2010 08-17 SpecialMeridian City Council Special Meeting August 17, 2010
A Council meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:00 p.m.,
Tuesday, August 17, 2010, by Mayor Tammy De Weerd.
Members Present: Mayor Tammy De Weerd, President David Zaremba, Charlie
Rountree, Keith Bird, and Brad Hoaglun.
Others Present: Bill Nary, Jaycee Holman, Anna Canning, Bill Parsons, Clint Dolsby,
Steve Siddoway, James Leslie, Joe Silva and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll-call Attendance:
Roll call.
X David Zaremba X Brad Hoaglun
X Charlie Rountree X Keith Bird
X Mayor Tammy De Weerd
De Weerd: Sorry we are starting a little bit late this evening. Thank you for your
patience with us. We will just go ahead and dive right into our next meeting. For the
record, it is August 17th. It's 7:17. Welcome to our City Council meeting. Madam
Clerk, will you, please, start tonight's meeting with roll call attendance.
Item 2: Pledge of Allegiance
De Weerd: Item No. 2 is the Pledge of Allegiance. If you will all rise and join us in the
pledge.
(Pledge of Allegiance recited.)
Item 3: Community Invocation by Gordon Slyter of Treasure Valley Worship
Center
De Weerd: Item No. 3 is our community invocation. Tonight we will be led by Pastor
Gordon Slyter with the Treasure Valley Worship Center. We invite you to, please, join
us in the community invocation or take this as an opportunity for a moment of reflection.
Thank you for joining us, pastor.
Slyter: Glad to be here. Let's pray. Our Father and our God, we come before you
tonight acknowledging your sovereignty, your majesty, and your covenant love. We
read in the Bible, Lord, that righteousness and justice are the foundation of your thrown.
You reign, oh, Lord. Let the earth rejoice. We thank you tonight for your favor upon our
community and as others around our nation place accolades upon our city, we would be
quick, oh, Lord, to give you the thanks and the credit for the recognition that we have
earned and received. You exalt those who humble themselves before you. So, in
humility we ask for your continued guidance for our city, our public servants, and our
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
August 17, 2010
Page 2 of 53
citizens. May your peace and your blessings always abound to us in this City of
Meridian and for that we give you praise. I pray these things in the name of your Holy
Son Jesus, amen.
De Weerd: Thank you for being here with us this evening.
Item 4: Adoption of the Agenda
De Weerd: Item No. 4 is adoption of the agenda.
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: A couple items on the agenda to make note of. Under Department Reports,
7-B, staff is requesting to table this item to August 27th. Under Item 9 for Action Items,
there is a request to continue to August 16th of 2011, on both Items 9-A and 9-B. And
under Item 10 Ordinances, 10-A is ordinance number 10-1452 and 10-B is ordinance
number 10-1453. And with those changes, Madam Mayor, I move the adoption of the
agenda as presented.
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda as noted. All those in
favor say aye.
Canning: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Oh. Yes.
Canning: Staff had requested a discussion on Items 9-A and 9-B. Did Council --
De Weerd: We will get -- we did not officially continue them.
Canning: Okay.
De Weerd: It was just noted that the request has been made.
Canning: Okay. Thank you for the clarification.
De Weerd: So, all those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 5: Consent Agenda
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
August 17, 2010
Page 3 of 53
A. Addendum to Development Agreement for Approval: MDA 10-
002 Bridgetower Crossing Office by Primeland Investment
Group, LLC Located on the Southwest Corner of W. McMillan
Road and N. Linder Road: Request to Modify Several
Provisions of the Recorded Development Agreement (Inst.
#108059801)
B. Approval of Agreement with Ada County Highway District for
Construction of Overland Road I1B Project
C. Order Granting Final Plat Approval: FP 10-005 Zebulon
Heights Subdivision No. 3 by The Traditions by Amyx II, LLP
Located South of East McMillan Road and West of North Eagle
Road: Request for Final Plat Approval of 18 Single-Family
Residential Building Lots, 4 Common Lots and 1 Ada County
Highway District (ACRD) Storm Drainage Lot on 8.06 Acres in
an R-4 Zoning District
D. Order of Conditional Approval of Final Plat: FP 10-004
Spurwing Greens by Lion Land, LLC Located Approximately
1/4 Mile North of Chinden Boulevard, West of Spurwing
Subdivision: Request for Final Plat Approval for 2 Residential
Building Lots and 2 Common Lots on Approximately 2.13
Acres in an R-2 Zoning District
De Weerd: Item 5 is our Consent Agenda.
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: There were no changes to the Consent Agenda, so I move approval of the
Consent Agenda and the Mayor to sign and Clerk to attest.
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda. if there is
no discussion, Madam Clerk, roll call, please.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
August 17, 2010
Page 4 of 53
Item 6: Community Items/Presentations
A. Smoke-Free Parks Presentation & Discussion
De Weerd: Item 6 under Community Presentations, I will turn this over to Mr.
Siddoway.
Siddoway: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. I want to introduce to
you Ms. Joann Graff from the Central District Health Department. She has a
presentation regarding smoke free parks and this presentation was made to the Parks
and Recreation Commission last week, so we wanted you to see it as well, after which I
will be back up and follow up by briefing you on the Commission's discussion on the site
and seek your direction.
De Weerd: Thank you. Good evening.
Graff: Good evening.
De Weerd: If you will, please, state your name and address for the record.
Graff: Joann Graff. 4608 North Futurity Avenue, Boise.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Graff: Well, it's a pleasure to be here to speak with you tonight. You should have a
packet of information and within that packet is an overview sheet. The second sheet is
outdoor smoking or secondhand smoke in regards to outdoor circumstances. The third
page is policies in Idaho. The fourth page is a model tobacco free policy and, then,
followed by community tobacco survey results and a letter from the Mayor's anti-drug
coalition in support of tobacco free policy and so I'll just directly go into my presentation.
I work in the tobacco prevention and control program and the purpose of -- of my work
is to build partnerships for tobacco prevention and policy and I'm here to speak about
our smoke free parks project, giving you a little bit about the funding source and
timeline. The project actually began in March and will continue until March 29th, 2011.
We received funding from the Centers For Disease Control and Prevention through a
grant administered by the Idaho Health and Welfare. They contracted with the seven
covered health districts and we are all working on smoke free park policies. And just so
we are on a level field as far as definitions, I wanted to share this, that smoking would
include the possession of any lighted tobacco product in any form and tobacco free
would include both smoking and smokeless tobacco. And think back to -- if you will
think back with me to 1965, about 50 percent of adult men smoked, about a third of
women smoked, and you could smoke at many places, including work, on airplanes, in
college classes and so on and so forth. Let's look at cigarette smoking rates now. In
the four counties served by Central District Health Department, we have about a 17.5
percent smoking rate, 19.1 percent for the state of Idaho, and so a majority of Idaho
residents do not smoke. Tobacco policies now. At work sites Boise State University
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
August 17, 2010
Page 5 of 53
last fall adopted a smoke free campus wide policy and when I worked with them on that
policy, they debated whether they should go full force into a smoke free policy or
whether they should phase in with designated smoking areas. They felt that if they
phased in it would be a hot button each time they made a change. They also would
have to re-educate and they would have to redo the signage. So, that's something to
consider when you're looking at policies. Other tobacco policies that are in effect -- and
these are tobacco free campuses. Central District Health Department, Blue Cross of
Idaho, and area hospitals. Those are tobacco free. Outdoor recreation areas, if any of
you are skiers you know that Bogus Basin went smoke free last fall. And hotels, as well
as 79 percent of homes have smoke free rules. And why do we ask you to consider
smoke free policy? Parks promote healthy activities we know and if any of you are
parents you know that children model adult behaviors. Secondhand smoke is
dangerous and cigarette liter is harmful. Within your mission statement for the Meridian
Parks and Recreation it is to provide well designed and properly maintained parks and
recreational opportunities for the citizens and a smoke free policy would enable that. A
web -- website listing on April 5th included that the City of Meridian takes great pride in
its park system to include amenities, open spaces and an acceptable environment for
use of all the facilities. So, certainly, you wouldn't consider secondhand tobacco smoke
in an acceptable environment. Secondhand tobacco smoke is a mixture of gases and
fine particulates and we know that at least 250 toxic chemicals -- it includes more than
250 toxic chemicals, including more than 50 that cause cancer. There is no safe level
of secondhand tobacco smoke. And maybe -- or exposure has immediate affects on
the heart and lungs and that the most vulnerable populations are those that frequent
parks. Infants, children, and older people. -But how about outdoor secondhand smoke?
During smoking outdoor smoking levels may be as high as indoor smoke levels and
being upwind from a smoker does not eliminate chemicals from the air and people are
exposed at higher levels of cancer causing chemicals in outdoor areas when smoking is
occurring. And there is an information sheet that I provided for you that provides more
information on that. So, secondhand smoke rises in the air, it becomes invisible, so
even if you can't see it, then, you're still breathing in the toxins from the unseen smoke.
Cigarette butts are the most common liter in parks. It's expensive to clean them up and
they can be swallowed by kids. Central District Health Department has had a tobacco
free policy since 2008 and our custodial staff has reported that there has been an 85
percent reduction in cigarette butt liter as a result of that policy. Recreation groups that
support tobacco free policies include the National Alliance for Youth Sports, the National
Youth Sports Safety Foundation, and the National Youth Sports Coaches Association.
Is the concept new? No. The American Nonsmokers Rights Foundation compiles lists
of smoke free parks and their current list has over 450 parks that have -- that are smoke
free that cover the total park area. So, it would be a park wide policy. These are some
smoke free parks in Idaho. Ammon, Emmett, Hayden, and Rexburg currently have an
ordinance on the books in regards smoke free parks. Payette, Melba, and Wilder have
a policy. Ammon, Melba, and Wilder are the three that are one hundred percent smoke
free and there is a chart included in your information that provides additional details on
the different policies and ordinances for these. What are the components of a
successful policy? The sample policy that I provided for you lists these. It includes
rationale. You need to have a reason why you would want a smoke free park. You
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
August 17, 2010
Page 6 of 53
would want to list all of the facilities or locations that it covers. What forms of tobacco
use are prohibited, whether it would be smoke free or tobacco free. And certainly
include the enforcement plan, which should include user and staff notification and
signage. And you would want to consider whether it should be a policy or an ordinance.
Park policies are rules. There is typically no fine. It's usually voluntary to follow those,
where ordinance has a little bit more meat in it and what areas to be covered. It could
be parks, playgrounds, athletic fields, skate parks, trails, picnic grounds. And, in fact, in
Meridian you do have a couple of parks that have some smoke free policy. Your city --
just outside of City Hall is a smoke free -- designated smoke free area. Settlers Park
has a smoke free policy in the playground area and Tully Park has a smoke free policy
in the skate area. In public policy not only does it promote that positive role modeling,
decreases exposure to secondhand smoke, reduces harmful cigarette liter, the public
actually supports these policies and I have completed almost 500 surveys at three
different venues this summer and support is for -- so, this is a total of the 493 surveys
and these are people that would agree or strongly agree that tobacco use should be
prohibited. So, I -- in the survey I used the word tobacco use, rather than just using
smoke free. So, tobacco use would include both chewing or smoke free tobacco, as
well as smoking tobacco as smoking and with the parks 69 percent of the people
agreed -- or strongly agree that tobacco use should be prohibited. With playgrounds
that jumps to 89 percent. And outdoor sports 69 percent. So, they asked about skate
and bikes and that's 79 percent. With trails it was 70 percent. And picnic areas 76
percent. The question was also presented have you ever been bothered by
secondhand smoke and 52 percent had been bothered when visiting a park in Boise or
Meridian. So, how does the rest of Idaho look? Our survey completed by the
Department of Health and Welfare in 2009 states that more than half of Idahoans
supported smoke free outdoor areas, especially when children were present. The Boise
Parks and Rec recently completed a comprehensive system park -- system plan survey
and 58 percent of Boise residents recommended a ban on smoking in city parks and
facilities. Seventy-eight percent of South Central District Health Department survey
respondents supported tobacco free parks and South Central is the Twin Falls area.
And, then, in the Lewiston area, north central district, there was an 80 percent support
of tobacco free parks. How are these policies enforced? Well, similar to other policies
the number one way to enforce them -- primary enforcement tool is the signage. It's
also important to educate and inform on the website, the newsletter, the activity guides,
brochures, and policy manuals. You can have reminders at coach's meetings, you
could have parents -buy in as well. Some ask violators to leave the park area for the
remainder of the event, but most rely on peer enforcement, not police. These are just
some examples of how you could notify the public, similar to what we did at Central
District and also the area hospitals use notification cards. So, a card and a bookmark.
And there are frequently common concerns surrounding smoke free policy, including
enforcement, personal rights, discrimination. and the concern of what will be prohibited
next. And Minnesota has a long track record with smoke free -- actually tobacco free
parks. Minnesota currently over one hundred municipalities that have tobacco free
parks -- park policies and they conducted a study in 2004 and these are the results and
the last two that 74 percent reported no problems with park users violating the policy
and this survey actually was of the park directors and 90 percent would recommend
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
August 17, 2010
Page 7 of 53
tobacco free policies to other communities. So, a great endorsement there. Let's talk a
little bit about the two policies in Idaho that have somewhat of a track record, because
they have been around for at least two years. Ammon's -- when I spoke with their parks
and rec director he said that most people comply, that compliance is enforced by the
patrons and that his recommendation is even though their policy is park wide, that he
would suggest it for the high traffic areas. Rexburg -- I spoke with their compliance
officer and she said that the citizens are very happy with the policy, they have had no
complaints or opposition. Even the smokers support it. A majority of the people comply
and, interestingly enough, it is the visitors to Rexburg that tend to be noncompliant,
because they are not informed. And compliance is enforced by the police department.
But they just do that as a part of normal park surveillance. They work off of complaints
and they typically start with a verbal warning. So, that's just a couple of examples of
local -- of Idaho experiences. Another question I frequently get is -- is the personal
rights issue and there is no constitutional right to smoke. Smokers are not a protected
class, such as race or gender would be. It is not a violation of nondiscrimination laws to
prohibit smoking, because smoking is a behavior, it's not a condition of birth. So, it's not
protected from discrimination. And, then, someone frequently asked what are you going
to outlaw next and I always like to refer to this quote from Ferd Schlapper, who is the
former executive director of health wellness and counseling services at Boise State
University and he said the health problems of sugar, fat, solids and alcohol stem from
the misuse, overuse and abuse of these products. Tobacco is the only product that
when used properly, as directed, leads to say severe illness and premature death. So,
options to consider would be tobacco free or smoke free. Policy or ordinance. Would
you want it park wide, a specific area, or just for specific events? Or there could be no
change in what currently exists in Meridian, which, by the way, we included Meridian's
ordinance in the listing of park policies, because smoking is prohibited where signs
disallow it. For example, at City Hall. There are resources that are available. I'm
certainly available to help with policy development and I have model policies from
throughout the United States and we have our signage. This is an example one of the
signs that's available. This is a tobacco free zone sign, so it would be appropriate if a
tobacco free policy were adopted. Here is a no smoking within a certain number of feet
of the playground. This is a no smoking allowed in this park, which would a parkwide
policy or a no smoking with a certain number of feet of the playground. So, I would
encourage you to consider that tobacco free environments promote positive community
role modeling and they protect the health and the safety and the welfare of community
members. And I hope that I will be able to thank you for making your parks tobacco
free. So, I stand for questions or --
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Joann, the last couple slides you indicated some free signs that were
available --
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
August 17, 2010
Page 8 of 53
Graff: Yes.
Rountree: -- through Central District Health. Does our current ordinance qualify the
City of Meridian for that program?
Graff: Madam Mayor --
Rountree: Or a specific policy.
Graff: Councilman Rountree, your current ordinance would support using those signs.
Rountree: Okay. Thank you.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I appreciate this discussion for parks purposes. As a nonsmoker myself I'd
be perfectly happy if we had an ordinance that said no smoking on any city property
regardless of what it is. Parks. Walkways. Maintenance facilities. We already have
this campus as a smoke free area. I'd be perfectly happy to see that include everything
the city owns.
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Question for Joann. Joann, I think one of the city parks you had in your
example talked about employees, there was no smoking by employees even in the
park. Is that --
Graff: Yes.
Hoaglun: I can't remember which one that was. Was that Ammon or was that --
Graff: Rexburg.
Hoaglun: Rexburg. Okay.
Graff: And in Ammon there is designated areas is what I believe.
Hoaglun: Okay. So, that is something as we move forward with a policy, we have to
decide, okay, well, what about our workers, if we have people who smoke, what -- what
transpires there, so -- probably more a question for Steve when he comes back up,
so --
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
August 17, 2010
Page 9 of 53
Graff: Uh-huh. And, Madam Mayor, may I address that? Councilman Hoaglun, I would
refer to my experience with Boise State University in which their policy is in force for
employees as well and so they are asked to step off the property, as well as at Central
District Health Department our employees that smoke are asked to step off.
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor, Joan, and like hospitals. So, they have to leave the campus
completely --
Graff: That's correct.
Hoaglun: -- to smoke, so -- okay. Thanks.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions from Council? Joann, thank you for joining us.
All right. You also had mentioned that the parks commission had discussed this and
what was the result of their discussion?
Siddoway: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the Parks Commission did receive
this presentation and discussed it last week. There was an interesting discussion and
Councilman Hoaglun was there, so I'd invite you to fill in anything I leave out, but there
was seven of the nine commissioners present during that discussion. In the discussion
it became apparent that all seven of the commissioners supported smoke free policies
of some kind for the parks. It was really more a question of the level that they wanted to
go. In those discussions two particularly pushed for and other supported the idea of
keeping this to the high traffic areas as recommended by the city of Ammon, who
currently has the park wide ordinance. However, five of them felt pretty passionately
that it ought to be a park wide ban. On the issue of smoke free versus tobacco free,
think we were focused in on the -- the smoke free aspect of the policy to match what we
currently have at both City Hall and police campus, to stay consistent with those. On
the issue of an ordinance versus a policy, there was support for an ordinance, so that it
would have the force of law and more teeth. And, then, it really came down to this
question of park wide ban versus high traffic area, you know, playgrounds, structures,
bleachers, events type of a ban. My own thoughts, I would support a smoke free
ordinance for -- for parks. I do have some staff concerns, as Councilman Hoaglun
alluded to. I don't -- haven't taken an exact count, but I have probably half of my
maintenance workers that currently smoke and if we did a park wide ban they would
have to leave a park stand out on the sidewalk and smoke, probably isn't a great option.
The -- you know, we don't allow them to smoke in vehicles, things like that already, or in
our -- our shops, so the --
De Weerd: So, Steve, where do they smoke?
Siddoway: They would be --
De Weerd: Standing in the park?
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
August 17, 2010
Page 10 of 53
Siddoway: In the park. Yeah.
De Weerd: Yeah. That doesn't look too great either.
Siddoway: Yeah. So, I need to work through that. We also -- there was also
discussion about whether the park wide ban was the right way. Like I mentioned, a
majority of the commissioners that were there supported that. The two that didn't
support it had concerns that if someone is off on a corner of a park on their own and
was smoking, do we want that to be, you know, against the law, basically. City
ordinance or would we prefer to have that in signed areas near the playgrounds, near
the concession buildings, bleachers, that kind of thing. So, we have an opportunity to
get some signs. This opportunity is available to us through March of next year and
wanted to bring this forward for discussion and seek any direction that -- that you
would --
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Steve, you're saying smoke free, not tobacco free? Because to me chew spit on
the ground or sidewalks is the worst, most filthy habit I have ever seen.
Siddoway: Yes, sir. And -- but only for consistency sake. I mean the -- it could just as
easily be tobacco free for me, but where I already knew that the City Hall campus was
smoke free, police department was smoke free, I thought about parks as smoke free
just to be consistent with what I already knew we were in the process of adopting.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I think when we discussed the City Hall campus being smoke free, I wasn't
really thinking about the distinction or aware of the difference. If somebody had
mentioned tobacco free at that time I would have supported it.
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: I have a question for Lieutenant Leslie and this -- this gets into an
enforcement. If we were to adopt ordinance or policy -- and let's take movie night, as an
example, out at Settlers. From an enforcement standpoint, for an officer is it easier to
say there is no smoking in this park, you can only -- or no smoking in the park or you
can only smoke in the parking lot or you have to be 50 feet away from the crowd? I --
what's easier to enforce when they are doing their job?
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
August 17, 2010
Page 11 of 53
Leslie: Madam Mayor, City Council, Mr. Hoaglun, it's a great question. The feet thing
would make it more difficult for us. You have 50 feet from specific sections and, then,
you start start getting a little more into, well, I was 50 feet or 49 feet. Having specific
areas -- the entire park would be the easiest to enforce, because it's clearly -- the
boundaries are set, because it's obvious what the park is and what's not the park, but
think you could still work with playground areas, that type of stuff. I'd probably stay
away from this footage a little bit. I think it would make it a little more complicated.
Hoaglun: So, Madam Mayor and lieutenant, then -- so, if -- if we were to design
something, it is based on an area -- preferably not how many feet, like you said, that's
much --
Leslie: Yeah.
Hoaglun: -- more difficult, but say, okay, this area is smoke free, which we could define
by signage.
Leslie: Yeah. I think it's a lot easier to educate the patrons of the park that the entire
park is smoke free or tobacco free or the playground is smoke free or tobacco free
versus, you know, certain perimeters or sections of by footage.
Hoaglun: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: Any other questions from Council?
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: We do already, I believe, prohibit alcohol in the parks, although there is a --
there is an exception to that if it's a reserved event in a structure and they bring one
beer per person -- I forget what the things are, but my actual -- my question isn't that,
my question is is that an ordinance or a policy?
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we already have an ordinance. We
passed this -- we passed the smoking in bars. We made it apply anywhere we post it.
So, whether it's public or private property, anywhere that's posted no smoking it's a
violation of our ordinance and it's an infraction offence, a 50 dollar fine, to violate that.
So, you already have an ordinance in place. The only thing there was -- I know this
when I saw that picture of Settlers, I don't think the sign at Settlers -- at the Adventure
Island playground complies with the ordinance. It has to be one inch lettering and I
don't know if it is. And it has to be visible and it has to have a smoke free symbol on it,
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
August 17, 2010
Page 12 of 53
so I mean there is a couple of things that it has to have to be enforced as the ordinance.
But that's a fairly easy fix. So, you already have an ordinance in place. It allows it
anywhere you choose. I can maybe address, too -- the wellness committee is part of
my department and we work with all the different departments. We have members from
all the departments. No smoking and tobacco free has been ongoing discussion of that
group and there is a very strong feeling of that group of wanting to bring a program to
the city to assist our employees in the various departments who are still either chewing
or smoking. There is a number of programs out there. We previewed one that St.
Luke's supports greatly, because it has a high success rate and so does Mercer, our
consultants that we use for benefits. It has a higher success rate than most other
programs. It's also very expensive and it hasn't been able -- it hasn't been able to be
done mostly because of cost in trying to do that and whether or not -- and part of the
discussion of our group has been do we target a particular employee group or all
employees or both. We have high concentration of smokers in certain departments and
we have some departments have no smokers at all. So, in trying to figure out how to
best address it, again, to try and balance both the cost of putting the program on with
the budget that we have for wellness and trying to fit it in, but it certainly has been a
priority discussion. Some of the things that I think Steve has raised has been a
challenge. The wellness committee as well is we have employees that work in certain
departments that can't leave the campus of where they work. So, if we impose a no
smoking ban entirely, it will impact those employees even greater than maybe some of
the parks folks Steve's talking about, because where they work they can't -- they can't
leave during the course of their day, other than for a lunch break or something like that.
So, they don't really have the ability. So, the thought was is we were going to create a
city wide policy for employees, that we also do it in conjunction with a no smoking
program, so there is an opportunity and, then, provide some time for people to,
essentially, take the program and, hopefully, get -- get to be smoke free themselves, but
-- anyway, so we have wrestled with the same issues as Steve's talking about at the
wellness committee in trying to be a healthier workforce. Certainly smoking is a huge
impact on that and both for the smoker, as well as for secondhand smoke. So, we have
certainly addressed it, but you have an ordinance, signage is all that's required. You
know, I would certainly agree with Lieutenant Leslie, the larger the area the easier to
enforce from an enforcement standpoint, from education. The problem that I think
you're going to see some occasionally is you're going to have, you know, a person that's
walking on the path at Settlers Park, there isn't anyone around them, so now you are
going to have an employee going over there trying to enforce the no smoking, you
know, on the most obscure part of the park that isn't interfering with anybody, but that's
just part of the process and we can certainly deal with that. But those are the kind of
things that I think you will see, but, anyway, I wanted you to know we had been
discussing internally as well as how to address it with all employees.
Siddoway: To make sure, Isee -- there is many options, but two that I see staring at us
are, one, either a -- we keep the existing ordinance, which we already have, and sign
those areas that we want to make smoke free with the signs that Joann would have.
The second option would be adopting a new ordinance as a park wide ban.
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
.August 17, 2010
Page 13 of 53
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor. And to comment on that -- and I'm like Councilman Zaremba,
you know, I'm in favor of doing it tobacco free in all our parks in all aspects of our parks,
but at the same time, believe it or not, I empathize with smokers to a degree, because it
is an addiction and base this -- kind of disclaimer, if you will, I spent two years as the
Idaho government affairs director for American Cancer Society and I got a chance to
meet and interact with people who were going through smoking cessation classes and
one lady stuck out in my mind quite vividly. She's in her early 50s, a long time smoker,
new grandma and she was attending the smoking cessation classes, she had been
diagnosed with cancer of the cheek and gum on her right side. For years she smoked,
she was right handed, and she truly was trying to make a change and she tried to do it
herself and the change she made was she switched to her left side with left her hand,
because that -- it was that addictive. The nicotine -- she was addicted to nicotine. And
now she was in class trying to break that addiction and it was very very difficult for her,
so -- and that's why I say I empathize a bit, because some folks really need that -- that
fix, if you will. And so while one part of me says, you know, what, for the health of our
children, for the role model that they see adults they shouldn't be wanting to emulate
that habit, we should be rid of it completely. But, at the same time, knowing that people
have this addiction and need to have a fix, you know, if we ban it to the parking lot,
okay, I could live with that, that would be my compromise. But that's where I am on this,
where I think, you know, we don't want to have that around our children. It is not
healthy whatsoever. Secondhand smoke is not good. But where do we go -- how do
we do it, how far, you know, that's -- you know, I'm willing to listen and so what I think
works the best for our kids and their health, but that's where I am on this process, so I
think it's good and for employees to listen to Bill and what your committee is looking at, I
think it needs to be done, because that is a difficult thing for some people to kick the
habit and statistics -- I think I saw from several years ago people can quit cold turkey,
they can do it themselves, but that is in the single digits. They need some form of
assistance, the vast majority of them, to be able to kick that habit. So, if you can give
them support, different types of programs that work for people and different things that
work for difficult people, so I'd encourage the committee to move forward on that and
see if we can find the money to do that, because that -- as we know from a federal
standpoint, healthcare costs keep escalating and we talk about changing insurance, but
we do nothing about the root causes or our healthcare problems that create the cost in
the first place. And those are the types of habits that drive up cost immensely and so
that's something -- when you look at the big picture there is a lot to this little policy or
ordinance.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I certainly agree with Councilman Hoaglun word for word. And, Bill, I -- being a 40
year smoker I know what it's like, it's an addiction that's the worst one I have ever had.
And I got to suffer my consequences, too. Rightfully so. I like the tobacco free or
whatever as much I do the smoke free, because I have seen what tobacco has done in
the way of cancer around the lips and gums stuff and i -- while I'd like to shut it down
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
August 17, 2010
Page 14 of 53
everywhere, I don't know how far we can go. I'd like to see some signs. I'm like
Councilman Rountree, get some signs up and let's see what it looks like and see how it
does and encourage people -- encourage people to not smoke in the areas, but really
and truthfully, you have got to -- I think you have got to have an area -- you know, they
are citizens, too, they are taxpayers, they helped build those parks and stuff, too, so
while they are damaging the other people, I -- I think we need to take it softly to start
with, but I think we are getting some signs up would be -- I think just out of curiosity --
the people will be courteous enough to see a sign and hold off smoking or chewing. I'm
thinking -- I just think it should be tobacco free period. Chew is just as bad as smoking
in my book and I never chewed in my life, but 40 years I sucked on those stupid
cigarettes.
De Weerd: Well -- so, we have heard a broad representation of opinion, but I don't
know if -- Steve, if you have gotten a better sense of what direction you should go.
Council, I -- we don't have to make a decision tonight.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Councilman Bird spoke for me, even though I hadn't spoken, so I guess I
better speak. I think we have an excellent ordinance on the books. I don't think we
need to go there. We have all kinds of things we prohibit in the parks and we don't get
them all enforced at this point. I don't think there is yet another ordinance that's going to
make it any better. So, let's leave well enough alone and work with the ordinance we
have. I would support the parks commission looking at -- you referred to high traffic
areas, but that's not a good term, because I don't think you mean parking lots. But I'm
thinking areas -- playgrounds or where you have concentrated activities. Our youth ball
fields and those places and see what can do in the way of signage that we have done in
other places in the city and, then, bring some kind of recommendation back. I do not
support total smoke -- I would say I support the smoke free approach, as opposed to the
tobacco free. I'm not sure how you would even approach enforcing chew and all the
other forms of tobacco that are out there, whether it's snuff or, you know, all -- however
you do it. And, then, look at such things as activities, look at such activities that the city
sponsors or authorizes, like the preferential use of the ball fields by Cal Ripken,
certainly work with Cal Ripken and their coaching staff and their administration to
enforce no smoking in their areas, as well as no smoking amongst their participants and
adult participants as far as coaches. I still see that happening and it's not a good thing.
I'm actually seeing some of the folks that support some of their tournaments not only
smoking, but going to Fast Eddy's and filling up the back of their go cart with ice and
beer and taking it over there I'm sure to cool down as they work on ball fields. So, there
is those kinds of things that go on that we have rules and regulations to try to counter
that don't happen, but we need to work with those groups in order to make anything of
this stuff successful, so I guess that's kind of where I am.
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
August 17, 2010
Page 15 of 53
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor. I have a question for Mr. Nary, probably is the best one to try.
As we try to craft this and do signage, you know, someone who is out there at Settlers
Pond fishing and all by themselves and they are smoking, you know, they are not
bothering anyone, it's fine, we don't enforce that, but let's say it's fishing day and there
is people elbow to elbow and someone decides to light up, that becomes a different
situation. How do you -- how do we balance those two same locations but different
scenarios in our current ordinance or by signage? Any idea?
Nary: Well, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Hoaglun, I mean
it's always incumbent I mean on -- on enforcement on the discretion of the officer that's
issuing the citation or the complaint. I mean we have a couple of different enforcement
tools when are talking about a park. We have exclusion as one method when people
won't comply and they just refuse to comply, they can be ejected from the park. Our
park staff are usually the ones doing that, sometimes with police, sometimes not. Here
you're talking about a citation, so it's a citable offence and you need a police officer to
do that. You know, it kind of depends on the policy and the practice of the city. I mean
it's -- you know, your question would be the same as the person that's driving 45 miles
an hour down Cherry Lane at midnight, going to get a ticket, as the guy that drives down
there 45 miles an hour at 3:00 in the morning is going to get a ticket. It depends. It
depends on the circumstance, it depends on what the reason is, it depends on the
officer, so that discretion is always going to exist. Certainly if there is a complaint, you
know -- if you made the entire Settlers Park smoke free and you received acomplaint --
apark worker received a complaint or a police officer is contacted to and enforce, the
person refused to put it out, you know, or would it, essentially, comply -- you know, as
long as the adequate signage was there, certainly the officer could issue a citation. My
guess is knowing police officers -- Lieutenant Leslie certainly can add his two cents. I
mean it's really going to depend on the circumstances. If the person really doesn't
realize it, they put it out, they are done, I can imagine many officers not issuing a
citation for that. If the person doesn't want to comply or it's very clear, they are standing
next to the no smoking sign, they are really trying to see whether or not they are going
to enforce that, I can certainly see an officer enforcing and issuing a citation. So, it
really is -- it's always discretionary on the part of the officer on whether this is the
appropriate time to issue a citation or some other tool available, but -- it doesn't really
answer your question, but the reality is it's really going to depend on the circumstance.
De Weerd: Well, I think maybe we could ask the Parks Department to bring back kind
of mapping. of where the no smoking. areas would be at any point and, then, maybe an
alternative sign. that would prohibit smoking during special events or athletic events. So,
then, you know that that's when there is a crowd. I have an issue with what is a high
traffic area, so I almost see that there is going to be two different designations in terms
of where it's not allowed at all and that's generally going to be where children are
present. Playgrounds, bleachers, or what have you. But some of it in a big grassy field
by applying some -- some kind of side boards on if there is a special event that would
handle your fishing day or if there is an athletic activity going on that would qualify as
well. So, if you could maybe take that back to the commission or to your staff, include
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
August 17, 2010
Page 16 of 53
the police department and in that enforceability aspect and bring it to Council, then, we
can have further discussion about that.
Siddoway: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, yes, I can do that and we have the
parks amenities and signage committee that does look at signage issues, so we can
have them look at this specifically and make a recommendation. The discussion, so
you know, at the Commission on this, they -- well, I mentioned that were -- there was --
there was quite a bit of support for just the ban park wide. When they were focused on
what I called high traffic areas, the wording that they were focusing on was in the
Rexburg ordinance where they specifically mention any structures, bleachers,
playground equipment or water facility and, then, in addition to that list that was in
Rexburg they wanted to add the language from Payette regarding any events herein.
So, in order to get that to work within the existing ordinance and not adopting a new
one, we will have to just figure out what areas -- what signage might work. I can also
tell you the next two months at the commission their meetings are filled with the parks
tour and a pathways workshop that they are doing, so it's probably going to be early this
winter before we have a specific recommendation back to you, but we -- I can take that
to them and try and get that back in time for us to take advantage of the March deadline
that we have from Central District Health and try and get that in place this winter.
De Weerd: But, Steve, it does sound that you have gotten good feedback and maybe
parameters from your commissioners, as well as discussion from City Council and it
might be something you can do at the staff level to bring back.
Siddoway: Sure.
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I was just going to add a suggestion on the issue of -- we know there is areas
where the activities always could be smoke free or tobacco free. The example of fishing
day, would it satisfy the ordinance if we had some temporary signs on a heavy base that
could be brought out and set next to the pond for a day and, then, taken away again?
Does that -- or do they have to be posted all year around to be enforceable?
Nary: Councilman Zaremba, no. All the sign says is that -- or all the ordinance says is
prohibition shall be indicated by means of a posted sign that reads no smoking,
described the premises as smoke free, or contains the international no smoking symbol,
uses at least letters at least one inch in height and it's conspicuous, legible, unobscured
and placed at a height and location easily seen and read by persons entering within the
posted area. So, it can be for a single event, it can be a single location -- I mean as
long as -- as long as it's being able to -- for the officer to be able to be comfortable that
the person is able to see it and, you know, again, if -- you know, we would have to look
at it -- and I think the suggestion of the Council and the Mayor is right and the parks
commission or the Parks Department with the parks staff with the commission to come
up with -- if we are going to make this an area, then, where are we going to put signage
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
August 17, 2010
Page 17 of 53
to make sure people can see it. We don't have to rope it all, but make sure where it's
an appropriate location, but you can certainly do it for a single event, single location.
Zaremba: And I think for the -- for the obvious location, so permanent signage is right,
but I'm -- if it's legal and enforceable, we may just want to have six signs on a stand that
are in the shop and when somebody says, oh, this is an event that should be smoke
free, take the signs out.
Hoaglun: So, Madam Mayor and Bill, then, so like movie night, go back to that
example, since that is set up in an open area, then, we probably have to have the
signage brought out for that, since it's not in the playground area or the horseshoe pit
area. That's out in the field.
Nary: Yeah. And there is certainly locations that would make it fairly obvious that you
can get -- you'd have to walk by it.
Siddoway: We post -- we put it up on the movie screen at the beginning of the event, so
I think we at least in prior discussions we thought that that was, you know, the signage
and a verbal warning also that this even was smoke free, so -- to the entire crowd that
was there for movie night.
De Weerd: The ones paying attention.
Nary: You may want to -- and we may want to add to that and make sure maybe we
cite the city ordinance, so the people don't think it's a suggestion, as much as a
directive, but that might be another way to at least make it clearer to people.
Siddoway: Okay.
Hoaglun: I don't, Madam Mayor, the more we discuss this the more I think we make our
parks smoke free and just go to the parking lot and there is a definite boundary, but
that's -- that's just me.
De Weerd: So, did you catch that last comment?
Hoaglun: I said the more we talk about it and we try to -- try to fit this and how do we do
this and haul signs and different things, that's -- I makes it a little more complex and I'm
about doing it easy and especially for our officers, I know they have good judgment on
how to enforce and use their discretion, but it makes it easier for everyone when you
have defined areas and say here, but not here, so --
De Weerd: For our patrons, too. And in the presentation that Joann gave, most of the
enforcement is done by the peers or the other patrons of the park, certainly by having
clearly defined areas, not in the park, but in the parking lot, that -- that does make it
easy to understand, so --
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
August 17, 2010
Page 18 of 53
Hoaglun: Now that we complicate your life, Steve -- Madam Mayor.
De Weerd: Council, I guess do you want Steve to come back with signage areas
recommendations or are you looking for something simpler with parks, no smoking, but
smoking in the parking lot? So, I don't know, I --
Siddoway: I would just suggest if we are moving it forward, that we -- we could come
back with some options and we can show you an option that includes signage areas
and the park wide ban can still be on the table when we come back.
De Weerd: That would be great.
Siddoway: Okay. All right. Thank you.
Item 7: Department Reports
A. Planning Department: Request by Keith Borup for Waiver of
Fees for an Annexation Application
De Weerd: Good thing you're flexible. Okay. Item 7-A under Department Reports, we
have our planning department. I'll turn this over to Anna.
Canning: Yes. Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. We have a fee
waiver request for you tonight for the Borup property on Meridian. As you can see on
the screen, there is a small southern portion of the property that is set aside, that is the
portion that has not yet been annexed. Sometime in the '90s the larger portion got
annexed, the little sliver attached to it did not. We aren't sure if it was a legal error, we
are really not sure of the history. All we know is that on the county records right now it
kind of has a split identity, it has a county zoning designation, but a city tax code. So,
Mr. Borup has been paying city taxes on this little piece of property for a number of
years. He has submitted the application, he did -- he got the legal description one, he's
filed the affidavit of legal interest. The application is in. We are just requesting that the
fees be waived, because it seems to be an error either on the city's part sometime in the
past, on Mr. Borup's part sometime in the past or on the county's part sometime in the
past and given all those options we thought it would be easier just to process the
application. I think it's about .12 acres.
Zaremba: Gentlemen, any question?
Rountree: Mr. President. Anna, what was the date of the original annexation; do you
know?
Canning: We are not exactly sure.
Rountree: In the '90s?
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
August 17, 2010
Page 19 of 53
Canning: It was in the '90s.
Rountree: Okay. Planning could look.
Canning: Yes.
Hoaglun: Mr. President. And, Anna, from what I -- in my reading it sounds like they
have been paying taxes on that whole parcel of the property this whole time?
Canning: I believe it gets -- it has a separate tax code, so he, actually, gets a separate
bill for the other little piece.
Hoaglun: Okay. Okay. Thanks.
Zaremba: Just as a personal opinion, I would agree waiving it.
Rountree: Mr. President?
Zaremba: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I would move that we approve the waiver request for fees for the annexation
application for the Keith Borup property on Meridian Road.
Hoaglun: Second.
Zaremba: I have a motion and a second. Madam Clerk, would you, please, call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
B. Public Works: Well #27 Project Close Out
Zaremba: Item 7-B is a Public Works discussion. Is that --
Bird: Mr. President?
Zaremba: Uh?
Bird: They wish to table that until the 24th.
Zaremba: Oh, yes. I'm sorry. Do we need a motion or we can just --
Rountree: No.
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
August 17, 2010
Page 20 of 53
Zaremba: Okay. That item will be moved to our next regularly scheduled meeting of
the 24th. And the Mayor is back, so I'll turn it back over to her.
Item 8: Items Moved From Consent Agenda
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. President. Item 8, there were no items moved from the
Consent Agenda.
Item 9: Action Items
A. Continued Public Hearing from July 06, 2010: AZ 08-005
Meridian and Amity by Hawkins Companies Located at the
Northwest Corner of W. Amity Road and S. Meridian Road,
South of Harris Street: Request for Annexation and Zoning of
73.10 Acres from RUT in Ada County to R-15 (Medium High
Density Residential) (5.68 acres), L-O (Limited Office) (3.22
acres) and C-C (Comunity Business) (30.72)and C-G (General
Retail and Service Commercial) (33.47 acres) Zoning Districts
B. Continued Public Hearing from July 6, 2010: VAR 08-008
Meridian and Amity by Hawkins Companies Located at the
Northwest Corner of W. Amity Road and S. Meridian Road,
South of Harris Street: Request for Variance to UDC 11-3H-4
Which Prohibits New Approaches From Directly Accessing a
State Highway to Allow 2 Right-In I Right-Out Access Points
(Approximately 660 Feet From the North and South
Intersections) and 1 Right-In I Right-Out, Left-In Access Point
at the 1/4 Mile to State Highway 69 1 Meridian Road
De Weerd: So, we move to Item 9 under Action Items. We have two continued public
hearings on AZ 08-005 and VAR 08-008. The applicant has requested to continue this
and certainly I will turn this over to Planning to Bill.
Parsons: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. You are correct, this
project has been continued approximately eight times for the variance, nine times for
the annexation request. Looking through the minutes of November 25th, 2008, there
were some outstanding issues left open for this project. One had to deal with the
access to Meridian Road and the other was the pipeline and per your direction you gave
staff and the applicant, informed us that we need to correct those issues and come back
before you. Before you tonight we do have confirmation from ITD that that access issue
has been resolved and they have recommended denial of those access points and we
have also updated the DA provision regarding the pipeline issue. For those -- both
those issues that you gave us orders to work out, have been resolved, therefore, staff is
under the impression that we could move forward on the application tonight and there,
really, is nothing else #o -- to work out at this point. So, that's why we are requesting
that Council move forward on the applications.
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
August 17, 2010
Page 21 of 53
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Bill. Any questions for staff from Council at this point?
Bird: Not at this time.
De Weerd: Okay. Does the applicant have comment? Please state your name and
address for the record.
Whallon: Absolutely. My name is Brandon Whallon. Address is 855 South -- or
Broadstreet, Boise, Idaho.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Whallon: Madam Mayor, Council, City of Meridian, we appreciate the opportunity to
present our application for avariance -- excuse me -- annexation, zoning, and a
variance to access to the State Highway 69. We have presented to you a continuance
request. We do recognize that this process has taken a long time and as Mr. Parsons
stated, there have been several continuance requests. We kind of erred on the short
term. We thought that our appeal process would go much quicker, but the process was
frustrated and every timeline that was granted was taken -- every single day that was
allowed was taken and so we kind of shot a little bit short of how long that process
would take. As Mr. Parsons stated, there has been a conclusion to our appeal of the
ITD decision to deny access to Meridian Road. Hawkins Company feels that the
deeded accesses that were purchased and that were conveyed at one point in time
when State 69 was widened, that those were tangible land uses or land rights that ran
with the land and so when we purchased the land we thought we had a tangible land
right with that deeded access point. We didn't -- we bought seven of those and we paid
a fair market price for seven access points. But we knew that there was no way that we
could logically exact all seven of those accesses to the state highway, so have been
through a process with the planning commission, City Council, there has been review
with planning staff and we think -- we have a conceptual plan that works, that is
feasible, and we only ask for three of those seven access points, because we thought
that was a fair compromise. Well, unfortunately, our process that was heard before the
Idaho Transportation Department, we came to an end point where they felt that denial of
that access point was true and valid. Unfortunately, we do have a property right that we
are looking to protect and so we do have another procedural process to examine and
that is a legal challenge of what is called inverse condemnation for our property rights
and that is why we have put forth one more request to continue this. We felt that let's
ask for a year and let's get this issue resolved before we come before you again. And
so that was the basis of our request for one more continuance. We felt that we are not
yet to the end of the road regarding the question of access to our property. And so we
felt it would be appropriate to ask for one more continuance to give us that time to find
the final result of the question before we move forward.
De Weerd: Okay. Council?
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
August 17, 2010
Page 22 of 53
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I just have a question for Bill or Anna or both in terms of the
length of the continuance. It seems kind of difficult to keep track of. Is that consistent
with the state statute on this kind of application?
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Rountree, I mean there
really isn't anything specific in the state statute that would prohibit it. It certainly would
be unprecedented for this city to grant a continuance for that long. We already
renoticed this once because of the lengthy delay, even renoticing this ten months from
now to try to get people back involved or interested in this would be very unusual I
guess to say the least. But the state -- once you have had it, you certainly are allowed
to continue it, to hear it, but here this one is just a very unique circumstance and it
certainly isn't prohibited to grant a delay of this length with whatever conditions the
Council wants to set into it, but it certainly is very unusual to want to set something out
so far away without at least renoticing it, but, then, again, when would we renotice it?
Ten months from now? How is that going to be done. What requirements. I guess it's
just, like I said, it's a very strange circumstance.
De Weerd: So, Mr. Nary, if you were to continue it to a date certain and with --
stipulations to give the 300 feet notification to surrounding owners, to repost the
property to do all of the things we normally do with new applications, would that -- would
that address some of the concerns?
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, absolutely. I mean certainly that -- that
would be the minimum recommendation I think you would have to do if you were going
to grant a delay of this length is to, essentially, start over in the process of noticing,
reposting, remailing, readvertising, all of those requirements would certainly at the
minimum need to be met and whatever other conditions the Council felt comfortable
with to grant a delay like this is up to you.
De Weerd: Okay.
Canning: Madam Mayor, I would also suggest that, you know, the property owners --
the adjoining properties has probably changed significantly since 2005. I mean that will
have been a six year time period and those forks haven't had an opportunity for a
neighborhood meeting. I mean these are some of the reasons, I guess, we'd like to see
the application come back in with a new number and kind of start fresh, so that those
folks have an opportunity to be a part of the process.
Whallon: I would like to state that if the Council chooses to allow the continuance with a
requirement that there would be a public hearing and that we would renotice both
property owners within 300 feet or even extend that out to 400 feet or whatever the
number that the Council felt was providing good notice to all interested property owners,
but also another public meeting, we would be happy to conduct another public meeting.
One of the items that we were prepared to present was the fact that a commercial
development of this size is usually going to receive some sort of resistance from
property owners within the vicinity and this is what -- the first application that I have
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
August 17, 2010
Page 23 of 53
stewarded through the entitlement process, we have conducted a public hearing and we
have garnered one hundred percent support for our project and the track record shows
through the staff report, that the comments that have been garnered through this
process are all in support, we do not have a contingent of opposition to this project and
so I think that if the Council would like to see another public meeting associated with
this continuance, I think it would be appropriate and I would be happy to present this
back to the citizens within the vicinity. We have received several phone calls over the
course of time and it has been a lengthy time, but people are asking us, hey, when is
this going to go. They want to see it go and we are excited to bring it to them. So, I
think the requirement of another public meeting would be great to get back in contact
with those citizens who have an interest in our property and our project and report those
findings back to the Council.
De Weerd: There has been a lot of interest in a grocery store south of the freeway for
sure. I hear it a lot. Council, any other questions?
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I would just comment that I -- in general concept that what you're proposing
is a good idea to have commercial and retail properties there are good. We do have a
standing ordinance regarding access to highways, which that is and I think it's a good
ordinance. I am personally not convinced that you have a good reason for a variance
and I guess I'd give a personal comment on -- when you buy farm property that has
certain accesses to a road, if you kept the current uses I wouldn't have any problem with
you having seven accesses, because we are talking about a hay baler twice a year, a
tractor a couple of times. But when you change the use of it, the conditions that
surround that changing in use may include losing access and I realize you have a right
to keep it as farm land and have seven accesses as long as you want, but I personally
don't support the idea that you can change the use and still have a right to all those
accesses and that would fly in the face of our current ordinance.
Parsons: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, if I could interject for one moment.
There are some -- there are several options before you tonight if you choose to go
forward with the application. Certainly you can continue the variance out and wait for
them to get resolution or because they are requesting a year, if you were to move
forward with the annexation and the various and denied the variance, they could apply
-- reapply in a year's time. They are going to ask for a year's continuance. At that time
if they did access they could come back, modify the development agreement if you
move favorably on the annexation and ask for additional access points at that time or
they can simply withdraw that variance application tonight and we can move forward on
the annexation without access to Meridian Road. So, there is three or four options here
before you, it's not necessarily just continuing this. So, right now I think staffs
predicament is we just want to get this heard tonight. A year from now there is ways to
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
August 17, 2010
Page 24 of 53
still work with the applicant, move forward on the application, and still maybe revisit this
a year from now without continuing the project out.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I certainly could support the staff recommendation. I'm inclined to approve
the annexation and deny the variance, but get it done tonight.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I -- there is merit in that, but it seems to me that it's not going
to go forward, because they are probably not going to be willing to enter into a
development agreement, so where do we -- where do they go -- where do they get and
where to we get? It still hinges on the variance request and/or ITD's position and as a
point of history to repeat myself is that we have not varied our position on access until
and/or unless ITD identifies those access points that are consistent with their traffic
analysis. So, I don't see where we get anywhere by approving the annexation and not
being able to move forward with the applicant, because they are not going to sign the
DA.
Parsons: Councilman Rountree, we have just adopted some new provisions in the
ordinance that allow for -- right now that way the ordinance is written they have a year to
get that DA back before you and get it approved. If they don't they can request an
extended time period for that DA to move forward. Certainly we could still move forward
on the annexation if they don't have that DA signed within that year's time frame, they
could come back at that time and ask for either an extended period or it may allow time
for them to make some modifications at that point. But there is some options in the
code to allow for that.
De Weerd: Anything further from Council? Any further comments?
Rountree: Madam Mayor -- excuse me. Based on what Bill said, my concern still
remains that this thing has been cooking for about almost a year and I think before we
make any decision on it, it needs to go back to the public, so if we can continue it with
those conditions or we just take -- remove these off the table and have them start over,
seems to me to address the issue I have with the thing is that a year from now there
could be folks out there that want to tell us something about this. There might be
people there now. I don't know. So, I'm still not sure what we get by approving an
annexation at this point in time.
Whallon: The only other -- I appreciate the options that Mr. Parsons has presented and
I would like to add to that that Commissioner -- or Councilman Rountree stated that a
variance had not been granted access to Meridian Road in the absence of an approval
from the Idaho Transportation Department. So, would there be a possibility to -- for item
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
August 17, 2010
Page 25 of 53
number 14, which is regarding access in the development agreement, that we reserve
access based upon the outcome of our litigation. And so it's a development agreement
with that wording that we could agree to and sign and we could move forward with the
annexation and the zoning and the issue of access is reserved until the time of
conclusion with that case.
De Weerd: Mr. Hoaglun. Mr. Nary.
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council -- and certainly that's an option you can
put. That would also be unusual. That's not common in any of our development
agreements, but the city's always taken the position that I think as Council Member
Rountree stated, the city hasn't granted access without ITD granting access, but it
hasn't granted access in every circumstance that ITD has granted access for. So, that
condition may be acceptable to your client, but that would be unusual for the city to
agree to something to allow ITD to make that decision, when this Council is the one that
really has the planning authority for that parcel. So, that would be unusual. They
certainly could do that, but that's just not how it's been done previously.
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor, just to comment what -- one thing I think the applicant has a
right to seek a legal remedy to this. I mean that's something they want to move forward
and their disagreement with another jurisdiction and it certainly has a bearing on how
this moves forward in some aspects of the development. I kind of agree with
Councilman Rountree, I see this where as you -- we have further growth out there and
new people coming in, if we hit the reset button on this and go through the process
again and allow them to seek their legal remedy and hopefully they get through the
process in a year, we do the postings, the notifications, they have public meetings out
there, and it might be that folks still want this thing to come in, great, and, hopefully, the
other issues addressed and, then, we can move forward with these things taken care of
and not have any delays on that. So, I see that as a good option, so --
De Weerd: Well, this is a public hearing and there may be others that would like to
comment, so we will -- yes, sir. If you will, please, state your name and address for the
record.
Woodbury: Don Woodbury. 4636 West Lake Hazel, Meridian.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Woodbury: And I'm here representing the pipeline and I'm not necessarily for -- or we
are not necessarily for or against the development right now, but Mr. Parsons made a
comment saying that there were some resolution or something to that effect with the
pipeline. I just want a little clarification maybe from him or from whomever.
Parsons: I guess, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we haven't officially opened
up the applications yet, so this is -- really, we are trying to determine if you want to hear
the applications tonight. So, really, what we are discussing -- and we have gotten -- we
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
August 17, 2010
Page 26 of 53
have skewed it a little bit, but, really, does the Council want to move forward on these
applications or do you want to request the applicant's continuance is where we are at
now and, then, we will formally open -- if you want to move we could formally open up
the applications and discuss that new DA provision.
De Weerd: Okay. And I guess I would invite you as well to talk with our fire marshal
who has been working on an ordinance and a set of standards that the City Council had
asked staff to go and work on. In particular, this application triggered it, but we have
had others come up since. We know we need to have a set of standards for
development along the pipeline and that's what they have been working on. We haven't
heard the outcome and until we know what Council likes -- would like to do with this.
But I certainly would invite you to talk with Mr. Silva and see where staff is at with that
process.
Woodbury: I had heard that there was something going on with Mr. Silva as well, so --
but when he said the words resolution I thought, well, I better ask before we get going
too far. So, I will go ahead and listen.
De Weerd: Yes. Never hesitate to ask. Thank you.
Woodbury: Thank you.
Canning: Madam Mayor? I had an off-line conversation with Mr. Nary that I'd like to get
on the record, just in the event both of us come down with Alzheimers in the intervening
year and, typically, when an application is accepted as complete they are vested with
the zoning ordinance in effect at that time. The applications you have before you
tonight -- the variance, it won't affect that unless we change the findings for a variance.
That might be the only difference. Also the annexation, the findings for that may
change. We don't have standards for annexations per se. But I would like to just note
on the record that the applicant has requested certain zoning categories that have and
will likely -- may change or will change, probably, over the course of the next year and
that the zoning, in effect at the time of approval -- the use is allowed through that zoning
category in effect at the time of approval, would be what would continue forward, not the
uses that were allowed when they applied in 2005. And Mr. Nary said that that was
okay.
De Weerd: Okay.
Nary: That's correct.
De Weerd: Well, I guess the question, then, to the applicant is, you know, do you want
to continue this should City Council even consider it with some of the -- the chance that
things will change and that would impact an active application or do you want action by
City Council, so you would want to withdraw your request to continue this for another
year? I guess I would like to hear your response to that first before Council decides
what they would like to do.
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
August 17, 2010
Page 27 of 53
Whallon: Okay. Madam Mayor --
De Weerd: If you will just restate your name for the record.
Whallon: Absolutely. Brandon Whallon.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Whallon: Address or just name?
De Weerd: That's okay.
Whallon: As I understand that, you were asking do we wish to move forward with the
continuance with risk that the zoning ordinance will change over the course of next year
and, then, the uses that will be allowed at that in point are different that would be
allowed now or do we move forward with the applications tonight in their form and try to
get approval on the merits of our applications tonight?
De Weerd: That's correct.
Whallon: I would say that if we could have the language stricken from item number 14
regarding access, so the DA was silent regarding access, we would be more than
willing to move forward with our annexation and zoning request tonight.
De Weerd: Okay. Well, then, that puts the ball back in City Council's court and that's
what we will seek.
Parsons: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, just to add to what Mr. Whallon just
described, staffs position has always been in the staff report if access was denied or
wasn't part of the application that they would have to resubmit a new concept plan
removing those access points to Meridian Road. And so at this point if they wanted to
strike that from the DA, staff would be recommending a new concept plan with removal
of those access points.
De Weerd: Okay. Your point is noted.
Parsons: I'm sorry, I'm going to elaborate one more time. My memory is coming back.
De Weerd: You're too young.
Parsons: If you recall, Planning and Zoning Commission had recommended aright-in,
right-out at the quarter mile during the P&Z hearing.
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor, I want to ask Brandon a question about development overall,
in terms of the economic situation that we are facing, not only in Idaho, but the country.
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
August 17, 2010
Page 28 of 53
I mean a year from now, if we keep muddling along as we are economically, I mean is
this something that -- and I don't need to know private information, but from a big picture
retail development standpoint will this be moving forward a year from now if we are still
in the same situation, just kind of bumping along?
Whallon: Unequivocally I can tell you that the answer to that is no. The biggest answer
that we can provide to entice retailers to come to our development is to give them a
definitive answer on when they can move forward and at this point we don't have a
conclusion and we don't know the answer and so they can't -- they don't know when to
schedule their investments to this facility and so it's --
Hoaglun: And the one thing I have learned over the years is that businesses, one thing
they don't like the most is uncertainty, so --
Whallon: Correct.
De Weerd: And if the entitlements are in place the odds are a lot greater to move
forward.
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I have a question for staff. Bill or Anna, either one. And, Bill,
I think you were the one the pointed out the DA extension that if we moved forward with
the annexation and the draft DA remained the same with item 14 staying in place, that
the annexation itself would be moving forward, but the DA would be on hold until such
time as it could be executed, which might be a year from now, depending on the
outcome of the legal action on the part of the applicant. So, in that scenario our
concern about access and your concern about having to modify that concept plan, if we
eliminated access from the DA would be taken care of, it could move forward, we would
have stayed true with our ordinance, the applicant would still be in a position of not
executing the DA, but would have a year to do such and between now and the year the
access is resolved with ITD, and, in fact, then, it would -- if ITD does allow additional
access, then, the variance request could move forward and if we -- however we acted
on that, then, the DA could be finalized and they could either choose to execute is or
not, depending on what our final decision is.
Canning: So, the question becomes can you modify a DA that hasn't been signed yet
and I think in the past we have done that, we have said, yes, you just file for a DA
modification and you go through that public hearing process again. So, whether or not
it's signed, it would still be a modification to the development agreement.
Nary: That's how we have done it.
Parsons: And to add to Anna's comments, the property wouldn't officially be zoned --
annexed and zoned until that DA was initiated.
Rountree: But would that put somewhat of a hold -- on the zoning for the DA to be
executed for a period of time, up to a year?
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
August 17, 2010
Page 29 of 53
Parsons: That is --
Canning: My comments about the zoning was I think misunderstood the first time.
What I'm saying is that we didn't and we don't stop the zoning. Like when you apply for
an R-15 zoning, it changes over time and you're subject to those changes over time.
just wanted to make it clear to the applicant that he was aware that he's not talking
about the same R-15 zoning that was in place -- and I kept on saying 2005. It's 2008.
apologize. So, in 2008. It's changed -- it will change and that's true of every
application. I just wanted to make sure that they were aware of that. Does that make a
little more sense now? No? I'm getting --
Rountree: So, the definition on -- of the zone itself changes. The designator may not
change --
Canning: Correct.
Rountree: -- and depending on the time, the annexation is approved is a definition
that's in ordinance at that time was applicable.
Canning: Correct.
Rountree: Okay. So, it isn't going to matter either way.
Canning: Right. And they haven't picked a zone, but I just wanted to make sure they
were aware of it. They haven't picked a zone that's no longer in existence, so we are
okay.
Rountree: So far we are okay.
Canning: Yeah.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: Just for my clarification, I have heard discussion about a development
agreement going unsigned fora year. I thought we had put a six month limit on them..
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, it's one year currently and we are in
the process of -- we should submit a text amendment this week that will bump it up to
two years to be consistent with our preliminary plat approvals. Council asked that I
make everything consistent, so I should have that up to you within a couple, months.
De Weerd: So, Council, I guess the -- you have a couple of options. If you choose to
take action on it tonight, I'm sure staff has some additional comments for consideration.
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
August 17, 2010
Page 30 of 53
If there is consideration for continuing this, those points don't need to be said at this
point.
Rountree: I don't know if there is anybody else that wants to testify, we can close -- or
we can discuss it.
De Weerd: Is there any further discussion? I'm sure in regards to the pipeline, some of
the questions might be based on what stafFs report is, so I would hate to close it to
public testimony if that is a determining factor.
Silva: Madam Mayor, Member of the Council, if we may -- if we proceed with this
hearing this evening or if we proceed with Council action, depending on the desire of
Council, to resolve the outstanding issues the fire department has raised with respect to
this development, along this pipeline corridor we would like to request that in that DA
that a provision be included in there that would require that a technical analysis be done
to determine the life safety risks for development of this -- given this concept plan along
that pipeline corridor. We have requested of the developer that we include a 25 foot
safety buffer along that -- outside the pipeline corridor proper and they were in question
whether or not -- you know, these are tough economic times and every square foot of
this commercial development counts and we understand that, but by the same token we
believe that we need to make sure that we adequately address any life safety concerns
that -- that the fire department has raised and we do have concerns about that. So, if
that -- if the DA does become part of this process this evening, that either a plat or CZC
approval include that provision in that agreement.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Apparently all the issues are not resolved and it seems to me it would be
appropriate to open up the hearing and get them on the table, so if we do continue it, it's
all there for the applicant to move forward with and try to work with staff on resolve, as
opposed to trying to take action on it tonight. So, I guess I would be in favor of moving
forward with the information and the public hearing, taking any additional testimony,
identifying issues that still are not resolved and getting those on the table and if we have
to we will continue it and if we can resolve them tonight, we can take action on the
annexation request.
De Weerd: Okay. So, you would like to hear --
Rountree: I would like to hear it.
Bird: Second the motion. Second. Get it over with.
De Weerd: What is your motion? I thought I missed something.
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
August 17, 2010
Page 31 of 53
Rountree: We have opened up the public hearing on this.
De Weerd: Yes, we did.
Rountree: I would like to move forward with the public hearing and not continue it at this
point.
De Weerd: Okay.
Bird: We have already opened --
De Weerd: I have opened it. Yes.
Zaremba: So, there is consensus. I think we agree.
De Weerd: I guess I would ask, then, staff for additional comments regarding the
consideration to take action this evening.
Parsons: Thank you, Madam Mayor and Members of the Council. I'll give you a quick
review of the project just to refresh your memory. The property is located on the west
side of Meridian Road between Harris Street and Amity Road. Right now it's just
agricultural land and some single family residents. Rural residents. Also, there is an
existing construction multi-tenant building that was constructed in the county that was
part of the annexation request as well. It's called the Mussell property. You can
probably see it there. Here is the proposed concept plan that was brought forward --
forward to you back on November 25th. Staff has highlighted the pertinent access
points regarding the variance access -- variance request. That's right-in, right-out on
Meridian Road at the eighth mile, right-in, right-out, left-in at the quarter mile and, then,
another right-in, right-out on Meridian Road at the eighth mile just north of Amity Road.
The applicant's proposing three access points to the Amity Road, two access points are
proposed at Harris Street as well, and, then, six access points are provided along that
backage road as a requirement of this as well. Just to highlight the square footage for
you, the applicant is requesting an R-15 zone, an L-O zone, a C-C zone and a C-G
zone for the mixed use development. Concept plan includes a mix of retail, a large box,
a multi-tenant mid box, 20 individual retail buildings, including several drive-thrus, three
office buildings and a 7.5 acre multi-family development. Buildings on the site range in
size from 2,000 square feet to 184,000 square feet. Total square footage of office and
retail uses proposed on the site is approximately 478,000 square feet. If you recall, as
mentioned earlier to you, when we opened the hearing on November 25th we did not
open the hearing for the access -- for the variance. We only took action on the
annexation request and didn't get into too much of the access points at that point, but it
was brought to your attention that there is a pipeline easement that runs -- bisects the
property and it's dashed on this concept plan here before you. So, it just runs north of
the big box located on the southeast -- or south portion. So, if you can follow my mouse
here, that's the Northwest Pipeline. This multi-family development here was part of a
separate application -- CPA application. The applicant just included that to show you
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
August 17, 2010
Page 32 of 53
how this proposed commercial mixed use development could mesh with surrounding
properties and, then, here is where the multi-family development is proposed. If you will
recall with that pipeline, staff had a provision in the DA that stipulated that they would
coordinate with the pipeline company. Well, after looking into that and doing some
research and contacting Northwest Pipeline, it came to staffs attention that there is,
actually, a development handbook that's required by that agency and there are some
standards that they need to comply with in that handbook and so Council did not feel
comfortable moving forward on the annexation until those issues were resolved. After
meeting -- several meetings with the applicant, the gas company, we even met with
Intermountain Gas, who has a small portion here along the southeast corner where they
transferred the gas from their facility and sell it to Intermountain Gas, that's where the
odor is added to the gas and that's where you get those smells of the gas. I believe Mr.
Ron Anderson, the chief at the time, had expressed concerns with frequent calls in that
area due to the smell of gas and that was because that's where they add the odor. So,
there is really not much there that we can deal with. After discussion, the fire
department came to the planning department and they actually took the lead on this and
went to other jurisdictions and asked for their recommendations and that's where Mr.
Silva approached staff and sent a memo off to the applicant discussing their revised or
added DA provision and that's what -- and after our initial discussions in talking with the
fire department of how Mr. Silva had stated it before you this evening and that is an
additional DA provision that we would be requesting that you add -- if you move forward
on this annexation. But to elaborate a little bit more, the DA provision itself, number 19
that I was discussing with you earlier, had changed quite a bit from its previous
rendering. After we got to the table with all those folks we did realize -- and meeting
with Gordon Hamilton, who represents the gas company, he told us that there is a
requirement for a reimbursement agreement or reimbursement agreement to do any
construction within their 75 foot easement. Nothing in their handbook describes the
setback from their easement area and so their scope of work is primarily that 75 foot
easement and he says whenever there is any work within that easement they always
have a representative on site to inspect to make sure everything runs smoothly and so
once we have gotten those -- once we identify the most pertinent facts, we have come
up and scripted this with the help of our counsel and, of course, the applicant's counsel
at the time and this is what we came up with. So, it's the last DA provision before you.
won't read it in its entirety, but primarily it says that they are going to enter into a specific
encroachment agreement, there will always be a representative from the gas company
on site visually inspecting their work as they dig within that easement and as part of that
any work outside of that easement -- so, anything north or south of that, if there isn't any
work that the contractor or whoever is performing the construction or grading on the site
would have actual physical barrier highlighting that easement area, so that no one could
go into that area and impact that dirt. And the applicant was in agreement with that DA
provision as you see before you this evening. Again, like the applicant says, staff has
not received any contact or any written testimony since the last -- since the hearing in
2005. The only written testimony that we did receive was from ITD and ACHD
regarding the traffic study and, then, also the updates as far as -- regarding access of
ITD and their process as the applicant moves forward through their process, we will
update it from their staff as to~° the outcome of their access approvals and that's why,
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
August 17, 2010
Page 33 of 53
again, to our knowledge and from your package tonight and attached to the staff report
for the variance staff report, that they have denied access to Meridian Road. And the
applicant is seeking -- is pursuing them on separate matters. One thing I did want to
point out is that our UDC and the code, at least for the access -- to grant the access
there are some findings that need to be made and there are some standards that the
applicant needs to comply with, as Mr. -- as President Zaremba mentioned to you. One
of those requirements is restrict access as you intensify use. That's a no brainer. The
applicant is proposing quite a bit of active uses on the site. The other requirement was
to construct a backage road, which the applicant has proposed to do. So, in staffs mind
and based on the findings and based on what the findings are in the code, staff is of the
opinion that the applicant has adequate access to the site and does not support and is
recommending denial of the access to Meridian Road, which is no surprise. I guess
there is no outstanding issues before you. Mr. Silva has outlined the new DA provision
for you, number 20, basically, that they would submit a technical report to the planning
department, either concurrent with a CZC application or with the submission of a
preliminary plat application is how we have directed Mr. Silva to present that to you and
he's done that adequately. So, with that I'd stand for any questions Council may have.
De Weerd: Thank you, Bill. Any questions from Council?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Bill, you said that access to Meridian Road would be denied, yet in the bullet
points on the DA there was comment -- access would be prohibited with the exception
of the quarter mile right-in, right-out.
Parsons: Thanks for the clarification, Councilman Rountree. Correct. That's what P&Z
recommended at their hearing. They didn't take a formal action on the variance,
because Council is the deciding recommending body or the decision making body for a
variance application, but they at least wanted to get some comment on that access to
you when they took action on the annexation and that's what their formal
recommendation was. Correct.
De Weerd: Any further questions? Okay. Does the applicant have comment?
Whallon: Again, my name is Brandon Whallon. We were excited to bring you this
application forward to the City of Meridian. This started with an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan that was heard before the Planning Commission that was
approved by the City Council that stated this area should be a regional mixed use -- as
the regional mixed use land designation. And so we have worked hard to create a site
plan that is functional, that will meet the tenants' needs, that will -- the tenants when
they see this and know that we are entitled, they are going to be excited and they are
going to want to make the commitment to investigate in our project in the City of
Meridian. And this is a true mixed use project. There is residential elements. There is
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
August 17, 2010
Page 34 of 53
retail. There is nonretail. And a small office element. And this is truly a great endeavor
for our company. We haven't had a lot of these and we are excited to see this project fill
up and bring it to the City of Meridian. Now, as Mr. Parsons stated, largely there is --
there is 20 items that are now listed on the development agreement and we are largely
in agreement in every single one of them. We think that that is due to a good process
that has modified this site plan, the conceptual site plan five times through this process,
and we feel that we have struck on something that meets the needs of the citizens of
Meridian. It's a viable project that tenants will want to be a part of and we think that it
would be a successful project. But we do have issues with two elements that are
currently included in the development agreement and the first one I will go into a little bit
is this new requirement that's being stated is this buffer outside of the existing 75 foot
wide easement that benefits Northwest Pipeline. We have had several agreements -- or
meetings with the Northwest Pipeline people and, you know, originally there was this
development agreement stated any work on our property we would give engineering
drawings to Northwest Pipeline, they would review them and upon their concurrence
that this was not going to impact their project, we could, then, submit to the city and
move forward. We presented that to Williams Pipeline with the city there and they said,
hey, we don't want any part of reviewing your project plans outside of our 75 foot wide
easement. That doesn't benefit us, it's going to waste our time, and it's an unnecessary
requirement on you. We are only -- we are only focused on that area within that 75 foot
wide easement that benefits us. And so we worked hard to craft the verbiage that's
included in number 19 and we thought we had an agreement in place with Northwest
Pipeline to move forward with a development of this property and we have a conceptual
site plan that has been drafted recognizing that 75 foot no build easement across our
property. Now, we are having a new requirement brought to us saying, hey, let's go
outside of that 75 foot buffer, let's convey another 50 feet to Northwest Pipeline
restricting your ability to develop on it and just looking at it as a single issue, it might not
appear to be that big of an issue, but when Northwest Pipeline got their easement
across this process property, they said, hey, we need 75 feet and they conveyed some
form of compensation to the land owner for the restriction that would be put on this
property because of that easement. Now, we are in a process where we are going to
increase that -- we are almost going to double easement, but no benefit -- no cost to
Northwest Pipeline and entirely the burden's put upon us. We have a restriction now on
our property that we can't develop and so that is why we are resisting this and it's -- we
do so not in the face of the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Meridian, we are
very sensitive to that issue, but we did review the document that Mr. Silva provided us
as the basis for this additional buffer and I would like to point you to three specific points
on page seven, there is a statement that says regarding setbacks there is no analysis
available to local government which would allow them to establish standards beyond
current practices. Another item contained within his report on page C-3 states in the
absence of any definitive studies recommending a specific distance, no single uniform
distance can be applied. And another item in that report states there are no broad
imperical studies that provide a sufficient basis for quantifying the risks of various land
uses or building types within specific distances of transmission pipelines. Simply stated,
we approach -- we appreciate the desire to insure the health, safety, and welfare of the
citizens of Meridian. The submitted study is clear that there are not currently any
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
August 17, 2010
Page 35 of 53
standards that should be applied that are anymore protective than those established by
current practices. There is no uniform distance that is applicable and there are not
studies that show building type or land uses pose greater risk than others to an existing
pipeline. We feel that a stronger nexus is required before reduction in our property
rights should be considered. Lastly, is the issue of access. We had proposed early just
to continue both of these hearings. Upon further investigation, we said, hey, maybe
there is a possibility for us to move forward on these applications and that's something
that we are prepared to do and we would support and we think that there are some
possibilities that will protect our interest and allow the city to move forward confidently
and if you notice I think it's item number ten of the development agreement, it states that
the conceptual plan attached to the development agreement shall govern the
development and if we enter into -- if our annexation and zoning is approved and we
reserve or leave the number 14 silent and let our other litigation in civil court run its
course before we truly decide what the access is, item number ten on the development
agreement will allow us at that point in time to close those access points off in the event
we do not get access and that will govern our access point or in the event that our legal
case is successful in our benefit and those access points are allowed, item number ten
stating that the development shall generally follow the concept plan. We think that there
is a little bit of flexibility allowed there that based upon the outcome of the challenge we
can modify the site plan to either show the access or not show the access. Number ten
will be in place in the development agreement regardless of the outcome of the access.
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I guess just to help clarify a little bit for
the record, I think what Deputy Silva stated was originally that was what was being
requested was the 25 foot buffer. When he was asking for the Council to consider the
development agreement there was a requirement that already exists in the fire code and
in the planning code that allows for, essentially, an independent to give that
recommendation as to what's appropriate from a safety standpoint. So, I don't think
he's -- I don't think Deputy Chief Silva is saying the 25 foot's required, I think he's saying
he wants to include that they are -- once they have their plan -- and there is some
issues here, that they are going to have to also provide something. You know, I mean
don't disagree with the applicant that the pipeline has a 75 foot easement, they have a
75 -foot easement through farm ground and that's all they have and that's what was
purchased and that's what was there. Now they are talking about putting buildings and
parking lots and other things on top of that and that's I think all that Chief Silva is talking
about is making sure that it is safe and that there is -- it isn't new that the fire code has
provisions that require those type of things and they have been used previously by the
city as well. So, it isn't something that's new, it's something that's already existing in the
code and it's just wanting them to make sure they comply with that requirement before
they finalize their buildings.
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
August 17, 2010
Page 36 of 53
Whallon: The only portion to that that I would like to add, we recognize that the farm
land that we purchased with that easement with the .pipeline -- two pipelines, actually,
contained within that easement, there are triggers and thresholds that once they -- they
have been triggered that improvements must be made to the pipeline and so we are
fully aware that our increase of intensity is going to require that pipeline to improve and
we are willing to participate in that. We are going to beef up that pipeline probably as
beefy as it is underneath. the highway right next to us, so there is no issues with
pavement or vehicles traveling across the pipeline. We are confident that we can
engineer that pipeline as safe as it is underneath the highway right next to us and we
are going to participate, we are going to pay a portion of those costs to upgrade their
facilities. But we think that we can do that within the 75 foot easement that is in place.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: With respect to what Mr. Nary just said, would you object to something in the
DA along the lines of what's your final footprint -- building footprint is -- is set that you
would provide the city with a technical or safety report with respect to the footprint and
the location of the pipeline and its safety. You would provide that, not -- and you just
provide it, like a certification.
Whallon: The only issue I have with that is I -- it sounds like a very technical report that
would be -- require a very specialized person and I don't know what the costs of that
would be. I think that as stated earlier, we are fully aware that our increases in intensity
is going to trigger whether it's us or somebody else or just an incremental increase of
intensity, if it's not one large project, but the pipeline itself has threshold that if there are
so many people within linear feet of their pipeline, it triggers improvements and if it's
slowly over time that cost is bore entirely by the pipeline. If a big development like this
comes and it's an increase of intensity that's very rapid, well, then, we participate and
we are fully aware of that. And this pipeline runs from New Mexico all the way up to the
Canadian border through downtown Seattle. The engineering to make this safe is --
has been done before. This is not a new wheel that will be created. We are sensitive to
the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Meridian, but we feel that the
engineering and safety will be in place when we participate in the upgrade of these
facilities because of our project.
Rountree: I guess my concern is that it would be nice to have somebody deem this
safe.
Whallon: I agree.
Rountree: Whether it's the pipeline or --
Whallon: I don't think that that --
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
August 17, 2010
Page 37 of 53
Rountree: -- or a professional that you would hire who would either stamp it or swear
that it's safe, because I can pull you pictures up on the Internet of these safe pipelines
that are sticking out at each end of a rather large crater and, you know, that is not
something that I can accept and that's not a public expectation. They expect to
probably realize that there is no -- they won't realize there is a pipeline there period. So,
some way to assure and it's not a guarantee. Fully understand that things happen.
De Weerd: If you will please --
Overy: I'm Jason Overy: 5537 North Brigadoon Avenue, Meridian, Idaho. Councilman
Rountree, Mayor. Through our discussions with Williams Pipeline -- and I glanced over
at the representative that's here when you had a question, number 19 on our
development agreement, the language that we tried to craft that Bill talked about was
language that Williams Pipeline would be comfortable with it. They will be doing the
engineering for any upgrade to the pipeline. They will be a part of that and as Brandon
correctly stated, if we are the cause of the need for that upgrade, Hawkins Companies
and this development will ultimately be responsible for the financial ramifications of any
required upgrades and, similarly, as we have 20 or 30 thousand cars a day that cross
this pipeline today on Meridian Road and at other places across the state and across
the country, the engineering is available to do that and I think maybe it would be a better
question for the pipeline representative if he could address the fact that in their review of
our plans that they could address that concern and I'd also like to reiterate to Joe Silva
that it is our intent to do what is right and we did try and design that site plan such that
buildings that are adjacent to that are very limited, but at some point, you know, we
have to have to a few buildings that are close to that and looking at the site plan I think
the majority of those buildings are roughly, you know, well beyond that 25 feet, except
for that core area where -- at the rear of the shopping center. So, I would like to have
the Williams person address that question.
De Weerd: And we will, but I would like to have Council ask any other questions of you
as the applicant before I invite him up, so we don't have this ever moving process in
front of us.
Whallon: Okay. Thank you. And I do believe, just to finish that, that he will be able to
address that question.
De Weerd: Okay. Any further questions from Council? Sir. If you will, please, state
your name again for the record.
Woodbury: Okay. Don,Woodbury.
De Weerd: Thank you, Don.
Woodbury: And there was a lot of things to respond to, so I don't remember them all.
They are correct in the fact that we only have a right of way for 75 feet. That's all that
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
August 17, 2010
Page 38 of 53
we can control. Although I would like -- and I'd like to make the point that the National
Transportation Safety Board has recommended some setbacks, which would kind of
concur with what Mr. Silva is trying to do. So, it's kind of tough for the developers, but
that's the recommendation is to have some setbacks and that's not new, I mean houses
have setbacks from street, you know. There is several examples. But I forgot the other
gentleman's name, but he said that -- he was correct in the statement that the pipeline
would be the ones engineering and installing the new pipeline and we have very strict
codes. We are -- I guess directed by the Department of Transportation, that's who we
are regulated by, so we have to go by the codes and, yeah, there is so many people
that congregate in certain areas, the number of houses, the number of people and we
have to have maybe thicker pipe type of things and be able to withstand more pressure,
you know, externally, internally, but that's all code and we would -- we would have to do
some of that upgrade and we do have a 75 foot right of way, but when we upgrade
pipes we might need a little bit more of that, so I mean in their best interest it might be
better if we did it before they built the parking lot or whoever they are building there.
Just -- just FYI. It can be done later, we do it do -- we do it -- we did one out in
Middleton through a subdivision and so it can be done, but -- for the end process it
might be better if they came forward a little bit quicker, but that's not necessary, just a
recommendation. And I forgot the other question, so any other questions for me or --
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary. I mean -- Mr. Nary. Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Whoever I am.
De Weerd: Whatever your name is.
Rountree: You indicated that -- that you all would build the engineering and build the
pipeline. I assume that the specs that you would use would be what you understand the
final build out would be adjacent to your pipeline. I wouldn't think you would want to do
it a couple times.
Woodbury: That's correct. We have classifications -- DOT has classifications on
pipelines. Class one, two, three, four. Right now I believe it's a class two and with the
upgrades it would surely go to class three. It probably would never go to class four.
But, yes, we would build it to the class three. And you would engineer it, so I assume
that you would stamp it and, essentially, by stamping it certified that it meets all codes
and safety requirements.
Woodbury: Yes. When we put -- install any new pipe -- the pipeline that goes through
here is -- has a maximum allowable operating pressure, we call MAOP, of 850 pounds.
When we install new pipe we test it to at least one and a half times that pressure and
we put water in there and we pressurize it to one and a half times for at least eight
hours to make sure that it -- that it will hold the pressure and we document that, yes.
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
August 17, 2010
Page 39 of 53
Rountree: And in the case of a catastrophic failure some years down the road and one
of these buildings that's adjacent to the 75 foot footprint vaporizes, who is liable?
Woodbury: Can't answer that question. I'm not an attorney, so I better not say anything
there. We have attorneys for the company, but I can't answer that one. Sorry.
Hoaglun: I have a question, Don and Madam Mayor. When there is a failure -- you
describe the testing procedures. Is the cause mostly from external action that causes a
rupture? Can you speak to that?
Woodbury: I can speak to my experience. Whether it's good for, you know, everything
can't guarantee that, but I would say probably 50-50. There was one a few years back
over in New Plymouth that a farmer was plowing some ground without us around and
the pipe, doing some deep plowing, and as long as -- as long as we are there and they
have agreed to that, you know, in our developer's handbook, if we are there and the --
during the construction and no external forces are put on the pipe, it's -- it has a very
good track record, let's put it that way. The track record of a pipeline -- an interstate
pipeline, is better than flying in an airplane. So, how many of you fly in an airplane and,
granted, that's maybe not the answer you want to hear, but it's a very good safe track
record for a pipeline.
Hoaglun: I guess, Madam Mayor and Don, if it is engineered correctly in terms of the
specs and going from a class two to class three, whatever that means -- I don't know
what that means, other than it's probably thicker and stronger.
Woodbury: Yes. Basically.
Hoaglun: That that reduces the chance of internally there is a protection there and as
well as externally, but added protection externally is either to prohibit any type of
digging, making sure there is no penetration, maybe it is additional land on each side to
-- if there is something that happens -- I guess I'm trying to find that happy medium of,
okay, if you engineer it to certain standards you don't need that additional barrier above
and beyond 75 feet, because you have adequately engineered and -- but not being an
engineer and not understanding this completely, I don't know what that is. So, maybe
we need the additional 25 on each side, but it depends on the engineering.
Woodbury: I guess technically as long as you're staying away from the pipe you're safe.
Hoaglun: Right.
Woodbury: So, you know, is a quarter of an inch better than -- you know.
Hoaglun: Oh, I understand. And that's why I think it was staff looking at it going, you
know, if we have someone come in and verify that if you engineer it to this standard and
you have got -- the easement's 75 feet and it's running right in the middle of it, with that
class three pipe you should be fine. If there is an incident it's going to do this type of
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
August 17, 2010
Page 40 of 53
damage. I mean we don't know that. We are not the experts, you know, Planning and
Zoning staff they know a lot, but not everything like those type of things. You know, fire
department wants to make sure that folks in those buildings are safe. So, I guess that's
what we are looking for is some sort of assurance, whether it's the Northwest Pipeline
that has experts that can give guidance to us and staff to say, okay, here is what this
means and what you can expect and have, you know, Deputy Chief Silva and Planning
and Zoning folks say, you know what, we have comfort level or we don't have comfort
level and this is what we recommend to Council. So, I don't know if that's you, if we
should ask someone else to do that or --
Woodbury: And I don't come to many of these meetings, so pardon my not calling you
Councilman Hoaglun and all that. All I can say is the NTSB recommends it and Mr.
Silva may have more statistics on why and all that, you know, I don't know. All I can say
is they recommend it and technically, you know, if you stay an inch away you're fine, but
I can just show what's recommended and I'm assuming, because it's the National
Transportation Safety Board, it's something to do with safety. We hope so.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I have a curiosity that's not necessarily I guess related to this application, but
just in general let's say there was an earthquake that split the pipe, are there any
sensors along the way that sense all of a sudden there was a pressure drop that wasn't
expected and it shuts a valve off someplace?
Woodbury: Yes and no.
Zaremba: Okay.
Woodbury: In known earthquake areas, yes, we have automatic valves. In -- up and
down the pipeline every few miles we do have sensors and pressure that is monitored in
our gas control in Salt Lake and they can -- they can see pressure drops and -- you
know, thank goodness that doesn't happen very often. There is only a few places there
is automatic valves.
Zaremba: That answered my question. Thank you.
Parsons: Councilman Zaremba -- or President Zaremba, if I could just elaborate on
that. When we met with the Intermountain Gas folks, their facility that takes the bulk --
the gas from the pipeline, they do have those valves. They do regulate those valves, so
if there is an issue it triggers their alarm with them to go out there and check that out.
But it certainly doesn't stop it from this pipeline.
Woodbury: Right. And we get notified as well to go check things out and -- yeah.
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
August 17, 2010
Page 41 of 53
De Weerd: Okay. Anything further from Council?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I guess we haven't heard one way or another the position for the pipeline
folks with respect to the development. Do you have any issues with it or do you
endorse it?
Woodbury: We work with development all the time.
Rountree: Okay.
Woodbury: I wouldn't say we are for or against either. You know, if it's approved and
we will work with them, so --
De Weerd: Thank you.
Rountree: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Is there any further testimony on this application? If not --
Silva: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I want to kind of express a little bit why
we have got concerns about development. Just to kind of refresh your memory for
those of you who may not be familiar, the original install -- there is actually two
pipelines, as Brandon alluded to. One installed in 1956 and one in 1971. It's a 22 and
24 inch that run parallel through that area and they operate it at pressures as the
Williams Pipeline representative indicated the 850 pounds. Typically problems that
occur with these occur as a result of corrosion or mechanical damage that results during
construction or some other heavy equipment operating in and around the building.
They alluded to they have sensors that indicate a drop in pressure, that's very true. But
the valves that control the flow in this case would have to be manipulated manually by
technicians who might be a lead time of 45 minutes to isolate and block off this
particular section of pipeline. During that time we can experience, because of the size
of this pipeline, there is a chart that indicates operating -- operating pressures of 850
pounds with a pipeline of 24 inches in diameter. You would have impact damage a
radius of about 470 feet, with flame lengths of a similar instance as it occurred in
Carlsbad they had a 30 inch failure that had 12 fatalities and they had 500 foot flame
lengths coming out of the pipeline. The fire was visible 20 miles away. And so we have
got a lot of concerns for something that's been in the ground for quite some time and
this has an average depth of cover of about five feet along the pipeline corridor. That
can be disturbed from what the original design and what the original cover was when it
was originally installed in 'S6 or '75 -- '71, depending on what pipeline you're talking
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
August 17, 2010
Page 42 of 53
about, because we had that agricultural uses that have occurred and cultivation that has
occurred along that pipeline corridor in the years since '56 and '72. So, that's why we
are asking for that technical analysis to be conducted that they alluded to that sliding
mile, that upgrading of -- from a class one, two or three -- to a class three, that occurs
similar to what -- how ACHD does street improvements, it's kind of an after the fact,
unless there is a side agreement reached between the developers and pipeline
operator. So, we are concerned about, you know, a lot of dirt that would have to be
moved as a result of this project being developed in that area and so we want to make
sure that we have taken every -- every precaution possible to insure for the safety of the
public. The technical report that we are requesting is part of an International Fire Code
section and that's Section 104.7.2. When we have challenges associated with the
storage or hazardous materials or other processes that we are not familiar with or don't
have the in-house technical expertise to deal with, we have the ability to, then, to call for
technical -- technical report to insure for public safety and we have -- you know, we can
request that be done by a person who is competent and licensed and has technical
expertise to render an opinion with respect to the safety of the pipeline in this case. So,
I just wanted to offer that testimony to just kind of clarify why the fire department has
concerns about this. Just to kind of refresh your memory also, this gas is not odorized
at the point where it's in this high pressure gas pipeline, so you can have a leak that
goes undetected, because there is no sensory perception that you're in a hazard zone.
There is -- or Mercaptan is what the odor is that's added at that take off that Idaho --
excuse me -- Intermountain Gas has there. That's where the Mercaptan is injected into
the gas and, then, it becomes part of our local distribution system for Intermountain
Gas. So, again, that's why our concerns of the fire department is raised with respect to
this issue by former fire chief Ron Anderson and myself who want to work with the
developer, but keep this project feasible, but we want some, you know, assurance that
we have provided for public safety along that while we are considering this project
before Council.
De Weerd: Okay. Any questions for Deputy Chief Silva? Okay. Final comments?
Overy: Jason Overy. And before I let Brandon do some final comments, I did want to
respond to that -- to the comments made by the Northwest Pipeline representative and
by Mr. Silva. Our number 19 in the development agreement, we stated that we would
submit a copy to Meridian Public Works, our agreement with the Northwest Pipeline
people and that that agreement will be in place prior to any construction activities
commencing. So, I think we are hearing what the Council wants, we are hearing what
Mr. Silva would like, and we have met numerous times with the Northwest Pipeline
people, with Mr. Hamilton at their offices over the period of three years as we want to be
responsible people in this community. Live in the City of Meridian and I have children
and I plan on shopping there with my kids and I understand the concerns and it's
definitely our intent to do this and I think we can accomplish that based on the language
in number 19 in our development agreement, which includes providing Public Works
with copies of these agreements that are -- that we intend to put in place. And I'll turn
the time to Brandon.
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
August 17, 2010
Page 43 of 53
Canning: Madam Mayor, before Mr. Whallon starts, I think there is an easier way to
think about the two provisions that have been added to the DA. The number 19 is really
intended to protect the pipeline, to insure that the pipeline is treated respectfully and
doesn't get damaged during the process of construction. Number 20 is intended to
protect people in the event that there is an accident with the pipeline. So, I think that
there are two very different things and that that may be a simple --amore simple way to
think about them.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Whallon: Again, Brandon Whallon. And we appreciate the planning director Anna
Canning's comments. There is a distinction here and I think that, you know, our due
diligence with this property, we did phase one environmental assessments. We did
geotechnical analysis of soil. We conducted surveys to assess encumbrances on the
property and it would be -- it would be simply delinquent of us to push back on a
technical study that is going to insure the safety -- health, safety, and general welfare of
the citizens of Meridian. I am confident that if we participate in an upgrade of those
facilities, the stamp saying that these are approved based upon the site plan that we
developed this pipeline within, that technical study simply follows course and we will
easily be able to provide that. So, at this point in time I think item number 19 we are in
agreement with the pipeline that our activities will not jeopardize the pipeline. Item 20, a
technical study to insure that that pipeline that we are going to upgrade is sufficient to
protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of Meridian. I don't see
that as an encumbrance upon us, that's simply a due diligence that's necessary.
Outside of that we think that this application stands on its merits. This application
reflects the Comprehensive Plan land use designation that's been applied to it. We feel
that we have worked hard with staff to modify our site plans to reflect their desires and
the code as the regulations require. We feel that we have support of the neighbors in
the vicinity. We feel that this project will greatly benefit those people south of the
freeway, so they will no longer have to choose between crossing the freeway and
driving into the City of Meridian or possibly taking a right on the freeway and cruising
into Boise. Those people are going to find shopping, services, and goods in their
community, in their neighborhoods, and I think that this would be successful for -- it
would be positive for them, positive for the community, and a successful development
for Hawkins Companies. So, in conclusion, we would like to just ask that item 14 be
stricken or silent regarding access until that is answered. We can't agree. to anything
less than what we are having for at this point in time. So, we just have. an issue
regarding number 15 and how the .Council would like to address that, but other than that
we are confident that this is what the City of Meridian wants in that neighborhood and
the application stands on its own merits.
De Weerd: Thank you, Brandon. Any questions from Council? Okay. Thank you.
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I have a question for staff. Bill, is that parcel that apparently
is Intermountain Gas or whatever their name is now, the odor plant, is that in the city?
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
August 17, 2010
Page 44 of 53
Parsons: Councilman Rountree, it is not.
Rountree: Okay.
Hoaglun: And to follow up, Madam Mayor, question for staff. Is that something when
we talked about the odor that comes off of that that there has been calls received, is
that something that signage might be required that -- letting people know that
occasionally the smell -- I don't know if it's that as big of a problem, so that's why I'm
asking.
Parsons: Madam Mayor, Council Member Hoaglun, that was discussed at the hearings
or the meeting that we had with Intermountain Gas Company and they were okay with
that. Possibly allowing the applicant to put some kind of signage on the fencing that
surrounds the facility that says odorants added here. We are just cautious on that,
because as you're aware, I mean they -- sometimes it gets spilt on the ground as they
talked about to us and so if they go and add the odorant it's stronger at certain parts of
the year than the summertime and so they were hesitant on that, but they were certainly
-- they didn't oppose it. I think that would be a good recommendation to that applicant
that they work with Intermountain Gas for some kind of signage there to inform folks and
at least my other recommendation would be for them to notify their potential retailers
that they may want to do something if their clients or folks that work there or want to
locate there that there might be some odorant in the vicinity due to that, but one thing
that Intermountain Gas cautioned us on is if tell people not to take it serious, if they do
smell gas and they're saying don't worry about it, we are just adding the odorant, don't
call anything, I mean that was their biggest concern when we talked to them. So, yeah,
we can see both sides, so certainly one compromise is to somehow get that message
out there. I think adding a sign on there does make sense, but at the same time I think
public awareness is probably the way to go.
Hoaglun: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Anything further? If there is nothing further, if Council is ready to
close the public hearing on this item, I would entertain a motion. Sure. Developers get
the last word, so --
Woodbury: Don Woodbury. Just so you will understand the layout of the 75 foot. If
you start on one .side, go 20 ..foot, there is a pipeline, 20 foot there is a pipeline and,
then, a 35 foot buffer.. So, there is 35 on one side, 20 on another, so it's not right in the
middle. So, just FYI.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Overy: Jason Overy. And as Gordon Hamilton explained it to us, that gives them the
flexibility to move it as they improve this pipeline as they upgrade it, so they can shift
them and back and forth as they over time move them back and forth after their
upgrades is the way it was explained to us. Thank you.
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
August 17, 2010
Page 45 of 53
De Weerd: Thank you.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I guess on that same subject would they also have the opportunity to put it a
little deeper, there being a five foot cover, I mean would seven feet help?
Overy: Again, I -- not to speak for the pipeline, but, again, we spent a lot of time with
them working through this and their understanding was based on engineering, the
drawings that we would do for the shopping center, that they would -- they have some
room, but those pipes -- I mean how they raise them or build up over them -- I mean
that would all be engineered as part of the process of upgrading that pipeline and I think
it would be of benefit at this process, especially for one that was built in 1956 that when
we do develop -- no retailer is going to let us build a parking lot for them to be torn up
two years later because of a timeline. The work will be one prior to construction of any
parking lot over the top of it, so --
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor and Jason, while you're there looking at the screen where you
have that concept plan and it looks like that pipeline, the way it's designed it gets a little
small down there, but there are no buildings in that easement, but they are -- those two
small ones -- and I'm not sure what the little one is right there -- yeah, right there. Is that
for trash or -- I can't tell what that is.
Overy: Councilman Hoaglun, you're correct, we did try and design the site plan with the
majority of the building as far away from it as we could, but this is the area where we
are -- again, we are trying to develop and have buildings. The smaller building that you
have referenced is some auxiliary retail or maybe it's an office building or something
along those lines. But you did key in in the very limited instances where we do have
buildings adjacent to it and to further comment that no building can be built within that
easement area, other than parking or landscaping.
Hoaglun: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Council, anything further?
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I move we close the public hearing.
Rountree: Second.
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
August 17, 2010
Page 46 of 53
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All those in favor
say aye. Any opposed? Okay. All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Any discussion?
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I will I guess repeat myself a little bit. I do think there is value to this project.
I think it's a good project to move forward with. I do support every one of the DA
provisions, specifically number 14. And with that I think it's a good project. I'm
prepared to make a motion.
De Weerd: Okay.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor, I move that we approve AZ 08-005 with all staff comments.
What am I missing?
Canning: Could you specify including the 20th DA provision, just so we are --
Zaremba: Including the DA provision that has been used by the fire department.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion. Do I have a second?
Rountree: I'll second.
De Weerd: For discussion?
Rountree: If Joe or Anna would read what that 20th DA provision actually says that I
have heard things about setbacks and, then, I have heard technical studies and an
agreement on the part of the applicant, because of the technical study, what does it --
what does it say in total?
Canning: I believe Mr. Silva has the wording.
Silva: Yeah. In terms of the -- Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilman
Rountree, that technical assistance -- the requirement within the fire code, is that what
you're saying -- what they would do is do an independent study to make sure that the
integrity, the process that was going to be used to upgrade the status of that pipeline,
whether or not it's replaced with thicker walled pipe or whether or not they. would
daylight it and insure that there is no corrosion that's taken place or any mechanical
damage that has taken place, we would simply get this pipeline path upgraded. I would
think in all likelihood it's probably going to get replaced because of its age. But it might
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
August 17, 2010
Page 47 of 53
include -- the things that he did not allude to is that the report that Brandon was referring
to was produced -- it was kind of a guideline for development along pipeline corridors in
the state of Washington and the report was put together in June of 2006 as
recommendations to provide guidance for development along pipelines and it might
include the -- on the feedback we got from the technical expert include an additional 25
feet outside the pipeline corridor proper to insure the safety of -- we don't have the
building footprints sitting over -- over the pipeline corridor.
Rountree: That's an explanation, but what does the DA say?
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, maybe I could make a suggestion.
think the DA provision would say pursuant to the International Fire Code provision --
and Ithink Chief Silva has the specific code reference, pursuant to the National Fire
Code Provision --
Silva: 104.7.2.
Nary: 104.7.2. The applicant shall provide an independent study to address the safety
of the project and site plan in relation to the Northwest Pipeline reference in number 19.
Canning: To issuance of the first CZC.
Nary: The issuance of the first CZC.
Zaremba: The maker of the motion includes that as item 20 in the DA.
Rountree: I agree.
Parsons: Excuse me, Madam Mayor, Councilmen. For further clarification would you --
since number 14 was approved with P&Z's recommendation for aright-in, right-out
would you request the applicant to submit a revised concept plan removing two of those
access points to Meridian Road?
Zaremba: Yes. I would like that.
De Weerd: Second agree?
Rountree: Yes.
De Weerd: Okay. Further discussion?
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
August 17, 2010
Page 48 of 53
Hoaglun: Yes, Madam Mayor. If I might inquire of staff on this. This particular
development came about I think in the first month I was on City Council in '08 and really
had my head spinning pretty good, but -- and it still does to some point. What I struggle
with is the right-in, right-out, not allowing -- because when I look at Eagle Road and
see the traffic there and every time it seems like there is another -- they allow another
right-in, right-out and its access into the businesses and -- and that's important for these
retail establishments and I'm thinking, okay, is this going to be the very first
development on our state highway that won't have right-in, right-out and it will be the
only one, because down the road something else goes in and they will get a variance.
And I guess my question to staff is help me with this, is -- ITD has come along and they
have said, no, can't do it, not going to allow it. Okay. Understand that. And they have
that jurisdiction, they have the control of those access points. We don't -- even if we
were to say today they can build as many as they want, it's still up to ITD; is that
correct?
Canning: Madam Mayor, President Zaremba, Mr. Hoaglun -- or Council Member
Hoaglun, we like to think of it as kind of a -- two gates, so to get off the property they
need to open our gate and to get onto the ITD property they need to open the second
gate. So, this would open one gate for the right-in, right-out only. It's really a -- it's very
difficult, because the two applications are so intertwined, but it's really a question of the
variance as well and you haven't acted on that one yet, so you may want to see where
you go with that second one, but this one I'm not sure where you're headed. I have no
idea where Council is headed tonight.
Hoaglun: When my head stops spinning I'll tell you, but it's not there yet, so --
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: If my recollection is correct, we have actually finished the approval of some
projects along Chinden where we have stuck to the full access at half mile, right-in and
right-out at the quarter mile. The developers have agreed to that. I'm not sure they
have been built yet, but this actually wouldn't be the first. We do have some in the
pipeline that do have that restriction. We have struggled greatly with Eagle and Eagle is
the example we point to that says this is why we need this access internal. And,
unfortunately, I have read studies from other areas where -they require the kinds of
things we are requiring, like the backage road and limited access on the arterial, where
it shows that the retail establishments have suffered no loss of their business. By the
second time a customer heads for the business they have figured out where the access
is and it isn't necessary to have a driveway to every doorway, so --
De Weerd: If there is nothing further, Council, I will go ahead and ask a roll call from
Madam Clerk on the motion in front of you.
Roll-Call: Bird, nay; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, nay.
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
August 17, 2010
Page 49 of 53
De Weerd: And I vote aye.
MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. TWO NAYS. MAYOR AYE.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I move we deny VAR 08-008.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to deny Item 9-B. Okay. Without a second that
motion will die.
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I have a question for counsel.
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: With a denial is there an opportunity to request a variance at some future
date or is it a one shot request?
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Mrs. Canning is going to have to remind
me. It isn't a one shot deal. They can request it. I can't recall if it's ayear -- it's a year
between the requests if you deny it, if it's the exact same request. So, they couldn't
request it again for a year, which I don't know what that impact would be. But they are
allowed to come back.
Canning: But they could request something different, if they came back with three
access. points, instead of six and -- they came back with two access points instead of
three.
Hoaglun: Or Madam Mayor and Anna, if they came in with just right-in, right-out only,
is that enough of a change, I guess?
Canning: That would be a different -- you can't come in with substantially the same
application.
Hoaglun: Okay. I understand clearly the left-hand turn issue. That's my reading where
the majority of the accidents happen is that left turn across two lanes of traffic, I mean
that's understandable. It doesn't give me heartburn for the right-in, right-out and that's --
just to move this along, let me try this motion, then: I move approval of VAR 08-008,
allowing two right-in, right-out access points and an additional right-in, right-out in place
of the right-in, right-out, left-in access point at the quarter mile to State Highway 69,
Meridian Road. So, that would have -- that's my motion.
De Weerd: Okay. We have a motion and I'll need a second.
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
August 17, 2010
Page 50 of 53
Bird: I will second it to ask a question.
De Weerd: Okay. Discussion, Mr. Bird.
Bird: Madam Mayor, the maker of the motion -- now, you're giving them three along
Eagle Road, two right-in, two right-outs?
Hoaglun: What I'm looking at, Councilman Bird, is the three access points would be the
same that's up on the screen, except all three would be only right-in, right-out and it's
possible he might only need two, but --
Bird: You're going an eighth, a quarter, and an eighth?
Hoaglun: I don't want to get into, Madam Mayor and Councilman Bird, designing
projects, where it would go if they could do two of them, I'm willing to knock one out and
do two right-in, right-outs, if that's -- if that eases any heartburn, but it may not be, but --
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I would propose a substitute motion.
De Weerd: Okay.
Rountree: I would continue Item 9-B until August 23rd, 2011, or until such time as the
Idaho Transportation Department and the applicant resolve their access issues.
De Weerd: I have a motion. Do I have a second?
Hoaglun: I will second, Madam Mayor.
De Weerd: Okay. Any discussion on the substitute motion?
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Rountree and Hoaglun.
Did you want the applicant to comply with all the noticing requirements as if it were a
new application for that variance, whether -- because, otherwise, right now you have
picked a specific date, you're allowing them to come earlier. So, as long as they meet
the noticing requirements.
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
August 17, 2010
Page 51 of 53
Rountree: Per our previous discussion
readvertising.
Reposting. Renoticing. Remailing. And
Hoaglun: Second agrees.
De Weerd: Okay. Any further discussion on the substitute motion to continue this Item
9-B for a year? Madam Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: We have an original motion that is now void. Okay. Well, that was a fast
one. Thank you, Council. We appreciate the detail that was spent on this and staff and
applicant and certainly Don from the pipeline.
Item 10: Ordinances
A. Continued from August 10, 2010: Ordinance No. 10-1452:
An Ordinance of the City of Meridian Providing for a New
Chapter of Title 2 of the Meridian City Code, to be Chapter
6, Relating to the Establishment, Duties, and Powers,
Membership Organization, and Meetings of the Solid
Waste Advisory Commission; and Providing an Effective
Date
B. Ordinance No.: Repealing and Replacing Title 3, Chapter
4, of the Meridian City Code Regarding Outdoor Sales
and Temporary Uses, Including Mobile Sales Units,
Temporary Uses, and Citizen's Us Permits
De Weerd: Okay. We have Item 10 under ordinances. Madam Clerk, will you, please,
read the ordinance under 10-A, which 'is Ordinance Number 10-1452, by title only.
Holman: Thank you, Madam Mayor. City of Meridian ordinance number 10-1452, an
ordinance of the City of Meridian providing for a new chapter of Title 2 of the Meridian
City Code to be Chapter 6 relating to the establishment, duties, and powers,
membership, organization and meetings of the Solid Waste Advisory Commission and
providing an effective date.
De Weerd: Thank you. You have heard this read by title only.. Is there anyone who
would like to hear it read in its entirety? Seeing no one jump up and down, Council, do I
have a motion?
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
August 17, 2010
Page 52 of 53
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve ordinance number 10-1452 with suspension of rules.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and second to approve Item 10-A. If there is no discussion,
Madam Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Item 10-B is proposed ordinance 10-1453. Madam Clerk, will you, please,
read it by title only.
Holman: Thank you, Madam Mayor. City of Meridian ordinance number 10-1453, an
ordinance of the City of Meridian repealing and replacing Chapter 4, Title 3, of the
Meridian City Code relating to outdoor sales and temporary uses, mobile sales units,
temporary uses and citizens use permits, providing for a savings clause and providing
an effective date.
De Weerd: You have heard this ordinance read by title. Is there anyone who would like
to hear it read in its entirety? Seeing none.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we approve Ordinance 10-1453 with suspension of rules.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 10-B. I don't see anyone
jumping up and down to discuss. Madam Clerk, will you, please, call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
August 17, 2010
Page 53 of 53
De Weerd: We are at the end of our agenda. Do I have a motion --
Rountree: Move to adjourn.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: All those in favor say aye. All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:05 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
a,~ ~ ~~
MAYOR [~.~ra
b1Yfa ~~~ ti)
~~ A= ' Q !Cj"J ~ L..
G~ ~ y ~u ~'
® <, ,
~.>>
~ e
DATE APPROVED
JA L H L AN, ITY LERK