. The goal of that meeting will be to identify alternative scenarios with the goal of identifying
a preferred planning scenario for the study area. The preferred alternative will be further reviewed
and refined by project team members and presented for additional public review at another round
of Comprehensive Plan meetings tentatively scheduled for late April.
Ada County Comprehensive Plan Update 3
N Foothills Planning Charrette Summary
conn
COM REH"ENSIVE PLAN
pdate
North Foothills Sub Area Plan
Community Meeting
Questionnaire
March 14, 2006
PLANNING OBJECTIVES
1. Please identify your relative level of agreement with the following principles summarized from the
Chip Game results.
Objectives
Applying existing zoning (mix of 10 and 40 -acre minimum lot
sizes) would not be consistent with the results of the charrette.
A village concept or other means should be used in some
areas to concentrate development and preserve open space.
A significant portion of development should be located
relatively close to highways or major roads.
Opportunities should be provided for a range of housing types
and lot sizes.
Development should be avoided in areas with sensitive
resources to protect them and preserve open space.
Access to public lands or other areas with recreational
opportunities should be maintained and/or enhanced.
A network of trails for hikers, mountain bikers and equestrians
should be created and be accessible to the public.
Development in steep areas in the front range of the foothills
and other visually sensitive areas should be avoided.
Development should be dependent on availability of and
adequate supply of water, without adverse impacts on water
supplies for existing residents or other users.
1. Do not 2. Do not 3. 4. Somewhat 5. Strongly
agree at all agree Neutral agree agree
Ada County North Foot. , Community Meeting Questionnaire 1
OPEN SPACE FRAMEWORK
2. Which of the following elements should be incorporated in an open space framework and managed for
conservation or protection? For example, density in areas without these constraints could be higher in
exchange for permanent protection of the areas below.
Potential open space framework elements
2.1 100 -year floodp ains
2.2 Threatened and endangered species habitat
2.3 Mule deer winter range
2.4 Steep slopes over 25%
2.5 Steep slopes 15% - 25%
2.6 Streams and creels buffers
2.7 Visually sensitive areas (Rdgellnes)
2.8 Publicly owned land available forrec reation
2.9 Existing trail access points and trails
2.10 Other elements?
Yes No
3. Which of the above elements are least important for indusion in an open space framework?
TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS
4. Should Highway 16 and 55 be connected with a major east/west road?
Yes No
DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY AREAS
5. Which areas are most appropriate for different intensities of growth? Higher intensities would allow
for more growth and development and requirements for less open space to be preserved. Lower
intensities would require more transfer of density from potential sensitive areas to more appropriate
development areas. (Please mark an x in only one cell in each row; use each intensify rating only
once.)
Planning criteria for locating
future growth and development
Area A — Wester area, near Highway 16
Area B — Central area
Area C — Easter area, near Highway 55
Area D — SW Comer and south central
area, north of Star and Eagle
Intensity of Development
Least intensive
2 3 4
Most intensive
Ada County North Foothills Community Meeting Questionnaire 2
DEVELOPMENT CHARACTER OF VILLAGES
6. Please note your agreement with the following statements.
Possible Vlilege Objectives
6.1 Villages should be used to shift development to
the most developable part of a given site or area,
permanently protecting open space.
6.2 Villages should incorporate centers with public
services (e.g., schools, post offices, etc.) and
small-scale commercial businesses.
6.3 Village centers shotdd allow for or incorporate a
variety of housing types and densities (e.g.,
single- family homes on large and small lots,
townhouses, apartments).
6.4 Villages should Include neighborhood parks,
playgrounds and connecting paths.
6.5 Villages should be connected together by a
network of trails and open spaces.
1. Do not
agree at allagree
2. Do not
3. Neutra!
4. Somewhat 5. Strongly
agree agree
7. Approximately how much of a given amount of land should be devoted to rural residential
development (e.g., 5 —10 acre lots)?
odd
8. How many villages might be appropriate in each of the planning areas identified?
Planning areas Reasonable Number of
villages
Area A — Western area, near Highway 16
Area B — Central area
Area C — Eastern area, near Highway 55
Area D — SW Comer and south central area, north
of Star and Eagle
Ada County North Foothills Community Meeting Questionnaire
STRATEGIES FOR TRANSITION AREAS AND OPEN SPACE PROTECTION
9. Please identify your relative level of support for the following strategies to create allow for a certain
level of development, create an open space framework and maintain valued aspects of the
landscape?
Possible Implementation Strategies
Allow for clustering or transfer of density to minimize
development in sensitive areas, while allowing the
same base density (average 10 or 40 -acre lots).
Purchase land or development rights (would require
public tax or fee mechanism) to create open space.
Use planned community process to concentrate
development in more focused areas.
Use density bonuses to allow for higher levels of
development in exchange for permanent resource and
open space protection within single ownerships.
Encourage voluntary donations of land or conservation
easement to protect open space, trails corridors or
other areas.
Use design standards and guidelines to minimize
impacts on scenic and natural resources (e.g., height
limitations, exterior colors, landscaping, grating, etc.).
Create overlay zones to require protection of certain
types of resources in perpetuity (e.g., ridgelines,
identified wilcfe corridors, etc.) through conservation
easements or other tools.
Maintain or increase the amount of publicly owned
land.
Other (please specify)
10. Did you attend the January 21 charrette?
Yes No
1. Do not 2. Do not 3. Neutral 4. Somewhat 5. Strongly
support at all support support supper
Please return this questionnaire at the end of this meeting or by faxing or mailing to the Ada
County Development Services Department Please return your completed questionnaire at this
meeting or by March 28, 2006.
Pete Friedman, Project Manager,
Ada County Development Services Department
200 W. Front Street, Boise, ID 83702
287-7909 (Fax)
Ada County North Foothills Community Meeting Questionnaire 4
Sharon Bergmann
From: Bastian, Stan [sbastian@nsd131.org]
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 5:53 PM
To: kris@primerecruiters.com
Cc: eaglecity; Steve Guerber; Nancy Merrill; S Nordstrom: Sharon Bergmann
Subject: Highway 55 and Hill Road Intersection - Signal Light Needed
Dear Kristine,
Page 1 of 2
Thanks for writing us about your concern. We have exactly the same concern and have requested that the Idaho
Transportation Department in conjunction with ACI -ID put a signal light at this intersection. They have declined to do
it and citing the fact that it does not qualify as a signalized intersection. 1 have requested that this item be placed on the
agenda for our March 21st Eagle City Council Meeting. Also, if you wanted to present your concern, there is a place
on the agenda for public comment at the beginning of the Council Meeting. You may want to make a prepared
statement at that time.
Usually we have a liaison from ACI ID in attendance and we could have him respond to your concerns. However, this
intersection is on a state highway and is under their jurisdiction. It may be possible that we can get them to agree to the
installation of a signal if we can convince them that it is a dangerous intersection. They have a set of criteria that, if
met, "warrents" an intersection. Unfortunately, one of those criteria is accidental death from a motor vehicle crash. I
too hope that we do not have to wait until someone dies to prove that the intersection is dangerous.
Please let me know if you plan to attend our March 21st City Council Meeting.
Sincerely yours,
Stan Bastian
Council President
Phone 208-939-8272
Cell 208-921-3845
E-mail stan_bastian imsn.com or sbastian nhouse.idaho.gov
Original Message
From: Kristine Walhof [mailto:kris@primerecruiters.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 9:07 AM
To: eaglecity
Subject: Fw: traffic Tight
Who do I need to talk with about installing a traffic light at the intersection of Hill Roads and Highway 55? There is a steady flow
of gravel trucks, school busses, and countless cars trying to maneuver across four lanes of traffic traveling at 55 MPH. With the
addition of the new city park on Hill Road just west of the intersection, I think the intersection will become more dangerous for
children.
I have contacted both ACHD and IDOT and was told the federal government has standards that must be met prior to installing a
traffic signal on a highway. One of those "standards" is a quota on the number of fatalities at a particular intersection. I would
hope we could be proactive, rather than wait for a tragedy to happen before we resolve this dangerous traffic hazard
3/20/2006
Page 2 of 2
Please advice.
Thank you,
Kristine Walhof
595 S. Wooddale Place
Eagle, ID'
208-388-0654
3/20/2006
Sharon Bergmann
From: Steve Guerber [Steve.Guerber@ishs.idaho.gov]
Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 3.14 PM
To: S Nordstrom; S Bastian, Sharon Bergmann; City Council Grp
Cc: Bill Vaughan
Subject: RE: traffic light
Ditto from me.
SG
From: Scott Nordstrom[mailto:snordstrom@fiberpipe.net]
Sent: Sat 3/18/2006 12:19 PM
To: 'Bastian, Stan'; 'Sharon Bergmann'; 'City Council Grp'
Cc: 'Bill Vaughan'
Subject: RE: traffic light
Page 1 of 2
Stan.
Phil has taken on the ACM) liaison assignment.
I agree a light is needed. We probably need to start the request through ACI I1). but will need I'I'D's buy in to pull this
off. A discussion Tuesday would be worthwhile.
Scott
Scott Nordstrom
Nordstrom Machinery Corp
208 938 0953
snordstrom i liherpipe.net
Nordstrom Machinery Corp is a worldwide mining and construction equipment company, providing solutions to our clients. We focus on mineral mining,
aggregate production, and larger civil projects.
Services include: Individual and fleet purchases, selling and buying on behalf of our customer, as well as appraisal and consultation services.
"We provide equipment solutions"
From: Bastian, Stan [mailto:sbastian@nsd131.org]
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 5:35 PM
To: Sharon Bergmann; City Council Grp
Cc: Bill Vaughan
Subject: RE: traffic light
Greetings,
This issue should be discussed at our next council meeting Sharon, please include this somewhere on the agenda for next
Tuesday? It might be something that Scott Nordstrom would like to report on as a liaison with ACHD (I hope I have the liaison
assignment right).
Thanks,
Stan Bastian
Professional -Technical Education Director
Phone 208-468-7820 ext 422
3/20/2006
Page 2 of 2
Cell 208-911-3845
E-mail sbastian@nsd131.org
Original Message
From: Sharon Bergmann [mailto:sbergmann@cityofeagle.org]
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 9:21 AM
To: City Council Grp
Cc: Bill Vaughan
Subject: FW: traffic light
Sharon K. Bergmann C.M.C.
City Clerk/Treasurer
City of Eagle, Idaho
P.O. Box 1520
208-939-6813 ext. 202
Original Message
From: Kristine Walhof [mailto:kris@primerecruiters.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 9:07 AM
To: eaglecity
Subject: Fw: traffic light
Who do 1 need to talk with about installing a traffic light at the intersection of Hill Roads and Highway 55? There is a
steady flow of gravel trucks, school busses, and countless cars trying to maneuver across four lanes of traffic traveling at
55 MPH. With the addition of the new city park on Hill Road just west of the intersection, I think the intersection will
become more dangerous for children.
I have contacted both ACHD and IDOT and was told the federal government has standards that must be met prior to
installing a traffic signal on a highway. One of those "standards" is a quota on the number of fatalities at a particular
intersection. I would hope we could be proactive, rather than wait for a tragedy to happen before we resolve this
dangerous traffic hazard.
Please advise.
Thank you,
Kristine Walhof
595 S. Wooddale Place
Eagle, ID
208-388-0654
3/20/2006