HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000 02-01Meridian City Council Meeting February 1, 2000
The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Mayor Robert Corrie.
Members present: Robert Corrie, Keith Bird, Cherie McCandless, Ron Anderson.
Members absent: Tammy deWeerd.
Others present: Gary Smith, Shari Stiles, Bill Gordon, Ken Bowers, Bill Nichols, Will Berg.
Corrie: All right. I’ll open the City Council meeting for February 1, 2000, at 7:30 p.m. I’ll have roll-call first; Mr. Clerk. Thank you. Welcome everyone here this evening. It’s
nice to see the warm weather. In Washington D.C., it’s cold and snowy and even the taxicab people didn’t want to get out.
Item A. Approve minutes of January 18, 2000, Special Pre-Council meeting:
Item B. Approve minutes of January 18, 2000, City Council meeting:
Item C. Dog License Agreement with The Pet Hospital:
Item D. Agreement between the City of Meridian, Idaho Independent Bank and Cherry Lane Recreation, Inc.:
Item E. Development Agreement: AZ 99-016 Request for annexation and zoning to I-L for Ten Mile Mini Storage by Ed Bews – west of Ten Mile and north of Ustick Road:
Item F. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: AZ 99-013 Request for annexation and zoning to R-4 by Charles Crane – 3610 W. Ustick Road:
Item G. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: AZ 99-024 Request for annexation and zoning of 20.05 acres to I-L by Albertson’s, Inc. – east of Eagle Road, north of the railroad
tracks and south of Settler’s Canal:
Item H. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: VAC 99-006 Request for vacation of 20-foot emergency access of Mirage Meadows Subdivision to a new access located at the end of Oakcrest
Drive by Robert Higgins, et al – Block 1, Lots 16 and 17
of Mirage Meadows Subdivision and Lots 19 and 20 of Chateau meadows East located at the end of Oakcrest Drive:
Item I. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: VAC 99-005 Request for vacation of the easement lying adjacent to the lot line common to Lots 6 and 7, Block 3, Thunder Creek Subdivision
by Thunder Creek Partnership, LLC – south of Cherry lane, west of Ten Mile on Gray Cloud Way:
Item J. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: AZ 99-022 Request for annexation and zoning of 10 acres to L-O for proposed Magic View Office Complex by W.H. Moore Company – Eagle
Road and Magic View:
Item K. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: CUP 99-040 Request for conditional use permit on a single site and an ancillary restaurant in an L-O zone for proposed Magic View
Office Complex by W.H. Moore Company – Eagle Road and Magic View:
Item L. Tabled from 01/18/2000: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 99-033 Request for Conditional Use Permit – Commercial subdivision mini-storage on Lot 2 of proposed Overland
Mini Storage Subdivision by Overland Mini Storage, LLC – 1230 East Overland Road:
Item M. Approve bills:
Corrie: Okay. We have on the Consent Agenda tonight Items A through M. Council, pleasure on Items?
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we pull Item D which is an agreement between the City of Meridian, Idaho Independent Bank and Cherry Lane Recreation, Inc., to Item 1A on the Regular Agenda;
Item F which is the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, pull that to 10B, we need to discuss something on that; Items I, J, K and L, table to 2/15/2000. If that’s agreeable to
Council, I’ll make a motion that we accept the Consent Agenda as noted.
Anderson: I’ll second that.
Corrie: Okay. Motion is made and seconded to accept the Consent Agenda with the exceptions as noted, Items D, F, I, J, K and L. Further discussion? I have
one thing, Mr. Bird. On Item C and the dog license agreement – do you want to – we don’t need to pull it. We discussed it earlier.
Bird: Are we going to take that – I’m sorry. If Mr. Anderson will accept this (inaudible) second. Item C, the dog license agreement, I would like to take back into Item 10C to discuss
in the Regular Agenda if that’s agreeable to Mr. Anderson’s second.
Anderson: Sure.
Corrie: The correction is noted. Any further discussion?
Roll-call vote: Mr. Anderson, aye; Mrs. McCandless, aye; Mr. Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 1. Update on Cherry Lane Recreation, Inc., by JoAnne Butler:
Corrie: Okay. The Regular Agenda, Item 1 is update on Cherry Lane Recreation, Inc., by JoAnne Butler. JoAnne.
Butler: Mr. Mayor, Council members, JoAnne Butler, 101 South Capital Boulevard representing Cherry Lane Recreation. With me here tonight is Wally Lovan, Nancy Link, Tad Holloway, Jennifer
Lovan-Holloway, and on behalf of Idaho Independent Bank, Gerry Mattison. As the Council knows, we’ve been in the process of constructing a clubhouse at the golf course. Cherry Lane
received a conditional use for this purpose last summer. Just by way, for the Council so that you know, one of the conditions of approval reflected in that conditional use permit and
also reflected in the agreement that’s before you tonight was not actually the condition of approval that the Council deliberated on if we looked at the Council minutes of June 15th,
and we assume that was just a drafter’s mistake. Anyway, that is one of the reasons that is why we are going back before your P & Z next week, actually, for a modification of that particular
conditional use permit in connection with some timeframes, and that’s next week. That’s not why we’re here today. Tonight we’re just here to review the agreement for Cherry Lane that
has been under discussion by your attorney, Idaho Independent Bank and Cherry Lane. The agreement is there to provide the bank with the comfort it needs to give Cherry Lane the loan
to construct the clubhouse, and the agreement is there to provide the City with the comfort that it needs to be able to step into borrowers’ shoes and complete that work if it should
ever have to. We have just asked the counsel through your attorney to make a slight modification to that agreement, and I think your counsel’s passed that out. Under the agreement,
the conditional use permit is a defined term. It just references your file number, and we just added that it’s a conditional use permit as may be amended from time to time just to reflect
the fact that we’re in that process now in coming to the City over the next month or so to request an
amendment. If that happens, then, obviously, the permit would reflect that amendment. I think – not to put words into Mr. Mattison’s mouth, the bank is in agreement with the slight
modification. I would hope the City is, too. If so, we’re asking that the City approve the agreement, and we’ll get it signed and go on. Just on a practical note, if the Council
does decide to approve the agreement as slightly amended, could you just explain to us the process: when does the City sign it? When should we come to pick it up to circulate it for
signatures ourselves so that we could in turn get it back to the City? With that, if there are no questions or if there are any questions, I’ll be glad to answer them and Gerry Mattison
can as well if you have any.
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Council, questions?
McCandless: I have none.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I have none.
Corrie: I guess to answer your question, if the Council does approve the request for the agreement, I don’t think (inaudible) problem as far as the City signing it; what is your time
schedule, do you know how long it’s going to be for the other two to sign?
Butler: Unless the – we talked to the Bank’s attorney. I think unless it has to go to the Bank outside of Meridian, and I’m not sure of that, but I think it could be signed within
just a few days.
Corrie: Okay. Council, do you have any problem with the addition of “as may be amended from time to time” on Item 2.1?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I’d just like to ask our legal counsel whether that would be appropriate language or whether that would cause us any problems.
Nichols: Councilman Anderson, Mayor and Council, the proposed amendment simply avoids the necessity of coming back with an addendum or an amendment to this agreement if you happen to
grant an amendment to the conditional use permit. You’re not obligated to, you’re not presupposing the facts that are going to come before you on that amendment. It’s just simply clean-up,
if you will, that because there is a pending amendment to the CUP that you don’t have to come back in and authorize the change to this agreement. As a further note, we can have this
amended language and the agreement ready for pickup tomorrow if you so approve it.
Corrie: Any other questions?
Bird: I have none.
Item 1A. Agreement between the City of Meridian, Idaho Independent Bank and Cherry Lane Recreation, Inc.:
Corrie: Okay. Item 1A which would be the agreement. If everyone is satisfied
with the agreement as it’s read with the addition of the words “as may be amended from time to time” in Condition 2.1, I’ll entertain a motion.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve the agreement with Cherry Lane Recreation, Inc., and the Idaho Independent Bank with the one addition on 2.1 under definitions, Page 3 at the
end is “as may be amended from time to time” and for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion is made by Mr. Bird, seconded by Mrs. McCandless to approve the agreement between the City of Meridian, Idaho Independent Bank and Cherry Lane Recreation, Inc.,
with the addition of definitions, Item 2.1, adding the words after CUP 99-009, “as may be amended from time to time.” Is there any further discussion?
Bird: I have none.
McCandless: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. With that, I’ll take roll-call vote;
Roll-call vote: Mr. Bird, aye; Mr. Anderson, aye; Mrs. McCandless, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Corrie: Let’s just hope that that takes care of this. We’ve been on this trail for a long time. Glad to see it’s come to where it’s at. Thank you, JoAnne. We’ll have that, like
the attorney said, we’ll have that tomorrow, and I’ll sign it, and the bank can sign it, and the Clerk can sign it, and we’ll be all set to go. Thank you for your time and patience.
It’s a long haul.
Item 2. Ordinance No. 855: AZ 99-016 Request for annexation and zoning to I-L for Ten Mile Mini Storage by Ed Bews – west of Ten Mile and north of Ustick Road:
Corrie: Item 2 is an Ordinance; request for annexation and zoning of I-L for Ten Mile Mini Storage by Ed Bews, west of Ten Mile and north of Ustick Road. At this time, I’ll ask the
City Clerk to read Ordinance – what Ordinance No. is it, Mr. Clerk?
Berg: Mr. Mayor, 855.
Corrie: 855. Okay, if you’ll read it by title only.
Berg: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Ordinance No. 855:
An ordinance finding that certain land lies contiguous or adjacent to the city limits of the City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of Idaho; and finding that the owner has made a request
for annexation in writing to the Council; and that said land be annexed to the City of Meridian and zoning designated light industrial district (I-L); and declaring that said land, by
proper legal description as described below, be a part of the City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of Idaho; repealing all Ordinances, Resolutions, Orders or parts thereof in conflict
herewith; and directing the City Engineer to add said property to the official maps of the City of Meridian, Idaho; and directing the Clerk of the City of Meridian to file a certified
copy of the Ordinance and map of the areas to be annexed with the Ada County Recorder, Auditor, Treasurer and Assessor, and the State Tax Commission of the State of Idaho, pursuant to
Idaho Code Section 50-223 and Section 63-2215.
Corrie: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Is there anyone from the audience that would like to have Ordinance No. 855 read in its entirety? Hearing none, Council, I’ll entertain a motion on Ordinance
No. 855.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I would make a motion that we approve Ordinance No. 855, a request for annexation and zoning to I-L for Ten Mile Mini Storage by Ed Bews with suspension of the
rules.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve Ordinance No. 855 with a suspension of rules. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll-call vote.
Roll-call vote: Mr. Bird, aye; Mr. Anderson, aye; Mrs. McCandless, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 3. Ordinance No. 856: AZ 99-020 Request for annexation and zoning of Parcel A to single-family residential and Parcel B to limited office by Woodbridge Community, LLC – south
of East Franklin Road and east of South Locust Grove Road:
Corrie: Item No. 3 is Ordinance No. 856, request for annexation and zoning of Parcel A to single-family residential and Parcel B to limited office by Woodbridge
Community, LLC, south of East Franklin Road and east of South Locust Grove Road. Mr. Clerk, will you read Ordinance No. 856 by title only.
Berg: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Ordinance No. 856:
An Ordinance finding that certain land lies contiguous or adjacent to the city limits of the City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of Idaho; and finding that the owner has made a request
for annexation in writing to the Council; and that said land be annexed to the City of Meridian and zoning designated for Parcel A low-density residential district (R-4) and Parcel B
office district (L-O); and declaring that said land, by proper legal description as described below, be a part of the City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of Idaho; repealing all Ordinance,
Resolutions, Orders or parts thereof in conflict herewith; and directing the City Engineer to add said property to the official maps of the City of Meridian, Idaho; and directing the
Clerk of the City of Meridian to file a certified copy of the Ordinance and map of the areas to be annexed with the Ada County Recorder, Auditor, Treasurer and Assessor, and the State
Tax Commission of the State of Idaho, pursuant to Idaho Code Section 50-223 and Section 63-2215.
Corrie: Thank you. Is there anyone from the audience that would like to have Ordinance No. 856 read in its entirety? Hearing none, Council, I’ll entertain a motion for Ordinance No.
856.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I move that we pass Ordinance No. 856, request for annexation and zoning of Parcel A to single-family residential and Parcel B to limited office by Woodbridge Community,
LLC, south of East Franklin Road and east of South Locust Grove Road with a suspension of rules.
McCandless: I second.
Corrie: Motion is made and seconded to approve Ordinance No. 856 with suspension of rules. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll-call vote.
Roll-call vote: Mr. Bird, aye; Mr. Anderson, aye; Mrs. McCandless, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 4. Ordinance No. 857: AZ 99-024 Request for annexation and zoning of 20.05 acres to I-L by Albertson’s, Inc. – east of Eagle Road, north of the railroad tracks and south of Settler’s
Canal:
Corrie: Item No. 84 is Ordinance No. 857, request for annexation and zoning of 20.05 acres to I-L by Albertson’s, Inc., east of Eagle Road, north of the railroad
tracks and south of Settler’s Canal. Mr. Clerk, if you will read Ordinance No. 857 by title only, please.
Berg: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Ordinance No. 857:
An Ordinance finding that certain lies contiguous or adjacent to the city limits of the City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of Idaho; and finding that the owner has made a request
for annexation in writing to the Council; and that said land be annexed to the City of Meridian and zoning designated light industrial district (I-L); and declaring that said land by
proper legal description as described below be a part of the City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of Idaho; repealing all Ordinance, Resolutions, Orders or parts thereof in conflict
herewith; and directing the City Engineer to add said property to the official maps of the City of Meridian, Idaho; and directing the Clerk of the City of Meridian to file a certified
copy of the Ordinance and map of the areas to be annexed with the Ada County Recorder, Auditor, Treasurer and Assessor, and the State Tax Commission of the State of Idaho, pursuant to
Idaho Code Section 50-223 and Section 53-2215.
Corrie: Thank you. Is there anyone from the audience that would like to have Ordinance No. 857 read in its entirety?
: Yes.
Corrie: All right. Mr. Nichols, if you would please do us the honor, please.
Nichols: (Read Ordinance No. 857 in its entirety)
Corrie: Okay. Council, you heard the reading of Ordinance No. 857. I’ll entertain a motion on the Ordinance No. 857.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I would make a motion that we approve Ordinance No. 857, a request for annexation and zoning of 20.05 acres to I-L by Albertson’s, Inc., with suspension of the
rules.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion’s made and seconded to approve Ordinance No. 857 from this reading and the Ordinance with the suspension of rules. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll-call vote.
Roll-call vote: Mr. Bird, aye; Mr. Anderson, aye; Mrs. McCandless, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 5. Continued Public Hearing from 01/18/2000: AZ 99-019 Request for annexation and zoning of 4.34 acres from C-2 and R-8 to C-G (Walgreen’s) by Hawkins Smith Management, Inc. –
NW corner of Fairview and Locust Grove:
Corrie: Item No. 5 is a continued public hearing from January 18, 2000, request for annexation and zoning of 4.34 acres from C-2 and R-8 to C-G, Walgreen’s, by Hawkins Smith Management,
Inc., northwest corner of Fairview and Locust Grove. At this time, I’ll continue the public hearing and invite Staff to bring us up to speed on where we are. Shari.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, this is for the property on the northwest corner of Locust Grove and Fairview Avenue. Hopefully you got a copy of the memo from Brad Hawkins-Clark.
They just recently submitted a new site plan. The major difference in the site plan is that they have deleted the access onto Carol Street due to the concern of the neighbors of the
adjacent Doris Subdivision. They also removed the parking along the north part of the property and some other stalls along the east part of the property. When they submitted this plan,
we hadn’t had a revised copy of the landscape plan. We have not reviewed that landscape plan and would not want them to consider this approval of what they’ve submitted for landscape
plan. Hopefully you also have a copy of Brad Hawkins-Clark’s memo of January 18, 2000, asking for some changes in the recommendations from Planning and Zoning Commission. They have
always represented having another building on the lot. They did present elevations after they started the process and are asking for approval of that; however, this would only be approval
for the Walgreen’s drive-thru and another drive-thru is not permitted as part of this application. Ada County Highway District’s recommendations were primarily based on that access
to Carol Street if the applicant was proposing it. Staff still feels that in the future they probably will need an access there; the people from the subdivision may regret not being
able to have that access through there, and maybe we could handle that as part of a, maybe putting a future cross-access easement in there to give them the opportunity to access through
Carol Street should the residents decide we need to have that. Other than that, Staff has no further comment on this, and I’m sure there’s a few people here on this project tonight.
Corrie: Comments for Staff?
Bird: Mr. Mayor, Shari, just for the record, the new plat is dated 1/24/00, revised? It’s received 25th, but the actual revised date down on the (inaudible) drawing is 1/24/00, revised.
I just want it for the records for the attorney.
Stiles: Actually, they don’t have a revision date on what they’ve submitted.
Bird: If you’ve got one like me, they do.
Stiles: That’s the landscape plan, and that’s what we’re saying we’re not (inaudible). Yes. That would be – on the left-hand side at the very bottom, it apparently was platted out
on 1/24/00.
Bird: Revised. Thanks, Shari. I have no more.
Corrie: Any other questions from Council?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, on that access there on Locust Grove, Shari, is that a right-turn only as you’re exiting the parking lot, or can you go both ways on that?
Stiles: I believe it’s right-in, right-out only.
Anderson: That probably should be that way because otherwise, you’ll have people pulling out of Fred Meyer and when that road does eventually get approved, they’re going to be running
into one another in the center turn-lane.
Stiles: Of course, you’re going to find people trying to go that way, but I think when they rebuild that, the median, I believe, will extend down in front of that driveway.
Anderson: That will be good.
Bird: Mr. Mayor. Shari, is that existing cut the existing cut they’ve got now or is that moved down the road from the existing cut into the building that sits on the corner now?
Stiles: I don’t believe they even have a regular cut.
Bird: They’ve got an entryway into it.
Stiles: Whether that aligns, I don’t think it does. I think it’s a little further north.
Bird: That’s what I thought. Okay.
Stiles: Gary Smith also has some recommendations. I didn’t know if you wanted to say anything about them. It was based on the recommendations to City Council from the Planning and
Zoning as a way of clarifying maybe what some of these items were. I didn’t feel out my little position statement today, but – Gary, do you want me to go through these items? Hopefully
you all have a copy of the recommendations to the City Council.
Corrie: This is the revision of 10/07/99 staff report? Is that what you’re talking about?
Stiles: This would be what the attorney prepared dated December 23rd. I don’t know how important this is, if new Findings are going to need to be prepared, and maybe we can address
those in the Findings that it was basically clarifications on how some of these recommendations were worded. Do any of you have this? Can I enter it into the record by giving it to
the Clerk, or do you want me to go through item by item?
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, Director Stiles, it would a lot quicker, probably, if you have your comments noted on a copy to have a copy of that made and entered into
the record, and then your comments are there or you can highlight your comments, but it would make preparation of the Findings much easier.
Stiles: Okay. Like I say, these are Gary Smith’s comments on those recommendations. The request that we had from the Planning and Zoning Commission were referenced in our memo of
January 18, 2000.
Corrie: All right. Since this is a public hearing, is the developer here? Okay. If you want to start, give your name and address.
Boyle: Mayor and City Council, my name is Clint Boyle, 8645 West Franklin Road, Boise, Idaho, representing Hawkins Smith Developers. I just want to thank you for the opportunity for
hearing this project tonight. I know Walgreen’s is excited about this store and being in the City of Meridian. Just to quickly answer a couple of questions that were brought up for
Shari. There will be a median constructed in Locust Grove as well as in Fairview. So, our access that is proposed on Locust Grove will be restricted to a right-in, right-out by that
median that is in the center of the street. That is found, actually, in your packet, and it’s in the annexation packet. It’s ACHD’s Facts and Findings, Page 6, states in there that
Locust Grove, that to construct a six-inch raised median in the center of Locust Grove Road from a point 10 feet from the stop bar at the intersection of Fairview and Locust Grove to
a point 50 feet north of the northern edge of our driveway. So it, basically what that means is we’ll be constructing a median in the center of Locust Grove from the intersection 50
feet beyond our project access point. That will restrict that to a right-in, right-out. Currently, there is an existing access. That existing access is closer to the intersection
than our access. That is currently a full access, unrestricted turn movements that access the existing commercial building. So, hopefully that clarifies a couple of those items. I
just wanted to kind of paint the big picture here. Walgreen’s is a neighborhood tenant, so as far as the development goes, they cater to a neighborhood setting, usually a one-mile,
two-mile radius there is their pull area. So they’re not a high-volume traffic generator. We think that this particular site cleans up that existing intersection with the access points
that exist there. There’s a couple of access points on Fairview. Those will be consolidated into one access that will be restricted to right-in, right-out. I’m just going to point
out that location. There’s two access points existing in this location that we will be
consolidating both of those. Currently they’re full access. So we will be restricting access there, we will be pushing existing access that is on Locust Grove to the south further
away from the intersection of Fairview and Locust Grove. So it cleans up the intersection. We’re providing what we feel is some nice landscaping, better landscaping than is there currently,
with this project. Hopefully through our meetings with the neighborhood and the Planning and Zoning Commission meetings that we’ve gone to, we’ve come up with an acceptable design.
The design that you have in front of you tonight is a design that we submitted to the City. This is basically an outcome from the petitions from the neighborhood as well as in going
through ACHD and through their comments regarding Carol Street. In order to meet the needs of the neighborhood and meet their concerns, we have closed off that access to Carol Street,
and what we had to do was have our engineers design an access so that our truck could still get into the site, and that’s – the truck will enter from Locust Grove, will basically be
traveling south on Locust Grove, and as it turns into the site, it will travel back to the north and circle around the building to service the Walgreen’s store. So we’ve made that –
that is the biggest change from the site plan that’s been in place is that we’ve just eliminated that Carol Street access point. As far as the landscape plan goes, we did submit a new
landscape plan just today. That landscape plan, though, if you will note in your packets, there is an existing landscape plan, and I believe it is in the annexation packet that you
have. These landscape plans match. The difference is that there is no longer a driveway onto Carol Street. So as far as having a different landscape plan or revise – the revision
was that we lost the Carol Street access. So, if you look at those plans and the plan that you have in front of you, they should be very similar other than the Carol Street access has
been removed. There are just a couple of points that I want to go over tonight. We agreed with the majority of the Staff’s findings at this point. I think our site plan for the majority
complies with the Staff’s recommendations. The one point that we, I guess would disagree with the Staff on is the requirement that we provide a 35-foot landscape buffer along Fairview
Avenue for the project. Originally, this project came in and we had it proposed with a 14-foot buffer along Fairview Avenue. Since that time, we have increased the buffer, it is now
a 25-foot landscape buffer from our property line to the parking. So the landscaping along Fairview Avenue is 25 feet. We feel that is compatible with the surrounding uses. Fred Meyer
has a little larger landscaping than that; however, they are a much larger retailer with a much larger parking lot than the Walgreen’s store. We feel this is incompatible with such
stores as the Hollywood Video that is kitty-corner across the street. Actually directly south of us, that particular development doesn’t even have any landscaping at this point in time.
We would petition the Council that you grant a deviation from the staff’s recommendation of the 35-foot buffer and allow us to go with the 25-foot buffer along Fairview Avenue. Originally,
when they made that recommendation, they stated that we could lose the parking along Fairview Avenue and still accommodate that landscaping. At this point in time, we wouldn’t be able
to do that because we had to lose some parking behind the store and along the northeast corner to accommodate getting our truck into the
site. It’s basically a semi-truck, so to make that radius and get it in there, we had to lose some of those parking spaces so that we could negotiate through the site. That was a result
of closing that Carol Street access. Outside of that, that is basically the only issue that we have as far as a site-plan issue. The other points that we’d like to bring out is the
signage that we have proposed. We are proposing a signal pylon sign at the corner of, roughly, Fairview and Locust Grove. The proposed sign that we have is in your packet; it’s 24-foot
tall sign, 100 square feet in size, and that 100 square feet is the overall sign size. That includes the Walgreen’s signage as well as the reader board, so it’s 100 square feet total.
We feel that is compatible with the signage that exists in the area; Fred Meyer has several signs in that location that are similar to this or even taller, and have a larger square
footage than us. The existing signage on the site is – on this particular site right now is much larger than what we’re proposing, so this will be a substantial reduction from the signage
that is being used by the commercial tenants currently. We would also ask that the existing chiropractor’s sign which sits just to the west of our access on Fairview Avenue that that
particular sign be allowed to remain for the signage for the multi-tenant retailer user that will be going in as part of this project. That particular sign, I do have some elevations
of that, and I believe those are in your packet as well. I think we’ve got a picture of that sign in there. Another item that we would like to point out is on our hours of operation.
As we’ve always stated, that will not be a 24-hour Walgreen’s location; however, the Planning Commission picked some hours of operation for us, and the hours that they picked were from
seven in the morning until ten at night. The Fred Meyers store across the street is open later than that, and they are one of our competitors, so I guess we would just petition to the
Council that we’re okay with the condition of not being a 24-hour store, but we would at least like to be allowed the same hours of operation as the Fred Meyers that is across the street
from us. Then, finally, the final point that I’d like to bring out is the improvements along Locust Grove. There’s been some discussion in the staff reports that have come out and
our discussions with the City and ACHD, at this point in time, ACHD in their recommendations that you will find in your report, they state that we are just a bond (sic) for the sidewalk
and they will be constructing Locust Grove within the next year to two years. Understandably, the Meridian staff would like to see those improvements occur faster than that. I guess
that we’re in somewhat of a Catch-22 there where we’ve got two different agencies giving us two different proposals of recommendations on how to proceed. ACHD being the authority in
right-of-way, at this point in time they do not have the funds available to reimburse us for those improvements, so I guess we would petition the Council that we follow the ACHD recommendations
along with Locust Grove – as far as Locust Grove improvements. So in a nutshell, what I propose tonight is that, again, the landscape buffer along Fairview be allowed to be the 25 feet
as proposed on this site plan; that our signage be allowed to be 24 feet tall with 100 square feet as the maximum sign area; that our hours of operation be granted to be at least as
late and as early as the Fred Meyers store across the street from us; that the ACHD recommendations for Locust Grove be the recommendations that were
adopted by the Council regarding this project. I think that pretty much wraps up the points that I would like to make. I appreciate your time in this. I think this is going to be
a great project for us as well as for the City and I think the neighbors are pleased with what we’ve done here as well.
Corrie: Questions from Council at this point? Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I had one on – you talked about the signage for the existing chiropractic building. Now, that’s not shown on the plan you have here, but that’s kind of in the middle of the
parking lot in front of the future pad; is that correct?
Boyle: It actually would be in the landscaping. My pointer here is almost sitting right on the sign.
Anderson: So would that existing building – how long is that going to stay there?
Boyle: The existing chiropractor?
Anderson: Yeah.
Boyle: Will be removed as part of this project. As part of this project, what you will have is a multi-tenant retail user here, basically, just – I think you have the elevations.
They’ve been submitted previously. It’ll be a multi-tenant retailer and the Walgreen’s store. The existing chiropractor – originally we had that proposed, there was some issues related
to building code, removing some of the structures on it, and as part of this project, we decided to remove that building. So the chiropractor that exists will be removed. The signage,
the pylon sign that is out by the street would then be used for the multi-tenant building. So the existing sign, the only thing that would change would be the sign copy itself on that
sign.
Anderson: My other question would be anybody coming to this from the western part of Meridian, how would they access this if they wouldn’t be able to turn in on Locust Grove, and if
they couldn’t turn in on the second exit, they’d have to take this first entrance in?
Boyle: What we will have is we will enter into a cross-access agreement with the Idaho Athletic Club, and the owner is here tonight if you have any questions of him regarding it. There
will be cross-access between our site, this development and Idaho Athletic Club. The access that you see –
*** End of Side 1 ***
that is actually an existing driveway for Idaho Athletic would be an access point where those persons from Meridian that were in the western portion of the city
traveling eastbound could access our site. That is a full, unrestricted access there. That would be our proposed location to get those customers into the site.
Anderson: Then you’re designing your building, the way you said you’d bring trucks in, it would have to come up through a residential area up there on Northview -- Locust Grove to get
into that; is that correct?
Boyle: The easiest route for a truck would be – wherever he’s coming from, he would have to be traveling southbound on Locust Grove to access the site due to the restrictions with the
right-in, right-out. We looked at a design of bringing the truck in at this access at Idaho Athletic, but just due to a semi-negotiating all the turns that it had to negotiate the site,
it basically eliminated a substantial amount of parking to where we just couldn’t get it to work with the parking due to the amount that we would have to take out a substantial area
here for (inaudible) as well as almost quite a bit of parking in the front here and reduce these down. What we’re dealing with is having a semi negotiate this site. When you get into
the turns here, it was more parking than we could lose, basically, to get him in that way. The only option that we had at that time was the Locust Grove. That’s correct. They’d travel
southbound on Locust Grove to access the site.
Anderson: One last question. I read in the comments here that this whole project is restricted to the one drive-thru, and are you guys okay and are you clear with that, because that
future pad site looks to me like a prime location that someone’s going to come in later and going to be asking for another drive-thru.
Boyle: Yeah. At this point in time, if that’s the will of the Council, that is fine. We’ll abide by that. We would just like to know that with the drive-thru restriction that we
will restrict it to only one drive-thru on the Walgreen’s realizing that this Walgreen’s store is a double-laned drive-thru. What I mean by that is it’s just like a bank. There’s an
outer lane here where they’ve got the tube that runs down where you can pick up your – so, as long we’re clear on that, yeah, that’s fine. We will just keep one drive-thru for the Walgreen’s
building only. That’s acceptable.
Anderson: Do you know what Fred Meyers’ hours of operation are that you are requesting to be the same as them?
Boyle: There’s probably people from the neighborhood that could answer that question better than me. I believe that on weekdays they’re open until 11:00. I don’t know that for sure.
Corrie: Any other questions? Okay. Thank you very much. Be ready to answer some questions that come up later. Anyone else from the public that would like to issue testimony at this
time? State your name and address --
Jones: Jay Jones, I live at 1426 North Carol in Doris Sub. Mr. Mayor and Council members, there has been mixed feelings in our subdivision about this project from the very beginning,
some, and I’m sure you’ll hear testimony tonight that we would like this project not to be approved. There was some of us in the subdivision that had worked with Mr. Hawker early on
and talked to him about this project. We felt that it is inevitable that something would go in on this corner, and if something goes in there, we might as well work with the tenant
and maybe get some improvements that would enhance our subdivision rather than detract from the subdivision. What the – a couple things I’d like to make comment on are the landscape
drawings that you received today. The revisions of 1/24. The original proposal that we received almost a year ago, complete with caliber bushes, caliber trees and everything on the
northern side of that block wall on Carol Street. We’d ask that if this is approved that those be adopted to be completed as drawn on that particular drawing. As you can see, there’s
quite a bit of greenery there as well as the cross-section shows the sloping berm with a 7’6” wall. Originally, when they proposed this, they came to us for one reason only, and that
was to gain commercial use of the two residential lots that they’re deleting in this subdivision. In order to do so, they needed to get an approval of the subdivision – the restricted
covenants that allowed a commercial use of those properties. That was granted upon no access to Carol Street. I don’t know exactly what the rules are that the Council or that they
Mayor have in overriding subdivision covenants to annex two lots into – to annex it into the City as well as make it commercial, if it overrides the covenants, but that was one of the
restrictions of the covenants that allowed that to go commercial was that no access be allowed to Carol Street. Couple requests that came up in the neighborhood meetings that haven’t
– I haven’t heard addressed. One was that this block wall be maybe a little more decorative than plain cinder-block wall. A split course – you know, even just one down on the second
course or some such thing. I don’t know if you can require such a thing, but it would actually enhance it with very minimal cost to the developer. Also that when the Fred Meyers store
went in, there was great opposition with the lighting, and it took them, I think, years to finally conform to what they agreed to for shading of the lights. Where I’m back far enough
in the subdivision, I didn’t notice the difference that it makes, but after that discussion, I took special note and the shading of the lights on any lighting that’s directed towards
our subdivision has actually made a big difference in how much light is cast into the subdivision for those neighbors that are nearby. As of those – those things I just talked about
be a requirement prior to occupancy for this development. Also, a question for the Council, can there be any restrictions or guidelines be given to the developer that maybe this block
wall and maybe this part of this landscaping be put in on the early stages of the project to combat some of the dust and debris that comes from construction site? You know, I don’t
know what a difference it makes, whether it’s done – to them whether it’s done the first day of the project or the last day of the project, but for the subdivision and neighbors nearby,
it would be very helpful, I think, to cut down on the amount of impact if that was done in the early stages of the project.
Otherwise, you know, we’ve – there are some of us that have agreed to waive the commercial use of this property given those stipulations.
Corrie: Thank you, Mr. Jones. Any comments from Council, questions?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you. Anyone else?
Woodall: Hello. Dan Woodall, 1950 West Carol Street, Doris Subdivision. I assume this project will go in. I’m opposed to it; I don’t think it’s a good idea. I can see from all the
gyrations they had to go through to get the truck in and out and such that it’s probably ill-conceived, but I’ll assume that it’s going in. What I’d like to address my comments to is
conditions to be prescribed in the conditional use permit. I’m not sure what is quite in there, but if it’s already in there, then great, thank you, I’m not going – perhaps you can
consider it. In Section 2-14-C, Number 3, to be harmonious and appropriate with the neighboring residences, conditional uses can be prescribed with respect to the lighting and noise
–
Corrie: Is that on the conditional use permit?
Woodall: No, I’m sorry. This is in your Zoning and Development Ordinance, City of Meridian. Thank you, Mr. Bird, for lending that to me so I can get the record straight. I’m concerned
about the noise from the drive-up window and from neon signs that I’ve seen on other Walgreen’s Drug Stores as well as the parking lot lights. I think that to meet this section of the
zoning ordinance, prescriptions need to be made in the conditional use permit. Same section, 2-4-18-C, Number 4, to ensure the development will not be a disturbance to neighboring which
is residential existing uses, conditions of use must be prescribed as to lighting and noise related signs, parking-lot noise, and such from the drive-thru. Same thing as – same concerns,
different section (inaudible) other code that needs to be addressed. The next is the same section, number 7, to ensure development does not produce excessive glare, conditions need
to be prescribed for the signs and lighting and hours of operation. 2-4-18-D authorizes you to prescribe conditions of use for the Walgreen’s Drug Store. I recommend the following
conditions: illuminated signage facing adjacent residences should be extinguished between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. to allow people to sleep without lights shining in their
bedroom windows. To control the noise in the drive-thru window, the hours of operation of the drive-thru should be limited to the same – well, I put opposite, but from 7:00 a.m. to
10:00 p.m. they can be open, I think that would be fairly acceptable. To control glare from the parking lot lights, the lights should be installed to avoid directly illuminating a neighbor’s
window. As a note, Fred Meyers is not directly adjacent to residences, and so therefore, the comparison of hours of Fred Meyers, hours of Walgreen’s doesn’t really hold water. They
– Walgreen’s needs to be compatible with the
residences that it’s going to be directly next door to and across the street from where Fred Meyers is surrounded by commercial properties. Also, the pharmacy at Fred Meyers closes
at 9:00. So, asking for additional hours for a pharmacy could be competitive with Fred Meyers doesn’t make a lot of sense because by the time Walgreen’s would close – at least their
drive-thru would close at 10:00, Fred Meyers is already closed. I can give you copy of this (inaudible) hand-written. Thank you.
Corrie: Thank you. Any comments? Questions?
Bird: I have none.
Anderson: I have none.
Corrie: Thank you. Anyone else?
McRoberts: Jennifer McRoberts, 1490 Carol Street, Doris Subdivision. Concerning the lighting, where they have vacated public parking in the rear of the building for access of their
truck in this new design, I recommend that the lighting in the rear of the building only be lighting the driveway so it’d be on the building, you know, light standards or poles in the
rear of the building because there would be no public back there other than the cars driving through, so they could just light – put the lights on the building.
Corrie: Anyone else? Okay. The developer has a chance to answer any of the questions. Did we ever find out – do they close at 11:00?
: They do.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you.
Boyle: Just a couple of points that were brought out. Understandably, the neighborhood’s concerned about the lighting. We certainly can work with them on that whether we shield the
lights on the back side or whether we just illuminate that driveway. Mainly, we’re just concerned about the truck visibility around that back side and safety on the back side of the
building. Whatever we need to do if it’s restricted to just some lights on the building that would light the driveway, that would be acceptable to us. We don’t have a problem with
that, or if the Council wishes, and we could put some poles in the back and have shields on them, we can live with that as well. We’ll certainly work with whatever on the lighting.
We certainly want lighting in that rear area for safety reasons and for the truck access. As far as the drive-thru goes, there was mention on the drive-thru about noise on the drive-thru,
realizing that and not that it’s a totally effective buffer, but we will have the block wall as well as having some pretty extensive landscaping along Carol Street. My guess is that
the noise across Carol Street from the drive-thru is going to be very, very minimal if even audible at all. We’ve
got Evergreen trees along that back side there, so there’s some pretty extensive buffering with the landscaping, with the block wall as far as cutting down on the noise from the drive-thru,
and it’s just a small speaker just like you’d have at a bank. As far as the signage was brought up about the signage, there will be no signage on the back side of the store. As far
as any signage that would be pointing toward the residential, the back side, north side of the store will not have the large, Walgreen’s illuminated scripts signage. The only signage
that you will have around there is on the canopy. They have some small signage that just has drive-thru entrance and exit, and it points east-west on the canopy. So there isn’t any
illuminated script signage that says Walgreen’s that is lit up on the back side of that building. As far as Fred Meyers’ pharmacy closing at 9:00, that’s fine. Walgreen’s competes
not only with the pharmacy at Fred Meyers, but for other goods as well, so again, it goes beyond just the pharmacy issue of having the pharmacies compete, but even further, they’re into
different goods. You can walk into a Walgreen’s and have film developed or just pick up over-the-counter medicines, so there’s a lot of other things that come into play where we are
in competition with Fred Meyers. Hopefully that answered – I took notes and I hope I covered those. If I didn’t, the Council can ask me some questions here, but again, we’ve been through
a long process now with the City and we would certainly hope that the Council will come to a decision tonight on this for us so that we can move in whatever direction that we’re requested
to move in. Again, we’re happy to present this project and think that it will be a benefit to the community. As far as commercial in the area, there is residential to the north of
us across Carol Street just as Fred Meyers across Locust Grove, there is residential. We do have a residential home that is to the west of us, there’s actually an existing pasture area
between us and that home, so he even has some buffering. We’ve gone to some pretty extensive lengths to put in block walls to adequately landscape the buffers between the commercial
and residential, and we’d hoped that the Council would view that favorably and view the project favorably, and we’d ask for your approval tonight.
Corrie: Two things. We have to have your name again. I’m sorry, I didn’t get it the first time.
Boyle: I’m sorry about that. Clint Boyle, Hawkins Smith.
Corrie: Okay. A couple of questions I have asked about the decorative block wall rather than just having a cinder block and also that it’d be put up first before the other –
Boyle: The block wall, if the Council wishes to place that condition on us, we could do a decorative wall. You start getting into some of those, and it does add some expense, but if
the Council feels that would be of benefit to the neighborhood, we can certainly do that. At least in the short-term, that block wall will probably be fairly visible to the neighborhood,
but once the landscaping that we’ve got in there with the Evergreens and some of the other trees start getting
more mature, there’s not going to be a lot of that block wall that’s going to be visible to the neighborhood. As far as the timing goes on it, again, our desire would be not to limit
the timing on it. We’ve got a lot of things that we have to take care of on the site being that we’ve got some demolition work to do on it. We’ve got grading issues to bring it up
to grade. The coordination on that, I’m not sure if the timing would be appropriate to put that block wall right at the first of the project or not. If it’s the wish of the Council,
then we’ll certainly have to abide by that, but without going through and talking to our construction managers, I don’t know how that’s going to affect grading and drainage and whether
or not we’ll have to do some extra grading in there to put the block wall in before we demolish other buildings and grade the side. I don’t know.
Corrie: That was -- question from Council?
McCandless: Mr. Mayor. Mr. Boyle, if there is problems with the drive-in window, and that’s the pharmacy, correct, of staying awake or up very late, could you not close the drive-in
earlier and still keep the pharmacy open on the inside of the store?
Boyle: We could do that. That wouldn’t be our desire. But we could do that. Walgreen’s – the concept for Walgreen’s, just like a lot of the businesses out there are convenience,
and the drive-thru is kind of their cream-of-the-crop for convenience. If you’re sick you don’t have to go in the store, just pull in, get your prescription and go. So I know it wouldn’t
be Walgreen’s wish to have that restricted, but if that’s what it takes to get the project done, then we’ll do it.
McCandless: Well, I’m talking about say after 9:00.
Boyle: Same point would apply. I can tell you that they wouldn’t want to do that. If they had to, they probably would just because that’s really the business that they’re pushing
for is that convenient, drive-up, get-your-prescription-and-go. The drive-thru window, just so you know, the drive-thru window – it isn’t like a McDonald’s where there’s cars stacked
there waiting to get through. So even after 9:00, I mean, you could probably – well, I don’t have any numbers on it, but it’s certainly less traffic that you’d have than going through
a McDonald’s or Burger King or some sort of fast-food restaurant, so it’s not going to be something where you’re going to have that drive-thru window constantly going. The people would
probably hear the noise from Locust Grove more than they would ever hear the drive-thru window speaker going.
Anderson: Does it have a speaker system or is it something where you’d phone ahead for a pharmacy and then you just pull up to the window?
Boyle: You can do it either way. You can phone your prescriptions in. It does have a speaker just like a bank, it’s got a little speaker on it so you can talk to them and say, I’m
here to pick up my prescription.
Anderson: But there are no speakers strung all the way down the building.
Boyle: No. Just right at the window. Just like you pull up at a bank and tell them, Clint Boyle here to pick up my prescription that I called in and they’ll go grab your prescription
and get you on your way. It’s just one speaker at the window there.
Corrie: Anything else, Mrs. McCandless?
McCandless: Nothing else.
Anderson: Between you and Cherie, you asked both the questions I was going to ask about the wall and the hours of operation. So I’m happy.
Bird: Mr. Mayor. I’ve got a concern with the drive-up being in the back, we’re trying to restrict lighting back there. You’re going to stay open until dark. I would think that being
into dispensing drugs and stuff back there that you would – is there a canopy over that drive-up?
Boyle: That’s correct.
Bird: It’s going to be well-lit, but it can be shaded?
Boyle: Yeah. That canopy, lights in it are shining straight down off the canopy. So the lighting that we actually get back in this drive area would be something that on other projects,
on some projects they have poles along the back that point back towards the drive, and on others they have them mounted right to the building with them pointing out into the driveway.
Bird: I would think you want the – anytime you’re dispensing drugs to have something through that with people in cars that you would want to – some fairly good lighting, I would believe,
or at least wouldn’t want a dark place back there for something to be picking up drugs and stuff, so that’s a concern I’ve got.
Boyle: And we certainly want to work with the neighborhood. We don’t want lights in their windows anymore than they do. So we’re certainly – could live with shading, shielding the
lights, similar to what Fred Meyers has done. You know, if we did have pole lights along the back, that’s fine. If we had them on the building, we could do everything possible to keep
within that drive-thru area. You do have a fairly good distance before you get to the residential from the back of our store. You’ve got 20 feet of landscaping with a block wall and
another 40 feet of street before you get into the front yard, so – yeah. We’ll certainly, if you want lights shielded, we could certainly accommodate that.
Bird: I just – my concern is that we have enough lighting back there for safety and not bother the neighbors, too, but I believe that you’ve got to have a certain
amount of lighting back there. The neighbors should realize that for safety reasons you’re going to have to if you’re dispensing after dark which you would be doing.
Boyle: That’s correct.
Corrie: Any questions?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor. I did think of one more question. Looking at that future pad site, and I’m kind of envisioning that there would be businesses that may go in there that could
face to the north; is that correct? Towards Carol Street?
Boyle: On this particular pad? I can tell you a tenant that will be in there right now. The chiropractor that sits out here in front. So the chiropractor will be moving into it,
and an idea on this pad is that you would have four, maybe five bays that would extend from the front to the back. This area in the back is mainly going to be for employee uses. The
design on this is that all the customers will be parking in this front area. They’ll all be facing to the south as far as their main doors into the business, and then I’m sure that
they’ll end up with an employee entrance door on this back side, but that’s the intent on that multi-tenant retail.
Bird: You can guarantee us that there will be no store fronts on the north side?
Boyle: I could do that. Sure. I mean, we can –
Bird: I hate to do that.
Boyle: We can place that as a condition.
Bird: Okay (inaudible).
Boyle: Yeah.
Corrie: Questions?
Bird: I have none.
Boyle: Thank you very much.
Corrie: Questions from staff?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor. Questions of Shari, some of the exceptions that they’re asking for; in signage, landscape buffer and hours of operation, your thoughts, please.
Stiles: Well, we are trying to be consistent on the signage and have restricted new annexations and conditional use permits to a maximum of 72 square feet total height times width.
We are going to have problems if we just arbitrarily set different conditions for each property that’s annexed in the City. The landscaping, they could increase it on the second lot
there because they are overparked according to the ordinance. Kitty-corner from this property, Hollywood Video does, I believe, have 25 feet. The reason that was 25 feet is that they
were matching what D & B Supply had done when they came in. We have tried to be consistent on the 35-foot requirement. As far as the landscaping being -- the landscaping has changed
from what they initially proposed particularly in regard to near that future padsite on the west side. They had previously shown some tree plantings in there and with the latest plan
they’ve removed all those trees and only have bushes. So they do have the 7’6” wall and some bushes, but no trees. They have reduced the width of that planting strip. Other than that,
still the comment about the Locust Grove sidewalk; I still believe that’s very important. Every other subdivision that has come in on an arterial like that has been required to put
in their sidewalk. I would hope with as many times as Ada County Highway District has set back the reconstruction of Locust Grove that they have a design in place that they can – that
they pretty well know where that sidewalk needs to go. So, it’s – the applicant has stated himself that this is a neighborhood store, and I think – I feel very strongly they need to
get that sidewalk in there before they occupy the building.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, just a question of Shari or Gary. I would think that being this close to the project, when ACHD says they’re going to do that in a year, it should be designed
by now. Is it designed? So could the curb and sidewalk not be put in at this point since they already know the elevations for that?
Smith: Mr. Mayor, Council members, Councilman Anderson, I believe the – well, I know the design for Locust Grove from Fairview to Ustick is complete. In that regard, the curb, gutter
and sidewalk could be installed to those elevations as designed. Yes, you’re correct.
Corrie: I believe the comment was that ACHD had no money for that. I question that.
Bird: I do too.
Corrie: We’ll talk about that the 17th. Any other comments, questions that Council has?
Anderson: I have one more question for our legal counsel. The question was brought up about subdivision CC & R’s. How does that work in a case like this just for my own knowledge
because I’m not sure if somebody sells the property and that, then do those CC & R’s still apply or if it’s replatted or how does that work?
Nichols: Councilman Anderson, Mayor and Council members, the question – I didn’t quite understand the CC & R point. Is part of this property part of that subdivision and therefore,
subject to those CC & R’s? Am I understanding that correctly?
Anderson: That’s how I (inaudible).
Nichols: If those covenants are part of the property, then the only way that they can be removed is by an agreement, basically.
Anderson: With the entire Homeowners Association?
Nichols: The particular – typically, covenants have some sort of provision in them for the amendments changes to them and how they are to be made. So you’d have to look at each one
of those individually. It looks like Director Stiles has some comments on that issue.
Corrie: Ms. Stiles.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, I’m not aware of the specifics of their covenants, but I don’t believe that the City is bound by any of the conditions of their covenants. We do not
enforce covenants, and if there were a problem, they would have to – the Homeowners Association would have to go through a civil procedure to enforce those covenants, but it wouldn’t
be done through the City.
Corrie: I believe they worked that out from what I understand from the testimony. Okay. Any other questions?
Bird: I have none.
Anderson: I have no more.
Corrie: I’ll entertain a motion, then to close the public hearing on Item No. 5 for annexation.
Anderson: So moved.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the public hearing on Item 5, the annexation and zoning of Walgreen’s. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion
say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Corrie: Council.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor. (inaudible) I would make a motion that we approve the annexation and zoning of 4.34 acres from C-2 and R-8 to C-G for Walgreen’s by Hawkins Smith Associates subject
to staff comments with the following exceptions. I would move that we allow the 25-foot landscape buffer; I would also recommend that we stay with our current sign proposal and our
current proposal for the hours of operation; and I would also include in that motion that the block wall that be built be built before the rest of the project gets started, I guess in
the early phases, I’m not sure exactly how to word that, but before construction of the buildings, and that that be a decorative wall at least to the homeowners’ side so that as the
landscaping is completed or as it matures on the commercial side, at least they have something attractive to look at on the other side; and with the addition of the curb and sidewalk
if that is designed at this point that they be required to put the street and sidewalk in at point of construction.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion is made and seconded to approve the annexation of the Walgreen’s store subject to staff comments with the exceptions of one, two, three, four, five – four, excuse me,
exceptions that are stated by Mr. Anderson. Mr. Attorney, do you have all those down?
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, if I could have a point of clarification. Councilman Anderson, with regard to the sign, are we talking about the 72-square-foot height, width recommendation or
are we talking about a different recommendation with regard to the sign?
Anderson: I would – I think there were two exceptions they were asking for. One was to keep the sign in front of the chiropractor and then to go to 100-foot sign, and I recommend that
we stay with the 72-square-foot sign for them and that they be allowed to keep the existing sign at the chiropractic area – the chiropractic sign that’s there now.
Nichols: Thank you.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded. Is there any further discussion?
Bird: Mr. Mayor. One clarification on that block wall. You meant before they started on the actual building of the store. Their site and stuff has to be done before that block wall
goes in, but you’re just actually meaning that physical building of the store.
Anderson: Yeah. Site work could be started, but construction of the buildings couldn’t until the wall would be.
Bird: Okay. And what kind of decorative? There’s a lot of decorative stuff, and you can make and get very expensive or you – if you do something like we did up at the baseball field,
not very much more than regular block; it’s just a split-face block.
Anderson: I think just a split-face block would – maybe a row of colored block would be appropriate.
Bird: Okay. That’s all, Mayor.
Corrie: Okay. With that addition, approve the second then?
Bird: Yes.
Corrie: Any other discussion? Hearing none, roll-call vote.
Roll-call vote: Mr. Anderson, aye; Mr. Bird, aye; Mrs. McCandless, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 6. Continued Public Hearing from 01/18/2000: CUP 99-034 Request for a conditional use permit to construct a single-tenant commercial building with a drive-thru window (Walgreen’s)
by Hawkins Smith Management, Inc. – NW corner of Fairview and Locust Grove:
Corrie: All right, I’ll open the continued public hearing on the CUP, request for conditional use permit to construct a single-tenant commercial building for the drive-thru window of
Walgreen’s, Item No. 6. At this point, I’ll open the public hearing, and I will ask if people that made the comments in the early one wants to have the same comments inscribed into
the Item No. 6, we’ll do so. Okay. Then I’ll open the hearing and staff comments first.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor, Council, I would just ask that the comments from the previous public hearing be incorporated into this public hearing.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you. The developer. Do you have any more that you want to say on this one?
Boyle: Just the same.
Corrie: Okay. We’ll enter that same testimony then on this one. Hearing that, I’ll open the public hearing to anyone else who didn’t testify before understanding that their testimony
on the first one will be entered into as testimony on the second one. Mr. Jones.
Jones: Jay Jones, 1426 North Carol. Mr. Mayor and Commissioner Bird, your comments regards to the entrances to this additional building are very valid and very concerned that there
be no signage on the northern portion of that future pad site. I think that’s very important that there’s no elimination anyway. They have little doctor signs or whatever they have
there, I think that would be appropriate, but I think the elimination on that side would definitely distract from the privacy of the neighborhood. The comments that I made earlier,
also, if you would address the shades on the lights in this portion of the hearing. Thank you.
Corrie: Anyone else like to issue testimony?
Woodall: Hi. My name is Debbie Woodall, 1950 West Carol. The only comment I had was the developer commented several times about his trucks negotiating into the site in order to make
deliveries. My main concern is that the hours of operation that those deliveries are going to be made if in a conditional use permit, those deliveries could be made at reasonable hours
between the hours of, say, 8:00 and 6:00, 7:00. That subdivision does have a lot of children in it, and I just don’t want to see trucks pulling in at 9:00 at night with there being
– you know, they make a lot of noise any way you cut it, and I would really like them to be reasonable as when the deliveries are made. The other concern I have they are traveling down
Locust Grove. With a big semi truck. Chief Joseph is very close to this site. School starts at 8:55. You have a ton of kids on that road not to mention school buses. We already
have problems with the crossing guards at the stoplight of Chateau, I believe, this is what the street is, that Chief Joseph is on. I would really like to see, you know, if we could
have those hours of deliveries after school starts and we know the kids aren’t going to be out on that road. Kindergarten runs – they get out at noon. Some limitations because I’m
concerned they are traveling down Locust Grove. Right now, it is just two lanes on – one going each way. There’s not much room for kids, and I just would hate to see something happen
to the kids. You we’re putting some big trucks on that road now. It’s hard for them to stop. That’s my main concern.
Corrie: Anyone else?
Woodall: Dan Woodall, 1950 West Carol, Meridian, Idaho. In addition to my previous comments which I thank you for entering into this, I’d like to note that there is a lot of talk tonight
about the residences way across the street. You should also note that there’s a residence immediately north of that future pad site that’s very close. I would like to have you in assure
in the conditional use permit that illumination on that side of the parking lot and on that side of the future pad store also be restricted so as to not shine in their windows. Also,
I don’t know how many of you have been on Carol Street, but it makes kind of a pea-shape. It’s a natural turnaround. I’m a little bit concerned that the delivery truck may be going
up Locust turning into Locust Grove going up Carol Street and turning around in our subdivision to come back our onto Locust Grove and make his turn. I don’t know if there’s any restrictions
you can put on truck access to
residential areas for their deliveries, but that would be greatly appreciated if you could.
Corrie: That would be part of ACHD’s –
Woodall: ACHD’s – okay. Another thing, just a sanity check on microphone speakers and seven-foot walls. On a quiet Meridian night, you’re going to be able to hear that quite a distance.
The traffic quiets down, and you don’t get the background noise, and you’re going to be hearing, “Welcome to Walgreen’s. Can I take your order?” not just across the street, but well
into our subdivision. The – I would really implore you to keep restrictions on the hours of operation of the drive-thru so that we can sleep with our windows open at night and not have
to listen to that. Thank you very much.
Corrie: Thank you. Anyone else? Hearing none –
Houghacre: Mr. Mayor and Council members, Brian Houghacre with Hawkins Smith, 845 West Franklin. I just have some comments that might help to clarify some of the questions that have
come up and then I know Mr. Boyle has some other items. On the speaker issue, you know, we’ve built – are in the process of building three in the city of Boise. They’ve all had the
same concerns, mostly because it is the neighborhood use – store – we’re always around residential uses. We have worked with the City in doing some studies of the decibels of the speakers
and so forth, and we have found with the manufacturer of the speaker that the decibels are at such a level that they are not to exceed from the site. Not going to say that you’re never
going to hear them from off our site, but you have to remember with prescriptions, it is a sensitive, personal issue. Walgreen’s already takes that into consideration to try to minimize
any of that personal information from getting out. So I just – I should have shared it earlier, but I thought that might help you.
Corrie: Thank you.
Boyle: Just one quick comment again. Clint Boyle, 8645 West Franklin Road, Hawkins Smith. As far as the truck deliveries go, the truck will only be delivering to the store when there
are employees there. So if the store is restricted from 7:00 to 10:00, the truck will be there between 7:00 and 10:00 in the morning. As far as the truck goes itself, the deliveries
to Walgreen’s, it is a large truck that comes in and delivers. A typical Walgreen’s store, that truck is there once a week, maybe twice a week. So this is not a truck – you could place
a condition that it won’t deliver every day. That would – Walgreen’s – it wouldn’t make a difference because the truck deliveries, and I’m talking their main truck deliveries they may
get the Pepsi guy or Coca-Cola guy in there. I don’t know what their schedule is with their smaller trucks, but as far as the large semi that services Walgreen’s, it’s typically a once-
maybe twice-a-week delivery, so it’s not something that they’re going to have coming in there every day. Then, again, with the sound, Brian pretty much covered the sound as Walgreen’s
is sensitive
to that. The other thing about is that if we are limited in our hours to the 7:00 to 10:00 at night, that seems to be a pretty reasonable time to be getting some noise from the street
or just your typical background noise. Once the store is closed, it always is gone. If we are limited to the 10:00 in the evening from 10:00 on, there’s no noise from speaker. So
anyway, I just again would welcome your approval on the conditional use permit. Thank you.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I’ve got a question for him. Mr. Boyle, I’ve got a concern with your area – I don’t know whether your bring in a 27-footer or a 40-foot semi that comes in for Walgreen’s.
Safetywise, the way you’ve got the drive-up going, and I take it the drive-up will come out and come right down between the two – the future pad –
*** End of Side 2 ***
the back, travel to the south and then backs into this area. It’s actually not a dock. It’s all at-grade, and it’s got a roll-up door that they lift up, and they’ve got a little conveyor.
Bird: But then you’re going to have – I realize that it isn’t good for the subdivision to have them come in after hours, but safetywise, would your drive-up, I’ve got some real questions.
I’ve also got some real questions how that guy’s going to get out of there if he’s got a 40-footer. 27-footer would be no problem at all, but I guess you can hope somebody didn’t park
down there – are you going to just shoot straight out –
Boyle: Straight through would be the intent, and then he’d have to turn right and get out traveling westbound on Fairview.
Bird: But you’re only 38 feet from that drive-up canopy to the landscaping. That’s a pretty tight turn right there. I would guess that drive-up’s probably, I don’t know what kind
of scale you’ve got there, but I’d imagine it’s 30 or 40 feet back to the corner of the building where the drive-up is? That has nothing to do with a conditional use permit –
Boyle: I can tell you Hubble Engineering that designed this, they’ve placed truck radiuses on and this store prototype has been designed and done all over the place. They’ve got them
in Boise now. We’ve got them going up in Salt Lake, so Walgreen’s is comfortable with getting their trucks around. Hubble Engineering, our engineer’s comfortable with it.
Bird: But is all your conditional use permits based on delivering during – between 7:00 and 10:00? None of it is done in the late night?
Boyle: Depends on the store. We have some stores that are limited that aren’t 25 hours, so it’s during those hours of operation that we have some that are 24-hour stores that –
Bird: They never receive any freight outside of store hours you’re telling me?
Boyle: What I’m telling you is they have to have employees there to unload the truck, so –
Bird: Yeah, but you can unload – you can have somebody come in and unload at two, three o’clock in the morning if that’s when the trucks are going to come in.
Boyle: Typical retailer isn’t going to call their employees in to unload a truck in the middle of the night. A typical retailer like this that’s a small retailer – yeah. I don’t know
on that. I don’t know. Again, if you want to restrict it – (inaudible)
Bird: (inaudible) restrictions on that. So in case of the truck coming in at one, two o’clock in the morning and the manager and one of his employees come down there and do it, got
a restriction, he’s going to sit there until 7:00. On the same token, if we’re going to be unloading drugs and stuff at night, then we get back to the issue of the lighting. I don’t
like the time restriction of when they can deliver and not.
Boyle: Yeah. I guess that’s the decision for the Council to make. My understanding on the deliveries is typically they’re in the morning hours, seven, eight in the morning is what
I’ve heard from the other stores.
Corrie: Any other questions? Comments? Council? I take that back. Staff? Comments of Staff? Okay. Then I’ll entertain a motion to close the public hearing on Item 6.
Bird: So moved.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the public hearing on Item No. 6 for the conditional use permit for Walgreen’s. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor
of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Corrie: Council, discussion, recommendations, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor. I would make a motion that we approve the CUP for Walgreen’s by Hawkins Smith Management and instruct counsel to draw up
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law with a favorable approval subject to staff comments with two additional items one being that there be no north-facing illuminated signs on the
pad site as well as on the main store, and that all lighting be shrouded to direct light down and keep it out of the neighborhood to the north.
Bird: Done? I’ll second it.
Corrie: Okay. Motion is made and seconded to have the attorney draw up the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order staff recommendations and with the two additions that no
north signage be on the buildings and also that lighting be directed down and out of the neighborhood.
Anderson: One correction, Mr. Mayor. No north-illuminated sign. I don’t mind if they have other signs.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I have one question to ask yet. Mr. Anderson, now on the lighting down, but you do mean enough lighting to make it safe back there, right?
Anderson: Right. I just want it shrouded so that it won’t be shining into the neighborhood.
Corrie: Okay. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll-call vote.
Roll-call vote: Mr. Bird, aye; Mr. Anderson, aye; Mrs. McCandless, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 7. Public Hearing: Amendment of Fireworks Ordinance and adoption of new fees:
Corrie: Item No. 7 is a public hearing. This is an amendment of the fireworks ordinance and adoption of new fees. I’ll open the public hearing and invite staff’s comments first.
Chief.
Bowers: Mayor Corrie and City Council members, I’ll give you a little history on this ordinance. It’s been on the books for many, many years. This ordinance also did not go too much
in depth of how we were going to investigate people that have businesses that were setting fireworks off for shows. In the past, there has been a $10 fee for a fireworks permit which
was taken out through the City Clerk’s office. That was – the same permit was used for safe and sane fireworks or the fireworks that was put on by the big companies for the shows.
A lot of the wordage in this new ordinance has come through Bill Gigray, our attorney, trying to help City Clerk Will Berg do his job on his side of it a little easier. As I said in
the past, there’s only a $10 fee for both. We would like to split that up in the fees; a $25 fee for permits for safe and sane fireworks, $125 for the fees for the
fireworks shows. By City Ordinance, we have to put this in front of the public when we do increase fees as you know. That’s why we’re bringing it before the public to get their opinions
on it. Also, City Council’s questions and opinions. I’ve talked to some very nice people the last two days. They’ve called me on this putting in their input on some of the wordage,
the verbiage that we have in this. They’re quite concerned on it because there are two other cities, or at least one other city that has the same verbiage as the wordage we put in here.
It is not working in that city. I’m not sure if it’s on the fireworks side or the City side. I’m not sure at this time. I did not get to investigate it any farther. There are a
lot of new items and paragraphs that the attorney, like I said, had put in there. A lot of new liability insurance numbers that was in there. Liability of parents and guardians. The
people that I’ve talked to in the last few days were not concerned at all with the fees, but it was just some of the wordage and the paragraphs that we had that they were very concerned
about. This verbiage is coming from the State Fire Ordinance, also from Boise, Nampa and Caldwell. We kind of got it from all of them and kind of put it together. We would like to
charge a $25 fee for permits, a $25 fee for investigation fee, and as has been in the past, a $50 clean-up fee. If they clean up the area by a certain time, the City reimburses their
$50. On the fireworks that are shot off for shows, we’re looking at $125 permit fee also with a $50 clean-up fee on it. Keith Bird and Ron Anderson and Mayor Corrie have seen part
of this ordinance before. The two new ones, the new Council people have not. So I’m sure you will have questions on where we’re heading and why we’re doing this. I do notice we have
quite a few people from the fireworks stands here, and that’s great. We’ll get some input from them too. Council have any questions of me at this time?
Corrie: Thank you, Kenny. Council, we did get a letter from the R & S Marketing which is Golden Dragon Fireworks. Their proposed fireworks ordinance – gave us a lot of information
about different things, and I would like to enter that as testimony, written testimony to be added to the public hearing. Hearing no objections, I’ll order that be done. Thank you.
Mr. Berg.
Berg: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, just to continue on with some of the things that Chief Bowers has mentioned, one thing this new ordinance does allow is a sale for
the New Years Celebration which in the past ordinance did not allow that. It also allows for other display permits to be issued for other special occasions. We’re looking at some of
the interests of the people that sell these fireworks and also keep in the interest of keeping the City safe, so there are some other things that were brought up into this ordinance.
We are eager to listen to what the fireworks people have to say because this is what governs them, and we sure want to work and be cooperative with them. Some of the issues that we
have heard over the years that I’ve been here for the last six years, some of these issues have been brought up into this ordinance. Not saying it’s perfect, but just to give you some
background information.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you. Being a public hearing, I’ll invite the members of the public to come up. I might add that if any of you don’t have a copy of this proposed draft ordinance,
it’s available from the City Clerk and you can look at that. I think we’ll probably continue this public hearing again because there’s going to be a lot of testimony coming in and we
need to simulate it and put it together and then get back to the public at the same time, so you’ll have another shot at this as well. Have at it. Your name and address, please.
Hutchinson: Mayor Corrie, members of the Council, my name is Amy Hutchinson, and I’m at PO Box – you want a street address? 802 West Bannock. I represent R & S Marketing and American
Promotional Events, and I’m here today to talk to you just about some concerns that we have within the ordinance. To begin, and if you all have the ordinance in front of you, I can
direct you to the correct page. We have our first concern with Section F on Page 10 with the concern on the tents. In this section that I’m going to look at, it states no person under
18 shall work or be permitted inside where safe and sane fireworks are sold. Our concern is when inside the tent, as some of you have been in, the way that the fireworks are set up,
the tables are located or situated so that everybody can come in and look at the fireworks and see what the selection is. Our question is if a family comes in with their kids, are they
going to be able to have their kids walk in with them to look at the fireworks and look at the selection that they’re given? We just want a little bit of clarification on that as far
as if you can go to a stand and how that works. Secondly, we felt that there was a little bit of conflict in regards to the stands as well on Page 6 in Section 8. This refers to the
timeframe as far as cleaning up the stands, making sure they’re all taken down. On Page 6, there was just a little – there was a comment that says all stands and all debris cleaned
up by noon on July 12th, and then if you look forward to Page 11 in Section I, it just states that tent shall be erected and cleared of all structures and debris no later than noon on
the 6th. This is just a point of clarification, and we’re willing to work with legal counsel to straighten out this problem. Then my final concern which I believe I can address and
then we can have some additional questions later is within the list that all the fireworks that are allowed to be sold, we just had some concerns with what is on the list and if there
is a current list that is available. Members of the committee, I know that in the City of Boise, they had a list that they had done a while ago and have referred to, but as far as I
didn’t know if Meridian had a list. Other than that, I’ll keep my testimony brief, and I’d just like to introduce to you Winnie McGrew who will follow up. Any questions for me?
Berg: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, my question is just concerning the fees if you had any problem with the fee structure whatsoever or the reasons for the fees.
Hutchinson: Members of the Council, no.
Corrie: Any other questions?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you.
McGrew: Good evening. My name is Wendy McGrew, and I live at 963 E. Puffin. I’m here on behalf of a fireworks runner, stand person. For four years now, my family and I have ran the
fireworks stand over at Fred Meyer, the big one that is there at Fred Meyer, and we’re all teachers, so we’re off all summer, so it’s a perfect summer job for us. We’re a little bit
concerned about a couple things. One of them was no one under 18 in the tent. Does that mean no one working in the tent under 18 or no one in the tent under 18? A lot of our business
is families that come in and bring their children, and they come in – we have a lot of people who come back year after year to our tent and their families. It is a family – families
that do come in. So we were concerned with that. We were also concerned about the size. The size was – they were talking about limiting the size to I think 20 by 20. On the 4th it’s
crowded, and there’s a lot of people in there. We feel the safety in the tent is much better than a stand. If we were to have an accident, the accidents are all very well marked.
It’s easy for people to get out of if we were to have a problem. In four years, we’ve never had a problem at all. There’s always adults in the tent monitoring children who are coming
in and out. We just feel like we have worked really well with the City of Meridian and the Fire Marshall, and those were our only concerns as far as the new ordinance was just the size
of the tent and age of people who can be in the tent. Okay?
Corrie: Questions?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Mr. Berg.
Berg: Is there a recommendation of what size, maximum size, minimum size tents?
McGrew: Well, the tent we had last year, I believe was a 30 by 50 which was just really a perfect size. It was just a little bit bigger than the one we had the previous year, and it
really did work real nice for all of us. It’s really busy on the 3rd and the 4th in there, and there are quite a few people in and out of the stand or in and out of the tent, but it’s
really well monitored, and we were really able to control people moving in and out and moving about especially with the children also.
Corrie: Are you one of the people who have the tent at Albertson’s? The big white one?
: (inaudible)
Corrie: Just a question (inaudible) good size tent. It was well done. Thank you.
McGrew: Thank you.
Anderson: I have one question. Does the ordinance say 25-foot tent or they were going to? I didn’t see that in here.
McGrew: Well, I thought it said there was a restriction – 750 square feet is what I think it said the restriction was which would basically be – would size it down –
Anderson: 25 by 25?
McGrew: -- quite a bit.
Corrie: Anything else, Mr. Anderson?
Anderson: No. That’s it.
Corrie: Thank you. Yes, sir.
Lee: I’m Bernell Lee, 5660 Becky Drive in Meridian. I and my wife, Connie, are the owners of Lee Family Fireworks. We have retailed fireworks here in Meridian for the past 27 years.
Both of us were also on the committee that drafted legislation for the State of Fireworks Code that was adopted a couple years ago by the State. Being involved in fireworks over that
period of time, I find some things that are concerns in this drafting here. First of all, let me say thank you that we can finally address some of the things in the old code that were
problems, and I see a lot of those things have been taken care of, however, there is some ambiguity that I would like to address. On Page 2, Section A, it has the words dangerous fireworks
ground-blooms. Then on Page 3, under C, it has exception. Now, ground-bloom is a spinner on the ground, and the exception reads ground-spinners, chasers including all devices which
dart or travel about the surface of the ground during discharge shall not exceed 12 inches or vertical movement at any time. That to me is rather ambiguous. I’m not sure if it’s supposed
to move 12 inches, it can’t be over 12 inches, and the fact that it’s accepting ground spinners which ground spinners which ground blooms are. Then E kind of adds to that. This is
something that is a dangerous fireworks. Chasers, whistles including all devices which dart or travel about the surface of the ground during discharge which ground spinners do. So
then one section they’ve been accepting and then in another they’re – you know, it’s ambiguous. I have a question on the sparklers. Why – how we came up with a 10-inch limit on that.
It’s been my experience of the demand for the larger sparklers is there because parents consider them much safer. They light easier, they last longer which means there is less lighting
of them, and in a lot of cases, the large ones they stick in the ground and light things from that. Then Page 4,
during the drafting of the State Fireworks Code, the list as it’s called was eliminated from the State Code because of the liability problem for the governing agencies whether it be
a police department or fire department. The question came up who would be liable if we approved something, and it failed. So that was left out of the State Code for that reason. Also,
prior to that State Code, there was mandatory testing in order to get things on that list. This drafting here does not address any kind of testing. While we’re on Page 4, part of my
family provides fireworks for the Duck Valley Indian Reservation. Being a reservation, they’re not governed by State Codes. So they are allowed to offer for sale dangerous fireworks.
I store those on my property, prior to that, and this does not address that part in any way. Our business has the name, implies, Lee Family Fireworks – is governed for kids or geared
toward kids and family togetherness and that sort of thing with – we had seven children and were all raised in the fireworks business. They were – you know, they stock shelves, they
as they got older, they sold, they were during that time able to sell things, talk to people and think at the same time which has become a real asset to them. As they have grown up
and gone away, I have allowed kids from the neighborhood to work at and be around fireworks booths and my fireworks business. So, I’ve seen a real advantage for those people, an opportunity
for kids to feel a part of, be a part of and gain some skills, some life skills. I’ve enjoyed that part of it. It’s been a real enjoyment. There’s been some years where that was the
only thing I gained from the season. Money wasn’t there. So when we come to the age part on the Page 11, the State Code says 14. So I would like to see that reduced so that the opportunity
is there for, you know, if Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, whatever, would like to become involved in selling fireworks or any kind of youth group, church groups or whatever, they would be
given an opportunity as long as the supervision is there, that kids could become involved in that, take some of the bored kids off of the street for a period of time. Then on Page 5,
I’m sorry. That’s not a problem there. Page 6, H, is talking about the debris being moved by 12:00 and so on during the summer. It does not address the winter schedule. That needs
to be included. Also on Page 6 is the $25 fee, and I do not have a problem with the fees at all. Page 12, Section L, just needs to clarification. It says no fireworks shall remain
unattended at any time regardless of whether the fireworks stand or tent is open for business or not. In the past few years, and especially at the meeting in Boise for the drafting
of the State Code, it was pretty much a decision of the fire marshals which was attended by Boise, Meridian, Nampa and Caldwell that rather than carrying them back and forth in a vehicle,
parking that vehicle in a garage at night or leaving it outside of your house at night, it would be much safer to have fireworks stored in the booth as long as it was able to be locked
up. I don’t have a problem with that; I think that’s probably okay. The big advantage to an operator is the loading and unloading time that’s required and the amount of work that’s
required to do that. I definitely agree with the fact that no one should be in that booth during the night. On Page 12, N, no stand-up tents shall be erected at a location where retail
sales are not allowed under zoning ordinance provision of the Meridian City Code unless a permit for sale has been issued for said location prior to the
adoption of this ordinance. I understand this to mean that if there’s a field out there, even though it’s zoned commercially, and no business has been there prior, that you cannot sell
fireworks there. If that be the case, that’s a big obstacle for me. I am not one of the big out-of-towners that put up the big buildings, and I have always operated on small shoestring
sort of thing. Small, independent businessman, and dirt is much cheaper to rent than pavement, and so I’ve always – well, not always, but for the last quite a few years been on dirt.
That would be a real big obstacle for my operation if that was required. One last thing. On Page 14, I was wanting clarification on that, records to be kept. Each permittee shall
be required to retain at the licensed premises where said premises are open and that is principal place of business for a year thereafter copies of all invoices, receipts and orders
evidencing the source in which you acquire the fireworks in which you handled. I just need to know, is that each booth that is operated or is that my office, so to speak? I just need
that clarification. That’s all I have. Thank you.
Holgring: Mayor, City Council members, hello. My name is Sidney Holgring (sic), and I represent American Promotional Events, and I am located in Murray, Utah, but I am responsible
for this area during fireworks season. The first thing I would like to say is thank you to Will Berg. He is absolutely fantastic in keeping us aware of what is going on with the City
and the requirements. He’s been very helpful to myself and the rest of my office. The first thing I would like to address is concerning Mr. Lee. He is right across the street from
our fireworks tent out on Cherry and Ten Mile, and we like him there. So that part that it says the commercial residency, we are all for him right there. He has a great deal with somebody
he knows on property right there. We wish we could have something like that. That’s a good deal. First of all, I would like to address the size of the tents. When you were saying
that you, Mr. Mayor, were in the tent out at Cherry and Ten Mile, at Albertson’s, okay, the way that was set up, what did you specifically like about that?
Corrie: It was fairly open, easy to get in and get out, and it was a nice tent.
Holgring: Did you like how the tables were set up? Was that comfortable for you? Did you feel like that was a good access? Okay. That tent operator came up with a whole new schematic
for the tents that we hadn’t seen, and I kind of liked it myself because it kind of put an entrance over here and over here, and you could just kind of walk through it in kind of a circular
position. So I liked that as well. That was a 40 by 40, and the other being a 30 by 50, it just gives you more space. If it was cut down in half, and you have tables in there, people
are thinking, oh, okay, fireworks season, we all get to go back in there and do what we did last year, and you cut down the size of the tent, but you have the same amount of people coming
in, that right there to me is a safety hazard. I like the open as well where there is access and it being a tent. You can flip up the bottom if there is a problem and walk right out.
So I would like to keep the tent sizes the way that we have them, actually, for safety reasons. I have talked
repeatedly with the State Fire Marshal, Don McCoy, and he’s perfectly fine with them. He likes them. Well, I’m not going to put words in his mouth, but he will say if I said, you know,
I talked to Garden City today and they wanted me to call you and say is it okay. And he said yeah, it’s fine. Go ahead and give them a call back. It always has been. He’s a fantastic
guy to work with on tents. Our tents are all certified. Underneath the ’94 Uniform Fire Code which is Article 32 which has been cut the same all the time for the materials of the tent,
so we do have authenticity of their safety and security. So if any of you would like that, I would be more than willing to send those up to you as well. Then, let’s see. Now, I also
have a question about the ground-blooms and some of the ground spinners and kind of the joy of them is to put them in a large area. People on their courts, you know, for the 4th of
July go out there and put everything in the middle and watch it go off. We do offer to each person running a stand, it actually is required, an orientation in the spring to go over
new products and to handle products. We light them all off and say, you know, this is the best way for this or that to go off. Now, if you put, you know, a ground bloom on a hill,
that’s not very bright. You just don’t know what’ll happen to it, but those are some of the things that we go over. Just general reminders to people. When people come up, we encourage
them to bring those things up with the people at the stands or in the tents, as well as parents. That’s my big thing. If I’m at one of the stands and I see a parent shopping with the
kids, I always point out, please, you know, be careful in the sense of showing them how to light these correctly, that they stand back here, you do it and you have time to get away.
That is a frightening thing to me. I do very much so encourage the safety of our items. So we do have proper training at our orientations. We go through everything. If any of you
would like in the spring, I would be more than happy to have you come to our orientations to see what’s going on. We have invited other city leaders, and nobody’s really taken us up
on it. So we extend that to you to come and check out what goes on. Do I have any questions so far before I go on? Mr. Bird, you look like you might have a question.
Bird: No. I don’t.
Holgring: Okay. All right. And then – let me see. Now, you mentioned the licenses. $25 that would be per location? No matter if it’s a stand or a tent; is that correct, Mr. Berg?
Berg: Yes. That’s what the current ordinance says. The ordinance that we’re looking at; yes.
Holgring: Which we are more than willing to abide by. You have been fantastic to work with. Okay. Now July 6th in having all of our stands and tents down. Oh, wouldn’t that be beautiful.
Let me tell you why that would be beautiful. Because I get to go home. I spend most of my summer up here. As soon as these are gone, I can go home and relax and usually take a week
off and do nothing. So, unfortunately, we cover four states out of our office in Murray. So we have
people up here, Utah, let’s see – New Mexico and Colorado. So they are up and down taking down things and putting them away all over the place. That is really just difficult. So please
consider that. That’s just awful for us. Then our tent company that comes up and puts those up, you know, we have them out here, and apparently, you know, for convenience of those
people, they shouldn’t do more than one and-a-half in a day. Those just take a lot of effort to put up and take down. So please consider that. We have people calling us and saying
can we please take a break now. I have to – No. No, you can’t. You have to work. So that would be a safety reason for them as well. I think this is basically all I have that I would
like to cover right now, but as you said, Mr. Mayor, we will be going over this more in detail? Okay. And from this meeting, would you take what we’ve discussed and add that in so
that Mr. Berg sent us a letter saying what was going on, we could have that to discuss and ample time to come up here and meet again? Okay. Would you have any idea when that meeting
date might be?
Corrie: We can continue the public hearing for as long as we need testimony. We can – that’s up to the Council. Next meeting? Fifteenth?
Holgring: The 15th of February?
Corrie: February – March? We can do it the 15th (inaudible)
Holgring: Let me check with some people. Is there a chance that I could get back with you on that?
Bird: We’re going to make that motion tonight.
Holgring: Okay. The gentleman that speaks after me will be able to answer that for you. If I can have him up here, we’ll be okay. And do you have any other questions for me whatsoever?
I’m really curious on how you want to change this because anything that I don’t do, I don’t want to get my license pulled. I kind of like my job. I’m here to appease you and work
the best that I can with you.
Corrie: That’s kind of the way we are. I’m sure they are saying the same thing. There’s some things in here that are not good, there are some things that are good. We need the feedback
from you people on what you need so we can get it back to you – see what the best thing is for you and the public as well. So that’s why we’re continuing the public hearing as well.
Holgring: Well, thank you Mr. Mayor and Council as well. I appreciate your time.
Bird: Thank you.
Corrie: Thank you.
McCoy: Thank you Mr. Mayor and members of the Council. I’m not sure I can follow that. My name is Jerry Farley, and I don’t live in Idaho. I live in Seattle, Washington, and I am
actually a professional lobbyist and I have a number of clients. I represent optometrists and nurse practitioners and drug manufacturers, and one of the clients I’ve worked for since
1982 is the firework industry. When I first got into that business, in my naivete had this idea that this was a simple little business regulation issue. It’d be real easy to solve and
everything, and I’ve been doing it ever since. I have been involved with the drafting of laws and regulations in more states than I can think of right now, and a lot of cities and counties
as well; for example, just Saturday and Sunday, I’m sure all of you watched the Superbowl, at least I suspect most of you did, I did not. I was in San Diego with a committee from the
National Fire Protection Association 1124 drafting what we hope will be a model code for the regulating of the retail sale of fireworks. We’d like to see something like that developed
and implemented throughout the United States because we think generally operators are pretty safe and pretty decent people, but every once in awhile you have a few problems, and if we
had some kind of a guideline that would help regulators and something that the industry itself could live with, we think that would be a good idea. Those of you who have been in the
fire service probably know that drafting and adopting a regulation doesn’t happen overnight. I suspect that if this thing does come to pass, which I hope it will, it probably won’t
be on the books and available for anybody until perhaps 2002. Nevertheless, it will be the first time that someone that someone has attempted to do this on a national level, and as
we’ve sat through the discussions, we’ve learned new things all the time about how this system would work. I was one of the lobbyists who was involved in 1995 and 1996 in negotiating
with the Fire Chiefs’ Association and the State Fire Marshall’s Office and operators as well about developing what is now the state law here in Idaho. I like to think that I brought
some expertise with me. I hope I did. What we were trying to accomplish was to make the state law a little more uniform and to eliminate some of the problems that we as – on the fireworks
side of the equation had seen. A classic example of that is that the testing and listing of items. The biggest problem that we have with that is in the fireworks business if you have
to have your product tested. In 50 or 60 cities or towns and maybe several states, it gets to the point where you’re just not sure you can do it anymore. It’s too expensive and it’s
so difficult to do. In the fireworks business, the companies that buy their fireworks buy it usually in August or September from the manufacturers in China. They pay for it, they
start getting delivery early in the year, maybe even later in the same year, so by – we’re in February now. A lot of that product is already on its way across the water. One of the
things you try and do is you try and arrange the product array that you have and put them in assortments and those assortments get made in China for the most part because you have so
many to make and if, obviously, it’s cheaper to make them there, and if you have to keep changing those assortments based upon some in particular city or county or state’s standards,
and particularly if they might change at the last minute, it can be a problem. And we’ve had that difficulty in the past, and so we decided that it would be better for us if we could
have some kind of
uniformity that there would be predictability so that the product that we allowed to sell would be something we would know many months in advance. So that was an important thing for
us. The other problem we had is that you could have a cone with a particular, shall we say, brand name on it, or a particular item name, and it would have to be tested and approved.
If it had the same cone with a different piece of paper on it with a different brand name or a different item name on it, that would also have to be tested. So the list gets longer
and longer and longer. And, of course, some of those products don’t get sold anymore because like everybody else in the retail business, they change the names on them. But it’s just
the paper. So we thought, you know, a better approach would be in essence to sort of perform a standards using the common terms and phrases that are found initially federal regulations
and then if we could put those into state law, it would be much easier for the fire service and much easier for the fireworks industry to know what was allowed. So that’s why if you
read the state law, you don’t see specific things like ground-bloom flowers. You don’t see a specific item like Jack Surprise or anything. You see words that are common terms and they
float directly out of the federal regulations. Those federal regulations control not only the types of chemicals, the compounds that are found in them, but also the quantity of those
chemicals, and they also control the manner in which those are packaged; for example, a firecracker, whether or not legal, but that’s a good example, firecrackers can be no longer than
one and-a-half inch, no wider than – greater in diameter than three-eighths of an inch, the fuse must burn no less than 2.9 and no more than 6.3 seconds and so forth, as well as it limits
the quantity of materials. That’s true for all of the cones and fountains and spinners and everything. Everything is flowing right out of the federal regulations. So what we try to
do is to bring those into the State Law and make those uniform so that everybody would know that even though you call this a ground-bloom or you call this whatever, it’s a spinner.
The spinner means that you looked at the federal regulation and you know exactly how it’s going to work. There’s a consequence nobody has to second-guess it. When a new item is developed
by a company, they submit it to the federal government, the US Department of Transportation for testing. They send it to the Bureau of Explosives which is a private, non-profit agency.
They do a chemical analysis on it what those of us studied a little chemistry in high school called a qualitative analysis. They can tell us what’s in it. And a quantitative analysis.
The quantity of each of those things. If it meets the federal regulations for the type of fireworks that may be sold to the public, it’s given a BE number and classified as 1.4G.
It used to be known as Class C, common fireworks, but is now 1.4G. If it’s above that in quantity or it has chemicals not permitted, it’s classified as 1.3G or what used to be known
as –
*** End of Side 3 ***
explosives. So we thought all of this would help everybody understand better, and that’s what guided us into writing significant portions of the State Law. In fairness to all the people
in those rooms, you should know there were many
times when the fire chiefs fought amongst themselves and there were times when the fireworks industry fought amongst themselves, and there were times when we fought back and forth, and
in the end we ended up writing the bill that is now the law. I hope to heck that we did the right thing, because I hope that will help the City of Meridian, also, in enacting an ordinance
that is the proper balance between safety of the public, both the purchasing public and the using public and the observing public, and also help the retailer to do what they’re supposed
to do to comply with the ordinance, the law, and, of course, hopefully make a reasonable profit. I want to say one more thing about tents because tents have been in use as far as I
know in 27 states. Those are the ones I am aware of now, and I know they’ve been around for over 40 years in some of those states. They’re definitely the kind of thing that seems to
be the future. The reason they are is for two reasons: One, it allows the purchasing public to have a different relationship with the product that they may buy, and it allows the retailer
to have – to literally have a larger space so that the public can look at that stuff in a more leisurely fashion. That’s one of the reasons why the 750-foot, square foot limitation
is a difficult one. Because tents come in certain sizes, and the bigger the tent the better. Sure it costs money to put up a tent, and they’re not going to put up a 10,000 square-foot
tent everywhere, but they are going to put up a tent that’s going to be a little bit larger. That’s going to mean that more people can get into the tent, but they can also move around
more. We make sure that the tents operate in compliance with Article 32 of the Uniform Fire Code. That goes beyond just the material with which the tens are constructed. It also regulates
the number of exits, size of the exits, and all that stuff. I can tell you that every single tent always exceeds the number and size of the exits because those are the minimum requirements,
but the retailer is in a situation where they want as many ways in and out of that tent as possible. Particularly if there’s ever been a problem, which, of course, there never has
been. There never has been a problem in a tent, and we make sure – we want to make sure that there won’t be one. But if there were one, we want to make sure that people are going to
get out. Typically what will happen is they’ll ha flaps that may be open that aren’t actually a designated or required exit, and they map place some yellow tape across it so the people
will flow differently, but people can get out. I have a number of suggestions in this proposed ordinance, and I know it’s really late, and I feel terribly guilty maybe making a few
comments, but if you would permit that, I would be happy to enter these quickly into the record for you and then talk about how you can tell me how I can help because I believe my job
is to help you write that ordinance that will allow them to make money and allow your citizens to buy safe and use fireworks safely. The first one is the ground-bloom flower. I know
that that prohibition is specifically is found in the Boise ordinance, and we have a problem with that because first of all, ground-blooms are a fairly big item, they’re well-liked,
and to be candid with you, a ground-bloom is sort of a – is not really a term that you find anywhere, It’s a ground-spinner. The gentleman that talked about the conflict there is correct.
It would be better if they’re not – if ground-blooms not be prohibited because you can simply call it something else. Then it wouldn’t be a ground-bloom anymore. It’s always a
ground-spinner because that’s how you see it defined. He’s also correct about the conflict between C and E on the chaser. Also going to point out that G, I think that’s supposed to
be sparklers, not sparkles, and he was also correct that typically the sparklers that you see are metal core, but there are wood core, and the industry’s trying to find a way to make
the wood core sparklers as dependable and enjoyable as the metal core because the biggest problem we have with metal core is that they get a little hotter. We’d like to see something
– and I think you’ll see that in the end. The industry voluntarily doesn’t sell certain sparklers anymore because they've had some problems. A classic example of that is red sparklers.
We also in the section 45-3 – 03 on the listing, we would encourage you not to go this way as a policy issue because if you look at the state law and have your definitions structured
the same way the state law is, you fundamentally have that done for you, and then, of course, if you want to, you could decide if you wanted to ban certain items. We would ask that
you not do that because we think uniformity works better. You can always go outside the City of Meridian and buy the stuff and bring it home and what have we accomplished? Many nothing.
Maybe in fact we encourage them to do bad things. We like to see fireworks bought at a local stand ran by somebody hopefully from the community that cares about their community, probably
knows their customers and is sure as heck not going to want Johnny to do something stupid. I think a couple people have mentioned the conflict on the day of which stands have to be
down. Nothing need to be further said, but the later the better. Clearly, noon on the 12th is better than noon on the 6th because what it means is if you close the stand on midnight
on the 5th, they have to work all night to get those tents and stands down, and working in the dark is dangerous. Can be dangerous. Particularly putting up tents where you have the
guy wires and everything. I wanted to also point out that in Page 9 on Section 45-11 where it says Clerk to issue permit, I also wanted to echo a comment about Mr. Berg. He doesn’t
know who the heck I am, but I called him yesterday, and he tried to make some sense out of my questions and answer, and I really appreciated that very much. The second line there, there’s
a phrase “as it shall,” and I’m not sure what the “it” refers to, because earlier the Clerk is referred to – in his or her discretion, so I think you may have a slight technical drafting
error there. I assume that’s supposed to mean the Clerk. In Section 45-14, throughout your ordinance up to this point, you have used the word “safe and sane and dangerous.” Those
are terms that are no longer found in state law. We’ve gone to the term fireworks, common fireworks, special fireworks. Special fireworks are display fireworks, 1.3G, Class B. Common
fireworks are the 1.4G, Common Fireworks Class C. Then we have divided those into the aerial and non-aerial, and we’ve defined in the state law what an aerial firework does and what
a non-aerial does. Well, here you’ve got in sub-one, non-aerial common fireworks, but you don’t actually define that, and that’s where I would suggest that when you finalize this, you
use those terms that are found in the state law. The same when you find in sub-section two there, where you use the term common fireworks. That’s not defined in your ordinance, but
it is in the state law. If you were to use that term, I think it would work better because I think it would help
everybody with their understanding. Two more quick things if I might. One is on Page 11, sub-section F. In almost every place that I’m familiar with, families come into those tents,
and, of course, the bigger question is who buys them. The way this is drafted, I think no one under 18 would be allowed into a tent at all, and I would suggest instead, if I may, and
this is what is being drafted at least at this point for the NFPA 1124 standard. You have to be 16 to buy and you have to – if you’re under 16, you have to be in the presence, accompanied
by a responsible adult, 18 or older. No operator wants kids running around acting crazy, but one thing, they can hurt themselves, another they can destroy product, but mostly they can
disturb other customers. So we make the children, and I guess I should say everybody under 16, and some of those aren’t kids anymore, we think they should be in the presence of somebody
who is 18. One of the difficulties you could have, you can’t say it has to be their parent or their guardian, but at least it should be somebody 18. The other thing you should probably
know, if you’ve been inside a tent, you actually have people who are employees or volunteers if it’s a charitable club or group, that walk around in the tent, they do that not only for
security purposes, but also to answer questions. So it helps that they’re there as well. So we’d like to suggest that this be age 16 to buy, but anybody under 16 can go in there as
long as they’re in the presence of someone who is 18 or older. That’s a big thing. I know there’s some people who don’t like the age 16 to buy, and candidly, I’m one of those. I think
some of the most sophisticated buyers I’ve ever seen are 10, 11 year-old kids. So if you choose not to go with the age 16, that’s okay, but just remember, I think this just needs to
be drafted so that it’s clear that anybody can come into the tent, but whoever isn’t allowed to buy has to be in the presence of somebody who has to be 18 or 16 or whatever that age
is. In your – I’d be happy to help you draft language for that, because that will – I have done that in other places. G – you have no person employed as a watchman shall be permitted
to remain inside a stand or tent. Well, if you’re operating a tent, you leave the product in there and while you don’t – which means you’re going to have security there 24 hours at
least when the stand’s closed because you don’t want somebody walking into a tent and stealing something. Occasionally, that means you’re going to want that walkman go through there
and make sure everything’s okay inside, too. It’s one thing to say he shouldn’t stay in there, it’s another thing to say he shouldn’t go in there. So we would like to see the language
is drafted so that they could go in there, but, of course, we don’t want them staying in there. We want them outside most of the time. But we do want them to be able to go into the
tent. That would require some change also in sub-section L, and then finally in M where you talk about the maximum size of the tent. We would rather that not be there. I don’t think
you’re going to see a tent that’s much bigger than 30 by 50 for awhile and maybe never. But whatever it is, it would be determined, one, by the market place, and, two, it would have
to meet Article 32, and that says everything. I know your fire chief is probably very familiar with Article 32. The companies that we hire to put up those tents are required to comply
with Article 32, and if they don’t do it, we want to know about it because we want them to. Finally, I would agree with the gentleman here about the zoning. I think it’s one
thing to prohibit stands in a residential area specifically residentially zoned area, it’s another to simply say they have to be in a certain area. It seems to me you want to have some
flexibility. They want to have a stand out someplace, he’s right. Dirt’s cheaper than pavement. As I said, I’d be happy to help in anyway that I can to make this a good ordinance
that allows everybody to be safe and have an enjoyable holiday. I apologize, also, for talking so long.
Corrie: Questions?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor. Just a comment that if you’ve made notes on that, you may want to leave them with our fire chief so that he would have them. I don’t know that he was able to
write fast enough to get them all down.
Farley: That’s okay. I’ll tell you what I’ll do, I’ll make sure that you get every one of them.
Lee: Connie Lee, 5660 Becky Drive, Meridian. I just want to quickly make comments on – just to verify one question. Why can’t we just adopt the State – why can’t we go along with
the State regulations rather than having a different one in each city? So that Caldwell, Nampa, Meridian and Star would all have the same? On the testing of them, I was at the testing
in Boise, and had the Fire Marshall’s comments, but it was way too time consuming and expensive to have the employers there all day and the time that it took. On the sparklers, having
sold it for as many years as we have, a comment from the adults is the short ones – it makes too short of a handle, and so therefore it comes around the hand, and it’s actually more
dangerous and they have more burns, and not just for kids, but for adults as well. It seems like the old ones like – older people like to play with the sparklers just as well. I have
a question on the age. I know that from raising my children in it and having other employees, that it helps provide value for the kids and an education and also employment. I just
– I think we need to get back to families and supervision and giving kids a worth will help them in a lot of areas and also it’s always been a thing of mine that we can sell to three-year-olds,
but you have to be 18 to sell it. I think there needs to be a compromise there that – I think 16 is a little old to buy, but – I contradict that I don’t think three-year-olds should
be able to come purchase it either. The age should be lowered to sell it. I would like to see that down to 14. Thanks.
Corrie: Anyone else?
Bowers: Mayor Corrie and City Council members, I really appreciate all the input that they had put in tonight, and do have our work cut out for us, I can see. Our intent was not to
make any of the tents smaller. We like the size that’s out there now. As Ron Anderson, Councilmen can attest, we have been called quite a few names here in Meridian because we do allow
tents and other cities do not. We kind of started that here in this area, so we did kind of start a problem for other areas, but we think under the Uniform Fire Code 32 that addresses
a lot of those
issues. Also, our intent was not to keep kids out of the tents. That’s not our intent either. We will have to make sure we re-write those paragraphs to make sure that’s said. The
comments from Mr. Lee on being able to go out into a pasture and put his fireworks stands in there, I believe that Article was in the old ordinance years ago, and we just had not done
– we allowed them. We had talked to Shari on the thing and she did not see that there was a problem. If you believe we need to take that paragraph out of this ordinance, we sure can.
But that is under Planning and Zoning Ordinances or something like that, so that’s kind of why it was put in there and left there at this time. My impression of the ground-blooms and
the ground-spinners are that they are completely different. The people that have told me today and yesterday on the phone that they are not, so we’ll have to work on that ordinance
there – paragraph. The part where it talks about the list that Meridian Fire Department will have, I was very tickled that we had a list that was updated on fireworks until the people
started calling me. I went to look at it, and it’s ’96. So we do not have an updated list. I think that was the last time that the fire marshals got together and tested them. I don’t
know what they do in Canyon County. I don’t know if they test them over there, but they haven’t tested them, I believe, since ’96 in Meridian. So that’s one of the paragraphs that
we really want to work on and possibly take it out completely because of the time that it takes to do the testing. Another question of Mr. Lee’s, he had mentioned about is he going
to have to keep records in his own booth or – on each booth or in his office. That was put in there by the attorney, and we will find out for you on that. Not Bill, but the other Bill.
Bill and I are kind of just sitting here between the Fire Marshall and the other attorney, so we’re kind of in the middle of this. Sparklers, we’ll look into that, too. Sidney and
Jerry I think talked about the day that the equipment needs to be removed by. I didn’t quite get it if it was clear enough that the 5th is too soon and the 12th needs to be – the 12th
is better? I’m not sure why we’ve got both dates in there. Okay. Mayor Corrie and City Council, do you have any other questions of me at this time?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor. If we table this, Kenny, two weeks, in light of all the testimony that we had tonight and the amount of research and changes you’re going to do, two weeks a little
short –
Bowers: Not if I get more input from all these people. I wouldn’t be able to do it in two weeks, I don’t think.
Anderson: I guess I’m thinking of giving you about a month. Is that enough time?
Bowers: We’d sure try. We would sure try our best. If a month isn’t, maybe we’d have to come back and ask for a continuance. I’m not sure how that works out with Bill, but two weeks
is too short with all of this. A lot of the people discussed the same items, but there are quite a few items. I really appreciate what they put in. Will kept me informed the last
two days of everybody that called in and was asking questions also. Another thing, I thought that the Fire Marshal had an
updated list of fireworks, and I guess he doesn’t either. Okay. Any other questions?
Bird: Kenny, on this thing, safe and sane fireworks, I’d like a clarification on that whole section on – you do this, you do that, who’s liability is it? If we run tests, then are
we sticking our necks out for liable and stuff like that, the liability of it and everything else. We make out a list that this is it, are we liable?
Bowers: We’ll – between both Bills, we should be able to find that out for you guys. Anything else? Okay.
Berg: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just a comment to briefly appreciate the other comments from everybody that came up and testified. I think we need to, as Kenny mentioned, look at this
a little bit closer and maybe come up to the standard terms and the up-to-date names so we can have a little bit more continuity between cities or counties or states. The other comment
is since some of these are a couple dates that we can sell them, maybe so many days after the closure of the sales date rather than a specific date. Displays, we may have to deal with
them differently when they shoot off the fireworks that need to be cleaned up a lot sooner, so we may have to look at that. Just a comment. The Chief and the Fire Marshal and I have
probably looked at as many ordinances as the attorney has, and sometimes what you think is fine is not so fine after you get some other comments. We try to make a pretty good stab at
this ordinance, and I think we have, and it’s good to have these comments from people that actually deal with them day in and day out rather than us just during the season and looking
at the safety of the citizens. So I appreciate that.
Corrie: Anything else? Okay. Thank you, Kenny.
Bowers: Thank you.
Corrie: Okay. Well – yes. Go ahead.
Lee: Bernell Lee, 5660 Becky Drive. Because of the time if we’re going to extend this a month, ordering starts here pretty quick, and that’s – we might need to consider whether this
goes into effect this year or what time this year; whether it would be the winter season or the first of – because some of these things, if they need to – if the testiness’ going to
be involved, you know, there are going to be limits there, and there’s a lot of things that are going to be affected by this.
Corrie: I don’t think we want to hinder anybody. Just make sure it’s safe and when we get the right ordinance, because we don’t want to change ordinances every year. Any other comments?
Okay. I'll entertain a motion to continue public hearing and a date specific.
Bird: Mr. Mayor –
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Bird: Mr. Anderson, go ahead.
Corrie: (inaudible) Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I would make a motion that we continue this public hearing on this fireworks ordinance until March 7th.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion’s made and seconded that we continue the public hearing until March the 7th of this year. Further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion
say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT.
Berg: Mr. Mayor. I would hope that we’d have some kind of a draft copy that we could distribute out to these people in plenty of time for them to make some other comments back to us.
Not knowing exactly what the Council’s direction is, but I think it’s in the direction of keeping it safe plus accommodating some of their questions and legal ramifications. Thank
you.
Corrie: Okay.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I would request they (inaudible) adjournment until 10:30.
Bird: I second that.
Corrie: Okay. Motion is made and seconded. All in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
(Meeting in reconvened at 10:30 p.m.)
Item 8. FP 00-001 Request for final plat of 24 lots for Santee Commercial Complex by Santee Construction – Lot 3, Block 2, Railside Park Subdivision:
Corrie: Meeting back in session at 10:30. Item No. 8 is the request for final plat of 24 lots for Santee Commercial Complex by Santee Construction. Staff, comments?
Stiles: This is for a so-called, kind of a townhouse concept in the Santee – called the Santee Commercial Subdivision. It’s in the existing Railside
Subdivision off of Pine and Adkins. Ralston Street. It’d be just north of where the plumber’s union is. We have prepared our comments, I believe they’re dated January 25th and received
by the City Clerk January 26th. We’d ask that this be approved with Staff conditions and the applicant’s representative is here tonight to address any concerns he may have with these
comments.
Corrie: Any questions of Shari?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
Corrie: Is the applicant here tonight? Bob?
Unger: Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Council members. Bob Unger with Pinnacle Engineers representing the applicant. Our address is 870 North Linder Road, Suite B, Meridian, Idaho. We
have no problems with the conditions of approval. Just a couple of quick clarifications. Number 19, staff has concerns about lack of a detail in the CC & R’s regarding responsibilities
for permanent landscaping. We’ll amend those CC & R’s to better identify the responsibilities for the permanent landscaping. We don’t have any problem with that. Item No. 24 requires
a pressurized irrigation system as per the Meridian City Code. Railside Subdivision does not have any irrigation water whatsoever. We have less than half of an acre of landscaping
on the perimeter landscaping in front of the project. We’ve discussed it with Public Works. They are requiring us to put in an additional meter for the sprinkling of the landscaping,
so we would ask that that condition be waived. Other than that, we have no problems with the conditions.
Corrie: Okay. Any questions from Council?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you, Bob.
Unger: Can I make one other comment?
Corrie: You sure may.
Unger: This is recommendation, request, suggestion, on your agendas. This is about my 4th or 5th final plat. I come in here and I sit here for three hours because the final plats
are always at the tailend. Generally, final plats take two, three minutes and you’re gone. So we would – I’ve talked to some of the other development people, it would be really great
if you folks would consider putting final plats on the front-end of your agenda under your new business. That way we can all get out of here and my clients save money and everything.
So if you could consider that, we’d appreciate it.
Corrie: Okay.
Bird: Thank you.
Corrie: Okay. Council, pleasure?
Bird: Mr. Mayor. I’ve got a question for Gary if it’s okay. Gary, no problem with not having pressurized irrigation?
Smith: Councilman Bird, Mayor and Council, as long as the subdivision doesn’t have pressurized irrigation available to it right now, then we can – and with the landscaping area that
Mr. Unger referred to, we can provide the water for that area and still be within the requirements of our water right (inaudible).
Bird: I have none other.
Corrie: Any others? Okay. I’ll entertain a motion for the attorney to prepare the proper order and Mayor to sign.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor. Mayor Corrie and Council members, if I could clarify something, then. Mr. Smith, it would be acceptable to have a condition – they have to have a pressurized irrigation
system, it’s just it would be connected to the City’s portable water system until such time as an irrigation water system is available; is that what you mean by a separate meter? Just
it would be hooked into the regular domestic water supply.
Smith: Yes, that’s correct. It would be a separate meter for sprinklers only. They wouldn’t be billed sewer-use fee for the water that’s put on the grass or the onscaping.
Nichols: So it would still be a pressurized system (inaudible) domestic one?
Smith: Yes, that’s correct.
Nichols: Thank you.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor. I would make a motion that we approve this final plat for Santee Commercial Complex and instruct the City Attorney to prepare the appropriate order and decision
with the exception of Item 24 in the conditions of staff requiring pressurized irrigation that the applicant be allowed to hook to the City water system for irrigation purposes.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion’s been made and seconded to approve the final plat with the conditions as stated in the motion; any further comments, discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of
the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 9. FP 00-002 Request for final plat of 21.68 acres for Celebration Estates by Mike and Bonnie Rice:
Corrie: Item No. 9 is a request for a final plat for 21.68 acres for Celebration Estates by Mike and Bonnie Rice. Staff?
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, this is for property that’s located within our impact area but outside of our urban services planning area. It’s located between Ten Mile and Black Cat
south of Victory about a half of a mile south of Victory?
: Half a mile north.
Stiles: North of Victory. The only comment that we had that was any significance, and there’s really nothing that the applicant can do about it. You can see that it has this private
road that runs down Lamont south for quite a distance. It’s almost 700 feet, 670-some feet, then it goes in an east-west direction and the Ada County Street Name Committee has required
that the names be the same on both legs of this road. They’re both called South Nova Lane. We questioned why that would be the same name, and it seems a little confusing, and not that
our departments, Public Works or Planning and Zoning would have to worry about it, but the -–we wondered about the fire and police services because we got another letter from the Ada
County Street Name Committee today that said their policy is to require any road that changes direction for a distance of more than 150 feet would have to have another name. That’s
the only comment I have, and we are required comment and send those comments on to Ada County, and we’d ask that it be approved with that stipulation, I guess.
Corrie: Any other staff comments? Okay. Developer, problems with that?
Rice: Mike Rice, 1015 Larksbur, Meridian. I have no comment.
Anderson: I have a question of Mike. Would they – would the Street Name Committee be opposed to just calling it Nova Lane, or is there another Nova Lane somewhere else?
Rice: We went to Ada County to name this street and applied for several different things. This was their recommendation back to us. They gave us a reason for it. It didn’t make any
sense to me, but I guess it did to them.
Corrie: Any other questions?
Bird: I have none.
Rice: South Nova Lane continues north of Lamont on the other side and almost aligns. I think that was part of the reasoning. It doesn’t show on there.
Bird: But they’re running the same street east and west there that they are north and south. I mean, Nova Lane’s going in coming down that way, too, so you’re going to be confusing
(inaudible) with numbers, I would think. You’re going to be going down, say, 25 to 45 vertically north and south, and then you get down here, you might be up in 10835 or something like
that. You’re – postal service, but that’s up to them. It’s weird, but if that’s the way they want it.
Rice: That’s what Ada County came back to us with.
Corrie: We’ll just do it with a stipulation.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor. I did have one more question. I was reading Fire Department’s comments on this, and since this is in a rural area where there is no water supply, Fire Chief had
indicated that he thought all the homes would need to be built with a sprinkler system, assuming the residential sprinkler system, and then I noticed that’s not in the staff comments.
Is that – would that need to be in the staff comments to make that apply or is that considered a staff comment in a separate attachment like that?
Stiles: Yes. We would include Chief Bowers’ comments when we forward that on to Ada County.
Anderson: And does the applicant understand that requirement? Let the record show the applicant shook his head yes.
Rice: Yes. I understand.
Corrie: It’s kind of hard to have a head-shake on the recording. Okay. And questions? Okay. I’ll entertain a motion on the request for final plat, No. 9.
Bird: Cherie, it’s your turn. Make a stab.
McCandless: Okay. I move that we approve the request for final plat of 21.68 acres for Celebration Estates and ask the attorney to prepare the appropriate Order and Decision with a
street stipulation.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion made and seconded to approve the final plat on 21.68 acres of Celebration Estates for the attorney to prepare the proper order, the Mayor to sign, and with the
staff comments with the stipulation that was stated in the ACHD road. Any further comments? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 10. FP 00-003 Request for final plat of 7.84 acres for Gemtone No. 4 by Thomas T. Wright at NE ¼ Section 8, T3N, R1E (west of Hickory Avenue between Pine and State):
Corrie: Item 10, request for final plat of 7.84 acres for Gemtone No. 4. Shari, Staff?
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, this is for another phase of Gemtone Subdivision. This would be where Blue Cross is located. The City has a well-type here. I don’t know if you’re
seeing that or not. This plat was previously submitted and approved by the Council in May of 1999 which would mean they have to submit their final plat – it has to be recorded by that
date of 2000. The original Gemtone Center No. 4 included the entire Pine Street right-of-way and this one has excluded it. The only things I can see that have changed is they had the
same number of lots although they have included a little sliver of a lot along the west boundary and along the southern boundary, and the note says that is for landscape and drainage.
I would like to have the applicant’s representative present to explain their reason for not including Pine Avenue and if they propose this plat as revised, I would recommend it be denied
due to the fact that they are not dedicating that additional right-of-way for Pine. Took it off.
Bird: When we passed that in May, that was dedicated (inaudible)
Stiles: Yes, it was. There was no explanation of why that was taken off. I know Dennis Baker is getting anxious to come in with a plan for all the property he’s purchased in that
area, but it’s almost appearing to be kind of a spite strip that’s been intentionally left off of the plat.
Bird: Mr. Mayor. This – if we allow something like this, we are going to have the same problem you have when you go right across the street that we’re having with Pine Street right
over there which we, as a City, got taken to the cleaners on that baby. I guess the best thing to do would be to table this until next week and get their representative in here and
find out – I recall when we passed this in May, that Pine Avenue was going through. There was no ifs ands and buts about it. If it’s proper, I’ll make a motion that we table this until
February 15, 2000.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to table Item No. 10 until February 15th of this month, this year. Any further discussion?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to also just follow up and have Shari contact them and let them know that we have questions and would like them to come and explain the discrepancy.
Stiles: Okay.
Corrie: Any other discussion? All those in favor of the motion, all those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT.
Item 10B. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: AZ 99-013 Request for annexation and zoning to R-4 by Charles Crane – 3610 W. Ustick Road:
Corrie: Item 10B.
Bird: If we don’t have any discussion, I’ll go ahead and make a change. On Charles Crane, request for annexation and zoning from I-L to R-2. I made the motion that it was R-4 which
was mistaken, and that’s what was passed, so I guess what we need to do is just make a motion to amend that previous motion and to let the decision, Facts and Conclusion show that it
was an R-2 instead of an R-4. I make that motion.
Anderson: And I second that.
Corrie: Okay. Motion’s made and seconded to have the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law on request for annexation and zoning to show that it’s to be changed back to the R-2 from
the R-4 from the previous motion for the Charles Crane, 3610 West Ustick Road. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Anderson: He was just making a motion to – now we need to still approve them.
Corrie: Well, we have to – do you want to do Findings or do you want to go ahead –
Nichols: Mayor Corrie, members of the Council, I’m fine if you just simply want to adopt Findings and specify at that particular Item that it should say R-2 instead of R-4.
Bird: We can go ahead and pass them?
Nichols: Yes.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I would make a motion that we adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for the request for annexation and zoning to R-4 by Charles Crane and authorize
the Mayor to sign, the Clerk to attest.
Bird: Wait a second. You mean R-2, don’t you?
Anderson: To R-2. Excuse me.
Bird: I second that.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, request for annexation and zoning to R-2 by Charles Crane, 3610 West Ustick Road. Any further
discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
McCandless: Roll-call?
Corrie: Okay. Roll-call vote.
Roll-call vote: Mr. Bird, aye; Mr. Anderson, aye; Mrs. McCandless, aye.
MOTION CARRIED THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT.
Corrie: Motion carried. Let the record note that there was one Councilman’s vote that was not here. Okay.
Item 11. Dog License Agreement with The Pet Hospital:
Corrie: Now we’re on Item 11. Dog license.
Bird: Yes, we needed to (inaudible) that.
Corrie: Okay. Dog License Agreement with the Pet Hospital. Okay, Mr. Bird. You’ve got that pretty well down, I think.
Bird: Mr. Mayor. I would make a motion that our license agreements regarding the dog license be enacted by –
*** End of Side 4 ***
City Council. You what?
Corrie: He just took away your brownie points.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Bird, I have a suggested resolution here that I think I can amend by (inaudible) right now. That would be – and I don’t know if the Council has that
in front of them or not, but it would basically – if you don’t have it in front of you, we could put it on the agenda for 2/15, you could approve this particular one that the Chief has
already worked out with the Pet Hospital, and we can amend this resolution, have it before you on 2/15. Basically it would authorize the Chief to go out and get the agreements then
bring them back , have them signed by the Mayor and attested to by the Clerk that they’re a part of the record, and the resolution would be his authority to do that, and the Mayor and
the Clerk’s authority to sign and attest those agreements. I think that’s okay.
Bird: That’s what I want. I can’t see every agreement coming before the City Council, but in the same token, I believe that our agreements should be signed by the Mayor and attested
to by the Clerk. Put the responsibility on them.
Corrie: And you can bring back – the attorney can bring back that resolution.
Bird: So we just need to make a motion now, Mayor, to pass that one? I make a motion that we accept the dog license agreement with the Pet Hospital.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the dog license agreement with the Pet Hospital. Any further discussion? All those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARREID: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 12. Water/Sewer/Trash Delinquencies:
Corrie: Now we’re going to (inaudible). Okay. This is to inform you in writing, if you choose to, you have the right to a predetermined hearing at 7:30 p.m. Tuesday, February 1, 2000,
before the Mayor and City Council to appear in person to be judged on the facts and to defend the claim made by this City that your water, sewer and trash bill is delinquent. You may
retain counsel. This service will be discontinued on February 9, 2000 unless payment is received in full. Is there anyone present who wishes to contest his or her water, sewer and
delinquency? No response. They are hereby informed that they may appeal or have the decision of the City reviewed by the Fourth Judicial District Court, pursuant to Idaho Code. Even
though they appeal, their water will be shut off. The amount of the turn-off list is $53,884.84. I’ll entertain a motion to approve the delinquency turn-off list scheduled for 2/9/2000.
Bird: So moved.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the delinquency turn-off list schedule for February 9, 2000. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 13. Department Reports
Corrie: Department reports, Public Works. Gary.
Public Works – Gary Smith:
Ustick Road Water Line Improvements Change Order No. 3:
Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Council members. First item on the agenda is Ustick Road waterline improvements, Change Order No. 3. Your packet – it’s all in number one on Brad Watson’s
memorandum. This had to do with the extension of a casing around the waterline as the waterline crossed Five Mile Creek on Linder Road. The amount requested for the Change Order and
approved by the Public Works Department is $984. I think there was also an increase in the length of time on the contract of one day. So Public Works Department would be a recommendation
to approve Change Order No. 3 for Bitterroot Construction for this 1999 waterline project, Phase I, in the amount of $940 and the addition of one day to the contract time. Do you have
any questions?
Anderson: I have none.
Bird: Do you want to – Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve the Change Order No. 3 with Bitterroot Construction Company on Phase I Ustick Road improvements, 1999 waterline project for
the sum of $940 plus one day added to the contract.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the Change Order No. 3 for the amount of $940 plus one-day extension. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
2. Digester & Clarifier Facilities (Wastewater Plant) Change Order No. 1:
Smith: Thank you. Second item is a request for Change Order to the construction project of the digester and clarifier facilities at the wastewater treatment plant. This is Change
Order No. 1 from the contractor Turnkey Construction. The letter that you have in your packet from Keller addresses the six different items, seven items I guess there are, that were
requested where they requested compensation. Keller Associates addressed each one of those and made their recommendations to us. The amount that was approved by Keller and the Public
Works Department is $11,604.23 for those specific items with no increase in the contract time. As Brad pointed out in his memorandum to Councilman Bird, there is some money under this
requested change order that’s in dispute. So our recommendation would be to approve of the $11,604.23 for those items that were outlined in Keller’s letter of October 29th.
Anderson: For my clarification, Gary, is it $2,700 that’s in dispute that’s not included in the $11,604.23?
Smith: If you give me just one second, I’ll grab my calculator.
Anderson: I don’t know about you, but Shari and I don’t have anything else that shows what this requested change order is.
Smith: Mr. Mayor, Council members, Councilman Anderson, that $11,604.23 is the total of what Keller’s recommending payment for, so it does not include the $2,700.
Bird: (inaudible) seven items that Keller –
Smith: Yes.
Bird: Mr. Mayor. If there’s no other discussion, I’ll move we approve Change Order No. 1 with Turnkey Construction for the sum of $11,604.23 which makes their contract $3,126,600.23
and no addition to calendar days.
Anderson: I’ll second it.
Corrie: Motion is made and seconded to approve the $11,604.23 increase in Change Order No. 1 and no increase in calendar days. Further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor
of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
3. Creason Lateral Trunk Sewer Crossing License Agreement with
Nampa Meridian Irrigation District:
Corrie: The third item I have is the license agreement between the City of Meridian and Nampa Meridian Irrigation District for sewer line trunk that we’ll be crossing the Creason Lateral
from the headworks of the wastewater treatment plant into the Bews Mini Storage development and then to the east on out to Ten Mile Road. But this requested license agreement is just
for the crossing of our sewer line with the Creason Lateral, and that’s – costs are being – requests for costs are being solicited right now for that construction so we can get this
ahead of the irrigation season. This will be for a 36-inch diameter trunk that will be the connecting link for the no-name trunk and for the north slew. So I would request your approval
of this license agreement with Nampa Meridian Irrigation District.
Bird: I move that we approve this license agreement with the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District for the Creason Lateral trunk sewer crossing for the Mayor to sign, the Clerk to attest.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the request for license agreement between the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District for Creason Lateral trunk sewer crossing. Any further discussion?
All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Council.
B. Fire Department – Chief Kenny Bowers:
1. Idaho Power Easement Agreement at frontage of the new fire station 540 East Franklin:
Corrie: Fire Department, Kenny Bowers.
Bowers: Mayor Corrie and City Council members, thank you. The first item is an agreement between Idaho Power Company and the City of Meridian. Idaho Power’s requesting an easement
for relocation of powerlines across along Franklin Road on the north side. The relocation of power lines is necessary to meet the power demands in the area, and I believe their number
one place they had to go to was Jabil to help them out. This agreement was looked over by our attorney, Bill Gigray. It was sent back to Idaho Power with some additions. They came
back to our attorney, Bill Nichols, and he looked through it and everything was brought up to date. The figure that we’re talking about from Idaho Power will be $7,504.75. We would
approve having the Mayor sign this with Will Berg attesting it. Are there any questions?
Anderson: The dollar amount, that’s what they pay us for the easements?
Bowers: Yes.
Anderson: So we’re getting back for that box finally? Mr. Mayor, I would make a motion that we approve the easement agreement with Idaho Power for relocating their power lines across
the frontage of the new fire station and authorize the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest.
Bird: I’ll second that.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the Idaho Power Easement Agreement for the frontage f the new fire station, 540 East Franklin, and the City received $7,504.75. Any further
discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
2. Change Order No. 3 for work at the new fire station of $418.16:
Bowers: Thank you. Item 2 is a change order for our new fire station on Franklin Road. Change Order No. 3 will be – we are deleting a projection screen in our training room. We are
looking at a different style of screen, deleting that we will get $215 back. We are also deleting a sign – a light that’s in front of the fire station that shined back onto our new
sign that says Meridian Fire Station. The reason why we are deleting that light is because our sign is lit now inside the sign. So we are deleting that light fixture out front. That
was $89.94. Where we put the sign on the building, we had to relocate the downspout. They did not charge us for that. It’s pretty nice on that part of it. The next, D, we decided
that the inside of the bays would look much cleaner and stay cleaner if we did not paint the bays, the bay rooms. That’s where our fire trucks sit. From starting that all the time
with the diesel, that the white walls – we would be washing them all the time, so we decided to go against painting that, but we did need to fill it, seal it. Of course, the sealer
that we chose – that they chose for us cost more than the paint. So that would be a $556 increase. Also, Item No. 2 is add a shelf. Now, we added a shelf inside the kitchen and living
area in the fire station. That cost us $167, but we will get that back from ZGA. They are going to pay for that later. So we will get a credit from ZGA for the $167. So the work order
change for No. 3 ended up $418.16. Are there any questions on work order No. 3?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor. I would make a motion that we approve the Change Order No. 3 for the new fire station in the amount of $418.16.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve Change Order No. 3 in the amount of $418.16 as requested by the Fire Department. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion
say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
3. Change Order No. 4 for $922.00:
Bowers: The next item will be Change Order No. 4. This will be also at the fire station on Franklin Road. They had to adjust the height of the existing sewer lid in front of the station.
That ring and the adjustment was going to cost us $164. They had to provide an attic walkway and light switch with two lights above the bays. We decided to go with an alley walkway
up above instead of mounting a metal ladder on the side of the building inside that we would have to also purchase the safety equipment that went along with climbing a ladder. Adding
the ladder and the safety equipment that we’d had to buy, we would be into it the same amount, same dollar value. So the attic and adding the light switches was $1,158. The reason
why that attic ladder or the – the attic walkway or the ladder had to be added is because we’ve got a motor up there and they have to service it. So by mechanical code, we had to put
a ladder and a landing up there. We would have had to do the landing. So we decided to do the walkway instead.
Anderson: What side of the building is that on?
Bowers: That is on the west side on the north – northwest.
Anderson: The living quarters?
Bowers: Above the living quarters, yes.
Anderson: What’s the motor for?
Bowers: The motor is part of – you know, I was going to say it was part of the exhaust system, but now that we get to talking about that, I think both exhaust systems are up front.
But there is a motor up there for something, and I’m not sure what it was, Ron. I can’t remember what it is either. But we thought we’d rather have the walkway up above instead of
the ugly ladder sticking out and have to buy the safety equipment to climb the ladder up and down. The harness
Anderson: The walkway will be out in the bays?
Bowers: No. It’ll be above the – you won’t even see it. You’ll – you know where the generator is at? Okay. You climb up there and then walk right all the way across. In between
the beams. No. 3, provide and install floor underlayment. What this is is underlayment that goes in between the wooden floor and the floor covering that we picked to put down. This
was $2,836. Paul from ZGA, Beniton and the contractor that was going to lay the flooring down argued about this for
many, many weeks. Finally Paul called me one day and said they’ve come to a standstill. Nobody is going to pay for it on their end of it. It was not in the spec bids and it had to
be there, but – like Ron says, you bid the trusses and then you come back and ask for the nails later. It’s kind of the way it’s ending up being. So instead of holding up the project
which I believe it was gong to, and ZGA believed it was going to, too, I went ahead and told them to go ahead and do the flooring underlayment. That came up to $283.36. Item No. 4,
curb changes. The contractor from Beniton came to us and asked us if we would like to change the curbing around the fire station. We were getting into the cold weather, they were afraid
we were not going to get any concrete to pour curbing, so they asked us if we would rather go with the excruded curbing which goes on top of the concrete, asphalt. We discussed this
for many weeks. Councilman Anderson, myself, ZGA, and we decided that we would like to do that because of the timeframe and the colder weather coming in. Also, in front of the fire
station, we still had them do the old style curbing that goes down into the ground and curves in. The reason why we did that was because that was where the trucks will be pulling in
to back in. So we thought they would be possibly being hit by the fire trucks, so we went with the old style curbing. Both curbing has a one-year guarantee. So it didn’t make any
difference if it broke or what, within one year if it was underground or above ground, they would have to replace it. That was a minus $1,956. Now, we were talking about they were
going to give us a $3,000 credit around that area, but as I was telling you, in front of the fire station where the trucks pull in, and we had them pull the older style curb that goes
in the ground, we had them bring in more gravel and compact that a little bit more so the curbs would not be moving as much. So that took about $1000 extra there. Also, our landscaper
said that the leading – the plastic lawn edging he thought would be a very good idea knowing firemen the way they run lawnmowers around that we would be cracking and breaking the plastic
edging within months. As you can see, it was a pretty good savings at $1,280 for a total of $922 for Change Order No. 4.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor. I would make a motion that we approve Change Order No. 4 on the new fire station.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Anderson and seconded by Mr. Bird to approve the order – the Change Orders on No. 4 for the fire station. Further discussion? Hearing none, all those in
favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Bird: Before Kenny goes on, I’d like to say something. You know, that building – it seems like we’ve had a lot of change orders in here, but they haven’t amounted to a hill of beans.
I think the pre-planning and everything that was done by Kenny and Ron and their committees attest to the fine job that if you do
a little pre-planning, it pays off in the end. I don’t know how many you’ve got (inaudible) out there, it’s a beautiful building. I’m sure we’re a month away from getting in. I would
just like to compliment them, and I know that Chief Gordon is going to go down this same route with the planning, and hopefully the building of the new fire station. I just want to
thank Ron and Kenny and the committee that’s done such a fantastic job on that building. It’s a very nice building.
Bowers: I believe if we take out the Idaho Power Change Order, I think we’d be in at under $10,000 for Change Orders.
Bird: You are and that’s great.
4. Accident Insurance for the volunteer firefighters:
Bowers: The third Item – the last item is insurance for our volunteer, on-call personnel. This is an accident policy that we have received from Lonestar for our department. Lonestar
sent the City of Meridian stating that Lonestar has been bought out by another company and that any new firefighters that we put on we cannot put them on the same program as what we
have the older firefighters on. Dennis Pratt came and talked to the rural commissioners as you know, and the rural commissioners were real happy with the new program, the new accident
insurance. Right now we’re paying $13.75 a fireman on that part. I was under the impression from Dennis Pratt that nobody was going to be able to get insurance or as of January 1,
we were all out of insurance, but that’s not the case. I put a Lonestar paper in Keith’s box and Ron’s box so they could kind of look at that. I mentioned this to Pauline or she had
heard about it and she suggested that we get with the City Brokers and go out and make sure we’re getting the best price for our insurance. If we have to do that, then we’ll have to
go back to the rural commissioners and then wait another month for them to approve it or whatever. So I’m just wanting to kind of have a suggestion from you on which way you want to
go. If that’s the way you want to go is check with the broker and see if we are – we’ll get the best price. She wasn’t able to get any facts or figures today from the broker. They’re
meeting tomorrow, so we’re kind of one day late on figures. Also, this is just not the firemen either. There are several city employees that have extra policies through Lonestar like
myself, John Shawcroft, several employees that do have extra insurance, cancer, that it has to be looked at also.
Corrie: Let me clarify that, Council, just a little bit. Human Resources wanted to check and see if the changes were equal instead of compete with what they had. If they were – I
don’t have any problem with going ahead with what Mr. Dennis Pratt suggested that the rural fire okayed it, you pretty much okayed it. Just make sure that the coverage is the same.
We don’t want to have less coverage or something from one to another. My suggestion to her was it’s fine.
Bird: Is it the same, Mayor?
Corrie: We’ll find out tomorrow. I think it probably is. There’s a little difference in the coverage, but it may not be enough. If it’s a lot, then we need to bring it back to Ron
and have him go (inaudible) rural and tell them what the difference is because you want to keep it as close as you can. The other – those that have that coverage now keeps that coverage.
They just can’t add new people (inaudible) but they get to keep the same coverage.
Bowers: Mayor Corrie and City Council members, Pauline told me today that this new insurance that we had looked at does not have any cancer or anything else. So it is different than
our Lonestar policy.
Corrie: So we want to make sure and let you know what it is then.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor. I just have a question. I guess it’s just for clarification for me. I’m unclear what the process is to do this and Kenny and mentioned that our broker was going
to check prices, and that’s where I’m unclear is when we say “our broker” I thought Dennis was our broker for this type of insurance. I don’t know. Do we have different brokers for
different types of insurance for the City?
Corrie: The City has one broker, and that’s part of their service. There’s no charge for that. They just make sure the coverage is equal and everything else. Dennis Pratt is the
agent with that company that he suggested we do it. He just – as far as I’ve ever had, not a whole lot with the City and the brokerage. So what I’ve asked that the person we have the
– used to be James Company, they look into that company and get a reading about it and what it is and give it back to us and say, yes, this is fine, no problems here. But you need somebody
to do that that’s got the ability to do it, and the agent we have does that for no charge. It just makes sure that everybody is fairly equal because there’s so much insurance coverage
that are different, like this one doesn’t want to give cancer, but the other one did. So just to make sure that they’re fairly equal, and if they’re not, you should be aware of it and
you can make your decision based upon what they find.
Bird: That’s a big difference if you don’t offer cancer and stuff, but I understood that Dennis was the agent for the previous –
Corrie: He was. That company was bought out by another one. So he suggested that we go to this one, and he will still be the agent, it’s just a matter that we’re trying to make sure
that you have all the information that you can make a decision, that’s the company that you want to go with.
Bird: Let me ask a question. That Lonestar, now they just won’t cover us anymore? They’ll keep the grandfathered ones, but they don’t want any new accounts?
Corrie: There isn’t any new accounts. They’re not there anymore.
Anderson: And for clarification, too, that when you say they don’t have cancer, those are additional policies that you buy. They weren’t part of that original policy. They’re all
offered by Lonestar, but they were additional premiums and additional policies that you bought for that.
Bird: What did we buy for the firemen?
Anderson: Just accident insurance.
Bird: That’s okay. You answered my question. Also, does this new one offer if you want to pay the extra to the cancer? Most of those will offer that same program.
Bowers: Pauline said it did not.
Bird: We just approved the accident, and the City just pays for the accident on the volunteers.
Bowers: But you can still be an accident policy through Dennis. Might not be through this thing –
Bird: I understand. The cancer one –
Corrie: (inaudible) The primary thing that we want to look at is that the volunteers have the same thing as the others. I don’t foresee any problem, but it’s just better to make sure
the City doesn’t get into a bind somewhere.
Anderson: So on this, then, do we need to table this and put this on our next meeting agenda, and you or Pauline will have the new information to us about the insurance so we can make
a decision at that time? Or maybe if this turns out to be the best, then at that point we approve it in two weeks?
Corrie: Yes. We can or we can just –
Anderson: I guess we don’t have to do anything here. Just inform us about it.
Corrie: But you need to be informed of what the insurance company –
Bird: But before we vote on it, we need to know if they’re equal. Like you say, Ron, the next two weeks the Mayor can come back and say yeah, this is the same or it’s not the same.
Corrie: (inaudible) All right. Since that was the last item, I’ll entertain a motion that we go home and get Shari in bed so she can get up early tomorrow.
Bird: So moved.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Discussion?
Anderson: I had one more item, but I –
Bird: Go ahead. I’ll withdraw my motion.
McCandless: I’ll withdraw.
Anderson: I just wanted to ask a question, billing thing. We had seen a letter in our baskets from Tim Rhodes for concerned citizens or whatever it is, organizational. It was about
multiple billings, and I’ve got this letter of explanation from Leslie Howard, but I was a little unclear on here the reasons at the bottom for the extra mailings was that someone had
shut down the computer and printer at night and then when it came on that it restarted, but then it also shows that we did, I’m assuming that we did mailings, we did it four months in
a row that – I’m having a hard time understanding. Did we shut down the computer four times wrong and it reprinted bills?
Berg: Excuse me. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. That memo was – the information that Tim Rhodes requested was the four months to show that we don’t have a consistent number that we send out
each month because we grow or people move or dumpsters get changed or whatever. So there is a little bit of inconsistencies as far as the exact number of additional billings that we
have each month. You had four different amounts, but then you could see there was a larger one for –
Anderson: I guess, consistency, though, I could say I average those four months, and I have about 12,000 mailings a month. But my question was when the letter form him stated that
several people got three or four bills, is that erroneous? Is it not erroneous?
Bird: No. It’s right.
Corrie: It’s right.
Bird: I can name your one that got five.
Anderson: So then our numbers if a lot of people received that, then these numbers would be a lot more than that.
Corrie: There was about a hundred (inaudible)
Anderson: Just a hundred of what, 12,000?
Corrie: Post office fouled up the same time. Do you know Mr. Rhodes?
Anderson: I think I know him, but I don’t know. If it’s the same guy I’m thinking of.
Corrie: Yeah. It was about 100 that got screwed up on. They got the computer –
Anderson: Is it fixed now?
Corrie: Not to say there will never be another glitch, but computer company came and got it straightened out. Whenever the computer’s turned off, it doesn’t go back and start all
over again. It stops there and starts there.
Anderson: And then since I’m just complaining, I’ll just state this one time. I don’t know who thought of the idea of having an itty-bitty envelope to mail it in and a great big statement,
but that didn’t make a lot of sense to me. You have a little bitty envelope and you have a great big full-sized bill. It seems to me they should have made the envelope –
Corrie: Okay. I have a motion before the house to adjourn. All those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Meeting adjourned at 11:35 p.m.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
ROBERT D. CORRIE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK