HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007 02-27
Meridian City Council Meetina
February 27. 2007
A meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:05 P.M., Tuesday,
February 27, 2007, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd.
Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, Joe Borton, Keith Bird, and David
Zaremba.
Members Absent: Charlie Rountree.
Others Present: Bill Nary, Will Berg, Anna Canning, Len Grady, Gene Trakel, Ron
Anderson, Joe Silva, Caleb Hood and Dean Willis.
Item 1:
Roll-call Attendance:
Roll call.
X David Zaremba
o Charlie Rountree
X
X Joe Borton
X Keith Bird
Mayor Tammy de Weerd
De Weerd: Well, good evening. We will go ahead and get started. We appreciate you
all joining us here tonight. Welcome back to those who were with us last night -- or last
week. We appreciate you returning. And we will go ahead and start tonight's meeting.
It is Tuesday, February 27th. It's five minutes after 7:00. Tonight we will start with roll
call attendance. Mr. Berg.
Item 2:
Pledge of Allegiance:
De Weerd: Tonight we will have our colors posted by Boy Scout Troop 152. So, would
you all rise.
(Pledge of allegiance recited.)
Item 3:
Community Invocation by Pastor Mike Dodd, Capital Christian
Church.
De Weerd: Very well done. Now, if I could ask the troop to, please, come forward. I do
have some City of Meridian pins that we'd like to give to you. Okay. Item No.3 is our
community invocation. Tonight we will be led by Pastor Mike Dodd. He's with Capital
Christian Church. If you will all join us in the community invocation or take this as an
opportunity for a moment of reflection.
Dodd: Thank you, Mayor and Council people. Please join me in a word of prayer.
Dear Father, we thank you so much for this day, Lord, that you have made, and, Father,
we just tonight acknowledge your goodness in our lives, your faithfulness, Lord, and ask
that, Lord, you would just impart wisdom, Lord, as decisions are made and items of
Meridian City Council
February 27, 2007
Page 2 of 100
importance are discussed, Father God, we just thank you that this city, in fact, is
progressing and prospering to the benefit of all those that call Meridian their home, Lord
God, and, Lord, I just pray your blessing upon every councilmember tonight, Lord, that
makes rich and adds to sorrow to it, that your joy, Lord, would be their strength, Father
God, and I also pray your covering and hedge your protection around the city -- the
city's civil servants, the schools, Lord God, the administration of each school, Lord, the
businesses, the churches, and, Lord, the residents of the City of Meridian, in the name
of Jesus I pray, amen.
Item 4:
Adoption of the Agenda:
De Weerd: Pastor, I, too, would like to give you one of our City of Meridian pins. Thank
you for joining us. Okay. Council, Item No.4, adoption of the agenda.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve the agenda as published.
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve the agenda as published.
All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 5:
Consent Agenda:
A. Approve Minutes of January 23, 2007 City Council Regular
Meeting:
B. Tabled from January 23,2007: Resolution No.
Adoption of Records Retention Schedule: Table to March 27,
2007
C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order for
Approval: AZ 06-045 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 7.556
acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Eastwood Subdivision by Wirt
Edmonds - 4515 South Locust Grove Road:
D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order for
Approval: PP 06-047 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 24
single-family residential lots and 3 common lots on 7.556 acres in a
proposed R-4 zone for Eastwood Subdivision by Wirt Edmonds -
4515 South Locust Grove Road:
Meridian City Council
February 27, 2007
Page 3 of 100
E. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order for
Approval: PP 06-063 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 14
building lots on 18.7 acres within the C-G zone for CentrePointe
Subdivision No.2 (North) by W.H. Moore Company - NWC of
Ustick and Eagle Roads:
F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order for
Approval: RZ 06-012 Request for a Rezone of 1.69 acres from an
R-4 to a C-C zone for Cherry Linder Rezone by Darren Blaser -
1440,1516 and 1528 W. Cherry Lane:
G. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order for
Approval: AZ 06-060 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.01
Acres from RUT to R-8 & R-15 zones for Arch Rock Subdivision
by CTD Development - South of McMillan Road and East of Linder
Road. :
H. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order for
Approval: PP 06-061 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 18
single-family residential lots and 2 common lots on 3.73 acres in
the proposed R-8 zone and 8 single family residential lots and 1
common lot on 1.02 acres in the proposed R-15 zone for Arch
Rock Subdivision by CTD Development - South of McMillian
Road and East of Linder Road: Prepare Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law for Approval
I. Approve New Beer and Wine Licenses for Health Nuts Natural
and Oraanic Market by Denise Stevenson at 1756 W. Cherry
Lane, Ste 110:
J. Approve Streetlight Agreement for Hacienda Subdivision bv
Javo Construction:
K. Approve Temporary Sanitary Sewer Easement for Reflection
Ridae Subdivision bv Corinthian Communities. Inc.:
L. Approve Agreement for Hookup to City Services for Property
Outside City Limits for Pim and Pamela Hooaland at 1625 E.
Bentley Drive:
M. Approve Legal Department Budaet Amendment for Deputy
City Attorney:
N. Approve Task Order 2.1 for the Plant Optimization Desktop
Analvsis with CH2MHILL for $34,000.00:
Meridian City Council
February 27,2007
Page 4 of 100
o. Permanent Sewer Easement Contract for Mason Creek Lift
Station and Pipelines Project with Bittercreek. LLC and
Charlotte and Hermis Sparks:
P. Permanent Sanitary Sewer Easement Contract for Mason
Creek Lift Station and Pipelines Project with Bittercreek, LLC.:
Q. Approve Black Cat Phase 3 Authorization for Additional
Services No. 2 for Black Cat Trunk Sewer and Lift Station
Proiect with JUB Enaineers for $15,000.00:
R. Permanent and Temporary Easement Right-of-Way Contract
for Slack Cat Sewer Phase 4 with Aoratos, LLC, Evans Real
Estate Investments, LLC, Strada Commercial, LLC, and Strada
Bellissima Commercial Association, Inc.:
s. Permanent and Temporary Easement Contract for Black Cat
Trunk Phase 4 Proiect with Aoratos, LLC:
T. Permanent and Temporary Easement Contract for Black Cat
Trunk Phase 4 Proiect with Evans Real Estate Investments.
LLC:
u. Permanent and Temporary Easement Contract for Black Cat
Trunk Phase 4 Proiect with Strada Bellissima Commercial
Association, Inc.:
v. Permanent and Temporary Easement Contract for Black Cat
Trunk Phase 4 Proiect with Strada Commercial, LLC:
W. Approve Building Lease Extension with William A. Hon Familv
Limited Partnership for general office space at 660 East
Watertower Lane:
x. Approve Performance Contract with New Heritaae Theatre
Company:
De Weerd: Item 5, Consent Agenda.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Meridian City Council
February 27, 2007
Page 5 of 100
Bird: On the Consent Agenda, Item B, resolution, has been asked to be tabled to March
27th. And the rest of them would stay as is. I move that we approve the revised
Consent and the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest on all papers.
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda as
revised. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, Mr. Berg.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree; absent; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 6:
Department Reports:
A. Mayors Office:
1. Appointments to the Arts Commission:
De Weerd: Okay. Counsel, I gave you a group of resumes about a month ago on my
suggestions for appointments to the Arts Commission and they are as follows: Meg
Glasgow, who is a business owner here in town and also an artist. Dwight Williams, an
artist and a photographer. Sandra Cavanaugh, who is artistic director of New Heritage
Theatre. David Stolhand, who is president of the Meridian symphony. Nancy Rountree,
our citizen at large, and I did like how the Statesman put it, our enthusiast. And Fred
Shaddick, who is a teacher at Mountain View High School in their theater arts. So,
those would be my recommendations for appointment as charter members of our newly
formed Arts Commission.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: What is your choice? Do you wish us to vote on them individually or can we
make a motion to vote on them as a group?
De Weerd: If you don't have any issue with any of the individuals, I think it would suffice
as a group appointment.
Bird: Madam Mayor, I got one question on time limit. Is all of them on the same time or
is it -- or have you got time limits. Of course, I don't care one way or the other.
De Weerd: Yeah. Mr. Bird, we will be developing bylaws and a structure. That's one of
the first tasks that this commission will have. So, they -- we have met informally just to
kind of outline roles, expectations, interests and give them an opportunity to ask
questions or perhaps even know what they are getting themselves into. So, those kind
Meridian City Council
February 27,2007
Page 6 of 100
of things, in addition to a strategic plan and some of those discussion items will be their
first task at hand.
Bird: Do you want David to make the motion, then?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton.
Borton: I would -- seeing no further discussion, I would move that we approve the
appointment of all six candidates for the Meridian Arts Commission.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve the appointments as
presented. If there is no discussion, Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree; absent; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
B. Purchasing Department:
1. Discussion and Approval of Change Order No. 2 from
Ideal Demolition for Asbestos Abatement and
Demolition in the amount of $83,000.00:
De Weerd: Thank you, Council. I appreciate your support on that. Okay. Item 6-8
under the purchasing department. Keith.
Watts: Good evening, Madam Mayor, Council Members. Before you is a change order
to the Ideal Demolition contract for City Hall for removal and abatement of contaminated
soils for discussion. If you have any questions?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, any discussion? Questions?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Hearing none, I move that we enter into a change order not to exceed 83,000
dollars with Ideal Demolition for excavation, loading, covering, hauling, and abatement
of contaminated soil from the new City Hall site.
Meridian City Council
February 27, 2007
Page 7 of 100
Borton: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve the request in front of you.
Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree; absent; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Watts: Thank you.
Item 7:
Items Moved from Consent Agenda:
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. There were no items moved from the Consent Agenda.
Item 8:
Request for Reconsideration by Morgan Development, Inc. for
Woodland SprinQs Professional Park:
De Weerd: So, we will move to Item 8, request for a reconsideration by Woodland
Springs Professional Park. Mr. Nary.
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, you have in front of you a request for
reconsideration from counsel. I believe that counsel is present on the Woodland Acres
project -- or, excuse me, Woodland Springs Professional Park project. The matter was
denied a couple of weeks ago. Those Findings are on your agenda. You can,
basically, review the request as presented. If you have any questions of any sort for the
staff, that would be fine. Otherwise, it's not a Public Hearing. OUf general process we
have followed is if a member of the Council that has voted in the affirmative wishes to
reconsider the matter and make that motion, then, we would proceed from there with a
second and discussion at that point. So, it's before you for your consideration, which
ever way you wish to go is within your discretion.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Nary. Council, you do have a consideration request
in front of you. If you would like to hear from the applicant, certainly, you could ask for
any comments. If not, I would wait for your stated desire. Okay. If there is no further
information needed in this request and if there is no motion for reconsideration, I will
certainly move on.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Nary.
Nary: To take final action, if the Council does not wish to move to reconsider, I would
recommend you make a motion to deny the request.
De Weerd: Okay. So, you have to talk to me either way, guys.
Meridian City Council
February 27,2007
Page 8 of 100
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton.
Borton: I know the applicant is here and I have read the materials for the
reconsideration, I just -- I would be inclined to inyite the applicant to provide us any
information that might not be in their written -- in their written request. I would afford
that opportunity. If there was anything that hasn't already been presented in writing.
De Weerd: Okay. Is that the desire of Council? Is the representative here? If you
will, please, state your name and address for the record.
Lee: Certainly. Mayor de Weerd, Council Members, my name is Frank Lee. My
address is 601 West Bannock Street, Boise, Idaho, And I'm here representing Morgan
Development. Mr. Morgan is here today, as well as Dr. Tim Hansen, and they may
wish, if it pleases the Mayor and Council, to say a few words. The request for
reconsideration is, really, quite simple and, in fact, it has to do with a misunderstanding
as to what sort of plat the City Council prefers to have with their annexation and rezone
requests and what sort of plat that we were talking about and, frankly, we didn't realize
that there was a miscommunication until after the hearing on -- I guess it was two weeks
ago. And when that occurred I spoke with staff and I was able to identify that this was,
in fact -- there was, in fact, a misunderstanding. The preference of the Council is
certainly with land divisions to have them run currently. We have, actually, not
contemplated a land division here, we have contemplated a condominium division at
some point in the future after the project is developed. During the planning and zoning
process there are a lot of issues about a plat -- or ACHD had not yet made some
decisions and staff thought that a plat might expedite ACHD efforts, so we said, sure,
we will proceed with a plat, again, thinking it was a condominium plat. The ordinary
process by which these sort of issues are resolved is through the CZC process that
occurs after approval. And, frankly, it is our preference to continue on the normal
process, although, granted, this is only a few months delay and, frankly, for Morgan
Development it's not a huge issue, but it creates a huge issue for the client who wants
to go into this space, Dr. Hansen, because he won't have enough time if this has to wait
until a plat application -- a condo plat application and another application is filed, just
won't make his deadlines. And so, you know, this is a matter for your discretion. You
don't have to -- obviously, you don't have to approve our request for reconsideration
now, but we think that it's appropriate to do so, because it allows the project to move
forward in a way that works for Dr. Hansen and there is no real benefit, at least that I
could identify in my discussions with staff, to not approve it at this time. Staff did,
actually, review this letter before it was finalized and Caleb Hood concurred with its
analysis and content. And, again, we work with staff as much as we possibly can and
ACHD and we think that this project is viable and appropriate as it was presented and,
you know, we will apologize for the miscommunication and misunderstanding, but,
again, we think that this is an appropriate project for you to approve and request your
Meridian City Council
February 27, 2007
Page 9 of 100
reconsideration. And if it pleases the Mayor and Council to hear from Mr. Morgan or Dr.
Hansen, we would certainly invite them to come up and speak as well.
De Weerd: Council?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Borton: I might have misled you. I wasn't, necessarily, asking for any presentation. I
just merely wanted to afford you the opportunity if there was something that hadn't been
in the letter, to give you that chance. So, I don't think there is anything necessary that
I'm requesting.
Lee: No. We have been very forthright with the staff and wanted to lay it all out and so
that's the reason why I put it in the letter, so that people would have an opportunity to --
you know, to confirm that their understanding is the same as ours.
Borton: Fair enough.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Lee. Council, any further information needed? Okay. I
would ask for your direction.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: I would -- if there is no further discussion, I would move that we deny the
request for reconsideration.
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to deny Item 8. Is there any
discussion? Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree; absent; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 9:
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order for Denial: AZ
06-054 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 2.40 acres from R1 zone to
an L-O zone for Woodland Sprinas Professional Park by Morgan
Development, Inc. - 1630 E. McMillan Road:
Meridian City Council
February 27,2007
Page 10 of 100
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Berg. Okay. Items 10, 11 and 12 are continued
public hearings on Waverly Place Subdivision. Oh, I already -- I'm whipping through
here without -- Item 9.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Item 9 is the Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law for the Woodland Springs Professional Park. Normally, these
would be on your Consent Agenda for approval. You just need to do that separately,
now that you have made a motion regarding the reconsideration.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I move that we approve the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and
order for denial of AZ"06-054 and request the Mayor to sign all necessary documents.
De Weerd: Okay. Do I have a second?
Borton: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve the Findings for Item 9.
Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree; absent; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 10:
Continued Public Hearing from February 20, 2007: AZ 06-047
Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.3 acres from RUT to L-O zone for
Waverlv Place Subdivision by Vacation Village Villas, LLC - 2510 E.
Magic View Court:
Item 11:
Continued Public Hearing from February 20, 2007: PP 06-049
Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 6 multi-family residential building
lots consisting of 24 multi-family units, 1 clubhouse building lot and 3
common / other lots on 5.3 acres in a proposed L-O zone for Waverlv
Place Subdivision by Vacation Village Villas, LLC - 2510 E. Magic View
Court:
Item 12:
Continued Public Hearing from February 20, 2007: CUP 06-030
Request for a Conditional Use Permit approval for a multi-family
Meridian City Council
February 27,2007
Page 11 of 100
development in a L-O zone for Waverlv Place Subdivision by Vacation
Village Villas, LLC - 2510 E. Magic View Court:
De Weerd: Okay. Items 10, 11 and 12 on Waverly Place Subdivision, AZ 06-047, PP
06-049 and CUP 06-030. I will open this with staff comments.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Waverly Place project. It's
Lot 6, Block 1, of Magic View Subdivision, also known as 2510 West Magic Court. The
applications before you tonight are for annexation and zoning, preliminary plat, and
conditional use approval for a multi-family development in the L-Q zone that is being
requested. The development includes the annexation and zoning to light office, L-O.
Preliminary plat approval of six multi-family residential building lots and a clubhouse lot.
And Conditional Use Permit approval for 24 multi-family residential dwellings. And
those are in six four-plexes. This is the plat. You can see the -- the larger lots that will
accommodate the four-plexes. They are easier to see here. So, you have one, two,
three, four, five, six and, then, this is the clubhouse. The gross residential density is 5.1
units per acre. The net density is 6.4 units per acre. The history on this becomes
important to this application, so I will go through that. Staff originally required the
applicant to submit a Comprehensive Plan amendment concurrent with the application,
similar to the project that you saw before you just south of here immediately across the
street to the south. The applicant appealed that decision and we brought it to Council
and Council directed staff to go ahead and accept the application, as we did. The
ambiguity that -- or what happened during that Council review was the discussion of the
light office designation -- and how that reads is this designation will provide
opportunities for low impact business areas. These would include offices, technology
and resource centers, ancillary commercial uses may be considered, particularly within
research and development centers or technological parks. Additionally, as noted in the
residential district section of the Comprehensive Plan, light office uses may be
appropriate in limited circumstances and at the discretion of City Council. And there
was -- that last sentence is what was the hang up. It was added when we allowed some
light office uses within the residential districts for parcels that, basically, weren't well
suited for residential development, but we put that phrase in the office use as well and it
was the -- in limited circumstances at the discretion of City Council that was perhaps
ambiguous, so City Council directed me to go ahead and accept the application without
the Comprehensive Plan amendment. You also directed me to go ahead and change
the Comprehensive Plan, which has already been accomplished. But when this
application was filed that's how the Comprehensive Plan read. Staff still believes that
it's the intent of the office designation -- particularly in this area, to provide a low
intensity transition from the commercial to residential uses and all that -- all the interior
parcels are designated on the Comprehensive Plan as commercial and, then, all the
kind of border lots within the Magic View Subdivision as designated for light office -- or
for, excuse me, office designation, as I read to you before. We do have elevations of
the proposed structures. That's the landscape plan. These are the four-plexes. Two of
the units will have driveways on the sides and, then, two in the front that you can see
there. Actually, all four of them are in the front on that one. I was thinking of another
project. Sorry. So, those are the four-plexes. This gets into just more detail about the
Meridian City Council
February 27,2007
Page 12 of 100
front. And this is the proposed clubhouse. The Commission recommended approval at
their January 4th Public Hearing. Becky McKay, the applicant's representative, spoke in
favor of the application. No one spoke in opposition. Jim Flecker, Gene Fox, and Dave
Pearcey all commented on the application. The key issues of discussion by the
Commission were compliance with the Unified Development Code and the
Comprehensive Plan. Their key change to staff's initial recommendation is that staff did
originally recommend denial, so they asked staff to go back and prepare conditions for
approval. They also struck the requirement pertaining to private streets and required
common drives instead. And that's kind of on the two corner properties in the southeast
corner and, then, the northwest corner they make use of some private -- or common
drives. Otherwise, they are public streets. The outstanding issues before City Council
is compliance of the proposed multi-family development within the Comprehensive Plan
and as I explained earlier. The written testimony since the staff report, we did get three
e-mails from Richard Carlson supporting Council's previous denial of residential in this
area and expressing opposition of the proposed change to the Comprehensive Plan.
There was also verbal testimony. There was one person who chose to testify at your
last hearing and they did speak in opposition to the proposed project. With that I will
answer any questions Council may have at this time.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Anna. Questions from Council?
Bird: I have none, Mayor, at this time.
De Weerd: I guess just two -- two letters that weren't referenced in your staff report.
One by Ronald Hodge, president of homeowners association of Woodbridge, and Tony
Serio, a resident in Woodbridge. So, is the representative here?
McKay: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. lid like to apologize to the
Council, the Mayor, and to the public who attended the meeting last week. I was stuck -
De Weerd: Do you want to state your name and address for the record.
McKay: Oh. Becky McKay. Sorry. I do my apology first.
De Weerd: Spell it, so they know who the apology is coming from.
McKay: Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions, 1029 North Rosario, Meridian. 11m
representing the applicant. As I stated, I'd like to apologize to the Council, the Mayor,
and to the public who attended the last meeting. I was first on Star's agenda, last on
Meridian's, I did not anticipate my tar and feathering to take that amount of time. And so
I had -- by the time I limped my way back to Meridian you guys had adjourned. So, I
appreciate the fact that you did defer this to this evening and give me the opportunity to
present this project for your review tonight. I'd like to kind of begin with giving you a little
bit of background on this particular project. It's small in stature. There is only about
4.68 acres, 5.3 acres as far as the annexation is concerned. When the applicant
Meridian City Council
February 27, 2007
Page 13 of 100
brought this before me, I was not very interested in this project, but as he showed me
the elevations that he had drawn up by Glancey's group, talked to me about the need
for luxury condominiums in this area, that is a growing commercial medical corridor up
through here, he convinced me that this project did have merit. At that time the Conger
project had been submitted. A Comprehensive Plan map amendment. They were
bringing forth a multi-family project. It was my recommendation that we sit back and we
watch that particular project, because I was not convinced that a Comprehensive Plan
map amendment was an appropriate route to take. As you well know, that -- the
Conger project was denied by the Council and it also faced a substantial amount of
opposition from the Woodbridge neighborhood. They were not pleased with the design,
not pleased with the product, and came out in large numbers against it. And in this
particular project my client met with the Greenhill Estates people that adjoin us on the
north, met with the Woodbridge residents, their board, their president, showed them the
quality of this project and won them over. A vast majority of them came out and
supported us at the Planning and Zoning Commission, which is almost unheard of at
these types of meetings. People typically only attend if they are objecting to a proposal.
But what impressed them, I think, is the fact that if you look at the -- I think what
impressed them was the overall look of this project. They are 1 ,500 to 2,000 square
feet. They anticipate that they will be constructed between 175 to 200 dollars per
square feet. So, that translates about between 250 to 400 thousand dollars. They are
townhomes. They are attached in pods of four. We have six of them. They all have
two car garages. They would have stucco and masonry on the exterior. The applicant
also brought to me a picture of his entrance -- I mean he's thought this through in depth.
We submitted this elevation of the front of the entrance. We also submitted an elevation
of the 2,000 square foot clubhouse. And even though this is a small project, hels
devoted 16 percent of this project to open space and included a clubhouse for their use.
One of the stumbling blocks I think the staff had with the project in their review was the
definition in the Comprehensive Plan. The definition in the L-O designated areas, which
is what this particular project lies within. It's kind of a ring of L-O with mixed use
regional in the center. It came about when they were reworking the Comp Plan, the
land use map, based on input from the neighbors in this particular area, who did not
want to see that commercial go right up against their boundary, that they were looking
for some type of a buffering. And based on comments that I have received from some
people who were on that committee, that comp plan committee, they have stated that
the L-O appears to be a reasonable middle ground where they could be assured that
they wouldn't have a 24 hour commercial service, they would nit have a four or five story
hotel right in their backyard. Now, your L-O definition doesn't talk about multi-family,
but in the UDC, which is the most current document, which is the implementing
document, whereas the Comp Plan is a guiding document, it allows for multi-family as a
conditional use. So, in reviewing this it's obvious that the L-O allows for multi-family as
a conditional use, but, yet, it's not defined in the definition. So, it is our belief or our
contention that the appropriate zoning designation is L-O. That is in compliance with
the Comprehensive Plan. We submitted a preliminary plat and a Conditional Use
Permit. The Conditional Use Permit would allow for the multi-family within the L-O
zone. And I looked at other jurisdictions' definitions to kind of see is this just something
that is unusual to Meridian and in reviewing Boise, Nampa, Star, Mountain Home, we
Meridian City Council
February 27,2007
Page 14 of 100
find that the definitions are very very similar. Some of them they almost mirror
Meridian's and they all allow for multi-family, either as a conditional use or some as a
principal permitted use within an L-O zone. So, therefore, we believe that this
application does comply with the Comprehensive Plan. We are asking for L-O. We are
going through the conditional use process for the multi-family. In staff's review of this
project, they indicated that it met all the requirements of the UDC. They had some
suggestions. We made some minor modifications on buffering on the joint driveways,
but, all in all, the staff said it does comply. And we believe this project has excellent
merit and the Planning and Zoning Commission did, too. When they reviewed it they
said we are just shocked with the support of this project. This is something that this
neighborhood thinks is a good transition, a good addition to their area. And I think when
we look at the traffic up in the St. Luke's corridor, a lot of that traffic is generated by the
commercial development, by the spinoff medical. We will be providing a residential use
in that particular area, which we talked time and time again about providing some type
of diversity and mixed uses, so that people don't have to get in their vehicle to go to the
doctor, they don't have to get in their vehicle to run over to a convenience store, that we
start integrating these projects to accommodate varying uses. And by doing so reduce
our dependency on automobiles. We had a long discussion during the Planning and
Zoning Commission. One of the things that staff said, well, if this was an existing L-Q
zone, the staff would be one hundred percent supportive of this. But where you're
asking for L-O, we don't feel that we can make the stretch. So, I guess from my
professional opinion, I don't understand that. I mean the L-O -- if the L-O was not
intended for multi-family, then, why in the UDC did we allow it as a conditional use?
Why do other jurisdictions allow it? I have had many projects where we had multi-family
in L-Q zones. It is not something out of the ordinary or unusual. I will just kind of give
you a brief overview, if Anna could go to the -- the project. This is Magic View Drive.
This is the entrance into Woodbridge. Eagle Road is over on -- to the east. We will
have an entrance here with a median. A lot of open space, as you can see. The units
don't start until we get into the project a little bit, so we have a substantial amount of
landscaping and buffering. The club -- 2,000 square foot clubhouse is here. And we
have parking facilities. And, then, some equipment here, some little play equipment and
some pathways that meander through there. The buildings, like I said, are pods of four
and we have six pods. And, then, a center pod here. All of our streets are public
streets. We are not asking for any variances. We are not deviating from the UDC
standards. We have two joint driveways, one here, a common drive here, and a
common drive here for these end units. The staff had some issues with the buffering
between the units. We added some area in there, some landscaping, and we moved
our units over a little bit, which, then, of course, satisfied that requirement. But I'd like
the Council to look at this project with an open mind. There will be a total of 24 units.
We are at 5.1 dwelling units per acre. And I think my client has done an excellent job of
submitting information that could be pulled into his development agreement and tie this
project down. A lot of our clients don't -- haven't thought through their projects as well
as Mr. Jones has on this. And I was quite impressed and that's why I decided that
even though this project was small in stature, it warranted my representation. Thank
you.
Meridian City Council
February 27,2007
Page 15 of 100
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions for Becky? Becky, I do. What makes
this different from the one that was denied in this same zoning area?
McKay: Madam Mayor, the problem with that -- the Conger project, I believe, was the
Comprehensive Plan amendment was one. I believe the Council made statements that
they were not comfortable with amending the Comprehensive Plan map for one specific
project on a case-by-case basis, that they just didn't feel comfortable with that. And,
secondly, I believe the quality of the project was not luxury-type condominiums, it was
more your standard middle-of-the-road multi-family and they had not worked as closely
with the neighborhood. In fact, it appeared that they almost worked against the
neighborhood in trying to mitigate the concern and minimize the impact on the
Woodbridge residents. Whereas, this project they have really gone out of their way to
try to please as many people as possible. One of the other things that was mentioned
was the fact that -- I believe Mr. Rountree indicated that he believed there were other
options available that would allow multi-family within the umbrella of that L-Q
designation and this is one of those other options. And, therefore, it wouldn't warrant a
Comp Plan change. Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Okay. I do have a number of people who have signed up to indicate
their support or their opposition. If when I call your name you would like to provide
verbal testimony, please, come forward at that time. Otherwise, I will read your name in
support or opposition into the record. Gene Fox for. Mr. Fox, we can bring a
microphone to you if you would prefer. Okay.
Fox: My name is Gene Fox. I live at 582 South Woodhaven in Meridian with my wife
Celeste.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Fox: And I thank the City Council for allowing me to speak this evening. We live to the
south of the proposed project, approximately a long Jared Zabransky potato throw
away. My sole purpose in being here is to represent the interests of the Woodbridge
community to the best of my understanding and ability. I will not pretend that I speak for
all of the Woodbridge residents, but I do have permission to voice the opinion of a
significant majority. A few months ago I spoke here in an attempt to encourage you to
not approve a plan being pursued by the Conger Group. Tonight I wish to encourage
you to approve the Waverly Place project. Had the Conger plan been similar to Waverly
Place, I would have supported, rather than opposed it. Jim Flecker, a fellow
Woodbridge resident, my wife and I, and a num~er of other Woodbridge residents --
Ron, our president, association president, but especially my wife, have invested a
significant amount of time and energy in developing backing for this project within our
community. We are not shields for Mr. Alston Jones. We are not on his payroll. We
merely believe that this project is a good compatible fit with our neighborhood. Our sole
concern and desire is to help maintain the quality and integrity of the City of Meridian
and the Woodbridge community. Matt Beers spoke here last Tuesday evening and this
is the flier to which he referred. It was put together by the Woodbridge association
Meridian City Council
February 27,2007
Page 16 of 100
board and I'm the one -- probably the one who put it in his newspaper box. We have
been working for months to get people interested and involved in the current project, so
I was pleased that Matt spoke, because I firmly believe that if a person goes to all of the
trouble of forming an opinion, then, there should be no reluctance to express it. Matt
raised the issue of traffic and safety of Woodbridge residents, which is a concern for us
all. Speeding on our streets is a common occurrence, but there have also been at least
four incidents of vehicular mayhem. A mailbox was destroyed, because it popped into
the path of a moving car. A woman crashes into her boyfriend's car, which was,
unfortunately, parked in his own driveway. And two houses from us another person
managed to smash into the rear end of a curb side parked car. All these incidents
involved Woodbridge residents who were seriously impaired by various mind altering
substances. The fourth occurrence concerned a small tree which had the misfortune of
having been planted some ten or 12 feet from the roadway and which could not resist
the urge to impede the progress of a motorist who was exploring a new path through the
grass. Where the driver of that car lives is still a mystery. Fortunately, no people found
themselves subjected to the same mishaps. The Woodbridge community needs to
address the problem of traffic as quickly as possible. But our options appear to be
limited to the judicious placement of speed bumps or perhaps spike strips. Concerns
about traffic embroil almost every construction project that comes before this Council.
Yes, this project will increase the flow of traffic passed our homes, but that traffic will be
much less than what would have been produced by the R-9 development that we had
previously opposed. Flow of traffic through the neighborhood will increase regardless of
the type of development between Woodbridge, because Woodbridge is an island
located on a connector between the mainstreams of Eagle, Locust Grove and Meridian
Avenue. We cannot stop the increase, only hope to keep it lesser, rather than greater.
I will not reiterate the virtues of Waverly Place, but I do believe this project, as
proposed, will provide a pleasant transitional gateway on the east side of Woodbridge.
Single story buildings of quality will compliment, rather than detract from the types of
homes found in our neighborhood. Please allow me to share a concern with you. This
project is to be built on land designated as L-O, that the Council has previously referred
to a medical corridor. My concern is that there is so much land available in the area that
it cannot be all developed as medically related or even as light office space. Further,
the concern is that in a few years, if this land is still vacant, a builder will stand before
this Council and state that the property could not be developed as designated and in its
stead will be proposed multi-story, multi-family complexes, which a Council with a
different face and attitude might approve. Should that happen the path into our
neighborhood will not have such an attractive nature and the traffic situation in
Woodbridge could become quite dire indeed. I sincerely urge you to approve this
proposal. And if you had a question about Woodbridge, I would be happy to try to
answer it.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Fox. Any questions from Council?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Meridian City Council
February 27, 2007
Page 17 of 100
Fox: Thank you.
De Weerd: Celeste Fox also signed up for. Thank you. Betty Monta. Thank you. Rich
Allison signed up for. We were kind of hoping Mr. Fox spoke for you. No, I'm kidding.
Allison: My name is Rich Allison. 916 North Main Street, Meridian.
De Weerd: You know, Rich, I really like you.
Allison: Well, I hope so, Tammy. Thank you, Madam Mayor.
De Weerd: I was just trying to give you a hard time, so I will behave myself.
Allison: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, there are two things I would like to
address. First of all, Alston Jones and I met with Anna Canning on -- to discuss a
proposed townhome project on 6/20/05. We additionally met with her again on 9/16/05.
She indicated this appeared to be an excellent transition use for this property and would
simply require annexation, zoning to L-Q, a Conditional Use Permit, and approval of the
Public Hearing process. And, then, my client proceeded to acquire the property. The
second thing I would like to address -- I was on both the 1993 Comprehensive Plan
approval, I was also a member of the 2002 Comprehensive Plan -- what is called the
land use subcommittee. And during our discussion in the 1993 Comprehensive Plan, I
was the one that recommended the L-Q zone be made for the lots around Magic View
Subdivision, because a number of the residents in the Greenhill Estates to the north
didn't -- as Becky was mentioning, want a 24 hour gas station, a drive-thru restaurant,
whatever. And when I recommended the L-O and discussed the uses possible, this
satisfied the landowners to the north. Of course, Woodbridge didn't exist then. After
our meetings were concluded, the staff -- the City of Meridian, not the land use
subcommittee -- created the designation office in the Comprehensive Plan and the staff
actually wrote that definition after our meetings were concluded. There was never any
discussion during the urban land use committee about an office zone. It was an L-Q
zone, limited office, allowing all the uses as outlined in the 1993 Comprehensive Plan.
Thank you. Do you have any questions?
De Weerd: Council, any questions for Mr. Allison?
Allison: Thank you.
De Weerd: Very well. Thank you. Bob Workett signed up for. Larry Holstead signed
up for. Okay. Thank you. Lori Holstead. Thank you, ma'am. Carman Holstead signed
up for. Okay. I'm sorry. I had Larry and Carman. So, you just count twice. Craig
Steele signed up for.
Steele: Craig Steele, 2021 Northwest 8th Street, Meridian. Madam Mayor, Council. I'm
here in support for this for a couple different reasons. One, I think it's a great transition.
Meridian City Council
February 27, 2007
Page 18 of 100
It's not a huge piece of property we are talking about. It's close to the hospital. And
from everything that I read, that hospital is becoming more and more popular.
Therefore, having some multi-family in a very nice way close to that hospital for those
professional people who work there, is a nice thing to have. It is a good transition from
the neighborhood to a commercial area. And, again, it doesn't come so far out of --
away from the subdivision of Woodbridge that it creates any real hindrance, I don't think,
to the area around it, as far as office space and those type of things. The other thing
that I'd like to say is I have worked with Alston for about three years now and Alston's
always brought forth very nice quality projects and there is a lot to be said for that and
as Meridian grows and the types of things that we want to be -- to have in our
communities and known for, I think Alston can bring out a nice project in that area that
we can be proud of. That's pretty much all I wanted to say.
De Weerd: Thank you. Matt Beer signed up against and testified last week. Ron
Hodge signed up for. Thank you. Ernest Bater signed up for. Okay. Thank you. And
John Munt signed up for. Thank you, sir. Those are the names that signed up to
indicate their support of or opposition. Is there anyone else in the audience who would
like to provide testimony on this application?
Walker: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I apologize for not signing up. You
had standing room only when I arrived and couldn't make my way over there to the
table.
De Weerd: That's all right, sir. If you will, please, state your name and address.
Walker: Dan Walker. My address is 5457 Willow Lane, Nampa. I am a partner with Sill
Caston in Idaho Real Estate Connection. Our office is at 23 East Fairview in Meridian.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Walker: We are very familiar with the fast growing area, both north and south of the
freeway. Our company is currently marketing a number of properties in and around the
area, including the Majestic theater project on Overland, as well as many others. And
for full disclosure purposes, I suppose I should tell you that we would be very proud to
represent this proposed project moving forward. We feel uniquely qualified to speak to
the quality not only of this project, but to the quality of the developers and the quality of
the investors who are involved. As you well know, city officials rarely enjoy the luxury of
making decisions on developments that have generated such little opposition. Many of
those speaking tonight in favor of this application were the same citizens who opposed
an earlier proposed development on an adjacent property. It is my belief that the
majority of those choosing to support this project are basing their decision on two
principal considerations. First, they believe the developers of Waverly Place have
listened to their concerns and are proposing to build a lower density luxury
condominium project of exceptional design and exceptional quality that should, indeed,
enhance the value of their properties. Second and perhaps most importantly, they have
gained the confidence that the developers of the Waverly Place project can be trusted
Meridian City Council
February 27, 2007
Page 19 of 100
to complete this type of community that has been proposed to them. Since I know most
of the Waverly Place developers personally and professionally as well, I can certainly
vouch for their commitment to quality and I can also vouch for their financial strength.
Three of the Waverly Place project owners are Meridian residents. They are Kathy Karl,
better known in most circles as the mother of Koby Karl, the basketball star at BSU,
giving basketball equal time with Mr. Zabransky tonight. She's also a Woodbridge
community resident. Veri Terry is the owner of Intertech, a Meridian residential
construction company. Craig Taylor, who lives in Meridian Greens, is vice-president
and general counsel, as well as corporate secretary of Washington Group International.
The other owners are George Juetten, who is the executive vice-president and chief
financial officer at Washington Group. Richard Perry, senior vice-president and general
counsel at Washington Group. Steve Johnson, the senior vice-president of corporate
development for Washington Group. Roger and Linda Tebow, who are retired
business owners and reside in Eagle. The managing partners of this development are
Alston Jones, a retired Eagle, Idaho, businessman and his wife Sandy. Clayn
Sonderegger and Terry Christensen, owners of Benchmark Construction Company.
Many of you may be familiar with Benchmark's outstanding 58 year reputation in this
state. Benchmark will be responsible for all site work and all construction. I rise in
support of this project with the conviction that Waverly Place would be an outstanding
addition to the City of Meridian. These developers and investors are determined to
build a unique community of the highest quality that will be embraced by their
customers, their neighbors, and by Meridian city officials. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else who would like to provide testimony on
this application?
Canning: Madam Mayor? Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, part of my job is to
consistently and fervently advocate for the Comprehensive Plan and I think that there
has been some confusion tonight between the Comprehensive Plan and the Unified
Development Code and I feel the need to back up just for a moment and clarify some of
that discussion. The Comprehensive Plan has a list of designations that vary -- that do
not directly comply or correlate to the Unified Development Code. For instance, the
Comprehensive Plan has a commercial designation that specifically says high density
residential is appropriate. So, you have approved in the past R-40 residential
designation -- zoning designation in the commercial Comprehensive Plan designation.
So, they can be very different things and I'm -- there is no one-to-one correlation. If you
were doing a high density project, you could look for properties that have a
Comprehensive Plan designation as commercial, of mixed use regional, or even of high
density residential. So, there is not this one-to-one correlation between the
Comprehensive Plan and the zoning ordinance. So, the Comprehensive Plan
designation of office makes no mention of residential uses and that has been my point
that I have been trying to make consistently. This project is a nice project. I am not
denying that and I don't -- I can see why the neighbors like it. It's very similar in density
to the project that they live in, it's just that the units happen to be attached. But it's,
basically, the same density. If this property were designated industrial, I'm sure they
would be here advocating for you to approve this project, but the point that I really want
Meridian City Council
February 27,2007
Page 20 of 100
you to think about is whether this is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
designation of office as I read it to you. It doesn't say that everything in the light office
zoning category is appropriate. It has a very limited scope of what's appropriate for this
designation. So, please, consider the Comprehensive Plan in -- in your decision and I
hope to preserve the integrity of this district. If we need to clarify it and clean it up, I will
certainly take that direction from Council, but I do believe that this office designation
was there for a purpose and it wasn't to allow residential uses. Thank you.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: In your defense, Anna, I believe the office designation was approved by the City
Council on the change and we had one testimony that left it believing that you had
changed it on your own, but you don't do that.
Canning: No.
Bird: So -- and there was two of us that were sitting on that in 2002 when it was
changed.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I would comment that I agree with everything that Director Canning has said.
I also served on the committee that was made up of many stakeholders and citizens
that was trying to write the UDC, which, eventually, was adopted by this Council. And
there was discussion in the L-Q zone about whether residential was appropriate and I
hope I'm not misstating. The thought on the committee was that there should be a
possibility -- if somebody had a large mostly office proposal, that it would be
appropriate for them to be able by Conditional Use Permit to also have a portion of that
be residential and that did seem to be appropriate to include it. So, the reason that it
caught in there was that somebody said if I had a big L-Q project, I need to be able to
put a portion of it as residential. That doesn't appear to be what is happening here. The
application we have before us is entirely residential in an L-Q zone and the exception to
that is if you consider the regionality of this small piece of property, except for the
residential developments north and west of it, the rest of the land is either already
annexed mostly as L-Q or still in the county with the assumption that it will be annexed
as L-Q and in that regional view, I would very be comfortable that this is a small portion
of residential. This entire project is a small portion of residential within a bigger L-Q
picture and I think it meets the intent of what the framers of the UCD, the Unified
Development Code, were intending. That's my personal opinion and I hope it's not
terribly disagreeing with what Director Canning just said. I think it supports it.
Meridian City Council
February 27 f 2007
Page 21 of 100
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. With the addition of Director Canning's statements, is
there any further public testimony that is desired by our public? If not, I would ask the
representative for her wrap-up remarks.
McKay: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I will be brief, since we did nit have
anybody speak in opposition, so there aren't any items I need to address as far as that's
concerned. I guess I would like for the Council to, obviously, take into consideration
that these people took time out of their busy schedules to come here and support this
project. To me, that's pretty amazing. I haven't had that happen before. So, this is a
unique situation. Secondly, the Comprehensive Plan is a guiding document. It's a living
document that we utilize to do the best that we can in our land use planning. And as a
guiding document not all the pegs fit in the right holes and we have to look at projects
on a case-by-case basis and I think that's what the Council does every Tuesday night.
This particular parcel is back there up against single family residential, low and medium.
Ifs not out there along the Eagle Road corridor. It's not lying next to commercial, such
as McDonald's or Subway. It's tucked back in here. And I am absolutely convinced that
the intent, when they were laying out the Comprehensive Plan map, was that this area
have a proper mixture and a proper transition and I believe transition was the key word.
That the development that would take place along Greenhill Estates, along this future
medium residential area, would be an appropriate transition. And I think that's what we
have here. We didn't submit this as an R-11 or an R-8, we submitted it as an L-O. L-O
complies with the Comprehensive Plan. And I guess I ask you if this were an existing
L-O and I was standing before you tonight with a Conditional Use Permit, we wouldn't
have this in depth discussion about does it meet the intent. I think this is a good project.
The neighbors think it's a good project. We have a few naysayers, but overwhelmingly
they have been wonderful and I thank them. And I think this project warrants approval.
And there are many uses in Meridian that don't comply with their zoning designations as
far as the purity of compliance. A good example of that is the new office that I built in
Meridian. I am in an I-L zone. Petra Building is in an I-L zone. That's light industrial. I
don't see anywhere that it says in the definition for professional office is encouraged or
allowed, but that's kind of how that area has transitioned. It started out as kind of
industrial. We have commercial, we have professional office, and that area is
blossoming and this area is doing the same. And I think we need to look at trying to mix
-- mix our uses. Otherwise, we are just ending up with strip commercial, strip office, we
don't get the integration that we are looking for. Thank you.
De Weerd: Council, any questions for the applicant?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Any further comments?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Meridian City Council
February 27, 2007
Page 22 of 100
Bird: If we have no more public testimony needed, I move we close the public hearings
on AZ 06-047, PP 06-049, and CUP 06-030.
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to close the Public Hearing on Items 10, 11 and 12.
All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Okay. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: If we don't have anymore discussion, Council, I'm ready to make a motion.
Zaremba: I had nothing to add.
Bird: Okay. I move that we approve AZ 06-047, request from RUT to L-O zone for
Waverly Place Subdivision.
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve Item 10. Is there any
discussion?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: Having gone through a lot of the -- somewhat a similar analysis with another
project back in June to design style that I supported at the time, this particular project is
one that I don't support. I think I share some of the sentiments of Mrs. McKay that she
indicated that at the inception it was not a project she was initially interested in. My
difference is that it never became a project that I was particularly interested in, in light of
the medical districting options and opportunities in this area. So, I think what will
provide a better product in this region is what I saw before, compared to this. So, it's
not a project that I support.
De Weerd: Okay. Any further discussion? Mr. Berg.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree; absent; Zaremba, yea; Borton, nay.
MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Okay. Item 11.
Meridian City Council
February 27, 2007
Page 23 of 100
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve PP 06-049.
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: Preliminary plat for Waverly Place Subdivision.
De Weerd: Okay.
Zaremba: I second.
De Weerd: Motion and a second. If there is no discussion, Mr. Berg.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree; absent; Zaremba, yea; Borton, nay.
MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Okay. Item 12.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve CUP 06-030 for Waverly Place Subdivision.
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve Item 12. Mr. Berg.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree; absent; Zaremba, yea; Borton,
MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you all for joining us. I imagine we will take a five minute
break while the room, I think, will clear.
(Recess. )
Item 13:
Continued Public Hearing from February 20, 2007: RZ 06-013
Request for a Rezone of .43 acres from an R-8 to an Q-T zone for Vallev
Shepherd Church of the Nazarene Property by Paradigm Real Estate
Holding - 39 W. Pine Avenue:
Meridian City Council
February 27,2007
Page 24 of 100
De Weerd: We will go ahead and call this meeting back to order. Item 13 is a
continued Public Hearing on the Nazarene Church property on RZ 06-013. Start with
Anna's comments.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Valley Shepherd of the
Nazarene project, but it's not for the church, it's for a home they own on Pine. It's
located on the southeast corner of Pine Street and West 1 st Street, as shown here.
The existing home, as you can see, takes access off of Pine. This is their proposed site
plan. It is a rezone of .43 acres from R-8 to Old Town. The applicant intends to convert
the existing home to a professional office, which is not currently allowed in the R-8
zone, but would be allowed within the 0- T zone. The staff has recommended a DA
accompanying this rezone and it would include the following kind of site specific
provisions. There are the general ones as well, but the applicant shall be allowed to
construct only one driveway access to Pine Avenue at a location to be approved by
ACHD. No other public street access to Pine Avenue would be permitted. And that's
there on the east end of the site. The applicant shall construct at minimum a 20 foot
wide landscape buffer along Pine Avenue. At such time as the existing structure is
removed or structurally altered, the landscaping may be removed as the downtown
design guidelines and the OT district -- they do allow that. So, the idea was that since
they are not rebuilding, they are not subject to the Old Town design guidelines, which
would move the building up towards the street, but to preserve the landscape buffer at
this time until they do tear down that building and rebuild. And, finally, the site shall be
developed in general compliance with the concept plan that's presented here. The
concept plan does include diagonal parking partially within the right of way and ACHD
does not have an objection to that parking, as long as the applicant enters into a license
agreement with ACHD. The structure is about 3,500 square feet. The Commission did
recommend approval at their January 18th Public Hearing. At that hearing Gary
McCallister spoke in favor of the application. No one spoke in opposition or
commented. Key issues of discussion were the possible cross-access to the east. In
looking at it further, though, there are some power lines that pose an impediment to that
cross-access. Plus, the property to the east has -- it does have access to Meridian
Road. The key Commission changes to staff's recommendation. There were none.
And to our knowledge there are no outstanding issues before Council. With that I'll
answer any questions you may have.
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
De Weerd: Okay. Is the applicant here? Good evening. If you will, please, state your
name and address.
Parker: Julie Parker. P.O. Box 95, Nampa, Idaho. I'm representing the applicant.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Meridian City Council
February 27,2007
Page 25 of 100
Parker: We agree with staff's recommendations and just look forward to working with
the city on completion of an occupancy permit and allowing our developer to move in
with his business.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Council, any questions for the applicant?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. This is a Public Hearing on this item. Is there anyone
who would like to provide testimony on this application? Thank you. Staff, any further
comments?
Canning: No, ma'am.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Canning: It's consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Sorry.
Borton: I don't know if I can support it. Just kidding.
De Weerd: Comments this evening are falling flat. Mr. Borton.
Borton: My only question is that property directly to the east, it takes access to Pine
right adjacent to that property line. It's real close to it as well. Is there -- is that part of
some concern? I mean you have got two access points right near the intersection --
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilman Borton, I know that the
staff did look at trying to require that cross-access, but, apparently, there are power
lines right there that would need to be relocated to accomplish that. We can go back
and reevaluate it if it's -- if Council would like us to. I'm not sure what to do, whether it's
worth it at this time. If in developing under the Old Town guidelines, if we are
anticipating that most of these folks will be walking to these businesses and perhaps
that will develop later with an in lieu fee, I'm not sure. So, we can look into that if
Council desires.
Borton: Okay.
De Weerd: I guess, Anna, just a comment. It's an interesting observation and I think as
Pine is extended from Eagle Road to Locust Grove, this collector is going to see
increased traffic and it will be increasingly difficult to get in and out of some of those
properties. Where we have an opportunity to consolidate those access points, it's
certainly worth pursuing. I do understand that has definitely been an obstacle that staff,
I guess, as those opportunities for dialogue come in, if there is a way we can
encourage consolidation.
Meridian City Council
February 27, 2007
Page 26 of 100
Canning: And, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, one of the things we don't
exactly know yet is when they do the design drawings for Meridian Road and the
expansion, we do know that they are primarily going east -- or, I'm sorry. West.
Bird: I was going to say, that's --
Canning: So, there is some question -- yeah. Sorry. You know, as a planner I really
wish I got that right more often than I do, so I apologize. The question would be if they
are predominately taking the right of way going west and it may be that that first line of
houses or structures all ends up being required for a right of way, so that there may not
be any development on that property, but we don't know exactly yet how much they will
need.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Anna, there is already addition on the old Wilmot place. They are starting to --
and they have got parking, it looks like, in the back and will be coming off -- I'm with you,
I don't know how much, if you're going to step out of the front door and be on Meridian
Road, but -- but there is -- they will have an entrance off into Pine. And this one already
has, you know, the existing driveway.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: And Director Canning. Is there any way we encumber the rezone with a
condition that should they ever tear this building down and build a new building, that
they would have to take access off of West 1 st Street, instead of Pine?
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Zaremba, certainly.
And at that time it may be that we don't even want -- the Old Town guidelines as they
apply to this right now, if Pine develops similar to the downtown core, then, you wouldn't
-- you wouldn't have any access, likely. They would be paying parking in lieu fees for a
structure somewhere, most likely. So, we could add that to the development
agreement, that -- similar to the one about the landscape buffer. If they tear down, then,
they either remove -- they could remove their access from Pine. If they rebuild on the
property. That is what you said, sir, wasn't it? Did I miss it?
Zaremba: I believe it is, yes.
Canning: Okay.
Zaremba: Having suggested that, I certainly would support that.
Meridian City Council
February 27,2007
Page 27 of 100
De Weerd: Would the representative have any comments? Good evening.
Riser: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. My name is Garland Riser. My
address is 12058 West LeG range. Quite frankly, we have entertained that idea, Mr.
Borton, that you brought up. I'd love that idea personally. It would have solved a lot of
the issues we had with some of the parking dilemmas that we had as we had to face the
issues of parking in the right of way on West 1 st Street. Unfortunately, the issues that
we had to address there were the guy wires off the power lines. There is also a
monument post out there for the phone company. Unfortunatel.y, we were faced with a
situation we couldn't do a common access area. Again, as I said, if we could, I would
have loved it, because it would have supplied us with some additional parking that we
would have liked to have had. So, I will entertain any questions that you might have.
De Weerd: You heard some of the dialogue and if this building were to be replaced
some of the ideas of access at that time. Are you in support of that? Would that have
any hardship on you?
Riser: You know, I'm not so sure that I'm in a position at this point. I hadn't really ever
gone there, that what if the building -- what if we tore the building down and did
something different. I mean under the current guidelines of what our use would be
going forward, what the future use would see, I don't know that we'd probably face that
position, so I hadn't ever really thought about it. But on the other side of it, I'm not
opposed to being reasonable either. So, I'm not sure that I can give you a definitive
answer and I apologize for that, because, normally, my approach is always be fairly
clear and concise.
De Weerd: Neutral is good.
Riser: Well, at least you're treating me better than the guy that came up in the blue
coat.
De Weerd: What, my friend? I was actually kidding. A fellow Kiwanian. But it kind of
fell flat, like we have been doing tonight, uh, Mr. Borton. So, no, thank you.
Riser: Thank you.
De Weerd: Anything else, Council?
Bird: No.
De Weerd: Staff? Any other final remarks from the applicant's representative? Okay.
Council, seeing no further testimony, I would entertain a motion to close the Public
Hearing.
Bird: So moved.
Meridian City Council
February 27,2007
Page 28 of 100
Borton: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to close the Public Hearing on Item
13. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Okay. Any discussion?
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I would like to propose a motion. After considering all staff, applicant, and
public testimony, I move to approve file number RZ 06-013 as presented in the staff
report for the hearing date, actually, of September 20, 2007, which was continued to
today, with the following modifications: I would add to the development agreement, a
statement to the effect that should this building ever be removed and a new building
built on the site, that they would abandon access to West Pine Avenue and, thereafter,
take access off West 1 st Street. End of motion.
De Weerd: Okay. Do I have a second?
Borton: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. Discussion? Would you like to repeat the motion? I'm kidding.
Zaremba: Would you like me to repeat it?
De Weerd: No. If there is no discussion, Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree; absent; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 14:
Continued Public Hearing from February 20, 2007: RZ 06-014
Request for a Rezone of 15.58 acres from an R-4 zone to an Q-T zone for
Joint School District No.2 by Joint School District No. 2 - 911 N.
Meridian Road:
De Weerd: Okay. Item 14 is continued Public Hearing from February 20th on RZ 06-
014. I will go ahead and start with Mr. Nary. Did you want to provide comment? We
did continue this specifically to get some feedback from the applicant.
Nary: Yes, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. What the purpose of continuing
this from last week -- and I do believe the applicant and a representative from the
Meridian City Council
February 27, 2007
Page 29 of 100
school district are represent -- was two things. There were two conditions that were
placed on this project by the Planning and Zoning Commission that they were
recommended being placed in a development agreement and the discussion by the
Council last week of whether that was necessary. The applicant had requested that a
development agreement not be required on this project. I did meet with counsel for the
school district last Friday, he did have contact with the school superintendent. One of
the conditions that was placed was readdressing of the property. The school district is
not in opposition to that requirement. We don't need a development agreement to do
that. We -- I wouldn't say routinely, but certainly we have had occasions for the city to
readdress properties for various reasons and we simply just do it and notify the property
owner that their property has been readdressed for safety reasons, normally. So, that
could be done without a development agreement. The second was moving of the Pine
Street school and the Planning and Zoning Commission was just concerned that that
move of the Pine Street school from its present location close to the corner there of Pine
and Meridian Road be done prior to the -- prior to the sale and as part of this -- of this
application. And so they asked that that be put in a development agreement. In
speaking with their counsel and him speaking with the district superintendent and Mr.
Bigham is here as well, if you want to have -- hear from him directly. The plans to move
the Pine Street school are in place. I mean it is going to occur. They have already
negotiated with a construction company to move the school to the site on the Meridian
Elementary property. They have some donated and reduced cost that's already been
negotiated. So, that plan is already in effect and, essentially, the school district can't
proceed with their plans for this district office and selling it until they have done that
anyway. So, it seems unnecessary. I think Mrs. Canning had spoke last week about
sometimes doing these types of agreements with other governmental entities,
sometimes they are a little awkward to do, and that was the reason we set this over
and, in my opinion, we don't need to have a development agreement. It appears that
the process is in place. It's already occurring. It would likely occur before we even
record this development agreement anyway. So, it isn't necessary. I feel comfortable
from the city's perspective that those two considerations that were of concern to the
Commission are going to get accomplished, but, again, Mr. Bigham is here if you wish
to have anymore direct testimony from the school district, he's certainly able to provide
that.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Nary. Council, do you need further information on
that item?
Bird: I don't.
De Weerd: Mr. Bigham, do you want to comment? Anna? Okay. Well, this is a
continued Public Hearing. We did hold it over for specific testimony to this particular
item. Is there anyone that would like to provide testimony on this application? Okay.
Seeing no public testimony, Council?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
February 27,2007
Page 30 of 100
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we close the Public Hearing on RZ 06-014.
Zaremba: I'm just not fast enough, but I'll second it.
De Weerd: Okay. Well, I have a motion to close the Public Hearing on 14. All those in
favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve RZ 06-014, without a development agreement.
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve Item 14 as stated. Is there
any discussion? Mr. Berg, please, call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree; absent; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 15:
Public Hearing: AZ 06-046 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 21.7
acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Harcourt Subdivision by Great Sky,
Inc. - 3465 & 3595 E. Victory Road and 3432 & 3467 E. Falcon Drive:
Item 16:
Public Hearing: PP 06-048 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 61
single-family residential lots and 6 common lots on 21.7 acres in a
proposed R-4 zone for Harcourt Subdivision by Great Sky, Inc. - 3465
& 3595 E. Victory Road and 3432 & 3467 E. Falcon Drive:
De Weerd: Okay. Items 15 and 16 are public hearings on AZ 06-046 and PP 06-048.
will open these two public hearings with staff comments.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Harcourt project. It's
located on the south side of Victory Road, approximately a sixth of a mile east of Eagle.
The applications are for annexation and zoning and preliminary plat. The annexation
and zoning would be of 23.05 acres and they are requesting R-4 zoning. And, then, the
preliminary plat approval they are requesting is for 60 single family residential lots. The
lots range in size from 9,000 square feet to 22,250 square feet. The subdivision will
provide 1.42 acres or 6.4 percent open space, including eight foot parkway throughout
the entire project. And you see that those show up as the predominant form of open
Meridian City Council
February 27,2007
Page 31 of 100
space within the subdivision. The gross residential density is 2.68 dwelling units per
acre. The Commission recommended approval at their January 18th Public Hearing.
Darin Fluke, the applicant -- spoke in favor of the application. Brady Turner spoke in
opposition. Michael Reedy, Robert Aldridge, Harold Kaczynski spoke -- or commented.
Written testimony was also provided by Brady Turner for the Dartmoor Homeowners
Association. Dartmoor is immediately to the south of this project. Key issues of
discussion by the Commission were the type of fencing to be installed on the perimeter
and micro pathways, as well as the common open space. The redevelopment potential
of the Kaczynski property to the southeast, that's the property that would be in this
corner here. You can see it right there. The potential for drainage and runoff to affect
neighboring properties, preserving the ditch canal irrigation currently serving the
neighboring properties, preserving trees within the right of way at the terminus of the
Falcon Drive cul-de-sac. And the possible transitioning of lot sizes adjacent to
Dartmoor Subdivision along this southern boundary. Key Commission changes to
staff's recommendation. They restricted Lots 7, 8, 9 and 10 and 11 on Block 7, to a 25
foot rear setback. And I apologize, I didn't look that up, but I am assuming that that is
those lots right there. Okay. Yes. I'm getting a nod from Mr. Fluke. And requiring the
applicant to install vinyl perimeter fencing. Outstanding issues before City Council.
Staff has not received an updated landscape plan, so we have not been able to
evaluate that yet, but that is the only outstanding issue. I'm not aware of any written
testimony since the staff report was prepared. I will answer any questions that you may
have.
De Weerd: Okay. Any comments from Council? And you did refer to the letter we
received from Mr. Aldridge? And Mr. Hutt. And we did receive a landscape plan as
well.
Canning: I believe it was not submitted in time to review it, is what Ms. Hess has stated.
Bird: It's dated 2/22/07, Anna.
Canning: Okay. Councilmember Bird, I believe we have got it, but we didn't get it in
time to evaluate it for tonight's hearing.
De Weerd: Okay. Is the applicant's representative here?
Fluke: Good evening, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Darin Fluke, 250 South
Beachwood in Boise, with JUB Engineers, representing the applicant in this matter.
Anna did a good job summarizing the application, so I'm not going to go over the vitals
on it again, other than to say that the site is designated as low density residential by the
Comp Plan. I would note we are in strict conformance with the Comprehensive Plan on
this one. That low density designation allows for up to three dwelling units per acre and
we come in at about 2.68. So, by definition you're looking at a low density project. We
don't have any particular issues with the conditions of approval. We did agree with the
Planning and Zoning Commission to increase our rear setback where we abut Dartmoor
Meridian City Council
February 27, 2007
Page 32 of 100
Subdivision. Here on the south and I'll talk about that a little bit more in just a second.
One of the other issues -- Anna, could we see the aerial, please? Your aerial.
Canning: The -- yeah, I don't think --
Fluke: No. Yours.
Canning: I know.
Fluke: Oh. Thank you. One of the issues that we were dealing with is the Kaczynski
parcel here is the five acre parcel that lies within Golden Eagle Estates, the same
subdivision that our four parcels lie within. They have about 90 feet of frontage on the
cul-de-sac here and they have got some mature vegetation that abuts that cul-de-sac.
That's not currently developed with curb, gutter, and sidewalk and they are interested in
maintaining that vegetation that they have there, which appears to encroach into the
right of way somewhat. We -- in trying to work out that situation, we had a phone
conference with the Ada County Highway District and they did agree that we could pull
that cul-de-sac back somewhat to allow us to construct curb, gutter and sidewalk within
the existing right of way and not affect their vegetation. Otherwise, what you would see
would be just curb, gutter and sidewalk ending at their frontage and, then, picking up
again on the other side, because we will be redeveloping this stretch of Falcon Drive
here with standard street section and curb, gutter, and sidewalk, of course. With regard
to irrigation water, Mr. Aldridge lives here. There is a ditch that courses through the
property here and provides irrigation to all the existing lots within the development. We
have been working with him on a solution to that. Conditions of approval state that we
do have to maintain existing irrigation and we will do that. We are not quite sure how
yet, we are working -- the engineers are looking at it to figure out how best to do it.
What we'd prefer to do would be to hook into our system up here in Sutherland Farms,
which does have adequate capacity. We may need to put in some larger wells to do
that, but we would connect the two and make more efficient use of that infrastructure
that we have already built. So, that's our preferred solution. We will see if thafs going
to work. In any event, we will continue to provide Mr. Aldridge with his allotment of
irrigation water where he receives it now, no matter how we have to do that. With
regard to the other issue that came up before the Planning and Zoning Commission, it
had to do with transitional lot sizes against these two lots here abutting Dartmoor
Subdivision. Are we able to see the -- that exhibit that I brought? What this shows you
is the southern tier of the proposed Harcourt here. These are the lots that we have got
with 25 foot setbacks on, which is an increase of ten feet over what's required by code.
What this is showing you is that we have an exceptionally large lot here, which it's not
exceptionally large, it's an acre, but due to its odd configuration it has almost 400 feet
abutting our project here and what we are trying to show is that the house has about
120 feet of setback currently. In addition, we will have our houses set back off this road
about 20 feet and so you're going to have a good 160 feet of separation. At least
between the dwellings. In addition, the Commission did require that we put a six foot
vinyl fence along the perimeter here and we are okay with that. So, that is why they did
not require us to lose another lot against here, because it does comply with the intent of
Meridian City Council
February 27,2007
Page 33 of 100
the ordinance. The last thing I would make mention of is just that the city anticipated
just this sort of project on lands that are designated low density residential. When the
Comp Plan was adopted, most of the development in the area -- maybe we could go
back to your aerial, Anna. The only thing that really existed out here at the time you
adopted your Comprehensive Plan was the Dartmoor Subdivision, which was platted as
a non-farm subdivision. That allowed for one acre lots to be platted in the front with
dedicated open space back here in the rear, which has now been re-subdivided as the
Kingsbridge, I believe, Subdivision. When you designated this as low density you
recognized that we had low density next to us and thought that it would not be
appropriate to have higher densities out here. But recognizing that you were going to
the expense of extending sewer and water and we would have larger roads out in the
area, you did recognize that some more density than what was here originally was
appropriate for the land. When Dartmoor Subdivision was platted, it was a county
subdivision again. It was not required to build curb, gutter and sidewalk, sewer, water,
fire hydrants, streetlights, it was not provided -- it was not required to provide open
space. It was not required to improve Eagle Road. And so it was a much cheaper way
to develop. Well, now that we are in the city or, you know, contiguous with the city and
the city has planned for growth in this area, this is the type of growth that makes more
sense. So, we think we have designed a nice project that fits well with the
neighborhood. We do have -- excuse me. We do have the support of the majority of
our neighbors and we would simply ask for your approval.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, questions for the applicant at this time?
Bird: I have none.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I would ask one. Can you point out where -- what I'm looking at is your
access -- what I'm looking at is your access to Eagle Road. Where is the access of the
project across the street in relation to your access?
Fluke: Anna, do you know if they were required to align with that existing driver offset?
Canning: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Anna.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, they do line up. It's not very clear
there. There is an odd parcel line that goes further up, but this comes right across
there, so they do line up.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you.
Meridian City Council
February 27, 2007
Page 34 of 100
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Borton: Darin? Anna, can you put the plat back up?
Canning: Yes. After I -- after I recant my last one. Commissioner Zaremba, I'm not
sure. The entrance may be there. It's hard to tell. It could be that it's at the south end
of the project.
Zaremba: My recollection was that when we were considering that -- the opposing
development that we are pointing at, it moved around a little bit, and I thought that it had
ended up at more the southern end of their project in this area.
Canning: I believe it is.
Zaremba: Which was leading me to my question of how many accesses are we having
opposing each other on Eagle Road in a stair step manner. Not opposing each other,
but going stair step.
Canning: The one on this southern end it looks like it is right on the south boundary, so
this property to the south could share an access, because there is a landscape buffer
preventing it from taking access to the road to the south.
Zaremba: So, we would end up with a stair step kind of --
Fluke: Madam Mayor, may I address that? Commissioner -- or Councilman, I presume
that -- I believe that when they came in with this project that they were showing it
aligning. We did speak with the developers over there when we were looking at our
sewer options. And I believe they started out with it in alignment and, then, ended up
moving it for one reason or another, but I believe that that does comply with the ACHD
offset policy for the minimum offset between the two accesses.
Zaremba: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Anything further for the applicant at this time?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. I do have several people who have signed up. I will read your name
and your support or opposition. If you would like to come forward at that time, please,
do so. Brady Turner signed up against.
Turner: Good evening, Madam Mayor and Members of the Council. My name is Brady
Turner. I live at 3678 South Caleb Place in Meridian. My property is right here. I'm
also the president of the Dartmoor Homeowners Association and I'm speaking on behalf
Meridian City Council
February 27, 2007
Page 35 of 100
of the homeowners in that subdivision this evening. Our objection with this application
is the lack, as you have heard, of transitional lot sizes adjacent to the Dartmoor
Subdivision. The original design had lot sizes adjacent to Dartmoor ranging from 12 to
21 thousand square feet. These were reduced when the development was redesigned
at ACHD's request. The new design was never presented to us prior to the P&Z
hearing, nor was our input solicited. As the applicant stated, while the distance from my
house to the nearest build-able lot of 120 feet does provide some relief, when we look at
other properties in Dartmoor Subdivision, the approximate distances from the nearest
build-able lot in Kingsbridge range from 75 to 230 feet. The average being 134 feet.
So, our property at roughly 120 feet falls below that average. However, the distance to
the nearest build-able lot only tells part of the story. The other factor is the size of the
adjacent lots. The adjacent lots in Harcourt range from slightly over 10,000 feet to
11 ,400 square feet, averaging 10,006 square feet. In contrast, adjacent lots in
Kingsbridge range from 16,800 to 25,000 square feet. Moreover, all of these lots but
one are restricted to single story homes. When comparing lots with comparable
distances to the nearest build-able lot, comparable to our 120 feet, the lot size in
Kingsbridge range from 23 to 25 thousand square feet. Averaging 23,700 square feet.
We are simply asking for parody with the transitional lots in Kingsbridge that were
supported by this Council and negotiated between the Dartmoor Subdivision and Vision
First, negotiations that have been held up by this Council and the Idaho Statesman, is a
prime example of how the developers and existing homeowners can work together.
Unfortunately, the applicant has ignored our attempts to open a similar dialogue on
three separate occasions. Napoli Subdivision is another prime example where split
zoning and larger transitional lots adjacent to supported existing acreages were
supported by this Council to address homeowners concerns. Fewer larger transitional
lots in Harcourt would help to mitigate the impact of these homes being uphill from our
property, blocking our foothills view, for which we paid a premium when we built our
home and help to retain the feeling of the Dartmoor Subdivision, which is large, open,
estate lots. We would support this application if at least two lots were removed adjacent
to Dartmoor Subdivision, making the transitional lots on the order of 18,000 square feet.
Still smaller than those provided by Kingsbridge and more in line with the original
Harcourt design. We thank you for the consideration this evening.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions from Council? Can I ask you a question?
Turner: Yes.
De Weerd: You had mentioned that the plat changed after it went to Ada County
Highway District.
Turner: Yes. The original plat that was presented by the applicant at a homeowners --
or an informational meeting I think it was back in the April 2006 time frame, had much
larger lots than what are proposed here. They had about four lots that were adjacent to
Dartmoor Subdivision. When the street configuration on that south parcel was
reconfigured, they added in some additional lots, thereby reducing the total size of each
Meridian City Council
February 27,2007
Page 36 of 100
lot, also because originally there was a cul-de-sac there and now there is a stub street.
So, all of those factors contributed to reducing the lot sizes.
De Weerd: They had to get the road to that back lot.
Turner: Correct.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Theresa Turner signed up against. Thank you.
Tammy Cook signed up against. Thank you. And Rick Stott signed up against.
Stott: My name is Rick Stott. 3684 South Caleb Place in Meridian. I live in the -- I'm
neighbors to Brady -- Mr. Turner in the -- in the lot just south of his. So, we touch the
corner of the proposed subdivision. We spent a lot of time -- I was interested earlier this
evening on the discussion with the Woodbridge neighbors in that subdivision and the
relationship that they developed with the proposed developer and the ability for them to
work through a process that was rejected just months ago in that same lot. We have
been very successful over the last couple of years in working with Kingsbridge in
developing a strategy and a plan to provide for transition, provide for an exceptional
neighborhood feeling, not only in our neighborhood, but in the Kingsbridge
neighborhood, increasing the value of those lots and the overall value of the
neighborhood as a whole. Originally, in Kingsbridge we were not thrilled with what they
were proposing and after lengthy discussions and much encouragement from this
Council, in discussion with that developer, we were able to come to a mutually
agreeable position where they have premium lots in a premium neighborhood that
provides additional value to -- to a nice area to live in. This does not fit any of those
qualifications. The developer has not worked in any way. Mr. Turner has tried -- tried
repeatedly to open conversations and dialogues with the development company and
has been ignored to a large degree. I'm surprised that the developer would insinuate
that the majority of neighbors were for the subdivision. I know several -- one in
particular on his -- on the west side of his that is not for it. Certainly, the neighbors in
Dartmoor, as Mr. Turner indicated, are not for the current application. So, I'm not sure
how many other neighbors there are, but right there alone I think he's pretty much
outnumbered. But I haven't talked to many of the other neighbors. A couple of
concerns. One is that -- for example, in our backyard we have a horse and, you know, it
stinks. I was back there and it's a little smelly. And additional setbacks and lower
density houses is important for continuity of the -- of what they -- the new neighbors to
the north of us will have to put up with and encourage that that be in consideration.
Adding an additional lot in the interim period of time between what was originally given
to us as a neighborhood to the time that it was actually presented before the P&Z I think
is a concern as well. And so I just would encourage that this Council be consistent with
its active participation in working with neighborhoods and making sure the transitions
occur amongst the lower densities to higher density projects. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions from Council?
Bird: I have none.
Meridian City Council
February 27, 2007
Page 37 of 100
De Weerd: Okay.
Stott: Thank you.
De Weerd: Those were the people that had signed up. Is there anyone who would like
to provide testimony on this application? Okay.
Fluke: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Darin Fluke. JUB Engineers for the applicant.
Okay. Well, I suppose we are, essentially, down to this issue of transitional lot sizes
and why we did or did not do that and how well we may have negotiated with the
neighbors. I do take slight exception to the fact that I have been unresponsive. Nobody
from the Dartmoor association saw fit to attend the neighborhood meeting. Every time
Mr. Brady called me, which was approximately three times, I did return his call each and
every time. I think what he means to say is that I did not -- my client did not choose to
redesign his project in the way that he wished. That does not indicate a failure to
negotiate, it simply means that there was not agreement and I think I have touched on
some of those reasons. But, again, 1111 tell you why. We don't have the same land base
and number of lots that Kingsbridge Subdivision had to spread those costs over. The
costs for bringing urban services that we are required to bring to this area, sewer, water,
curb, gutter, and sidewalk, wider streets, street lights, fire hydrants, all the things that
you expect when you live in a city we provide and Dartmoor Subdivision does not. So,
it's very easy to sit back and say they ought to have big lots, because we have a 400
foot long lot line across there. If I were forced to lose two lots against the Dartmoor
Subdivision, all that would do -- would not increase the depth of the lots against this, it
would simply make them wider. That will do nothing to mitigate the smells from horses
if the pasture is not well maintained. It will not do anything to increase the distance
between the houses that do get built there. I would submit to you that this is low
density, single family housing against low density single family housing. I fail to see
how just because our lot is as large as their lot, that we are not compatible. The
definition of low density has transitioned through time, because when Dartmoor was
approved it was, of course, approved in the county. One acre lots were high density in
the county at that time. The situation is considerably different now and the city has
other considerations besides just the neighbors who want to have large lots or large
tracts of open land against their subdivision. I totally understand that, but I also know
that it's not really in keeping with the plan that the city has for the area, which mandates
that we extend services to the area. So, I would tell you that we have worked with the
neighbors. We have gone to great lengths to accommodate the Kaczynskis. They are
very complimentary. We have gone to lengths to work with Mr. Aldridge on his irrigation
issues. And we have also had to accommodate the highway district, which cost us a lot,
to accommodate their changes that they wanted. And I make one final comment and
that is our original layout your staff did not like and asked us to work on it. It had a
couple of lots back here in the corner when this was a shorter road that had long flags
on them, the very lots that the police department routinely asks you not to approve,
because you can't see into them. And so we get sort of caught between a rock and a
Meridian City Council
February 27, 2007
Page 38 of 100
hard place trying to balance out the needs and desires and wishes of the neighbors and
the agencies and the staffs. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to take those.
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Fluke: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, any further information needed from staff or the applicant?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: Anna, a question for you on this East Falcon. Was there a recommendation
that that be stubbed across? Maybe you mentioned it earlier and I missed it. If there is
not, why not?
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, East Falcon is an existing street. It
already stubs to the Kaczysnki property.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Borton: So, this -- when I see the cul-de-sac, that exists until that property develops?
Canning: Yes. The property line is actually on the other side of those numbers right
there, so it has access right along there.
Borton: But that cul-de-sac eventually goes away; is that correct?
Canning: No.
Borton: So, when this property develops that remains a cul-de-sac or is it stubbed
through?
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Borton, if the
Kaczynskis decide to redevelop, we have seen folks ask for an exchange of right of way
with ACHD. where they do remove the turnaround portion in exchange for some of the
property that they have. They could do that. So, they could vacate a portion of that cul-
de-sac and put it in green space or some other use.
Borton: Okay. Thanks.
De Weerd: Thank you. Anything further, Council?
Meridian City Council
February 27,2007
Page 39 of 100
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Before we close the preliminary, I do -- we have made two or three developments
go back and -- when they have backed up to acre, acre and a half lots, and had them
take out and I didn't hear the testimony from the two -- or the two neighbors there sorry
about the depth as much as just having square footage size. The smell of horses or
cattle -- I guess if you buyout there you'd expect that, because it is still rural out there.
And that's not -- that's not something that you're sneaking in afterwards. Darin -- and I
realize that it does cost a lot of money to develop these. You pay a lot of money for the
land to start with. But we have always -- and I don't think they were worrying about the
depth as much as having some width, too. You compare -- I don't know what those run,
I don't have my scale on it, but I would guess those are maybe 80 foot lots down at their
property?
Canning: For the record, sir, this is 154. This is 85, 80, 139 and 44.
Bird: Okay. That -- yeah. The ones that are -- ( wish there was a way that we could
figure out to have two lots there instead of four. I think that would back up and we may
-- Kingsbridge, which goes to the east there, do it and I'd just like Darin to -- other than
cost, is there a reason? I mean cost is a major item, I'm not trying to --
Fluke: Councilman Bird -- or Madam Mayor, Councilman Bird, I didn't tell you the full
story on how we got to where we are today. We had a layout that showed 61 lots. We
had our entrance further to the east, which complied with all the standards, but in the
interim you and ACHD approved a Comprehensive Plan amendment with a site plan to
the property to our west. In so doing it locked them in on a driveway here and, then,
we, then, had a conflict with a driveway here -- with our approach. So, we moved it over
and we added another stub and in so doing, you know, we lost a couple of lots. We
tried to kill two birds with one stone and do what your staff had requested, which was
rework this area, which I might point out was a very difficult layout to begin with. I would
simply say that esthetically it's not going to work. If I have to lose two lots down here,
you can see if I were to erase that lot line I would lose one lot and ('m going to have one
huge lot. I could scootch these over a little bit and make it work, but if I lose two, I'm
going to just have freakish wide lots in there that don't comport to anything else within
the project. The only reason would be because one lot in the subdivision to the south
has an exceedingly long lot line. That's all. And so it's esthetic, as well as a cost issue.
Bird: Madam Mayor? How about taking one lot? I mean you have got X amount of feet
across there, lineal feet. Getting them a little bigger. I mean -- and I'm just throwing this
out. I'm not -- I would like to -- I'd like you to suggest doing it. And I'm not -- I'm not
telling you -- you know, I'm not telling you that it's going to fail because of it, okay?
Fluke: Yes.
Meridian City Council
February 27, 2007
Page 40 of 100
Nary: Feel free to do what you want.
Bird: Feel free to do what you want. I would -- and, no, in no way, shape, or form is this
a threat or anything. I mean -- I just would like it to work. I think you got -- it's a nice
development, don't get me wrong. Other than I understand where those people are
coming from. But I also say something. One of these days a developer is going to walk
out there and those guys are going to take their acre and a half and probably want to
put eight units on that.
Fluke: Well -- and we will have the built-in opposition right here for it.
Bird: And you will have a bunch of people there, but is there any way that you think it's
feasible to get that down from four to three lots?
Fluke: Madam Mayor, Members -- Councilman Bird. It's feasible by just taking out an
eraser and doing it. It's certainly not the preference of my client to do that for the afore-
stated reasons. If the Council feels strongly in that way, I would assume that you would
condition it to that way, but having -- I mean I'd just like to be on record as having made
my case.
Bird: No problem. I appreciate it.
De Weerd: You know, I guess just to expand on what Mr. Bird has been saying is this
Council has consistently tried to look at that transition and we know the situation --
oftentimes we do find that the owner's preferences are certainly motivated when Council
says, you know, we would like to see a minimum of this, go back and just get it done.
And I guess I -- we worked with Dartmoor and Kingsbridge. I know Kingsbridge was a
much larger development, but you can push some of that higher density up towards the
road and have a better transition and I guess that's what we have tried to remain
sensitive to is how do you transition and it is all single family housing, but it is a
perception, too, of my open space that I paid for, it's nice to have that transition and a
better flow than what we are really seeing there. So, I would echo Mr. Bird's
comments, but you can see that I won't be a tie breaker, I'm just another voice up here.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Yeah. Darin, I see your Lot 6 and 11 is over 11 ,000 square foot and none of your
four across there is that. And I realize when you come to a corner and you get cul...de-
sacs, it's tough, don't get me wrong, I understand that. But, man, I just wish we could
just get some 15 to 16 thousand square foot lots across that back. And I don't know, I
mean -- you know.
Fluke: Madam Mayor, if the Council decides to condition us in that manner, I'd simply
ask for the flexibility to work with our layout. We won't change the street configuration,
Meridian City Council
February 27,2007
Page 41 of 100
but to work in the northern part of the development to see if there is an opportunity to
pick that lot up elsewhere. Like I said, I can easily enough reconfigure those by
dropping a lot to put fewer lots against that subdivision to the south. I would simply ask
that you give me the flexibility, then, to find that lot up north, if I can, without changing
the street layout at all. And I would just further ask that you send me on my way, rather
making me bring it back. I won't change the street layout, so you will see what you have
is what you have, it just might squeeze another lot in up north.
Bird: Well, I think the Mayor stated my preference is that if you can -- you know, if you
can get the square footage down there a lot better, you can have a little smaller up --
another lot up there. But I would ask if that's the way it goes, that at least you bring the
preliminary plat back before the staff. We don't have to see it, but, please, take it back
to them.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, as much as I would like to
accommodate Mr. -- or have you accommodate Mr. Fluke's request, it has typically not
worked out well. We need to have you approve the preliminary plat.
Bird: Okay. I have no problem with that.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I would also comment that the staff has not had time to go through the
landscape plan. That would be a reason to continue.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, let me clarify. When you have
required that folks lose a lot in a particular area, we are able to do that. It's the adding
or making up for the lot in another area that typically doesn't turn out well, so --
De Weerd: Certainly, Council, we could continue this to a specific date, if you would so
desire.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird.
Bird: So far it's just been one vote and you don't get to break a tie, so what do the other
Councilmen feel? I mean do they want to see larger lots down on that -- and they have
had -- you know, the way they are going to vote.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Meridian City Council
February 27,2007
Page 42 of 100
Zaremba: My comment would be -- and let me preface that comment. In the staff
comments they mentioned that this was before the Planning and Zoning Commission on
November 2nd, December 21 st, and, then, again, on January 18th. I was a member of
the Planning and Zoning Commission on November 2nd and December 21 st and those
two meetings did nothing but continue it on to the next meeting. So, this is my first
substantive look at it. I did not really see it on the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Their decision on the 18th was after you had graciously appointed me to this Council.
So, I was not there. I have to admit that this is not attractive to me. I realize the parcels
that are included in it make it an extremely odd shaped piece of business and I'm sure
they have gone to some difficulty to work in as best as they can. Seeing four cul-de-
sacs in a city that has professed that we are against cul-de-sacs is not comfortable for
me. Seeing the access to Eagle, which, if I noticed the aerial right, there are currently
five residents that use that access to Eagle. It seems to me that probably works okay
for five residences, but to etch into stone that that is forever going to be the access for
an increased number of residential units, not -- probably not only this project, but the
property to the southeast, then, is going to keep that same access. The three
properties it looks like to the west between this project and Eagle would probably
maintain that same access. I would much rather see a larger picture of where this
access matches up with the development on the other side of Eagle Road for their
access. I like the access to Victory. It aligns with the subdivision across. I'm
uncomfortable with this access to Eagle. Unfortunately, if this project is approved, that
pretty well means that forever this is where that access is going to go and I would want
to until the property to the west between here and Eagle was included and the access to
line up with the development across the street. Plus, the four cul-de-sacs in this one. I
have no problem with the density. I think it's right. If the housing were to align that way
I could see subtracting a lot on the south and adding one on the north someplace and
maintaining the density, I don't have a problem with that. I just feel that the four cul-de-
sacs and the location of what will become the final access to Eagle is not comfortable
for me. And I'm not sure continuing it would change my opinion on that.
De Weerd: Okay.
Fluke: Madam Mayor, could I just make a quick comment regarding the cul-de-sacs?
Because that was an issue we looked at for sure. Councilmen, I respect your opinion
on this and I understand what you're trying to do is get connectivity. I would point out a
couple things for you. One is Falcon Drive is existing public right of way now. We have
zero control over this cul-de-sac or its location on Eagle Road. It is what it is. That's
where it was platted. The one across the road was approved by this Council and ACHD
and I have no control over the fact that it doesn't align either. So, I find that to be a high
bar that's a little bit unfair to hold this project to. But to mitigate your concerns I would
point out that this does provide better connectivity, because now you have got a
connection up to Victory Road where before you did not. And, in fact, part of ACHD1s
problem with the previous alignment was we had an approach here that came into the
project and it made almost a straight shot if you came up here and they were concerned
about cut-through traffic coming from points south and cutting through the project to go
to points east and that was part of their rationale for making us move it over to here to
Meridian City Council
February 27,2007
Page 43 of 100
make it a little bit more difficult. But we do provide that access to Victory Road. And I
would submit to you that most of the trips they will be going to Boise, if not going up
Eagle Road to the freeway, will be going east on Victory Road from that access right
there. The majority of the lots do, in fact, have easier access to go to that. So, as far as
the other cul-de-sacs that we designed, I could have connected this, granted, but it
didn't gain us much. In fact, it loses a lot, because this is fixed and this is an existing
house that we were trying to maintain. So, it made an ugly lot here with a road on,
essentially, four sides of it and lost a lot without getting much benefit. The same is true
of these. We could have connected these, but, again, it didn't provide much, except for
losing lots within the project. We were trying to hit that three dwelling units to the acre
that the city was looking for in the area, you know, to make the project pencil. You all
pointed out correctly that it's expensive land, because, you know, each one of those five
acre lots has a house on it. There is one here, there is one here, there is one here, and
there is one over here. And two of those we can't maintain, obviously, but, two, we tried
and that was part of our -- our challenge in this layout. So, it's been -- this thing's been
over a year in the planning process to get in front of you today by a long way.
Zaremba: I would have -- Madam Mayor? I certainly would have to admit that I would
not want to have to try to design for this particular shape of property that you're working
on and I know it has a lot of problems in it and, on the one hand, basically, I think you
did a good job with what you were given, but I just have a little difficulty with a couple of
those things.
Fluke: I understand.
De Weerd: I guess just to muddy the water a little bit more, can you tell me a little bit
about your open space?
Fluke: Your ordinance provides for parkways in lieu of, you know, a -- sort of a park
area and that's what we opted for in this case, because it's a low density project. We
have only six lots within the project that are less than 10,000 square feet and of those
'six about three of them are one or two hundred square feet less than 10,000 square
feet. Those are large lots and lots of that size don't demand a lot of dedicated open
space or play area within the project and so what the client had opted for was to do the
open space in a parkway configuration, which, as you know, creates a more traditional
feel in the project and, actually, a feeling of more openness. Those lots are fairly wide,
80 feet and up, and with the addition of the parkways it gives it a real nice low density
feel to it and allows you to get the open space that the code requires in a method that
the code allows for.
De Weerd: The triangular piece, what is the plan? I see on the plat here just says
lawn. What is the idea for it?
Fluke: We assume that that will accommodate storm drainage on that lot and, again, in
compliance it will be landscaped and it will be open, but in the event of a hundred year
storm it would fill with water and, then, slowly seep in.
Meridian City Council
February 27, 2007
Page 44 of 100
De Weerd: What slope?
Fluke: Oh, it would be no more than about four to one. I forget exactly what the Public
Works standards are. I'm sure Len could tell us, but whatever those standards are we
will comply with them.
De Weerd: So, it will be a pretty obvious drainage area.
Fluke: Four to one is pretty gentle. It will all be sodded and you only need to leave a
sand window, you know, where you actually infiltrate and so it's a question of design.
We have done them all over the place. Burney Glenn and Cedar Springs and all those
projects have similar -- I mean the realignment is that that was the left over piece and so
we -- you know, it did nit make any sense to go into the lot north of it and so we will
accommodate some drainage in there and landscape it nicely.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Council?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: I agree with some of these concems, amongst others, this transition issue, I
don't necessarily need to restate some of the remarks already put forth on them. What I
would like to see -- and I tossed the idea out, is that this matter be continued to March
13th -- Mr. Nary, correct me if my understanding's wrong -- it would be nice to continue
it on all matters to March 13th. I know Councilman Rountree will be back, then, as well.
lid like to invite Darin to meet with Mr. Turner or the Dartmoor Homeowners Association
group and kind of work together to discuss this transition issue that Councilman Bird
has invited -- invited the opportunity for you to propose with reducing at least one lot
down on that southern portion. I think, again, Councilman Bird did a pretty good job of
describing the balancing act in wrestling with transition areas and trying to be sensitive
to existing homeowners, like Mr. Turner, as well as developers who are trying to meet
budgets and have to lose a lot. Itls difficult on both sides. If that doesn't work lid invite
the applicant to tell me otherwise, but I think March 13th should give enough time to
redesign -- get together and meet and perhaps we will see you in the vestibule in just a
few moments talking with each other to come up with a date and, then, come back on
the 13th and go from there.
De Weerd: Okay.
Bird: Is that a motion?
Borton: Having said that, I would move -- if there is no further discussion, I would move
that we continue Items 15 and 16, AZ 06-046 and PP 06-048, to Tuesday, March 13th.
Meridian City Council
February 27,2007
Page 45 of 100
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to continue Items 15 and 16 to March
13th. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Borton: And Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Borton: presuming that would provide the opportunity for the landscape plan to be
reviewed by staff.
Item 17:
Public Hearing: VAC 07-002 Request to Vacate a public utility, drainage
& irrigation easement common to Lots 1 & 2, Block 1 of the Olson & Bush
Industrial Park for Lanark Street Easement by Ronald W. Van Auker-
De Weerd: Okay. Direction taken. Okay. Item 17 is VAC 07-002. I will open this
Public Hearing with staff comments.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is a project on Lanark. It's the
west side of Eagle Road approximately a fifth of a mile north of Franklin Road and the
Eagle Road intersection is highlighted there before you. You may recall that recently
you approved annexation and -- or a rezone of this property and now you are -- to
accommodate the site plan that they provided that evening, they need to vacate this
easement. It is a ten foot wide, which is five feet on either side of the existing lot line for
public utility irrigation and lot drainage easement. Again, the property is currently two
lots and just the plat has an easement on that interior lot line that they need to vacate.
Staff is supportive of the vacation and to our knowledge there are no outstanding issues
before Council.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Anna. Any questions for staff? Would the applicant like
to come forward. Any comment?
Van Auker: Good evening. My name is Ron Van Auker, 3084 East Lanark in Meridian.
Well, junior, if that matters.
De Weerd: I was going to ask. You don't look like Ron.
Bird: We know the difference.
Van Auker: Taking some age-altering drugs. Anna pretty much summed it up. I just --
if you have any questions 1111 feel free to answer them.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions? Oh, come on.
Meridian City Council
February 27 f 2007
Page 46 of 100
Zaremba: Madam Mayor, the only question I could ask is where is Brad.
De Weerd: Okay. This is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone who would like to provide
testimony on this application? Okay.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: I move we close the Public Hearing on Item 17, VAC 07-002.
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to close the Public Hearing on Item
17. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: I move we approve Item 17, AZ 07-002.
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. Motion and a second to approve Item 17. If there is no discussion,
Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree; absent; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 18:
Public Hearing: AP 07-001 Request for City Council's review in an
Appeal of staff's denial of the Administrative Design Review application
for the proposed Commercial Tire building for Commercial Tire by J.R. &
Bonnie Schwenkfelder-100 W. Pennwood Street:
De Weerd: Okay. Item 18 is a Public Hearing on AP 07-001. I will open this Public
Hearing with staff comments.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this project is for Commercial Tire
and it is a City Council review, which is also known as an appeal. It is located at 100
West Pennwood Street as shown here. The application before you tonight is a City
Council review and it was an appeal of my decision regarding design review criteria
Meridian City Council
February 27,2007
Page 47 of 100
along the entryway corridor for Meridian Road. The original elevations for the proposed
Commercial Tire are shown before you here. Staff evaluated it while -- in conjunction
with a certificate of zoning compliance and found that these elevations in particular did
not meet the criteria of the design review as set forth for the entryway corridors. The
applicant did come back with a revised proposal that is much more in line and in
particular they added the detail along the roof that broke up the mass of that surface, as
well as the change in the facade and the change in the height of the roof. You will see
those, the change in material and the change in the roof. Unfortunately, the way the
site is laid out that the roll up doors still face Meridian Road as shown. Here is some
other elevations. You get a little further away from the building, so it's hard to see. So,
although staff appreciated the efforts that the applicant made in coming closer to
meeting the design review criteria, I just could not find that the proposed east elevation
with the five roll up doors, constructed of prefabricated steel panels and windows, would
meet the design criteria for the entryway corridor. The applicant did verbally propose
roll up doors with all windows to meet the required standards. Again, I just felt that the
roll up doors in general, that the idea would be that they would be open during the day,
so that those folks could work in there and that it just would not meet the intent of the
design review criteria. So, I have denied it and they are appealing that decision today.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Anna. Any questions for staff?
Bird: Yes, Madam Mayor.
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Anna, you consider Meridian Road as the gateway how far down?
Canning: It is shown as a gateway from Franklin Road to a half mile south of Amity.
Bird: Okay. From Franklin?
Canning: Yeah.
Bird: Because I donlt believe it's been over two years ago that we approved a building a
lot like this down at Bobby's Auto Transmission that had faced the doors and stuff.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Bird, it wasn't the
entryway corridor designation that changed, it was the design review criteria in the
Unified Development Code that's changed since Bobby's was approved.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Bird: We will listen to the applicant.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
February 27, 2007
Page 48 of 100
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I would ask one other question before that. And maybe I need to see one
that shows the lot again, but was there any discussion with the applicant about
reorienting the building to -- you know, turn it 90 degrees, so it faced Pennwood
instead?
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Zaremba, my recollection is
that we had a brief discussion about it, but it just didn't work with the concept plan.
They would have -- they would have had to modify their concept for development of the
site considerably and we didn't talk about it at length, no.
Zaremba: Thank you.
De Weerd: And could you almost do those two far west doors on the rear to break that
up? I will ask the applicant.
Canning: And if the applicant -- I don't have a site plan in my presentation. If the
applicant has one if he gives it to me I can get it put up on the overhead.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Anna, do you have -- do you have the -- sitting like this, do you have the north
elevation?
Canning: No.
Bird: If we had --
Canning: Well--
Bird: Yeah, you do.
Canning: This was the original submittal and I'm not sure how they have changed it on
the north.
Bird: I take it that's probably the north on the -- I can't read it. Thafs the -- no, that's the
west. Because if that's the east that would be the west.
De Weerd: We can ask the applicant, Mr. Bird. Thank you.
Blodgett: Madam Mayor and Council Members, my name is David Blodgett, I'm the
architect representing Commercial Tire Company and Bob and Bonnie Schwenkfelder.
My address is 295 Parkway Drive, Boise.
Meridian City Council
February 27, 2007
Page 49 of 100
De Weerd: Thank you.
Blodgett: As hopefully you can see the presentation board that is up on the easel, our
project is a Pennwood Street project. We have 500 linear feet on Pennwood Street and
we have approximately 185 linear feet on Meridian Road. The issue before us is, really,
the issue of the overhead doors and their use and whether or not anywhere in the
Unified Development Code such a thing is prohibited, which it is not. The kind of
configuration of our -- of our site plan is really based on kind of one of two things. It's to
somewhat minimize the amount of parking and activities on the site from Meridian Road
and somewhat creating a barrier between Meridian Road and our project and the
activities in the back of our site, being the more fleet service centered activities, there
will be larger trucks being worked on in the backside of the site. In the front side of the
site it's really just the retail portion of the Commercial Tire Company. It's from the sale
of tires and changing of tires. So, in our plan as presented here, you know, we have
really strived to create, you know, a development that has -- you know, obviously, we
are asking for no concessions of setbacks or landscaping, we are just trying to do
something consistent with other projects next to it. Bob's -- there is a -- there is an auto
care facility just directly south of our property. Our setbacks are consistent. The look of
our building is consistent. And, you know, what we are trying to do here is treat our
facing of Meridian consistent with other properties and, then, create parking lots that are
segregated and the building creates a buffer for other activities. Simply rotating the
building around would only create a blank face potentially towards Meridian Road and,
really, as a person is driving down Meridian Road, they would see overhead doors in
the back of the building. This is going to do nothing to change the fact that overhead
doors will be seen. Again, nothing in the Unified Development Code in any section
prohibits overhead doors or auto bays. This is purely a prohibited -- I mean this is an
allowed use, along with a number of other allowed uses that will have overhead doors.
There are a number of facilities that exist throughout both Meridian Road and Idaho
Street that are very similar, that have the overhead doors. Anna's major statement
about the overhead doors is the fact that in the design review standards it states that
pre-finish metal panels are prohibited in a design review area. The actual intent of that
is to really prohibit such buildings as prefabricated metal buildings is these locations,
because they don't really -- they really don't age well. My belief -- and it has to be true,
that there was never -- that language wasn't written to prohibit overhead doors made of
metal panels, they are just a component of the building. That section of the code really
talks about the exterior of building wall material, not exterior -- you know, miscellaneous
components, because a metal man door is a pre, you know, fabricated metal panel.
There is no difference here. You know, we do not have any pre-finish metal panels on
the Meridian Street side. We are an absolutely allowed use and we meet all the other
criteria set forth in the Unified development Code and there are existing uses
throughout this area that look very similar to this. I have brought multiple -- multiple
photographs of --
Bird: Grab that microphone, sir.
Meridian City Council
February 27,2007
Page 50 of 100
Blodgett: These are photographs of just various projects that may have or may not
have been built since the Unified Development Code had the design review portion put
into it, but, you know, this is just a simply small building north of our project. It has an
overhead door, obviously. The second photo is Les Schwab. This is the Meridian
Street face of Les Schwab. This is several blocks north of our property on Meridian
Road. Here is its facing. You know, they have some overhead doors on their side, but
this is what faces Meridian Road. I see -- I see that being non-desirable completely, but
at some point fairly recently this was allowed to be constructed.
De Weerd: You know, that was -- that's pretty old.
Blodgett: Well, furthermore, it's just --
Bird: It's within a year.
Blodgett: This project -- yeah, this is a new project and this is John's Auto Care that's
adjacent -- this is adjacent to our site. Its look and feel is pretty consistent with our
building. Its setback is similar. The only difference is they have a curb cut along
Meridian Road, which we will not, but we are providing all the required set landscaping,
which is 35 feet. This is a photo of Meridian Road looking south -- just south of our site
showing the -- kind of the heavy use of fast food restaurants and landscaping and, then,
somewhat -- not industrial uses, but not a -- not something consistent with what we are
trying to do. There is a storage -- self storage facility here. There is a car rental place.
This is Snake River Truck. They have displays out in the parking lot. Again, all
inconsistent with what the nature of our development would be. Here is a -- here is
Wendy's on Main Street. This is the Main Street face of Wendy's, which has the back of
the building and the drive-thru that is -- this is a project that's been approved. And a
similar project. This is the Starbucks that was built not too long ago. Again, it's face --
it's face to Meridian Road is a blank wall and, you know, I don't see any of these
projects being, you know, overly desirable from a planning standpoint. A lot these are.
John's south of us is a fine project. You know, we just -- you know, we are having a
hard time believing that our project is somehow noncompliant because of one simple
design review issue and staff has chosen to deny our application. Just a little
background on our application. This project was originally approved in 2001, the same
project, but based on some delays and some other focuses of Commercial Tire
Company, that approval was finally expired. One of the things that they had done in
that time frame was they -- one of the things that -- one of the major projects they had
done is relocate their corporate office and warehouse to Meridian. So, that was part of
that delay. Now they have refocused and want to develop the property. I do have one
other thing to share with you. This is, basically, a similar slide of our project along
Meridian Road, 35 foot landscape setback, parking lot, or buildings about 100 feet back
from Meridian Road. This is a project with the overhead doors, fully developed and
landscaped. This is the same rendering showing four of the overhead doors open, cars
parked inside, if you want to come up and look and see, there is -- I just don't see how --
what the planning -- the staff issue is with this project based on nothing within your code
that prohibits such a use along Meridian Road.
Meridian City Council
February 27, 2007
Page 51 of 100
De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions for the applicant?
Bird: I have none.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: You might have mentioned it, David, but in the staff comments it makes
reference to you agreeing to roll up doors with all windows.
Blodgett: Yeah. Thafs correct. We -- that was in the meeting that we had at the
Planning and Zoning office on January 31 st and it's something that we would definitely
consider. I mean we consider in that meeting if that would have taken care of the
problem, we would have done it and we said we would do that.
Borton: Okay.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I think two comments. One, part of the reason that the Unified Development
Code doesn't specify for or against these kind of things is because it was anticipated
that design review would become that decision, instead of trying to identify in every
zone all over the city and entryway corridors and not entryway corridors, you know,
what was going to be permissible and what wasn't. It was decided that design review
was the better choice than trying to codify every possible thing. So, I would defend the
director's right to make that decision, even though it mayor may not be specified for the
zone. The second piece of it would -- even though John's Automotive building was built
before the design review was in process, it shows, just looking at the drawing that you
have up on the -- the one that's on the screen now, you appear to be showing three
horizontal window panels, compared to the John's one, it would be four horizontal
window panels. They, actually, had a metal panel at the bottom and a metal panel at
the top. I'm not too supportive of it being all windows, but the compromise -- if we are
looking at this drawing and you're saying there is going to be one, two, three, four, five,
six panels, I would be supportive of four of those being windows. That's my opinion.
Blodgett: And we would have no problem with that.
Bird: You can have as many as you want. No. But, seriously, they will put in as many
panels as you want or glass as you want.
De Weerd: You just like windows.
Meridian City Council
February 27,2007
Page 52 of 100
Bird: I like windows. Yeah.
De Weerd: Any other questions from Council? Okay.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: So somebody can talk back to me if I'm wrong, but I -- I think this is a real addition
to Meridian. I believe if you check the records that the addition that you see Les
Schwab, which is maybe a block down to the north, hasn't had a C-O over a year, it was
just done -- it's the addition they done for their truck center. John's was put in -- I don't
think -- I think it's very attractive. The Glass Doctor and he's all -- all th~se don't --
neither one of these, the Glass Doctor or John's, have the landscaping that is being
shown by Commercial Tire to block their view. While I would prefer to have the drive-up
doors probably not facing Meridian Road, I think it's a beautiful building, I don't know
how they could do it any different, and this is, basically, the same thing we have seen in
2001, so I can support it.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. This is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone who would
like to provide testimony on this application? Okay. Anna?
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I just -- I have not been trying to pick
on the applicant here, I just -- you will likely see me having -- until we have more
definitive design guidelines and design standards, you will likely see me sticking pretty
close to the code, because it doesn't give me much latitude. So, this may not be the
first time you have to do this and we are still trying to feel out what is appropriate for
Council. So, I just -- I wanted to make that known, that the code just doesn't give me
much flexibility and I'm not really willing to go out on a limb much on this one, so I just
wanted to make sure it gets before Council for their decision.
Bird: Madam Mayor? In response, Anna, I realize that and we don't want to stick you in
that kind of a spot and until we get some guidelines for you, then, it's up to us to put our
heads out on the block, not you.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton.
Borton: Anna, I agree with -- with Councilman Bird and by all means I appreciate any
efforts to apply the letter and intent of the UDC. The 11-3-A-1987, as I read it, to create
attractive and quality design structure as reflecting the unique character of Meridian
along the city's entryway, it is wishy washy, touchy, feely, typical language, so -- but I
want to applaud you and the applicant's efforts. To the extent there is a disagreement
and there has been some modification of the design and efforts on both sides to
improve this, the city benefits greatly. So, kudos to you, Anna and David -- where did
Meridian City Council
February 27,2007
Page 53 of 100
you gO? As well to you for making some changes. My one question -- we don't see a
lot of this, which means you are doing a great job in keeping people happy, Anna. My
one question is during that discussion is there a proposal that you suggest, formal,
informal, that says, you know, this doesn't work, here is why. Why don't you do it this
way. Is there something that's presented to an applicant that says if they can't buy off
on this design, if you do this it makes sense?
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Borton, it's not a
formal -- it's if there is a disagreement we oftentimes just end up meeting again and
trying to banter through things. This one is just -- I really had no idea how Council was -
- felt about the roll-up doors, whether it was appropriate or not and we just got to a point
where we couldn't talk about it anymore, because I did nit know. So, usually, we do try
and work things out. The criteria are not that onerous in general, it was just this
question of the roll-up doors, and we hadn't come across it yet, so there wasn't much
we could do.
Borton: Okay.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, maybe in helping provide -- since I can
read the tea leaves on where we are -- in helping provide further guidance for staff in
the future, in this particular section that was, really, the crux of what we are talking
about, if part of. your decision and the order that you may want to direct, would give
some guidance in regards to the discussion that was brought up regarding whether or
not the doors themselves is what the language in this section is dealing with in regards
to walls and panels and metal buildings and also I think Councilmember Bird raised the
fact that there was additional landscaping and screening on this project different than
some of the other projects and if that's a factor to you that you would like staff to
consider as Mrs. Canning and her staff try to piece together these design guidelines
and those are things you think are important to consider in weighing against what the
look is in relation to that, that might be helpful and we can include some of those things
and in order so that we aren't here every time over roll-up doors, red roll-up doors, blue
roll-up doors, four panels of glass, six panels of glass, that might be more helpful in
giving some guidance and especially the landscaping is one way to set off that -- that
look that might be helpful, that might help us to maybe not have as many of these.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I agree with everything that Bill says, but we need to have -- as a Council and
Mayor, need to have a sit down with the staff and legal and see if we can't get some
rules and regulations a little clearer than what we have got there, you know. That
Meridian City Council
February 27, 2007
Page 54 of 100
sounds like a good political committee wrote that thing up, you know. If it's good, I'll
take credit for it. If it's bad, ifs the committee's fault, so --
De Weerd: I think Keith wrote that.
Bird: We need to work on that deal and I appreciate what Mr. Nary said. And I'm
certainly one Councilman -- I know the other ones feel the same way -- we are not going
to let our staff hang their heads out to get chopped off.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: You're kind of caught in the in between aspect, because we don't want to
add another layer of bureaucracy to have a design review committee, yet we don't have
the design standards to be more specific to give staff better tools to deal with these
things, so you're caught in the in between part and so these gentlemen up here can
make those decisions. Yes, Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor, my comment was going to be that some of that wording got
into that provision of the UDC because many of us on the committee were determined
not have another Car Quest building like the one that's on Franklin just east of the
Chamber of Commerce building. And you can't cover all bases in a thing. But that was
the ultimate bad example of what we did not want. There are other buildings,
particularly along this row, and part of a decision in -- in the transportation plan of
making this the lower part of the split corridor is that these would be auto-oriented
businesses along here. Well, what more auto-oriented business than this, in addition to
drive-in restaurants and so forth. So, I think we've said I certainly support the director in
the decision that she made. She also included in her decision how you should appeal it,
which you have done. And I feel our director has done pretty much what she had to do.
I agree with the other statements that have been made that we need to sit down and get
better guidelines on what the design review is going to be and some of that was waiting
for Meridian Development Corp to come up with their design plans, which we were
going to use as a basis for other places where design review was required, but that
seems to have been a delayed process. But I do agree with Councilman Bird, it
behooves us to sit down and give some better guidelines. That being said, with another
row of windows, I could support the current project.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: If we don't have anymore public testimony, I move we close AP 07-001.
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to close Item 18. All those in favor say aye. All
ayes. Motion carries.
Meridian City Council
February 27, 2007
Page 55 of 100
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: I think what we don't want is to design buildings up here.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve the request of AP 07-001, the appeal on the Commercial Tire
building on Meridian Road, with the exception of adding one more row of windows,
instead of panel, in the six roll-up doors that face east. Is there anything else? And,
well, the landscaping, yes, definitely, the 35 foot buffer landscaping is definitely part it. I
don't think I could support it without that. So, anyway, that's my motion.
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Anna, clarification?
Canning: If you might. Mr. Nary, do they need to direct me to go ahead and approve
the elevations as part of the design review or is that tied up with the appeal? We don't
see these very often and I just want to make sure I get the proper directive.
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I think what I would anticipate is we
would -- my office will prepare an order pursuant to that direction that you have -- that is
part of this motion, if that's approved. Part of that would, then, be they would need to
submit new renderings to Mrs. Canning with those -- with that door changed to it and I
guess they already have the landscaping as part of it. So, they would need to submit
that and, then, she could go ahead and approve that.
Canning: Okay.
De Weerd: Okay. Does that give you enough clarification?
Bird: The motion maker agrees.
Canning: Yes, ma'am. Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Okay. Any further--
Zaremba: I believe I heard the maker accept that.
Bird: Yes.
Zaremba: The second accepts that.
Meridian City Council
February 27,2007
Page 56 of 100
De Weerd: Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree; absent; Zaremba, yea; Borton, nay.
MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT.
Item 19:
Public Hearing: VAR 07-002 Request for a Variance to UDC 11-3H-4B2
to allow construction of right-turn only direct access to N. Eagle Road for
Jacksons Food Store by Jacksons Food Store, Inc. - 3291 E. Pine
Street:
Public Hearing: VAC 07-001 Request for a Vacation on a note on the
Porky Park Subdivision No. 1 plat that prohibits direct lot access to Eagle
Road for Jacksons Food Store by Jacksons Food Store, Inc. - 3291 E.
Pine Street:
Item 20:
De Weerd: Items 19 and 20 are on the -- are both public hearings on VAR 07-002 and
VAC 07-001.
Hood: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I am going to want to pinch hit for Anna
in this instance. She has a little bit of a conflict on this one and so I'll be presenting the
next two applications to you. It is for Jacksons Food Stores. They are requesting a
variance to the city code, as well as the vacation of a plat note for Porky Park. The
subject property, as you can see on the map on the overhead, is on the southeast
corner of Pine and Eagle. The proposed request is before you now on the overhead
and the applicant is requesting a right turn only into the site from Eagle Road. So,
heading northbound, a free right into the Jacksons Food Store site. There is the
existing structure and, then, the gas pumps on the north side of their site. As you are
aware, the UDC prohibits direct lot access to state highways at locations other than the
half mile or section line roads. This proposed access point is about 315 feet south of
Pine Avenue. As I mentioned earlier, part of the application request is to vacate a plate
note on the face of the final plat for Porky Park Subdivision, which explicitly requires --
or restricts direct lot access to Eagle Road for lots in that subdivision. Some of the
justification, aside from the UDC, prohibiting direct lot access, was we did receive a
letter from the Idaho Transportation Department. In their letter they state that they plan
to construct a free right turn all the way down to the intersection of Pine and if this
driveway is approved they will have to reevaluate it, because now there is not a lot of
room for a separate free right to turn onto Pine there, so that may throw a wrench in
their works to allow that free right to happen if this access is approved. Also, staff had
some concerns about, you know, it's pretty rare these days that you can go 50 miles an
hour on Eagle Road, but that does occur occasionally and people are slowing down to
turn at this site still will have some pretty good speed built up, I would imagine, and you
also have to negotiate traffic that could be right in front of you after that free right. So,
there are some general public concerns of people slowing down to make that turn on a
50 mile an hour road and if they are, in fact, going faster than that coming into a site and
having to go left or right immediately, so those are some of staff's concerns, aside from
just the code requirements. Staff does believe that granting the variance would allow a
Meridian City Council
February 27, 2007
Page 57 of 100
right or special privilege that is not otherwise allowed for properties that are adjacent to
a state highway. Staff further finds that granting the subject variance would be
detrimental to the public health, safety, and/or welfare. For these reasons staff is
recommending denial of both of the applications. There are no findings required for a
plat note vacation. That recommendation is based on staff's recommendation for
recommending denial of the variance to the Unified Development Code. So, with that I
will stand for any questions you may have.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Caleb. Any questions for staff?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Is the applicant here?
Jackson: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, my name is John Jackson. I'm
located at 3450 Commercial Court in Meridian, Idaho. I'd like to start out by saying that
one of the biggest concerns that we have is safety and in no way are we trying to
promote something that would increase danger to any of our customers or the motoring
public. The second concern, I guess, that we have is that we don't impede traffic flow or
make Eagle Road any more congested than it already is. I drive it every day and I'm
very familiar with some of the problems there with Eagle Road. But we are not asking
for any special favors. We have been in Meridian -- I think when we moved our office to
Meridian 24 years ago, we have never, to my knowledge, ever asked for a special
privilege or a concession or any type of incentive and we have tried to be a good citizen
and be a part of the community and contribute to the community with our time and
money for nonprofits and this sort of thing. We are not interested in creating a difficult
situation or a safety issue at all. Obviously, I don't believe that we are. I'm not going to
get into a lot of the technical aspects of the traffic, I have got Joe Canning and Pat
Dobie here that can speak to that better than I can, but I did want to talk on a few
issues. This has been kind of a struggle for us and there has been some mistakes that
we have made, I'll be the first to admit it. One of the ones when I wasn't present and I
guess that's why I'm here tonight, is our architect, who is a single person office working
out of his home, got confused when he was in front of the Council some time ago and
didn't quite understand when the condition was placed on this site that prohibited a right
turn only and I want to reiterate this is a right turn only. This isn't a right-in, right-out, it's
not a left turn, it's a right-in only. He -- and he wasn't authorized, you know, but he
agreed to that condition. In defense of himself, bless his heart, he was under the
understanding that ITD would make that call and it was irrelevant what happened. Well,
that wasn't the case and it was a mistake and call it what it is, a mistake. But I certainly
didn't intend to give away any right and that was in error. Another error that I have to
take the blame for personally was on Item 2A of the staff's report where plat note six on
the final plat for the Porky Park Subdivision, which, by the way, was not even a
subdivision when we bought this ground, restricts access to Eagle Road. I'd like to
make comments that that was, actually, the second plat that was issued. I signed the
first one and there was no restriction and I checked for that and everything was fine
and, then, another plat comes along, I, you know, sat down -- sat down at my desk
Meridian City Council
February 27 f 2007
Page 58 of 100
saying, you know, this is now being subdivided, it's a technical thing that has to happen
and I signed it in haste, my error, and didn't notice that there was a new note slipped in
on this plat that restricted it. Had I, obviously, seen that, I wouldn't have sign it. But,
anyway, that was my error and, you know, again, what I think is the most important
thing to look for here was the safety and traffic flow and, hopefully, we can forgive some
human error on some of the technicalities. On the -- one of the comments I wanted to
make on the right turn only, it says it's a special privilege, but, actually, in our -- in our
deed we were granted two -- think of the right term. Two curb cuts deeded to that site.
One, maybe two, depending on how it's interpreted. But these are rights that were
given to the ground in a settlement with ITD years ago. So, this is not a special
privilege, in my opinion. I mean if we don't get something, we are giving up a right that
we had that's recorded on that deed. So, I don't think it's a special privilege. You know,
there was no restriction, even, on a left turn or a right-in, right-out. There was a 41 foot
curb cut. So, I think we are giving up something. I don't think we are getting a special
privilege. Second of all, you know, they talk about there is no undue hardship. I have --
and I normally would nit do this, but I have nothing to hide here. I have a financial
statement that I want to -- I'm willing to submit for the public that's our last year's
operating statement and we have lost -- well, right here, 186,000 dollars on the site,
because of the limited access we have. So, we certainly have a financial hardship. I
also want to comment briefly on some of the -- some of the statements that were made
result -- in result of this -- the safety issues. It's talked about would be detrimental and
based on, you know, public health and safety or welfare, according to a letter submitted
by Sue Sullivan, but if you read Sue's letter, all she says was that they would have to
determine whether the danger is created by the new approach would outweigh the
benefits of this turn lane from Eagle Road to Pine. In other words, they haven't done a
study. They don't know and I don't think it's -- it's fair to say that it has been determined
that it would be a safety issue. In fact, we are the only ones that have done a traffic
study and our studies show it would enhance safety and improve traffic flow. So, I think
that's -- you know, I'm just appealing to common sense here. I certainly would not want
to be responsible for anyone's death or making Eagle Road more congested, because
that's just -- that's crazy. What I'm looking for is common sense here, that -- you know,
and I'm not a traffic engineer and you will hear better testimony than you will from me on
this, but, first of all, the site is not the one that we are proposing. This is an older one
that the newer one is the one that we should see, but it's a better design, but in the end
result, as a layman, I see this -- we are not putting traffic onto Eagle Road, we are
taking it off of Eagle Road. They get off of Eagle Road earlier. They get out of the
intersection. It declogs the roadway and it improves things. You won't que up so far
back behind the light. And those of us who drive Eagle Road, you know, you can -- you
can que up between -- behind a street light two miles back. You know, you1re not
expecting to have to stop suddenly, but you should be prepared to, because it can
happen to you. This, actually, improves efficiency of this intersection by nine percent,
which is a significant amount. So, I guess appealing to the common sense of it all, it
improves safety, it improves traffic flow, it's the right thing to do and I hope that we get
an opportunity to pursue this with lTD. I know it's really their jurisdiction and we go to
ITD, they send us back here and we -- you know, we feel like we are getting bounced
around a little bit, quite honestly, but they respect your opinion and, you know, whatever
Meridian City Council
February 27, 2007
Page 59 of 100
you do for us -- or don't do for us tonight, you know, it's -- it doesn't mean that we are
going to get this curb cut, I just -- it just means that we will be allowed to approach ITD
and maybe a study should be done by them before they make these sort of comments,
like we have done, to see, because if it truly does, like our study shows, improve safety
and traffic flow, why on earth would this be a bad thing? Thank you very much. I will be
available for questions.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Bird: Can I ask a question?
De Weerd: Mr. Jackson.
Bird: Mr. Jackson. It's -- you offered it or I wouldn't ask it, but you had a -- you had your
P&L. Do you feel that this right-in and right-out will -- will reverse that 186,000?
Jackson: Well, I'm certainly -- I'm hoping so. It would definitely improve it. I mean our
problem is restriction. I have people -- you know, our headquarters are right next door
here and so I'm familiar with a lot of people in the neighbor and they -- I get comments
all the time -- I got one tonight saying, you know, I'm in the office right across the street
from you, but I never go in there, because it's too hard to get in and out on it. It's
difficult for larger vehicles, particularly -- I mean the internal circulation is difficult, the
way we have to come in from the -- from the top and it's not convenient, so to answer
your question, yes, I think it would help. I'm not saying it would turn it around 180
degrees, but it would certainly help.
Bird: Madam Mayor? With your -- with your traffic flow as it is now, you're, basically, a
right out right now. That upper one I guess you can get across the traffic if you're brave
enough, over to the deal, so --
Jackson: Right.
Bird: So, basically, when you get in there you're going to be a right-out on Pine Street
anyway.
Jackson: Correct.
Bird: Am I not right?
Jackson: No. That's correct. On the one close to the corner. If you take the second
one, you can turn left. The median stops there and we purchased additional ground, so
we could get to -- beyond that median and so you could make a left turn and continue
on northbound on Eagle Road.
Bird: Yeah. Thank you.
Meridian City Council
February 27, 2007
Page 60 of 100
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: Let me really applaud you for that last comment about purchasing that land on
the north. It's unrelated to this project, but that access issue to Pine is extremely
difficult. Is there a reason that the -- this right-in access is where it's located on this
particular map, as opposed to further south along your property? And the reason I ask
is it looks as though it puts people entering your property at whatever speed right into a
parking stall where people would be backing out and --
Jackson: lid probably defer that to the engineer. I know that there is a decel lane that
stretches several hundred feet beyond our property, so there is -- I mean it's almost
interstate standards this access. It's a -- to my understanding it meets or exceeds all
state type road requirements. As far as the exact location of it, I -- you know, I guess
you reach a median -- a happy median between -- well, 11m talking about stuff I don't
know.
De Weerd: If only we could all admit to that. On the decel lane, then, are you
purchasing the right of way to put in that decellane?
Jackson: I really don't know. I know it's of no cost to the state. We are paying to put it
in. I don't know -- we have already -- we have granted some ground, as I understand it,
as far as an agreement for the tomorrow development. I donlt know if they need more
or -- I can't answer that.
De Weerd: Okay.
Jackson: We have got almost a half an acre of landscaping. You know, we tried to
make this a very -- it's a gateway street into our fine city here and we try to do an
upscale site and that's a lot of it and it's part of the problem, why we are having trouble
making money, because it's a big investment, but I just feel like if we could get more
accessible to the public, we could make it here.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I would ask about the two plats, if I may, Mr. Jackson.
Jackson: I'm sorry. Excuse me.
Meridian City Council
February 27, 2007
Page 61 of 100
Zaremba: I was on the Planning and Zoning Commission when this piece of property
came for annexation and the accompanying plat on which I was one of the ones that
insisted that the no access to Eagle be put on.
Jackson: So, that must have been plat number two.
Zaremba: Well -- and that's why I'm wondering how that got to be plat number two.
Was number one in the county, because the one that had the no access accompanied
the annexation.
Jackson: Well, you know, I may be mistaken here, but as I understand it -- and I'm not
an attorney, as well as an engineer, but there was -- the initial plat was a one time split,
which you're entitled to do. And that was done and completed and we bought the
property and the plat was recorded without that restriction. And, then, after that when
they subdivided the remainder of it, they came back and for some reason kind of
included up in the first, maybe CC&Rs or what, I'm not sure, but there was -- I can
assure you the first plat did not have that restriction and that was, you know, some time
ago. That's the one that I was more comfortable about. The second one was -- no one
pointed that out to me. My mistake.
Zaremba: Well, I assure you it's not something that snuck in, because it had lengthy
conversation at the Planning and Zoning level.
Jackson: No, I don't think it --
Zaremba: During the annexation.
Jackson: I don't think it was a trick, I just didn't see it. Had I saw it I would not have
signed it at that point in time. We already had one recorded without it.
Zaremba: In the county.
Jackson: Was it in the county?
Zaremba: It had to have been.
De Weerd: Okay. Anything else?
Jackson: Okay. I believe Joe Canning is going to speak a little bit more about some of
the background on this and, then, Pat Dobie will speak some on more of the
engineering fundamentals behind the safety and better traffic flow. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you.
J. Canning: Yes, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, my name is Joe Canning and
I'm with B&A Engineers in Boise. The address is 5505 West Franklin. And I'm here
Meridian City Council
February 27, 2007
Page 62 of 100
tonight with John and Pat to discuss this request and, actually, I can tell by a lot of the
questions being asked I think some of my thunder has already been taken here, but I'll
proceed. Our request is to vacate the note six of the final plat of Porky Park
Subdivision. That does state direct lot access to Eagle Road is prohibited. And the
second request is to request a variance to allow the construction of a right turn in lane to
the site from Eagle Road. And I think it's important to point out -- and John did mention
this, that it is a right-turn in only. This is not a left turn. It's not a right turn out. It's only
to carry cars or vehicles from Eagle Road into the site. Now, hopefully, I can answer a
few questions about some of the history of this particular site, particularly with the plat.
Jacksons Food Stores did purchase this site on March 18th of 2005 and that was a
result of a City of Meridian administrative lot split. So, it was in the city, but it was an
administrative lot split that occurred. So, it was not in the original subdivision. The
current land use was approved by the city on May 24 of 2005. The developer of
adjoining land, that would be the Porky Park element, received preliminary plat approval
on August 16th of 2005 and that plat did include a Jackson site. The Jackson store
received their certificate of zoning compliance on August 1 st of 2005. So, as you
notice, that was even prior to the preliminary plat approval of Porky Park Subdivision.
And just as for interest sake, the city's UDC is dated October 19th of 2005. So, all that
post dated all of this activity. The plat of Porky Park Subdivision approved by the City
Council on November 22nd of 2005 and the plat was recorded on February 17th of
2006. Now, we have seen an original version of the plat that did not have that note six
regarding the access out to Eagle Road not being permitted. But, anyway, the primary
issue we are here tonight about is the access to Eagle Road. And, of course, the
Council to approve a variance request, as we have submitted, must make three
findings. One of those is the variance shall not grant a right or special privilege as not
otherwise allowed in the district. And at face value, when you read that, it's almost
impossible to imagine a situation where they could be held as true. However, in this
instance, the site had an access that was approved by the Idaho Transportation
Department as part of a prior condemnation process. In our opinion we are not asking
for a special privilege, we are simply asking for what was on the site and granted by
lTD. Number two is the variance relieves an undue hardship because of characteristics
of the site. I think several of you have already -- have noticed that. It is difficult to get in
and out of this particular piece of property. The only access right now is off Pine. The
medians and channelization that occurs out there is a challenge to get into this property.
And, of course, we feel that the addition of the access to Eagle Road for a right turn in
only will help considerably. The third item is the variance shall not be detrimental to the
health, safety, and welfare and Pat Dobie is the next to come up and I think Pat can
speak specifically to the specific traffic study that he's completed for the property and I
think we will see that, actually, it improves things quite a bit in the area. So, with that,
Pat.
Dobie: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, my name is Pat Dobie with Dobie
Engineering and my address is 777 Hearthstone Drive in Boise. I prepared the traffic
study for this project, submitted it to ITD in 2005, I believe. When ITD received it, they
raised a number of questions. The first one was conformance with this spacing
standards on Highway 55. The second one was the question of access rights that
Meridian City Council
February 27,2007
Page 63 of 100
existed on this property. And, then, the third one was safety and operational
considerations. The access rights were documents and based upon our condemnation
that occurred in 1989 between the state and the previous property owner, which was
the DeBorren family, the DeBorrens reserved a right to either -- either two driveways
accessing Highway 55 or one driveway to be located as they determined. That
driveway was on a 60 foot right of way with a 41 foot street section. Now, that's ACHD
standards for a commercial driveway or a collector road. The second issue dealt with
operation and safety considerations. I prepared the traffic impact study. It was
submitted to lTD. It was reviewed with their staff. ITD, then, rejected the application,
because it didn't conform with their spacing standards. Their policy -- especially the
IDAPA policies allow for a variance and it's very strict criteria. It says if the project will
improve the operation and the safety of the highway, which is a very high standard to
meet. There was an appeal submitted and there was a hearing examiner appointed by
the state to take testimony and to review the technical issues associated with the
operation and safety and what I have for the record -- and I want to submit it -- is,
number one, a copy of the second judgment and decree of condemnation which
established the access rights and the second is the records of the hearing examiner,
together with facts and findings and conclusion of law. Let me submit these for the
record. I won't bore you with the legal issues, but the hearing examiner found that the
access rights to the property were not extinguished and the property had, in fact,
retained an access easement. The second thing they found -- the hearing examiner
found was that the ITD staff acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner by denying the
variance request, because there was no factual basis for them denying it and I'd like to
read you his findings. It says -- it says -- now, two engineers --
De Weerd: Mr. Dobie, we need you to summarize.
Dobie: Okay. There were two engineers from the state that testified concerning
operational and safety issues. The hearing examiner found that neither of ITD's
engineers were able to demonstrate what was wrong with Mr. Dolby's calculations or his
ultimate opinion. My opinion was that the proposed right-in driveway would improve the
operation and safety. And there is a number of reasons for that and I think it's detailed
in my report. The hearing examiner agreed that the proposal here qualified for a
variance and that there was a preexisting access right that remained pertinent to this
property. I would be happy to answer any questions that you have concerning any of
these issues.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I have got one question and it's -- not being a traffic engineer, I -- by having a
right-in only I don't know where you get -- where your safety comes in from the existing
from what you got is what you're doing is -- because you could go another 200 feet, you
got a stop sign -- stop light there and turn, slow down, stop, turn right and come back in
the right way. It don't get you any exit different than what you have got now and the
Meridian City Council
February 27, 2007
Page 64 of 100
more cars you got in there the more cars you got to get exit out and I don't know, you
know, explain to me why that one cut out there is going to make it much safer to get in
and get out.
Dobie: Madam Mayor, what's proposed here is a deceleration lane that starts down on
the highway. The taper is 540 feet long. It, then, goes into a continuous right turn lane
that goes all the way down to the stop light at Pine Street. Now, none of this exists
today and these are the improvements that were proposed as part of the original
application to be funded by Jackson's company. The safety considerations stem from
vehicles crossing another vehicle's path or speed differentials on the highway. The
deceleration lane with the taper meets all generally accepted standards for a safe exit
off the road. So, there -- what -- by the vehicles coming in this way and, then, turning in
-- and the primary purpose of this slip lane is for large trucks to access the fueling
stations back here. The alternative is for the trucks to come up to the stop bar, which
creates a condition -- a very strong possibility for rear-end collisions. Vehicles making
turns here -- and there is a lot of right turns on red that occur at this intersection, these
vehicles turning here cross the path of vehicles on other signal phases. These turning
conflicts are eliminated by the slip lane. The rear end possibility is eliminated by the slip
lane. And, moreover, then, the vehicles have to come down, decelerate, which creates
the potential for rear-end collisions at this point turning into the site. All of those turning
movements are eliminated. All of those conflict points are eliminated through the
installation of this and everything that's proposed here conforms to both ITD and
national standards for these types of facilities. And from an evaluation of the safety --
you know, overall safety of the intersection, both for these movements and especially
what's going on up here, by taking this traffic out of that stream, you reduce the conflict
points and, therefore, you improve the safety.
Bird: Madam Mayor? So, what you're telling me is that right in there is for trucks?
Dobie: Primarily for trucks.
Bird: For semis?
Dobie: Yes.
Bird: To get to the fuel station back there.
Dobie: Correct.
Bird: Well, they are going to have to swing it and I don't know how close your detail is
on your deal there, but they are going to have to do some swinging to make that corner
if they are very long at all and that gets you right into it, as Councilman Borton
mentioned earlier, right into the people backing out.
Dobie: But if I may, the alternative is to come up here and, then, have those trucks
wander through this area to get to the fuel and, then, come all the way back here and
Meridian City Council
February 27,2007
Page 65 of 100
back out -- this is a raised island in the middle of Pine Street. Those -- those large
trucks are either doing this maneuver or doing this maneuver, which is very difficult and
really congests the site.
De Weerd: But the question is why isn't it further down here, which allows for better
access? Isn't that what you're trying to get to? Thank you.
Bird: No. I mean I just -- I have a real concern of not only getting an in, but getting an
out. You know, I don't know, how many -- I don't know how many semis right now fuel
up there, but if you get that and they double their business, it's -- you got to get them
back out on the road and down the -- and most of them is going to want to go north on
Eagle Road. Very few of them's going to want to go -- turn right and go over to
Cloverdale.
Dobie: The turning movement -- this was -- this curb was laid out with a truck template,
so it is the minimum. And the reason I put it at this location was so that it would be
useful both by the automobiles and by the trucks. But the trucks can now pull in here,
pull into the fueling stations, and, then, leave this way, which is a fairly easy
operationally efficient maneuver, as opposed to what they have to do right now and you
can see from the testimony that was given before as far as the lack of fuel sales and
those trucks buy a lot of fuel, they just aren't -- they are not going there, because you
can't get there from here.
Bird: Thank you very much.
De Weerd: Any other questions, Council?
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I thought at one point you were saying that you designed that for trucks that
were bringing fuel to the station. Did I misunderstand that?
Dobie: No. This is -- this is the fueling. There is -- these are truck fueling bays in this
location.
Zaremba: I did misunderstand.
Dobie: I think there is six positions back there.
De Weerd: Anything further? Okay. Thank you. We will ask for concluding remarks.
Okay. This is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone who would like to provide testimony?
Arnold: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, my name is Rebecca Arnold. I live at
3973 Eric Lane, Boise. I -- initially -- well, I have to disclose that Mr. Jackson is a friend
Meridian City Council
February 27,2007
Page 66 of 100
of mine. He has his corporate office in Meridian, but his -- he lives, actually, in my
district. And when he first approached me and mentioned that he wanted an access
onto Eagle Road, my initial reaction was a knee jerk reaction are you out of your mind.
Eagle Road? Absolutely not. But, then, it occurred to me that since I do have a little
experience with transportation planning, that perhaps I should look at it on a case-by-
case basis and listen to what he had to say and look at the particulars of the location.
After looking at it, there were two things that persuaded me to change my opinion on the
issue. One was the traffic study, which does show that it improved safety on Eagle
Road and improved the functioning of that intersection. And the other was driving on
Eagle Road. I find myself on Eagle Road far more often than I'd like to be there and,
actually, do go into this gas station occasionally. If you are driving on Eagle Road and
proceeding toward the intersection of Pine and Eagle, if you're stopped and you want to
get into the gas station, about the time you get going again you have to make a hard
right, which is a traffic conflict, because people behind you may not be paying attention
and may rear end you and, then, you have to make another hard right to get into the
station. Having a decal lane there eliminates that issue, because you get off of Eagle
before you get into that intersection. The other thing that it does, if you're not stopped at
the light, but if you're -- if you're driving along there, it's much safer to enter a decellane,
because you enter at a faster speed, you enter the decellane and, then, make the right
turn into the station, instead of getting to the intersection and, then, slowing down to the
point where you have to make a hard right onto Pine to go into that intersection. So,
those two things persuaded me to support having an access off of Eagle Road and I
think it's important to keep that in mind. It's coming off of, not getting onto Eagle Road.
Thank you.
De Weerd: And that's because the decellane does not exist today.
Arnold: Right. But it's my understanding that Jacksons is willing to pay for putting that
decellane in as part of building this exit off of Eagle Road.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird.
Bird: Can I ask a couple of questions? You brought it up, Mrs. Arnold. Are you here
representing ACHD?
Arnold: No. I am one of five commissioners, so this is strictly my personal opinion.
Bird: Okay. You stated that he was in your district, so I wanted to make sure that that
was --
Arnold: My personal opinion I am one of five.
Bird: If that right-in off Eagle Road is going to work and the first right-in and right-out -- I
guess that's right-in -- well, it can only be right-out, too, because you got a barrier there
Meridian City Council
February 27, 2007
Page 67 of 100
-- along there. Maybe that goes away if it's hard to get into, if it's dangerous. The first --
the first one on Pine there. You put the right-in on Eagle and then -- and, then, take the
right on Pine out.
Arnold: I would think that would be less of a concern, because Pine doesn't have nearly
the traffic, nor the speeds that you see on Eagle Road. And that's an access point that I
think functions fairly well at this point and it's an existing access that I wouldn't --
wouldn't be inclined to eliminate.
Bird: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions?
Arnold: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Is there any further testimony on this application?
Would the applicant like to have closing remarks?
Jackson: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. I guess I would just like
to reiterate the fact that we are the only party in this arrangement that has actually done
a traffic study and I know we didn't have time to get into all the details and, quite frankly,
I'm not sure I would even understand them, too. But I know that there is a science to
engineering traffic and that's a conclusion. I guess I would just ask that we have the
chance to take this to ITD and discuss it with them on a more thorough basis and let
them get a traffic study before they make some of the comments that they are making
that are, quite frankly, I think a little bit irresponsible. If you haven't done a study, you
draw conclusions -- it surprises me. But, you know, if our -- if our conclusion is correct,
we are talking about possibly saving lives here, not just through traffic flow and I think
it's worth looking at and what you decide tonight will not determine whether we get this
or not, but it will allow us to shed more light on the situation and safety is people's lives.
So, please, give me the chance to take this further for further investigation. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any further comments?
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I don't know if there is an answer to this or not. ITD has done a very
thorough Eagle Road corridor study that involved a great deal of public money and time
and public open houses to study this corridor. To say that they have done no traffic
analysis I believe is a misdirection. They have done a thorough traffic analysis of this
area. Their determination is that there needs to be a dedicated right turn lane onto Pine
from Eagle in this location. What ITD has not studied is an additional break in that right
turn to give access to a piece of property that has a plat note that says they will never
have access there. It isn't that ITD has ignored this area, they have a study and their
Meridian City Council
February 27, 2007
Page 68 of 100
study says they need a dedicated right turn lane onto Pine. The only piece missing is
throwing another access in the middle of that.
De Weerd: You know, Mr. Zaremba, I -- having -- I'm not a traffic engineer and nor do I
want to be. I thank God I'm not. But if -- I have seen how long it takes to get a road
improvement on Eagle Road and there is no doubt that a turn lane is needed to get to
Pine. It's ridiculous. I can understand why there is a real issue of someone trying to go
to that gas station, because turning onto Pine in that area is really difficult and I don't
know at this point getting road improvements anywhere, looking for these kind of
partnerships to get them done, I'm kind of at the point of just do it and if you get a free
right in to get that extra lane in in a timely fashion, I'm kind of at this point all for that. So
-- because I haven't seen road improvements done very timely if they are not driven by
the private sector. So, that's my -- my kind of worthless comment, but it is what it is.
Caleb.
Hood: Madam Mayor, if I may follow up on just a couple of questions that came up that
weren't answered by the Council and maybe just .a comment, too, on your most recent
comment. Just going back to ITD's letter and it just -- it says and it's not clear when
they plan on constructing it, but it says ITD currently has a project to construct a right
turn lane for northbound traffic to turn onto Pine Avenue. Again, we didn't follow up to
say, hey, is that this year, next year, but it's at least a project they are planning on doing
it, so I just wanted to -- there is detail there that they at least -- didn't say it's in our
program or we are evaluating it, they are saying that there is -- it's a project, so I just
wanted to --
De Weerd: And I haven't seen it in a program and that's why I made that comment.
Hood: I guess the -- you know, they have the right of way, it really would take some
striping and some asphalt. They are really not a huge dollar cost to do that if there is --
when they are so inclined. I know they don't have a lot of money, but that wouldn't be a
big dollar item to construct. So, just to throw that out. A couple other things that did
come up that weren't answered. One of the reasons this is in the location it is, aside
from it being able to be used by regular cars and trucks, as the applicant stated, there is
a big power pole that's right near the property line. It's right about there and I'm not
exactly sure, but it's one of the big power poles, so you can't really come any further
south with the location. And the other thing, the administrative lot split -- and this is
more for Mr. Jackson. When we only did half a dozen of those a couple years ago and
this was before the new UDC was in, a condition of one of those administrative lot splits
was that the entire property being granted the administrative lot split had to come back
in and be part of a subdivision. So, just some clarity. There wasn't really two
subdivisions, it was an administrative lot split and it's kind of a temporary split, if you will,
because it required everything to come back in for a subdivision. So, just a couple of
points of clarification for you.
De Weerd: Thank you, Caleb. Any questions for staff at this point, Council?
Meridian City Council
February 27,2007
Page 69 of 100
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: If there is no information or comments needed, I would a entertain motion.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: I would move we close the public hearings on Items 19 and 20.
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to close the public hearings on 19 and
20. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Okay. Any discussion?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: After review of the applicant's materials and comments and the staff report and
comments of the applicant's representatives that were represented here tonight before
us, I see this right-in access variance as being something that is -- actually is an
appropriate variance and should be granted. I don't see it granting a special right or
privilege. I do believe that is relieves an undue hardship on this particular site and I
don't think it would be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare. I think some
of the comments of Mr. Jackson, Mrs. Arnold, and other individuals who provided
information today, provides information at least for me that allowing this opportunity to
relieve some traffic from Eagle Road with a right-in only access is sufficient and I'm
comfortable going forward with it and I would presume, Mr. Nary, if that's the way we
went, we'd just be back for findings for approval at a later date?
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Borton, that's correct.
You would be directing that we prepare that, so --
Borton: Okay. All right. Those are my findings and thoughts on it.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I would comment on another subject that has come up in -- that they have a
1989 right to an access. It has been a precedent with this body when the use of the
Meridian City Council
February 27,2007
Page 70 of 100
property changes, conditions of those changes often include giving up an access and I
believe that happened to this as well. In accepting the annexation and zoning and
preliminary plat, the applicant at that time agreed to give up the access. The other
thought I would have is if it is the thought of the other Councilmen to accept this access,
I would want to make it possible to come back out through that and my suggestion
would be that one of those razer things be put in this driveway or some other measure
that absolutely prevents anybody coming out that way.
De Weerd: I will remember not to mess with you. Okay. Any further comments? Point
well taken. Okay. Do I have a motion?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: I would move that we approve Item 19, V AR 07-002, and direct staff to prepare
Findings for approval. I don't know if we need a date certain for that at this point, Mr.
Nary, or--
Nary: Normally it's a couple of weeks.
Borton: For a couple of weeks. March 13th.
De Weerd: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Okay. Hearing none, I would
entertain a different motion, if someone wanted to give me one.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I would move to -- are we dealing with both subjects at the same time?
Nary: No.
Bird: Just the one. Nineteen.
De Weerd: Just 19.
Zaremba: I'm sorry.
co rrect?
De Weerd: 002.
Bird: 002.
De Weerd: Item 19.
Okay. I would move to deny vacation VAC 07-001. Is that
Meridian City Council
February 27, 2007
Page 71 of 100
Zaremba: We are doing the variance first? Okay.
Nary: Yes.
Zaremba: I'm sorry. Then I retract that motion and, Madam Mayor, I would move to
deny the variance VAR 07-002.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion. Do I have a second?
Bird: Yeah, I'll second it.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second. Any discussion?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: This is something that I -- I have real concerns about. We have allowed right-in
and right-outs along there, but I -- and not being a traffic engineer or anything, but just --
as Mr. Jackson says, using common horse sense, I think we are asking for some
trouble and that's -- I don't know. I know they can1t move it back. If they could move it
back, that would be -- I'd probably have seconded Joe1s motion. But I know that big
steel power line -- power pole is there, so you can't move it back. So, in this form I just
can't do it. I mean if they want to -- if they want to trade that off for one of the Pine
entries, I could take a good hard look at that, but right now --
De Weerd: I guess I would just ask Mr. Bird what makes this different from some of the
other right-in, right-outs? This is just a right-in. It gives a decel lane and in that area
right now there isn't one. And, you know, I understand that at some point there is going
to be one, but we needed it when -- we needed it yesterday, like most of our road
improvements, and I think the situation -- because I have been stacked there waiting to
turn onto Pine. It's not an ideal situation and I see this almost safer than some of the
other things that this Council has approved and I haven't always been in support of
them. So, I will preface that.
Bird: I don1t disagree one bit with you, Mayor, on that, but, I'll tell you what, you want
my support, no trucks. No semis go in there.
De Weerd: I don't think we made that condition on any of the other right-ins.
Bird: But the others weren't fuel stations, but that's neither here nor there.
De Weerd: Okay. Any further discussion, Council? Okay. Mr. Berg, will you, please,
call roll.
Meridian City Council
February 27,2007
Page 72 of 100
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree; absent; Zaremba, yea; Borton, nay.
MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Okay.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Item 20. Yes, Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I move that we deny vacation VAC 07-001.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second on Item 20 to deny. Any discussion?
Hearing none, Mr. Berg.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree; absent; Zaremba, yea; Borton, nay.
MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT.
Item 21:
Public Hearing: Proposed Fireworks Ordinance:
De Weerd: Thank you. Item 21 is a Public Hearing. Chief Anderson, are you going to
introduce this? I won't ask Mrs. Canning to.
Anderson: Thank you. I appreciate that. Madam Mayor and Council, we are here
before you tonight to ask for your help. We have an ordinance that we have before you
regarding fireworks and I'd like to introduce the ordinance tonight and, then, I'm going to
have Deputy Chief Joe Silva give you the nuts and bolts of the ordinance, but this
ordinance has quite a history with me and I started working on a fireworks problem long
before I came to Meridian and I can tell you that Meridian has a fireworks problem, Ada
County has a fireworks problem, the Treasure Valley has a fireworks problem. And
what we are proposing tonight I think is -- moves us down the road towards a possible
solution for that. And this has been a growing problem that has occurred and the
reason it has is I need to give you a little bit of history, is Idaho has had a fireworks law
on the books for a number of years, I believe it was originally drafted in 1979, but it was
modified in 1997 to clean up some problems that were in the law at that time. In that
cleanup, however, there was a provision that was put in there that allowed for interstate
commerce and for a legitimate wholesaler of fireworks to be able to sell fireworks at
wholesale, as long as they were being taken somewhere else and lit off or being used
other than in the state of Idaho. And so this provision allowed for somebody -- if they
were to buy fireworks that were the non-safe and sane type that they could bring those
into Idaho and, then, legitimately wholesale those to other companies and, then, they
would be shipped out. What has happened as a result of that, though, is that a number
of firework vendors have taken advantage of that provision that provided -- that allowed
Meridian City Council
February 27,2007
Page 73 of 100
for the interstate commerce and they have actually used that as a loop hole to sell
illegal fireworks in the state of Idaho. And when we talk about illegal fireworks, you
probably heard the term safe and sane fireworks, those are, typically, the sparkler types
of fireworks, the fountain, the snakes, those types of things. And in Idaho we have a
definition for the non-aerial common fireworks is the term that we use for the safe and
sane. For the others it's, basically, any firework that travels outside of a 20 foot circle or
travels more than 15 foot in height or 20 foot in height, throwing sparks in any manner.
So, those illegal fireworks are the ones that are creating the problems, because those
are the ones that you typically can't control. Once you light the fuse and you run away,
you don't know what that firework is going to do and for most of us we think back about
when we were kids and we think about things like bottle rockets and we think about
things like lady fingers, the little one inch long firecrackers that you used to light, but I
can tell you the fireworks are growing in size and those little bottle rockets that we used
to think of, those are small in comparison to what's being shot off today and what's
being sold out there and used in our community. In fact, when we get close to the
Fourth of July, the reports that we get -- and I know that you folks have been out and
about, you can look around our city on the Fourth of July and it's been compared to war
zones and it literally looks like mortars and shells -- it looks like what we saw on CNN
when we were entering into that Iraq war and I mean that's really what it looks like and
the concern is that all those fireworks are not necessarily in control and a lot of those
are being shot towards the neighbors' houses and so you may not even be the person
lighting the fuse, but you could be the recipient of some of those as they land on your
roof or they land in your shrubbery and they burn your house down and it's just
something that is really getting out of hand. This problem is being compounded by this
loop hole in the law. I can tell you that I personally have worked for a number of years,
even prior to coming to Meridian, at trying to get this loop hole closed up in the law. I
have talked to the legislators that drafted the changes in 1997. That is not what was
intended with the changes. It was for legitimate wholesale and interstate commerce,
not to be able to sell fireworks to the local people and what's happening is they will sell
to anybody as long as you sign a piece of paper that says I'm going to take it out of the
state and set it off. And we have, actually, reviewed some of the paperwork that some
of the vendors have used over the years and it's kind of interesting when you read some
of the reasons and some of the places that people put on these waivers that say where
they are going to use these fireworks. Obviously, they don't get reviewed very closely
by the folks selling those. Some of them have listed my cabin, some of them have listed
Mars, Pluto, I'm taking it to the trunk of my car, so it really has just become a joke and
it's not taken seriously. So, this has been a growing problem and getting worse over
and over the years. I can also tell you that last year when we got close to the Fourth of
July we came to you folks and we talked to you about some changes that had
happened in our Unified Development Code in the City of Meridian and there was some
issues with the size of the temporary stands and we had a number of firework vendors
come to that meeting and testify about inconsistencies between the fire departments in
the valley and the instructions that we got from you folks at that time is that after the
Fourth of July is over we would like you to sit down with the firework vendors, we'd like
you to sit down with the other fire departments and see if you can't come up with some
standardization. I can tell you that the City of Meridian and Meridian fire department
Meridian City Council
February 27,2007
Page 74 of 100
and in particular Deputy Chief Silva has spent a considerable amount of time working
on that effort that you guys challenged us with. And the first thing we did was we got
together with all the fire departments throughout the Treasure Valley and ask them what
they do for fireworks and the answers were all over the board. Some folks allowed
sales of fireworks from tents, some of them had no limits to the size of the tents or the
square footage, some of them had very restrictive ones, some had age limits, some
didn't have age limits, it was pretty much all over the board. So, one of the things that
we did was we tried to get the fire departments to unit, so that we had a standardized
approach to dealing with fireworks and firework vendors and that took us several
months of meeting with the fire departments to work through all those issues and we
now believe that we have a pretty successful model there and those are the things that
you see in the ordinance. I can also tell you that we met with the firework vendors
themselves or at least those that we know that have done business in Meridian in the
past or the ones that we were able to get their names from the state fire marshal's
office, because maybe they had signed up with the state fire marshal's office for one of
these wholesaler permits and we listened to their concerns and we listened to their
issues also and I have to tell you for the most part the firework vendors are responsible
people and they are trying to do the right thing and just like many of us, they are great
Americas and they believe in patriotism and all those kind of things and, you know, they
certainly don't want to see anybody injured by the fireworks that they sell, but I can also
tell you that it was interesting in talking with those folks, because some of the folks who
traditionally have always sold the safe and sane fireworks, as a result of this change in
the Idaho law and the loop hole that has been created, numerous firework vendors now
sell the non-safe and sane, the dangerous fireworks that we are talking about and most
people would love to buy those, instead of the safe and sane. And so folks who used to
be legitimate firework vendors selling the safe and sane only, the kind that you didn't
mind if your kids lit off, have now had to resort to selling the dangerous ones just like
everybody else, so that they compete business-wise and so it's been one of those
problems that has compounded itself. This law has only been on the books now for ten
years and I can tell you in that ten years time the number of firework vendors that have
switched over from selling the old safe and sane to the dangerous one is probably in the
neighborhood of about 90, 95 percent at this point. And it's getting worse and worse.
The problem is as firefighters we go out there and we try to enforce the ordinances that
are on the books and I can tell you, you know, we are -- it's like beating our heads
against a wall, because there are not enough firefighters, if we recalled every firefighter
that we have in Meridian and Boise and Nampa and Caldwell and everywhere else, and
every law enforcement officer, we still couldn't cover all the fireworks -- the illegal
fireworks that are being set off on the Fourth of July. One year in Nampa when I
worked over there, we tried to from an enforcement end and you couldn't even get from
one call to the next call that you had been dispatched on without getting shot at by
illegal fireworks from about five or six different directions while you were driving to the
next call. And Dave Heineman from Boise tried a similar technique last year and he can
testify to the results of that. And I liken this I guess to the problem of -- it would be as if
we were to legalize marijuana or cocaine or some illegal drug and, then, you ask the law
enforcement officers to go out and make sure that nobody uses those illegal drugs. And
that's what we have in Idaho right now. We have a loop hole in our state law that allows
Meridian City Council
February 27,2007
Page 75 of 100
people to buy these, they can possess them, they are just not supposed to set them off.
Well, the only way that we can enforce that is if we happen upon the scene the minute
they are holding the match to the fuse. So, you're asking us to enforce something that's
virtually impossible to do. But I can tell you that the safety concerns are real and it's just
a matter of time, it's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when, when we burn somebody's
house down who is just sitting there minding their own business on the Fourth of July
and no fault of their own, somebody shoots a firework into their shrubbery or onto their
roof and burns their house down. And, hopefully, nobody gets killed or injured when
that happens. But this problem is getting worse and worse and we need to do
something about it. The approach that we have come up with and that we are taking,
because, to be honest with you, we haven't had a lot of success at the legislature and
the reason we haven't is -- as you all know, Idaho's legislature pretty much is hands off
and they believe in less government and less regulations and that's the answer that we
have been given so far in our attempts to get legislation passed there. And so I
challenge you that this is similar to the problem that the cities faced with math a few
years ago and the answer was you couldn't get anything done at the state legislature,
so you had to take that problem on on a county-wide basis and you took that challenge
and you passed some ordinances that took care of the meth problem and that became
the model that was, then, used in the rest of the state. And that's what we are
proposing here tonight is the ordinance that you have before you as a model ordinance,
we have worked extensively with the surrounding fire departments to come up with an
ordinance that everybody, including the county, would be willing to adopt. We have
taken this to the Treasure Valley Partnership, which is a representative group of the
cities and the counties in Treasure Valley, we have got good support and good
feedback from them that support this. Meridian is going to be the first city, you are
going to be the test case, if you will, on this particular ordinance and if it passes here,
the other cities in the Treasure Valley are all looking at within the next few months
holding public hearings and considering this same ordinance for passage in their towns,
as well as the county. And the idea is that we take control of the situation here locally
and we do what we can to eliminate these dangerous fireworks and it's time that there is
a voice of reason here and if Meridian has to be the one who is that voice of reason and
we step to the plate, then, I think we need to do that, but somebody has to look out for
the protection of folks, because the firework problem is a growing problem and it is
totally out of hand. And with that I will turn it over to Deputy Chief Silva and ask him to
give you some of the nuts and bolts of the ordinance.
Silva: Thank you, Chief Anderson. lid like to just first of all start with kind of an
overview. The chief has touched on some points, but I want to just kind of -- we,
basically, worked within the state statute with the definitions for both novelty items and
for non-aerial fireworks the chief alluded to that explains that. Dangerous fireworks,
obviously, anything that goes outside of 15 foot diameter circle or emits sparks outside
of a 20 foot diameter circle or shoot above a height of 2D feet, those are the things that
seem to be most troubling for our citizens and those are the things that seem to be most
troubling for our -- for our citizens and those are the things that stimulate all the citizen
complaints to dispatch. As these things do include things like -- commonly referred to
as bottle rockets and firecrackers, M8Ds, things like that. As the chief alluded to, there
Meridian City Council
February 27, 2007
Page 76 of 100
is a flaw in the state law that's the most troublesome and it's a huge enforcement
problem when we are faced with working on the Fourth of July. The dispatch -- we have
a representative from dispatch and she will talk about some of the -- the numbers of
calls that we get about illegal fireworks coming out of neighborhoods. One of the things
that the chief talked about, which is extremely important, we are all Idahoans and this
one thing -- the careless act of one Idahoan can put another Idahoan's property at risk
and we can't underestimate that and it's really sad. Speaking for myself, it's -- after we
all have worked a long day on the Fourth of July holiday, when I go home and I see
sticks from bottle rockets this far on my roof and my yard, that's very troubling, you
know, in doing my part trying to protect the citizens in Meridian, but when you
experience that at a very personal level, it makes it very hard to deal with, you know, to
have your own property exposed while you're out protecting somebody else's property.
And we can't lose sight of the fact that it's a Class C explosive and I relate to you, as I
have in previous work sessions, that we had two casino workers killed in Worley, Idaho,
this past summer. Our solution is we are going to try to limit the availability of
dangerous fireworks and their being discharged within our community. We are going to
require that non-aerial common fireworks, those safe and sane things that the chief
alluded to, are purchased under the supervision or guardian or parent. The reason why
we are doing this is they, in turn, are used under that same level of supervision and
holding the parents accountable for any damages that may result as a result of a fire.
This is something that exists in our present ordinance and we are going to continue to
enforce and it's present in the 2003 International Fire Code as in the 2006 International
Fire Code, should the elected officials choose to adopt a new code, this same provision
still exists in the code. No changes. One of the issues, as the chief alluded to, we had
some large super stores, if you will, of fireworks that were proposed and put in front of
Council for a hearing and one thing we were able to come to consensus with the other
fire departments is we would limit the size of the stand to 600 square feet. We would
strictly prohibit the sale, storage, possession and use of dangerous fireworks within the
City of Meridian. Short term sales of non-aerial common fireworks will not be conducted
from a permanent structure. We had one vendor who approached us about selling out
of a permanent vacant warehouse structure and, obviously, the building had not been
designed and the fire sprinkler system not designed to carry that kind of fire load, so we
were able to deny it on those grounds. One thing that we did work with the vendors --
we had originally as fire agencies throughout the valley had proposed that the age to
purchase be 18 and that you be 18 to work within the stands. One thing we were able
to come to consensus with -- each side gave a little bit on this and you have to be age
16 to purchase fireworks or you have to be accompanied by a parent and you have to
be age 16 to work inside a firework stand. The reason for this requirement is that we
actually had some stay-at-home moms who were taking care of their small children who
were in playpens inside of a fireworks stand and we didn't think that was necessarily a
good combination, so that's why this particular provision was included in our ordinance.
And we also removed the cap for the damages that may be caused by fire -- a fire
resulting from misuse of fireworks by a minor. And, essentially, what we have done is
we have met with the Treasure Valley Partnership, taken this same ordinance to the
Treasure Valley Partnership was received and supported very well initially. They
actually made a motion in effect to request the -- that the county visit this exact same
Meridian City Council
February 27, 2007
Page 77 of 100
ordinance that we are -- that's in front of you this evening and it's currently under legal
review by counsel at Ada County. And with that I will stand for any questions you may
have.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Joe. Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. This is a Public Hearing and I do have a number of people that have
signed up to indicate their support or opposition. So, as I read through -- and I
apologize for the time of the evening. It's been a long night. D. Scott Beal signed up
against.
Beal: Madam Mayor, Councilmen. My name is Donald Scott Eugene Seal and I'm here
representing Celebration Corp. I own a fireworks company and I do business in the City
of Meridian. My address is 7088 East Stratford Lane, Nampa. First, to start with, my
attorney -- we were provided with this -- with the recent revision about -- I received it
from Chief Silva four days ago in the mail, five days ago I believe it was via the internet.
My attorney has not had any time at this point, he has not had sufficient time to review
this revised ordinance and I would like to ask for -- to start with, if we can, a -- just to
stay on 30 to 60 days and give my attorney an opportunity to really take a look at what's
going on and, actually, come forward in my stead with the right type of, you know, stuff
in his head in order combat this. Is that at all possible?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary, if you will explain the process that we go through on these
ordinances.
Nary: Certainly, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. The process normally -- and
this is a Public Hearing for comments. This is a legislative action of the Council. It
doesn't actually require any public input, I mean the Council could take action
separately. There normally is a three reading process by statute. That can be waived
to only one or two hearings, but there is normally a three reading process for ordinances
of this nature. Certainly, your attorney has time to submit any written comments that he
wants to make, but statutorily it's not required to take public comment or to take public
input or to alter the ordinance based on the public's response, because it is a legislative
decision of the Council. So, your attorney -- your attorney probably knows the same
thing, but he has time in which to submit comments between now and if we -- whenever
the first reading gets put on at the Council's direction, within that two to three week
period he certainly has time to submit any comments or concerns he might have.
Beal: Thank you. Can I still make my comments at that point, then?
De Weerd: At any point in those three readings, yes.
Seal: Can I still now?
Meridian City Council
February 27, 2007
Page 78 of 100
De Weerd: Pardon?
Beal: Can I still make comments at this point, then?
De Weerd: Yes.
Beal: Okay. Great. For the record, I am a certified pyrotechnician. I handle fireworks
on a regular basis and I was at one point -- after the military I was a fireman as well,
EMT. Fireworks, just for your information, they are built on a standardized basis,
whether it is a safe and sane level or an aerial level. Fireworks, whether you're talking
about a cap gun, a pulling firework, a firecracker, they all have a specific amount of
powder in them. The government mandates what type of -- how much powder can be in
a specific size of firework. And 500 grams is the maximum that they allow to have in a
safe and sane fountain or in an aerial cake for that matter. So, whether you're going to
be talking about a safe and sane firework or simply what the fire department likes to call
dangerous fireworks, there is no danger difference between the two fireworks. You still
have 200 grams of powder, a hundred grams, 500 grams of powder in a safe and sane
fountain, as you do in an aerial cake that might shoot something into the sky. They are
both highly explosive and one thing is not going to cause anymore damage than
another thing when it comes to either fire or explosion. Excuse me. The Consumer
Product Safety Commission -- I don't know if you're aware of what the CPSC is. They
control a lot of what is going to be on the market and what's not going to be on the
market, whether it comes to a toaster oven or fireworks, it doesn't really matter, they are
a huge mandate for what is safe and what is not safe for the American people. There is
300 million people in this country and the Consumer Product Safety Commission
mandates fireworks as well. One of the things that they mandate is whether or not we
are going to be able to sell M80s, cherry bombs, dynamite, you know, out of our
fireworks stands or on the internet or what have you. They have, obviously, banned the
M8D, cherry bombs, at cetera, because they are highly dangerous -- very highly
dangerous fireworks that should not be in the hands of pretty much anybody, as far as
I'm concerned, unless you are a pyrotechnic expert or an explosive expert, for that
matter. But in 2004 is the newest update that we have concerning injuries, which they
track across the country, and 2004 is the newest we have. We will have 2005 probably
anytime soon will be available for us. And what they have tracked is simply the fact that
I think the highest in the past 15 years was about 16,000 injuries that required a medical
-- any type of medical attention, whether it was 911 on site or actually going to the
hospital. It was just over 15,000. In 2004 there was just over 6,000. I believe it was
6,236 injuries that were reported across the nation to various agencies that required
some sort of medical attention, whether that was going to be a burn or missing limb or
what have you. And, honestly, there was fireworks, you know, M8Ds blowing hands off
and such as that. They are not legal in the first place in this country. The majority of
the injuries that were caused by those were from sparklers and hand-held items.
Generally children. Okay? Local fire agencies are trying to say that they are doing a lot
of change on a safety level. There is really no difference in safety when it comes to
whether I sell my fireworks out of a stand, whether they are safe and sane, or whether
they are going to be a dangerous firework, quote, unquote.
Meridian City Council
February 27,2007
Page 79 of 1 00
De Weerd: Sir, if you could summarize.
Beal: Sure.
De Weerd: And if you have written testimony, we certainly would enter that into the
record as well.
Beal: I appreciate that. The way I look at it, honestly, is they are trying to -- what Joe
Silva didn't -- Chief Silva did not put up there -- they are trying to make us sell our aerial
fireworks out of a permanent structure. If that happens, the Council here is going to
start the position of a monopoly in our area, because there is, honestly, only one
company pretty much that I have been able to find in the state of Idaho that is able to
sell fireworks out of his permanent structure, being as he has been approved for that
and that is Rick Handke that owns Fat City Fireworks. He's in a separate county. What
that's going to do is simply create a monopoly and people will still continue to go buy
fireworks either at Fat City or they will go out of state, like I have a couple of my friends
do, they don't even buy from me, and they will still bring them into the City of Meridian,
the City of Boise, as well as every other city in our area. And as for the counties
backing them, the last word I heard from Canyon County is they were -- they were not --
on a commissioner level they were not backing what the deputies -- the marshals had to
say and I know that Ada County Commissioners are also questioning -- not necessarily
not backing, but they are questioning what is going to be happening at this time. Thank
you very much.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Zaremba: Question, Madam Mayor.
De Weerd: Mr. Beal. If we could ask a question. Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I need to make sure that -- to clarify something for me, so that I understand.
Beal: Yes, sir.
Zaremba: When you say that certain fireworks are -- have specific amounts of gun
powder or other energy in them --
Baal: Yes, sir.
Zaremba: -- Am I understanding you to say that you don't believe there is -- you have
one set of fireworks that expend all of that energy in one spot and do not move or shoot
anything. Are you saying that those are no safer than the ones where they expend
energy actually moving and --
Meridian City Council
February 27, 2007
Page 80 of 100
Beal: I don't believe that they are -- I believe that the danger value is still there. I have -
- I have 500 gram fountains. I like fountains. You know, when I put on a show I get a
permit, you know, and I got the insurance and everything, so I do everything legal. But
the fact is I light off fountains as well during my shows and, you know, I have had
fountains that have exploded out the bottom. There is -- you know, and things happen,
you know. I can get in my truck and my seat belt will fail, you know, so things just
happen. The fact is is they are still volatile, you know, no matter how you look at it, you
know, you can have a cap gun, shoot the cap gun, and it's just got a minute amount of
powder in it, and you can still take somebody's eye out, you know, and it's still a
firework. But the fact is is there is really no -- there is no difference in the amount of
powder or the amount of explosiveness of any specific type of firework when we start
talking on a large scale level, because we can still -- mandated by federal government,
we can still buy 500 gram fountains in my stands if I don't sell anything but safe and
sane.
Zaremba: But you don't consider it any greater danger to something that can move its
energy, start a fire over there, as opposed to being contained --
Beal: No. I agree completely. I mean I think it would be foolish for anybody to stand up
and say that, you know a rocket or what have you is not more dangerous. But the
majority of injuries that are tracked by the Consumer Products Safe Commission come
from safe and sane fireworks. When I say majority, I have calculated, you know,
anywhere from 60 to 65 percent and those are products, you know, that are on a safe
and sane level. Like sparklers, for example. I personally -- I have a five year old
daughter and I am an advocate for safety. Chief Silva knows that. We have talked a lot
about it. I don't sell fireworks to anybody under 16, even though that's not what the law
is at this point. You know, I have a huge concern for that, but my daughter doesn't play
with sparklers. I think it's the most dangerous firework on the market. But the --
because I see those injuries that happen. So, I don't think that there is going to be any
way for anybody to say that they are not dangerous if they go into the air, but the fact is
when you talk about on a national level, 300 million people, there is just over 6,000
injuries being reported that needed to be reported, start coming -- the majority are
coming from safe and sane. That's not my opinion, that is a fact that the Consumer
Product Safety Commission has put together, which, obviously, isn't controlled by my
opinion. You know, I'm not trying to be a smart-alec or anything, but the fact is is they
are all dangerous and no matter whether the fire marshals consider us to be selling
through a loop hole or not is beside the point. I don't sell through a loop hole, I follow
the letter of the law and if I'm able to sell what I am able to sell, it is all dangerous. It
doesn't matter. When I go to Sportman's Warehouse and I can pick up a -- you know, a
bottle of their gun powder, you know, which I do some reloading, I can walk right up
there and I can pick it right up. Who's to say I don't have a match, who's to say that's
not going to explode, take everything out on the shelf and kill 15 people in their store.
It's all explosives and it's dangerous, but I also believe one of the things that I like that
they are doing is they are lifting the bar on what the cap is for the damage amounts, et
cetera, from the fireworks. When the kids do something, the parents are liable. They
should be liable anyway. But if we are going to remove that cap that's good, but the fact
Meridian City Council
February 27,2007
Page 81 of 100
is it's still dangerous no matter how you look at it, you know. I carry a gun when I go
hunting, you know, there is just -- there is different dangers that are going to be
available in everything that we do, but we can't -- you can't just stop one thing because
you think ifs dangerous, but they are all dangerous. All fireworks are dangerous. But
the fact is used in the right environment they are not dangerous. You know, they are
not as dangerous I should say when they are used correctly. That's why there is a label
on every firework and I'm sure you have all lit off fireworks. There is a label and there is
a direction on that label as to what you should be doing with that firework and I know
two years ago there was a smoke bomb a kid lit off in east Boise that about burned
down fire or six houses and it was a smoke bomb. And they said it on the news, they
are safe and sane fireworks that almost burned down -- it burned down a whole big field
over there by Columbia Village and it could have killed, you know, tens of twenties of
people and it was from a safe and sane firework. So, you know, on that level they are
all dangerous, it doesn't matter what it is, whether it puts out smoke, sparks, bombs, it
doesn't matter, they are all dangerous.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Seal: Yes, sir. Any others?
Bird: I have none.
Seal: Thank you.
De Weerd: I'm going to step outside of protocol and ask the couple with the child.
Would you like to provide testimony? I don't know where you are on my list, but we
want you to testify.
Collie: My name is Holly Collie and I live at 1911 West Tracy Court in Meridian. And I
guess as a parent I'd like the opportunity for my son to be able to work in a fireworks
business and this eliminates him from that. I think it teaches him to work with people, to
count money, to have a work ethic, and I guess that was what I would like to put my --
against the ordinance.
De Weerd: Against the age limit?
Collie: Pardon?
De Weerd: Against the age limit?
Collie: Yes.
De Weerd: Okay.
Collie: Thank you.
Meridian City Council
February 27,2007
Page 82 of 100
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Bob Brown signed up against.
Brown: Madam Mayor and Members of the City Council, my name is Bob Brown, T&T
Fireworks, 5305 Diamond in Boise. If I may first, with respect to Chief Anderson and
Chief Silva, I just wanted to comment on a couple of comments they made. Regarding
the accident in Worley, Idaho, last night on the reservation -- last year, excuse me, on
the reservation, if I do recall properly, that was a Class B 1.3G fireworks that were
involved in that and not 1.4G is what we are talking about here tonight. And, then, the
other thing is the ordinance in respect to --
De Weerd: Sir, could you use English?
Brown: Oh, ('m sorry.
De Weerd: I'm sorry, I just -- if you want us to follow what you just said.
Brown: Oh. Okay. I said 1.4G and 1.3G.
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Brown: Okay. Well, that's DOT terminology that used to be Class B and Class C.
Okay. So, what we sell here is Class C.
De Weerd: So, legal, illegal.
Brown: Class B is the aerial, that's the 1.3G.
De Weerd: The aerial.
Brown: Okay. Does that help you? The more dangerous stuff. Okay.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Brown: I'm sorry. I thought --
De Weerd: I just wanted to make your testimony meaningful.
Brown: Okay. Thank you. And, then, in regards to the ordinance, this ordinance, I
want to say right up front, does not address interstate commerce, it doesn't address the
sale of special fireworks or bottle rockets, firecrackers, the motars, or anything like that.
What this ordinance does is it makes the safe and sane sales -- the legal sales in the
state of Idaho more restrictive for us and, therefore, we have serious problems with this
ordinance and I'd like to share a few of those -- some of those that we see. And Section
5-4-02G, short term storage container. The way this definition reads, it does not seem
to work. The only time that something is a short-term container is when the operation is
closed and the fireworks are not being offered for sale. We want the short term --
Meridian City Council
February 27, 2007
Page 83 of 100
excuse me -- short term storage container to be available all the time, when stand or the
tent is open, so that we can restock our product in there, not having to have all our
product in the facility at one time. Another area is Section 5-4-02H and I. The selling
season in H and I are both shortened one day. They should be changed from 12:01
a.m. on July 5th and July 1 st to 11 :59 p.m. on those days, bringing them back to where
they have been, instead of pushing them up actually to the Fourth of July. Section 5-4-
038 and 81 contains the word and/or discharge appearing to mean the discharge in the
City of Meridian would only be allowed or legal and subject to a permit, is the way we
interpret that language. Section 5-4-4C requires the operator to present any records.
We would ask this be changed that they must produce those records, because when
they are out there on the retail site, you don't always have all those records readily
available with them, but they will have them back at their home or their place of
business and have them be able to produce them. 5-4-05C, two and three. These two
sections allow the City of Meridian to deny applications purely because of a belief that
does not need to be proven and what does will likely endanger and what does will serve
the best interest of the city mean? These phrases allow arbitrary, unpredictable and
impulsive use of the city authority we believe. On 5-4-05D and E, the deadlines for
applications are April 15th and October 15th. These are way too early with all the
paperwork, the leasing and signing up with customers that we need to have to get our
permits done in time. To maybe jump ahead. Again, 5-4-05H, in the paragraph there, it
says the action of the City Council shall be final. We feel there certainly is a right of
appeal to a court of competent jurisdiction regarding any of these matters when a permit
is denied or such. Maybe I probably should summarize up here, so I'll skip over some
of my other ones. We do disagree with the provision that limits to 600 feet MFPA and
any other organization does not restrict that. We have been doing it for over 25 years
without any problems. I'm going to go ahead and summarize here. It is important for
the City Council to understand that we met on more than one occasion with
representatives of the City of Meridian fire department. Other fireworks vendors were
also present at these meetings. However, two important points have to be made here.
First of all, we had not seen this proposed ordinance until just a few days ago. Some of
us didn't get it until today and were unaware of it, which did not give us the opportunity
to review and testify as to our objections to many of the provisions in this draft
ordinance. We do, indeed, want the City Council to know that this draft ordinance is
very different from any version of any proposed ordinance ever shown to us in any and
all of our meetings with the City of Meridian fire department. We do not support this
proposed ordinance. It is overly restrictive and imposes conditions upon legal fireworks
retailers and has, in our opinion, no foundation and reasonable regulation. This
proposed ordinance is harsh, unfair, and destructive to our legal business. Secondly,
we agreed to meet and talk about a mode.1 ordinance and we want the City Council to
know that any representation that this proposed ordinance is in any way the result of our
meetings with the Meridian fire department is simply not true. Most of our key
suggestions we made have been excluded from this proposed ordinance. This
ordinance would only result in increased sales of the full C and reduce the sales of the
safe and sane as we see today. We urge the City Council to reject this proposed
ordinance and let us present a draft ordinance to you that embodies what we believe
should be the requirements for all fireworks vendors. Thank you.
Meridian City Council
February 27, 2007
Page 84 of 100
De Weerd: Sir, do you have that in writing?
Brown: You know, it's kind of a messy copy, but I can get a copy to you tomorrow if
you'd like.
De Weerd: That would be excellent. And I guess my question to you is -- and, then, I'll
ask Joe, but you have been working with these -- fire marshal groups and with Deputy
Chief Silva, so you have seen drafts. What is so different about this one that you say
you haven't seen it?
Brown: Well, Madam Mayor and Members of the Council, I believe our last meeting,
chief, was back in October and we had some original drafts that some of the language I
started covering you -- with you was not even in there.
De Weerd: I have been seeing representatives from -- that representative the fireworks
industry for the last three months in a row at the Treasure Valley Partnership meetings.
So, I don't know how they get the word out, but I do know the industry has been present
at those meetings.
Brown: Well, Madam Mayor, I can't address that, because we were not part of that
notification or invited to those meetings. Alii can say is that we did not have any copies
of any changes in a draft until just a few days ago. The last copy of a draft I have
actually ever received was back in October.
De Weerd: Okay. Joe, can you respond to that before we get further testimony, just to
maybe --
Silva: We have been working with the Treasure Valley fire marshals. We have had two
meetings with the vendors and T& T was invited to both of those. The format of our
ordinance that's before you this evening hasn't changed. It's changed in where things
are located, that is absolutely true. However, the key provisions of it, the 600 square
feet, age 16 to purchase, those things -- the storage in an inter-mobile container that
properly secures the product during after hours and that can't be tampered with. Those
sort of things have not changed. We sent it to legal to have it legal reviewed and that's
when the format change occurred and that's -- I think that's what Mr. Brown is referring
to.
Brown: Madam Mayor, if I may. I would say the language regarding the 16 years of
age had not changed. We had discussions regarding the 600 square feet and to my
knowledge that was never resolved. But a lot of the issues that have apparently been
added on that I was covering, if you notice I didn't even really bring up the 16 years of
age. I talked about storage issues and measurability and things like that of the
ordinance and how it would be enforced and such. And so those other issues we never
did really finalize where we would be on them and what we would agree to or not agree
to, so --
Meridian City Council
February 27, 2007
Page 85 of 100
De Weerd: Yes, if you could get us your comments that would be very helpful.
Brown: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Steve North signed up for. Thank you for hanging in
there with us. Oh, you're time's up. Sorry.
North: I can be bribed for brevity with the City of Meridian. Madam Mayor, Members of
the Council, my name is Steve North, I live at 944 North Middlemist Place in the McHale
Meadows Subdivision in Meridian. I'm speaking tonight very briefly on behalf of the
ordinance. I have read the ordinance and I just received it last night and I got an e-mail
copy a few days ago, but it's pretty intense and there is a lot of things in it I think that are
good. From a standpoint of a member of the neighborhood watch association and also
as a recent graduate of the Meridian Public Safety Academy, I know what the police and
the fire department are going through for enforcement. I think this ordinance is a large
step to helping them to enforce the -- some of the rules and regulations out there,
helping them to enforce the control of illegal fireworks. And on that note I think it's just
an excellent ordinance. But I just want to bring up one quick story that I mentioned to
Chief Silva. About three years ago I was standing in my front yard in the subdivision
and was with all the kids in the little cul-de-sac where I live at. About two feet from
where I was standing landed a three and a half foot bottle rocket with a very large stick,
about an inch and a half stick, that was shot from across the common area in the
subdivision. Ten feet from where I was standing were probably maybe a total of about
ten or 15 kids, all neighborhood. Two of them were my next door neighbors. Those two
little girls were also there, along with other members that -- you know, of the
homeowners association. So, we eventually called the police and had them come out
and they talked to the people who we knew who fired them off. They were cited and
they were confiscated. But I think we need to get some of those things out of the area.
I know their hands are tied, they have got a gazillion calls to make, but anything we can
do to help them to make their enforcement easier needs to be done, so these things
aren't flying around the skies landing on little kids, adults, houses, whatever. But I do
think they need to go away. So, I will be brief.
De Weerd: Thank you very much. And you did earn your pin, just because you lasted
all evening. Anyone else who would like a pin just let me know. I will hand them out.
Usually, the high school students that last this long they automatically get one. So, just
let me know if you want a pin. Okay. Virginia Fife? Okay. If you will, please, come
forward. And she signed up for the ordinance.
Campbell: Yes. She was very much in favor of the ordinance. Her main concern is --
Nary: Name and address, please, ma'am.
Campbell: Mine?
Meridian City Council
February 27, 2007
Page 86 of 100
Nary: Yes.
Campbell: I'm Wendy Campbell. I live at 207 West Sissa Drive and I also am signed up
to speak for, but I think I'm probably last on the list.
De Weerd: No, you're doing good.
Campbell: Have I been promoted?
De Weerd: You have.
Campbell: Jenny's main concern is she has a shake roof and she has had some
instance of fireworks landing on that shake roof, so she's very concerned about fire
damage to her home. And, then, speaking for myself, I am actually an occupational and
safety and health professional and I'm here tonight as a private citizen, I'm not here
representing my employer, I'm not here speaking for OSHA or anybody such as that. I
did submit written testimony, I'm not sure --
De Weerd: We did get your a-mail.
Campbell: Okay. You got my big long -- long story. I would like to reiterate that some
of the information I'm using is from the United States Consumer Products Safety
Commission. There is data that is later than 2004. It is true that there are a range of
injuries associated with fireworks that happen from all spectrum of fireworks. There
were about 6,500 injuries reported. Those are the ones that required emergency room
treatment. So, anything that didn't go to the emergency room was not reported in that
statistic. But if you look at the breakdown, I really am for this ordinance, because if you
notice that 40 percent of the injuries reported were in minors for 14 years of age -- or 15
years of age, excuse me, or younger. That's a huge percentage. If you add in young
adults 19 and under, it goes up to 55 percent. So, I really think that the 16 year old age
limit is a great thing in this ordinance. Other than that -- and I have forgotten most of my
main points, but if you folks would like a copy of that, I believe it's 2005 or 2006 safety
report data on fireworks, I can certainly e-mail that to you. I have it in a pdf format. I'd
be more than happy to provide that for you.
De Weerd: We appreciate that.
Campbell: I would love a pin. Thank you.
De Weerd: Reggie Edwards. Or Regina. Reggie.
Edwards: Madam Mayor and City Council, my name is Reggie Edwards and I'm here
representing the City of Nampa and the Nampa Fire Department and I'm a resident of
Nampa. I was asked by Chief Silva to just come and speak to you just to say some of
the views that we have at the Nampa Fire Department. First of all, we are very much in
favor of this ordinance. Chief Anderson is absolutely correct in that -- his quote was this
Meridian City Council
February 27,2007
Page 87 of 100
moves us down the road to a solution for this fireworks problem and I think we all can
agree that there is a problem and that -- and hopefully -- it's not a perfect solution, it's
not going to solve everything, but it's differently getting us in the right direction to solve
the problem. So, we are very much in support of it and I have been authorized to state
that the Nampa city will be adopting this ordinance pretty much verbatim, word for word.
We might make a final -- a few minor changes to fit local conditions or protocols on a
few things, but for the most part the ordinance will be presented and most likely passed
in its present form. So, this is a well written ordinance and Chief Anderson is correct,
this has been worked on by all the local fire departments in the area. Some of the key
things that we are looking at here is just fairness and consistent rules and enforcement'.
Right now in Nampa some of these rules are already in place. Not the full ordinance
that's written, but some of them are in place. And what happens is it's just a short drive
from Nampa to Meridian and they can come over here and buy their stuff and, then,
come back to Nampa and shoot them off. And so what we are looking for is we want,
hopefully, in -- we were asking that you pass this ordinance and support this ordinance,
so that as the first step in this Treasure Valley, so that we can have consistent rules that
-- and consistent enforcement throughout the Treasure Valley, so that we are all singing
off the same page and doing the same thing and -- and so we don't have to worry about
citizens or taxpayers just jumping over to another jurisdiction that doesn't have the rules
and buying whatever they want and coming back in your jurisdiction and firing these
fireworks off. So, it's just -- just consistency and fairness. And I think the vendors would
appreciate that, too, because where ever they set up their booths there is one set of
rules and that's one of the benefits of this. Just to talk about a couple parts of this
ordinance. For example, the 16 year old age limit to purchase the fireworks. The
argument against that -- in Nampa we have been doing this for a couple years now and
the argument against that at first was -- is that it was going to limit or hurt sales and we
found that not to be the case. Virtually every vendor, virtually every booth told us that
their sales actually increased, because instead of the young child riding up with their
bicycle with one dollar wanting to buy one or two pieces of fireworks and, then,
unsupervised go light them off in a back alley somewhere, they were coming back with
an adult, their parent or a guardian, and these parents and guardians were bringing
their checkbooks and their debit cards and they were buying 25 or 50 dollars worth. But
the good point of it is is that the parents knew exactly what these children were buying
and they were able to supervise the use of these fireworks and that's one of the best
benefits of that. And so as a result of that, in the last few years --
De Weerd: Sir, if you can, please, summarize.
Edwards: I have got to summarize. Okay. I got a lot of things to talk about. But,
anyway, the benefit of that --
De Weerd: If you will submit all of your comments in writing that would be great, too.
Edwards: Well, to summarize, we have had less fires, we have had less property
damage, we have had less injuries and every one of these booths that reported that
they had sold all their stuff out and it hasn't hurt their sales whatsoever. And the bottom
Meridian City Council
February 27, 2007
Page 88 of 100
line is our communities are safer, we believe this ordinance will make the whole
Treasure Valley safer and it's the right thing to do. So, I just ask you to, please, support
it and support your -- Chief Silva and Chief Anderson in this cause and let you know that
Nampa is following suit, we are going to -- you're the first step, we are the next step.
So, thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Any questions? Yes, Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I would just like to comment that I appreciate the cooperation between our
two cities and thank you for spending your time to come over here tonight.
Edwards: Thank you.
De Weerd: Would you like a pin?
Edwards: You know, if I wore a Meridian pin they'd probably think I was a traitor, like
the chief over here. But I could --
De Weerd: I had to offer. Please wear it and go meet with Mayor Dale tomorrow. Say
we are very friendly over here. Okay. Dave Heineman.
Heineman: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, my name is Dave Heineman. I
reside in Boise. Am the Boise City Fire Marshal and thank you for letting me testify
tonight. I'm here in support of this --
De Weerd: What is your street address?
Heineman: I live at 3543 Chatterton in Boise.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Heineman: I'm here in support of this ordinance as discussed earlier from the fire
chiefs. We worked pretty hard together to come to a standardization ordinance here
that would help us enforce these laws and the vendors come together also and I think
we have done that pretty well here. I think the other issue that we are asking for -- and I
from Boise am asking all your support in is that we don't stop here, but we have created,
as Chief Silva said, we have created an ordinance to take to Ada County. We think that
is needed with the city's ordinances also to be able to help that situation. All the cities
right now already have the sale and use of dangerous fireworks as illegal activity within
the cities. Where we really need to deal with that is at the county level also. This helps
-- the city ordinances help us identify how to make our current ordinances safer and the
safe and sane fireworks safer. We need to with other pieces, too. And as Chief
Meridian City Council
February 27, 2007
Page 89 of 100
Anderson said, to give you a perspective of what we did in Boise last year, I put out
eight teams of two in my city to try to enforce our ordinance and deal with the illegal
fireworks and in that time we had about a four hour period where we had a police officer
and a fire inspector together. We handed out 122 citations or warnings in a matter of
four hours, seeing somebody about every ten minutes. We literally targeted several
neighborhoods and could not get out of those neighborhoods. We estimate after the
night was done that we had impact on less than 1/1 Oth of a percent of illegal activity
going in Boise. So, without the help of changing these ordinances, both at the city and
the county level, from our perspective it's non-enforceable. We just can't -- don't have
enough people to do that. So, again, we stand in support of this from Boise City. Thank
you.
De Weerd: Thank you, Dave. Any questions?
Zaremba: Madam Mayor, I, again, would like to thank you for the cooperation between
the cities and coming out of Boise to come here. Thank you.
De Weerd: He wants me to give you one for your mayor.
Bird: No. The chief or mayor.
De Weerd: I think you live in Meridian; right?
Heineman: I used to. I live right on the border.
Zaremba: Well, we can move the border.
Heineman: I live behind Lowe's at Eagle and Ustick. Right on the corner.
De Weerd: Okay. Linda Lyons signed up for.
Lyons: Madam Mayor, Council members, my name is Linda Lyons. I live at 2889
Bryson Avenue in Boise and I appreciate the opportunity to talk with you this evening. I
am your 911 manager for our community and in one capacity or another I have been
employed as a 911 dispatcher in our county for over 28 years. The Fourth of July is our
busiest day of the year in the dispatch center. We take more calls on the Fourth of July
than we do any day the rest of the year. It's busier than New Year's Eve. It's busier
than spring break. The Fourth of July is the only day that we double our staffing on fire
side with overtime. I know it's a late hour and looking at numbers at this late hour it
might be confusing, but for Meridian city police, your hardworking police officers
average 988 dispatch calls a week and the week -- this last week, July 2nd through July
8th, they responded to 1 ,087 calls. Your hardworking fire department responds on
average of 76 calls a week and during the Fourth of July week they responded to 106
calls. I have some stats here for the Fourth of July day, so that you can take a look at
the numbers and the increase from 2005 to 2006. OUf call center, the dispatch center,
routinely handles 1 ,500 to 1 ,800 -- just under 2,000 calls a day and this last Fourth of
Meridian City Council
February 27,2007
Page 90 of 100
July we handled almost 2,500 calls. The increase -- the only reason for that increase is
fireworks and firework complaints. Your community -- their three most common
concerns that are addressed for the dispatch center are -- other than fires and medical
calls, are the fear of losing their house or their property to fire, noise complaints from the
fireworks after hours. They have children. They have animals. They have whatever
reason that they are complaining against the noise. And, then, you have a large group
of people that are frustrated over the -- watching their neighbors participate in unlawful
activity and want something done about it. For every one of these incidences that are
dispatched, we take probably 10 to 20 or more calls for that single incident. If there is a
party at the end of the street where they are shooting off these fireworks, we will take 20
calls on that party. In closing, the Fourth of July is our busiest day and we like to not be
busy and we generate or we take a lot of complaints over fireworks the week of the
Fourth of July and the total for a two week -- little over two week period during the sales
of fireworks this last year was 1 ,305 actual dispatched incidents for illegal fireworks.
And I am available for any questions.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton.
Borton: Ma'am -- and this will be part of the public record. You used the phrase illegal
fireworks. Are you able to make the distinction between instances that are caused by
illegal fireworks versus those caused by sparklers?
Lyons: We use the standard description. If you were to call in a firework complaint
during this time period, we will ask you if it's left the ground, if you can see it, and if it's --
if you -- if it does not meet the criteria that it's left the ground and -- then, we will not
dispatch an officer on that. They can take a noise complaint, but we will not dispatch an
officer on an illegal firework for that call. So, generally, if they see -- if they -- if they see
the display up over their head and they can describe that to us, that they did see these
fireworks up in the air and describe them as -- sometimes they will describe just as far
as the size, but generally over their rooftops, then, we will dispatch an officer to an
illegal firework call. If it's -- if they can't describe that, if they are just complaining about
the noise, then, those calls are actually noise complaints and they are not shown here.
Borton: Madam Mayor? So, are these complaints for aerial illegal fireworks only?
Lyons: Then, yes, we could make that assumption. Illegal fireworks is a call type that
we use in the dispatch center that justifies a police officer's response. If it's not illegal,
then, it wouldn't necessitate a police response. So, you'd make the assumption, but
there could be some -- they could describe something other than that it is over their
house top.
Meridian City Council
February 27,2007
Page 91 of 100
Borton: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Doug Brown signed up for.
D. Brown: Good evening, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. My name is Doug
Brown, I work at 31 D South 7th in Caldwell, Idaho. I am the Deputy Chief and Fire
Marshal for the Caldwell Fire Department. I'm also president of the state fire chiefs
association. I'm speaking to the fireworks issue out of experience, many years of
experience. I think the fireworks industry said it best tonight. All fireworks are
dangerous. If we had our druthers, we wouldn't have consumer fireworks. We'd have
public displays or shows where professionals -- trained professionals can do those and
it's highly regulated by our industry. But we are a country of freedom and the Fourth of
July is a time of freedom. We have a whole culture of doing some wild and crazy things
in this country and the Fourth of July kind of echoes those sentiments. Through the
fireworks law of '97 we had kind of something ugly foisted upon the fire service of this
state, that being that we are trying to go out and enforce laws that are practically
unenforceable. It's almost like handing out speeding tickets at a NASCAR race. You
can just forget about it. There is no point in trying to do it. Boise has tried to do it.
Nampa's done it. Meridian has done it. And we have even tried it. But you're barely
scratching the surface of the problem. I think the true problem is how do these illegal
fireworks get in these people's hands and why are they all going off in Idaho and they all
should have been exported and it gets back to the loop hole in the state law. And we
have tried legislatively to do that. We don't have the money that the fireworks industry
has to hire lobbyists to kill legislation before it even gets introduced. That's what
happened last year. We had a solution to the loop hole and it was to create an exporter
license. Importers have to have a license, why don't the people purchasing these
fireworks, then, in the state have to have a license to take them out of state and we can
track them, we have a paper trail. The paper trail now is a joke. You have heard
people exporting to Pluto or Mars, Mickey Mouse buying fireworks. Half the forms you
can't even read them. So, the whole system's a farce. We have done sting operations
in Caldwell. We have spent time with the police department, the fire department, to go
out and identify who is doing this, who is selling these. When I look at an interstate
commerce, I think wholesale. And it even mentions wholesale in that. We have
documented evidence of people selling a single unit -- single cherry bomb, a single
M8D, a single bottle rocket. That's not wholesale, that's retail. And kids any age were
going in buying these. So, this law is a big step in going the right direction. It won't
solve the problem, it's not a panacea, but we are going to do what they are doing here
in Meridian, we are going to take this and we are going to adopt it almost verbatim in
Caldwell and we are going to see how much mileage we get out it. But I think it's a big
step in the right direction and I commend you, Joe for all of his work, and all of our
peers in the valley here for working together on this. I'm sure the rest of the state's
watching it to see what we do and there is other cities that will jump on board as well.
But I appreciate your support of this and your support of the fire department in enforcing
it. I'd stand for questions.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any -- Mr. Zaremba.
Meridian City Council
February 27,2007
Page 92 of 100
Zaremba: Madam Mayor, just my comment that 11m thrilled to have Caldwell joining us
as well. I think this is wonderful. Great cooperation.
D. Brown: Thank you. I will take a pin. Thank you.
De Weerd: Anytime. Okay. Jim and Alisha Cromis.
Cromis: Good evening. My name Alisha S. Cromis and I live at 3297 West Kirkham
Lane, Meridian, Idaho. Good evening, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Thank
you for allowing me to speak. I would like to say that I would vote for the Meridian
Fireworks Ordinance. I have no objection to the legal fireworks being sold, but I would
like to see the availability of aerial fireworks stopped. The danger of aerial fireworks to
life, limb, and property is immeasurable. My personal experience is that so far,
fortunately, nothing has landed on our roof during the fireworks season, but every year it
is a fear that we won't be so lucky one day. On July 5th, 2006, our next door neighbor
found the following: Three eight to ten inch long rocket casings and burned out
charcoal end pieces. These items had bounced off her garage roof and the casings
were imbedded in the ground three to four inches. They landed between she and her
neighbor to the west, just missing her motorhome parked in her driveway. The charcoal
end pieces landed by our mail boxes. Being a newer community, our homes are very
close together. It is scary to think what could have happened. We live in a senior
community and have had not -- had not anyone in our community setting off fireworks.
The illegal fireworks being shot off are coming from the subdivision to our southeast.
What amazes us is the fact that our community is situated directly behind Meridian Fire
Station No.2 and, yet, homeowners in the area are brazen enough to continue to ignite
these illegal fireworks. I would like to ask all of you to vote yes for the Meridian
Fireworks Ordinance as presented to you. Thank you for allowing me to speak.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Cromis: Any questions?
J. Cromis: My name is Jim Cromis. Same address. That's good.
De Weerd: That's good.
J. Cromis: I wasn't going to speak tonight, but listening to some of the conversations
before, I learned a couple of things. - I didn't know that sparklers were the most
dangerous and that's -- I learned something about that. But when they can -- when they
-- when they can put on the instructions how to use it, but it also tells me where it's
going to go, I will be satisfied. And thafs alii have to say. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. These are not bribes. Burnell against.
Meridian City Council
February 27, 2007
Page 93 of 100
Lee: Burnell Lee. 5660 Becky Drive here in Meridian. Madam Mayor and Council
members. I am against this ordinance as a business person, not as a person person. It
appears that this ordinance was written by fire chiefs for the savior of fire chiefs and not
for the benefit of anyone in business with the fireworks. There are several things that
brought me to this conclusion. Page nine, part E, says that sale of fireworks shall be
prohibited in residential districts. Nowhere does it say what a residential district is. I am
also against the age of 16, not as a purchaser, but as a seller. My experience has been
-- and I guess maybe I should tell you what my experience has been. I started'selling
fireworks here in Meridian in 1974. We didn't have any paper to follow at that time and
so you can maybe kind of understand my frustration when we now have 23 pages of
what we can and can't do. My experience has been -- not only with my own family, but
with kids that have worked -- helped me sell fireworks. Those kids go on to get really
good jobs. They develop a good work ethic. They understand how to talk to people
and count money at the same time. That age limit prohibits Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts,
school groups, church groups, from selling fireworks. On page 11, part nine, it's a little
confusing to me when it says any and all temporary firework stands shall be emptied of
their fireworks when not open for business. This provision shall not apply where the
operation is not open for business and so on and so forth. It's kind of contradictory I
think. On page 12, item 13, they want me to put a no smoking sign inside on my -- all
interior walls of my fireworks booth. That takes up space for what I would ordinarily use
for stocking -- excuse me -- stocking inventory. And number 14 on that same page says
no operator shall allow fireworks to be discharged in or within 300 feet of a temporary
fireworks stand. That means the house across the street I am to monitor. I can't do
that. And, then, on page 13, the storage of fireworks shall be prohibited in residential
districts. There, again, I don't know what a residential district means. And number two
under I, does not address what long storage fireworks would be. I have fireworks left
over, I don't sell it all every year. I'd love to, but it doesn't always happen. So, where
can I legally store them? It does not address that. So, I have become, according to this
ordinance, an unpaid city code enforcer, because I now have to monitor a lot of things
for the city. So, from a business person's point of view I cannot support this. Thank
you. And I would like to have a pin.
Oe Weerd: Thank you. Darin Drinkall.
Orinkall: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, my name is Darin Drinkall and I live
at 4145 West Moon Lake Drive here in Meridian and I am here in opposition to this
proposed -- now, one thing I'm a little confused about is this proposal, from what
everybody's testifying about, is to eliminate the illegal fireworks that are getting lit off in
Meridian, along with Boise, Nampa, Caldwell, so on. From what I understand, the
current laws that we have already make those illegal here and make them illegal to sell
here within the city limits. So, why are we doing more laws to eliminate it when we
already have it, is my question. The next thing I have is about safety. And with all of
these fire departments that are involved and all of this talk about safety, not one of
these agencies has been able to produce any statistical data regarding injuries that
have happened over the Fourth of July. There is no statistical data provided here as far
as fires, any homes that have burned down or anything like that. They have absolutely
Meridian City Council
February 27, 2007
Page 94 of 1 00
nothing. Nothing at all for this area. So, they have put a lot of effort into this with no
foundation, other than to eliminate the aerial fireworks. That seems to be the main
cause here. You know, as mentioned by Chief Silva -- or Deputy Chief Silva, along with
Chief Anderson, when you look around the area during the Fourth of July, they said it
looks like a war zone. It's looks like the first night of Baghdad. And they are right, it
does. But I think that says a lot. If you look around the valley when that's going on,
those are the citizens of this area, the residents of this county and of this city speaking
to you and what they are saying is they are very patriotic, they love America and they
love our freedoms. They are saying that they like to celebrate. They like to celebrate
the Fourth of July and they like to celebrate the fact that we are Americans and we have
a tradition of celebrating on the Fourth of July and they are also saying they like
fireworks, just by virtue of the fact that these guys can't get to -- what did they say, ten
percent of the people out there that are doing it, that are lighting these fireworks off.
That says a lot about the people. Sorry, I'm a little tired tonight. Trying to get things
together here. One thing about passing this law that has also been mentioned is if you
pass this ordinance here, it's not really going to change the one that we already have in
place as far as the aerial fireworks. This is 23 pages, this new proposal, which is about
-- I think it's about 12 pages more than what we already have. It's very restrictive. And
my understanding and all of this from comments that Joe Silva has made in other
meetings that I have been to, they look through all the different fire codes that they can
find, the International Fire Code, State Codes, so on and so forth, and from my
understanding he picked the most restrictive codes that he could find in any of those
code books to combine here in this new ordinance and I'm asking why. I want to know
what is he trying to solve with this. It's almost like there is a -- a certain animosity
towards the fireworks business in this area and the fact that we put together all of these
different fire agencies from Boise, Nampa, Caldwell, Meridian, based on no foundation
of safety and that has to do with the statistical data that I mentioned before, this is all
based purely on what could possibly happen and I know we have got a lot of hunters
and fishermen here in Idaho, right here in this room. This is very similar to coming
along and saying, you know what, we are going to have to pass some laws --
De Weerd: Sir, we need you to summarize.
Orinkall: I am summarizing. I'm sorry.
De Weerd: Okay.
Orinkall: This is just a quick analogy. It's like saying we are going to pass some laws
here regarding fishing, because we are worried you are going to fall out of your boat or
you1re going to fall off the shore and drown, so we are not going to let you fish anymore.
This is like saying we are not going to allow anybody to hunt anymore, because we are
worried somebody might get shot in the woods, which has happened. The key thing
here is I'm against this. If there were some statistical data to back all this up, I might be
more open to it, but there is no data that anybody's provided. There is nothing as far
injuries, fires, and so on. The only thing I have seen is calls. So, I am against this.
Thank you.
Meridian City Council
February 27, 2007
Page 95 of 100
De Weerd: Thank you.
Drinkall: Any questions?
De Weerd: Okay. Laura Yelton signed up against. And I'll still give you a pin if you
don't want to testify, so --
Yelton: My name is Laura Yelton. I live at 3565 West Murfield in Meridian.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Yelton: Madam Mayor, Council. I would just like to go on record saying I oppose the
ordinance. That's all.
De Weerd: Okay.
Yelton: And I'd like my pin.
De Weerd: You certainly paid for it. Thank you. Carrie Moss. We apologize for the
late night. And Will is back there, he will give you a pin if you would like one. Richard
Handke.
Handke: Members of the Council, how are you this evening.
Zaremba: Good morning.
Handke: I got three minutes. It's 12:25. My name is Richard Handke. I live at 3565
West Murfield Drive. I'm the owner of Fat City Fireworks and I don't have much to say,
because Bob Brown and Dan Drinkall, this gentleman here, I know he sells fireworks,
but I can't remember his name.
De Weerd: Mr. Lee.
Handke: I just want to back everything they said. I just want to say a few things that
Bob Brown had mentioned that we did have some meetings with the fire department
and we all got together and we agreed upon a lot of things and disagreed upon a lot of
things. Everything that's in there was not agreed upon by me or Bob Brown or -- I don't
want to speak for him, but one thing I do want to mention that Ron Anderson, Joe Silva,
I like you guys, but I mean this is my business. I just wish if they went and got affidavits
-- they came to me finally last year, looked at five of them and left. The affidavits that
they got from these Venus and Mars and Jupiter and in the trunk of the car, they got
those affidavits from a vendor that's been in business two years. Okay? Why didn't
they come to him and get his affidavits. Did your affidavits say that? I doubt that. Mine
don't say that. We look at everything, you know, and that's about all I have to say and
I'm totally, totally against what they are doing here.
Meridian City Council
February 27, 2007
Page 96 of 100
De Weerd: Thank you, sir.
Handke: Any questions?
De Weerd: Would you like a pin?
Handke: Yes.
De Weerd: Bob Ingersol signed up against.
Ingersol: My name is Bob Ingersol. I live at 4387 West Moon Lake Drive and I'm
against this. I think all the fireworks are dangerous like the other guys, you know, have
said. And one of the angles that I thought is if this passed -- I lived in Las Vegas and
you can't buy fireworks within hundreds of miles of Las Vegas. On the Fourth of July it
looks like a war zone. It's worse than here. That stuff comes in over the internet. I
don't know how it gets to these cities, it's coming in. You can't get rid of it. It's going to
be there. No matter what you do, those aerials and all that stuff, it's coming in. It's just -
- I don't know how it gets there. Las Vegas was horrible. This is nothing compared to
there. And you can't even buy anything illegal there. Nowhere around there.
California. Nobody -- Arizona. Nobody sells the stuff. How about an angle of maybe a
permit, you could come down and buy a permit. Hey, Joe Blow, he's letting off aerials,
he's got a permit, pay a fee. This way you know he's got them. That's alii have to say.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Ingersol: Okay. Thanks.
De Weerd: And last, certainly but not least, Jamie Drinkall.
J. Drinkall: My name is Jamie Drinkall. I live in Kuna, Idaho. My address is 8955
Greenhurst Road.
De Weerd: Thank you.
J. Drinkall: I just wanted to come out and say I was opposed to this. I kind of feel like
that the city -- or the people speak by -- by lighting off their fireworks and showing their
patriotism and so forth and I feel like, you know, we have enough of our rights taken
away as time goes on and I don't want to see anymore taken away. And that's,
basically, all I have to say.
De Weerd: Thank you, sir. Those are the names on our sign-up sheet. Is there
anyone else who would like to provide testimony? Ralph? Ralph is our regular. He
bears with us every week. I know. I think he needs a life. Thank you all for joining us
here today. Again, this is -- this is the public testimony part of it. We will have three
Meridian City Council
February 27,2007
Page 97 of 100
readings and so written testimony and -- certainly can be taken to the third reading. Mr.
Nary.
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, that would be my suggestion, that if they
have any additional comments. What I would suggest we do is if there is any written
comments, if they could get those to the City Clerk's office the end of the week, what I
could do is next Tuesday get your direction on a reading schedule that we could put this
on probably the follow week for the first reading, that way the Council has opportunity to
review all the written comments. It is very late tonight, so they have had -- if that's the
direction that you have after you have done that, if there is any amendments you want
to the ordinance, there is a couple of things. Chief Silva has read and reread and
redrafted this ordinance a number of times with -- with my -- one of my attorneys. I
have reviewed it a number of times, and we still find a couple of things that we need to
do some clean up and clarification and those kinds of things, some that have even been
raised tonight. So, if that's all right with the Council, that would be my recommendation,
is that we get your comments in from the public of any type by the end of this week, so
Mr. Berg can get that delivered to all of you. Next Tuesday I'll ask for just a brief
department report for any direction you may have and, then, probably suggest that the
following week we have our first reading and that way the readings can be done through
the month of March.
Bird: Sounds like a winner.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, does that sound fair? Okay.Okay.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird.
Bird: Do we need to close -- do we need to close the Public Hearing?
Nary: You do not need to close the Public Hearing, since you will be taking written
comments, and maybe taking additional comments if there is any changes of any
significance to the ordinance on the reading calendar.
De Weerd: Chief, do you have anything you or Joe would like to add?
Anderson: Madam Mayor and Council --
De Weerd: Sorry, it is late.
Anderson: I guess we won't try to tie you up anymore tonight, but if you'd like we can
put comments in writing and there was a number of questions raised tonight and we
wanted the opportunity, I guess, to clarify some of those for you, and we can either do
that here or we can do it in written testimony, whatever you'd prefer.
Meridian City Council
February 27, 2007
Page 98 of 100
Nary: Or next Tuesday, even, as part of that report, maybe if they wanted to either
provide written testimony, which would allow the public to see it, or also next Tuesday
night if Deputy Chief Silva is here, then, we could certainly do that as well in getting the
Council's direction.
De Weerd: That would be great. I think, Joe, it would probably be helpful to -- any of
the comments that you feel need to be responded to, if you could just kind of do a
question/answer thing and post it on the website, that way the folks here that have
testified and maybe want some of the comments that -- or clarifications we can -- we
can have that available online, too, if that would be helpful.
Nary: And also, Madam Mayor, if he could also provide that to the clerk, so we could
have that all part of this package of this record, so --
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I don't know whether this is a question or a statement, but for those who
have suggested that they might like to put together an alternate draft or a different
ordinance for us to consider, I would ask that instead of doing something where they
start from scratch, would they go through the ordinance that we have presented -- or
has been presented to us, rather, and comment on that ordinance and those comments
could include something that you also feel was left out, rather than start from scratch
and have us trying to read two separate kinds of documents, it's easier for us to
consider comments to be made on what's before us, even if some of those comments
are additions to it. Am I the only one that feels that way? I saw some heads nodding.
That would be my suggestion.
De Weerd: I think they were falling asleep.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird.
Bird: My answer on that, Dave, is -- David, is with their comments and stuff coming in
they are going to offer some alternate views, which we can either incorporate or do
whatever we want, whatever. I just encourage them all to get in some written
comments. Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: With that I move we continue the Public Hearing for the proposed fireworks
ordinance until March 5th -- or, no, 6th, 2007.
Borton: Second.
Meridian City Council
February 27,2007
Page 99 of 100
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to continue to next week. All those in
favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 22:
Executive Session per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1)(c) - (to conduct
deliberations concerning labor negotiations or to acquire an interest in real
property, which is not owned by a public agency):
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we go into Executive Session as per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1 )(c) and
fast.
Borton: Second.
Berg: I'll take roll call on the motion.
Roll Call Vote: Bird, aye; Borton, aye; Zaremba, aye; Rountree is absent.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
EXECUTIVE SESSION:
De Weerd: Okay, I would entertain a motion to come out of Executive Session.
Borton: So moved.
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: All those in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Motion to adjourn.
Borton: So moved.
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: All those in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Meridian City Council
February 27,2007
Page 100 of 100
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 1 :30 A.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
\\,U\lllllIlIII
\ \ \ \ -- ~ <1,r-. ' / 1/1
, i~- ::tif:1'-~ .~.;."'-. I,
,,\ ~ v:'; "'-j i'i1n) ~ / /
.....,-.....' ~tj 'V1~~-A. .....//...-:'
~' a I' .-.0 ~ort4~. ry ~
.:-- ~.. ~ ~
~ ~~ ~
- -
- -
3 /Z7 /fl
DATE APPROVED