Loading...
Z - Supplemental Request for ReconsiderationJulie Klein Fischer, ISB No. 4601 Jillian G. Gordon, ISB No. 10549 MORROW & FISCHER, PLLC 332 N. Broadmore Way, Ste. 102 Nampa, Idaho 83687 Telephone: (208) 475-2200 Facsimile: (208) 475-2201 j L ischer morrow Scher. eon7 igordon@inorroyy scher.coin Pt-,T� ' V J V9 Attorneys for James Doolin, FIG Village at Parkside, LLC; 2FP, LLC IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF IDAHO IN THE MATTER OF THE REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING (AZ) OF 19.07 ACRES OF LAND WITH AN R-40 ZONING DISTRICT; PRELIMINARY PLAT (PP) CONSISTING OF 60 BUILDINGS AND 3 COMMON LOTS ON 18.18 ACRES OF LAND IN THE R-40 ZONING DISTRICT; AND, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) FOR A MULTI -FAMILY DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF 278 DWELLING UNITS IN AN R-40 ZONING DISTRICT Case No. H-2018-0032 SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION COME NOW movant James Doolin, FIG Village at Parkside, LLC, a Utah corporation, ("FIG Village") by and through their attorneys of record, Morrow and Fischer, PLLC, and hereby submits a Supplemental Request for Reconsideration following their original submission dated July 16, 2018 (hereto attached). FIG Village respectfully asks the Meridian City Council to reconsider its findings contained in the July 10, 2018 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Decision & Order, which denied FIG Village's request for annexation and zoning. FIG Village submits the following Supplemental Request to be read and considered jointly with its original Request for Reconsideration. The Supplemental Request is intended to address specific deficiencies in the Order pursuant to § 1-7-10 of the Meridian City Code. SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION - I A. The Meridian City Council's Conclusions of Law Contained in the Order Failed to Satisfy the Council's Obligation Under Idaho Code §67-6535 As was stated in the original Request, FIG Village understands that the Council may exercise and rely on its discretion to make certain determinations. In its discretion, the Council determined that, in this case, "Annexation is not in the best interest of the City." The Council cited to the probability that urban services may not be able to be reasonably provided to the proposed development — a finding which FIG Village addressed at some length in its original Request — but provided no concrete information or data points underlying that particular finding. In fact, this concern is the Council's only reasonably articulated basis for its decision to deny FIG Village's proposal. Section 67-6535 of the Idaho Code sets forth requirements for local governments to control and direct local land use planning, known as the Idaho Local Land Use Planning Act or LLUPA. The Council's responsibility to applicants under LLUPA is explained by §67-6535(2), which states, The approval or denial of any application required or authorized pursuant to this chapter shall be in writing and accompanied by a reasoned statement that explains the criteria and standards considered relevant, states the relevant contested facts relied upon, and explains the rationale for the decision based on the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan, relevant ordinance and statutory provisions, pertinent constitutional principles and factual information contained in the record. The Council's Order provided two conclusions that may be identified as possible explanations for its denial: first, the Council determined that urban services may not be able to be reasonably provided to the proposed development and, second, that annexation at this time is not in the best interest of the City. Regarding the first determination, the Council attributed its concern to the recent increase in the City's population and the City's questionable ability to maintain and provide adequate SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION - 2 emergency services should its population continue to increase. Simply put, this explanation is not sufficient under §67-6535. The statute requires the Council to provide concrete data to explain and support any decision to deny an application. Here, the Council based its decision upon a purely speculative forecast of the City's population growth and provided no facts to support its conclusion; in fact, the only definitive facts cited by the Council are those that lend support to the proposal. Again, FIG Village refers the Council to its original Request which addresses this aspect of the Order in further detail. Perhaps the broader basis for the Council's denial is articulated by its conclusion that the Entrata Farms development is not in the best interest of the City at this time. Again, this conclusion is insufficient. While the Council has discretion to approve or deny the annexation proposal, the Council's authority to exercise its discretion does not negate its responsibility under §67-6535 to provide applicants with verifiable, concrete data underlying any denial. Interestingly, during the June 10, 2018 public hearing, Councilman Palmer raised this issue of the Council's responsibility toward land use applicants: the Councilman stated that the Council bears a responsibility to provide data to applicants to back up any decision to deny annexation proposals. Councilman Palmer noted that, unless and until a new Comprehensive Plan is available, the Council had no such data in this case to warrant denial of FIG Village's application. Absent such data to explain or justify its denial of FIG Village's application, the Council fails to meet the requirements set forth by §67-6535. As such, FIG Village respectfully submits that identification of this deficiency with the Council's decision fulfills its obligations under §1-7-10 of the Meridian City Code and requests that the matter be scheduled for a hearing. It should be noted that the attitude and sentiment FIG Village hoped to convey in its original Request is its desire to work constructively with the Council toward a possible solution in this SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION - 3 matter, rather than focus on the merits or insufficiencies of the current decision. To an extent, FIG Village's ability to realize this intended goal has been constrained by the Council's reliance on the somewhat broad conclusion that the Entrata Farms development is not in the best interests of the City at this time. The Council recently held a public meeting on July 10, 2018 and briefly addressed the decision to deny the Entrata Farms proposal. During that meeting, Mayor Tammy referred to other reasons for the Council's denial; however, the Order fails to state any of these reasons to which the Mayor alluded. Under §1-7-10 of the Meridian City Code, applicants seeking reconsideration must identify specific deficiencies in the Council's decision. This requirement necessarily assumes that the Council's decision will contain a certain degree of specificity that may be later used as a basis for the applicant's request for reconsideration. Here, the Council failed to include specific findings in its decision. This failure has directly impacted FIG Village's ability to seek reconsideration in the first place, as certain assumptions must be made absent any guidance from the Council as to how it concluded that a project, which otherwise meets or exceeds all criteria, should be denied. FIG Village reiterates the ideas and sentiments conveyed in the original Request for Reconsideration in hopes that the Council and FIG Village may work constructively together to provide this opportunity for the City of Meridian and its residents. Therefore, based on the foregoing and in conjunction with the reasons stated in its July 16, 2018 Request for Reconsideration, FIG Village respectfully requests that the Council reconsider the Entrata Farms proposal. SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION - 4 DATEDA-1 JJMI �% D I Cr 61 MORROW & FISCHER, PLLC Ji]Ufin G. Gordon Julie Klein Fischer Attorneys for James Doolin, FIG Village at Parkside, LLC SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION - 5 Julie Klein Fischer, ISB No. 4601 Jillian G. Gordon, ISB No. 10549 MORROW & FISCHER, PLLC 332 N. Broadmore Way, Ste. 102 Nampa, Idaho 83687 Telephone: (208) 475-2200 Facsimile: (208) 475-2201 ifi.vcher@.morrowlischet-.com schet-.cum jgordon+@3a morrowfischer.cam Attorneys for James Doolin, FIG Village at Parkside, LLC; 2FP, LLC IN THE MATTER OF THE REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING (AZ) OF 19.07 ACRES OF LAND WITH AN R-40 ZONING DISTRICT; PRELIMINARY PLAT (PP) CONSISTING OF 60 BUILDINGS AND 3 COMMON LOTS ON 18.18 ACRES OF LAND IN THE R-40 ZONING DISTRICT; AND, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) FOR A MULTI -FAMILY DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF 278 DWELLING UNITS IN AN R-40 ZONING DISTRICT Case No. H-2018-0032 REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION COME NOW movant James Doolin, FIG Village at Parkside, LLC, a Utah corporation, ("FIG Village") by and through their attorneys of record, Morrow and Fischer, PLLC, and hereby move the Meridian City Council for reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Decision & Order ("Order"), entered July 10, 2018 by the Meridian City Council, which denied FIG Village's proposal for annexation and zoning of the Entrata Farms development. FIG Village respectfully requests that the Council reconsider the Entrata Farms proposal on the basis that the proposal currently meets all relevant criteria under the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan and will ultimately benefit the City and its residents. FIG Village is mindful of the concerns expressed during the June 19, 2018 public hearing and respectfully asks the Council to reconsider its decision REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION - with the understanding that FIG Village remains open and flexible to further discussion and feedback from the Council on how best to accommodate the interests of the City. Introduction In support of its request, FIG Village offers two main bases for reconsideration. First, FIG Village is willing to implement a phasing strategy which may alleviate the Council's concerns regarding potential undue strains on the City's existing resources. Second, FIG Village would like to amend its original proposal regarding property ownership to specify that all property owners will be required to use the same property management company. FIG Village believes that this dual approach appropriately addresses the Council's overarching concerns while retaining the goals and spirit of the Entrata Farms development project FIG Village hopes to provide to the City and residents of Meridian. Additionally, FIG Village echoes the sentiments expressed in the Requests for Reconsideration regarding the Entrata Farms development project submitted by Mr. Russ Fulcher and Mr. Mark Bottles (attached hereto as Exhibits A and B). FIG Village's efforts toward this project were guided by the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan and the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan. FIG Village endeavored to remain faithful to the regulatory requirements as well as the spirit of these plans; FIG Village believes the project succeeded in those efforts. As both Mr. Fulcher and Mr. Bottles pointed out, the Planning and Zoning Committee unanimously approved and praised the project for not only meeting but exceeding the City's criteria for such projects. FIG Village understands that the Council may exercise discretion when evaluating annexation proposals and asks that the Council use its discretion to reconsider the genuine efforts expended leading up to the June 19th, 2018 hearing, as well as the far-reaching impact the Council's decision may have should its denial be upheld. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION - 2 As such, FIG Village respectfully submits the following Request for Reconsideration and requests that the Council further consider the Entrata Farms development proposal. Discussion A. Phasing Strategy: FIG Offers To Incorporate A Phasing Strategy Into Its Current Development Plan Under Section 3.01.01 of the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan, the City pledges to "Provide facilities and services that keep up with growth." The Council relied on this provision to evaluate the Entrata Farms proposal, and ultimately determined that "urban services may not be able to be reasonably provided to the proposed development while maintaining the current levels of service for existing residents, including residents for projects previously approved, but not yet constructed, as well as future residents of this project." The Council focused in particular on the quality and availability of the City's emergency services to the growing population of Meridian and expressed concern that, if approved, the Entrata Farms development might place an undue burden on the City's existing resources. Firstly, while the Council's concern is certainly understandable in light of the City's unprecedented recent growth, FIG Village maintains that the Entrata Farms development would not present an immediate additional burden on the City's resources. There is no current estimated completion date for the project, but it is reasonable to assume that completion of the construction and implementation of services would be relatively gradual. In order to better address the Council's concerns, however, FIG Village is willing to incorporate a phasing strategy for its development of the Entrata Farms project. The Council briefly alluded to the possibility of a phasing strategy during the public hearing and FIG Village believes that a phasing strategy may best accommodate the goals of the project as well as the City's REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION - 3 best interests. Given the opportunity, FIG Village can develop a phasing plan to present to the Council for its consideration. Regarding the City's existing infrastructure and emergency services, it should be noted that Meridian Fire Station #2 is located within two miles of the chosen property site; likewise, there is planned construction, scheduled to take place in January 2019, for a future fire station to be located near Overland Road and Linder Road which is approximately 3.1 miles from the property site. Additionally, the Meridian Police Department's area of service currently includes the area surrounding the property site of the Entrata Farms development. Representatives from both the fire and police departments were present during the June 19, 2018 hearing. Upon questioning, the representative from the police department acknowledged that the development would likely result in increased service calls but could not predict whether this projected increase would necessarily have a negative impact upon the department. Prior to the hearing, both departments were given an opportunity to review and comment on FIG Village's application. The comments submitted to the Council and reflected in the Staff Report address several issues but notably do not include any concerns regarding levels of service or lack of resources. Presumably, these departments would be in the best positions to provide this pertinent information; yet, neither department voiced any of the concerns raised by the Council, despite having opportunities to do so before and during the June 19, 2018 hearing. Overall, the City's existing and planned future infrastructure suggests that it will be adequately equipped to provide necessary emergency services to its residents. However, to the extent that the Entrata Farms development may present challenges to the City's services, FIG Village respectfully requests that the Council take into consideration its proposal to build the development in phases REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION - 4 as a constructive way to address its concerns while also allowing this opportunity for the City of Meridian and its residents. B. Property Ownership: All Owners Will Be Required To Use The Same Property Management Company While not addressed in the July 10, 2018 Order, the Council expressed some discontent with the original proposal's application regarding property ownership. After further discussion, FIG Village would like to amend its original application to allow for restrictions on property management to one manager/one property management company used by all property owners. Specifically, terms of property ownership will include a requirement that the Owners' Association enter into a written management agreement with one property management company to manage the leasing of all units within the development. In this way, FIG Village urges the Council to view the operation and property ownership issue of Entrata Farms as similar to that of an apartment complex: while the units may have different owners, any application for ownership will necessarily require a certain uniformity when it comes to managing the properties. Again, while not specifically addressed in the Order, FIG Village understands the Council's ambivalence toward the idea of one development containing multiple property owners. FIG Village submits that requiring property owners to agree on one property management company provides a reasonable solution to any anticipated problems posed by the initial application. C. The Entrata Farms Development Meets The Goals And Objectives of the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan And The Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan From the outset, the Entrata Farms project intended the chosen property site to be developed in a manner that would make best use of the land in conjunction and compliance with the City of REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION - 5 Meridian Comprehensive Plan ("Comprehensive Plan"). The subject property is located in the area governed by the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan ("Ten Mile Plan") and is designated "High Density Residential" on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map, attached hereto as Exhibit C. It is undisputed that the Entrata Farms project complies with the Comprehensive Plan. FIG Village submits that the proposed development also meets the goals and objectives of the Ten Mile Plan by providing high-density housing in close proximity of employment areas, commercial areas and transportation corridors. To these ends, the Entrata Farms development will offer needed housing to serve the growing population of the workforce within the Ten Mile commercial and office corridor, including Paylocity and AmeriBen. Additionally, Entrata Farms will provide housing within close proximity of the Ten Mile/I-84 interchange. Overall, this development fits within the original intent of the Ten Mile Plan by providing anticipated high-density housing needs within the core area of the Ten Mile Interchange Area. Likewise, it should be noted that, last year, Ada County Highway District ("ACHD") completed the expansion of Franklin Road to five lanes from Ten Mile Road to Black Cat. In conjunction with the road widening, Meridian City's utilities were extended from Ten Mile Road past the subject property along Franklin to Black Cat. The land owner provided ACHD/Meridian City an easement along the subject property, attached hereto as Exhibit 1), to stub utilities into the subject property as well as extend them through his property fronting Franklin Road. The proposed development would not require any additional capital improvements from the City in order to provide utility services to the site. Finally, based on the City's actions of stubbing utilities to the subject site, and extending these services down to Black Cat, it can be reasonably assumed that the REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION - 6 City has intentions of annexing and providing utility services to the subject site and numerous other potential sites from Ten Mile Road to Black Cat. CONCLUSION As the Council noted, the Entrata Farms proposal offers many attractive qualities to the City and residents of Meridian. The Entrata Farms development makes excellent use of the chosen property site, complies with the City's Comprehensive Plan, and ultimately, will benefit the future growth and prosperity of Meridian City. For these reasons, the City's interests can be best served through the approaches detailed above. Therefore, based on the foregoing, FIG respectfully requests the Meridian City Council grant the Request for Reconsideration. DATED: -JaI 2.0 MORROW & FISCHER, PLLC lian G. Gordon Julie Klein Fischer Attorneys for James Doolin, FIG Village at Parkside, LLC REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION - 7 Muss FULCHER Honorable Mayor Tammy DeWeerd July 11, 2018 Members, Meridian City Council: Honorable Treg Bernt Honorable Ty Palmer Honorable Joe Borton Honorable Anne Little Roberts Honorable Luke Cavener Honorable Genesis Milam Re: Entrata Farms — AZ, CUP, PP (H-2018-0032) — Request for Reconsideration Honorable Mayor, and Members of the Meridian City Council: Thank you for your service to the people of my hometown. I have a special appreciation for those willing to serve in government, especially at the level closest to the constituency. This request comes as a result of your hearing on June 19, 2018 regarding the application submitted by Entrata Farms. As associate broker and real estate agent, I am representing the land owner (2FP, LLC); and have a fiscal interest accordingly. On June 19, this project was denied. Based on the following, I respectfully request your reconsideration: 1. USE COMPLIANT WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: This site was selected for development by the applicant because the proposed use is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan and neighboring uses. Denial of a project consistent with the comp plan potentially damages the land owner — not only by terminating this project, but by sending a signal to future applicants of risk and uncertainty. 2. EXISTING INFRASTRUCTRE IN PLACE: As noted by the unanimous approval of Planning and Zoning staff, the city's existing infrastructure is in place to accommodate the applicant's project. The existence of such infrastructure makes the applicant's proposed use the "highest and best use" for this property. The land owner is damaged if they can't develop in accordance with "highest and best use". 3. NEED: The geography, culture, economy, infrastructure, and quality of life in Meridian are attractive and resulting in unprecedented growth. Sometimes, especially for those responsible for governing, this is considered an "injury of excellence". However, it also means projects like the one proposed by are needed. Nearby businesses such as Paylocity, Ameriben (and possibly Amazon) create employment and economic growth; but the human resources needed to fuel this economic engine need options where to live. This project provides some options. Thank you for your consideration. If desired, please feel free to contact me directly. Sincerely, EXHIBIT Russ Fulcher P.O. Box 1375 Meridian, ID 83680 208 576 4624 Russ@RussFulcher.com MARK BOTTLES REAL ESTATE SERVICES 839 S. Bridgeway Place Eagle, Idaho 83616 Honorable Mayor Tammy DeWeerd Meridian City Council City of Meridian 33 E. Broadway Avenue Meridian, ID 83642 Re: Entrata Farms — AZ, CUP, PP (H-2018-0032) — Request for Reconsideration Dear Mayor and Council Members, July 1311, 2018 I am writing this letter to address the hearing on June 19" in which the above mentioned development for Entrata Farms was presented to the Council for consideration. 1 am the broker of my firm, Mark Bottles Real Estate Services, that represented James Doolin of Fig Development, LLC in the purchase of the land, as well as Dennis Fulcher in the sale of his property through Russ Fulcher, an agent in my office. First, l would like to thank you all for your service to this City. It is not lost on me how much effort you all make to ensure that Meridian is a fantastic City for life and family, and having worked with the City of Meridian for over 25 years on development and real estate transactions l can say without hesitation that what Meridian has become is something that the local government should be quite proud of. As you know I am a real estate broker who is deeply involved with your citizens, especially those with development land that are looking to sell. Quite often I am sitting in the living rooms of families with a farm, an inherited tract of land, or their own personal homestead that has now come into the path of progress and they look to me to seek guidance on the highest and best use for the property and list their property for sale. I have been one of the most active brokers for development land in your City and have had the opportunity to work with many landowners on identifying the type of buyer they should target for their property. As we sit down to discuss, one of the primary inputs we seek is what the City has planned for the future use for the property. It is based on these plans that we identi fy a price for the highest and best use, as the price will vary greatly depending on what type of product can be placed on the property. We work hard to manage landowner expectations. Often these sales are their means to retire, or are the inheritance proceeds for children, and the implications are significant. Beyond working with landowners, I represent a great many end users or developers in the purchase of land in Meridian. Again, as I seek land that will fit their use, be it retail, office, multifamily, single family, or otherwise, we target property that is intended for their future use, whether zoned or in the comprehensive plan, or even more specifically to this example in the Ten Mile Interchange master plan. Often these developers are wanting to find a property where their product is a conforming use, as they have time constraints and heavy expense associated with working towards development and they want to use their time and money towards a project that has a high opportunity to succeed. Development is a great risk, as often these developers have spent over a year in time and tens of thousands in expense before the project comes before your Council for consideration. 839 S. Bridgeway Place, Eagle, Idaho 83616 PH: 208.377.5700 FX: 208.377.0035 EXHIBIT is a D 49 I say all of this to provide background as to my request for reconsideration on the Entrata Farms project. In this case my firm represents both scenarios that I've described above. We have a landowner, heavily impacted by this decision, as should his property not receive approval for multifamily as it states in the comprehensive plan, his property value will drop significantly. We also have a developer, who recently received praise from your Council for their project called Brickyard at Centrepoint Marketplace, and asked us to help them find another property where they could accomplish the same type of project with a high expectation for success. The subject property fit the criteria needed on all fronts, and through positive feedback in the planning stages, unanimous approval from Planning and Zoning, and welcome reception from neighbors we anticipated the June Council meeting to be a great success story of pairing the proper landowner with the right developer. I am concerned with the outcome of the meeting as I believe the impacts are far reaching. The Entrata Farms proposal complied with the intended use for the property according to the Future Land Use Map, the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan, and the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area plan. There was no indication along the way that there would be hesitation from the City, and much time and money was spent. I've since had several conversations with developers regarding this decision, and they have stated they will be more reticent to make financial commitments to sellers (i.e. non-refundable Earnest Money) on land transactions until they receive final approvals as they are concerned that despite best efforts to comply they may still fail to cross the finish line. I've had one developer simply ask me not to show them any more land in Meridian. l am concerned with listing proposals for landowners, as managing expectations for what they can sell their property for becomes more difficult if they don't believe the stated intent for their property will be followed. The time horizon will become longer for them to sell if developers won't commit until they receive full approvals. As you can see, there are many ramifications to consider with the precedent set by this decision. i kindly ask you to reconsider, l believe in the project, and also believe the developer is open to feedback and very willing to provide a project that your Council is eager to bring into your great City. I would add that going forward the feedback should come to the developer earlier in the process, as it is the City's job to convey to the developer during the planning phase what is desirable to the Council, and having participated in planning meetings for this project, I don't believe what was brought up at Council had been conveyed to the developer prior to the meeting for approval vote. That said, I also firmly believe it imperative for the City to follow its own guidelines for property uses, as it is critical that both the owners of the land, as well as prospective developers bringing projects into Meridian believe that the City's stated plans for the property can be relied on. We want to keep building this great City with projects of merit, and provide land owners with opportunities to receive what they deserve in a timely fashion for their piece of property. I respectfully ask that Entrata Farms be re -visited, as I believe on all counts that it will benefit the City of Meridian to approve this project. Best Regards, BottlesMark Broker/Owner Mark Bottles Real Estate Services Cc: Brian Rallens, Mark Bottles Real Estate Services 839 S. Bridgeway Place, Eagle, Idaho 83616 PH: 208.377.5700 FX: 208,377.0035 Vi 5 w LU E15 O C O C L 6 O N a c a) al = 3 p .3 a) O= .o C u O p o= o N N O o a �p� ¢ o} m`o EC) N'c 0 0�oNao 3 ° P—>ma a) cc °)ops }_ u ac Q p L a o U E 3a) O c x m Q` o' E a,U N U Q O c O -j7j u E a) L 0 0 a) r}>ap°} E oOE E )c uata �Tocv�Ea°'i3mcao-'5 a o O 2 T U C Q T O N p C a) N N tzC)a) o o °E�o °0 ° o O> E o 0- m c)° o aa)°E °DuaEu oEa°xo U O U U C U 9 O m C 5 E N C C Ll IS j O a) a s a) a 02 ) c C a 3 C O— a)�o N 6 0 N O> ) N N C O C OO a E C p O a° O CR) ) -66 _ L O O) N a U 0 OE p o'3 0 ° ° LL 0 o p c m o yr °° O E m aC a Q �- C o °a a o o U c 3° .'_' Oj p p QT°OEEu000a)° E O O O w p in r p7 Q O p = 3 a) o 0)0-- C T L fE— p p C c 0 0 � 9 3 o 0 uEw�.�a ��cl Q) ccoa � E� 3� - (aD c.)— O O-- a)° O N a -c' O p -E O O LE U o o U o a E o c o a a 3 a' ._ a) .� L a p 0 p a a E O ) '' c)oEa mD- LE T o o-o� a) � � aoo � m o -Q N 2 EXHIBIT D ace 3 i • Y E15 O C O C L 6 O N a c a) al = 3 p .3 a) O= .o C u O p o= o N N O o a �p� ¢ o} m`o EC) N'c 0 0�oNao 3 ° P—>ma a) cc °)ops }_ u ac Q p L a o U E 3a) O c x m Q` o' E a,U N U Q O c O -j7j u E a) L 0 0 a) r}>ap°} E oOE E )c uata �Tocv�Ea°'i3mcao-'5 a o O 2 T U C Q T O N p C a) N N tzC)a) o o °E�o °0 ° o O> E o 0- m c)° o aa)°E °DuaEu oEa°xo U O U U C U 9 O m C 5 E N C C Ll IS j O a) a s a) a 02 ) c C a 3 C O— a)�o N 6 0 N O> ) N N C O C OO a E C p O a° O CR) ) -66 _ L O O) N a U 0 OE p o'3 0 ° ° LL 0 o p c m o yr °° O E m aC a Q �- C o °a a o o U c 3° .'_' Oj p p QT°OEEu000a)° E O O O w p in r p7 Q O p = 3 a) o 0)0-- C T L fE— p p C c 0 0 � 9 3 o 0 uEw�.�a ��cl Q) ccoa � E� 3� - (aD c.)— O O-- a)° O N a -c' O p -E O O LE U o o U o a E o c o a a 3 a' ._ a) .� L a p 0 p a a E O ) '' c)oEa mD- LE T o o-o� a) � � aoo � m o -Q N 2 EXHIBIT D ace 3 ADA COUNTY RECORDER Christopher D. Rich 2015-116569 BOISE IDAHO Pgs=5 DAWN TRIVOLIS 12/23/2015 10:25 AM MERIDIAN CITY NO FEE III 11111111111l1111111111111111111111111111111 I4 00178081201501185890050051 SANITARY SEWER AND WATER MAIN EASEMENT THIS INDENTURE, made this as day of c rn r , 201S between Matthew Lebaron , the parties of the first part, and hereinafter called the GRANTORS, and the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, the party of the second part, and hereinafter called the GRANTEE; WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the GRANTORS desire to provide a sanitary sewer and water main right-of- way across the premises and property hereinafter particularly bounded and described; and WHEREAS, the sanitary sewer and water is to be provided for through underground pipelines to be constructed by others; and WHEREAS, it will be necessary to maintain., service and subsequently connect to said pipelines from time to time by the GRANTEE; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the benefits to be received by the GRANTORS, and other good and valuable consideration, the GRANTORS do hereby give, grant and convey unto the GRANTEE the right-of-way for an easement over and across the following described property: (SEE ATTACHED EXHIBITS A and B) The easement hereby granted is for the purpose of construction and operation of sanitary sewer and water mains and their allied facilities, together with their maintenance, repair, replacement and subsequent connection at the convenience of the GRANTEE, with the free right of access to such facilities at any and all times. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the said easement and right-of-way unto the said GRANTEE, it's successors and assigns forever. IT IS EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED, by and between the parties hereto, that after making repairs, performing maintenance, replacements or subsequent connections to the sanitary sewer and water mains, GRANTEE shall restore the area of the easement and adjacent property to that existent prior to undertaking such procedures. However, GRANTEE shall not be responsible for repairing, replacing or restoring anything placed within the area described in this easement that was placed there in violation of this easement. EXHIBIT Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement EASMT S&W 11-15-13.doc a THE GRANTORS hereby covenant and agree that they will not place or allow to be placed any permanent structures, trees, brush, or perennial shrubs or flowers within the area described for this easement, which would interfere with the use of said easement, for the purposes stated herein. THE GRANTORS hereby covenant and agree with the GRANTEE that should any part of the right-of-way and easement hereby granted become part of, or lie within the boundaries of any public street, then, to such extent, such right-of-way and easement hereby granted which lies within such boundary thereof or which is a part thereof, shall cease and become null and void and of no further effect and shall be completely relinquished. THE GRANTORS do hereby covenant with the GRANTEE that they are lawfully seized and possessed of the aforementioned and described tract of land, and that they have a good and lawful right to convey said easement, and that they will warrant and forever defend the title and quiet possession thereof against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said parties of the first part have hereunto subscribed their signatures the day and year first herein above written. GRANTOR: President Secretary Address STATE OF IDAHO ) : ss. County of Ada ) On this 2 8 day of 20 15- , before me, the%erpigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, per rally appeared Q H and known or identified to me to be the President and Secretary, respectively, of the corporation that executed the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that such corporation executed the same. IN WIT NESseOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day utr�; and y s#�ryvritten.. r (Sr NO ARY PUBLIC FOR ID O pu s L I `4 Residing at: Q- ��"p1 l�` Commission Expires: `7 . Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement EASMT S&W 11-15-13.doc GRANTEE: CITY OF MERIDIAN Tammy de WperdAayor may— �4o�pT�o nL4�sT Attest Jaycee L. Holman, City Clerk •` �'�� k of Approved By City Council On: ©IAN� IbAHO c� SEAL y yw F �l 1r IRE aB'�-1A0 STATE OF IDAHO, ) : ss County of Ada ) On this day of DeCrr,err , 20 L� , before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared Tammy de Weerd and Jaycee L. Holman, known to me to be the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and who executed the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that the City of Meridian executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement NOTARYP AHO Residing at: Commission Expires: EASMT S&W 11-15-13.doc EXHIBIT A UTILITY EASEMENT DESCRIPTION FOR THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO PARCEL 30 — MATTHEW LeBARON An easement for utility purposes located in the SE '/4 of Section 10, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at a brass cap monument marking the southwesterly corner of said SE '/4 from which a brass cap monument marking the southeasterly corner of said SE '/4 bears S 89°15'24" E a distance of 2640.81 feet; Thence S 89°15'24" E along the southerly boundary of said SE'/ a distance of 369.33 feet to a point; Thence leaving said southerly boundary N 0°44'36" E a distance of 33.88 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence continuing N 0°44'36" E a distance of 20.00 feet to a point; Thence S 89°15'24" E a distance of 32.00 feet to a point; Thence S 0°44'36" W a distance of 20.00 feet to a point on the northerly right-of-way of Franklin Road; Thence N 89°15'24" W along said northerly right-of-way a distance of 32.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. This parcel contains 640 square feet (0.015 acres) and is subject to any other easements existing or in use. Prepared by: Glenn K. Bennett, PLS Civil Survey Consultants, Incorporated ,q PFI! �p 46 May 8, 2015 '��`' s U y aQ �y - 5082 A- r 1/4 EXHIBIT B SKETCH TO ACCOMPANY EASEMENT DESCRIPTION LOCATED IN THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 WEST, BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO. � o 4 c; : .. N `POINT OF BEGINNING w `aloo of z 33' 1. LAN© oif K. M 30 MATTHEW LeBARON S 89'15'24" E 32.00' UTILITY EASEMENT 32.00'_ _ N 89' 15'24" W 0 a 2271 S 89'15'24" E 2640.81' FRANKLIN ROAD SCALE: 1 "=20' 10 1,,1' 1 15'x14 CIVIL SURVEY CONSULTANTS, INC. 2893 S. MERIDIAN ROAD MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 (208)888-4312