Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-06-21E IDIA � CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 6:00 PM 6:0P 1. Roll -Call Attendance Anne Little Roberts X Joe Borton X Ty Palmer Keith Bird Genesis Milam X Luke Cavener ® X Mayor Tammy de Weerd 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Community Invocation by Justin Jordan with Real Life Ministries 4. Adoption of the Agenda 5. Consent Agenda Approved A. Approval of the June 7, 2016 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes B. Approval of the June 14, 2016 City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes C. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for 907 NW 2nd Street (H-2016-0040) by City of Meridian Located North Side of E. Pine Avenue, West of N. Meridian Road D. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Ashley Manor (H-2016-0043) by Mark Ellison Located 4379 N. Locust Grove Road E. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for TM Crossing (H-2016-0054) by SCS Brighton, LLC Located Northeast Corner of S. Ten Mile Road and 1-84 F. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Maverik (H-2016-0027) by Maverik, Inc. Located 1515 E. Fairview Avenue G. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Third Street Square Subdivision (H-2016-0031) by Trenton Seltzer Located East of N. Main Street Between Franklin Road and Pine Avenue Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 21, 2016 — Page 1 of 6 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. H. Final Order for Brinegar Prairie No. 1 (H-2016-0053) by Challenger Development, LLC Located 2220 N. Ten Mile Road 1. Final Order for Birkdale Estates Subdivision (H-2016-0059) by EGC Development, LLC Located Southeast Corner of N. Meridian Road and E. Chinden Boulevard J. Professional Service Agreement for Artwork for Traffic Box Art Project - Teagan Sloan c/o Ashanti Kay Sloan K. Professional Service Agreement for Artwork for Traffic Box Art Project - Suzanne Lee Chetwood L. Professional Service Agreement for Artwork for Traffic Box Community Art Project - Susan Elle M. Professional Service Agreement for Artwork for Traffic Box Art Project - Laurel Lake McGuire N. Water Main Easement between the City of Meridian and Penwood III, LLC within Newton's Nook Subdivision O. Pedestrian Pathway Easement Between Creekstone Meridian, LLC and the City of Meridian Regarding a Multi -Use Pathway on Lot 18, Block 1 of Creekstone Subdivision P. License Agreement Between the Nampa and Meridian Irrigation District and the City of Meridian Regarding a Multi -Use Pathway on Lot 18, Block 1 of the Creekstone Subdivision Q. Resolution No. 16-1146: A Resolution of the Mayor and City Council of the City of Meridian Declaring that certain Self -Contained Breathing Apparatus are Surplus Property and Authorizing the Donation of such Unit to the West Ada School District's Fire Training Program. R. Resolution No. 16-1147: A Resolution of the Mayor and City Council of the City of Meridian Declaring that certain Cardiac Monitors are Surplus Property and Authorizing the Donation of such Units to the Idaho Bureau of EMS 6. Community Items/Presentations A. Acknowledge and Thank CableONE Movie Night in Meridian Business Sponsors Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 21, 2016 — Page 2 of 6 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. B. Meridian Arts Commission Recommendation for Public Art at Fairview and Main Motion approved to accept the recommendations of the Meridian Arts Commission's recommendation and to move forward with the three suggested pieces. C. Boise City Attorney's Office Presentation on Prosecution and Police Services Contract 7. Items Moved From the Consent Agenda None 8. Action Items Land Use Public Hearing Process: After the Public Hearing is opened the staff report will be presented by the assigned City planner. Following Staff's report the applicant has up to 15 minutes to present their application. Each member of the public may provide testimony up to 3 minutes or if they are representing a larger group, such as a Homeowners Association, they are allowed 10 minutes. The applicant is then allowed 10 additional minutes to respond to the public's comments. No additional public testimony is taken once the public hearing is closed. A. Public Hearing Continued from June 14, 2016: Public hearing to consider the Urban Renewal Plan for the Ten Mile Road Urban Renewal Project of the Meridian Development Corporation 1 Moved from 1OA: Third Reading Of Ordinance No. 16-1695: An Ordinance Of The City Council Of The City Of Meridian, Approving The Urban Renewal Plan For The Ten Mile Road Urban Renewal Project, Which Plan Includes Revenue Allocation Financing Provisions; Authorizing The City Clerk To Transmit A Copy Of This Ordinance And Other Required Information To The County And State Officials; And Providing An Effective Date Approved B. Public Hearing for Volante Investments (H-2016-0056) By Volante Investments LLLP Located at 2600 & 2700 E Overland Road 1. Request: New Development Agreement and Modification to the Conditions of Approval Referenced in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Approved with the Annexation and Zoning Request (Ord. #'s 661 & 665) Approved C. Public Hearing for CentrePoint Subdivision (H-2016-0057) By W.H. Moore Located at N Eagle Road and E Ustick Road Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 21, 2016 — Page 3 of 6 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. 1. Request for a Modification to the Development Agreement to Allow the Development of a Self -Service Storage Facility with Outdoor Storage at the Northwest Corner of the Site with a Conditional Use Permit; Reduction in the Width of the Street Buffer Required Along E Jasmine Lane from 25 Feet to Zero Feet; Authorization to Close off the Micropath from Champion Park Subdivision; and Allowance for a Building Permit to be Issued in Phase 2 of CentrePoint Subdivision Prior to Recordation of the Final Plat Approved D. Public Hearing Continued from 06/07/2016 for Brundage Estates (H-2016- 0001) by L.C. Development, Inc. Located East of S. Linder Road Between Victory and Amity Roads 1. Request: Preliminary Plat Common Lots and 1 Other Zoning District Motion approved to continue this Consisting of 366 Building Lots, 20 Lot on 136.63 Acres of Land in an R-4 E. Final Plat Continued from 06/07/2016 for Isola Creek No. 4 (H-2016-0050) by Isola Creek, LLC Located North Side of W. Ustick Road and East Side of N. Ten Mile Road 1. Request: Final Plat Approval Consisting of Forty -Five (45) Single Family Residential Building Lots and Four (4) Common Lots on Approximately 28.02 Acres in the R-4 Zoning District Motion approved to continue this item to June 28, 201 F. Public Hearing for Rainier Villas (H-2016-0041) by Aaron Elton Located West of N. Meridian Road and South of E. Franklin Road 1. Request: Preliminary Plat Approval of Twenty -Three (23) Residential Lots and Four (4) Common Lots on 5.354 in an Existing C -G Zoning District 2. Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval for Ninety -Two (92) Multi - Family Dwelling Units on Approximately 5.354 Acres in an Existing C -G Zoning District Approved G. Public Hearing for Verado Subdivision (H-2016-0047) by DevCo, LLC Located Southeast Corner of N. Locust Grove Road and E. Ustick Road Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 21, 2016 — Page 4 of 6 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. Er7 1. Request: Annexation of Approximately 20.28 Acres from RUT in Ada County to the R-8 (Medium Density Residential) (5.12 Acres) and R- 15 (Medium High -Density Residential) (14.23 Acres) Zoning Districts 2. Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of 122 Single Family Residential Lots, 8 Common Lots on Approximately 19.35 Acres in the Proposed R-8 and R-15 Zoning Districts Heard prior to 8Approved Department Reports A. City Council: Discussion Regarding the Use of Mobile Devices and Social Media During City Council Meetings and By City Councilmembers Continued to June 28, 201 B. Parks and Recreation Department: Bellano Creek Neighborhood Park Design and Naming Request Continued to June 28, 201 C. Parks and Recreation Department: Bainbridge Neighborhood Park Design Continued to June 28, 2016 D. Community Development: Transportation Projects Update - Discuss Transportation Related Studies, Plans and Projects Including: Ustick Road, Franklin Road and Idaho Avenue Continued to July 12, 2016 E. Police Department: Approval of Budget Amendment for Records Lead Position Elevated to Records Supervisor Position, Not to Exceed $20,894.00 Approved F. Legal Department: Budget Amendment for Legal Services for A Not -to - Exceed amount $60,000.00 Approved 10. Ordinances A. Third Reading Of Ordinance No. 16-1695: An Ordinance Of The City Council Of The City Of Meridian, Approving The Urban Renewal Plan For The Ten Mile Road Urban Renewal Project, Which Plan Includes Revenue Allocation Financing Provisions; Authorizing The City Clerk To Transmit A Copy Of This Ordinance And Other Required Information To The County And State Officials; And Providing An Effective Date Moved to Item 8A1: Approved Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 21, 2016 — Page 5 of 6 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. B. Ordinance No. Proposed # 16-1697: An Ordinance (Kenners Subdivision H- 2016-0018) of the Mayor and City Council of the City of Meridian for the Annexation and Rezone of a Parcel of Land being a Portion of the NE '/4 of the SW '/4 of Section 5, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as Described in Establishing and Determining the Land Use Classification of said .932 acres of Land from RUT to R-8 (Medium Density Residential) District in the Meridian City Code; and Providing for a Summary of the Ordinance; and Providing for a Waiver of the Reading Rules; and Providing an Effective Date Approved 11. Future Meeting Topics None Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda Tuesday, June 21, 2016 — Page 6 of 6 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 A meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:00 p.m., Tuesday, June 21, 2016, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd. Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, Keith Bird, Joe Borton, Ty Palmer, Anne Little Roberts and Luke Cavener. Member Absent: Genesis Milam. Others Present: Bill Nary, Jacy Jones, Bruce Chatterton, Caleb Hood, Sonya Watters, Josh Beach, Kyle Radek, Jamie Leslie, Perry Palmer, Mike Barton, and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll -call Attendance: Roll call. X Anne Little Roberts X Joe Borton X Ty Palmer X Keith Bird X Genesis Milam X Lucas Cavener X Mayor Tammy de Weerd De Weerd: Thank you for joining us here this evening. We appreciate you being with us. For the record it is Tuesday, July — or July — June 21 st. It's two minutes after 6:00. Madam Clerk, will you, please, call 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 to our flag. (Pledge of Allegiance recited.) Item 3: Community Invocation by Justin Jordan with Real Life Ministries De Weerd: Item No. 3 is our community invocation. Oh, there you go. Tonight we will be led by Pastor Justin Jordan with Real Life Ministries. Thank you for joining us. I would invite you all to join us in the community invocation or take this as an opportunity for a moment of reflection. Jordan: Thank you. Let's pray. Lord, as I come tonight I'm reminded of a passage wherein you say unless the Lord build those who labor labor in vain and, Lord, we ask that as this great city is built and developed and as this meeting is led tonight, that you would have our blessing on this meeting, on this city, on these leaders, Lord, that they would continue to lead in such a way that makes Meridian an amazing place to be at and that the values that we believe in of community, of love, of peace, of safety, all the things that make this city one of the greatest cities in the United states, God, that those items will continue to be lived to with the decisions that are made, with the discussion Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 2 of 94 that happens and, Lord, that we as a community be unified in doing the things that are best for its citizens. Thank you, Lord, for the leadership here, thank you for those that are here tonight and, God, I pray that we would listen to one another, value one another and that the blessing and the values that continue to be lived out here in Meridian will continue to live on for our children and for our grandchildren and for the years to come. Thank you, Lord, for your example. Thank you for your Son and thank you for your sacrifice. We do all in your Son's name, amen. Item 4: Adoption of the Agenda De Weerd: Thank you. Item No. 4 is adoption of the agenda. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: On the — on the agenda No. 5 — Item 5-Q is proposed Resolution No. 16-1146. Item 5-R is Resolution No. 16-1147. Item 8-A-1 will be moved to Item 10-A. Item 8-E, the applicant has requested to continue that item to June 28th, 2016. Item 10-A will be moved to item 8-A-1 and Item 10-B is proposed Ordinance No. 16-1697. And with that I would move to adopt the agenda. Cavener: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve the agenda as amended. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 5: Consent Agenda A. Approval of the June 7, 2016 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes B. Approval of the June 14, 2016 City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes C. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for 907 NW 2nd Street (H- 2016-0040) by City of Meridian Located North Side of E. Pine Avenue, West of N. Meridian Road D. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Ashley Manor (H- 2016-0043) by Mark Ellison Located 4379 N. Locust Grove Road Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 3 of 94 E. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for TM Crossing (H- 2016- 0054) by SCS Brighton, LLC Located Northeast Corner of S. Ten Mile Road and 1-84 F. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Maverik (H-2016- 0027) by Maverik, Inc. Located 1515 E. Fairview Avenue G. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Third Street Square Subdivision (H-2016-0031) by Trenton Seltzer Located East of N. Main Street Between Franklin Road and Pine Avenue H. Final Order for Brinegar Prairie No. 1 (H-2016-0053) by Challenger Development, LLC Located 2220 N. Ten Mile Road I. Final Order for Birkdale Estates Subdivision (H-2016-0059) by EGC Development, LLC Located Southeast Corner of N. Meridian Road and E. Chinden Boulevard J. Professional Service Agreement for Artwork for Traffic Box Art Project - Teagan Sloan c/o Ashanti Kay Sloan K. Professional Service Agreement for Artwork for Traffic Box Art Project - Suzanne Lee Chetwood L. Professional Service Agreement for Artwork for Traffic Box Community Art Project - Susan Elle M. Professional Service Agreement for Artwork for Traffic Box Art Project - Laurel Lake McGuire N. Water Main Easement between the City of Meridian and Penwood III, LLC within Newton's Nook Subdivision O. Pedestrian Pathway Easement Between Creekstone Meridian, LLC and the City of Meridian Regarding a Multi -Use Pathway on Lot 18, Block 1 of Creekstone Subdivision P. License Agreement Between the Nampa and Meridian Irrigation District and the City of Meridian Regarding a Multi - Use Pathway on Lot 18, Block 1 of the Creekstone Subdivision Q. Resolution No. 16-1146: A Resolution of the Mayor and City Council of the City of Meridian Declaring that certain Self- Contained Breathing Apparatus are Surplus Property Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 4 of 94 and Authorizing the Donation of such Unit to the West Ada School District's Fire Training Program. R. Resolution No. 16-1147: A Resolution of the Mayor and City Council of the City of Meridian Declaring that certain Cardiac Monitors are Surplus Property and Authorizing the Donation of such Units to the Idaho Bureau of EMS De Weerd: Okay. Item 5 is our Consent Agenda. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: With Item 5-Q notes as Resolution No. 16-1146, Item 5-R, Resolution No. 16- 1147, 1 would move for the adoption of the Consent Agenda and the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest on all necessary papers. Cavener: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda as stated. Madam Clerk, will you, please, call roll. Roll Call: Bird, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, absent; Cavener, yea; Palmer, yea, Little Roberts, yea. De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 6: Community Items/Presentations A. Acknowledge and Thank CableONE Movie Night in Meridian Business Sponsors De Weerd: Item 6-A is under or Parks Department. Renee. White: Thank you, Madam Mayor and Members of the Council. I'm here to give thanks to the sponsors who have worked with us for — some of them for a number of years and some of them just a year or so. But they have together donated over 15 — or nearly 14,000 dollars towards the Movie Night program and have made it possible for us to bring this wonderful event to the community. We have had three events so far and the first one brought — I'm guessing over 3,000 guests. The second one was a little windy, so we had maybe 1,000 people, and, then, the third one I'm guessing we had a little over 1,200 people. But I'm going to read you the list of sponsors and the first one has been with us for over ten years and has helped — been the title sponsor and that's CableOne. They not only have donated the movie screen to make it Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 5 of 94 possible, but on a weekly basis they helped produce the sponsor videos that are shown before the movie begins. In addition, we have presenting sponsors, St. Alphonsus Medical Group, and Mountain America Credit Union and, then, of course, Rocky Mountain Audio Visual, who has — they come out on a nightly basis and help us with the projection of the — the movie, as well as the sound. So, then, we have a number of nightly sponsors, that includes the Meridian Library District, R.C. Willey, Parkview Christian, Bio Life Plasma Service, who has sponsored two of the nights, as well as our slide sponsor. Idaho Central Credit Union has also sponsored multiple evenings. The Meridian Anti -Drug Coalition, Westside Body Works, Meridian United, the Meridian Firefighters Association, Teleperformance and New Horizon Academy, who is also a slide sponsor. So, we would just like to acknowledge these generous businesses who make this amazing event possible. De Weerd: Thank you. We appreciate our sponsors. They allow us to do a number of our programs and this one has been wildly popular. It's been serving our families for ten — has it been ten years? White: This is the tenth year, yes. De Weerd: Yeah. So -- White: So, we will be renegotiating a sponsorship with CableOne for another five year deal and if you will allow me a little bit of latitude, I would like to thank Colin Moss, who has been training me to take over my position and who I understand also this was his idea and so he worked with me the last three evenings in a row to get me up to speed on how to do this and I think he will be taking his Fridays nights off. So, I'd like to thank him. De Weerd: Wow, first Friday off in the summer for the last ten years. Colin, I would join Renee in giving thanks to your ingenuity on this, your leadership. You have been solution oriented. We have had a number of things that have presented themselves and you have been creative in your solutions, worked with our partners, with our police department, with your parks team and just greatly appreciate what you have set in our community that others have tried to replicate. So, thank you. Thank you for your presentation. White: Thank you, Madam Mayor. B. Meridian Arts Commission Recommendation for Public Art at Fairview and Main De Weerd: Okay. Item 6-13 is under our Meridian Arts Commission. Hello, Ellen and Hillary. De Angelis: Hello, Madam Mayor and the rest of the Council. My name is Ellen De Angelis and we are on the Meridian Arts Commission and we came tonight to give you Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 6 of 94 our recommendations for the public art piece that will be going in at the corner of Fairview and Main. We have received feedback from the public and we have reviewed that feedback and we have lots of heated discussions and we have made our recommendations for the wheats piece, the Blue Grass, Wheat Grass and the Fescue. So, we ask that you review that and we are here to answer any questions that you guys may have on this particular project. De Weerd: So, you're seeking any feedback and approval? De Angelis: Yes. De Weerd: And, Ellen, while you're standing there, too, we want to thank you for what you're doing for this coming weekend and coordinating the arts festival and I know people are really excited. I have heard great things from the Dairy Board and we look forward to this new offering, in addition to the Meridian Youth Farmers Market, of course. DeAngelis: Of course. De Weerd: So, thank you for your efforts on that. De Angelis: It's my pleasure. Thank you. De Weerd: Council, any questions, comments about the recommendation from the Meridian Arts Commission? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: Just some quick clarity. Is it — is it one of the three selections? Is it — De Weerd: All three. Borton: All three? De Angelis: We are doing three — we are choosing three of the five to commission and so the three that we are recommending be constructed are Wheat, Blue Grass and Fescue. Borton: Okay. De Weerd: Okay. Any — Cavener: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 7 of 94 De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: If I recall, there was a solicit for public input. I'm curious, does your recommendation match what the public had recommended? De Angelis: In some ways, yes. We got a really interesting level of feedback. Everything from we don't want money spent on this to do all of them. So, we kind of had to wade through and made our best determination. We, obviously, want the public support with this project, but ultimately the commission decided on these particular three. Fescue was the — was the most popular one with the public and also with the commission, so that was an easy choice and, then, Blue Grass and Wheat were also popular, but we felt like they were very similar in design and we really wanted to bring in three distinct pieces of work for this project. De Weerd: Okay. Any other comments? Okay. I would entertain a motion. Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: Seeing how Council Woman Milam is absent, I would be happy to accept your recommendation and move forward with the three suggested pieces. :3R•'it... • 0 •.1111 De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Madam Clerk, will you, please, call roll. Roll Call: Bird, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, absent; Cavener, yea; Palmer, yea, Little Roberts, yea. De Weerd: All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Angelis: Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you so much. And the timeline on this is he — the artist believes he can get this completed by the end of the budget year; correct? Bodnar: Yes. It was the main thing discussed. De Weerd: Very good. Thank you. At no extra cost. Bodnar: Correct. Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 8 of 94 De Weerd: That's my specific notation. C. Boise City Attorney's Office Presentation on Prosecution and Police Services Contract De Weerd: Okay. Item 6-C is under our — I will turn this over to Mr. Nary to introduce. Nary: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. The City of Meridian, excuse me, has a prosecution and police services contract that has been in place for more than a dozen years with the City of Boise. So, they provide all of the city's prosecution work and they provide also police advice and training for our police department. The team is managed by the two attorneys that are here tonight to talk about the contract, talk about the service they provide, some of the transition they have had and as a step going forward Christine Starr and Michael Dean are here from the city of Boise and they are the ones that provide the primary services to our department on the police side and a variety of the prosecutors handle all of our other prosecution cases. So, I can turn it over to them. Dean: Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you for joining us. Dean: Madam Mayor, Council, thank you for having us here. We appreciate the partnership we have had with Meridian. By my count I think it's been 13 or 14 years and we — we have enjoyed that thoroughly. We are grateful for the chance to come and explain or present a little on our services. I will be presenting on the criminal prosecution side and Ms. Starr on the police advice side. I would be remiss if I didn't give credit to Denise, who is also my partner and one of the managers over the prosecution unit. She's not with us tonight. De Weerd: If you can move the microphone over a little bit. Yes. Dean: Thank you. We currently have 14 full time -- 14 criminal prosecutors and one of those is part-time and three police advisors within our office that serve both the city of Boise and the City of Meridian. Our prosecution services start almost immediately following arrest or cite and sometimes even before that. As part of our services we screen police reports, we make charging decisions, whether a charge is appropriate to file or not, and file the appropriate pleadings. We review all the misdemeanor citations that are presented to the court and misdemeanor arrests to make sure the appropriate code sections are listed to make sure we have appropriate evidence and to determine if any of them need to be routed to the county felony amendment or perhaps be amended to a more appropriate charge. We provide victim witness notifications, services, meetings. We work with them to make sure their Constitutional rights are met as we proceed through the route of prosecution and also prepare — prepare them for court proceedings as well. We do the same with officers. We prepare them for suppression hearings, for trials, whether those be bench or jury trials and for any other Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 9 of 94 questions they may have, as well as provide assistance when they need that on investigation and questions on potential charging decisions. We have a discovery process whereby we e -file our discovery to counsel on cases or to pro se litigants. We fulfill their rights under the Constitution, under our statutory obligations, to make sure they are afforded the information and that the cases can proceed, including receiving information, working with police officers to obtain all the audio -video recordings, any other necessary information that we need to comply with those obligations. Our court hearings -- we cover every hearing from arraignment, to trial, and beyond. Arraignments. Motion hearings. Pretrial conferences. Sentencings. Appeals. Post convictions when cases proceed that far. And we also have two specialty courts, DUI court that Ms. Starr supervises in our office and was started and we have cases, both Boise and Meridian in that. Those are high intensive courts for people with -- I think to serve the at risk population more, in which there is more review hearings and accountability. We also have a domestic violence court. I know we have Meridian cases in that. I just accepted one in that this morning as well. Our caseload. This past year in 2015 we opened just a little over 15,000 new cases. Those don't count — don't include the crime cases in which we reviewed the report and determined no criminal charges should be filed or in which a citation was filed and the infraction was paid. Those cases involve Boise, Meridian and Eagle. We do now contract with Garden City as of February this year and also prosecute on their behalf. The 15,000 cases had a little over 23,000 new charges involving those. Several cases will have — some cases will have multiple charges. Almost 4,000 of those cases are on behalf of the City of Meridian, with the total a little over 6,000 charges, for about -- charges for 1.6 charges per case. That's a little over a quarter of our total cases filed, a little over a quarter of our new charges as well. Our 14 prosecutors, one of which is part time, handled a little over 28,000 total hearings in 2015. That's a six percent increase from the previous year. I know Mr. Nary has provided some of this information to you in the past in past presentations, but I'd appreciate it if you would allow me to go through it again. Historically as we look at the incoming cases and charges by year, the past two years have been fairly consistent. There was little decline in 2013 and 2011, 2012 were a little over 4,000. Currently we are on pace this year, we are about 130 cases ahead of where we were last year. The charges are on — roughly on par, about the same spot as we were last year as we look at projections for this coming year. Incoming cases. Almost half of — a little over half of what we prosecuted had to do with traffic, whether it be traffic infractions, traffic misdemeanors and DUI is listed on the other side, but those fall within the — under the realm of traffic laws as well. We have a great variety of those. We deal with the DUls. I didn't mention controlled substances, property crimes, domestic violence, crimes against persons, but the large bulk are traffic infractions and traffic misdemeanors. This is the top ten charges in 2015 for your review. You will notice the top — the top few are driving related, traffic related. No insurance. Speeding. Invalid license. As you go through there are a few other misdemeanors. Petty theft. Control substance. A lot of those charges you will find are combined. You might see a no insurance along with a speeding or no insurance with a driving without privileges. So, in certain cases we will see more than one charge comprising these. If you look at driving under the influence — I note this on here — 237 cases in 2015, that's specific to a first offense DUI. We also had additional charges Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 10 of 94 excessive DUIs, DUI second offense, minors who are charged with driving under the influence. Those are listed separately. When you bring the total number up it doesn't increase DUIs, but for this particular offense, that's one of the most cited there. Our conviction rate. We are proud of our conviction rate. We look at driving under the influence. It's one of the cases we put a priority on, because of safety to the community. A 96.9 percent conviction rate there. Our property crime, traffic misdemeanors, our probation violations that we follow up with to make sure people are complying, abiding by the sentences and of crimes against persons category, have a high conviction rate across the board. Case disposition. And we have a little bit different number of cases disposed of every year than cases charged. The cases we brought in were almost 4,000, cases disposed were about 3,340 cases there. So, there is cases that will last over the year into 2016, so some of the charged cases in 2015 may have subsequently been disposed of . In 2015 it was a little over 3,300 cases. Convictions or charges there, almost 3,700 for the year. Going forward, as I mentioned earlier, we are currently on pace to exceed the cases filed in 2015. 1 think as of yesterday we were 130 cases more than we filed a year ago. August 8th the court is starting the Odyssey implementation, a new e -filing system that the court is moving to. Currently we use IStars, the Idaho Repository. All counties are moving to Odyssey. Twin Falls was the first. Ada County is the second. We are currently in the process of working with the Supreme Court to train and to begin our e -filing beginning on August 8th and train our prosecutors as well. Increased courtroom responsibilities. We currently cover seven full-time magistrates and one part-time magistrate who visits from Elmore county. We have had one of our recent magistrate's, Judge Manweiller, move from juvenile courthouse to downtown. He will be working at the downtown courthouse. We anticipate that he will be taking an increased caseload and we will be covering his cases — his cases as well, including certain DUI responsibilities. Those are some of the plans we have going forward as we continue to contract, as we continue our prosecution services. I will turn the time over Christine Starr to work with our police advise. Starr: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, thank you so much for the time this evening. As you will see, I have the team — we call it the public safety team and the public safety team provides three attorneys to the Meridian Police Department. Can you go backwards a little? There you go. Thank you. Okay. And I often tell people have the greatest job in the world and I truly believe that, because I get to work with my heroes every single day that includes the Meridian Police Department and I can't tell this Council -- and I'm sure you know this, but how wonderful of a police department you have. I have been working with them for 11 years, so I feel like I have some record of knowledge with respect to how great the department is. You will see that we rotate three folks out there every single week and we do this for a reason. One of the things that we strive to achieve is confidence from the officers that they can come and talk to us about anything and that's very important, because we don't want them coming to us after the fact when something's happened, we want them thinking about coming to us at the beginning and so when you rotate out three different people you get three different personalities and that means that one officer may think that I'm great, another officer may think that another person is great and they will go to the Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 11 of 94 person that they feel the most comfortable with. We don't care who they go to, we just want them to come and talk to us about their cases and the questions that they have. So, the services we provide -- and I know that Bill has shared these with you, but I just want to share with you a day in the life. So, for instance, today is Tuesday, so I was at the Meridian Police Department. I went in, I went to the front desk, I grabbed my package of public records requests that we deal with every time we are out there. In the last year we had over 3,500 public records requests. We are on track to have more this year. I have one today that's 618 pages. You're welcome, Bill. So, I pick up my public records requests and, then, I go and check is there anything that the chief needs from me. Well, the chief is out of town today, so we didn't have command staff. That led me to Lieutenant Colaianni, to Lieutenant Stokes, Lieutenant Leslie and we had a conversation about a couple of different things. One is the Odyssey that's coming and whether or not our e -citations are going to work properly with that system and how we are going to direct people to the court system during that transition period. Here we talked about some internal matters, some uses of force issues. So, we will cover a gamut of issues while we are out there. Then, I went back to the office and I was approached by multiple officers who had questions. Officer Frazier came and spoke with me about some issues that he had with an upcoming trial and wanted to make sure that he was prepared for that and that it would go as planned. So, when we are out there we are addressing a lot of different issues. Next. One of my favorite things that we do is provide police training to the officers and we do that in a variety of ways. We give them e-mail sometimes just saying, hey, just an FYI, this has happened, you should be aware of this. We send them briefing papers. We will do briefing trainings. I'm about ready to do one of those for all of the briefing — briefings coming up here shortly and, then, we do classroom training and just so, you know, I'm POST certified and so is Kimberly Smith, so that when we go out and we do training for the officers they actually get POST credit for attending the trainings that we provide for them. This is an example of a police advice bulletin that we will provide and we try to do it in a scenario -based situation, so that it makes sense to the officers and they can apply it to their everyday experiences out in the road. This year we did training that was really important in my estimation. I'm sure that you're aware that our officers are asked to deal with more individuals that have mental issues on a daily basis and so when we look at that there has been a distinct pattern with respect to how courts are viewing our officer interactions with these individuals. We all know that the police are always called to handle whatever problem is out there and, let's be honest, police officers, although they take on the role, they are not social workers and so the Meridian Police Department does a great job of getting officers trained to deal with situations that may not really be law enforcement situations, that may be more a community caretaking function, which is what we are often called to. So, we did a block on uses of force with mentally ill, which is exceedingly important, because we don't want to have those situations where we have uses of force that are inappropriate and certainly when we are dealing with this population there are very different considerations. So, we have talked about our body worn camera policies. In addition to that this year we also have talked about proper evidence handling. These are examples -- and the briefing that I'm going to be doing upcoming relates to the changes in the CCW law in Idaho, which is very important. Officers are going to have to deal with that in a very Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 12 of 94 different way. We try to keep them up to date on the changes that come out of the 9th Circuit, the Court of Appeals, and also from our Supreme Court. We have an on-call team that we provide for them. It's 24-7 service. So, anytime night or day an officer can call and get one of our police team advisors and speak to them. We do telephonic warrants for blood draws. We do search warrants. We answer questions. Crazy things come out -- about in the field and those officers can reach us anytime day or night. Do you have any questions for us? De Weerd: Council, any questions? Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: One question. If you could go back. Do you have the pie chart that broke down the charges? And I saw DUI and alcohol and I'm just curious if you could extrapolate a little bit about the separation between those two? Dean: Thank you. Yes, Council Member Cavener. DUI specifically related to driving. Driving under the influence above a .08 are under the influence -- or impaired I should say, by a controlled substance. The alcohol violations are usually different. Illegal consumption, usually a minor possessing alcohol, consuming alcohol under the age. It's a little bit different between those two there. Open containers of alcohol I think would fall under the alcohol category as well. Cavener: Great. Thank you. De Weerd: Any -- anything else? Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: I would love to get a copy of this presentation. I think some of the data that's in that is very valuable, at least to myself, so if you could pass it along I would really appreciate it. De Weerd: It will be part of the public record. Cavener: Well, there we go. I will do a request. De Weerd: We are not going to make you do a request. You will be able to see it even in your packet. Cavener: Well -- Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 13 of 94 De Weerd: So -- anything from Bill or Lieutenant Leslie? Leslie: Yes. Madam Mayor, I would like to speak a little bit on behalf of the prosecution team. And they are truly a team with us and help us tremendously. The training they provide to our officers keeping us updated on the Supreme Court rulings and changes, those happen all the time throughout the year, so our officers aren't necessarily able to keep up on all of that, so that's a valued asset for us and, then, be on call. I can't tell you how many times we call them in the middle of the night and need their advice or a warrant to get into a residence or a car and they are very prompt and respond to all of our needs. So, we do value their partnership with us. De Weerd: Thank you, lieutenant. Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I mean it's been an invaluable partnership for the city for the last 14 years and the service that we have received over the years, even without the same people in place, has been seamless. It has been a value to both from the legal department side and we work very closely, there is a lot of issues that occasionally overlap, whether it's public records or something else and they have always been great, Boise city, to work with and to troubleshoot through problems and concerns and making sure the citizens are getting the right information at the right time and, again, I would echo what Lieutenant Leslie said, I have never heard any negative comments from police in regards to the services provided by this contract and that is not normal. It's not something you always find very often. They do provide us a great value and I appreciate them very much. Especially that one long appeal. De Weerd: Well, we certainly have appreciated the relationship. We will miss Terry Deardon. We know it's a team that has -- Terry has been often the face, but it is a team and we really value this relationship. This is what we should be doing, collaborating on things that make sense to finding efficiencies to leverage resources and this has been one of those partnerships that is a shining star and an example of exactly those goals. So, thank you for coming and presenting today. We would like to send our thanks back to your electeds for our continued relationship. Starr: Thank you so much, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Dean: Thank you. Item 7: Items Moved From the Consent Agenda De Weerd: Okay. There were no items moved from the Consent Agenda. Item 8: Action Items A. Public Hearing Continued from June 14, 2016: Public hearing to consider the Urban Renewal Plan for the Ten Mile Road Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 14 of 94 Urban Renewal Project of the Meridian Development Corporation 1. Moved from 10A: Third Reading Of Ordinance No. 16- 1695: An Ordinance Of The City Council Of The City Of Meridian, Approving The Urban Renewal Plan For The Ten Mile Road Urban Renewal Project, Which Plan Includes Revenue Allocation Financing Provisions; Authorizing The City Clerk To Transmit A Copy Of This Ordinance And Other Required Information To The County And State Officials; And Providing An Effective Date De Weerd: So, we will move into our action items. Item 8-A was requested to move -- oh, we have moved one for 10-A -- now you know why I wanted you to repeat your motion -- and that would be the third reading of Ordinance 16-1695. Madam Clerk, will you, please, read this ordinance by title. Jones: Thank you, Madam Mayor. An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Meridian approving the urban renewal plan for the Ten Mile Road Urban Renewal Project, which plan includes revenue allocation, financing provisions, authorizing the city clerk to transmit a copy of this ordinance and other required information to the county affected taxing entities and state officials, approving the summary of the ordinance and providing an effective date. De Weerd: Thank you. And so we will move to the -- this continued public hearing on the Ten Mile Urban Renewal District and I will turn this over to Mr. Chatterton. Chatterton: Madam Mayor, Council Members. Mayor, as you just said, this public hearing was continued from last week. As such we don't have a canned presentation for you tonight, but we would like to aid in any additional discussions or questions that you might have. Phil Kushlan is here to help with that, if we need to bring up the presentation from last week we can certainly do that. There is one item that I wanted to mention. At a previous meeting Council Member Palmer had asked the question -- well, this -- we can short -- put it into our own words, Councilmen. Using today's city levy what would the property tax be for the City of Meridian and the Ten Mile URD? So, Finance, Rita Cunningham, did an analysis of that. I believe you all have hard copies in front of you. I guess my question for you is do you want Rita to go over that with you now? I'm seeing one nod. Okay. Here she comes. Cunningham: Thank you, Bruce. Madam Mayor, Members of Council, what we did is we took the plans that have been presented to you and a projected growth over the next 20 years and we applied our current levy and we said, okay, if it grows at this rate at this -- today's levy, it would be 23.8 million that the city would receive in 20 years for that 301 acres. If the district actually is approved, then, it would -- we would be locked Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 15 of 94 in at 151,000 in tax revenue per year and that would equal three million dollars over 20 years. So, it's, basically, your high and your low. Does that make -- does that answer some questions? De Weerd: It's consistent with the example that was included in the report, but you drilled it down and made it more relevant. Palmer: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Palmer. Palmer: Can you explain that to me again? So, if we approve it, the city is going to get three million over 20 years? Cunningham: Over 20 years. That's correct. We get locked in at today's taxable -- property tax amount and what they do is they lock in the taxable value and, then, they will apply our levy for each year against that 38 million. So, it equates to about 151,000 in property tax each year, so times 20 years. Chatterton: Yes. And, Council Member, that's what we have often referred to as the base, which, of course, continues -- it's not affected by the creation of the urban renewal district. Palmer: So, follow up, Madam mayor? So, that the district doesn't get a hundred percent of the -- the revenue while it is created? Chatterton: That's correct. The taxing entities that are currently getting money from that base would continue to receive it. Palmer: All right. De Weerd: Any other questions while Rita is up here? Okay. We appreciate you pulling that together, Rita. Cunningham: Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Chatterton: Any other questions? Any other discussion if we can help with that, certainly we are here. De Weerd: Okay. Council? Cavener: Public hearing? Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 16 of 94 De Weerd: Okay. I know that this was continued, so that Councilman Borton -- and I know that Councilman Cavener was on the -- via telephone and to offer them an opportunity to ask any questions of Mr. Chatterton or Mr. Phil -- Mr. Phil. Chatterton: That's Dr. Phil. De Weerd: Dr. Phil. Do you have anything at this point? And it was a continued public hearing. If there is any member of the public who was not able to provide testimony -- I did have a couple of people that signed up. Andrew -- and, I'm sorry, can't read your last name. It begins with a G, I believe. Would you like to provide testimony? Okay. If you want to talk you do need to come up. Or you're just on the record of being neutral and/or against. Gowens: Yes, because I -- De Weerd: If you will -- Gowens: -- I'm unware of what -- De Weerd: Andrew? Gowens: -- impact it has on the rest of the Primrose Subdivision. De Weerd: If I can first ask you to state your name and address for the record. Gowens: Andrew Gowens. De Weerd: Thank you. And your address. Gowens: 1701 Waltman Street, Meridian. De Weerd: Thank you. Gowens: So, I didn't want to testify, I just was neutral, because I don't know what the impact is making it an urban renewal district. I don't know what that means. I looked it up and it has to do with slums and things like that. It's all farmland, so I don't know what impact it would have on my property in the Primrose Subdivision. So, I was hoping they would explain that, so I would get a knowledge about it. That's all. De Weerd: Okay. We can have them do a -- there was an eligibility report and we will wait and ask you to -- to say that after the public testimony, but I appreciate your question. Gowens: Thanks. De Weerd: Thank you. Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 17 of 94 Cavener: Thanks for coming. De Weerd: Richard Telanino. Well, it was my best interpretation. Telliho: You gave it a shot. De Weerd: Thank you for being here. Telliho: Thank you for the opportunity to speak. De Weerd: If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Telliho: Richard Telliho. 1885 Waltman Street. Well, I did want to agree with the previous speaker, Meridian does have a top shelf police department. De Weerd: Thank you. Telliho: Yeah. I kind of just more or less am going to reiterate what Andrew was mentioning, because I'm having a hard time getting my head around it as well, because I looked up from various sources the whole prospect of the urban renewal district and the commonality between everything I saw was a rejuvenation or a revitalization of an area that is suffering from some type of a blight. So, I'm just kind of confused with that as well. It's an age thing. De Weerd: I know how that goes. Telliho: So, I'm trying to figure out how these definitions apply to our -- our area. From what I understand it's supposed to go from Ten Mile to Peregrine School and, then, from the interstate to Franklin. Am I correct? De Weerd: Approximately, yes. Telliho: Approximately. Okay. So, the speaker before was talking about the tax base and stuff like that. Is that considered -- are they going to utilize TIF or the Tax Incremental Financing? Is that what that would boil down to? De Weerd: Yes. So, the value that's created by the district and the improvements will be collected in the district and reinvested. Telliho: Right. Okay. So, if it becomes -- if this urban district is -- is implemented, how long of a term do you anticipate? Is it going to go for like for 20 years? Is that what the estimate is? De Weerd: As has been provided on public testimony, the estimation is get in and get out. So, they are on specific public infrastructure improvements that would qualify for Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 18 of 94 the TIF money to -- invest in those public infrastructure improvements and once those public infrastructure improvements are paid off the district would expire. Telliho: Okay. De Weerd: So, they are anticipating a maximum 17 years I believe? It was 16 years. And it could be less, depending on the value that's created by the investments. Telliho: Okay. So, I guess -- I guess the bottom line is what we are all concerned about is having an urban renewal district either this close or encompassing our properties, is -- there seems to be -- there is definitely kind of a stigma that gets attached with that, because, frankly, of the definitions. So -- De Weerd: Well, this one is not a downtown urban renewal district, it's an economic development urban renewal district, so the intent and the purpose of the establishment is to create jobs and that's -- and because that area has an extraordinary infrastructure need and there is extraordinary cost to it, that urban renewal district has, in the eligibility report, said that this would help offset some of those costs to make the need of public infrastructure improvements so development can occur. Telliho: So, it's more or less kind of an economic -- it's an -- De Weerd: It's for jobs. Job creation. Telliho: It's a financing tool kind of thing. De Weerd: Yes. Telliho: Okay. That's -- thank you very much. De Weerd: Thank you. And, then, Sandra, did you want to provide testimony? Okay. Thank you. Those were the citizens that did sign up. Is there anyone else who would like to provide testimony on this item? Yes, ma'am. Good evening. If you will, please, state your name and address. Ockerman: Jeanette Ockerman. 2070 West Waltman. So, I attended last week's meeting at 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon and my understanding was at that meeting part of the reason for extending it tonight was to give the public a chance to hear more about the urban renewal and what is going on and yet there really hasn't been a presentation tonight to give us that information and I feel like -- there is quite a few public members here today compared to 3:00 o'clock last Tuesday that I think would appreciate actually hearing the presentation and why this is necessary for this area of Meridian versus any other area of Meridian and so that's -- that's what I would encourage the Council to allow us to hear what the plan is, so that we actually have something to testify about. Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 19 of 94 De Weerd: Well, we have had the presentations on the plan in previous council meetings, so I -- we can -- Bruce or Phil, would you like to -- to give a summary report? Do you have a presentation? Ockerman: I know last week you had maps and there was more of a presentation. De Weerd: Yes. Chatterton: Madam Mayor, we are prepared to give a presentation. Perhaps Phil would run through it in more of a CliffsNotes version of it -- De Weerd: Okay. Chatterton: -- before, but we are cued up to be able to do that, so -- De Weerd: Okay. Well, you could have offered that at the beginning of the public hearing. Chatterton: I could have sworn that I did. De Weerd: You did? Chatterton: I could have sworn that I did. De Weerd: Thank you, Phil. Kushlan: Your Honor, Members of Council, again, for the record my name is Phil Kushlan. Post Office Box 8463, Boise. Again, I will not run through the entire presentation for you, but I will maybe give a little bit of recap of where we have been so far. If I can make this work. Again, looking at the process, the Council created the agency that manages your urban renewal efforts back in 2002. Then in 2007 the city went through a significant process and did a -- what's called a specific area plan for the area around the proposed at that time Ten Mile interchange on the -- on 1-84. That plan was adopted in 2007 and, then, subsequent to that the vision that was articulated in that plan never really came to fruition for a variety of reasons, but the site clear vision at that time was to create an environment that produces high wage family value jobs that would be significantly a different type of development pattern there than existed in the other parts of the community. That having not occurred, in 2015 the City Council, in collaboration with the Meridian Development Corporation, started the process to consider the establishment of an urban renewal district highway for this area and clearly there is some confusion about what urban renewal is in this state and, you know, initially the process was focused on what's traditionally called slum and blight, the rectification of urban decay. In 1988 there was a revision to the state law, which brought in a process that was called the Local Economic Development Act, which is, basically, the tax increment process that companions the creation of the urban renewal district itself and so there was an explicit legislative directive at that Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 20 of 94 point to use the tools for the creation and enhancement of -- of the economic vitality of a community and so while much of the process, as you go through the terminology, is the same as the old slum and blight issue. The focus here that we have talked about out in Ten Mile as being exclusively for economic development and job creation. And, again, as we got into this, got explicit direction from the Mayor and Council that this would be the kind of project where you would have a defined set of improvements, you would incentivize the private investment that would produce the revenues to pay for those without turning to the rest of the community and, then, the project would go in, be completed, and, then, the district would be closed as soon as the -- the payments for the infrastructure was concluded. So, I think that's what we have structured here and -- and, again, I think the specific projects relate to the needs of that area specifically. Process probably -- already been through that, but I will get to the map here in a minute. I guess the map isn't here. But, generally, the area that was under consideration goes from the north right of way line of Interstate 84, north to Franklin Road and East of Ten Mile and here is a depiction. It basically is only those properties that are undeveloped at this time. It does not impact the adjacent developed properties, so only those properties that are within the dashed line here are to be included in the district. So, there is no effect on the -- on the surrounding properties. Generally the plan of work calls for the creation of roadways through the area, the extension of public utilities, water, sewer, storm drainage. The improvement of the drainage channels through there, making them a public amenity, as opposed to the service that they are providing now. So, the -- I think the report you heard earlier from the finance Department suggests that the investment pattern assumed by the -- the property owners is a higher level than would normally be expected without these kind of incentives and so, ultimately, the yield to the city and the other taxing entities will be higher than it would be had it developed without the incentive. So, that's a quick run through of over a year's work, but I will be happy to answer any questions that you might have for further elaboration. De Weerd: Thank you, Phil. Council, any questions? Palmer: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Palmer. Palmer: And I'm not sure who the question really should go to, but I guess to help put the minds of the property owners on Waltman at ease, what -- at least to know what the future might hold for them, if I -- I seem to remember something in the back of my mind that there is plans to eventually connect Waltman to the proposed development? It will never happen? Or it's not in the plan ever? Chatterton: I believe that Sonya would be the best person to address that to? No? Okay. Maybe Caleb. De Weerd: He's hiding. Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 21 of 94 Watters: Madam Mayor, Council, Waltman is not slated to go through further to the west in the future. Palmer: Okay. Chatterton: Madam Mayor and Council Member Palmer, in answer to the general concerns about the effect of urban renewal on development in this area, it's important to point out that the entitlements, the zoning and plat and site planning entitlements for these properties really govern what and when and how much can be developed in each case. The urban renewal district -- I just want to point out -- I know Mayor and Council are aware of this, but folks in the audience, the urban renewal district simply is providing a mechanism for improving some deficient infrastructure in that area as a way of making uses occur. How that happens, of course, is a separate set of land use processes and those land use processes are not part of what we are talking about right now. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Bruce, basically, whether it's an urban renewal district or just plain City of Meridian property, the applicants have to go through the same applications and I think that was what Waltman's people were worried about. They still have to go through the same application to do their project, whether they are urban renewal or not. Chatterton: Madam Mayor, Councilman Bird, that's absolutely right. So, again, the land use hearings and processes that we have govern what actually can be built, what's allowed to be built. This is a separate issue around development proposals for - - for those sites and creating that incentive for -- for the employment center that we are all interested in. De Weerd: Any questions from Council? Thank you. And, I'm sorry, any testimony from those that have already provided testimony, did that initiate any new questions? If not, anyone else wish to provide testimony on this item? Sorry, I got that mixed around. I could make excuses, but I won't. Council, further information? What's your pleasure? Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: Seeing no other public testimony be given, I move that we close the public hearing on 9-A, Ten Mile Urban Renewal Project for the Meridian Development Corporation and include all staff and public testimony. Bird: Second. Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 22 of 94 De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on Item 8-A. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: We have already had the third reading of the ordinance and so at this point, Council, if it would be your desire to move this forward, it would be a motion to adopt the Ordinance 16-1695. Is that current, Mr. Nary? Nary: Yes, ma'am. De Weerd: Okay. Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: I will take a crack at this, see where it goes. You know, to staff and to -- if Dr. Phil -- Mr. Kushlan and Members of the MDC that are here tonight, I think that this -- having heard from the public the establishment of an urban renewal district is somewhat complicated and time-consuming and with that brings some confusion as we have heard from some of our citizens here tonight. This was an issue I think that we as a Council have weighed considerably over the past few months and I have found myself times at night being adamantly opposed to it and adamantly in favor of it. It's complex and -- but we have to really I think of it as there is the potential here for some great benefit to our community, but it comes with a cost and I think that we as the Council are chosen to be the arbiters of is that cost worth it to the benefit that we see -- perceive in our community. So, with that, I would move that we approve Ordinance 16-1695, an ordinance for the City of Meridian to approve the urban renewal plan for the Ten Mile Road Urban Renewal project. Bird: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 8-A. Discussion from Council? Little Roberts: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mrs. Little Roberts. Little Roberts: I guess I need some clarification. We had some follow up information and I wondered at what point it was appropriate to discuss -- I guess maybe I had a question -- sorry, I'm going two paths here, budget of 50,000 dollars was determined as potential -- different ways it could be managed, but I was curious how we came to the 50,000 dollars. Is that a Phil question? Dr. Phil? Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 23 of 94 De Weerd: But we -- we have closed the discussion on it. I think that you had received a letter from Mr. -- Mr. Phil. I'm sorry, I really have a headache and I'm trying to even talk. Mr. Kushlan. And I think maybe as -- with the passing of this ordinance or not, perhaps we can allow the urban renewal district board to discuss the five options and maybe come back and have a conversation the first week in July with Council on what -- what their discussion is and see if you can be part of that discussion before a decision is made. Okay. Any other questions, discussion? Palmer: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Palmer. Palmer: Just a question on that point. So, they can come and discuss things with us, but the decision is still completely up to them if we say aye today. De Weerd: That's correct. Palmer: I guess further comment. I, like Councilman Cavener, have gone back and forth many times. Usually against, but for glimmering moments somewhat in favor. My biggest fear at this point, having discussed -- have extensive discussions with the property owners in question here, I feel satisfied with their ability to -- to move forward and provide us an amazing -- amazing project. I feel very unconfident, if that's a word, in our ability as government to handle it properly, especially with regards to the district themselves. I have no confidence in the Meridian Development Corporation and their ability to -- to handle this, let alone anything else that they have done with the downtown Meridian Urban Renewal District. I plan on voting in favor of this, because I feel that it won't be as hands on as the downtown district has been and that I'm going to lean heavily on the property owners to -- to make this happen and -- and I would hope that -- that the district would come to us and ask for input while the decision will be theirs. I would hope that they would come and ask us what -- what we think and, you know, as the elected representatives of the city. De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Palmer. And I think that that's a good -- is the urban renewal district here. Do we have any -- oh, I'm sorry. You were behind Mr. Turnbull. I didn't see you. Certainly can take that for the board discussion and when they come here we will request that they join us the first meeting of July to have the conversation and if the -- the property owners want to be a part of that that works as well. But I think they are two different things and I think it's important that the MDC board knows some of your concerns. So, any further discussion? Madam Clerk, will you call roll. Roll Call: Bird, yea; Borton, abstain; Milam, absent; Cavener, yea; Palmer, yea, Little Roberts, yea. De Weerd: Okay. The ayes have it. Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 24 of 94 MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSTAIN. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: And next steps, Mr. Nary. Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we have a couple of documents that need to be gathered -- or, actually, one more document that needs to be gathered, then, we will send notice to the taxing entities. The ordinance will be published in the paper Monday, so, then, it will become effective -- I think it's actually the ordinance is retroactive to the beginning of the year. But it will be published on Monday and, then, the district will move forward and some documentation has to go to the state and such. De Weerd: Did you have a question? Cavener: Just a comment. De Weerd: Okay. Cavener: Just -- I want to reiterate my thanks to staff. I know that this is not a project that was handled over the course of a week or a weekend, but there has been a lot of time and energy and resources put into that and so just thank you to all of you for your hard work on this. Very appreciated. De Weerd: And staff has been the realm of both city and MDC and appreciate that collaboration. Certainly appreciate your work, Phil, and I appreciate our neighbors of coming and sharing their -- their questions, your concern and we look forward to you being involved in the process as well. So, thank you. B. Public Hearing for Volante Investments (H-2016-0056) By Volante Investments LLLP Located at 2600 & 2700 E Overland Road 1. Request: New Development Agreement and Modification to the Conditions of Approval Referenced in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Approved with the Annexation and Zoning Request (Ord. #'s 661 & 665) De Weerd: Okay. Item 8-B is a public hearing for H-2016-0056. I will open this public hearing with staff comments. Watters: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. The application before you is a request for a development agreement modification. This site consists of 34.62 acres of land. It's zoned C -G, located on the north side of East Overland Road, west of Eagle Road, at 2600 and 2700 East Overland Road. The subject property was annexed back in 1994 as part of a larger 167 acre area, which included the 1-84 interchange to the north and the St. Luke's property to the northeast. This property Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 25 of 94 and the interchange area provided an annexation path for St. Luke's. A development agreement was required as a provision of annexation for these properties. However, only the St. Luke's property has entered into a development agreement. The subject property never did until this application. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation is mixed use regional for this property. The applicant is requesting a new development agreement for the subject property, with some modifications to the original provisions. The original provisions included the requirements for the development to comply with city ordinances and the Comprehensive Plan, connection to city water and sewer services and to obtain approval of a conditional -use permit for a planned development. The applicant is proposing to remove the requirement for a conditional use permit and planned development, as the city no longer does that and not require a detailed conditional use permit for principal permitted uses in the C -G district. The applicant has submitted a conceptual development plan as shown for the west parcel that depicts an 85,000 square foot single story retail store with associated parking and vacant land adjacent to Overland Road for future development. Cinema Drive is a stub street here at the west property boundary, will be extended through the property to the east boundary. South Wells Avenue is also proposed north and south along the east boundary of the site. You can see there. A conceptual development plan was not submitted for the east parcel. Staff is amenable to removing this provision, but recommends the development agreement is modified prior to development of the east parcel to include a concept plan for the parcel that is consistent with the mixed-use regional future land use map designation. Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the future structure on this site. Materials consist of split face and smooth face CMU, metal wall panel accents and standing seam metal canopies. The structure is required to comply with the design standards listed in the architectural standards manual. Written testimony has been received from Brad Miller, the applicant's representative, in agreement with the staff report. No other written testimony has been received. Staff is recommending approval per the staff report. Staff will stand for any questions. De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. Would the applicant like to make comment? Miller: Sure. De Weerd: Hello, Mr. Miller. Miller: Hello, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Brad Miller with Van Auker Companies. Volante Investments applicant. It's a company of ours. I'm at 3084 East Lanark in Meridian. We have owned this property since 1998, so I guess it's probably time that we go ahead and start developing it. It's interesting when the property was annexed and zoned that was what provided the annexation path to St. Luke's and -- and St. Luke's is the only one that entered into a development agreement and that Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 26 of 94 happened six years later. So, they did that in the year 2000 and none of the other properties ever did. Interestingly enough, with these two parcels, when they went through the annexation and zoning, the original owners wanted an R-15 zoning. So, when they did that the City Council said, look, you want that, then, you're going to have to have a conditional use permit or planned development. Well, between the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting and the City Council meeting they decided to go from R-15 to C -G, but the conditions of approval were not changed, so that's why the CUP and PU -- or PD requirement still stands. So, we're asking that those be eliminated and that we are not subject to a CUP or a planned development and I'd ask for your approval. If there is any questions I would be more than happy to answer them. De Weerd: Thank you, Brad. Council, any questions? Miller: Thank you. Appreciate your -- De Weerd: I think they were just wondering if the sign on the building was really true. Miller: Well, I signed a confidentiality agreement, so I can't say anything about it, but, you know, I don't know. Bird: It's out on the street. Miller: Kind of for months now. De Weerd: Well, now I can just show the application pictures if I get any questions; right? Refer them to this meeting; right? Miller: That's right. De Weerd: This is a public hearing testimony on this item? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Is there anyone who would like to provide Bird: Seeing none, I move we close the public hearing on H-2016-0056. Cavener: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on this item. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Bird: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 27 of 94 De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we approve H-2016-0056 and include staff and applicant comments on the new development agreement and modification conditions of approval. Cavener: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 8-B. Any discussion by Council? Madam Clerk. Roll Call: Bird, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, absent; Cavener, yea; Palmer, yea, Little Roberts, yea. De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Miller: Thank you. C. Public Hearing for CentrePoint Subdivision (H-2016-0057) By W.H. Moore Located at N Eagle Road and E Ustick Road 1. Request for a Modification to the Development Agreement to Allow the Development of a Self -Service Storage Facility with Outdoor Storage at the Northwest Corner of the Site with a Conditional Use Permit; Reduction in the Width of the Street Buffer Required Along E Jasmine Lane from 25 Feet to Zero Feet; Authorization to Close off the Micropath from Champion Park Subdivision; and Allowance for a Building Permit to be Issued in Phase 2 of CentrePoint Subdivision Prior to Recordation of the Final Plat De Weerd: Thank you. Item 8-C is a public hearing on H-2016-0057. I will open this public hearing with staff comments. Watters: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Council. The next application is also a request for a development agreement modification. This site consists of approximately five acres of land. It's zoned C -G and it's located northwest of the North Eagle Road and East Ustick Road intersection. This property was annexed back in 2003 with a development agreement. There have been a couple of modifications to the agreement pertaining to this property. One was a reduced buffer width along the west boundary of the site adjacent to residences in Champion Park Subdivision to ten feet. Another approved a concept plan for a multi -family residential development on this property. A Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 28 of 94 preliminary/final plat has also been approved, which contained this property has the final plat for phase two is yet to be recorded. A Comprehensive Plan future land use designation is mixed use regional. The applicant is willing to cover most of the presentation and in his own presentation, so I will keep it at a minimum with mine. The applicant is requesting a modification to the existing development agreement applicable to this site to allow the development of a self-service storage facility with outdoor storage through a conditional use permit in place of the multi -family development previously conceptually approved. A reduction in the width of the buffer required along East Jasmine Lane and the residential use to the north from 25 feet to zero. Because -- I will just explain a little bit on that. Because the residential use to the north is separated by a street, Jasmine Lane here, and it doesn't share contiguous lot lines, the UDC does not require a land use buffer between the commercial and residential. Therefore, staff is amenable to reducing that buffer. However, a street buffer has been required adjacent to a local street of ten feet. So, staff is recommending a reduced buffer, but only down to ten feet as -- as required for a street. And, then, they also request authorization to close off the micropath from Champion Park Subdivision at the west boundary. Staff is okay with that closure there, if you can see the -- the pathway is right there. The nature of the proposed use does require it being closed for security reasons, so staff is supporting that. And, then, the allowance for a building permit to be issued in phase two of CentrePoint Subdivision prior to recordation of the plat, with the understanding that everything, including the extension of CentrePoint Way would be completed prior to certificate of occupancy. Staff is fine with that. With that, written testimony was received from Jonathan Seal, the applicant's representative, and Shannon Olson, in agreement with the staff report and staff is recommending approval per the staff report. Staff with stand for any questions. De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions? Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: Sonya, can you point me or direct me to where that pathway was planned to connect to? I see where it is, but was there ever a plan as to where that pathway was eventually supposed to connect? Watters: Madam Mayor, Councilman Cavener, it was just proposed as a pedestrian access to the commercial development and I should have also -- I wasn't keeping up with my slides very well, so this is the original concept plan for the residential and, then, this is the proposed plan for the storage units and, then, the elevations for the entry of the facility. Cavener: Great. Thank you. De Weerd: What's the X -- it will be walled off so you won't see something like that? Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 29 of 94 Watters: Excuse me. Madam Mayor, Council -- De Weerd: I'm just trying to figure it out. Watters: The applicant asked me to include that. It was part of his application packet and the reason I put an X through is because I didn't want Council to think that that's what they are proposing. This is actually an example of what this would not look like, because it has exterior -- the exterior rear walls of the building are going to be 12 feet tall and, then, there is going to be 14 foot tall tower elements, as you can kind of see here in this -- this elevation that would -- would screen all of the interior storage. The outdoor storage would be located more in the center of the development. De Weerd: Okay. So, you won't see that? Watters: You won't see that. De Weerd: Just verifying. Is the applicant here this evening? Good evening, Jonathan. If you will please -- Seal: Good evening. De Weerd: -- state your name and address. Seal: Yes. Good evening, Madam Mayor, Council Members. My name is Jonathan Seal. I'm here on behalf of the W.H. Moore Company, 1940 Bonito. Let me first start with -- I have been involved in CentrePoint Marketplace since the beginning. I have done the annexation, the rezones, the multiple development agreements, the plats. did the -- a cooperative development agreement with -- with ACHD on Ustick. I did -- most of the construction within the Centre. I also did the improvements to Eagle Road with ITD and I mention that only because during that whole process Winston Moore maintained a high standard of quality within this project and so the reason I mention that is because as you look at this and you go self -storage -- at least I had the reaction at first, you go really? Self storage within CentrePoint Marketplace. But I think as I go through and describe this to you, I hope that you will share with -- with what I believe -- and also Winston Moore does -- that this does maintain the quality standards that we have maintained at CentrePoint Marketplace. So, I think with that, if I don't screw this up, within the project itself I think the things that are very interesting about it -- if you look around the perimeter of it here -- and I don't know if this is actually working, so -- thank you. Anyway, if you look at the perimeter of the -- of the project, the walls are 12 feet tall. They are constructed of stucco. Every 35 feet there is a column. It's going to be an earth tone type of color. I know we don't get into that, but I think the point I want to make here is that you have got architectural relief, you have got something that's attractive and I think for a storage facility you also have something that's unusual from that standpoint. So, it will block any visual view of the interior of the project. The other thing I might mention is that -- is it working? Is that within the -- oh, no. That's okay. Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 30 of 94 Watters: Did you select a color, Jonathan? Seal: I will get red. How is that? Watters: Okay. Seal: So, within the interior of it -- still not working. The interior of the perimeter is -- is enclosed storage facilities. The lower half of it is also enclosed in the storage facility and the upper half of it is, basically, open storage, which I will address in a minute. If we can go to the entrance. It's fine, Sonya. Okay. Again, if you look at this -- the upper one here, not the lower one, but if you look at the upper one, again, I think you can see how this reflects the kind of quality as far as architectural quality that I think we are maintaining within this project. I don't think this is the type of design and construction you customarily see within a self storage facility. So, again, I think it speaks to the character and if you look on either side you can see the columns that they are going to be constructing every 35 feet. So, again, I think it's a very attractive thing. I think from the standpoint from the residents on the north side, along Jasmine Lane, as well as within Champion Park Subdivision, it will block a view of this project. They won't have to look at something such as an apartment or a commercial development. That would be an allowed use in here. So, having said that, getting into the specifics, as we mentioned, our first request was for a ten foot -- or a zero lot line on the north end of the property. We know the staff has asked for ten feet. We recognize that there is a possibility that Jasmine Lane may be a public road at some point, so we are in agreement with the ten feet. The second one that we ask for is open storage. When I first did the development agreement back in 2003 or '4, whatever it was, one of the things I excluded was open storage and if you can go to that picture with the X, down here, this is what I envisioned. I envisioned RVs backed up to a Cyclone fence, which I could tell you then, as well as now, will never happen. But the reason I didn't want that in there, so I excluded that as an open use, but I think now as you can see with this design, with the 12 foot structures in here as you're driving down the street or you're -- you're in the residential area, you're not going to see any open structures, you're not going to be looking at that RV that's been parked out here for five years that's broken down. You're going to see a nice architectural design. So, that's why we are comfortable with the open storage in this particular project. Again, it's not going to be feasible. The third one we asked was about the micropath and I know one of the Council Members asked that. We are not sure why the micropath was put there either. And, actually, in neighborhood meetings in the past neighbors have brought up the concern about security. Why is that put there? I'm not sure where it will go. But I think you can see with this project now that it serves actually no purpose. It, actually, may be a security issue to the residents of Champion Park Subdivision. So, what we would propose is that we would close that off. I know the neighbors would support that. It doesn't go anywhere. It serves no purpose. And, finally, the fourth thing that we would ask for, as mentioned, is that the applicant could potentially -- may not, but potentially start construction, get a building permit prior to recording the plat. Just for background information, right now I'm in the process of Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 31 of 94 taking the plans to the City of Meridian and Ada County Highway District for approval of CentrePoint Way. I would anticipate sometime in August we would be under construction and this would be finished by the end of September potentially. The final plan is also going through the process right now for signatures and that also I anticipate will be signed and recorded by the end of September. So, this simply gives him the flexibility, if he chooses, to start his building process while I'm going through the road construction and the planning process, with the understanding that the approvals for the CentrePoint Way, as far as ACHD, the City of Meridian, and any conditions as far as this project, will have to be satisfied before it gets a certificate of occupancy. So, we think this is an excellent project. This is probably the least intrusive project that you could have within CentrePoint. The feedback we have gotten from the neighbors -- the neighborhood meeting and phone calls I have got have been very positive about it. So, with that I will stand for any questions you might have. De Weerd: Jonathan, I have just one and it would be a concern of having a 12 foot high wall with a landscape strip up against the back fences of the subdivision, that you create this dark corridor that who knows what happens there. So, what is the plan to -- to maintain that area and make sure it has some eyes on it or something? I -- that would concern me. Seal: Madam Mayor, Council Members, that's a fair question. You know, the landscape ordinance requires that we landscape that area back there. I know the applicant has submitted an alternative compliance for that. You could simply put -- and I may be getting a little out of my area of expertise -- more decorative type of trees back there that don't get large in there, so they are going to be small or, frankly, we can eliminate them. It's a fair question. But I think the idea of the wall and stuff was also to give an attractiveness to reduce the visibility to this structure. So, you have got an eight foot fence already -- or six foot fence already over there, so that could be something we can -- we can investigate a conditional use permit, which we have already submitted to the city. So, I don't have a good answer for you, very honestly, but I think it could be addressed. But that's also the reason why I think the micropath needs to be closed off, so that people from around there can't be walking into the residential. So, I don't know if that answers your question or not. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: No, it doesn't answer my concern, but -- Mr. Bird. Bird: I, too -- we have got a couple of locations where we have done things like this, had landscaping between two walls and they wind up being nothing but an eye sore, because nobody goes in and takes care of them. Certainly if I'm the owner and my fence is there and I'm -- I'm not going to go back there and take care of it or -- and the other -- man, I would like to just see it eliminated and let the wall come up and not have any walkway through there myself. Get right on the property line. I believe Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 32 of 94 -- in my opinion we have made a mistake on a couple of them doing this and it turned out to be real headaches for the owners of the development, plus the housing of people. De Weerd: Going to be a maintenance nightmare and we know what happens in dark spaces that there are no eyes on; right? Okay. Mr. Cavener. Cavener: Madam Mayor. Similar concerns as well. Jonathan, I guess two questions. One, I assume this facility is intended to be open 24 hours and I guess the same question is specifically related to the landscape. It sounds like you have had a neighborhood meeting. I'm just curious as to what the feedback from the residents have been. Seal: Madam Mayor, Council Member, yes, we have had it. I actually had one couple that showed up, even though we notified everybody within the area and I got two phone calls. The response from them was positive. In other words, I think they recognized that within a commercial project this has got to be the least intrusive use you could have. If you think about it, when I originally did this, if you look at the concept plan and it was, there was a family fun center that was going to be there, which would have been a 35 foot tall structure with parking around it. We also came in for a multi -family at one time, which did not materialize, but there is many allowed uses in here, as we all know, that could go there that would be very intrusive to the surrounding area and yet it would be an allowed use. So, I think it's -- you know, from that standpoint I think it's positive. I think we could potentially do some landscaping. I'm not sure what is a solution. I know that the applicant has suggested just simply putting bark back there instead of grass. You know if there -- if there is another solution in that particular thing I think we would be open to it. I usually try to prepare for all questions, but you caught me on that one. De Weerd: Well, we haven't seen you for a while. Seal: Yeah. That's true. I'm out of practice. So -- I mean we would -- we would prefer to eliminate it or do something like that, so if there is something open in there. Again, what we were trying to do is keep some kind of barrier so the neighbors in Champion Park Subdivision are not looking at, you know, garages or things like that. So, we thought the fact is it's attractive. It's stucco. It's not a metal type of structure. That was a plus. So, that's the direction we were going in. And landscaping, you know, maybe it could be something as simple as stone. I'm speaking on my behalf. Maybe those trees and stuff being put back there, which, frankly, I don't think serves a lot of purpose and that. Maybe that they be placed out along CentrePoint Way or something like that and serve more of a purpose. De Weerd: Maybe you put it in the neighbor's backyard. Seal: Yeah, we could do that, too. Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 33 of 94 De Weerd: Mr. Palmer. Palmer: I don't know if it's something that we can do and if it's something the applicant would be interested in and I don't even know if there is construction limitations to be able to do it. Could we just allow them to put -- Keith mentioned the wall on the property line. De Weerd: You want a 12 foot solid wall right on your back property line? Palmer: I would much rather have that than that space if I lived there. De Weerd: I don't -- Seal: Yeah. We are -- just because the development agreement, the way it states right now, I have a ten foot buffer back there and the reason we did the ten foot buffer was originally Champion Park was -- all that was planned was for self storage and so when it came to Council back then I said when they change it to residential I said we shouldn't be penalized because now they have gone from self storage to residential. So, we are just simply honoring the ten foot buffer, so -- Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I mean that -- that's going to have to be noticed -- that's part of their existing development agreement. It was requested, so it hasn't been noticed to the public. It hasn't been noticed as a change. So, if you want to consider that they would have to reapply to do that, because they are still required to have that buffer. Now I think what Mr. Seal is saying is, you know, they can put other things in the buffer, rather than come back to move the -- remove the buffer. Well, we can't just remove the buffer tonight. Palmer: Madam Mayor? Seal: Madam Mayor, if I can -- you know, my limited landscape experience here, maybe if you simply put stone back there. I mean that's something that doesn't require any maintenance and, then, we could still honor the ten foot buffer if that's the case, but -- De Weerd: Any other questions at this point for the applicant? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 34 of 94 Borton: To weigh in on this -- and I appreciate Mr. Nary's comments. It's not the existence of the buffer that creates some concern, it's the access to it and it may be simply a matter of -- to the north and south closing off any public ability to get back there. There would still be access for the property owner to go and maintain it. I think the trees may be an important part to break up that fagade and -- of 12 feet, the ten foot setback is nice to not have that adjacent to the -- to the homes, that may be the simpler solution. It's not to eliminate it, but merely control the access so the public can't go back there. Seal: Madam Mayor, Councilman Borton, yeah, we could -- we could do that. It almost reminds me of CentrePoint where we had to build next to Kohl's, but because of their overhang we couldn't technically attach our building to theirs, so we had to build in this corridor and we actually put a door in it, so you could get in between to clean things out. You know, I think that's -- that's a fair option and maybe that would address the concern and, then, you close off the micropath and beyond that, you know, you can only do so much to stop people. De Weerd: Maybe some motion lights. Seal: Well, yeah. De Weerd: Any other questions? Thank you. Seal: All right. Thank you very much. De Weerd: I did have one person sign up. Joseph Cataloni -- signed up against. Would you like to provide testimony? I know you said no, but -- Cataloni: My name is Joseph Cataloni. I live at 2706 East Mahoney. De Weerd: Thank you. Cataloni: The pathway -- right beside the pathway. It's already closed off. Kids are already going down and jumping over, running around there, so -- my concern would be the lighting, 24 hours. If I have a permanent moon, sun, whatever and a 12 foot fence would be a little excessive I think. A 12 foot high wall. But, other than that, I mean it is better than a four story building -- a four story apartment building, but -- you know. De Weerd: Thank you. Cataloni: That's it. Thanks. Watters: Madam Mayor, if I may interrupt and -- I think that Councilman Cavener asked a question that wasn't addressed and it's important with regard to the hours of operation. The UDC does require that when a storage facility abuts a residential use Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 35 of 94 that the hours of operation are restricted from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. and, then, lighting would be required through a photometric report to end at the property line, so it shouldn't be trespassing past the boundary. Thank you. Cavener: Thanks, Sonya. De Weerd: So, the lighting on the back of the wall would not -- could not fall beyond the ten feet? Watters: Madam Mayor, that is correct. If they do lighting on the back of the building. I wouldn't foresee them doing that, especially next to residential, but yes. De Weerd: Maybe more a motion light, so if there is something back there it will go off. Any further testimony? You do get the last word. I just wanted to make sure there was no further testimony. Seal: Okay. I didn't want to let anybody else get up here. Madam Mayor, Council Members, Jonathan Seal. The applicant is going to have somebody living there 24/7 and there will be a gate with key access, so it will be secured. So, I think, hopefully, that will address the question, because, yeah, I got sidetracked, too, that, yeah, it's not going to be open, it's not going to be entered, it's going to be certain hours of operation, but there will be somebody -- again, if you go back to the -- if you go back to it you will -- you can't really see, in this structure, but there is a living quarters within that structure. So, there will be somebody there to monitor things on an ongoing basis. And, again, that's our -- I think that's a rare thing. You don't typically see that in self storage. Okay. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Thank you. Mr. Bird. Bird: Jonathan, now you're telling me that's a ten foot buffer between the wall and the fences there on the west side. Seal: Yes. Yes. And that's in the development agreement. De Weerd: Okay. Any further questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you. Seal: All right. Thank you very much. De Weerd: Okay. Council? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 36 of 94 Borton: Question for staff. Is there -- in light of the discussion you have heard with regards to the -- the ten buffer adjacent to the residential property and potential ways to address its maintenance concern and safety concern, do you have any suggestions of language that might address those concerns? Watters: Madam Mayor, Council, Councilman Borton, I would just like to say first of all this -- typically in a C -G district adjacent to residential there is a 25 foot wide buffer required. Just to reiterate, this was reduced to ten feet previously through the development agreement. So far as landscaping, Councilman Borton, I would just require something either more columnar that would go up rather than out and something -- or ornamental or maybe even -- instead of trees approving alternative compliance, for like an Arbor Vitae, something of that variety -- bushes, something that might offer some screening to the back of the facility to kind of soften the -- the wall. And another clarification -- I have beat the subject to death with the applicant, but the C -G district allows a maximum fence or wall height of eight feet. I just want to be clear on the record that the 12 foot that they are proposing is actually the rear of the storage structures. It cannot be a wall that surrounds the facility. So, just so that that's on record and clear to Mayor and Council. Councilman Borton, does that answer your question? Borton: It did until the last part. So, the 12 foot is the -- the rear of the structure? Watters: Yes. Borton: There is, then, a -- Watters: It falls under the building height then, rather than the height of fencing. A wall, essentially, is a fence around a facility. If it's the rear of a building it falls under the building height restrictions. Borton: Madam Mayor. So, is there -- adjacent to the residential is there a rear building height and, then, a separate fence? Watters: The applicant has told me that this wall is actually the rear of the structure -- storage facility structure. So, one and the same. There is no wall. Borton: Tomato. Tomahto. Watters: Yes. Borton: The thing is 12 feet high. Watters: The rear of the building is 12 feet high. Yes. Borton: Okay. Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 37 of 94 Watters: With 14 foot tall tower elements every 35 feet I believe he said. Borton: Okay. Hood: And, Madam Mayor, just to build on that a little bit, since it is the back of the building and not a fence or a wall, they could go to 60 feet or 65 feet or whatever the building height is in the C -G zone. They aren't proposing that, but it's -- we can't call it a fence, because we can only approve eight foot tall fences, but because it's a building it's the building height that regulates that. So, I think that's what Sonya why wanted to clarify. This isn't a fence technically -- it functions as such -- Borton: Right. Hood: -- but it's the structure of the building. Watters: It looks very much like a wall and I was very skeptical of that and have been round and round with the applicant just to make sure of their intentions so that we didn't get sideways on it. And, then, just to add on that a little bit, afterthought, but the facility is required to comply with the design standards and architectural standards manual, which does require some modulation. You can't have just a long, straight wall. So, they will need to articulate that and modulate it in some way in order to meet our standards. Thank you. De Weerd: So, Sonya can you also build into that back wall of their building that if any lighting -- it can't be the -- the regular type of lighting that goes on the back of a retail building that might have a door out the back or that it's -- because I understand the concern of the -- I'm going to have a light out my -- the back of my house 24/7 -- or while it's dark. Can it be motion sensitive? Can you work with the applicant on appropriate lighting, so it doesn't become the -- the full moon effect? Watters: Yes, Madam Mayor. De Weerd: Okay. And is there -- is there some mitigation you can do as the applicant stated, to -- to close off access to behind the buildings on both ends that would close off that access to the back? Watters: Yes, Madam Mayor, we can write that in as a development agreement provision. De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions for staff? Okay. If there is nothing further, would entertain a motion to close the public hearing. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 38 of 94 Bird: I move we close the public hearing on H-2016-0057. Cavener: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on Item 8-C. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we approve H-2016-0057. Include all staff, applicant and public testimony and include -- include the ten foot buffer, instead of 25 at the Jasmine Street and that the west side where the building backs up, a ten foot buffer in there will be closed off on the north and south so no public access and also that the developer work with staff over lighting on the west side. Cavener: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second. Any discussion from Council? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: Micropath would be closed as well? De Weerd: Okay. Okay. Seeing no further discussion, Madam Clerk, will you call roll. Roll Call: Bird, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, absent; Cavener, yea; Palmer, yea, Little Roberts, yea. De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. D. Public Hearing Continued from 06/07/2016 for Brundage Estates (H-2016- 0001) by L.C. Development, Inc. Located East of S. Linder Road Between Victory and Amity Roads 1. Request: Preliminary Plat Consisting of 366 Building Lots, 20 Common Lots and 1 Other Lot on 136.63 Acres of Land in an R-4 Zoning District Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 39 of 94 De Weerd: Okay. Item 8-D is a public hearing on H-2016-001. I will open this public hearing with staff comments. Watters: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Council. The next application is a request for a preliminary plat. This site consists of 136.63 acres of land. It's zoned R-5 and is located on the east side of South Linder Road between West Victory and West Amity Roads. In 2014 this property was annexed as part of the Victory South Category B annexation with an R-4 zoning district. A development agreement is required to be executed for this property as a provision of annexation prior to development on this site. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation for the northern 64 acres is lower -- excuse me -- low density residential and for the southern 73 acres is medium density residential. The preliminary plat consists of 366 building lots, 20 common area lots, and one other lot for a city park on 136.63 acres of land in an R-4 zoning district. The minimum lot size is 8,000 square feet, with an average lot size of 10,127 square feet. The proposed density is 2.68 dwelling units per acre and is consistent with the low density residential future land use map designation and the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. However, the density is slightly under that desired and medium density residential designated areas. Therefore, a step down in density to low density residential is requested for the southern medium density designated portion of the site. The applicant is requesting approval of that step down. The preliminary plat is proposed to develop in 11 phases. The tot lot on Lot 17, Block 6, is proposed to be constructed on phase one. The linear open space and multi -use pathway within the pipeline easement is proposed to be constructed with phases seven and ten and the city park is proposed to be constructed in phase ten. Because the Parks Department does not have improvement of the park in their Capital Improvement Plan, the city prefers it to be constructed in the final phases of development. There is an existing home and accessory structure on this site that are proposed to be removed. A 3,100 foot long section of the William's Pipeline bisects this site. That is the green linear open space corridor you see here on the plat. The Williams Pipeline is a natural gas pipeline that serves as the primary artery for the transmission of natural gas to the Pacific Northwest and intermountain region. The plat depicts a 75 foot wide right of way easement for use by the pipeline company. All development shall comply with the Williams Gas Pipeline Developers Handbook. An encroachment permit is required for any development or improvements within the pipeline easement. The proposal plat complies with the dimensional standards for R-4 district, except for the street frontage of one lot, which staff recommends is revised to be a minimum of 60 feet. There are also four blocks that exceed the maximum block length allowed by the UDC. The length of three of the blocks can be approved if a pedestrian pathway is provided within the blocks, which will allow the block face to extend from 750 feet to a thousand feet. Those are the blocks -- it would be right here where my pointer is. The length of Block 11, which runs along the Calkins Lateral here at the southwest corner of the site also exceeds the maximum block length. However, because it abuts a large waterway, the Calkins Lateral and an arterial street, Linder Road, it is allowed to extend up to 1,200 feet if approved by Council. Staff also recommends a pathway connection is provided through this block for access to a multi- use pathway required along the lateral. The applicant submitted a block length exhibit Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 40 of 94 this afternoon as shown that depicts the pathway connection to the Calkin's lateral and, again, that's right here where my red dot is, to break up the length of Block 11 and also shifted the stub street to the south further to the west -- or, excuse me, east. This creates a block length that is approximately 1,900 feet long, which is well in excess of the maximum allowed of 1,200 feet. The stub street to the south was in this vicinity right here. It has been shifted to the east as requested by the property owners, the Dixons, to the south. The applicant has based their measurements for this block length from the street here up to the pathway and, then, starting over on this side of the pathway up to here. The UDC actually requires measurement of the block length from this point here where this street intersects at a 90 degree angle clear down to this next street. Access to this development is proposed from South Linder Road, an arterial street, via two collector streets, West Smokey -- Smokey Lake and Harris Street, as you can see here, from South Meridian Road via Harris Street when Harris is extended. Access will also be available from the north from West Victory Road via South Kentucky Way, a collector street to the east of this site, and via West Amity Road from South Oakbriar Way, a collector street, along the east boundary of the site when it's extended. The extension of stub streets approved to the north and east are also proposed for interconnectivity between developments. Just to note that the alignment of the proposed streets to the existing approve stub streets appear to be off to Barton Flats and Bradford and Harris Streets. Vehicular crossings over the Williams Pipeline are limited. A traffic impact study was prepared by Six Mile Engineers and was submitted to ACHD for their review and comment. The 366 dwelling units proposed with this development will generate approximately 3,484 vehicle trips per day with anticipated build out in 2024. A draft copy of the ACHD report is included in the records. A 25 foot wide landscape street buffer is required along Linder Road. A 30 foot side buffer is proposed. A 20 foot wide buffer is required along of the collector streets within the development as proposed. There are several existing trees on the site that if removed require mitigation. The applicant proposes to dedicate 8.24 acres of land for a city neighborhood park, which will be combined with another 1.77 acres in Graycliff Estates and one acre in Biltmore Estates Subdivision to the east for a total of approximately 11 acres of land. And that is the large open green area you see here. A conceptual park master plan was submitted as shown that depicts half basketball courts with benches, a shelter, play area, a tot lot, and open play areas as amenities, along with a parking area and restrooms. Based on the area of the plat a minimum of ten percent of the site or 13.66 acres of land is required to consist of qualified open space. The applicant proposes a total of 14.99 percent or 20.48 acres of qualified open space, consisting of a neighborhood park, two pocket parks, a linear open space area where the Williams Pipeline is located and a multi -use pathway is proposed and half of the street buffer along Linder Road, the street buffers along the collector streets, Harris, Oakbriar, and West Smokey Lake, and the parkways along streets within the development. A minimum of six qualified site amenities are required to be provided for this development as proposed. The applicant proposes to provide a tot lot with a play structure and a park bench in the larger pocket park. A multi -use pathway through the Williams Pipeline easement. Micropaths providing connection to the multi -use pathway and the pocket parks and a 20 foot gazebo in the smaller parks -- pocket park area. Staff also recommends a multi -use pathway as provided along the north side of Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 41 of 94 the Calkins Lateral at the southwest corner of the site in accord with the pathways master plan. The amenities proposed and recommended by staff comply with the minimum requirements. Detached sidewalks are required to be constructed along the arterial and collector streets. That applicant proposes to construct detached sidewalks throughout the development with landscaped parkways. The applicant is requesting a waiver from Council for the Calkins Lateral and a portion of the Sundial Lateral that lies north of Buroak Drive to remain open and not be piped due to the large capacity of the facility. The applicant states it would require a 36 inch or larger pipe to pipe the facilities. The applicant would like to utilize portions of the facilities as a water amenity, which would require improvement of such per the standards in the UDC. The applicant has submitted conceptual building elevations for the future homes within this development as shown. Building materials appear to consist of stucco, lap and board and batten and shake siding, with stone accents. The design standards are proposed to be similar to those of the adjacent Biltmore Estates Subdivision. Because homes on lots adjacent to arterial and collector streets abutting and within the development will be highly visible, staff recommends the rear and/or sides of the structures on these lots incorporate articulation through changes in materials, color, modulation and architectural elements, horizontal and vertical, to break up monotonous wall plans and roof lines. The Commission recommended approval of the proposed plat at their public hearing. Becky McKay, the applicant's representative, testified in favor. No one testified in opposition or commented. Written testimony was received from Becky McKay in response to the staff report. She was in agreement, except for that she was asking for Council to -- excuse me -- waive the block length requirements and allow the development to proceed as shown. Key issues for discussion by the Commission. Staff's requirement for pathways to be provided within blocks that exceed the maximum length standards to comply with the UDC standards for block lengths. Again, those are allowed to extend from 750 up to 1,000 feet when a pathway is provided. The Commission changes to the staff recommendation. They modified condition number 6.3 to remove the requirement for a public park to be provided within the development. City Council shall determine whether the park is to be city owned or private. The Commission supported -- secondly, the Commission supported staff's recommendation on the requirement of pathways to be provided within blocks that exceed the maximum block length standards. Outstanding issues for Council are three. The first is the applicant's request for a step down in density for the portion of the site designated on the future land use map as medium density residential to allow density of 2.68 units per acre consistent with the low density residential designation. Second, the applicant requests to waive the requirement for pathways to be provided to break up the lengths of Blocks 1, 11, 16, and 17. And that is condition number 1.1.2C. And, then, lastly, the revised block length exhibit submitted by the applicant shows a block length that is approximately 1,900 feet in length adjacent to the lateral and Linder Road. Written testimony since the Commission hearing was actually submitted this afternoon. You should have a copy of it in front of you tonight. The first is from Russ and Cara Fulcher. They are in opposition to the development as proposed due to the density. They feel it's too high, especially along Linder Road. Safety. The topography of the area where the Harris Street -Linder Road access is proposed is located atop a natural rise, which makes northbound traffic blind to the Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 42 of 94 roadway until reaching the top of the rise. They would like to see the intersection shifted to the north, signalized, and slow down warnings to be posted. And aesthetics, they feel it's not compatible with the lower density residences to the west and south and creates a house wall and that they would like to have the building setback be increased from Linder Road and/or limit the building height to single story along Linder. Written testimony was also received from Chris Dixon, a homeowner to the south, that abuts this property. They would like the stub street to be provided at the south boundary to her property. The revised plat does show a stub to her property. They actual revised the block exhibit right here. And staff will stand for any questions. De Weerd: Council, any questions? Okay. Would the applicant like to make comment? McKay: Good evening, Madam Mayor, Members of Council. Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions. Business address 1029 North Rosario, Meridian. I'm here representing LC Development, Inc., on this particular application that's before you this evening. Members of the Council, you have seen some of the projects that we brought before you on the Centers' property. It was kind of a combination of three different projects. Biltmore Estates, which is located in this location here. This is Victory, Linder, Meridian Road, and Amity. Biltmore Estates came in, we have constructed two phases at this time and recorded two phases. Then we came through with what we call Graycliff Estates, which was located just south of that. What's before you this evening is what we call Brundage Estates. It is the western portion, it's approximately 136 acres. This property was annexed and zoned as part of that Category B annexation that was done to take in Meridian Heights and Kentucky Ridge, facilitate the extension of Meridian central services to this section and -- let me switch over here. So, what you see is -- kind of bleeds out a little bit. Apologize for that. It's kind of a problem with tifs. On your Comprehensive Plan, this particular property has two designations, low density residential, medium density residential. What you see before you is all low density residential. So, as Sonya indicated, we are asking for a step down in density. Our density is around 2.68 dwelling units per acre. That is our gross. Our net density is 3.5. This particular piece of property happens to lie at the half mile on the street master -- or the master street map and the South Meridian Transportation Plan it shows that there will be a collector roadway that extends from Meridian Road where Harris Street currently resides and terminates at Meridian Heights. That collector is intended to go completely through this section and connect to Linder Road. This will be what we call the mid mile collector. The north -south collector is Kentucky Way from Victory. That comes through and it intersects with our -- with Harris Street and, then, there is a southerly collector that will go on out and make that network connection to Amity Road. So, we will have collectors at the half mile throughout this entire section, thereby facilitating distribution of that traffic both to the minor arterials and out to the state highway system. When we started working with Ada County Highway District on this a few years back, one of the things we didn't want to do was take Harris Street straight through so that it functions like a de facto arterial, because it's intended to, obviously, function as a residential collector and connect -- or collect all the traffic from the interior of this section and take it out to the arterials. What we don't Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 43 of 94 want to, obviously, is compromise is the integrity of our neighborhood by having high volume. So, what we decided to do was that we would take that collector and we would bend it and bring it on through, which will slow that traffic down, make people realize this isn't an arterial, it's a residential collector. Also on your Comprehensive Plan there is a neighborhood park asterisk in this section. It's been there for years and years and years. So, we have been working with your Parks Department on a neighborhood park that would be public at the center of this section and when I brought through Biltmore Estates, we had a little bit less of an acre that was going to be a component part of this park and we brought Graycliff -- or Graycliff in, then, we had another -- another 1.77 acres that we would have as a component and now this is the third component, which completes the park. So, what you're looking at right here in its entirety is a little over 11 acres of public open space. Now, if you ask why -- you know, why have the park there, well, the park's there because you also have the William's Pipeline and -- which is designated as a multi -use pathway. It comes down through and exits and goes out to Meridian Road. So, that's going to be your -- your ten foot multi -use pathway for bicycles, pedestrians. It's going to be part of your overall public pathway greenbelt network. There is a 75 foot separate lot that's an easement for the pipeline. I have met with Williams Pipeline. I have discussed this with them at length. I have a conference call tomorrow with some of their executives out of Salt Lake and their Boise team to discuss the transitioning of their pipeline in the City of Meridian into an urban environment and so that's what we will be discussing and them taking a proactive approach to that transition in lot uses. We have kind of two sections. One of the things that we did not want to do was compete with the park as far as our amenities. So, we didn't want to duplicate amenities and so we had different pocket parks that we can have our private amenities within the project and, then, have, obviously, the large public amenity right there. It is my client's intent to donate that property to the City of Meridian. We did go to your parks commission on March 9th. We presented our parks plan. We did -- there we go. We did have a blow up of this. We kind of had like a roundtable discussion. Obviously it is up to the City Council to determine what's public, what's private. The parks commission we -- one of the things that the staff told us is Meridian is in desperate need of more soccer fields. They are in desperate need of areas within neighborhoods so that, obviously, the vehicles aren't having to go, you know, five, six, seven, eight, ten miles to another City of Meridian park for their child to play soccer or to play T ball or whatever that case may be. If they can keep some of the residents in the neighborhoods, that that would be preferred. So, what we did with -- we had our landscape architect work out to see how many of those ball fields they could get, so that we kind of give the Parks Department a better idea of what they would be looking at. The Parks Department also gave us the Champion Park site plan. They gave us another site plan from another one of your neighborhood parks. We did have our landscape architect emulate that to show the typical amenities that are found within Meridian neighborhood parks. One of the -- one of the feedbacks that we received from the parks commission was, one, they liked the multi -use pathway, but they wanted it to stay along the edge with micropath connections, but they wanted to be able to maximize the park. They love the fact that it's at the center of the section. They love the fact that there is a couple of thousand feet collector all along that park. It's visible. It's safe. It's Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 44 of 94 illuminated. It's available to everyone. It's not just benefitting only this neighborhood, but it will be easily accessible by everyone. Secondly, was parking. They talked about providing better handicapped access and elderly access to the ball fields. Ada County Highway District, since Harris Street is a collector, they do not want any parking along the collector roadway. It will be signed no parking. Therefore, what we did at the request of the parks commission was put a mid section in the park along that frontage, some diagonal parking. That would be -- there would be some handicapped parking in there. There would also be some elderly parking for those who need to be close to the ball fields to see the grandkids play or see their own kids play, whatever the case may be. We thought it was a great idea. We incorporated it into our plan. I did resubmit this to your parks staff after we received comments from the parks commission and I think the feedback we received was that it was great. I sent Sonya a revision of the plan. We had multiple properties south of us, so initially I proposed a stub street to Mrs. Dixon. That's how we drafted our preliminary plat. The staff said, well, we would recommend you move that stub street to the west to reduce the block length. So, then, the preliminary plat that is before you this evening we moved that stub street westward, stuck it in a location around here on the Moslonka property and, then, I received a letter from Mrs. Dixon -- I also talked to her on the phone and she said I thought there was going to be a stub street and now it's moved -- you know, it's moved to the west. I had to explain to her that the Meridian planning staff specifically asked me to move it and -- De Weerd: So, it's our fault? McKay: They asked me to move it. I just did what staff told me. I did consult Ada County Highway District after I read Mrs. Dixon's letter. Ada County Highway District said if you want to move it back to Mrs. Dixon as originally proposed, we do not object. As far as we are concerned we have a collector stub right here that's going to go down to Amity. There will be interconnectivity going that direction. If the stub street is on Mrs. Dixon or on the Moslonka property, we don't care. The block length issue is with Meridian. So, I did this drawing and I provided, to the best of my ability, I moved the stub street back to Mrs. Dixon. Then I put in a pedestrian path, which will link up to your multi -use pathway here and your staff -- your ordinance says you measure from a 90 degree turn and, then, here we have a stub street. So, I broke it up with that pedestrian pathway. That's the best I can do. I can't put a stub street to Mr. Trewbridge, because he only has seven acres and a house. I mean that doesn't make any sense. His property needs to stub to Moslonka. So, I mean we have to use common sense here and determine where should we put a stub street, where should we put the pedestrian path. We don't want to just put them in. They cost a lot of money. So, I -- I would like to stub to Mrs. Dixon and, then, break the block with a pedestrian pathway and ask the Council that they provide us with a waiver. You know, the UDC is -- it fits most situations, but here we have the Calkin's Lateral, we have an unusual triangular parcel that I don't want to mess up by -- by putting erroneous type stub streets to. We have added another stub -- or another pedestrian pathway to the south to Mrs. Dixon. I thought that would be nice, because it goes directly to the city park. This particular project has 4,000 linear feet of multi -use pathway. Four Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 45 of 94 thousand. That is huge and it's costly and it is my client's responsibility to construct it and turn it over to the City of Meridian. As far as the park is concerned, we have already committed to the Parks Department -- we are going to green it up. We are going to install sprinklers. We are going to put it on our pressurized irrigation pump station and when we hit a certain number of lots, then, the Parks Department could, then, build a pump station, they can use it for the public. We are going to get it green. We are going to get it green. It's proposed in one of our latter phases. Let me switch. Hold on. There we go. This is -- this is probably one of the best planned sections in Meridian. It kind of reminds me of North Meridian, because we kind of had a blank slate, other than we had to incorporate in Kentucky Ridge, Meridian Heights, Mr. Hansen, but we are following all of your south Meridian transportation master plans, your park plans. We have low density. We have donated a well to the City of Meridian. Kyle is here this evening. I'm sure he can answer any questions on the well. They're getting that test well down. They are rolling on it. He's been awesome to work with on this -- on the water issue, because we are in Zone 5 in this project, which Zone 5 is not here yet. But, obviously, the City of Meridian, starting this month, is bringing Zone 5 down Amity and west on Amity and south -- or north on Meridian Road. So, we are going to see, you know, this whole area become served. I ask you to consider these block lengths, because I don't want to just put ped paths in for nothing. We have thought them out. Do you have any questions? De Weerd: Thank you, Becky. Any questions? Mr. Cavener? Cavener: Madam Mayor? Becky, very in depth. Very in depth presentation. McKay: Thanks. Cavener: I have a question related to the traffic analysis I think that you guys did for Linder at Victory and Harris at Meridian -- McKay: Yes, sir. Cavener: -- and I don't know if you have had a chance to review the public comment that we received earlier today. There was some questions related to Harris at Linder and I'm just curious if you can provide some background on -- it appears that ACHD asked you to look at those two intersections, but not Harris at Linder and I'm just hoping you might be able to provide any perspective as to why that one intersection was omitted. McKay: Yes, sir. We hired Six Mile Engineers to do the traffic analysis. They did an in-depth study. Ada County Highway District came back and asked them if they could do a phasing analysis, because this will change the traffic patterns once we connect Meridian Road and Linder and Victory and, then, eventually, to Amity. There is going to be a future signal at Meridian Road. That's the half mile. We have to at certain points build turn lanes based on our conditions for Graycliff. With this particular project ACHD was concerned about the timing of making this connection all the way through Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 46 of 94 the project and out to State Highway 69. So, what they had our -- our traffic engineer analyze is we have to build turn lanes and widen Linder. They analyzed this intersection. It's at the half mile. That's where ACHD wants it. That's where your south Meridian plan calls for it. But their primary concern was Victory and Linder. There were there homes that sit right up at the intersection and the Ada County Highway District said, you know, we are going to end up buying those houses to improve the intersection. So, if you're going to make the connection between Meridian Road and Linder, it could overwhelm the Victory -Linder intersection. So, what they determined is at what threshold would the intersection, based on Meridian's growth at three percent annually based on COMPASS, what -- at what point -- at what building permit would we hit that we would overwhelm the intersection. The number was at the 291st home. So, what Ada County Highway District said you can choose not to -- you know, just come in from both the west and come in from the east and, then, come in from the south and, then, strategically make that mid mile connection. Hopefully the highway district has had opportunity to buy the homes, rebuild the intersection. Now, this project goes clear out to 2024. So, you know, we -- we have started on the -- the north end, we have been working from north to south based on your utilities, Zone 4's water and the sewer in Victory Road. This is a different sewer trunk line that's going to have to be an extension of a 15 inch trunk from Fall Creek and Southridge south. They have got to bring it up to the Ridenbaugh, then, Corey Barton's project, Edgehill that's just north of us, will have to pull it to Victory and to their south boundary. Now, these developers can work in unison or tandem or we can wait until Corey Barton brings the sewer to us. It's just a matter of timing. Obviously, Lee -- Mr. Centers has a lot of property out here, so, you know, this is kind of like Bridgetower, it's going -- you know, it's a 15 year project incrementally. We can't buy people's houses, we can't condemn property, and the highway district recognizes that. They also recognize the fact that the signal at Harris Street and Highway 69 is not solely our burden, but Cavanaugh Ridge had the requirement to participate in the light, so did the commercial development that was along Meridian Road. And so they said in our conditions we will do a development type agreement where if by chance you require the light, then, you could get some reimbursement as other developers come online or vice -versa, but no one developer is going to have to bear the full burden and they look at what is their impact on that signal. We don't require a signal at Linder and the neighbor to the west, I met with them yesterday, I talked to him, he basically wanted us to eliminate every single lot that was to the east of him, which when we said that's really not practical, then, he got extremely angry at Mr. Centers and myself and stormed out. I have an exhibit that shows what those building pads look like. I will submit this into the record, although I'm having technical problems. The closest to the -- the closest home will be 223 feet away and you can see the fact that we have a knuckle there -- basically allows us so we are not creating a wall of houses and I tried to explain that to him as we roll around that knuckle and we roll around a 90 degree turn or the bend in our roadway, we are creating a wall of houses, that they would be well over 200 feet away. Plus we have 30 foot of landscaping, we will have berming, we will have fencing. mean it's not -- you know, that's two -- that would be to the actual home and that's a pretty big building envelope that you're looking at. His conclusions are incorrect and uninformed. We have traffic studies that have been reviewed by the ACHD traffic Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 47 of 94 engineers, they concur with our traffic engineers and we are meeting your transportation plan on the highway district's. I told him I understood he had five acres and that, obviously, this -- you know, this would change the character and he got belligerent and there is a picture of his home and what we measured from is his picture window that you're looking out right there on the screen. Mr. Fulcher. Did I answer your question? Cavener: Madam Mayor, follow up if I may. I appreciate that, but specifically related to the -- the testimony that we received via e-mail today spoke about a -- a rise at the intersection, a blind rise, and I'm curious -- McKay: They look -- no, sir. They look at site distance. The traffic engineers, when they go out there and they analyze the site, they look at that site distance. As far as how the collector intersects, that whole -- that whole stretch to the north of us is going to change with the intersection improvements. Some of those arterial roadways, since they are rural, two lane roadways, you know, you get -- you have a chance in elevation. There is 55 feet I believe change in elevation from Fall Creek's collector entrance up to Mr. Centers' entrance -- collector entrance. However, the site distance is acceptable, according to the traffic engineers. They look at that. That's one of the things they analyze. ACHD goes out to the site also. They recommended approval of the collector intersection as proposed. Cavener: Great. Thank you. De Weerd: Any further questions? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: Thank you. What I heard Councilman Cavener ask was not what I -- what I thought I heard was not so much the distance being permissible or not, but was to address the topography as you're traveling north and as you would approach what would be the proposed intersection of Harris there is a representation of that topography makes that access location unsafe and the request was that -- at least as I understood it was that topography should necessitate that access of Harris -- or that intersect to move north to avoid that unsafe condition. Is there -- I didn't see any exhibits that showed the topography. If you have one that would be great. That's what I understood his concern to be on safety. McKay: Madam Mayor, Councilman Borton, I have been out there -- Linder Road is dropping in elevation as you're going north towards Victory. Right now it's at 55 miles per hour. So, obviously, a car traveling at 55 miles per hour can travel a significant distance in a short period of time. However, as the urban development starts moving out here, I guarantee you it's not going to be 55 miles per hour. They're going to have to lower the speed limit as you start getting these collector intersections. It's just like Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 48 of 94 Meridian Road and Ustick and McMillan, that used to be 55 miles an hour through there. Ten Mile, 55 miles per hour. As we started building, you know, urban development, commercial development, then, you will see those speeds go down. How it's analyzed now, it's analyzed at 55 miles per hour. In the traffic study it is noted. So, do we have a site distance -- it is a site distance issue. It's pulling safely out and pulling safely in. We will be building turn lanes and widening the roadway. Mr. Fulcher is not a traffic engineer. Borton: Okay. Madam Mayor, nor am I, but the issue was raised and -- McKay: And I think I answered -- did I not answer it? Borton: Well, maybe we are looking at it right now. What didn't exist in the record is -- McKay: Yes. Borton: -- is there, in fact, some typography that at the current speed -- oh. Hang on a second. Okay. At the current speed that Harris location is unsafe. It might become safe if the current speed reduces, but at 55 it may be unsafe. That's the impression that the concern raises and this maybe is showing -- or trying to show some illustration of -- no, maybe not. Of the topography there. Hood: Madam Mayor, Councilman Borton and the rest of the Council, just pulled up Google Earth and just show the -- excuse me -- the picture that the applicant had here is that same property, the picture window being back over here. So, I was just going up and back Linder Road and you can see -- I mean this doesn't have the topo map on it, but you can see in a car what -- what that looks like. McKay: Yes. Hood: It does look -- you know, right where the irrigation is you can kind of see it goes down a little bit of a -- a hill here, but it appears like that's a really good distance. Again, I don't -- I didn't measure it, but -- McKay: I believe -- I believe it is an exaggeration. Yes. Borton: And -- Madam Mayor? For illustration purposes, what's depicted right there, is that red car at the approximate location of where Harris would intersect? McKay: Yes, sir. Borton: All right. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. That was helpful. It's amazing what you can see these days. Borton: Very good. Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 49 of 94 De Weerd: This is a public hearing. I did have one person sign up to testify. Chris Dixon. You didn't drop anything. Thank you for joining us. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Dixon: Chris Dixon. 1100 West Amity Road. Meridian. Mayor de Weerd, sorry about your headache. Esteemed Council and Honorable Mr. Nary, thank you for letting me speak tonight. I was going to curtail my testimony tonight, but when I heard the previous concern about the long run to the stub street to my property I thought I would go ahead if that's okay. I respect your evening and how late it's getting, I apologize in advance for that. I will try to keep it short. I am the property owner to the south of Mr. Centers' subdivision, Brundage Estates, and I have a concern because the original plat did not include a stub street to my property. As Becky McKay said this evening, from Engineering Solutions, they have reverted back to the original plat, so they are including now a stub street, but I wanted to go ahead and testify tonight, because I heard the -- the original concern from city planning about the link -- or the run of that stub street. As you probably all know, I was actively involved and lucky to be in the group annexation for Meridian -- south Meridian annexation. Help me, Caleb. Twelve hundred acres -- at 35 -- it is 35? Twelve hundred thirty-five? Is that the final acreage on the south Meridian? Hood: It was 1,233. Dixon: Thirty-three. How quickly we forget. And I was the contiguous property that drove that annexation. As you know, you have to have a continuous property to continue annexation and I was the linchpin and the one that eventually became annexed with the 1,233 acre group annexation. But, then, when I studied this plat realized that even though I am -- the people on either side of me to the west and the east did not join that group annexation, but the stub -- the original stub streets were to those properties that were unannexed and I, myself, did not have a stub street. So, wrote a letter to Lee Centers on June 8th requesting a stub street and, honestly, he has been nothing but reasonable and amiable with this request and Becky and he worked together and went back to the original plat, which you saw Becky present tonight, but there is a stub street now from Rosadel Avenue to my property, which very much appreciate and I hope that will be agreeable to city planning and Sonya and her staff, because they have added the pedestrian pathway that will break that up a little bit. So, bottom line I just hope City Council will consider this stub street request and it will be agreeable to them and thank you for your time. De Weerd: Thank you, Chris. Any questions for Chris? Thank you. Is there anyone who would like to provide additional information or testimony? Okay. Yes, Mike. Barton: Good evening, Madam Mayor and Council. I would just like to comment. There was a lot of discussion about a possible public city owned park in -- in this development and I wanted to reiterate that the applicant and Becky McKay did come to our parks commission meeting. The commission was really -- really loved the layout of Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 50 of 94 the park and the amount of street frontage on it. It has a lot of really good attributes. We feel that it is in a good location. However, there are some issues that we have and some concerns -- I mean -- so, this -- any development that we would put into the park, if there is -- we don't have anything budgeted in our ten year CIP. There is -- there is that and, then, there is some also phasing -- phasing issues that need to be worked out or just discussion items. So, we would like to keep it that it is up to the discretion of the City Council that it's either -- either a private park or to become a city park. I think there is a lot of details that need to be worked out with this and it's like so many things, I mean all roads lead back to budgets and right now we do not have the budget for this in the next ten years. So, stand for questions. Palmer: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Palmer. Palmer: And I'm not sure if the question's for you or Mike or whoever. Does the decision on whether it stays private or we agree to someday take it over happen tonight or at the point when it would be turned over to the city? Barton: It would come at a later date, Councilman Palmer, Madam Mayor. I think that we would work on a donation agreement and a partnership agreement with the developer that would include timing certain amenities that are developed or funded and certain amenities that are city founded. We would come back to the Council and have a discussion on exactly what those impacts would be to the budget and -- and also get a better handle on what that phasing plan means and -- and what the intention of green up and turned over to the city would be and the last thing we want to do is have a public park in say phase eight or nine and, then, the first four or five phases of homes or six are waiting for a park and, then, maybe the development stalls out and there is no park, so we just want to make sure that there is, you know, ample time to discuss all those -- all those issues and just work that out. That's what I have. Palmer: Madam Mayor, follow up? A separate question, Mike. Do we have any kind of data as to the use of the parks -- the city parks that end up within enclaves and neighborhoods by people that are outside of the neighborhood? Except -- I mean, obviously, you know, for soccer games and, then, it becomes a destination, because they are going to go there no matter where they are. But just for general use? Barton: Madam Mayor and Councilman Palmer, we don't have any specific data. We find that the parks that are -- they have good access, which this one does, are well used by people outside of the development. So, we feel that that would meet the criteria and it's got size, it's got a great access, the street frontage is perfect. Like I said, it has a lot of really, really good attributes and we are excited to continue the discussion, but I just wanted to make sure that it wasn't a foregone conclusion that it would become a city park. De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions? Thank you, Mike. Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 51 of 94 Barton: Thank you. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: I do have a question for you. To follow up your answer, while a decision might be later, the layout of the plat can be impacted on whether it's a city park or not and one of the things that -- that at least is worthy of discussion today is if this were to be a city park, this layout and that parking and the desire to not have park attendees park on Harris, if this is soccer fields like this, you're going to have 200 cars. I mean it would kind of swamp Harris with this kind of layout and which, then, also begs the question of it does -- it's not intended and Mrs. McKay commented on it, you know, making sure that it doesn't become a de facto arterial and the design encourages people to fly through. So, I think those -- that layout design is -- is before us today and I would worry that a future decision to make it a city park, we are handcuffed with the ability to provide ample parking and keep people off Harris. Barton: Madam Mayor and Councilman Borton, the -- the configuration of the future park lot is -- would be set, but the amenities would be something that would be determined at a later date. I don't see the -- they did add a parking lot kind of further to the west, which alleviates some of that concern of -- of parking access, but I think we got to take a really good look at -- at, you know, how many fields and how much green space and how many cars we would anticipate coming to that park, because there would -- there won't be any parking on street and the last thing we want is people to park in the neighborhoods as a first choice. Maybe want to -- we have all gone down that road. So, we want to make sure it's -- and some of those things that we just haven't had time to flush out, really, but I hear you loud and clear that -- that this -- this is a pretty good solution with two parking lots and I think with more of a linear design or lot configuration that this will work, but we will just have to determine the size in the future. Borton: Madam Mayor? And Mrs. McKay may comment on this, too, because it is a double-edged sword. If it were to be a city park at a future date, it would hopefully be intended and designed with as many amenities to draw as much regional traffic as possible. The downside is you're going to draw as much regional traffic as possible. Barton: Yeah. Borton: And do you have your plat laid out that can accommodate that. So, if a future council might decide this should be a city park, the ship has sailed on whether the plat can accommodate a great wonderful city park that everyone wants to go to use. So, that's why -- and Mrs. McKay will probably comment on it, but that's why that discussion at least needs to be addressed today. I think. Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 52 of 94 Barton: Madam Mayor and Councilman Borton, it's my opinion that the -- the lot configuration is really good. It's very secure with that much street frontage and there is no dark corners or anything in there, which is really great. I mean it -- it does have a lot of good attributes. I think that it's very accommodating and very flexible and scalable that we can add parking to it and then -- and have a good park that will draw from outside of that square mile, which is kind of what we want to do, because, you know, the neighborhood parks, we want them -- we want them to be used and we want them to be accessible to all of our citizens, not just the people that live there. Otherwise, it would just be a private park. And it's my -- it my opinion that the lot works very well and it would be pretty accommodating. Borton: Okay. De Weerd: And I think his question alluded to Heroes Park where they have the park on a major collector as well. People are going to park on the collectors, they are going to park on the arterials, they are going to park wherever they possibly can and they won't park in the parking lot. Borton: As a last resort. Barton: But we want to -- De Weerd: Just saying that -- Barton: We want to do a good job and accommodate the uses in regards to parking and if the people are going to park in the neighborhoods, they will, but if they are there we want to make sure that we have open parking places in the park that if they did choose to use what's planned then -- Borton: Okay. :1.00MV .1i1 Borton: Thanks. De Weerd: Caleb. Hood: Madam Mayor, I just wanted to take a -- just a minute, maybe two, to address the block length issue and just to clarify a couple of things and even maybe start by the intent of our block length. So, I think you're all aware, but I will just restate it. Seven hundred and fifty is the preferred maximum block length. You can go up to a thousand if you add a pedestrian connection and up to 1,200 if the Council grants that. In no case shall a block exceed that. What the applicant is proposing is an 1,800 foot long block. The block doesn't stop, then, at the micropath and it doesn't matter if the stub street is to the Dixon or the Moslonka, either way that block length is a really long straight stretch and the thing we are trying -- one of the things we are trying to avoid Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 53 of 94 with that 750 is creating raceways and so, again, you end up with a long straight stretch of road that doesn't have an intersecting street, you tend to get people that drive fast on those. There are other design solutions. If you maximize cul-de-sacs, common driveways, you can have your road be more circuitous. Sometimes you can even get more lots out of it that way. So, I think there are some other options. We typically don't design, you know, subdivisions, but I think there are some options. Again, just looking at this you could cul-de-sac something, have common driveway come off -- they get four -- up to six lots off of each side. So, I think there is some options there. Regarding the two -- two other blocks on the south of Harris that are longer, with the central open space that is on the south side of Harris, the only real centralized open space, having a micropath that breaks up that block and provides good access to the central amenity on the south side, again, it's -- in my opinion it's not a pathway to nowhere or just, you know, a random -- it's in our code and it provides a function there that it gets folks that are -- again, in those couple of blocks, that are long, easier, better pedestrian connection to the amenities that are on the other side of the collector if you will. So, just a little bit more background and kind of why the code and in this case why I think it still should apply and I -- and I don't think it's too onerous to even slightly tweak the plan to -- to get to compliance. So, I just thought it was appropriate to -- to bring that up a little bit on the block length and that the micropath doesn't stop the block length, it's 965 on one side and 900 and whatever on the other. That's eighteen, nineteen hundred feet long, so -- it does help, but there is almost a 90 degree turn on either end, but even that long straight stretch is still over a thousand. So, just to clarify, the stub street didn't create this problem. You still have the block length issue regardless of where the stub street is. And, again, just -- just one more thing. On arterials as well, and even Harris, you know, we don't want multiple access points to break up a block length of arterials and collector roadways, so having those pedestrian connections -- and that's the intent is we don't want necessarily short 14 driveways off of Harris or roadways, but the spacing of those to create shorter blocks with better access points, again, just -- can I drive for a second? Just as an example -- and, again, not to redesign it, but if this street were to be moved over somewhere in here -- I mean this is not even a thousand feet, but if you moved it over two lots and all of a sudden your block isn't as long. Just as an example. I'm not proposing that, I'm just saying there is -- you wouldn't increase the number of streets that come off of Harris, but it's the spacing of those and the long blocks that are created and that's not -- it's not egregious. That's -- I think Sonya said like 950 feet. So, it's not -- it's not that bad. It really is -- this block here as it becomes fairly long and, again, by our code technically not a new -- and I mean that's the way -- in no case shall the block length exceed 1,200, so -- De Weerd: And you're not counting the micropath as something that helps diminish -- Hood: So, Madam Mayor, again, it certainly helps. What it doesn't tend to do is slow down any cars. What the -- how the code reads is you can have 750 feet. If you go to a thousand you can do that, but you have to have a micropath somewhere in the middle there. If you go up to 1,200 feet you can do that with the Council's blessing. So, the micropath is to get you from 750 up to 1,200 if you will. Yeah. And, again, Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 54 of 94 that's -- that's meant for -- 750 is kind of the standard and, then, if you had a waterway or an arterial or something where we don't necessarily want streets every 750 feet, if you want them spaced out even further, again, that's where the ability to approve longer blocks is given to the Council in most cases. De Weerd: So, Caleb, how does an intersection slow the traffic down? I live in Lakes at Cherry Lane and we have longer blocks than this and it's not a raceway, but -- mean Turnberry turns in the Moon Lake and there is nothing there that breaks that up. Hood: So, a couple things that happen typically when -- so, again, it's the straightness of the roadway, too. So, a meander -- and if I can see a half mile, I tend to drive faster, because I can know if anything jumps out in front of me and those intersections -- when you have an intersection, if I drive this every day, here is cars that occasionally come out and so you tend to slow down and focus on those areas. So, that's how the intersections tend as a behavioral -- behavioral type thing for a motorist, they are conditioned to look for cars at those intersections. So, that's how the intersections tend to slow traffic down. Particularly four legged intersections are better than three and that's why we measure the block face, it's not just one side of the block, because if you look on the -- you know, this -- the north face of that block is compliant because of that street. It's the south side that's the issue, because there isn't another street that breaks up that south face of the block. And, again, by definition we measure it from one street to the other, not from one street to a micropath, from the micropath to the next street, it's that entire -- it's either a T intersection or a 90 degree turn. De Weerd: But I'm going to agree with what Becky said, if you put that a stub street that doesn't make any sense. Watters: Madam Mayor, staff isn't asking them to put the stub street in any particular location. Staff is only asking them to comply with the block length standards. De Weerd: Okay. My head's ready to explode. Hood: Madam Mayor, if I can, not to redesign, I don't want to beat this to death, but just as an example, we could bring this roadway in and have a cul-de-sac here. You cul-de-sac both ends. Now, all of a sudden you don't have that long raceway that goes through. You know, you can do some things with a cul-de-sac on one side or the other and, again, we have common driveways that would allow that. You can see other projects that would come in and even have common driveways that butt up to each other. They are not public roadways, but, again, it's not a thoroughfare now. You still have the connectivity between the blocks and the stub streets and other properties. Again, there is multiple options here. You know, we aren't asking for another stub necessarily between -- to this property, because I agree with Becky, that doesn't get us over this and if it's a smaller property that's -- that's a headache in the future to have to build a bridge across or even a culvert and redevelop, but there are some things you can do with one side or the other of this block to redesign it so it can comply with the block length standards. Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 55 of 94 De Weerd: But if that was a stub street it would be okay. Hood: Madam Mayor, no, because the length from here -- even to just here is 945 feet. Now we are going in another -- I don't know what this is either, if these are 70 foot wide lots, we are going another 210 feet or so that stub street and you're still over 1,100 feet to even get here. De Weerd: No. What I'm saying if the stub street was where that micropath was. Hood: Oh. Yes. If a stub street were where the micropath was we would be okay. The problem there, again, is that that this is a small property and you got a waterway. So, that's why the stub street in this location isn't ideal. De Weerd: Okay. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: You made one comment which I want to make sure I heard correctly. Is it -- is it true that the Council is prohibited -- it lacks the discretion to approve a block length over 1,200 or the recommendation is we shouldn't? I mean if we lack the ability to approve it, I don't know why we are even looking at the plat. I presume that's not the case. Watters: If I may respond to that, Madam Mayor and Councilman Borton. Caleb is looking up the actual code, but it states up to -- Council may approve a block face up to 1,200 feet in length under certain conditions, like a site constraint, like a waterway or an arterial street. Borton: That's a Mr. Nary question. Does that also mean that we lack the ability to approve beyond that regardless of whether the micropath -- De Weerd: Whether it makes sense or not? Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, yes. Unless there is a specific exemption in the UDC -- which there already is, but it's for 1,200 feet, not for more than 1,200 feet. So, you cannot approve a plat that does not comply with your ordinance. Hood: So, if I can just read the section of code. It's 11.6C3 (f)(3) -- oh, excuse me. (f)(4). Maximum block face. In no case shall a block face exceed 1,200 feet. Period. And we are happy to explore that in a work session and if that's not what you guys want to have as our standard, we can talk about that some more. I'm just telling you what the current code requires. We can come up with some exhibits and use this as a test case to show how there is a way you can comply with this code. It's not Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 56 of 94 exhaustive. There are multiple ways you could lay this out and I could even do it where you could -- you know, it's more efficient than this layout. And, again, for traffic purposes would be -- wouldn't have that potential for a speedway here. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: I guess I'm just struggling with -- if you put a stub street where that micropath is, then, it's okay and it doesn't make it too much different than the micropath. I -- yeah. Well, they made the policy and now you can blame them. Mr. Bird. Bird: Yeah. De Weerd: You. They. Bird: As you read that it said we wouldn't go up to 1,200 feet, but it didn't say that there was a variance that Council couldn't take it over there. Am I wrong, Bill? Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, yes, you are. You cannot grant a variance to this. You can only grant a variance to a dimensional standard -- so, like height, building setback -- Bird: Oh. Okay. Nary: -- those kind of things, not the street length. Bird: Not the block length. Nary: So, you can't just vary your code, you can only vary specific -- De Weerd: Okay. I think that horse is dead now. Okay. McKay: Sorry. That was a brain twister for you. De Weerd: Thank you. McKay: I apologize. I think the remedy to the situation is to relook at the 12,000. Under no circumstances, a rule that is in your code -- I'd like to work with staff to have that at the discretion of the Council. Obviously, you know, the recommendation is to keep these block lengths, you know, manageable, shorter. We don't want these long blocks. We want good accessibility. I guess the -- the thing that Caleb doesn't understand is we had probably 12 different versions in this southern area here and if I met the planning -- the UDC, then, I would bust Perry's requirement, then, I have to have two points of ingress and egress if I hit -- go over 30 lots. I mean it was like a double-edged sword. You end up backing yourself back in a corner and we do -- we Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 57 of 94 did cul-de-sacs and it messed up the stub streets. What Caleb doesn't understand -- unless you're doing this day in and day out -- Hood: That's what I do. McKay: -- this traffic moves in different directions. It splits -- it's not working. I don't know. If you look at the layout it splits the traffic in multiple directions and that's what we are trying to do. We don't want to be the North End -- I mean the only thing that slows traffic in the Boise's North is the huge valley gutters that will bottom your car out and you can -- and, then, they have some four-way stops and stuff. So, I mean, you know, to every solution there are problems that we don't realize we are creating. I mean it sounds good. In new urbanism I buy into that. We want to make livable neighborhoods. I guess my thought is to put a stub street to the Trowbridge doesn't make any sense. If you look at this block we are splitting the traffic. Can I move -- I wish this thing would work. I don't know why it's not. It's stuck. If I move the entrance -- the first entrance further west, can I cut your block length down? Yes, I can. But what happens when the traffic stacks on the collector? Then the entrance out of the southern block is blocked by stacking. Seen it happen. And we learned from our past mistakes and, believe me, you drive by stuff and you go in and you look around and you go why did I do that? Why did I do that? That -- it didn't pan out. So, you know, after 26 years, then, you start moving those intersections away from where the collector intersects with the arterial. So, we have adequate stacking. Now, then, that causes block length issues, then, you know, we try to break them up with pedestrian paths. Also along the collector roadway -- if you notice, all my roads are focusing -- all my roads are focusing on the park. We want to have pedestrian safe crossings of that collector, because it is going to carry -- you know, it can have 3,000 trips -- vehicle trips a day. So, we don't want all these different micropaths with all these kids riding their bikes burning across a collector and just popping out and we have seen what's been happening. We have had a lot of mishaps with pedestrians, vehicles, bicyclists. So, my focus in this entire project was this neighborhood park. The park commission told me, yes, we understand. We don't have any money for it and our dollars are going to go to the regional park. But we are not going to sacrifice neighborhood parks for regional parks. We need both. We need regional, community and neighborhood. If activities can be kept in this neighborhood and vehicles off the roadway, then, this is a great idea. We are going to green it up. We are going to -- we are going to get it rolling. As far as the design, we just did a conceptual design. Your Parks Department will do it. But as Commissioner Borton -- or Councilman Borton indicated, we do need a commitment that this is going to be public. I mean everything we're doing is gearing up for this and you've got 4,000 feet of public pathways going through there and you're going to dump them into a private park? I mean this is a perfect spot for it. We need that chain along your greenbelt connecting all your parks. You have a public park on Stoddard. That's a community park. We don't have issues on Stoddard that people expressed to me at the Bear Creek Park. We did that a long time ago. We have got to create safe routes to these parks, to these schools, so we got to think -- we have got to focus those kids so they are crossing in really good locations. We need to know that this is correct as far how we are treating this as Councilman Borton indicated, that it is Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 58 of 94 going to be public, it is going to benefit us, it is going to link all of these multi -use pathways that are public together. As far as the waiver of the block lengths, you can't give me a waiver when your code doesn't allow it. I agree with Mr. Nary. What I would like to do is work with the staff to create some situations where this Council -- and future Council have flexibility. In the situation that we have, the Calkins Lateral, it's a waterway that we don't have to put a stub street or a bridge to nowhere. Or a micropath to nowhere that could be a danger. Dixon -- Mrs. Dixon, I like the stub street to her. I always have. That's how we preferred it. So, we can deal with that later. mean we are looking -- this is, like I said, this is a 15 year project. So, it's not something I'm building tomorrow. We got plenty of time to work with the staff. You guys are reworking your ordinance trying to add things, clean things up, as we learn over time. Lastly, 6.3, as far as the acreage, I would like you to correct that. The Commission did change that requirement. If you put a condition on me that says this shall be a public park, then, Mr. Centers, when he donates it to the city, is not eligible for any federal tax donation credits on his income tax. So, it can't state that this shall be a public park. So, what our compromise was at the Commission was the development shall be consistent with the preliminary plat and it says here: Which depicts 11.45 acres of open space in the center. That is -- in total it is 11.45 acres, between Graycliff, Biltmore, and Brundage, but Brundage is -- I believe is eight point -- what is that, Sonya? Eight point -- it's 8.1 some odd acres. I didn't bring my other sheet with me. Watters: 8.24. McKay: 8.24 acres. So, the plat depicts 8.24 acres of open space in the center of the development that will be combined with the Graycliff, Biltmore which will be 11.45. We would like a commitment on the city, because -- I mean we don't -- we, obviously, want this to be public. We think it's going to be wonderful. The parks commission thought it was going to be wonderful. We know the dollars aren't there. We are not asking you to spend dollars right now. We are keeping this park in one of the latter phases. The Parks Department and the parks commission like that. They said we like that and if you green it up, wow, we are going to have it for this people. I mean this is not going to function like a regional or community. It's a neighborhood. We may have people within a couple miles. Great. Then they are not out driving to one of your other parks. We are not trying to compete with the regional, we just want to fill that need for these neighborhoods. Give them public open space. And I think it's great for Mr. Centers to green it up, do sprinklers, and then, your Parks Department takes it over. All they got to do is mow. As far as what is the actual long term plan? The sky is the limit. We just don't want to do anything that messes that up. And you can have multiple parking lots with this linear open space, so people can park their pickup, unload their car -- unload their bikes. Right at this multi -use pathway. Play at the park. Go to soccer. I mean we want to get them out of the cars -- safely out of the cars. So, I think that's all I have to say and I'm -- sorry, I have got a headache. And I did have shoulder surgery, but I'm still a little irritable, according to my staff. I'm working on it. I have therapy. I have got therapy. Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 59 of 94 Borton: No worries. Palmer: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Palmer. Palmer: Madam Mayor, Mrs. McKay, I think Caleb's job is to keep us straight, so that we don't go violating things that -- I love changing codes. I think it's a fantastic idea to -- to give us the ability to make decisions that make sense and so maybe it's clear to everybody else -- so, with the micropath we still cannot do it as is; right? McKay: Unless you change the code, sir. Palmer: So, what -- what do you want to do? Did you want us to push it out and, then, try and change the code or -- McKay: Madam Mayor, Councilman Palmer, I guess my thought is the Council can only approve what the ordinance allows them to approve, according to Mr. Nary and that's correct. So, approve it, but there is nothing that says if the code changes at the time we bring in final plats on this, if the code is different, then, your staff can, then, work with us. Then the Council could legally say, yeah, you got -- you got a lateral, it doesn't make sense, we don't want you to move your approaches for the public streets closer to Linder. This makes sense. I would like the Council to have flexibility, because we can't -- we end up with some of these square pegs trying to fit them in a round hole and it happens every so many years and I'm here going I don't know what to do and you can't help me and usually we work with your staff and I got plenty of time to work with the staff as far as the timing of his project. Palmer: Madam Mayor, so, then, a question for Bill. Can we do that or do we need to change the code first? Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I think Caleb had an answer to that, too, and, then, maybe I can answer your question. I don't know if -- Hood: Yeah. I was just going to say, Madam Mayor, Councilman Palmer, I think Becky is right, I think we can work on this, both sides of this, one being the code and taking that back to you and see if there is any code revisions. I think just a general comment that says comply with the block length standards in effect at the time of final plat and when you get to that stage, if the code has changed -- it kind of -- the answer somewhat depends on your comfort level, because if it doesn't change, this is going to look at little bit different. But if it does change it may look exactly like this. So, it's going to be whatever is in effect at the time when the final plat is submitted and we have done that in the past. So, as long as -- it doesn't take much imagination. Again, I could see some -- you know, depending on what the code is, if it changes. It's generally going to be the same as this and won't require, you know, to come back for a new preliminary, because it's significant changes. So, again, I would just propose that Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 60 of 94 the conditions regarding block length -- again, at final plat, comply with the standards in effect at the time and we will work kind of both ends of that, see if there is some things absent coaching that maybe they can do or look at coaching just that makes sense, so -- I know we have had this -- a similar conversation before, but on other projects. But we will sit down again and kind of go through that and see where we can meet on the -- in the middle somewhere. Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Palmer, we have recently had a code change. Mr. Tealey had brought a project through and, then, brought a proposed code change to allow that open space on those larger lot subdivisions. So, it takes a little bit of time, but it's not -- I think I heard Caleb -- it's not something that we can't accomplish, but just -- just for clarity for the record, the UDC has been in place since 2005. This particular code section has only been amended once in that time period. So, this is -- and the UDC was put into place with a lot of input. I'm sure Mrs. McKay was part of that -- numbers of other people, including traffic engineers. So, we -- these -- these decisions on block lengths and degree turns and what alternatives could be had and the total length that should be allowed, wasn't something that was brought up randomly, it was brought up after a tremendous discussion and, unfortunately, Council Member Zaremba isn't here, because I'm sure he would remember exactly what day they talked about it and exactly who was standing in the room when they did, so -- but it is something that I agree with that we can work very well with our development community in findings things that would give some alternative, that aren't just an open season. It can be very difficult for a council today or in the future to simply have the ability to just waive things whenever they feel like it without some ability to create one of those standards to do that, because then you're stuck having to be traffic engineers and they may not be your comfort. So, agree with Caleb, you can approve it, require that they are going to have to be consistent with this -- with the ordinance when they bring the final plat. If the ordinance changes, so be it. If it doesn't, they understand that. McKay: Lastly, Madam Mayor, Mr. Centers wanted me to correct my error of -- the speed limit has already been reduced. It is 35. 1 apologize. I think I drove 55 when went through there. But don't tell anybody. De Weerd: We will put a car out there next time. Any -- any further questions for Becky? Or staff? Okay. Thank you. McKay: Thank you. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 61 of 94 Borton: Maybe a question for you or for -- for Caleb. The -- the benefit, if any, to approving a preliminary plat with the condition that a final plat has to comply with code, whatever that might be -- doing it in that order I don't know what that accelerates versus tabling a plat and changing the code and then -- assuming the code changes, which I think Mrs. McKay made great arguments why this might justify having that type of discretion. But, nonetheless, assuming it changes, then, approve the plat. What benefit, if anything, is there to do it -- you can't get a final plat done anyway, doing it out of order. Hood: Madam Mayor, Councilman Borton, to speak to that a little bit, I mean really sort of more for the applicant, but I do think, you know, their phase one, you know, the entitlement to this whole thing is on the table now. Yeah, this is phase seven and eight or whatever, I mean years and years out, maybe half the time they get through that. But I think they would like their entitlement for their phase one and phase two and phase -- you know, some of the things there in the near term future. Now, again, to a discretion, I mean if you're not comfortable doing it that way, you -- you can table it out for six months and we can process the UDC change. So, again, that is -- that's your call. I would just -- I'm just telling you regardless if the code changes or not, the layouts can look real similar. It may not be a public street, it may be an alley. It may be a common driveway, but it's going to still have lots that generally back up this way and, then, it's going to generally look the same as far as the lot layout goes and the blocks and all that. It's just going to be some tweaks that aren't substantial, but if you want to see those, again, that's your discretion. I'm just telling you it -- from our perspective it's -- that happens in those projects. I mean things -- lot lines move, roads move a little bit, shift, you know, so I'm comfortable with that, but, again, the call is yours if you're not. Borton: Okay. De Weerd: Anything further from City Council? I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing if you so desire. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: If there is no more questions or answers needed, I move we close the public hearing on H-2016-0001. Borton: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 62 of 94 Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: Just for discussion, one of the items that came up was the -- the Commission's recommendation to remove the requirement in Section 6.3 with regards to designating it being a public park or not. I'm curious Council's perspective on that recommendation. De Weerd: I believe they didn't want it to be a requirement as part of the preliminary plat, but would like -- yeah. That one. A difficult one. But would like you to indicate whether you would accept it as a public park or not. Just don't require it. Is that right? Watters: May I respond to that? De Weerd: Uh-huh. Watters: The condition was modified to read the development shall be consistent with the preliminary plat, which depicts 11.45 acres of open space in the center of the development. That portion was added. A public park is required to be included in the development was stricken and, then, the rest of that requirement was City Council shall decide whether the park is city owned. If not, park shall be owned and maintained as a park amenity for residents of the development it was just, basically, modified so that a public, quote, park was not required. Palmer: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Palmer. Palmer: Madam Mayor, to answer the applicant's question about whether we would like that to be a public park or not, whatever the rest of this Council feels, I -- I'm not a fan of the public parks that are completely within developments. I have been watching them for the last several years, because it's something that's always kind of bothered me. I don't know why. Just to, you know, pay attention and see if -- what their use is like since I was helping pay for them and in my very unscientific observation, I have seen that they are not as heavily used, obviously, as the ones that are along the arterials. They are generally larger anyway. One in particular, you know, I have been watching -- I believe it's called Heroes. It's the one off -- in Champion Park; right? Is it that one? De Weerd: No. Heroes is used extensively. Palmer: Whatever the one -- De Weerd: Champion Park. Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 63 of 94 Palmer: Champion Park. It's called Champion Park. Okay. My parents recently moved in there and so I -- for the last several months that I have been in there a couple times a week and I have never seen more than two people in the park and so that's why I was asking if we had any data as to the use of these parks out -- from people outside of the neighborhood themselves. So, again, in my scientific observation to see that they are just not used enough to justify the cost of them, so I -- at this point I'd rather see that stay private. But three months ago if you would have told me that on June 21st I would be voting for an urban renewal district, I would have busted out laughing and so here it is. So, I can definitely be convinced otherwise, but at this point if it was today that we were making that decision, that's where I lean is that I would want it to be private. Little Roberts: Madam Mayor? 9Za►JL — 0MA=ReiNV*IST4"i0 Little Roberts: May we ask Mike to come back up for a parks question? De Weerd: We -- yeah, you have a question for staff. I think that doesn't require an open -- Little Roberts: Madam Mayor, I just wanted to ask Mike if this compares more to Bear Creek rather than the parks that Councilman Palmer mentioned? Barton: Yeah. Madam Mayor and Councilman Little Roberts, Champion -- Champion Park is about six acres, so it's a little bit smaller and it's kind of -- it's kind of buried in -- in the neighborhood itself, where this would be, obviously, you know, almost double. So, 11 acres and, then, there is good arterial -- or collector access to it -- directly to it. So, I think in that regard it's a -- kind of a different animal. It's not -- the minimum size of our neighborhood parks is seven and a half acres and a community park, which Bear Creek and Heroes -- Heroes Park is 30 acres. Bear Creek is 18. So, they draw a bigger -- a bigger lot size is going to draw from outside the area and I think that -- I mean this one -- it does have good access. I mean like I said before, there are good attributes here and it would make a nice city park. Just my opinion. I -- thank you. De Weerd: Thanks, Mike. Little Roberts: Madam Mayor? Nary: Madam Mayor? I'm sorry. Little Roberts: Madam Mayor, the reason I asked about Bear Creek is because I see it all the time and it is packed. There is not enough grass in Bear Creek. So, I'm seeing a park that was similar or comparable to this -- that's incredibly busy. Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 64 of 94 De Weerd: Uh-huh. Palmer: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Palmer. Palmer: And if it's -- and Bear Creek, you know, I think it's maybe a little bit different than Champion Park in that Stoddard is not -- or whatever that street is that goes into that subdivision. It's much more, you know, busy -- I suppose it's a collector, not an arterial. And so it's -- you know, if Harris is envisioned to be like Stoddard where it's not just people going into the subdivision, but people going through, then, I feel a lot better about it. De Weerd: And I would say because it will connect to Meridian Road and the entitlements for the property to the south of where this major collector would be, has pretty fairly high density, if I remember correctly, and both housing and commercial development, if that -- it does occur as has been anticipated, it's going to be a major collector. Barton: Madam Mayor, if I might add one more thing that if the intent is to green this space up and -- and, then, turn it over to the city, we would ask that the -- the applicant and the developer work with the Parks Department to -- to build it to our standards, because we want -- we want quality equipment and stuff that's sustainable and that some things that are a matched set to what we have and just for ease of operations if it does go that way, that -- that they would work to -- to green that up not only, yeah, donate the property, but the green up portion, at least do that to city standards and think that there would have to be a parking lot or two that could come with the green up as well, so -- De Weerd: I think we could probably come up with an agreement that we have used with Renaissance and other parks that have been built to city standards and -- and, really, Renaissance is a great example in terms of -- they greened it up and at some point the city has added a few amenities to it, a shelter, bathroom, so I think it is a good example of how you can write that up so that it is built to be a city park with future amenities added at some point. Barton: I agree. Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, all I think what the applicant is asking is that you're going to consider that at some point in the future. That you're not foreclosing the ability for this to be a city park. Mrs. McKay and Mr. Centers certainly do lots of development. They know we still have to work out an agreement. We may be coming back to you saying we have made it work for the Parks Department, we made it work from the budgetary standpoint, and we think this makes sense for a city park or we won't and it is just subject to that. So, I think all they really were asking was that the City Council isn't actually committing tonight that it's a public park, although Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 65 of 94 Councilman Borton is correct, you are committing to the general configuration and location, but we are really just open to the discussion and the continuing dialogue -- and, again, you would -- come back to you with an agreement before we would finalize that. So, you would still have another opportunity to say it doesn't make sense to you or it does, so -- if that helps. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Mike. Okay. Anything further from Council? Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: Just a thought for Council consideration. I appreciate the dialogue from Caleb. It's six of one, half a dozen on the other as far as approving a preliminary plat with condition that it meets our requirements for final plat or us put this project off, address the code issue and, then, revisit it. My preference is that we address the code issue first. I may be alone in that, but I feel that -- to me Mr. Nary's point about the UDC being a large scale process with a wide variety of stakeholder involvement to just arbitrarily say we are going to address one particular piece while going through the process to me seems unfair to the process of creating the UDC. That's my perspective. Take it for what it's worth. De Weerd: It's certainly an option to hold it over for a week and that the applicant and staff work together to possibly find a solution, whether it's interim or long term that can address the current UDC standards and, then, it gives staff or applicant the -- the longer term motivation to work with the city and get a chance if that would be desired. So, you do have several different options. If you do continue it I would recommend that you reopen the public hearing, so that we can accept additional testimony, but you have several options. Borton: Madam Mayor, just -- De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: -- does a week allow for -- it certainly doesn't allow for code modification, so -- De Weerd: No, but it would allow for them to come back and say this is how we are going to approach it and, then, if you need to continue it again you at least know when you're continuing it to. Borton: Okay. De Weerd: So, if that would be the desire, I would need to have a motion to open the public hearing and, then, I would need a motion to continue it. Cavener: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 66 of 94 De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: So, let's go with -- I move that we reopen the public hearing on nine -- I'm not sure what we have got. 9-D. Bird: Second. Cavener: Brundage Estates. De Weerd: On 8-D? Cavener: 8-D. Thank you. Brundage Estates. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to reopen the public hearing on 8-D. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? I thought I heard all ayes. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Do I have a motion to continue this public hearing? Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: I move that we -- oh, man. I'm getting a headache, too. De Weerd: It's not the night to have a headache. Cavener: It's not the night to have a -- I move that we continue 8-D, a public hearing on Brundage Estates to next Tuesday, which is June 28th. Bird: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to continue Item 8-D to June 28th. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: Just for comments, since it's fresh on my mind, I think Mrs. McKay in this application -- I think she's done a fantastic job and the application is fantastic and if there is to be a change in code that allows discretion in limited, rare circumstances, Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 67 of 94 that they rarely if ever occur, this might be one of them and I think what's been described might justify giving Council that type of discretion however that takes place. As to the park issue, I think Councilman Palmer brings up great points as to -- there are many ways you can do a neighborhood park that shouldn't be a city park necessarily and there are examples of that. I'm not certain this is one. It seems appropriate to leave open that door, that this remain public as well. The devil is in the details, as Mr. Nary had pointed out and I think -- and I appreciate Mrs. McKay's candor in that regard. I think the direction we have got and the input -- in particular on the block length from -- from Caleb is extremely helpful and your input on this has been extremely helpful and I think -- I thought Mrs. McKay maybe misspoke with regards to your work on this. I don't think you intended it the way it came across, but I think -- we all truly appreciate your input on this. It's helpful and this is going to help us make a good decision. De Weerd: I think she qualified it with her shoulder comment. Borton: I thought so, too. De Weerd: Equating it to my headache, so -- Borton: That's what I thought. I took it that way, too. De Weerd: But thank you. Because I agree with you on that. Anyway, we will put this off until next week and look for both applicant and staff comments on this particular item. And we continued this specifically for the lot -- or block length, so -- okay. Thank you. E. Final Plat Continued from 06/07/2016 for Isola Creek No. 4 (H- 2016-0050) by Isola Creek, LLC Located North Side of W. Ustick Road and East Side of N. Ten Mile Road 1. Request: Final Plat Approval Consisting of Forty -Five (45) Single Family Residential Building Lots and Four (4) Common Lots on Approximately 28.02 Acres in the R-4 Zoning District De Weerd: Okay. Item 8-E is a final plat, continued from June 7th. This was requested to continue to June 28th and I would just note to staff that there are still a handful of issues on the park end of this and I'm not sure if that's specifically why it was continued, but we're going to make sure that the applicant knows that those need to be addressed before we will hear this item. Beach: I believe Becky McKay is the applicant for that, so -- De Weerd: Well, then, the messenger can take that back. So -- Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 68 of 94 Little Roberts: Madam Mayor? I believe that parks is hoping to get a sit down face to face prior to next week. Been going back and forth on e-mails for a while and it's time to sit down and do an in person. De Weerd: Okay. And, again, message was received. Thank you. Little Roberts: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Item 8-F. So, are we -- what all are you here for? I think you must be here for Verado Subdivision. Council, would you -- would you support let's hearing this, so, then, after that we can take a short break. That would be nice. Okay. So, I'm going to go ahead and skip to 8-G and open up the public hearing on H-2016-0047 and ask for staff comments. Beach: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of Council. This, as you noted, is the Verado Subdivision. It's an application for annexation and for preliminary plat. The site consists of 19.35 acres of land, which is currently zoned RUT in Ada County, located near the southeast corner of North Locust Grove Road and East Ustick Road. Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation for the property is medium density residential. Let me back up. So, the applicant is requesting R-8 and R-15 zoning for the property. The applicant proposes to develop 122 new single family residential attached and detached homes and 18 common lots on that 19.35 acres. The gross density for the subdivision is 6.3 dwelling units per acre, with a net density of 9.8 dwelling units per acre, with an average lot size of 4,445 square feet. The Commission did recommend approval with conditions. Summary of the Commission public hearing. Mr. Conger, the applicant, was in favor and several in opposition. Jason Brodt. Shannon Graves. Bob Jenkins. Jack Kormouch. Ben Innocent. William Kerwin. Kate McCarney. Sylvia Jenkins. Rosellen Villareal Price. And Vickie Thornton. Bruce Carmen. Chris Catherman and Justin Graves commented. Written testimony was received by the applicant Mr. Conger. I was the staff member presenting the application. Additional testimony or comments were received by Andrea Pogue of the Attorney's Office and key issues of public testimony were the increased traffic through the existing subdivisions to the south. The potential to provide a stub street to the adjacent property to the north for future development, which is this property here in the northwest corner. The density of the proposed subdivision. Size of the proposed lots. Providing the vehicular connection over the South Slough. The transition between the proposed R-15 zoning district and the existing R-8 zoning district. A two story home overshadowing the existing one story homes. Key issues of discussion by the Commission were a mixture of home types within the development. Density of the proposed development. Appropriateness of the vehicular connection over the South Slough. The Commission did modify several conditions. And I can go over those in just a second here. And, then, the outstanding issue as far as staff is concerned is this access or stub street to this northwest portion here and I will have the slide show in just a second, having said that. So, written testimony was received prior to -- or since the Commission hearing from Randy Pipal, Celina Innocent and Ben Innocent, having to do with size and number of lots that abut Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 69 of 94 the South Slough and the R-15 zoning and density of the project and the resale value of the adjoining lots in the Chamberlain Estates Subdivision. As proposed, staff has several concerns with the design of the proposed subdivision. Prior to Commission staff did recommend the following revisions of the plat. There were several more that the -- in addition to these two that the applicant did address, so the number has decreased by a few. Staff requests of the applicant to add an additional open space lot -- let me get here to the plat, so you can see what I'm talking about here. Staff did recommend that -- just find my cursor here. That the lots right here where the green dot is, be included as an open space lot for the -- the lots on the south side of the South Slough and, thus, the applicant reconfigured the northwest corner of the proposed subdivision to allow for development or redevelopment of that parcel there in the northwest corner, which is currently not part of the subdivision and currently only has access to Ustick Road. The applicant did provide a -- an opportunity to do that through -- through an easement, which I have been given a copy of and that is in the public record, which the staff is a little bit uneasy with. I wanted to make sure that this was something that we talked about right away. They have -- the applicant or Mr. Conger has proposed a potential easement from the public road across a common lot to this unplatted approximately .8 acre parcel. The easement -- the language in the easement requires that this property owner accept said easement, as well as construct the easement. As far as staff is concerned we do not want this property to continue with their access to Ustick Road upon redevelopment and the opportunity or the rejection of this cross -access we feel would be likely if the applicant -- or the owner of this property would be required to construct, as well as accept that. There is no requirement that they do so in the proposed easement from the applicant. Staff still does recommend that there be stubbed a public road to that parcel through this subdivision to provide that access. Having said that, I will move on. The proposed landscaping for the development does meet the requirements of the UDC of the total of 10.5 percent qualified open space. Our UDC does require the ten percent, so the applicant has provided in excess of that. Based on the preliminary plat, staff requires a minimum of one qualified site amenity be provided. The applicant proposed to provide a tot lot within the central common area on Lot 8, Block 3. A segment of the city's multi -use pathway along the north side of the -- an internal common lot to the north side of the South Slough and, then, as stated, staff recommends an additional open space lot be provided on Lot 32, Block 4, to provide an amenity to the lots on the south side of the South Slough. The pathway master plan, as I said, depicts a regional pathway on the site along the north side of the slough and will stub to both the east and the west sides. They are both undeveloped at this current time. The UDC requires all irrigation ditches, laterals, canals and drains to be piped unless left open as a waterway amenity as defined in UDC. City Council may waive this requirement for large capacity facilities. The applicant does request a waiver from Council to allow the South Slough to remain open due to large capacity and proposes to provide a bridge over the drain for vehicular and pedestrian crossing. The applicant has submitted some conceptual sample building elevations for the development which, as mentioned in the previous hearing, demonstrates the Homestead collection, the Village collection and the Cottage collection, which Mr. Conger had previously referenced. Because the lots that back up to East Ustick Road will be highly visible, staff recommends the rear Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 70 of 94 or sides of structures that face the street incorporate articulation through changes in material, color, modulation, and architectural elements, horizontal and vertical, to break up monotonous wall plains and roof lines. So, for per UDC 11 -3A -7A7, the developer is responsible to construct fencing adjacent to micropath connections to distinguish common from private areas. Additionally the UDC requires that the South Slough is required to be fenced with an open vision fence at least six feet in height, excuse me, and having an 11 gauge two inch mesh or the construction equivalent and the ability to deter access to the waterway. With that staff will stand for any questions you may have on the application. De Weerd: Council, any questions at this point for staff? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. Good evening. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Conger: Good evening, Madam Mayor. Jim Conger. 4824 West Fairview Avenue. Members of the Council as well. We did submit -- the original plat had 122 home sites in it. What you have in front of you today, which we have worked through with staff prior to the Planning and Zoning Commission has 118, where our density is right around 6.0 homes per acre. We are excited to present this Verado community to you. It's a perfect blend of matching three highly sought after housing products in an amazing location, which is a great fit within East Meridian. Are you on mine, Josh? That's perfect. Thank you. Not only do we have the three housing types, which is pretty unique on a project this small in all reality, we also have -- the next slide will bring that to better life, a project that has some great public benefits. As you can see on the aerial map, Verado will be a -- contributing to the ongoing success of the Eagle Road commercial services. It's -- this type of neighborhood should be located near these core services to help continue with -- with the success of the commercial. It's also important to note that Ustick is not only a busy arterial, but was recently improved to five lanes. With this project we will be completing road frontage improvements, as well as the landscape buffer to enhance the livability along this corridor. We will utilize existing water and sewer mains that are all around us. Existing property. The sewer actually runs through this property to the Packard Estates neighborhood. That is correct. Our seller actually provided the easement to allow the existing neighbors to the south to be developed and build their homes. We will be adding a section, as Josh indicated, of the city's master plan regional pathway system that is going to be on our South Boundary of our main part of a project, which is the Finch Lateral. That will be nicely placed against that existing environment of the -- of the open Finch Lateral, which I think will be the second or third portion of that regional pathway installed with the rest of it to follow. We will -- and I guess the last item and the benefit -- the ACHD benefit was -- was big and their staff report was just the connectivity. This entire region of Packard Estates doesn't have access out to Ustick. Everything flows to -- to the west of Locust Grove. We will be providing the key links that will actually let these -- not only vehicles, but pedestrians access to Ustick and, then, straight over to Eagle Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 71 of 94 Road. I will take a quick moment -- possibly -- to share with you the wonderful housing product that we have developed for the Verado community. We have, again, three different housing types. Our first product offering is the Village collection, which is single family homes that will be located in the core -- in the center of the project. It's not -- must not be punching it right. Next we have the Cottage collection, which is our single level attached product. That will be the single level against Ustick and possibly on our east boundary as well. That is it a popular model with our empty nesters clientele. The last is our Homestead collection, which consists of 21 larger traditional estate type home sites. Typical lot depths are round 130 feet. That is the product in the south area that's -- that's adjacent to the existing homes on both sides. The next item is our amenities. Josh indicated a tot lot. We don't -- don't -- with these neighborhoods we don't do the minimum requirements of the city. Our future residents require -- require a little bit more. We have put a lot into our -- our park amenities. Josh, could you hit play? It's not letting me find a play button. This will be quick. I promise you. It comes in off Ustick. We have buffered our park with all the -- from all the traffic coming in. We have two and a half acres of open space throughout the project on 19 acres. We have also designed the half acre community park, which you are seeing here with -- secured and fenced for child safety. We did that on our previous neighborhoods as well. The turf play area, seating benches, to name a few of the smaller amenities. Also a concrete track for kids riding their big wheels and scooters and you can see the swing set and climbing dome as well. As previously noted, we will also be building that regional pathway on our south boundary on that Finch Lateral, which is not only great for our residents, but for the general public as well. As you can see we have put a lot of time and effort and eventually resources, monetarily, into our park facilities as we find they are extremely important and they serve as essential gathering spots for our 118 home -- you know, homeowners. However, we are confused about staff's recommended condition to add an additional park. Josh had indicated that's on the south side of the Finch, but, actually, it's requested to be on the north side of the Finch Lateral. It would cause us to, you know, basically create a split park scenario, which would cause us to divert some of our resources of our main master plan park into this annexed park. As equally confusing, you can see that it's, yeah, approximately -- actually, a little bit less than 150 feet away from the master planned park -- would really create an unsafe condition for our homeowners. Our scenario that keeps going through our mind is you have got a parent tending to their three year old at the tot park on one side of the public street and she's got her ten year old that's on our climbing dome that now has to be moved to the sub park. Clearly this would cause frustration with parents or any of us having our kids playing between two parks that are separated by a public roadway. We see no merit in staff's request or no betterment to the project or the public with this request from staff and we urge you to do what the Planning and Zoning Commission did as they recommended deleting that condition and not creating the split park environment in this neighborhood. I had originally thought we were -- we were done with -- with -- I thought staff and myself were on the same page with -- with the cross -access, so apologize, I have got to run down to a side -- it's just really at the bottom of the proposal. So, the .8 acre county out -parcel -- you heard -- Josh indicated that staff is not satisfied with what we have done. What we have proposed is not putting the public Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 72 of 94 right of way against that out parcel. It's .8 acres that will have four or five lots in a best case scenario following a comp plan and following even what we have put next to them. That is you have an ordinance that allows six units to be accessed with a common driveway. We are simply proposing to provide the access for use once that becomes annexed and developed in the City of Meridian. There is no use in us providing a short, stubbed, common driveway that no one is going to maintain and -- and I think for our resident standpoint. We don't usually pull these, but we are keeping the public right of way away from this county outparcel, so we can spend a tremendous amount of money landscaping and buffering for our current neighborhoods and anybody driving down the public right of way. It currently is a fun little county parcel. It is not that fun to look at and we urge you to I guess approve the recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission that deleted the requirement to shove our public road up against that property boundary where we can accommodate them with this future common driveway. Josh, I got too cute. I -- everything disappeared on the left side and I tell you I'm not smart enough to put it all back. Beach: Hang on just a second. Conger: Yeah. Beach: Is that what you're trying to do? Conger: Yeah. I'm trying to go back to slide nine is fine. Thank you for helping me. So, for the last six months we have worked closely with the fire Department, the Police Department, Public Works, your Planning Department, the irrigation district, to obtain -- or get a project that's ready to obtain its approvals, as well as this project that was approved by ACHD. It was originally approved at staff level -- because they didn't have any public testimony, then, they can approve them staff level. It was then appealed by a neighbor. We actually had a public hearing at ACHD's commission two weeks ago and the appeal was denied and the original approval was upheld. We have worked continuously with city staff on the plat in front of you tonight and we do appreciate their guidance and assistance and respectfully request that you approve the Verado project in accordance with the Planning and Zoning recommended conditions of approval, which, basically, approved the staff report -- can you go to number ten, Josh, for me. This thing won't move. Number ten. Can you put up that left bar on the left side? Somehow the slides moved -- yeah. Beach: I don't know where that bar went. Conger: Thank you. So, with approval tonight we would request that you uphold the Planning and Zoning recommendation to you that deleted condition item 1.12C3, which is the .8 acre outparcel and the reason they deleted that is our submitted plat of 5/17, which is in front of you today, accommodates it with a future common driveway that will allow them to have six lots and they still have access if it develops on the other side of it, but they won't develop more than six lots. They're saying also they deleted condition item 1.132, which is the split park. We definitely urge you not to have us split our park Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 73 of 94 and our amenities into two different locations on opposite sides of a public street within 150 feet of each other. It just makes no sense from a master planning standpoint of our community park area. Thank you and I look forward to your approval tonight. De Weerd: Council, any questions at this point? Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Sorry, Dean. Mr. Cavener. Cavener: Jim, the condition 1.132 your split park, can we maybe pull that slide up? I think the applicant had an image that showed that. To me that appears be a landscaped pathway. Is that what I'm seeing and what's the difference -- I guess when you're referring to split park I'm just curious as to what you mean by that. Conger: Yeah. Madam Mayor, Council Member Cavener, what -- what that is that is the micropath location that -- that is required and we don't have any issue with to get to the regional pathway. The staff condition read that they would like one of the major amenities put in this out -- put in an additional park next to the pathway. We have two items. I think our private park doesn't need to be in the midst of the regional pathway. From an accessibility standpoint it doesn't make any sense. And, again, our park, you know, is a community parkway. It's not a -- I mean it is a pocket park on city standards, but it is the whole focal point of what this neighborhood was planned around. Cavener: Thanks. De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions for the applicant at this time? Okay. Thank you. I did have several people sign up. When I call your name if you would like to come forward and provide testimony. Robert Jenkins signed up against. Thank you for your patience and hanging in there with us. Jenkins: No problem. De Weerd: If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Jenkins: Robert Jenkins. 2127 East Kamay Drive in Meridian. De Weerd: Thank you. Jenkins: Well, we went to the Planning and Zoning and we had a petition with 150 signatures on it. We had over -- well over 30 people show up for that and, then, people got discouraged, because they felt like they -- nothing happened and they weren't listened to, but we just think the R-15 zoning is -- it's surrounded by a sea of R-4 and R-8 and they are proposing to just plop in the middle of all that R-4 and R-8 zoning an R-15, leading to more R-15 on each side of that and connecting into our Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 74 of 94 neighborhood across the canal. The Ada County Highway District estimated just for this 1,116 car trips -- vehicle trips per -- per day with only two access points, one to Ustick Road and one through our neighborhood. Then when you add the future development that is on the sides of that, we are looking at thousands of cars into our neighborhood, completely changing the character of our neighborhood and at least if it was all R-8 like Chamberlain Estates or -- Packard is R-4 and we aren't even asking for that, at least that would lessen the impact on us. During the P&Z they talked about connectivity and Mr. Conger did tonight. Frankly, from our point — point of view all we are going to get from connectivity is four, six or eight hundred cars through our neighborhood. So, it isn't a benefit to us. So, we would just like — if you would consider denying the R-15. If you're going to approve the R-15, then, we would like to see some conditions — I think Andy Pipal will touch on one of them. The other one that I have talked to with people in Chamberlain Estates and Packard is requiring single — single story elevations facing all of Chamberlain Estates. It's all single story. They are going to end up with two or three houses overlooking their backyards it doesn't seem right. So, if we could get a requirement that the — the back elevation facing Packard or Chamberlain be required to be a single story elevation. They could still have two story homes, but the back elevation would have to be single story. I think that would mitigate some of the — and help with the transition from the existing neighborhood into their R-15. So, that's about it. De Weerd: Mr. Jenkins, you live on Kamay? Is that — Jenkins: Yes. De Weerd: -- where you said? The north side of Kamay, is that a little neighborhood pocket park? Jenkins: That's — that's a common area that's actually the drainage area for the road. De Weerd: Okay. And it has a little pathway through it? Jenkins: To Packard Estates, yes. De Weerd: Thank you. Counsel, any questions for the citizen? Mr. Jenkins? Thank you. Jenkins: Thank you. De Weerd: Silva Jenkins signed up against. Lorinda Stocker signed up against. And -- okay. Derlin — was I close enough? Okay. Signed up against. Randy Pipal signed up against. Pipal: Madam Mayor, Members of the City Council, my name is Randy Pipal, I'm representing Packard Estates Homeowners Association. I submitted written testimony, so I'm going to blaze through this, because some of this is already — you have already Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 75 of 94 seen — again I'm president of Packard. In my written testimony I made — there is an error. I said there were 300 plus homes in Packard. There is actually only 237. 1 was somewhat vague and so I apologize. De Weerd: No problem. Pipal: It should be 237. De Weerd: You could have just said a lot. Pipal: A bunch. So, we have major — our two concerns and suggestions we have — we would like to see consistency throughout the interface with Packard Estates, Packard Acres. Packard Estates is made up of a couple different versions of Packard Estates Subdivisions and Packard Acres. So, we are all one big homeowners association. The other concern we have is with the Finch Lateral, which has been referred to as the South Slough and the safety of that. This is a slide that I actually stole from the developer from his P&Z meeting. You can see that we are in this area here. It's Packard Estates. It actually goes clear out and down. We are totally surrounded by R-8. Every entrance, every exit out of our subdivision is through an R-8 neighborhood. We do not directly exit onto any arterial street. So, this is the plat that we were looking at. It's got some notations on it with our suggestions. What I'm going to go to now is this area here — oops. Maybe. So, this is Block 7 of the proposed application. All of these lots are zoned R-8. They are all 60 foot wide minimum. So, will go to this area next. So, this is an interface directly with Packard Estates down here. Here is the canal and the road going across. These lots are all zoned R-8. However, they are 40 foot across here. We would like to see those changed to 60 foot minimums. We like the R-8. We would just like to see the 60 foot to keep consistency across the board. Again, going to this area and his split park thing, we would like this area to either be zoned R-8 with, again, the 60 foot requirement, all of those lots, with the exception of 12 and 13 would meet that requirement -- 12 and 13 could easily be combined. Now, I'm not — I am saying I am not a developer — I mean a surveyor, I just said from a simple standpoint you could combine those and it would meet the R-8 requirement with the 60 foot face. Finally, we are concerned — we are concerned with the Finch Lateral. Currently the pink line that you see here is a six foot high chain link fence that we maintain, including across the stub road here. The West Ada County School District estimates that there will be 98 kids living in the subdivision. School-age kids. Obviously, not all of them will be elementary school. However, all the elementary school will be in the walk zone for River Valley Elementary. The only access to River Valley Elementary is through this area across that bridge. We all know how water is a magnet for kids. So, we are concerned. That's why we have a six foot fence in place. We would like to see -- now, I said that that we would like to see a fence. I understand that's -- is that part of the proposal? I'm confused at this point. So, either fencing or to cover the whole thing. And I — that is all I have. So, I will stand for questions. Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 76 of 94 De Weerd: Thank you, Randy. Council, any questions? Okay. Thank you. Was there any further testimony from anyone that's here this evening? Okay. Conger: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Jim Conger. 4824 West Fairview. I will jump in. I think the — I think this map will illustrate the best and kind of jump in and address the zoning and the density concerns. This zoning map identifies what you have already heard and what you have known. You have got a little pocket of R-4 and the rest is R-8 going around. What we've done is, you know, with using the guidelines of your Comprehensive Plan, working with your staff months in advance of, you know, drawing preliminary plats, with Ustick being five lanes, major arterial, as you -- with any land planning as you go into these heavier use roadways you radiate with your density. In the -- in the R-15 we have radiated with our density. Between the R-8 existing homes and R-4 existing homes you have a regional pathway, which per your own Comprehensive Plan is a very intensive use — intensive might be the wrong word. Very active corridor. So, you have the buffer of the corridor. You have their storm drain facility, which is the landscaped area, Madam Mayor, that you were indicating and, then, we did work with staff -- or, more appropriately put, staff worked with us and implied those or put on those R-8 planned areas, which are right here, to not only buffer the existing west — well, not really county neighbor, because there isn't one right there, but — but also to buffer to the south. So, from a density and zoning, we are using your comp plan and density should radiate as you go towards Ustick and getting near those busy, heavy arterial roadways. I think it is important to note our entire density is blended out at R-6. We might be near the seven in the R-15 area and we are, obviously, three and a half or four in the — in the back area where we put the larger home sites to blend with the existing houses. As far as traffic goes, you know, this project is really— what am I trying to say? Obviously, we are sympathetic to traffic. You guys hear traffic in every -- every neighborhood group that — that comes in. It's understand — I guess critical to understand that we are not creating the traffic, we are simply making the required connection at this location and at this location. Our neighbors are not -- I don't know if any of you have driven through Packard lately. Nobody is going to go out the back side of Packard unless there was a reason that Ustick Road wasn't even open I guess. So, it's — it's simply providing the connection for those homes. I understand Mr. Jenkins, he has lived on a cul-de-sc that's had two stub roads for the — for future expansion. I understand the luxury they have had at the end of this and I get that and I'm sympathetic to that. I would feel the same way. They were in the original land plan for Packard Estates and they are set to be connected and, again, the alignment of the road that we are putting across here is the sewer that was already put across this property. So, that roadway was predetermined so those individuals could have their neighborhood developed. We believe — and the traffic study in Ada County, if you read your staff report, this is actually going to ease their traffic concerns on Locust Grove, because it actually is going to open and make this whole — from a pedestrian and a vehicular standpoint flow. I guess touching back on zoning, this type of product -- this type of project on the busy road at Ustick within a stone's throw of Eagle Road and all the commercial services is what we believe your Comprehensive Plan and what smart planning is actually guiding and aiming us to do. Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 77 of 94 So, with that we are excited to move this project forward and we appreciate your approval tonight. De Weerd: Council, any questions? I guess I would like you to address some of the comments that Mr. Pipal had in terms of the reduced density and better transition to the existing neighborhood, in particular on — on your R-8 on the east side and transition the — the larger lot into probably the more R-8 focus lots. Conger: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, if I'm hearing your question right, you are indicating how we transition in here? Is that the first question? De Weerd: Uh-huh. Conger: And, you know, we have always had -- well, this property laid itself out to have three different types of product. As I said that it's fairly unique on a project that's relatively — you know, not small, but small. We had always started our land plans and it's not changed for our first visit to the city is matching as close as we could with what would be a traditional front -loaded two and three car garage homes. If you look at our renderings some of them with three cars and some may be two, depending — depending on the product or depending on the builder. Hunting and peck. Do you think we can show the left side, Josh? The cheater bar. Beach: So, you want me to show the — Conger: Yeah. Yeah. Can you show what I was just — and I think from a — from a — well, I'm after the elevations. Beach: Oh, I see. Conger: Yeah. I'm sorry, Josh. For some reason it's not wanting to let me control it that well. I'm sure it's the operator. But what we have done — and go back one — one more -- go back one more. Sorry. There is -- I don't know what button we all hit, but it jumbled it. Never seen such a thing. Point being is the homes adjacent to us and Mr. Jenkins in particular, they are all two story homes specifically in the Packard Estates side, not on the Chamberlain side. This home here is actually Mr. Jenkins'. It is two story in parts. They actually aren't living to that side of the house. I think our new neighbors are putting backyard to backyard. These particular homes -- if I — I don't dare go back to a site plan, but you would -- you would see they're all substandard depths. So, when Packard Estates was built they actually ran out of room on these last homes and these bigger homes -- large homes and lots were all 90 and 93 feet deep, which -- but they — but they made them wider. So, you will see that we have one and a half homes to their lots and things of that nature. Well, their lots are 93 feet deep. Ours are 130 feet deep. They had to be wider lots, because they just simply ran out of real estate when they were doing their land plan. We've all done it. We've got to the end and we have 93 foot deep lots, which means you have to be super wide. So, they are super wide because they are big lots, they are super wide because they Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 78 of 94 are 93 feet deep. Again, another one of the homes that's backing up to us. So, I think, Madam Mayor, that's our justification of the 21 home sites that we are calling the traditional front loaded, three cars and two cars. I think our transition into the — if you could go to our site plan, Josh, please. Our transition to an R-15 zoning, I think we -- is always harder to hear than to realize. The R-15 zoning, everybody thinks zoning is - - is really picked because of density. Well, zoning is really never picked because of density and that's what we call misconception of the zoning selection. Zoning is actually picked because R-15 is picked for the dimension standards. The lot sizes. The setbacks. The square footage and the lot widths. The — the really bi-product is the density. We are at six units per acre and possibly as you get towards Ustick we might be getting seven if you took a spot area. So, our density isn't high and everybody is looking at the R-15 — I mean, obviously, that would be 280 units or whatever it would be on the property and we have 118 on paper. So, R-15 I think is — is not the issue. We have a development agreement that will cap us at the 118 lots. It's just the way your zoning code is written — and, quite honestly, I have said this before, Boise's is the same way, so it's not your code. If you are trying to get four units per acre you're using an R-8. If you're trying to get two units per acre you get the R-4, because it's the dimensional standards. It's not the density. De Weerd: Well, I guess what I heard the neighbors saying is — is how to transition into their side of the slough or the lateral and when you see the transition, two lots to their one, it -- it seems -- I did not hear too much in regard to the density to the north of them, it's just what abutted them and how you — our councils have always been a little sensitive to how that transition is as you do your land use and so that was more my question for you is in terms of can you look at that in terms of maybe putting work -- you had a lot of density, so it's hard to say where you can switch some of those lots, so you don't — you don't have one and a half lots per neighboring lot. You have two and that -- I would be concerned about that, too. Conger: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, so, again, this is a better plan to — to illustrate how we are blending in. Yes, we have basically one — one location -- we have one location and we are going to make this right, because it's going to be important to illustrate our point here to make everybody comfortable. That was the plan — that was a great plan, it just — the machine's froze up here and wouldn't write. In fact, I would take that -- that plat of the entire area again, just like you had, Josh. That was your — pretty sure that was your slide. Beach: You want to go back to my — Conger: Yeah. Yes. That's prefect. So, I think — what I don't understand, Josh, is why it froze it. Beach: I'm not sure — Conger: So, we need to be able to point at something or — Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 79 of 94 Beach: Sure. The area you're trying to point at, the — Conger: Yeah. No. I — so, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, so I think the area of concern -- what I'm hearing is we have two lots here and it's — it's not quite two lots, but it's close enough to call it two lots. This is where I was talking about. These are substandard depth lots. They ran out of room. These are 93 feet deep. They had to be wide, because they are a house that lives differently. We've all done it. The garages live beside the home. That's how you get a lot on a 93, 90 foot deep home site. So, they are nontraditional homes that I'm not putting two homes up to their living area, I'm putting one home up to their garage and one home up to their living area, because they had a substandard lot when they put this in. If you look where my house is right now -- now this is a sideway approach, but they have a little more than two lots against their own house on their interior and if you come to this side these are all a bit goofy, but it's one and a half or what have you, one and almost a half of their lots. So, I don't think -- and this has two lots where my mouse is right now. They have two lots backing up their one lot. They ended up putting lots every different direction and substandard depth. So, I don't think this neighborhood is — is not used to having two homes backing up to one, I have shown you two cases where it's occurred at two and one case where there was one and a half. We happen to have one particular location where we have the two lots. Everything else is one and half. This is the two backing up to theirs, but, again, these are the same two backing up to their one. So, I think the only area of question would -- in my mind that isn't matching exactly what they're doing within their own plat would be these two and, again, that is a 90 foot deep lot because of the bend and everything else, when they tried to get the additional four lots back in there where this house clearly has garage on one side and living on the other and you get — you get what I call the wide house. De Weerd: Well, alts I'm saying is these are larger lots, they are good size homes and I can understand their concern about compatibility and transition. I think your densities to the north, while I wouldn't buy them, I — it's a road of garages, but — I don't know. I understand what they are requesting and if you have any flexibility to — to look at shifting some of those so you have better transition. Conger: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, all of these land plans -- I mean we've already given up four for flexibility of transition across from — from their two. We have worked hard in that middle area with what we brought in. We did not bring the -- you know, the thought of bringing in more and attempting to negotiate out, we — we brought in and were very clear up front in the neighborhood meeting what — what seemed to be the right number. These will be three car garages. Most of them will be two story. I don't know most. Half and half, possibly, facing -- you know, backing up to a two story at that same location and one of it's backing up to the garage and the other is backing up to the house. I think we blend in well with what lots were -- were coming across. They are wide. I don't know that they are necessarily big. De Weerd: We can agree to disagree. Council, any other questions? Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 80 of 94 Conger: Thanks for your time. De Weerd: Thank you. Beach: Madam Mayor, if I can be quick, I don't want to kind of beat this to death, but I think that — I wanted to make sure that we at least discuss it one more time. The — the applicant had submitted, as I said, an easement plan for this property here and the staff isn't necessarily against the idea of having a common driveway, as well as — going back up. We are not against the idea of having a common driveway there. A common driveway there. A common driveway allows for up to six home at .8 acres. So, I think that property could develop this way. The issue that -- that staff has with it specifically -- and maybe to back up one more time. This lot here was part of this larger piece at one point. Checking with the county it was split off prior to -- I think the date was '82 for it to be considered a legal lot and so it's its own, it's legal. We went to the county and checked all that out. So, having said that, we want this lot to be able to connect internally to some subdivision. Now, as you know, there is a -- this lot -- this large lot here is undeveloped, but we don't know how that's going to develop in the future or what's going to happen and I think because this is part of this larger lot or part of this larger lot, we would like to see some ability to include this and remove the access to Ustick Road and have this property take access from this development and it can be from a common lot, like I said. The issue staff has is this specific ingress - egress easement and the wording that requires this developer to accept the cross - access and to construct it themselves. I think -- if we are going to go this route our staff's recommendation is that the applicant reword this so that it's a cross -access and that the applicant be responsible for constructing a stub -- that would be a common drive, but stub that so that there is the opportunity to require that property owner to use that in the future. The way it's worded now it's a bit clunky and it doesn't -- there is no teeth there to require this property owner to use that, if that makes sense. So, I just -- I just wanted to throw that out one more time for discussion to think about that, so -- De Weerd: Well, I appreciate you look at that, but I wouldn't want that property going through my subdivision either. Thanks. Hood: Madam Mayor, if I can just clarify, it wouldn't be an existing condition, it would be upon redevelopment and that is in the agreement that they have drafted as far as upon annexation of the city and approval by the Council that's when this can be access for that property. Not -- not today. Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, it would be unusual, to say the least, to not require a cross -access and not require the developer put it in and not leave it to the next property owner to opt for it or not. I can't think of any development that we have ever done that. I mean if it doesn't exist the highway district won't have any way to Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 81 of 94 require to use it. So, if it exists, the highway district, when they redevelop, will have a means to require to use it. If you look at a larger aerial map of this area, currently this property doesn't have any access to Ustick. It's access is to Locust Grove, so -- but if there is no cross -access through this direction, then, the highway district is sort of left in a quandary, because there is only one access onto Locust and that's a fairly good size property to have only one access out. So, I think that's why the staff is suggesting one. It's fairly common to require cross -access. It's almost always required that the developer build it and provided it, not necessarily to put it on the next person to have to accept it and build it on their property. So, I think that's really the consistency I thought we were looking for. De Weerd: I normally agree with you on the cross -access, but it's a real awkward access and it goes into a real high density development that you almost force a high density use on that piece of property to -- to be compatible, so -- that would be my concern. Council, do you need any further information from the applicant, staff or any of the neighbors? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Hearing none, I take it, Council, we are ready to close the public hearing? De Weerd: Well, you can give it a try. Bird: I will give it a try and see if it comes back up. I move we close the public hearing on H-2016-0047. Borton: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Palmer: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Palmer. Palmer: Madam Mayor. So, if I made the motion to do that, how would I have to word that? That the future developer of the other lot accept in -- or do we just leave that out and we will just waive the condition to have to construct the driveway? How should the motion read? Anybody? Hood: Madam Mayor? Councilman Palmer, not -- so just to clarify, right now the Planning and Zoning Commission struck out the requirement to move the public street Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 82 of 94 over and provide access to that point acre -- .8 acre parcel. There isn't a condition, as currently written, about shifting that over. So, that's -- if you do nothing there will be no connectivity. Palmer: Okay. So, the only condition, then, that we would be looking to waive would be the park on the southern end of the property? Or well -- yeah. So, if you look at 1.1.32, that's another condition that the planning and zoning struck out, was that that lot be provided for another common lot. Palmer: So, it's all good. All right. Madam Mayor, I move that we approve H-2016- 0047 as presented. Bird: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve this item. Discussion from Council? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: While I seconded it I'm not sure I'm going to support it. I -- the density in this is -- is unreal. The R-15 is the density and I don't know why we keep getting it coming through here, but we do. So, I -- I think -- I think we need to make the -- excuse me -- the density -- start looking at our densities a lot more than just letting a lot of high density come in. I understand the neighbors. I mean R-8 is -- it's enough. Palmer: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Palmer. Palmer: Madam Mayor, on that point, looking at an aerial view on Google Earth it was showing that, you know, on one of the properties that will be adjacent to this development, there is actually three homes overlooking one of the -- that already exist. There are three homes overlooking it and they are all two stories overlooking another property. You know, given the funky -- the configuration of the existing homes there and as I -- it's certainly -- I mean I think you mentioned that they would allow up to 200 and some odd properties go with the development agreement being that 118 was going to be the limit, it's -- it's not that dense, even though we have this scary R-15 as you pointed out -- is not throwing in as much as he possibly could, he's going for the configuration of the lots. But the density makes sense to me. Especially being up against an arterial. Period. Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 83 of 94 Cavener: Just for clarification, did the maker of the motion, then, include the removal of condition 1.12C and 1.13? De Weerd: He -- his motion was to approve the recommendation from Planning and Zoning. Okay. Is there any further discussion? Madam Clerk, will you call roll. Roll Call: Bird, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, absent; Cavener, yea; Palmer, yea, Little Roberts, yea. De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Okay. Item 8-F is -- Cavener: Take a break? De Weerd: Oh, yes. I'm sorry, we made you guys wait all this time, but -- thank you. We need to take a break. We have been here since 6:00. Well, so have you. But we are going to take a ten minute break. (Recess.) F. Public Hearing for Rainier Villas (H-2016-0041) by Aaron Elton Located West of N. Meridian Road and South of E. Franklin Road 1. Request: Preliminary Plat Approval of Twenty -Three (23) Residential Lots and Four (4) Common Lots on 5.354 in an Existing C -G Zoning District 2. Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval for Ninety - Two (92) MultiFamily Dwelling Units on Approximately 5.354 Acres in an Existing C -G Zoning District De Weerd: -- the next item for -- thank you bearing with us and letting us take a break. You will be happier that we were able to. So, Item 8-F is a public hearing for H-2016- 0041. 1 will ask for staff comments at this time. Beach: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is an application for a conditional use permit and for a preliminary plat. The site consists of 5.35 acres of land -- bear with me one second here. So, C -G located west of South Meridian Road on the north side of West Corporate Drive between South Meridian Road and Southwest 5th Avenue. In 2008 the property was platted as part of the Trade Plaza preliminary plat. The previous plat has since expired and this is a remnant parcel that must be Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 84 of 94 subdivided in order to be eligible for a building permit. One of the reasons why they are a preliminary plat. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation for this piece is commercial. The proposed preliminary plat consists of 15 -- excuse me -- 15 multi -family residential building lots and five common lots on approximately 5.35 acres of land in an existing C -G zoning district. The average lot size for the proposed development is 7,500 square feet. The UDC does not require a minimum lot size in the C -G zoning district. The multi -family residential development is proposed to consist of 92 dwelling units within 11 two story structures and four three story structures. Again, approximately 5.35 acres of land. The units will consist of two and three bedrooms, with a minimum size of 850 square feet. The applicant has proposed a pool, a sports court, a public art or statue and a grassy area, which is 50 by 100 feet in size as an amenity. The Commission did recommend approval of this conditional use permit and preliminary plat. Summary of the public hearing. The applicant's representative Shannon Robnet and Aaron Nelson were in favor of the application. There was none in opposition. Both Aaron Nelson and Shannon Robnet commented on the application. Did not receive any written testimony. I was the staff presenting the application. There were no other staff commenting. Key issues of discussion by the Commission were the amount of open space for the development. Number and type of amenities appropriate for a multi -family development of this size and access to the development and whether to require a cross -access or provide two access points onto Corporate Drive. Key Commission changes to staff recommendations were a modified condition number 1.1.3E. Instead of removing the building located on Lot 7, Block 1, and constructing a separate clubhouse, the Commission required that the applicant convert one of the units into a fitness facility and one into a property management office. They modified condition number 1.1.7. With the conversion of the two units from residential to a property management office and fitness facility the unit count went from 92 units to 90 units. They modified condition number 1.1.31. Commission did not require a clubhouse as an amenity for the development. They removed condition number 1.1.4C. Condition did not require that Lot 7, Block 1, be removed for the development -- from the development. Outstanding issues for City Council. The applicant is requesting approval for an additional access to West Corporate Drive. Condition 1.1.3G reflects that request. Commission made a recommendation to allow the second access to Corporate Drive in lieu of a cross - access to the property to the east. We have not received any written testimony since the Commission hearing. So, as you see on the plat here, access to the development is proposed from an extension of Southwest 3rd Street -- or, excuse me, Southwest 3rd Avenue here into a cul-de-sac and from Corporate Drive the applicant is proposing two access points to Corporate Drive here where my -- both locations here where my mouse is. Corporate Drive is a -- is a collector roadway, so in order to get approval for a second access the applicant needs to -- has asked for permission from Council to grant that. There is an existing cross -access here to the Trade Winds Subdivision is this currently undeveloped lot, so that would not be something that would be utilized at this point, it would have to be upon development of that parcel. If you go further to the east the bank there is on the corner of Meridian Road and Corporate Drive, so there is not a ton of opportunity right now for a cross -access, but staff, knowing that this is a collector roadway, has added the condition and the applicant has requested that they Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 85 of 94 be granted a second access to Corporate Drive. The applicant will have to actually get a reciprocal cross -access and shared parking agreement between all the lots within the subdivision to insure that they will have access to local streets and the applicant must include a note on the face of the final plat that details the requirement of -- of requiring that reciprocal cross -access. The UDC requires detached sidewalks to be constructed along all collector streets. The applicant is also proposing two construction a five foot wide attached sidewalk adjacent to Southwest 3rd Avenue and a five foot wide detached sidewalk along Corporate Drive. Staff recommends that the applicant provide sidewalks along both sides of the drive aisle from the entrance off of Southwest 3rd Street. So, staff is recommending that both on the east and on the west side the applicant provide an attached sidewalk. Conditional use permit is requested for the development for a multi -family residential development. As I said, that is a requirement in the UDC for the conditional -- or for the C -G zone. The site develops with amenities and open space in commensurate with the size of the development. Staff recommends that the site develop with no more than 88 dwelling units and staff is recommending that the applicant remove one of the buildings to provide some additional open space. Having said that, the applicant, based on the analysis of the open space, has provided the required square footage of open space, even when they include a 50 by 100 area as an amenity, they can't be counted -- you can't double dip. So, it's either -- it's either an amenity or it counts towards your open space. But having said that, the applicant does meet that requirement. They have provided about 23,000 square feet of open space -- or is required to provide 23,000. They are providing about 38,000 square feet of open space. Moving back to the amenities. Developments 20 units or more are to provide a property management office, a maintenance storage area, and a central mailbox location. The applicant has provided those things. Four amenities are required for the development and, as I said, the applicant's proposing an open grassy area of 50 by 100 feet in size of a swimming pool, a public art or statue and a sports court. The design of the 12-plex structures as proposed by the applicant does not meet the current standards of the architectural standards, so the applicant will need to work with staff in meeting those requirements. And with that I will stand for any questions you may have on the application. De Weerd: Council, any questions? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. Would the applicant like to comment? Elton: Madam Mayor -- De Weerd: Good evening. Elton: Oh, my name? Aaron Elton. Office address is listed -- as listed in the application is 2949 East Copperpoint, Suite 125, Meridian. Also I'm a Meridian resident. I feel like I'm kind of building a kindship here. I didn't think it was going to be this late, but thank you so much for spending time. I thought it would be kind of fun Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 86 of 94 with no audience, other than people that I know here, maybe I could present in the form of one of our presidential candidates or something like that, but -- have a little fun with it this late at night. De Weerd: May as well. Elton: Right. There are three primary issues that were raised that I would just kind of -- I want to try to make this as painless as possible and as quick as possible and open up for questions. The first is the open space. I'm glad Josh outlined that. We are required for the 23,000. We have got 38,000 proposed and even if you take the 5,000 out for that one open space amenity it still -- we are still 145 percent compliant. We feel like we are well overcompliant. Same with parking. We are overcompliant. The amenities -- the discussions -- I want to point out that there has -- I think there was a miscommunication in Planning and Zoning and that is that we would need two units for -- for the fitness center and the clubhouse. We don't need that space and it's my recollection that we didn't necessarily go into detail and that at the end they moved for two units to be for that. So, what I would request of Council tonight is to change it from -- to moving down from '90 to '91. We will use a unit. What we want to do -- if you're familiar with the -- I'm sorry. Let me back up and explain what the four-plexes look like. If you're familiar with the pinwheel floor plan, which is the -- a number of them have been built in Meridian. We know that folks love that floor plan. We love it. It's a desired product and we feel like this is a great place to put it and it's close -- you know, in walking distance to shopping and restaurants and other things like that. We feel like this is a good location that that won't disrupt other residents either. So, the pinwheel floor plan has -- essentially you all have -- instead of a typical floor plan -- four-plex where you walk in and you have, you know, stairs to go up, this floor plan has your own door on the first floor of all four sides of the building. So, you have -- it kind of feels like you're walking into your unit more than walking into an open space or floor. That presents a challenge when we are trying to convert some of these units into a -- into two things, into an office and a fitness center. So, what we want to do is take the four-plex and, essentially, we will tweak one of them for the floor -- the bottom floor to be both -- sorry. Two units that will be changed into -- we will have a living unit above and, then, the office will be combined with the -- you know, combining those two units below with the fitness center. So, we will have both of those. That's -- that's the first piece that we would ask council tonight is that I think a communication error was made with Planning and Zoning, but we do generally agree with what they -- what they came out with. On the amenities side, we are -- we feel like we are overcompliant as well, because, like Josh said, with the number of units we have got here we are required to have four. If you count each of ours we need to have quality of life. We need to have open space and recreation. We have covered each of those. Quality of life would be the fitness center. Open space, we have got that -- the 60 by 100 piece that we talked about. And, then, with the recreation -- with this number of units it's hard to justify sometimes, especially with demand and how the whole thing comes together to put what I would call a normal size pool in there. But the pool is, essentially, the most expensive amenity that we would add. We agree with staff that that's probably the most desirable thing that we would add to this, even with what I feel is a pretty low Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 87 of 94 number of units to throw a pool in there along with all these other amenities. We are agreeable to that. It's expensive, but I think it's the right thing to do. It will make the place nice and it will -- you know, that helps us, because it will make the units more desirable. So, having given the -- the rec -- the pool and the recreation piece, we are also going to have some walking paths. We had proposed a sport court, but I think both staff and Planning and Zoning agreed that the sport court, a basketball court, isn't necessary there, so we are willing to pull that out. So, we are covered on amenities. And, then, the last one we talked about the -- the cross -access. We feel strongly and Planning and Zoning agreed in their motion, that the cross -access to the east appears to be totally unnecessary and, actually, I think it hinders it if you look at how it would go. If you look at the -- the map -- I guess we are on a different slide here, but on the site plan here -- could I use this pen? Will it point? But it would -- yeah. There we go. We would have to be -- being approximate here, but the cross -access would come through the east side here and come down and still connect to Corporate. We have still got to connect to Corporate. Now, this would be a future piece, but what we are saying is coming right here on the east side of our property just makes a lot more sense for multiple reasons and I think even for safety reasons it's good to have that other access here now, rather than cutting this part off and having future cross -access with that eastern parcel. So, we are trying to have another access point and I think it benefits everybody, including safety, but also the tenants will like that better, the residents there. So, those are the key pieces that I have and would open up to questions. De Weerd: Council, any questions? Is this under one management group or are you going to sell them off individually or -- Elton: We are trying to keep that option open, but we plan to hold it as one piece. But as you can see it's -- the plat -- the plan is that we could sell units individually. De Weerd: Council, any questions? :1ToMIITVVYinitM De Weerd: Anyone want to provide testimony? Good evening. Robnet: It is late in the evening, isn't it? My name is Shannon Robnet. 5103 Zamora. I'm development partners with Aaron Elton. A couple things I wanted to bring up. In our CC&Rs, regardless of whether we manage this as a whole or sell it off, it will be managed by one entity. So, we will have a -- we will have a manager. We will have it just like it's an apartment complex. So, if you want to buy a four-plex that's great, mean, you know, everybody wants to own something; right? But you're still going to be -- you're not going to be the guy. You're going to have someone like Park Place does a great job. There is several other great people in town that do that kind of thing that's not going to make it a lot less here. The second thing I want to point out that I think Josh did was that the Trade Winds deal to the east, that preliminary plat expired, so there was a cross -access easement written, but it expired. So, what are we tied to? Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 88 of 94 And, then, the last point is that the Trade Winds piece is less than four acres -- less than three acres -- less than two acres and you're going to funnel all of our traffic through their undeveloped piece for what they decide to do in the future, instead of doing it the reverse? Any questions? De Weerd: Council, any questions? :IToMII 021[TOT11� Robnet: It's good to see you, Keith. Bird: Good to see you, Shannon. De Weerd: Do you have anything left to say? Do you want to answer his question? Elton: I don't have anything further to add. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we close the public hearing on H-2016-0041. Palmer: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on Item 8-F. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: I wanted to ask what the statue was of. I forgot. I guess I will have to wait until it's built. Mr. Bird. Bird: Madam Mayor, I move that we approve H-2016-0041, and don't require the stub street to the east and include all staff, applicant, and public testimony. Palmer: Second. Beach: Mr. Bird, just to clarify, were you allowing for the second access to Corporate Drive? Bird: Yes. Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 89 of 94 Beach: Okay. I just wanted to make sure that was clear. De Weerd: Okay. Any discussion by Council? Madam Clerk, will you call roll. Roll Call: Bird, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, absent; Cavener, yea; Palmer, yea, Little Roberts, yea. De Weerd: And, Mr. Bird, just to clarify, you did change that from the -- the 90 to 91 units? Bird: Yes. De Weerd: Per testimony. Bird: I'm sorry, Tammy. De Weerd: Okay. Just wanted to verify. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 9: Department Reports A. City Council: Discussion Regarding the Use of Mobile Devices and Social Media During City Council Meetings and By City Councilmembers B. Parks and Recreation Department: Bellano Creek Neighborhood Park Design and Naming Request C. Parks and Recreation Department: Bainbridge Neighborhood Park Design D. Community Development: Transportation Projects Update - Discuss Transportation Related Studies, Plans and Projects Including: Ustick Road, Franklin Road and Idaho Avenue De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Thank you for lasting this out. We are under Item 9 under Department Reports. We are going to move A, B and C to -- and D to the next council meeting on the 28th. Hood: Sorry. De Weerd: Do you need something immediate? Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 90 of 94 Hood: I don't, Madam Mayor, but I -- I mean typically I do this day in and day out, but I am taking my family on vacation and I will not be here for the next ten days, so I can't -- I can't attend. Everything I have regarding D is actually in the memo, so we can either do it in two weeks when I get back, but I can't do it next week or, again, most of everything is in the memo you have in your packet, so I was just going to kind of supplement that and stand for any questions you have on the memo. But next Tuesday will not work well for D. De Weerd: Okay. We will do it -- we will put you on the first week of July and -- for any questions that Council may have. Hood: I actually get back on the 5th, so I will work with the clerk on getting it on the 12th, so -- De Weerd: Geez. Hood: I know. E. Police Department: Approval of Budget Amendment for Records Lead Position Elevated to Records Supervisor Position, Not to Exceed $20,894.00 De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Who gave you that much time off? Item 8-E is under the Police Department, so I will turn this over to Lieutenant Colaianni. Colaianni: Madam Mayor, Council, thank you. I wanted to so bad say good morning, but we didn't quite make it. De Weerd: Oh, thank God. Colaianni: But I do want to thank you for putting us in front of Legal, because that means I'm not completely last, that there is somebody behind me. The lateness of the hour I'm going to be as brief as I can. I'm coming to you tonight to ask for a budget amendment. I know that there is a lot of consternation when it comes to budget amendments, especially this late in the game, but I wouldn't be asking for it if it wasn't important and if it wasn't something we needed now. We have a situation where we have a position within the department -- within the records department is a record lead and data lead position and in the last month the -- the lady that was in that position stepped down from it. She doesn't feel like she has the skills and the ability to continue to do that and the leadership. Luckily for me we had had a retirement within the unit, so she can kind of just move into a position that's vacated right now. So, that still leaves me with this open position. It is a budgeted FTE, a full-time FTE, and what I'm wanting to do is to elevate that position from a data -- senior data clerk to a records supervisor. By doing that and working with Human Resources and Finance it does elevate the pay band, which is the reason I'm here. Strategically we need this. I need this. We are getting ready to start the process of migrating and copying over data from Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 91 of 94 the New World project from Boise City over to Meridian here in the next few months. Quite honestly, the workload in records with the public records requests increasing, the public records request with body worn videos, the technology trying to go paperless, there is just a lot of things going on there that I think it's going to lend better for us by having that be a supervisor position, rather than a lead position. I can't turn to my other records staff for it, because I have one person that's been there a year and two people that have been there about six months. I have had two people retire and I have had one person go to the code enforcement unit and one person go to analytical services, so I'm starting from the ground. So, I need a leader in there, I need someone with some experience at managing people. I need someone that has a background in running that technology to make it paperless. I need somebody with that -- that strength and that, obviously, requires someone with knowledge, skills and abilities that this current position doesn't have. So, by changing it it allows me to bring somebody in -- or at least start that process that has a higher level of education, higher level abilities to mentor, coach and kind of bring this over all at the same time. It would be -- it would be strategically a good move for us. I can't wait, because government being government, this is going to take months to do. I have to rewrite some stuff, get with HR, we have to post it, we have to do background -- or, excuse me, we have to do screening, interviews, backgrounds, all sorts of stuff. If I -- if I got this done before Halloween I will be doing handstands. So, what I'm asking for from you tonight is to allow me, with this amendment, to -- to upgrade this position from a lead to a records supervisor, so I can begin working on that and I will stand for any questions. De Weerd: Council, any questions? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: You know our Council liaison is home sick today. Okay. Mr. Bird. Bird: Madam Mayor. I would move that we approve the budget amendment for records lead position elevated to records supervisor position, not to exceed 20,894 dollars. Palmer: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 8-D. Any discussion by Council? Madam Clerk, will you, please, call roll. Roll Call: Bird, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, absent; Cavener, yea; Palmer, yea, Little Roberts, yea. De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Colaianni: Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 92 of 94 F. Legal Department: Budget Amendment for Legal Services for A Not-toExceed amount $60,000.00 De Weerd: Thank you, Scott. Item 8-F is under our Legal department. Nary: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. I will be a lot more brief than Lieutenant Colaianni. Each year we have a -- we have a set line item for outside legal expenses. Over the last five years, other than the courthouse case, we haven't had much need for that, but because our courthouse case is still ongoing and the fact, as all of you know, we have submitted our proposal to the district court, we are anticipating a hearing sometime between now and the end of the year, I don't know whether it will be in the next three months or the next six months, but we will be doing a lot of preparation during that time, so I contacted our outside counsel, had them give me an estimate. I kind of inflate that a tiny bit just to make sure we have enough budgeted dollars for the remainder of this fiscal year, because we have already exceeded the 10,000 dollar line item we already have. So, this is our best guestimate and my discussion with Finance and with our outside Counsel, that an additional 60,000 -- most years we haven't even exceeded what I have requested, I don't -- so I don't know if it will be -- it won't be more than 60,000. 1 don't know if it will be -- how much less it will be. But this will at least give us a cushion to get all the work done that's needed on this case before the end of the fiscal year and even then the next year we will talk about that then. Any questions? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Questions? Palmer: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Palmer. Palmer: This is a night -- De Weerd: Of firsts. Palmer: -- of historical proportion. For doing budget amendments. I move we approve the budget amendment for legal services for an amount not to exceed 60,000 dollars. Little Roberts: Second. Bird: Get that on tape. De Weerd: Can we have that printed out in black and white next -- tomorrow morning. Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 93 of 94 Cavener: If you need a budget amendment, go see Councilman Palmer. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Madam Clerk. Roll Call: Bird, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, absent; Cavener, yea; Palmer, yea, Little Roberts, yea. De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 10: Ordinances B. Ordinance No. Proposed # 16-1697: An Ordinance (Kenners Subdivision H- 2016-0018) of the Mayor and City Council of the City of Meridian for the Annexation and Rezone of a Parcel of Land being a Portion of the NE '/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 5, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as Described in Establishing and Determining the Land Use Classification of said .932 acres of Land from RUT to R-8 (Medium Density Residential) District in the Meridian City Code; and Providing for a Summary of the Ordinance; and Providing for a Waiver of the Reading Rules; and Providing an Effective Date De Weerd: Item 10-B is Ordinance 16-1697. Madam Clerk, will you, please, read this by title. Jones: Thank you, Madam Mayor. An Ordinance H-2016-0018, Kenners Subdivision, for annexation and rezone of a parcel of land being a portion of the northeast quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 5, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as described in Attachment A and annexing certain lands and territories situated in Ada County, Idaho, and adjacent and contiguous to the corporate limits of the City of Meridian, as requested by the City of Meridian, establishing and determining the land use zoning classification of said lands from RUT to R-8, Medium Density Residential District, in the Meridian City Code. Providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission as required by law, and providing for a summary of the ordinance and providing for a waiver of the reading rules and providing an effect date. De Weerd: Thank you. I don't see anyone who would want it read in its entirety. So, do I have a motion? Bird: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council June 21, 2016 Page 94 of 94 De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move that we approve Ordinance No. 16-1697 with suspension of rules. Borton: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second -- and a second to approve Item 10-B. Madam Clerk -- see, when I get rummy I get stupid, so -- Madam Clerk, will you call roll. Roll Call: Bird, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, absent; Cavener, yea; Palmer, yea, Little Roberts, yea. De Weerd: All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 11: Future Meeting Topics De Weerd: Council, anything under 11? Hearing none, do I have a motion to adjourn? Bird: So moved. Palmer: Second. De Weerd: All those in favor say aye. All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:11 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) -�-- a of MAYOR T Y DE WEERD DATE APPROVED p�pT E D q UC ATTEST: w City of JACY JONESI CI RK ID1 HO IbAHp m �F ------------------ SEAL r �y yPti tr 7REASU0.0. Changes to Agenda: ®Item #8E: Isola Creek No. 4 (H-2016-0050) — Application requests continuance of the item to work with the Parks Department and Nampa Meridian Irrigation District on issues relating to the multi -use. Item #813: Volante Investments (H-2016-0056) Application(s): ➢ Development Agreement Modification Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 34.62 acres of land, zoned C -G, located on the north side of E. Overland Road, west of Eagle Road at 2600 & 2700 E. Overland Road. History: The subject property was annexed in 1994 as part of a larger 167 acre area which included the 1-84 interchange to the north and the St. Luke's property to the northeast. This property and the interchange area provided an annexation path for St. Luke's. A DA was required as a provision of annexation for these properties; only the St. Luke's property has entered into a DA; the subject property never did until this application. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Mixed Use - Regional (MUR) Summary of Request: The applicant requests a new DA for the subject property with some modifications to the original provisions. The original provisions included the requirements for the development to comply with City ordinances & the Comprehensive Plan; connect to City water & sewer services; and obtain approval of a CUP for a Planned Development. The applicant proposes to remove the requirement for a CUP/PD and not require a detailed CUP for principle permitted uses in the C- G district. The applicant has submitted a conceptual development plan for the west parcel that depicts an 85,000 s.f. single -story retail store with associated parking with "vacant land" adjacent to Overland Road for future development. Cinema Drive, the stub street at the west boundary, is proposed to be extended through the site to the east boundary. South Wells Ave. is also proposed north/south along the east boundary of the site. A concept plan was not submitted for the east parcel. Staff is amenable to removing this provision but recommends the DA is modified prior to development of the east parcel to include a concept plan for that parcel that is consistent with the MU -R FLUM designation. Concept building elevations were submitted for the future structure on this site. Materials consist of split face & smooth face CMU, metal wall panel accents and standing seam metal canopies. The structure is required to comply with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. Written Testimony: Brad Miller, Applicant's Representative — (in agreement w/staff report) Staff Recommendation: Approval Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2016-0056, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 21, 2016: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2016-0056, as presented during the hearing on June 21, 2016, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2016-0056 to the hearing date of June 21, 2016 for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) Item #8C: CentrePoint Subdivision (H-2016-0057) Application(s): ➢ Development Agreement Modification Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of approximately 5 acres of land, zoned C -G, located northwest of the N. Eagle Rd./E. Ustick Rd. intersection. History: This property as annexed in 2003 with a DA. There have been a couple of modifications to the DA pertaining to this property; one reduced the buffer width along the west boundary of this site adjacent to the residences in Champion Park subdivision to 10 feet; another approved a concept plan for a multi -family residential project on this site. A preliminary and final plat have been approved which contain this property; however the final plat has not yet been recorded. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MU -R Summary of Request: The applicant requests a modification to the existing DA's applicable to this site to allow the development of a self-service storage facility with outdoor storage through a conditional use permit (in place of the multi -family development); reduction in the width of the buffer required along E. Jasmine Lane and the residential use to the north from 25 feet to zero feet; authorization to close off the micropath from Champion Park Subdivision; and allowance for a building permit to be issued in Phase 2 of CentrePoint Subdivision prior to recordation of the final plat. The DA currently prohibits outdoor storage; the UDC allows outdoor storage as an accessory use to a self-service storage facility which is an approved use in the C -G district but does require CUP approval. The applicant requests the DA is modified to allow a storage facility with a CUP as required by the UDC. Building elevations were submitted for the entrance of the proposed storage facility; the applicant states that the rear wall of the structures, which will be 12 feet in height w/14' tall tower elements, will enclose and screen the facility. Staff recommends the conceptual development plan & building elevations are included in the amended DA. Further, staff recommends the provision that includes specific design criteria be removed and replaced with the requirement for all development to comply with the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual. Because a street (Jasmine Lane) separates this site from the residential property to the north, staff is amenable to removing the requirement for a 25' wide landscape buffer to be provided on this site and instead providing a 10' street buffer to Jasmine as required on commercial properties adjacent to a local street. Staff supports the applicant's request to close off the pathway connection from Champion Park Subdivision as the proposed storage facility will be enclosed for security purposes. The applicant also requests approval to commence construction prior to the final plat for Phase 2 being recorded with the understanding that all improvements, including construction of CentrePoint Way, are completed and the final plat recorded prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. Staff recommends approval of this request. Written Testimony: Jonathan Seel, Applicant's Representative; and Chad Olsen (in agreement w/staff report) Staff Recommendation: Approval per the staff report Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2016-0057, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 21, 2016: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2016-0057, as presented during the hearing on June 21, 2016, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2016-0057 to the hearing date of June 21, 2016 for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reasons) for continuance.) Item #8D: Brundage Estates (H-2016-0001) Application(s): ➢ Preliminary Plat Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 136.63 acres of land, zoned R-4, located on the east side of S. Linder Road between W. Victory & W. Amity Roads. History: In 2014, this property was annexed as part of the Victory South Category "B" annexation with an R-4 zoning district. A DA is required to be executed for this property as a provision of annexation prior to development of this site. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: LDR (northern 64+/- acres) & MDR (southern 73+/- acres) Summary of Request: The applicant has applied for a preliminary plat consisting of 366 building lots, 20 common area lots and 1 other lot for a City park on 136.63 acres of land in the R-4 zoning district. The minimum lot size is 8,000 s.f. with an average lot size of 10,127 s.f. The proposed density of 2.68 d.u./acre is consistent with the LDR FLUM designation and the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan; however, the density is slightly under that desired in MDR designated areas, therefore, a step down in density to LDR is requested for the southern MDR designated portion of the site. The preliminary plat is proposed to develop in 11 phases. The tot lot on Lot 17, Block 5 is proposed to be constructed in Phase 1; the linear open space and multi -use pathway within the pipeline easement is proposed to be constructed with Phases 7 & 10; and the City Park is proposed to be constructed in Phase 10. Because the Park's Department does not have improvement of the park in their Capital Improvement Plan, the City prefers it to be constructed in final phases of development. There is an existing home & accessory structures on the site that are proposed to be removed. A 3,100+/- foot long section of the Williams Pipeline bisects this site. The Williams Pipeline is a natural gas pipeline that serves as a primary artery for the transmission of natural gas to the Pacific Northwest & Intermountain Region. The plat depicts a 75' wide ROW/easement for use by the pipeline company. All development shall comply with the Williams Gas Pipeline Developers' Handbook. An encroachment permit is required for any development/improvements within the pipeline easement. The proposed plat complies with the dimensional standards of the R-4 district except for the street frontage of one lot which staff recommends is revised to be a minimum of 60 feet. There are also 4 blocks that exceed the maximum block length allowed by the UDC. The length of 3 of the blocks can be approved ff a pedestrian pathway is added within the block which allows the block face to extend from 750 to 1,000'. The length of Block 11 also exceeds the maximum block length; however, because it abuts a large waterway (Calkins Lateral) and an arterial street (Linder Rd.), it's allowed to extend up to 1,200' if approved by Council; staff also recommends a pathway connection is provided through this block for access to the multi -use pathway required along the lateral. The applicant submitted a block length exhibit that depicts a pathway connection to the Calkins Lateral to break up the length of Block 11 and also shifted the stub street to the south further to the east; this creates a block length that is 1,900'. Access to this development is proposed from S. Linder Road, an arterial street, via two collector streets (W. Smokey Lake & Harris); from S. Meridian Road via Harris Street when Harris is extended. Access will also be available from the north from W. Victory Rd. via S. Kentucky Way, a collector street to the east of this site; and via W. Amity Rd. from S. Oakbriar Way, a collector street, along the east boundary of this site when it's extended. The extension of stub streets approved to the north and east are also proposed for interconnectivity between developments. Note: The alignment of proposed streets to existing approved stub streets appears to be off (i.e. Barton Flat, Radford and Harris). Vehicular crossings over the William's Pipeline are limited. A Traffic Impact Study (TIS) was prepared by Six Mile Engineers and was submitted to ACHD for their review and comment. The 366 dwelling units proposed with this development will generate approximately 3,484 vehicle trips per day with anticipated build -out in 2024. A draft copy of the ACHD report is included in the record. A 25' wide landscaped street buffer is required along Linder Rd.; a 30' buffer is proposed. A 20' wide buffer is required along all of the collector streets within the development as proposed. There are several existing trees on the site that if removed, require mitigation. The applicant proposes to dedicate 8.24 acres of land for a City neighborhood park which will be combined with another 1.77 acres in Graycliff Estates & 1 acre in Biltmore Estates subdivisions to the east for a total of 11+/- acres. A conceptual park master plan was submitted as shown that depicts half basketball courts with benches, a shelter, play area (tot lot) and open play areas as amenities along with a parking area and restrooms. Based on the area of the preliminary plat (136.63 acres), a minimum of 10% of the site (or 13.66 acres) is required to consist of qualified open space. The applicant proposes a total of 14.99% (or 20.48 acres) of qualified open space consisting of a neighborhood park, 2 pocket parks, a linear open space area where the William's pipeline is located and a multi -use pathway is proposed, % the street buffer along S. Linder Road, the street buffers along the collector streets (Harris, Oakbriar and W. Smokey Lake), and the parkways along streets within the development. A minimum of 6 qualified site amenities are required to be provided with this development as proposed. The applicant proposes to provide a tot lot with a play structure and a park bench in the larger pocket park, a multi -use pathway.through the William's pipeline easement, micro -paths providing connection to the multi -use pathway and the pocket parks; and a 20' gazebo in the smaller pocket park. Staff also recommends a multi -use pathway is provided along the north side of the Calkins Lateral in accord with the Pathways Master Plan. The amenities proposed and recommended by staff comply with the minimum requirements. Detached sidewalks are required along the arterial and collector streets; the applicant proposes to construct detached sidewalks throughout the development with landscaped parkways. The applicant requests a waiver from Council for the Calkins Lateral & the portion of the Sundall Lateral that lies north of W. Buroak Drive to remain open and not be piped to the large capacity of the facilities (req. 36" or larger pipe). The applicant would like to utilize portions of the facilities as a water amenity. The applicant has submitted conceptual building elevations for the future homes in this development as shown. Building materials appear to consist of stucco; and lap, board & batten and shake siding with stone accents. The design standards are proposed to be similar to those of the adjacent Biltmore Estates subdivision. Because homes on lots adjacent to arterial & collector streets abutting and within the development will be highly visible, staff recommends the rear and/or sides of structures on these lots incorporate articulation through changes in materials, color, modulation, and architectural elements (horizontal and vertical) to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines. Commission Recommendation: Approval Summary of Commission Public Hearing: L In favor: Becky McKay ii. In opposition: None iii. Commenting: None iv. Written testimony: Becky McKay (response to the staff report) v. Key Issue(s): None Key Issue(s) of Discussion by Commission: L Staffs requirement for pathways to be provided within blocks that exceed the maximum length standards to comply with UDC 11 -6C -3F. Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation: i. Modification to condition #6.3 to remove the requirement for a public park to be provided with the development; City Council shall determine whether the park is to be City owned or private. ii. The Commission supported staffs recommendation on the requirement of pathways to be provided within blocks that exceed the maximum block length standard. Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: L The applicant requests a "step" down in density for the portion of the site designated on the FLUM as medium density residential to allow a density of 2.68 dwelling units/acre consistent with the low density residential designation. ii. The applicant requests Council waive the requirement for pathways to be provided to break up the length of Blocks 1, 11, 16 and 17 (see condition #1.1.2c). iii. The revised block length exhibit submitted by the applicant shows a block length that is approximately 1900' long adjacent to the lateral. Written Testimony since Commission Hearing: • Russ & Kara Fulcher— Opposes the development as proposed due to density (too high, especially along Linder Rd.), safety (the topography of the area where the Harris St/Linder Rd. access is proposed is located atop a natural rise which makes northbound traffic blind to the roadway until reaching the top of the rise — would like the intersection to be shifted to the north, signalized, and slow -down warnings to be posted); and aesthetics (feels its not compatible with the lower density residents to the west and south and creates a "house,wall" — would like the building setback to be increased from Linder Rd. and/or limit building height to single -story along Linder). • Chris Dixon — Wants a stub street provided at the south boundary to her property — the revised plat shows a stub to her property. Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2016-0001, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 21, 2016: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2016-0001, as presented during the hearing on June 21, 2016, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2016-0001 to the hearing date of June 21, 2016 for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) Item #8F: Rainier Villas (H-2016.0041) Application(s): ➢ Conditional Use Permit ➢ Preliminary Plat Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 5.35 acres of land, zoned C -G, located west of N. Meridian Road between W. Corporate Drive and W. Penwood Street (parcel #S1213142120). History: In 2008, this property was platted as part of the Trade Plaza preliminary plat (PP -08-011). The previous plat has since expired and this is a remnant parcel that must be subdivided in order to be eligible for a building permit. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Commercial Summary of Request: The proposed preliminary plat consists of fifteen (15) multi -family residential building lots and five (5) common lots on approximately 5.35 acres of land in the existing C -G zoning district. The average lot size proposed for the development is 7,500 square feet. In the C= G zoning district, the UDC does not require a minimum lot size. The multi -family residential development is proposed to consist of 92 dwelling units within (11) 2 -story structures [(11) 4-plexes] and (4) 3 -story structures [(4) 12-plexes] on 5.35 acres of land. The units will consist of 2- and 3 -bedrooms with a minimum size of 850 sq. ft. The applicant proposes a pool, a sports court, public art (a statue) and a grassy area 50 feet by 100 feet in size. Commission Recommendation: Approval Summary of Commission Public Hearing: A. In favor: Shannon Robnett, Applicant's Representative, Aaron Elton vii. In opposition: None vili. Commenting: Aaron Elton, Shannon Robnett ix. Written testimony: None x. Staff presenting application: Josh Beach A. Other staff commenting on application: None Key Issue(s) of Discussion by Commission: ii. The amount of open space for the development. iii. The number and type of amenities appropriate for a multi -family development of this size. iv. Access to the development and whether to require a cross -access, or provide two access points on Corporate Drive. Key Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation: I. Modify condition #1.1.3e (Instead of removing the building located on Lot 7, block 1 and constructing a separate clubhouse, Commission required that the applicant convert one of the units into a fitness facility, and one into a Property management office) ii. Modify condition #1.1.7 (With the conversion of two of the units from residential to a property management office and fitness facility, the unit count went from 92 units, to 90 units.) iii. Modify condition #1.1.31 (Commission did not require a clubhouse as an amenity for the development) iv. Remove condition #1.1.4c (Commission did not require that Lot 7, Block 1 be removed from the development) Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: I. The applicant is requesting approval for an additional access to W. Corporate Drive. Condition 1.1.38 reflect that request. Commission made a recommendation to allow the second access to Corporate Drive in lieu of a cross access to the Trade Winds Property to the east. Written Testimony since Commission Hearing: None Access: Access to this development is proposed from the extension of SW. 3rd Avenue and W. Corporate Drive. The site plan as submitted depicts two (2) access points to W. Corporate Drive which is a collector roadway. The property was granted cross -access to the commercial property to the east with the Trade Plaza Subdivision. Staff recommends that the applicant remove the eastern access and redesign the site so that it takes access from the curb cut developed with the Trade Plaza Subdivision No.1 or obtain Council approval for the additional access to W. Corporate Drive. The applicant will have to execute a reciprocal cross access and shared parking agreement between all of the lots to ensure that they all have local street access in accord with UDC 11-3A-3. The applicant must include a note on the face of the final plat that details this requirement or provide a separate recorded copy of the agreement prior to signature on the final plat. UDC 11-3A-17 requires detached sidewalks to be constructed along all collector streets. The applicant is also proposing to construct 5 -foot wide attached sidewalk adjacent to SW. 3rd Avenue and a 5 -foot wide detached sidewalk along Corporate Drive in accord with the UDC standards. Staff recommends that the applicant provide sidewalks along both sides of the drive aisle from the entrance off of SW. 3rd Street. A CUP is requested for the development of multi -family residential uses on 5.35 acres of property in the C -G zoning district. The UDC (Table 11-213-2) requires CUP approval for a multi -family development in the C -G zoning district. To ensure the site develops with amenities and open space to commensurate the size of the development, staff recommends that the site develop with no more than 88 dwelling units based on the analysis below. Multi -family residential uses are consistent with those desired in Commercial designated areas and are allowed in the C -G district as a conditional use. The development is required to comply with the specific use standards for multi -family developments listed in UDC 11-4-3-27. The development does not comply with these standards in the following ways: • A minimum of 80 square feet (s.f.) of private useable open space is required to be provided for each unit. Private useable open space in accord with UDC standards is proposed for each unit in the form of private patios and balconies for the four-plex structures. The applicant shall submit a floor plan for the 12-plex units with the submittal of a certificate of zoning compliance to ensure compliance with this standard. • Developments with 20 units or more shall provide a property management office, a maintenance storage area, a central mailbox location with provisions for parcel mail that provides safe pedestrian and/or vehicular access and a directory map of the development at an entrance or convenient location for those entering the development. The site plan submitted by the applicant appears to meet these requirements as set forth in UDC 11-4-3-27. The applicant is proposing to use on of the residential units as property management office. Due to the size of the complex, staff recommends that a separate property management office be constructed on the site. • At a minimum, 250 s.f. of common open space is required for each unit containing more than 500 s.f. and up to 1,200 s.f. of living area. All of the proposed units contain between 500 and 1,200 square feet of living area. Therefore, a minimum of 23,000 s.f (or 0.52 acres) of common open space is required to be provided for the development. Common open space is required to be a minimum of 400 sq.ft. of area with a minimum length and width dimension of 20 feet. The calculations table depicts 38,346 sq.ft. of common open space proposed. Staff recommends that additional open space is provided within the development, The applicant should eliminate the 4-p/ex structure on Lot 7, Block 1 and convert this area to open space. The applicant is also proposing open space adjacent to a collector roadway. UDC section 11.4.3-27C.4 requires that open space adjacent to a collector roadway be separated from the street by a berm or constructed barrier at least four feet (4') in height, with breaks in the berm or barrier to allow pedestrian access. • For multi -family developments with 75 units or more, 4 site amenities are required to be provided with at least one from each category listed in UDC 11-4-3-27D. Because 92 units are proposed, 4 amenities must be provided for the site with at least one from each category (i.e. quality of life, open space, recreation). The applicant proposes to provide the following amenities: 1) open grassy area at least fifty by one hundred feet in size, 2) a swimming pool, 3) public art (a statue) and, 4) a sports court. The applicant cannot count the 50 x 100 area towards common open space and as an amenity. Therefore, staff recommends eliminating the sport court and public art and develop a clubhouse, property manager's office and fitness facility adjacent to the proposed pool AND eliminate the four-plex structure on Lot 7, Block 1, to create another 50 x 100 open grassy area that could serve as an amenity. If the site is redesigned as recommended, Staff believes there is adequate open space and amenities for the proposed development. • The architectural design of the structures shall comply with the standards set forth in the Architectural Standards Manual. The design of the 12-plex structures as proposed does not appear to meet several of the design standards of the Architectural Standards Manual. Building elevations were submitted for the multi -family structures (see Exhibit AA). The elevations for the 12-plex structures do not meet the requirements of the City of Meridian Architectural Standards Manual, and are not approved as proposed. The architectural elevations for the 4-plex structures appear to generally meet the requirements of the Architectural Standards Manual. No building elevations were submitted for the carports. These shall be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. The applicant is required to obtain approval of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance application for establishment of the new use and to ensure all site improvements comply with the provisions of the UDC and the conditions in this report prior to application for building permits, in accord with UDC 11-5B-1. The applicant is required to submit an application for Design Review concurrent with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application in accord with UDC 11-5B-8. All structures built on the site are required to comply with the City's design standards and Architectural Standards Manual and obtain design review approval; the proposed elevations are conceptual only and are not approved. Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2016-0041, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 21, 2016: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2016-0041, as presented during the hearing on June 21, 2016, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2016-0041 to the hearing date of for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) Item #8G: Verado Subdivision (H-2016-0047) Application(s): ➢ Annexation ➢ Preliminary Plat Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 19.35 acres of land, zoned RUT, located near the southeast corner of N. Locust Grove Road and E. Ustick Road. History: None Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MDR Summary of Request: The applicant has applied for annexation and zoning of 20.28 acres of land with both R-8 and R-15 zoning districts. As discussed above in Section VII, staff believes the proposed zoning designations are generally consistent with the policies in the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant proposes to develop 122 new single-family residential attached and detached homes and 18 common lots on 19.35 acres of land in a proposed R-8 and R-15 zoning districts (see Exhibit A.2). The gross density for the subdivision is 6.3 d.u./acre with a net density of 9.8 d.u./acre, The average lot size is 4,445 square feet. Commission Recommendation: Approval w/ conditions a. Summary of Commission Public Hearing: I. In favor: Jim Conger ii. In opposition: Jason Brodt. Shannon Graves, Bob Jenkins, Jack Kormouche, Ben Innocent, William Kerwin, Katie McCarney, Sylvia Jenkins, Rosellen Villareal Price, Vickie Thornton iii. Commenting: Bruce Carman, Chris Catherman, Justin Graves iv. Written testimony: Jim Conger (Applicant) V. Staff presenting application: Josh Beach vi. Other staff commenting on application: Andrea Pogue b. Key jssue(sl of Public Testimony: i. Increased traffic through the existing subdivisions ii. Appropriateness of the proposed zoning designations for the area iii. The potential to provide a stub street to the adjacent property to the north for future development. iv. Density of the proposed subdivision v. Size of the proposed lots A Providing the vehicular connection over the South Slough. Al. The transition between the proposed R-15 district and the existing R-8 zoning district. An. Two story homes overshadowing the existing one story homes. c. Key Issues of Discussion by Commission: i. Mixture of home types in the development ii. Density of the proposed development iii. Appropriateness of the vehicular connection over the South Slough. d. Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation: I. Remove condition 1.1.2C(3) (See condition 1.1.1C). ii. Remove condition 1.1.3(2) (See condition e. Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: iii. Easement to parcel# S1105212981 Written Testimony since Commission Hearing: Written Testimony since Commission Hearing: Randy Pipal, Celina Innocent, Ben Innocent - Size and number of lots that abut the South Slough, The R-15 zoning/density of the project, resale value of the adjoining lots in Chamberlain Estates. Notes: Plat Improvements: As proposed, staff has several concerns with the design of the proposed subdivision. Prior to the Commission hearing, staff recommends the following revisions to the plat to ensure there is adequate pedestrian and vehicular connectivity to the adjacent County parcels and open space/amenities to commensurate to a development of this size: 1. Add an additional open -space lot for the lots on the south side of the South Slough. Lot 32, Block 4 should be converted to an open space lot and developed with a qualifying amenity as set forth in UDC 11 -3G -3C. 2. Reconfigure the northwest corner of the proposed subdivision to allow for redevelopment of parcel# S1105212981 with public street frontage. a. Staff would like to seethe parcel stubbed with a public street to allow for future development. The applicant has provided a proposed easement that requires the owner of the parcel to accept the easement, as well as to construct the access. The proposed landscaping for the development meets the requirements of the UDC. A total of 10.5% of qualified open space is proposed consisting of/2 the street buffer along E. Ustick Road, the regional pathway along the South Slough, the micropath lot and internal common open space area comply with this requirement. Staff recommends that Lot 32, Block 4 be converted to common lot and developed with a qualifying amenity in accord with UDC 11 -3G -3C for the south portion of the proposed development. Based on the area of the preliminary plat (19.35 acres), staff requires a minimum of 1 qualified site amenities be provided. The applicant proposes to provide a tot lot within the central common area on Lot 8, Block 3, a segment of the City's multi -use recreational pathway and pathways through internal common areas in accord with this requirement. As noted above, staff recommends another qualifying amenity be provided within the development on Lot 32, Block 4 as noted above. The Pathways Master Plan depicts a regional pathway on this site along the north side of the South Slough. The applicant proposes to provide the extension of the regional pathway as an amenity for the proposed subdivision. The 10 -foot multi -use pathway must be paved and landscaped in accord with the standards set forth in UDC 11-3A-8 and UDC 11-36-12. The South Slough bisects the property. The South Slough lies within an 80 -foot wide Nampa Meridian Irrigation District easement, (a portion of which was created as a common lot in the adjacent Packard Acres subdivision). The 10 -foot multi -use pathway will be installed within the easement, and the applicant should coordinate with the irrigation district on maintenance of the common lots. The UDC (11-3A-6) requires all irrigation ditches, laterals, canals and drains to be piped unless left open as a water amenity (as defined in UDC 11-1A-1) or linear open space. The City Council may waive this requirement for large capacity facilities. The applicant requests a waiver from Council to allow the South Slough to remain open due to its large capacity and proposes to provide a bridge over the drain for a vehicle/pedestrian crossing. The applicant has submitted some conceptual sample building elevations for future homes in this development. Building materials appear to consist of a mix of board and batten and horizontal lap siding and stone accents. Because homes on lots that back up to E. Ustick Road will be highly visible, staff recommends the rear or sides of structures on lots that face the street incorporate articulation through changes in materials, color, modulation, and architectural elements (horizontal and vertical) to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines. In addition, the attached single-family homes will be subject to design review (see below.) A CZC and DES application is required to be submitted prior to issuance of building permits for the single family attached homes. The applicant must comply with the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and the guidelines contained in the Meridian Design Manual. Per UDC 11 -3A -7A.7, the developer is responsible to construct fencing adjacent to micropath connections to distinguish common from private areas. Additionally, per UDC 11.3A -6B, the South Slough is required to be fenced with an open vision fence at least 6 feet in height and having an 11-guage, 2 -inch mesh or other construction, equivalent in ability to deter access to the waterway. Fencing adjacent to all interior pathways and common open space shall meet the requirements of UDC 11-3A-7. Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2016-0047, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 21, 2016: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2016-0047, as presented during the hearing on June 21, 2016, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2016-0047 to the hearing date of for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: June 21, 2016 ITEM NUMBER: 5A PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Approval of the June 7, 2016 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes MEETING NOTES C✓i APPROVED Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: June 21, 2016 ITEM NUMBER: 5B PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Approval of the June 14, 2016 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes MEETING NOTES Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: June 21, 2016 ITEM NUMBER: 5C PROJECT NUMBER: H-2016-0040 ITEM TITLE: 907 NW 2nd Street Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for 907 NW 2nd Street (H-2016-0040) by City of Meridian Located North Side of E. Pine Avenue, West of N. Meridian Road MEETING NOTES Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: June 21, 2016 ITEM NUMBER: 5D PROJECT NUMBER: H-2016-0043 ITEM TITLE: Ashley Manor Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Ashley Manor (H-2016-0043) by Mark Ellison Located 4379 N. Locust Grove Road MEETING NOTES 9 APPROVED Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: June 21, 2016 ITEM TITLE: TM Crossing PROJECT NUMBER: i Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for TM Crossing (H-2016-0054) by SCS Brighton, LLC Located Northeast Corner of S. Ten Mile Road and 1-84 MEETING NOTES Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: June 21, 2016 ITEM NUMBER: 5F PROJECT NUMBER: H-2016-0027 ITEM TITLE: Maverik Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Maverik (H-2016-0027) by Maverik, Inc. Located 1515 E. Fairview Avenue MEETING NOTES o Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: June 21, 2016 ITEM NUMBER: 5G PROJECT NUMBER: H-2016-0031 ITEM TITLE: Third Street Square Subdivision Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Third Street Square Subdivision (H-2016-0031) by Trenton Seltzer Located East of N. Main Street Between Franklin Road and Pine Avenue MEETING NOTES 9 APPROVED Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: June 21, 2016 ITEM NUMBER: 5H PROJECT NUMBER: H-2016-0053 ITEM TITLE: �3V-I nt-, &A P,-«� I/- k' C-, 0 I Final Order for Brinegar Prairie No. 1 (H-2016-0053) by Challenger Development, LLC Located 2220 N. Ten Mile Road MEETING NOTES Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: June 21, 2016 ITEM NUMBER: 51 PROJECT NUMBER: H-2016-0059 ITEM TITLE: 7�?DiF60�61Z, E� sATtAyA Final Order for Birkdale Estates Subdivision (H-2016-0059) by EGC Development, LLC Located Southeast Corner of N. Meridian Road and E. Chinden Boulevard MEETING NOTES Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: June 21, 2016 ITEM NUMBER: 5J PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Professional Service Agreement for Artwork for Traffic Box Art Project - Teagan Sloan c/o Ashanti Kay Sloan DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES .AGREEMENT FOR ARTWORK FOR TRAVFIC 130X COMMUNITY ART PRO.IECT This PROFESSIONAL SERVICES N,REEWNT.FOR ARTWORK FOR TRArFIC EOE; ART PROM -CT ("Agreement") is made this �.y obune, 2016 ("Effective Date"), by and between the City IT eridian,amm nicipal col'Poratioin, organized tinder the laws of theState of Idaho ("City'°), and �sr, of � �T o� o�xor"Contractor"), an individual person and parent or legal guardian ofTeagan Sloan, a mirror child ("Artist"). WMREAS, the City desires drat public art will be a component of out conuuunity and to that end, has undeitakenl the Traffic Box Colninunity Art Project (`°Project"), within which artwork created by community nlerinbers will be, transformed into vinyl wraps and used to cover traffic control boxes at various locations througllout Meridiani, with Permission from the property owner Ada County I-iighway District, as a benefit to file public; WHEREAS, represetatatives of the Meridian Arts Commission ("MAC") selected a piece of art created by Artist entitled Birds on .Blooms, depicted in Exhibit A hereto, which, was displayed at the 2016 West Ada School District Student .Art Show, to win the "COM"Unity Art Award," MAC recommended to Meridian City Council that such artwork (",Arhvork") become an installation as part of the Project, and on May 24, 2016, the Meridian City Council accepted MAC's recommendation; a -ad WHEREAS, artist and Contractor wish to participate in the Project by allowing the Artwork to becolue a vinyl wrap installation on a traffic control box, subject tO the t'ollownag terms and conditions; NOW, THE'RElF'ORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged and agreed, the Parties agree as follows: I. SCOPE, A. Delivery of Ar•tworlk; P111rpose. Contractor shall allow City to temporarily take possession of Artwork for the purPOse of creating a digital image of the Artwork, pdnnting such image on a vinyl wrap, and installing the vinyl wrap on one or wore traffic control boxes in Meridian, Idaho. City shall not provide insurance to cover loss, theft, or damage of original Artwork and/or of Contr'actor's or Artist's person,, property, or interests. Insurance of, zJjwork shall be in Contractor's sole discretions and responsibility. Contractor shall bear any and all risks of acrd actual loss, theft, and/or damage to the original Artwork, R. License; alterations. Contractor grants to City an irrevocable license to digitally and/or Photographically reproduce the image of the Artwork and to authorize third parties` to do the same. Artist acknowledges and agrees that the process of'photogralaI g, digitizing, printing, d/or reproducing the image of Artwork on vinyl wrap or wraps Ixlin require that the image, d Portions thereof, be cropped, resized, or otherwise altered in order to transfer the image of the original Artwork onto a traffic control box., or for other ptupose, in City's sole discretion. C. Copyright. Neither Artist nor Contractor shall make ally claim to the copyright of the Artwork. Contractor expressly wares any and all right, title, or interest ill the images or products created using Artwork. Contractor understands that this waiver includes waivers of the exclusive rights of reproduction, adaptation, publication, and display. Contractor agrees to relinquish and waive any YROMSSIONAL SER-WES ArmtEMENT—UTILITYBox Wnm PAGE 1 o:f' 4 and all rights, title, and interest to the Artwork, images thereof, or images of any portion thereof, including, but not limited to, the rights afforded artists under the Copyright Act of 1976 and the Visual Arts Rights Act of 1990, Title 17 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq. Contractor understands and agrees that the right of attribution and integrity, as specifically set forth in 17 U.S.C. § 106A, are hereby expressly waived except as otherwise provided herein. To the extent that the provisions of this Agreement differ with the Copyright Act of 1976 and Visual Arts Rights Act of 1990, the provisions of this Agreement will govern and any such differences in the rights and duties created thereunder are expressly waived. D. Limited edition. Contractor warrants and represents that the Artwork has never before been created, published, produced, reproduced, or copied; that Artist is the sole creator of the Artwork; and that Contractor, as Artist's parent or legal guardian, is the lawful owner of all rights in the Artwork. E. Ownership. City shall own the digital image created from Artwork and any portion or product thereof, including the vinyl wrap or wraps created therefrom. City shall also own the copyright to Artwork and any product or component thereof, including the vinyl wrap or wraps created therefrom. The installation location(s) of the vinyl wrap(s) created from Artwork, if any, will be selected in the City's sole discretion, and once installed, City or other duly authorized party may modify or remove, or allow modification or removal of same, in City's or other applicable agency's sole discretion. Contractor specifically waives the right to claim any remedy concerning the alteration of any image of Artwork or portion thereof, including the vinyl wrap or wraps created therefrom. City shall not be obligated by this Agreement to install any vinyl wrap or wraps featuring the digital image of Artwork or any portion thereof F. Payment. City shall make total payment to Contractor for services rendered pursuant to this Agreement in the amount of fifty dollars ($50.00). This payment shall constitute full compensation from City to Contractor and to Artist for any and all services, costs, and expenses related to services performed under this Agreement. Contractor and/or Artist shall be responsible for payment of any and all taxes due and owing for payment received under this Agreement. G. Photographs. Contractor consents to City's publication and/or use of any photographs or recordings of Artist, Artwork, or installations created using Artwork, for promotional purposes. II. TERMS AND CONDITIONS A. Acknowledgment. Contractor acknowledges that activity undertaken in conjunction with this Agreement presents risks, some of which are unknown, and agrees to assume all such risks. B. Indemnification; waiver. Contractor shall indemnify, save and hold harmless, release and forever discharge City and its agents and employees from and for any and all losses, claims, actions, judgments for damages, or injury to persons or property and losses and expenses caused or incurred by Contractor or Artist in the course of any activity associated with this Agreement not caused by or arising out of the tortious conduct of City, regardless of the manner by which such claim may be brought. C. Relationship of Parties. Contractor is an independent contractor and is not an employee, agent, joint venturer, or partner of City. Nothing in this Agreement shall be interpreted or construed as PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT — TRAFFIC BOX WRAP PAGE 2 of 4 creating or establishing the relationship of employer and employee between Contractor and City or any official, agent, or eimployee of City. D. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding between the Parties. This Agreement supersedes any and all statements, promises, or itducememts made by either party, or agents of either party, whether oral or written. The terms cif this Agreement may not be enlarged, modified or altered except upon written agreement signed by both parties Hereto. F. Agreemeot governed by Idaho law. The laws of the State of Idaho shall govern the validity, interpretation, perforniance and enforcement of this Agreement. Venue shall be in the courts of .Ada Comty, Idaho. F. Sever abilit-y. If any provision of this Agreement is fowid by a court of comrpetent jurisdiction to be, illegal, invalid, or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement shall not be affected. G. Successors and assigns. All of the terms, provisions, covenants and conditions of this Agreement shall inure to the benefit of, and shall be binding upon, each party and their successors, assigns, legal representatives, heirs, executors, and adininistrators. 13. Advice of attolvey, Each party warrants and represents that in executing this Agreement, it has received independent legal advice from its attorneys or the opportunity to seek such advice, i. Compliance with. law. Contractor and Artist shall comply with ally and all applicable federal, state, and local laws_ T. City Council approval required. `1`lie validity of this Agreement shall be expressly conditioned upon City Council action approving the Agreement. Execution of this Agreement by the persons referenced below prior to such ratification or approval shall not be construed as proof of validity ltx the absence of Meridian City Council approval. s), a1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on thea -6, --day of rune, 2016. CONTACTOR: aUk�(j-4� E� Print Nanie; Ah--4 y - ,Parent or Gwvdian of Teagan Slow. CITY OF MERJj)JAN: i Tamwy�eerd, Mayor A)[t,'T'IS'T': `l'eagan Slo �Qoik TEDgUCGs G0 r SEAL rREns� PROFESSIONAL, SERVZGts AGMMENT- UTILITY BOX WktAP -jone5 ,PAGE 3 of EXHIBIT A TEA GAN A OA N PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT- TRAFFIC BOX WRAP PAGE 4 of 4 Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: June 21, 2016 ITEM NUMBER: 5K PROJECT NUMBER: Professional Service Agreement for Artwork for Traffic Box Art Project - Suzanne Lee Chetwood MEETING NOTES Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE; E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR ARTWORK FOR TRAFFIC BOX COMMUNITY ART PROJECT This PROFESSIONAL SERVICE f��EEMENT FOR ARTWORK FOR TRAFFIC BOX ART PROJECT ("Agreement") is made this qday of June, 2016 ("Effective Date"), by and between the City of Meridian, a municipal corporation orga rzed under the laws of the State of Idaho ("City"), and Suzanne Lee Chetwood, an individual person ("Artist"). WHEREAS, the City desires that public art will be a component of our community, and to that end, the Meridian Arts Commission ("MAC") issued the Call for Artists attached hereto as Exhibit A, seeking proposals for the inclusion of artwork in the Traffic Box Art Image Repository, a repository of images portraying artwork available for reproduction on vinyl wraps to be installed on traffic signal boxes in Meridian, with permission from the property owner Ada County Highway District, as part of the Traffic Box Community Art Project ("Project"), as a benefit to the public; WHEREAS, Artist submitted a response to the Call for Artists, which response included the Application and Acknowledgments and letter of intent attached hereto as Exhibit B; WHEREAS, on May 18, 2015, the Meridian Arts Commission reviewed the responses to the Call for Artists, recommended works appropriate for inclusion in the Traffic Box Art Image Repository based on their respectively submitted proposals, including the artwork submitted by Artist, and on June 9, 2015, Meridian City Council accepted such recommendation, creating the Traffic Box Art Image Repository via Resolution no. 15-1070; WHEREAS, MAC recommended to City Council that two pieces of art, entitled Traces of Wheat, depicted in Exhibit C hereto ("Artwork"), created by Artist and included in the Traffic Box Art Image Repository, become an installation as part of the Project, and the Meridian City Council accepted MAC's recommendation on May 24, 2016; and WHEREAS, Artist wishes to participate in the Project by allowing the Artwork to be scanned and formatted in order to depict the Artwork on a vinyl wrap installation on a traffic control box, subject to the following terms and conditions; NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged and agreed, the Parties agree as follows: I. SCOPE. A. Delivery of Artwork; purpose. Artist shall allow City to temporarily take possession of the original Artwork for the purpose of creating a digital image of the Artwork, printing such image on a vinyl wrap, and installing the vinyl wrap on one or more traffic control boxes in Meridian, Idaho. City shall not provide insurance to cover loss, theft, or damage of original Artwork and/or of Artist's person, property, or interests. Insurance of original Artwork shall be in Artist's sole discretion and responsibility. Artist shall bear any and all risks of and actual loss, theft, and/or damage to the original Artwork. B. License; alterations. Artist grants to City an irrevocable license to digitally and/or photographically reproduce the image of the Artwork and to authorize third parties to do the same. Artist acknowledges and agrees that the process of photographing, digitizing, printing, and/or reproducing the image of Artwork on a vinyl wrap or wraps may require that the image, or portions thereof, be cropped, resized, or otherwise altered in order to transfer the image of the original Artwork onto a traffic control box, or for any other purpose, in City's sole discretion. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT — TRAFFIC BOX COMMUNITY ART PROJECT PAGE 1 of 9 C. Copyright. Artist shall not make any claim to the copyright of the Artwork. Artist expressly waives any and all right, title, or interest in the images or products created using Artwork. Artist understands that this waiver includes waivers of the exclusive rights of reproduction, adaptation, publication, and display. Artist agrees to relinquish and waive any and all rights, title, and interest to the Artwork, images thereof, or images of any portion thereof, including, but not limited to, the rights afforded artists under the Copyright Act of 1976 and the Visual Arts Rights Act of 1990, Title 17 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq. Artist understands and agrees that the right of attribution and integrity, as specifically set forth in 17 U.S.C. § 106A, are hereby expressly waived except as otherwise provided herein. To the extent that the provisions of this Agreement differ with the Copyright Act of 1976 and Visual Arts Rights Act of 1990, the provisions of this Agreement will govern and any such differences in the rights and duties created thereunder are expressly waived. D. Limited edition. Artist warrants and represents that the Artwork has never before been created, published, produced, reproduced, or copied; that Artist is the sole creator of the Artwork; and that Artist is the lawful owner of all rights in the Artwork and the content depicted therein. E. Ownership. City shall own the digital image created from Artwork and any portion or product thereof, including the vinyl wrap or wraps created therefrom. City shall also own the copyright to Artwork and any product or component thereof, including the vinyl wrap or wraps created therefrom. The installation location(s) of the vinyl wrap(s) created from Artwork, if any, will be selected in the City's sole discretion, and once installed, City or other duly authorized party may modify or remove, or allow modification or removal of same, in City's or other applicable agency's sole discretion. Artist specifically waives the right to claim any remedy concerning the alteration of any image of Artwork or portion thereof, including the vinyl wrap or wraps created therefrom. City shall not be obligated by this Agreement to install any vinyl wrap or wraps featuring the digital image of Artwork or any portion thereof. F. Payment. City shall make total payment to Artist for services rendered pursuant to this Agreement in the amount of three hundred dollars ($300.00). This payment shall constitute full compensation from City to Artist for any and all services, costs, and expenses related to services performed under this Agreement. Artist shall be responsible for payment of any and all taxes due and owing for payment received under this Agreement. G. Photographs. Artist consents to City's publication and/or use of any photographs or recordings of Artist, Artwork, or installations created using Artwork, for promotional purposes. II. TERMS AND CONDITIONS A. Acknowledgment. Artist acknowledges that activity undertaken in conjunction with this Agreement presents risks, some of which are unknown, and agrees to assume all such risks. B. Indemnification; waiver. Artist shall indemnify, save and hold harmless, release and forever discharge City and its agents and employees from and for any and all losses, claims, actions, judgments for damages, or injury to persons or property and losses and expenses caused or incurred by Artist or City in the course of any activity associated with this Agreement not caused by or arising out of the tortious conduct of City, regardless of the manner by which such claim may be brought. C. Relationship of Parties. Artist is an independent contractor and is not an employee, agent, joint venturer, or partner of City. Nothing in this Agreement shall be interpreted or construed as creating or establishing the relationship of employer and employee between Artist and City or between Artist and any official, agent, or employee of City. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT -TRAFFIC BOX WRAP PAGE 2 Of 9 D. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding between the Parties. This Agreement supersedes any and all statements, promises, or inducements made by either party, or agents of either party, whether oral or written. The terms of this Agreement may not be enlarged, modified or altered except upon written agreement signed by both parties hereto. E. Agreement governed by Idaho law. The laws of the State of Idaho shall govern the validity, interpretation, performance and enforcement of this Agreement. Venue shall be in the courts of Ada County, Idaho. F. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be illegal, invalid, or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement shall not be affected. G. Successors and assigns. All of the terms, provisions, covenants and conditions of this Agreement shall inure to the benefit of, and shall be binding upon, each party and their successors, assigns, legal representatives, heirs, executors, and administrators. H. Advice of attorney. Each party warrants and represents that in executing this Agreement, it has received independent legal advice from its attorneys or the opportunity to seek such advice. I. Exhibits. All exhibits to this Agreement are incorporated by reference and made a part of hereof as if the exhibits were set forth in their entirety herein. J. City Council approval required. The validity of this Agreement shall be expressly conditioned upon City Council action approving the Agreement. Execution of this Agreement by the persons referenced below prior to such ratification or approval shall not be construed as proof of validity in the absence of Meridian City Council approval. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the day of June, 2016. CITY OF MERIDIAN: B'f 51 Tammy erd, Mayor PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT - TRAFFIC Box COMMUNITY ART PROJECT O ORATES)', -G, RATEpp.. Ei qG� O SFgL 0 he rR[AS\�R� PAGE 3 of 9 EXHIBIT A CALL FOR ARTISTS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT -TRAFFIC BOX WRAP PAGE 4 Of 9 Meridian Commission Cal( for Artists: TRAFFIC BOX ART IMAGE REPOSITORY OVERVIEW: The Meridian Arts Commission (MAC) seeks proposals of two-dimensional artwork to be added to a repository of images portraying artwork available for reproduction on a vinyl wrap to be installed on a traffic box in Meridian. As funding becomes available, MAC and/or a sponsoring partner may select a piece of artwork represented in the repository to reproduce as a vinyl wrap. A $300 stipend shall be available for artists whose work is selected for reproduction as a vinyl wrap to be installed on a traffic box, following execution of, and pursuant to, a written agreement with the City of Meridian and scanning of the original artwork portrayed in the selected image by City or City's selected vendor. ELIGIBILITY: The Traffic Box Art Image Repository is to include original artwork by artists who live or work in Idaho's Treasure Valley, created using any medium, so long as it can be represented in a high-resolution digital image without loss of integrity or quality. No artwork will be included in the repository which does not meet the selection criteria. Artists whose work is selected for reproduction as a vinyl wrap will be required to enter into a written agreement with the City setting forth specific terms and conditions of inclusion. Each person may submit up to ten (10) images for consideration; a maximum of two (2) images per person will be selected for inclusion in the repository. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS: An artist wishing to submit an image for inclusion in the digital repository must provide the following materials and information to MAC in order to be considered for inclusion in the digital repository: • Completed, signed Traffic Box Art Image Repository Application It Acknowledgements form; • One-page letter of intent, including biography of the artist, on 8.5x11" sheet of 20 lb., white paper; and • Up to ten (10) digital images, in .jpg format, of original artwork proposed for inclusion in the digital repository, on a CD or jump drive; image file names must include artist's last name and artwork title. Materials submitted will not be returned. E-mailed submissions will not be accepted; materials must be submitted via U.S. Mail or in-person delivery, addressed to: Meridian Arts Commission Attn: Traffic Box Art Digital Repository Proposal 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian ID 83642 DEADLINE: This call shall be open until 5:00 p.m. on Friday, May 1, 2015. SELECTION PROCESS: The selection of art for inclusion in the digital repository will be made by MAC. MAC will jury submissions at its regularly scheduled meetings, as they are received. MAC will notify selectees by letter sent U.S. Mail. In evaluating eligible proposals, the following factors will be considered: • Quality of work; • Appropriateness of subject and concept for a public space; • Consistency with City policy and community values; and • Contribution to aesthetic and cultural atmosphere of the Meridian community. Artwork will be deemed inappropriate which portrays: content which violates copyright or other known legal ownership interest, profanity, obscenity, indecency, violence, pornography; discrimination on the basis of race, creed, color, age, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or nationality; defamation or personal attacks. CONTACT MAC: Questions regarding this Call for Artists may be sent via e-mail to mac@meridiancity.org. EXHIBIT B APPLICATION MATERIALS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT—TRAFFIC 13OX WRAP PAGE 6 of 9 Applicant: E-mail address: Mailing address: Physical address: Applicant phone: Image title(s): S 0-L 0 V1 V'e" So z I ee awe Li3"11 F, qw Day: Cwt 1. Tr c°A 2. T-AO-Lko 3. ,�c 4. 5. b. Sa uoo 7. 8. 9. 7aGat1\- Meridian Commission W I hereby acknowledge the following stipulations and agree that if one of the images listed above is selected for inclusion in the Traffic Box Art Digital Repository, such inclusion shalt occur subject to these general terms and conditions, as well as subject to other specific terms and conditions that shall be set forth in a separate, written Acceptance Agreement between myself and the City of Meridian. i specifically acknowledge and agree that: CT A. All artwork submitted with this proposal for consideration for inclusion in the digital repository is original work that I myself conceived and created in all respects. 29E B. Before work represented in the digital repository may be installed as a vinyl traffic box wrap, ! will be required to enter into a written !agreement with the City of Meridian establishing the specific terms and conditions of such installation. No entitlement will issue or attachprior to negotiation and execution of such agreement. C. Before work represented in the repository may be installed as a vinyl traffic box wrap,!; I will be required to provide the original artwork from which the image was taken. If the original artwork is no longer in my possession, I wit( advise the Meridian Arts Commission so that the image may be removed from the digital repository as a'potential option for installation as a vinyl wrap. D. Upon submission of artwork to the City of Meridian for consideration for inclusion in the E. Ike digital repository, such submission is a public record, subject to the Idaho Public Records Act. Artwork included in the digital repository may be removed from the repository, and/or the F. repository may be deleted or discontinued, without notice to the artist. The City seeks to encourage artistic expression and public dialogue, but must simultaneously ensure that persons of diverse ages and perspectives feel welcome and comfortable inipublic spaces. To this end, only artwork meeting the eligibility standards described in the Call for Artists shalt be included in the digital repository. I acknowledge and understa nd submit my proposal subject to, each and all of these terms and conditions. Signature. Date: �� Z Gl'' Art is my first language. I remember observing the colors in a sunset before learning how to read. This led me to become a ceramic artist and painter with a penchant for fresh air and intrigue in the mystery of nature. Art can come from an ephemeral experience. A fleeting moment can inspire a passionate fluidity in line and color. It can also be gained through knowing about your environment and the history that occurred over time in ones places of inspiration while looking to our future. As an artist that wants to preserve the western landscape, I recall the forms of earth I visit, reviving them with clay and paint. At times I will mix actual basalt from local cliffs into my ceramics and reform the earth in my kiln. I am led to define any vibrant composition by the draining of snowmelt in the foothills and the way it carves the land while journeying to the river. Dark recesses occurring naturally in rock and!. earth are my shades, while the colors at the close of each day, which are most saturated, define my palette. In paint I am using layering and a technique called impasto to create a surface that informs the viewer of the paintings intention. In my ceramic work gel -like sheets of resin fill the interior. Like painted and overlapped panes of glass, these resin layers are patiently created one' on top of the other in amorphic vessels to create a 3 dimensional painting related to my 21) work. Each layer is a unique abstract piece on its own, that when viewed all together creates and image. This exploration of surface and layer is repeated in all of my work. At times the work is very realistic and; graphic in nature, and others it becomes very tactile and uses the medium to fully explore a texture. SIRANNE LEE CHITWO OO—fine artist II 4371 l=ast Amity H Boise, Idaho 83716 EXHIBIT C TRA CES OF WHEAT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT—TRAFFIC BOX COMMUNITY ART PROJECT PAGE 9 of 9 Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: June 21, 2016 ITEM NUMBER: 5L elUX" il, [IJ kvi1:1=1:1 ITEM TITLE: Professional Service Agreement Professional Service Agreement for Artwork for Traffic Box Community Art Project - Susan Elle MEETING NOTES Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR ARTWORK FOR TRAFFIC BOX COMMUNITY ART PROJECT This PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR ARTWORK FOR TRAFFIC BOX ART PROJECT ("Agreement") is made this a O'�day of June, 2016 ("Effective Date"), by and between the City of Meridian, a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of Idaho ("City"), and Susan Elle, an individual person ("Artist"). WHEREAS, the City desires that public art will be a component of our community, and to that end, the Meridian Arts Commission ("MAC") issued the Call for Artists attached hereto as Exhibit A, seeking proposals for the inclusion of artwork in the Traffic Box Art Image Repository, a repository of images portraying artwork available for reproduction on vinyl wraps to be installed on traffic signal boxes in Meridian, with permission from the property owner Ada County Highway District, as part of the Traffic Box Community Art Project ("Project"), as a benefit to the public; WHEREAS, Artist submitted a response to the Call for Artists, which response included the Application and Acknowledgments and letter of intent attached hereto as Exhibit B; WHEREAS, on May 18, 2015, the Meridian Arts Commission reviewed the responses to the Call for Artists, recommended works appropriate for. inclusion in the Traffic Box Art Image Repository based on their respectively submitted proposals, including the artwork submitted by Artist, and on June 9, 2015, Meridian City Council accepted such recommendation, creating the Traffic Box Art Image Repository via Resolution. no. 15-1070; WHEREAS, MAC recommended to City Council that two pieces of art, entitled Bang! and Golden. Pond, depicted in Exhibit C hereto ("Artwork"), created by Artist and included in the Traffic Box Art Image Repository, become an installation as part of the Project, and the Meridian City Council accepted MAC's recommendation on May 24, 2016; and WHEREAS, Artist wishes to participate in the Project by allowing the Artwork to be scanned and formatted in order to depict the Artwork on a vinyl wrap installation on a traffic control box, subject to the following terms and conditions; NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged and agreed, the Parties agree as follows: I. SCOPE. A. Delivery of Artwork; purpose. Artist shall allow City to temporarily take possession of the original Artwork for the purpose of creating a digital image of the Artwork, printing such image on a vinyl wrap, and installing the vinyl wrap on one or more traffic control boxes in Meridian, Idaho. City shall not provide insurance to cover loss, theft, or damage of original Artwork and/or of Artist's person, property, or interests. Insurance of original Artwork shall be in Artist's sole discretion and responsibility. Artist shall bear any and all risks of and actual loss, theft, and/or damage to the original Artwork. B. License; alterations. Artist grants to City an irrevocable license to digitally and/or photographically reproduce the image of the Artwork and to authorize third parties to do the same. Artist acknowledges and agrees that the process of photographing, digitizing, printing, and/or reproducing the image of Artwork on a vinyl wrap or wraps may require that the image, or portions thereof, be cropped, resized, or otherwise altered in order to transfer the image of the original Artwork onto a traffic control box, or for any other purpose, in City's sole discretion. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT — TRAFFIC BOX COMMUNITY ART PROJECT PAGE 1 of 9 C. Copyright. Artist shall not make any claim to the copyright of the Artwork. Artist expressly waives any and all right, title, or interest in the images or products created using Artwork. Artist understands that this waiver includes waivers of the exclusive rights of reproduction, adaptation, publication, and display. Artist agrees to relinquish and waive any and all rights, title, and interest to the Artwork, images thereof, or images of any portion thereof, including, but not limited to, the rights afforded artists under the Copyright Act of 1976 and the Visual Arts Rights Act of 1990, Title 17 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq. Artist understands and agrees that the right of attribution and integrity, as specifically set forth in 17 U.S.C. § 106A, are hereby expressly waived except as otherwise provided herein. To the extent that the provisions of this Agreement differ with the Copyright Act of 1976 and Visual Arts Rights Act of 1990, the provisions of this Agreement will govern and any such differences in the rights and duties created thereunder are expressly waived. D. Limited edition. Artist warrants and represents that the Artwork has never before been created, published, produced, reproduced, or copied; that Artist is the sole creator of the Artwork; and that Artist is the lawful owner of all rights in the Artwork and the content depicted therein. E. Ownership. City shall own the digital image created from Artwork and any portion or product thereof, including the vinyl wrap or wraps created therefrom. City shall also own the copyright to Artwork and any product or component thereof, including the vinyl wrap or wraps created therefrom. The installation location(s) of the vinyl wrap(s) created from Artwork, if any, will be selected in the City's sole discretion, and once installed, City or other duly authorized party may modify or remove, or allow modification or removal of same, in City's or other applicable agency's sole discretion. Artist specifically waives the right to claim any remedy concerning the alteration of any image of Artwork or portion thereof, including the vinyl wrap or wraps created therefrom. City shall not be obligated by this Agreement to install any vinyl wrap or wraps featuring the digital image of Artwork or any portion thereof. F. Payment. City shall make total payment to Artist for services rendered pursuant to this Agreement in the amount of six hundred dollars ($600.00). This payment shall constitute full compensation from City to Artist for any and all services, costs, and expenses related to services performed under this Agreement. Artist shall be responsible for payment of any and all taxes due and owing for payment received under this Agreement. G. Photographs. Artist consents to City's publication and/or use of any photographs or recordings of Artist, Artwork, or installations created using Artwork, for promotional purposes. II. TERMS AND CONDITIONS A. Acknowledgment. Artist acknowledges that activity undertaken in conjunction with this Agreement presents risks, some of which are unknown, and agrees to assume all such risks. B. Indemnification; waiver. Artist shall indemnify, save and hold harmless, release and forever discharge City and its agents and employees from and for any and all losses, claims, actions, judgments for damages, or injury to persons or property and losses and expenses caused or incurred by Artist or City in the course of any activity associated with this Agreement not caused by or arising out of the tortious conduct of City, regardless of the manner by which such claim may be brought. C. Relationship of Parties. Artist is an independent contractor and is not an employee, agent, joint venturer, or partner of City. Nothing in this Agreement shall be interpreted or construed as creating or establishing the relationship of employer and employee between Artist and City or between Artist and any official, agent, or employee of City. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT -TRAFFIC Box WRAP PAGE 2 Of 9 D. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding between the Parties. This Agreement supersedes any and all statements, promises, or inducements made by either party, or agents of either party, whether oral or written. The terms of this Agreement may not be enlarged, modified or altered except upon written agreement signed by both parties hereto. E. Agreement governed by Idaho law. The laws of the State of Idaho shall govern the validity, interpretation, performance and enforcement of this Agreement. Venue shall be in the courts of Ada County, Idaho. F. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be illegal, invalid, or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement shall not be affected. G. Successors and assigns. All of the terms, provisions, covenants and conditions of this Agreement shall inure to the benefit of, and shall be binding upon, each party and their successors, assigns, legal representatives, heirs, executors, and administrators. H. Advice of attorney. Each party warrants and represents that in executing this Agreement, it has received independent legal advice from its attorneys or the opportunity to seek such advice. I. Exhibits. All exhibits to this Agreement are incorporated by reference and made a part of hereof as if the exhibits were set forth in their entirety herein. J. City Council approval required. The validity of this Agreement shall be expressly conditioned upon City Council action approving the Agreement. Execution of this Agreement by the persons referenced below prior to such ratification or approval shall not be construed as proof of validity in the absence of Meridian City Council approval. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the Q day of June, 2016, ARTIST: Susan Elle CITY OF MERIDIAN: BY: Tammy de rd, Mayor PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT- TRAFFIC Box COMMUNITY ART PROJECT PAGE 3 Of 9 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT – TRAFFIC BOX WRAP P AGE 4 of 9 EXHIBIT A CALL FOR ARTISTS ! " # ! $%&& " " " ' ! ( ) * ) ' + " " , ! - ! , ! . /& 0 1 ! • " ( ) * 2 0 • 3 " " 4!5 //6 1& !" 0 • 7 /& " !8 " " 9 8 0 ' ! ! . 0 7!:! " ( 9 * ; %% . ( )9 4%<=1 5 && ! ! > " /" 1&/5! ! 8 " ! 7!:! ! ) " • ? 0 • 8 0 • 0 • ! " " " " " 0 " " " " " " " 0 ! ? @ ! ! PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT – TRAFFIC BOX WRAP P AGE 6 of 9 EXHIBIT B APPLICATION MATERIALS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT – TRAFFIC BOX COMMUNITY ART PROJECT P AGE 9 of 9 EXHIBIT C BANG ! G OLDEN POND Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: June 21, 2016 ITEM NUMBER: 5M PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Professional Service Agreement Professional Service Agreement for Artwork for Traffic Box Art Project - Laurel Lake McGuire DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR ARTWORK FOR TRAFFIC BOX COMMUNITY ART PROJECT This PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR ARTWORK FOR TRAFFIC BOX ART PROJECT ("Agreement") is made this a ""day of June, 2016 ("Effective Date"), by and between the City of Meridian, a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of Idaho ("City"), and Laurel Lake McGuire, an individual person ("Artist"). WHEREAS, the City desires that public art will be a component of our community, and to that end, the Meridian Arts Commission ("MAC") issued the Call for Artists attached hereto as Exhibit A, seeking proposals for the inclusion of artwork in the Traffic Box Art Image Repository, a repository of images portraying artwork available for reproduction on vinyl wraps to be installed on traffic signal boxes in Meridian, with permission from the property owner Ada County Highway District, as part of the Traffic Box Community Art Project ("Project"), as a benefit to the public; WHEREAS, Artist submitted a response to the Call for Artists, which response included the Application and Acknowledgments and letter of intent attached hereto as Exhibit B; WHEREAS, on May 18, 2015, the Meridian Arts Commission reviewed the responses to the Call for Artists, recommended works appropriate for inclusion in the Traffic Box Art Image Repository based on their respectively submitted proposals, including the artwork submitted by Artist, and on June 9, 2015, Meridian City Council accepted such recommendation, creating the Traffic Box Art Image Repository via Resolution no. 15-1070; WHEREAS, MAC recommended to City Council that two pieces of art, entitled The Old Ways, depicted in Exhibit C hereto ("Artwork"), created by Artist and included in the Traffic Box Art Image Repository, become an installation as part of the Project, and the Meridian City Council accepted MAC's recommendation on May 24, 2016; and WHEREAS, Artist wishes to participate in the Project by allowing the Artwork to be scanned and formatted in order to depict the Artwork on a vinyl wrap installation on a traffic control box, subject to the following terms and conditions; NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged and agreed, the Parties agree as follows: I. SCOPE. A. Delivery of Artwork; purpose. Artist shall allow City to temporarily take possession of the original Artwork for the purpose of creating a digital image of the Artwork, printing such image on a vinyl wrap, and installing the vinyl wrap on one or more traffic control boxes in Meridian, Idaho. City shall not provide insurance to cover loss, theft, or damage of original Artwork and/or of Artist's person, property, or interests. Insurance of original Artwork shall be in Artist's sole discretion and responsibility. Artist shall bear any and all risks of and actual loss, theft, and/or damage to the original Artwork. Subject to the limitations and provisions set forth in this Agreement and all Exhibits hereto, Artist may sell the original Artwork after City has created a digital image of the Artwork. B. License; alterations. Artist grants to City an irrevocable license to digitally and/or photographically reproduce the image of the Artwork and to authorize third parties to do the same. Artist acknowledges and agrees that the process of photographing, digitizing, printing, and/or reproducing the image of Artwork on a vinyl wrap or wraps may require that the image, or portions thereof, be cropped, resized, or otherwise PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT - TRAFFIC Box COMMUNITY ART PROTECT PAGE I Of 9 altered in order to transfer the image of the original Artwork onto a traffic control box, or for any other purpose, in City's sole discretion. C. Copyright. Artist shall not make any claim to the copyright of the Artwork. Artist expressly waives any and all right, title, or interest in the images or products created using Artwork. Artist understands that this waiver includes waivers of the exclusive rights of reproduction, adaptation, publication, and display. Artist agrees to relinquish and waive any and all rights, title, and interest to the Artwork, images thereof, or images of any portion thereof, including, but not limited to, the rights afforded artists under the Copyright Act of 1976 and the Visual Arts Rights Act of 1990, Title 17 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq. Artist understands and agrees that the right of attribution and integrity, as specifically set forth in 17 U.S.C. § 106A, are hereby expressly waived except as otherwise provided herein. To the extent that the provisions of this Agreement differ with the Copyright Act of 1976 and Visual Arts Rights Act of 1990, the provisions of this Agreement will govern and any such differences in the rights and duties created thereunder are expressly waived. D. Limited edition. Artist warrants and represents that the Artwork has never before been created, published, produced, reproduced, or copied; that Artist is the sole creator of the Artwork; and that Artist is the lawful owner of all rights in the Artwork and the content depicted therein. E. Ownership. City shall own the digital image created from Artwork and any portion or product thereof, including the vinyl wrap or wraps created therefrom. City shall also own the copyright to Artwork and any product or component thereof, including the vinyl wrap or wraps created therefrom. The installation location(s) of the vinyl wrap(s) created from Artwork, if any, will be selected in the City's sole discretion, and once installed, City or other duly authorized party may modify or remove, or allow modification or removal of same, in City's or other applicable agency's sole discretion. Artist specifically waives the right to claim any remedy concerning the alteration of any image of Artwork or portion thereof, including the vinyl wrap or wraps created therefrom. City shall not be obligated by this Agreement to install any vinyl wrap or wraps featuring the digital image of Artwork or any portion thereof. F. Payment. City shall make total payment to Artist for services rendered pursuant to this Agreement in the amount of three hundred dollars ($300.00). This payment shall constitute full compensation from City to Artist for any and all services, costs, and expenses related to services performed under this Agreement. Artist shall be responsible for payment of any and all taxes due and owing for payment received under this Agreement. G. Photographs. Artist consents to City's publication and/or use of any photographs or recordings of Artist, Artwork, or installations created using Artwork, for promotional purposes. City consents to Artist's publication and/or use of any photographs or recordings of Artwork or installations created using Artwork for promotional purposes. II. TERMS AND CONDITIONS A. Acknowledgment. Artist acknowledges that activity undertaken in conjunction with this Agreement presents risks, some of which are unknown, and agrees to assume all such risks. B. Indemnification; waiver. Artist shall indemnify, save and hold harmless, release and forever discharge City and its agents and employees from and for any and all losses, claims, actions, judgments for damages, or injury to persons or property and losses and expenses caused or incurred by Artist or City in the course of any activity associated with this Agreement not caused by or arising out of the tortious conduct of City, regardless of the manner by which such claim may be brought. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT—TRAFFIC BOX WRAP PAGE 2 of 9 D. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding between the Parties. This Agreement supersedes any and all statements, promises, or inducements made by either party, or agents of either party, whether oral or written. The terms of this Agreement may not be enlarged, modified or altered except upon written agreement signed by both parties hereto. E. Agreement governed by Idaho law. The laws of the State of Idaho shall govern the validity, interpretation, performance and enforcement of this Agreement. Venue shall be in the courts of Ada County, Idaho. F. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be illegal, invalid, or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement shall not be affected. G. Successors and assigns. All of the terms, provisions, covenants and conditions of this Agreement shall inure to the benefit of, and shall be binding upon, each party and their successors, assigns, legal representatives, heirs, executors, and administrators. H. Advice of attorney. Each party warrants and represents that in executing this Agreement, it has received independent legal advice from its attorneys or the opportunity to seek such advice. I. Exhibits. All exhibits to this Agreement are incorporated by reference and made a part of hereof as if the exhibits were set forth in their entirety herein. J. City Council approval required. The validity of this Agreement shall be expressly GOnditioned upon City Council action approving the Agreement. Execution of this Agreement by the persons referenced below prior to such ratification or approval shall not be construed as proof of validity in the absence of Meridian City Council approval. S� IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the day of June, 2016. ARTIST: McGuire CITY OF MERIDIAN: BY: Attest: Tammy eerd, Mayor PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT- TRAFFIC BOX COMMUNITY ART PROJECT PAGE 3 ot9 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT – TRAFFIC BOX WRAP P AGE 4 of 9 EXHIBIT A CALL FOR ARTISTS ! " # ! $%&& " " " ' ! ( ) * ) ' + " " , ! - ! , ! . /& 0 1 ! • " ( ) * 2 0 • 3 " " 4!5 //6 1& !" 0 • 7 /& " !8 " " 9 8 0 ' ! ! . 0 7!:! " ( 9 * ; %% . ( )9 4%<=1 5 && ! ! > " /" 1&/5! ! 8 " ! 7!:! ! ) " • ? 0 • 8 0 • 0 • ! " " " " " 0 " " " " " " " 0 ! ? @ ! ! PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT – TRAFFIC BOX WRAP P AGE 6 of 9 EXHIBIT B APPLICATION MATERIALS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT – TRAFFIC BOX COMMUNITY ART PROJECT P AGE 9 of 9 EXHIBIT C T HE O LD W AYS Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: June 21, 2016 ITEM NUMBER: PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Water Main Easement Water Main Easement between the City of Meridian and Penwood III, LLC within Newton's Nook Subdivision MEETING NOTES Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION I DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS ADA COUNTY RECORDER Christopher D. Rich 2016.055041 BOISE IDAHO Pgs=5 DAWN TRIVOLIS 06/23/2016 09:36 AM MERIDIAN CITY NO FEE 11111111111111 II III II VIII III II I I 1111111111111111 00239736201600650410060063 WATER MAIN EASEMENT x aks` JvvXe- THIS INDENTURE, made this Art day of , 20_L(,, between �>D M% 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 water main right-of-way across the premises and property hereinafter particularly bounded and described; and WHEREAS, the water main is to be provided for through an underground pipeline to be constructed by others; and WHEREAS, it will be necessary to maintain, service and subsequently connect to said pipeline 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 EXHIBIT A and B) The easement hereby granted is for the purpose of construction and operation of a water line 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 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. Water Main Easement REV. 04/29/16.doe 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 shall 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: E President AIAOAV,�7l PF .� It-, STATE OF IDAHO ) . ss. County of Ada ) On this day of f ' -, 20 ZL before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, per onally appeared f''� and ed known or identifito me to be the --' ent and e `re�tary, respectively, of the corporation that executed the within instrument, and c �owledged to me that such corporation executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and,Xgg first above written. %% f w S �pNOTARY PUBLIC FOR IDAHO Residing at: Commission Expires: r£ Wate in P&wrd''e REV.04/29/16.doc Yid 0 t:: GRANTEE: CITY OF MERIDIAN de OkV -r `g Attest by Jacy J nes, t y �S � E I�IgNA.- n, �oAMo Approved By City Council On: (C) 1 � o� SEAL STATE OF IDAHO, ) : ss County of Ada ) On this o'-?\ day of ") ur e , 20 �, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared Tammy de Weerd and Jacy Jones, 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. NOTARY PUB.LIC FOR IDAHO Residing at: Q� Commission Expires: -12- Water Main Easement REV. 04/29/16.doc March 16, 2016 Project No. 116022 - F E Page 1 of 1 THE LAND GROUP, INC. Water Line Easement PENNWOOD III, LLC An easement located in a portion of Lot 5 of Newton's Nook Subdivision, Book 98, Page 12383, as recorded in official records of Ada County, situated in the Northeast One Quarter of Section 13, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows: COMMENCING at the Northwest corner of said Newton's Nook Subdivision, marked by a 5/8" steel pin with orange plastic cap "TVE PLS 10782"; thence on the north boundary line of said Newton's Nook Subdivision, South 89°28'56" East, 72.70; thence leaving said north boundary line, South 00°35'24" West, 74.96 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence South 89°24'36" East, 49.57 feet, to a point on the westerly line of an existing water line easement, Inst#106017068, as recorded in official records of Ada County; Thence on said westerly line, South 00°35'24" West, 6.00 feet; Thence leaving said westerly line, North 89°24'36" West, 49.57 feet; Thence North 00°35'24" East, 6.00 feet, to the POINT OF BEGINNING. The above described easement contains 297 square feet more or less, subject to all existing easements and rights-of-way of record. PREPARED BY: THE LAND GROUP, INC. 462 E. SHORE DRIVE, SUITE 100 EAGLE, IDAHO 83616 208-939-4041 208-939-4445(fax) Michael S. Femenia 03/21/2016 07 Site Plonning e Landscape Architecture - civil Engineering ' Golf Course Irrigation & Engineering ­ Gtophic conununicolioo o Surveying 462 E. Shore Di ive, Ste. 100, Eagle, Idaho 83616 - P 208.939.4041 F 208.939.4445 © www.thelandgroupinc.com Flle Locatlow o:12Di6\i16D22\cacsmey"bits\116022watuuse tpennwMIN 160315.dwg Last Plotted Bymike hn enla Date Plotted: Wednesday, Much 16 2016 at 01:32 PPA 0-0 to CDCD Mq CD MA w I� I I N'b A C4;: LOT 16, 61!(1 FPAIININ SWAM SUM, LOT W. 6U(1FFWIX11F1 SMUhRE 51,9. O C w N00°34'45"• 185.83'—� C? R\l y �ny I mN Co n o0 �c y o CO n V rn z r N o z V • �ICDR n of o z Zy C) 9 S00°35'24"W o 74.96' d � _ — — o ^� I m N00°35'24"E 105.70' Ln N I I" s W � Z 4P n D D� o m n i - c m I+ m — — C00 00 D I i m cc o IIro I� ilro Cil ND M (ND / L I 0 m Cri 9 .a, / � -1 I—� � —ISI m + W CD °° N U I I is o ( o ' ICO P /��� rQM R/vv — — • — — — w S00°35'16"W 238,80'--* _ o f 0 0 S00°35'16"W 518.58' — S. REST 5TH AVENUE a 3 s w.7 r `s fl v a :5 G Eyt Pn Z �'s a� �lt�+I.� M e 1� �� �,� Water Line Easement FRI �� 1,.� Umk o Exibit'6' C Meridian Idaho Q M R Z 2 is o ( o ' ICO P /��� rQM R/vv — — • — — — w S00°35'16"W 238,80'--* _ o f 0 0 S00°35'16"W 518.58' — S. REST 5TH AVENUE a 3 s w.7 Shed TRle: `s fl v a :5 Eyt Pn Pennwodd III LLC �'s a� �lt�+I.� � e 1� �� �,� Water Line Easement FRI �� 1,.� Umk o Exibit'6' g s Meridian Idaho Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: June 21, 2016 ITEM NUMBER: PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Pathway Easement 50 Pedestrian Pathway Easement Between Creekstone Meridian, LLC and the City of Meridian Regarding a Multi -Use Pathway on Lot 18, Block 1 of Creekstone Subdivision MEETING NOTES Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS ADA COUNTY RECORDER Christopher D. Rich 2016-055042 BOISE IDAHO Pgs=6 DAWN TRIVOLIS 06/23/2016 09:36 AM MERIDIAN CITY NO FEE 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 IN I I IIIIIIIII 00239736201600660420060067 PEDESTRIAN PATHWAY EASEMENT sk THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this a� 'day of , )v,he , 2016, between Creekstone Meridian, LLC, hereinafter referred to as "Grantor", and the City of Meridian, an Idaho municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Grantee"; WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Grantor is the owner of real property on portions of which the City of Meridian desires to establish a public pathway; and WHEREAS, the Grantor desires to grant an easement to establish a public pathway and provide connectivity to present and future portions of the pathway; and WHEREAS, Grantor shall construct the pathway improvements upon the easement described herein; and NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: THE GRANTOR does hereby grant unto the Grantee an easement on the following property, described on Exhibit "A" and depicted on Exhibit `B" attached hereto and incorporated herein. THE EASEMENT hereby granted is for the purpose of providing a public pedestrian pathway easement for multiple -use non -motorized recreation, with the free right of access to such facilities at any and all times. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, said easement unto said Grantee, its successors and assigns forever. THE GRANTOR hereby covenants and agrees that it 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. IT IS EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED, by and between the parties hereto, that the Grantor shall repair and maintain the pathway improvements. Pedestrian Pathway Easement THE GRANTOR hereby covenants and agrees with the Grantee that should any part of the easement hereby granted become part of, or lie within the boundaries of any public street, then, to such extent such 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 GRANTOR does hereby covenant with the Grantee that it is lawfully seized and possessed of the aforementioned and described tract of land, and that it has a good and lawful right to convey said easement, and that it will warrant and forever defend the title and quiet possession thereof against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Grantor has hereunto subscribed its signature the day and year first hereinabove written. BY: Its: STATE OF IDAHO ) ss County of Ada ) -t On this 1— day of J w.�. , 2016, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared 0" i" Cc,--ool known or identified to me to be the r that executed the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that such company executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year fist above written. E J...... ' NOT � Y LIC FOR IDAHO Res'din t: s=. Commission Expires: 6-2-3 -1 Pedestrian Pathway Easement GRANTEE: CITY OF MERIDIAN �QQRp,TED qUG&fir Tammy eerd Mayor (✓�'[(11yor E IDIAN%- IDAHO SEAL Attest by Jacy lone °"the 7REAS5 Approved By City Council On: �p / o^i t t 1, STATE OF IDAHO ) ss. County of Ada Sk- On this ` — day of \,�kVA e , 2016, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared TAMMY DE WEERD and JACY JONES, 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. CHEZ (SEAL) : ,,', A 0 `• o tv IDAHO �..• PP1i PQtrinn PnthWaV FnQP.YnP.nt V-ftu'"'tL,�bj-t- NOTARY PUBLIC FOR IDAHO Residingat: Commission Expires: '-A Land Description Easement over Lot 18, Block 1 An easement over a parcel of land being the proposed Lot 18 in Block 1 of the proposed Creekstone Subdivision located in the southwest quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 10, Township 3 North, Range 1 West of the Boise Meridian, Meridian City, Ada County, Idaho being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the found 5/8th inch diameter iron pin representing the position of the center quarter corner of said Section 10 as perpetuated by document 2016-011211, Records of Ada County from which the found brass cap monument representing the position of the quarter corner common to sections 10 and 11 of T3N, R1W as perpetuated by document 114007427, Records of Ada County bears S 890 36'02" E a distance of 2655.67 feet; thence S 89136' 02" E for a distance of 893.20 feet to a set 5/8th inch diameter iron pin; thence N 17° 27' 31" W for a distance of 36.77 feet to a set 5/8th inch diameter iron pin; thence N 17127' 31" W for a distance of 26.27 feet to a set 5/8th inch diameter iron pin and the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence N 89136' 02" W for a distance of 36.37 feet to a set 5/8th inch diameter iron pin; Thence N 15157'30" W for a distance of 61.73 feet to a set 5/8th inch diameter iron pin; Thence N 15157' 30" W for a distance of 63.47 feet to a set 5/8th inch diameter iron pin; Thence N 15119' 24" W for a distance of 50.02 feet to a set 5/8th inch diameter iron pin; Thence N 15116' 24" W for a distance of 49.86 feet to a set 5/8th inch diameter iron pin; Thence N 21128' 23" W for a distance of 50.95 feet to a set 5/81h inch diameter iron pin; Thence N 07143'04" W for a distance of 47.21 feet to a set 5/8th inch diameter iron pin; Thence N 19155' 22" W for a distance of 57.53 feet to a set 5/81h inch diameter iron pin; Thence N 19155' 22" W for a distance of 73.23 feet to a set 5/8th inch diameter iron pin; Thence N 36139' 11" W for a distance of 63.53 feet to a set 5/8th inch diameter iron pin; Thence N 36136' 11" W for a distance of 22.89 feet to a set 5/81h inch diameter iron pin; Thence N 58100' 47" W for a distance of 39.94 feet to a set 5/8th inch diameter iron pin; (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) Boise, 208-863-4198 �GRIT}� 9 ` `1 A ua x ell o ��- C) Thence N 580 00' 47" W for a distance of 72.81 feet to a set 5/8th inch diameter iron pin; Thence N 580 00'47" W for a distance of 46.94 feet to a set 5/8th inch diameter iron pin; Thence N 54° 11' 38" W for a distance of 16.70 feet to a set 5/81h inch diameter iron pin; Thence N 540 11' 38" W for a distance of 188.79 feet to a set 5/8th inch diameter iron pin; Thence N 00° 59' 36" E for a distance of 33.97 feet to a set 5/8th inch diameter iron pin; Thence S 560 48' 03" E for a distance of 368.16 feet to a set 5/8 1h inch diameter iron pin; Thence 120.76 feet along the arc of a 175.69 foot radius curve right having a central angle of 39122' 47" and a long chord bearing S 370 06' 41" E a distance of 118.39 feet to a set 5/8th inch diameter iron pin; Thence S 17127' 31" E for a distance of 530.79 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING. Said Easement contains 29,827 square feet or 0.685 acres, more or less. 2 1602 W. Hays St_„ Suite 306 -- Boise„ ID 83702 - Phone. 208-$63-4198 www.accuratesurveyors.com -EXHIRI T MA -P EASEMENT ACROSS LOT No. 18, BLOCK 1, OF THE PROPOSED CREEKSTONE SUBDIVISION LOCATED IN THE SW 114 OF THE NE 114 OF SEC77ON 10, T. 3N., R.1 W., B. M, CITY OF MERIDIAN COUNTY AA - STATE OF IDAHO 0 CURVE TABLE CURVE DIUS IARC LENGTH CHORD LENGTHICHORD BEARINGIDELTA ANGLE C1 175.69 120.75 118.39 S 3T06-41- E 39'22 47 - LINE TABLE r Q� 9 -b 10 c SCALE:. 1"=100' BLOCK 1 LEGEND 12 BOUNDARY UNE SEC77ON UNE 13 FOUND BRASS CAP MONUMENT FOUND 518" IRON PIN, AS NOTED © SET 518" IRON PIN, PLS 11463 14 11 LOT No., PROPOSED CREEI(STONE SUBOMSION -- INE BEARI G DISTANCE L1 N 17'27 31 W 36.77 L2 IN 17'27 2525 W 26.27 L3 IN 89'36'02" W 36.37 L4 IN 15'57 3Q W--6-1—.7,3-' L5 IN 15'57 30 W 63.47 L6 N 15' 19'24" W 50.02 L7 N 15'19'24" W 49.86 L8 N 21'28 23 W 50.95 L9 N 07'43'04" W 47.21 LIQ N 19'55 22 W 57.53 L11 N 19'55'22" W 73.23 L12 N 36°3911 W 63.53 L13 IN 36'39 11 W 22.89 L14 N 58°00 47 W 39.94 L15 IN 58'00 47 W 72.81 L16 IN 58!00'T7 -'O ---W 46.94 L17 N 54' 11 38 W 16.70 L18 N 00'59 36 E 33.97 16 � C 114 CORNER L3 SEC77ON 10 17, CP&F INSTRUMENT No. 2018-011211 W. PINE AVMUE r 10_ 893.20' PLS N 8936`02 W 2655.67 11118 rMsg.) 114 CORNER SECTION 10 CP&F INSTRUMENT Na 114007427 Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: June 21, 2016 ITEM NUMBER: 5P PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: License Agreement License Agreement Between the Nampa and Meridian Irrigation District and the City of Meridian Regarding a Multi -Use Pathway on Lot 18, Block 1 of the Creekstone Subdivision MEETING NOTES Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: June 21, 2016 ITEM NUMBER: 5Q ITEM TITLE: Q. Resolution No. I _ - 11 14 (P PROJECT NUMBER: A Resolution of the Mayor and City Council of the City of Meridian Declaring that certain Self -Contained Breathing Apparatus are Surplus Property and Authorizing the Donation of such Unit to the West Ada School District's Fire Training Program. DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS CITY OF MERIDIAN RESOLUTION NO. I G ® I I BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BIRD, BORTON, CAVENER, MILAM, PALMER, LITTLE ROBERTS A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, SETTING FORTH CERTAIN FINDINGS AND PURPOSES TO DECLARE SURPLUS PROPERTY AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN TO DONATE NINE (9) SELF-CONTAINED BREATHING APPARATUS TO THE WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR THE FIRE TRAINING PROGRAM. WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City of Meridian to declare that certain Self - Contained Breathing Apparatus as attached in Exhibit "A" as surplus as these particular items are no longer needed or used by the City of Meridian; WHEREAS, the City of Meridian's purchasing policy allows surplus City property to be transferred to other government agencies when the value of the property in question is of nominal value, that is, valued at less than the cost of disposing of the property; WHEREAS, the cost of maintaining the self-contained breathing apparatus herein until they were sold, if they could be sold, exceeds their value to the City of Meridian and would result in the unnecessary expenditure of City funds; and WHEREAS, the City of Meridian desires to donate nine (9) self-contained breathing apparatus listed in Exhibit "A" to the West Ada School District, a government agency, the mission of which is to prepare today's students for tomorrow's challenges. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the Mayor and City Council hereby authorize and declare that certain self- contained breathing apparatus attached hereto as Exhibit "A" are surplus property. Section 2. That the Mayor and City Council hereby authorize the conveyance of the self- contained breathing apparatus listed in Exhibit "A" for no monetary consideration, to the West Ada School District's Fire Training Program. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this P1 day of June, 2016. APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this e day of June, 2016. APPRO yor de Weerd AT' RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING DONATION OF SCBA TO WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT'S FIRE TRAINING PROGRAM N U I �-, ASSET TAG# CITY OF MERIDIAN See Attached ASSES' WFORMATION FORM FnreDEPARTMENT QUANTITY I DESCRIPTION SPECIFIC LOCATION 9 Self -Contained Breathing Apparatus EFire logistics storage MODEL MANUFACTURER -7 SERIAL # VENDOR AP -75 Scott Safety I See Attached MES ORIGINAL COST ACQUISITION DATE LIFESPAN Unknown 2005-2009 6-10 years ❑ Add New Asset Upon receipt of a new asset take the time to adhere a tag and complete the "Asset Information Form" and forward to Finance. ® Dispose Asset (Please give a brief description of how you plan on disposing the asset) 9 of the SCBA"s that were replaced on the 2015 grant purchase will be donated to the Meridian Schools Fire Training Program. El Transfer Asset El Retire Asset ASSET DISPOSAL To dispose of an item complete the "Property Disposal Authorization Request" or "Asset Information Form". Once the form is complete It should be routed as follows: A. Signature and date of Department Director. B. Send to Finance Department for review and signature. C. Finance will route to Mayor for approval. D. Mayor will route form back to Finance. E. Finance will return the approved form to the Department (and Legal, if resolution is required) so they can proceed with PDISPOSAL VALUE $ $9,000 l(use your best estimate) PROPERTY DISPOSAL AUTHORIZATION REQUEST Reason for disposal of property: Units were replaced at the end of their lifespan Condition of asset to be disposed: Good condition rDepart4eDt Director Approval to Dispose or Retire an Asset Date Finance ose or Retire an Asset Date Mayor Approve o Dispose or Retire an Asset Date Resolution No.: [ Uj - ((y to Approved by Council Date: Final Disposition of Property Vendor/Agency & Date: Note: AN Donations must be approved by Council through Resolution. L W m rl o0 tD �t e-i ci' r� Q1 Ln �' W tr O o N rn a m tD O m W m LD ,-t NO ch LD 0 t" 0 w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 z O MfV O d M O M Q ri O f31 0 00 0 00 0 00 to o M O d M O o M O O M O Ln 00 O 't 00 O m M O m M O M m O 0 N 0 0 0 to Ln to to to Ln v1 0 to 0 to 0 to 0 0 V-1 c1 H H e-1 H H H H e-1 VH H H .a L •�• 00 00 00 00 00 00 Q1 O1 Q1 Q d O O O d O O O d a N N N N N N N N N a 0 40 1 N M d' Ln w N 00 N N O to O to O 4n O Ln 0 o 0 tD t0 w tD w tD p o0 00 00 00 00 00 — w w o w w w L V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U U U U U U U U CU 0 N 0 Ln to tA Ln tA N m 1 � 5 L L L L L L L L aaaaaaaaa a a¢ c� a a sz a ss a a a c. Q ca. Qa iz c a4 c on c tw c an c nn c na c nn c a0 c on c G t t :2 a r i s s .g' m M of Oi m m m v m ami L V Cd m co ca Co GLI in co m c c c C c G c C _c c c c c c c c c c U U U U U U U U U to to to to to in to to to 0 0 Ln to Ln u1 0 Ln Ln U U U U U U U U U p Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q M a, M a a. a a a a w w 0= w Q a¢ Q d Q a¢ Q Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: June 21, 2016 ITEM NUMBER: 5R PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: R. Resolution No. �� T A Resolution of the Mayor and City Council of the City of Meridian Declaring that certain Cardiac Monitors are Surplus Property and Authorizing the Donation of such Units to the Idaho Bureau of EMS. MEETING NOTES Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS CITY OF MERIDIAN RESOLUTION NO. ( l0 I I q'�- BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BIRD, BORTON, CAVENER, MILAM, PALMER, LITTLE ROBERTS A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, SETTING FORTH CERTAIN FINDINGS AND PURPOSES TO DECLARE SURPLUS PROPERTY AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN TO DONATE SIX (6) CARDIAC MONITORS TO THE IDAHO BUREAU OF EMS FOR DISBURSEMENT TO RURAL EMS AGENCIES IN IDAHO THAT HAVE A NEED FOR THESE DEVISES. WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City of Meridian to declare that certain Cardiac Monitors as attached in Exhibit "A" as surplus as these particular. items are no longer needed or used by the City of Meridian; WHEREAS, the City of Meridian's purchasing policy allows surplus City property to be transferred to other government agencies when the value of the property in question is of nominal value, that is, valued at less than the cost of disposing of the property; WHEREAS, the cost of maintaining the cardiac monitors herein until they were sold, if they could be sold, exceeds their value to the City of Meridian and would result in the unnecessary expenditure of City funds; and WHEREAS, the City of Meridian desires to donate six (6) cardiac monitors units listed in Exhibit "A" to the Idaho Bureau of EMS, a government agency, the mission of which is to promote and protect the health and safety of Idahoans. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the Mayor and City Council hereby authorize and declare that certain cardiac monitors attached hereto as Exhibit "A" are surplus property. Section 2. That the Mayor and City Council hereby authorize the conveyance of the cardiac monitors listed in Exhibit "A" for no monetary consideration, to the Idaho Bureau of EMS. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this O� day of June, 2016. APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this jD4 day of June, 2016. APPROVED: Mayor Ta de Weerd ATTI RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING DONATION OF CARDIAC MONITORS TO IDAHO BUREAU OF EMS �� y �!�1dDC7�•a�Duro, ��,�o N ,' o �� rl n� tno 0 vii rn (n o (D (moo D � (D O O CD @ p ro r.ro rn -(D ° u' ° D() O O a CL O — O (D ;: ` ( ) * * m a O c g -n EF to b 2 !D � -= ° c c -. 3 N �a ° O 0) (n3�•= O r�ron°d� o� m ro,c c �' C o'-gro v9) r •lc 3 ro o .+ m O 3 m b (D (D C CL 0 N O Xv a O < X O O �p a 0 CL g (D v ro O m (,,,,`D o ro (D (D D° r*Q ° m N w@ o (D CD c O a m (D CD m a =h��ov a �* D n 2 ro cD CDCL CDo To Q.� (n3 0 N c n rt ~' ro Q (On D) 0 Q n (D 5 O a 0 j O Q (D ro 0 "O @ t(DD 'd 2 -�, v -0 O Q a c 0 (n o (D (moo D � (D O O CD �0 oa (n (n CD y m� n a CL o M m m t� N Q C O CL a m o .+ m O 3 m b (D (D C CL n a O < r ^' (D (D D CL (D CD cal ::3 2 ro cD CDCL = 0 0 ma 1V Q w_ u �D m � @ t(DD 'd 2 -�, v -0 O Q Nti N O Dw m o � :U ro R (n o (D (moo D � (D ...1 o ro U) rt " (D � oa x � Z � {� ' O n U) (D ro M O to N C O Q m i 0) 0 .A W N -� �D m � @ t(DD 'd 2 -�, v -0 O Q Nti N O Dw m o � :U ro R (n o (D (moo D � (D ro U) rt oa x � D ro U) (D ro C) N ro m n�i �, a n v CL 3 m LU O ro 2 < }11 m I CL In O a p M p m r+ r n CL c� O r+ O 1 0 CL 10 O H d r) 6 N z z z z G 00 0 0 O O o 0 G -1 --I N -I -{ -P m 0'q Orq m Obi On O O O O O O O O O O O O A r+ r+ r+ r+ r+ r+�t O O O O O O p m -0 -0 o w w w w sv w X- X- X- X� O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N v w w Nn Q. Q. Q. Q. a CL M r+ o z = = = = = O r=* A A: r-+ rt' p 0 0 0 0 0 0 % � -% � -1 -% w w w w w w w w u w w .p 00 00 0 00 00 �o N v)N N �-o 2 N N 44h N N G lf7 lD Ol l0 CO �! A to N 00 rn 00 Z S S S S S S r fA fD fD fD CD fD 3• fD fb fD fR fD fD rF rt r -h r+ r+ r+ m I CL In O a p M p m r+ r n CL c� O r+ O 1 0 CL 10 O H d E 6 N m I CL In O a p M p m r+ r n CL c� O r+ O 1 0 CL 10 O H d Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: June 21, 2016 ITEM NUMBER: 6A PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Acknowledge and Thank CableONE Movie Night in Meridian Business Sponsors MEETING NOTES Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: June 21, 2016 ITEM NUMBER: 6B PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Public Art Meridian Arts Commission Recommendation for Public Art at Fairview and Main MEETING NOTES Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: June 21, 2016 ITEM NUMBER: 6C PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Boise City Attorney's Office Presentation on Prosecution and Police Services Contract MEETING NOTES Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Me r i d i a n C i t y Me r i d i a n C i t y Me r i d i a n C i t y Me r i d i a n C i t y P P P Pr o s e c u t i o n a n d ro s e c u t i o n a n d ro s e c u t i o n a n d ro s e c u t i o n a n d Po l i c e A d v i c e S e r v i c e s Po l i c e A d v i c e S e r v i c e s Po l i c e A d v i c e S e r v i c e s Po l i c e A d v i c e S e r v i c e s Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l - J u n e 2 0 1 6 Bo i s e C i t y A t t o r n e y ’ s O f f i c e Mi c h a e l D e a n - Cr i m i n a l P r o s e c u t i o n T e a m S e n i o r M a n a g e r Ch r i s t i n e S t a r r - Pu b l i c S a f e t y T e a m S e n i o r M a n a g e r PR O S E C U T I O N S E R V I C E S PR O S E C U T I O N S E R V I C E S PR O S E C U T I O N S E R V I C E S PR O S E C U T I O N S E R V I C E S • 14 C r i m i n a l P r o s e c u t o r s • 3 P o l i c e A d v i s o r s A6 Sl i d e 2 A6 Mi k e a n d D U , I i n c l u d e d t h i s a s i t w a s i n p r e s e n t a t i o n l a s t t i m e . T a k e i t o r l e a v e i t . Au t h o r , 6 / 2 / 2 0 1 6 PR O S E C U T I O N S E R V I C E S PR O S E C U T I O N S E R V I C E S PR O S E C U T I O N S E R V I C E S PR O S E C U T I O N S E R V I C E S - S c r e e n p o l i c e r e p o r t s & d e c l i n e o r f i l e c h a r g e s - R e v i e w f i l e d m i s d e m e a n o r c i t a t i o n s a n d m i s d e m e a n o r a r r e s t s - V i c t i m & w i t n e s s n o t i f i c a t i o n , s e r v i c e s , a n d m e e t i ng s - P r e p a r e o f f i c e r s f o r c o u r t a p p e a r a n c e s - C o u n s e l o f f i c e r s o n i n v e s t i g a t i o n s a n d p o t e n t i a l c ha r g i n g d e c i s i o n s - D i s c o v e r y r e v i e w , p r e p a r a t i o n , a n d r e s p o n s e - C o u r t h e a r i n g s f r o m a r r a i g n m e n t t o t r i a l a n d b e y o n d - A r r a i g n m e n t s - S e n t e n c i n g H e a r i n g s - M o t i o n h e a r i n g s - P r o b a t i o n V i o l a t i o n s - P r e t r i a l c o n f e r e n c e s - C o n t e m p t - J u r y a n d b e n c h t r i a l s - A p p e a l s a n d P o s t - C o n v i c t i o n - S p e c i a l t y c o u r t s – D U I & D o m e s t i c V i o l e n c e A7 Sl i d e 3 A7 Bl a n k s l i d e f o r M i k e o r D U t o f i l l i n . Au t h o r , 6 / 2 / 2 0 1 6 CA S E L O A D S CA S E L O A D S CA S E L O A D S CA S E L O A D S Bo i s e C i t y A t t o r n e y o p e n e d 1 5 , 2 1 8 n e w c a s e s i n 2 0 1 5 ( n o t i n c l u d i n g de c l i n e d c a s e s o r p a i d i n f r a c t i o n s ) f o r B o i s e , M e r i di a n , a n d E a g l e . T h e 15 , 2 1 8 c a s e s h a d a t o t a l o f 2 3 , 1 9 6 n e w c h a r g e s . 3, 9 3 5 o f t h e s e c a s e s w e r e o n b e h a l f o f t h e C i t y o f Me r i d i a n . T h e 3 , 9 3 5 Me r i d i a n c a s e s h a d a t o t a l o f 6 , 1 7 3 c h a r g e s . M e r i d ia n c a s e s c o m p r i s e d 25 . 9 % o f t h e t o t a l c a s e s f i l e d a n d 2 6 . 6 % o f o u r n e w c h a r g e s . Ou r 1 4 c r i m i n a l p r o s e c u t o r s h a n d l e d 2 8 , 5 9 6 t o t a l h e ar i n g s i n 2 0 1 5 . Th i s i s a 6 % i n c r e a s e i n t h e n u m b e r o f h e a r i n g s f r o m 2 0 1 4 ( 2 6 , 9 0 0 ) . A8 Sl i d e 4 A8 Ag a i n , t h i s w a s i n t h e l a s t s l i d e s h o w . M i g h t b e n i c e t o s h o w t h e m t h e n u m b e r s b e f o r e t h e c h a r t s . A f t e r t h i s sl i d e , I a s s u m e y o u w o u l d p u t i n c h a r t s a s I h a v e t h e m . Au t h o r , 6 / 2 / 2 0 1 6 IN C O M I N G C A S E S / C H A R G E S B Y Y E A R IN C O M I N G C A S E S / C H A R G E S B Y Y E A R IN C O M I N G C A S E S / C H A R G E S B Y Y E A R IN C O M I N G C A S E S / C H A R G E S B Y Y E A R 0 10 0 0 20 0 0 30 0 0 40 0 0 50 0 0 60 0 0 70 0 0 20 1 0 20 1 1 20 1 2 20 1 3 20 1 4 20 1 5 [V A L U E ] 41 7 4 42 1 8 36 5 3 40 1 5 39 3 5 48 8 7 59 2 3 63 2 9 55 2 4 62 3 9 6173 Ca s e s Ch a r g e s A9 Sl i d e 6 A9 Th e s e n e x t c o u p l e c h a r t s a r e o n e s t h e y r e g u l a r l y s e e . Au t h o r , 6 / 3 / 2 0 1 6 MP D T O P 1 0 C H A R G E S MP D T O P 1 0 C H A R G E S MP D T O P 1 0 C H A R G E S MP D T O P 1 0 C H A R G E S - - -- 2 0 1 5 20 1 5 20 1 5 20 1 5 17 5 17 8 18 7 18 8 21 0 23 7 24 2 31 5 40 5 477 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 5 0 0 6 0 0 49 - 8 0 1 - O b e n d i e n c e t o T r a f f i c C o n t r o l D e v i c e s 49 - 1 4 0 1 ( 3 ) - I n a t t e n t i v e D r i v i n g 37 - 2 7 3 2 - C o n t r o l l e d S u b s t a n c e P o s s e s s i o n 49 - 6 3 8 ( 1 ) - F o l l o w i n g T o o C l o s e l y 18 - 2 4 0 3 - P e t i t T h e f t 18 - 8 0 0 4 ( 1 ) ( a ) - D r i v i n g U n d e r t h e I n f l u e n c e 18 - 8 0 0 1 - D r i v i n g W i t h o u t P r i v i l e g e s 49 - 3 0 1 - I n v a l i d D r i v e r s L i c e n s e 49 - 6 5 4 ( 2 ) - S p e e d i n g 49 - 1 2 3 2 - N o I n s u r a n c e ME R I D I A N C O N V I C T I O N R A T E B Y C H A R G E ME R I D I A N C O N V I C T I O N R A T E B Y C H A R G E ME R I D I A N C O N V I C T I O N R A T E B Y C H A R G E ME R I D I A N C O N V I C T I O N R A T E B Y C H A R G E 96 . 9 0 % 84 . 0 0 % 81 . 8 0 % 80 . 4 0 % 78.20% 0. 0 0 % 20 . 0 0 % 40 . 0 0 % 60 . 0 0 % 80 . 0 0 % 10 0 . 0 0 % 12 0 . 0 0 % 1 Dr i v i n g U n d e r t h e I n f l u e n c e Pr o p e r t y C r i m e s Tr a f f i c M i s d e m e a n o r s PV / C o n t e m p t Crimes Against Person ME R I D I A N C A S E D I S P O S I T I O N ME R I D I A N C A S E D I S P O S I T I O N ME R I D I A N C A S E D I S P O S I T I O N ME R I D I A N C A S E D I S P O S I T I O N 31 0 0 32 0 0 33 0 0 34 0 0 35 0 0 36 0 0 37 0 0 Ca s e s D i s p o s e d Co n v i c t i o n s Ca s e s D i s p o s e d , 3 3 3 9 Co n v i c t i o n s , 3 6 8 0 GO I N G F O R W A R D GO I N G F O R W A R D GO I N G F O R W A R D GO I N G F O R W A R D 20 1 6 M e r i d i a n c a s e s a r e c u r r e n t l y o n p a c e t o e x c e e d t h e c a s e s f i l e d i n 20 1 5 . Od y s s e y i m p l e m e n t a t i o n – s t a r t d a t e o f A u g u s t 8 . In c r e a s e d c o u r t r o o m r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . MP D P o l i c e A d v i c e T e a m MP D P o l i c e A d v i c e T e a m MP D P o l i c e A d v i c e T e a m MP D P o l i c e A d v i c e T e a m At t o r n e y s p r e s e n t a t M P D t h r e e d a y s a w e e k : Tu e s d a y – C h r i s t i n e S t a r r Th u r s d a y – K i m b e r l y S m i t h Fr i d a y – K e v i n B o r g e r Po l i c e A d v i c e T e a m Po l i c e A d v i c e T e a m Po l i c e A d v i c e T e a m Po l i c e A d v i c e T e a m - - -- S e r v i c e s Se r v i c e s Se r v i c e s Se r v i c e s • An s w e r l e g a l q u e s t i o n s r e g a r d i n g i n v e s t i g a t i o n s , su b p o e n a s , c o u r t p r o c e s s e s , e t c . • As s i s t w i t h p r o j e c t s a s a s s i g n e d b y C o m m a n d S t a f f . • Ha n d l e t h e r e v i e w o f p u b l i c r e c o r d s r e q u e s t s • 20 1 5 - t h e t e a m r e v i e w e d o v e r 3 , 5 0 0 P R R s • 20 1 6 - t h e t e a m i s o n p a c e t o e x c e e d t h a t n u m b e r Po l i c e A d v i c e T e a m Po l i c e A d v i c e T e a m Po l i c e A d v i c e T e a m Po l i c e A d v i c e T e a m - - -- S e r v i c e s C o n t . Se r v i c e s C o n t . Se r v i c e s C o n t . Se r v i c e s C o n t . • Ad v i s o r s a l s o r e g u l a r l y p r o v i d e v a r i e d l e g a l u p d a t e training fo r t h e o f f i c e r s . • Le g a l u p d a t e s a r e s e n t t o o f f i c e r s i n m a n y f o r m s : Em a i l Pa p e r B r i e f i n g B u l l e t i n s Br i e f i n g t r a i n i n g s ( s l i d e s h o w s ) Cl a s s r o o m T r a i n i n g Po l i c e A d v i c e T e a m Po l i c e A d v i c e T e a m Po l i c e A d v i c e T e a m Po l i c e A d v i c e T e a m – – –– S e r v i c e s C o n t . Se r v i c e s C o n t . Se r v i c e s C o n t . Se r v i c e s C o n t . 20 1 6 T r a i n i n g • Ap p r o p r i a t e u s e o f f o r c e w h e n d e a l i n g w i t h m e n t a l l y ill persons • Ef f e c t i v e u s e o f p o l i c e b o d y w o r n c a m e r a s • Pr o p e r e v i d e n c e h a n d l i n g t e c h n i q u e s • Pr e p a r i n g o f f i c e r s f o r c h a n g e s i n I d a h o ’ s C o n c e a l e d W e a p o n s l a w In a d d i t i o n t o t h o s e t o p i c s , o f f i c e r s h a v e b e e n b r i ef e d o n t h e n e w e s t re l e v a n t c a s e l a w f r o m t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t o f I d a h o , th e 9 th Circuit Co u r t o f A p p e a l s , a n d t h e U . S . S u p r e m e C o u r t . On On On On - - --C a l l T e a m Ca l l T e a m Ca l l T e a m Ca l l T e a m In a d d i t i o n t o t h e i n - h o u s e a d v i s o r s , t h e r e i s a n O n- c a l l P o l i c e Ad v i s o r a v a i l a b l e 2 4 / 7 t o a s s i s t : Le g a l q u e s t i o n s t h a t c o m e u p i n t h e f i e l d i n t e r m s of e l e m e n t s o f a r r e s t fo r a c t i v e i n v e s t i g a t i o n s Di s c u s s i o n o f a p p r o p r i a t e c h a r g e s t o f i l e Di s c u s s i o n o f a p p r o p r i a t e a c t i o n s f o r s e a r c h a n d s e iz u r e e x c e p t i o n s Pl a n n i n g a n d e x e c u t i o n o f a r r e s t o r s e a r c h w a r r a n t s Co n s u l t a t i o n f o r m a j o r i n c i d e n t s w i t h C o m m a n d S t a f f Qu e s t i o n s ? Ci t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g Ju n e 2 1 , 2 0 1 6 It e m # 8 B : V o l a n t e I n v e s t m e n t s Ne w D e v e l o p m e n t A g r e e m e n t & Mo d i f i c a t i o n t o P r e v i o u s l y Ap p r o v e d P r o v i s i o n s Vi c i n i t y / Z o n i n g M a p Co n c e p t u a l S i t e P l a n ( f o r w e s t p a r c e l ) & Pr o p o s e d D e v e l o p m e n t A g r e e m e n t P r o v i s i o n s 1. A l l d e v e l o p m e n t s h a l l c o m p l y w i t h C i t y o f M e r i d i a n or d i n a n c e s a n d t h e Co m p r e h e n s i v e P l a n . 2. D e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e w e s t p a r c e l l o c a t e d a t 2 6 0 0 E . O v er l a n d R o a d p r o p e r t y s h a l l be g e n e r a l l y c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e c o n c e p t u a l d e v e l o p m e n t pl a n a n d b u i l d i n g el e v a t i o n s i n c l u d e d i n E x h i b i t s A . 4 a n d A . 5 . 3. P r i o r t o d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e e a s t p a r c e l l o c a t e d a t 2 70 0 E . O v e r l a n d R o a d , t h e De v e l o p m e n t A g r e e m e n t s h a l l b e m o d i f i e d t o i n c l u d e a co n c e p t u a l d e v e l o p m e n t pl a n t h a t i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e M U - R F L U M d e s i g n a t i o n c o nt a i n e d i n t h e Co m p r e h e n s i v e P l a n . 4. W i t h d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e s u b j e c t p r o p e r t y , t h e d e v e l op e r i s r e q u i r e d t o e x t e n d se w e r & w a t e r m a i n s t o a n d t h r o u g h t h e p r o p e r t y . 5. F u t u r e d e v e l o p m e n t s h a l l c o m p l y w i t h t h e d e s i g n s t a n d ar d s c o n t a i n e d i n U D C 1 1 - 3A - 1 9 a n d t h e A r c h i t e c t u r a l S t a n d a r d s M a n u a l a n d / o r a n y u p d a t e d v e r s i o n s th e r e o f . Co n c e p t u a l B u i l d i n g E l e v a t i o n s (f o r w e s t p a r c e l ) It e m # 8 C : C e n t r e P o i n t S u b d i v i s i o n De v e l o p m e n t A g r e e m e n t M o d i f i c a t i o n Vi c i n i t y / Z o n i n g M a p !( !( Ú Ú dÚÚd3541 32 4 5 35 4 7 3305 3475 2 5 5 9 2 5 8 1 2 5 2 6 38 4 2 37 5 6 36 6 7 36 3 6 2 4 9 3 36 7 4 37 4 0 37 6 3 37 0 5 2 4 8 2 37 0 7 26 8 0 2 5 2 3 34 9 0 2 5 3 7 34 6 8 36 9 3 2 5 6 1 36 7 1 2 5 0 8 36 5 9 2 5 0 1 33 5 0 2 5 2 9 25 9 6 2 5 5 6 2 5 3 6 2 7 0 0 2 7 1 8 27 3 7 2 7 3 6 33 5 7 35 5 9 3311 27 1 0 3319 35 6 3 35 4 2 35 0 6 34 7 0 15 9 8 34 1 5 3421 2 5 1 5 2 4 9 3 2 5 1 7 3 8 5 8 37 9 2 36 6 8 35 8 6 35 3 0 34 2 4 34 0 2 36 5 8 2 5 0 9 2597 33 1 4 33 3 8 3 3 6 2 2 5 9 3 27 2 4 27 4 8 27 2 2 36 3 7 35 7 8 35 3 0 34 9 4 24 9 8 32 2 3 33 2 1 24 8 4 36 4 5 37 7 3 26 5 4 36 8 2 36 2 6 26 6 3 26 8 9 2 5 9 3 2 5 7 8 2 5 7 0 2 5 3 0 2 5 0 2 2 7 1 3 2 7 0 7 36 4 0 36 0 2 34 5 8 34 1 0 33 7 4 32 0 0 2 4 8 7 34 2 3 2 4 7 7 34 6 7 35 1 7 25 1 2 38 1 0 3263 27 1 8 37 3 8 35 6 4 35 1 2 2 5 4 9 32 6 4 32 8 6 33 0 2 2 4 8 4 2 5 1 5 2 5 6 7 27 0 5 27 3 5 27 0 1 27 0 8 35 9 0 35 5 4 33 3 8 33 2 0 32 5 0 14 1 2 0 2 5 9 9 37 2 2 36 2 4 37 1 5 37 9 5 3270 3450 36 9 6 36 3 7 2 5 8 8 2 5 7 4 2 5 6 0 2 5 4 8 2 5 7 9 2 5 8 6 27 2 1 1 3 9 9 9 35 3 9 35 8 5 40 4 2 40 3 7 27 5 4 36 2 6 34 8 2 34 4 6 34 2 2 27 4 0 33 5 6 24 9 9 24 7 5 32 7 5 25 4 5 26 1 0 3230 3420 40 2 6 26 0 1 24 5 3 33753251 25 4 5 3510 3339 15 9 9 3327 33 4 9 2 5 4 1 2 5 6 5 2 5 8 9 2 5 9 7 2 4 9 8 40 1 9 2 4 7 0 38 2 6 37 8 4 37 3 3 37 5 1 26 7 2 27 0 6 37 2 4 2 4 9 5 2 5 2 2 27 5 3 2 5 4 1 27 2 5 27 1 9 26 5 1 36 5 2 35 6 6 33 0 0 3380 3560 30 5 5 26 4 5 26 4 5 3340 40 1 2 40 0 1 26 2 7 40 2 5 27 0 3 26 7 7 28 0 0 35 0 3 2 5 3 7 2 5 9 8 2 5 9 2 2 5 7 0 2 5 4 8 25 2 3 37 3 8 36 9 0 36 4 0 36 2 7 36 8 5 3 7 1 6 36 4 8 35 4 8 34 4 6 2 5 7 5 2 5 8 3 2 5 8 9 33 2 6 2 5 5 3 2 5 4 2 2 5 1 6 33 4 9 35 1 8 34 3 4 33 9 2 40 2 4 3085 C- N R- 2 R1 RUT RU T C-G N Eagle Rd E U s t i c k R d N P a n k r a t z W a y N C e n t r e p o i n t W a y E N a k a n o D r N R o g u e R i v e r A v e E S u m m e r D a w n S t N D a s h w o o d P l E S a t t e r f i e l d S t N P e t t y W a y E J a s m i n e L n E O M e r a S t N L e s l i e W a y N L e s l i e W a y N G a v i o l a A v e E M a h o n e y S t N J u s t i n A v e Ex i s t i n g C o n c e p t P l a n Pr o p o s e d C o n c e p t P l a n Co n c e p t u a l E l e v a t i o n It e m # 8 D : B r u n d a g e E s t a t e s Zo n i n g / A e r i a l M a p Pr o p o s e d P r e l i m i n a r y P l a t Pr o p o s e d La n d s c a p e P l a n Co n c e p t u a l B u i l d i n g E l e v a t i o n s Co m p o s i t e D r a w i n g o f Ov e r a l l C e n t e r s ’ P r o p e r t y It e m # 8 F : R a i n i e r V i l l a s Vi c i n i t y / Z o n i n g & A e r i a l M a p s Ra i n i e r V i l l a s Pr e l i m i n a r y P l a t Landscape Plan Co n c e p t u a l B u i l d i n g E l e v a t i o n s It e m # 8 G : V e r a d o S u b d i v i s i o n Vi c i n i t y / Z o n i n g & A e r i a l M a p Pr e l i m i n a r y P l a t Landscape Plan Co n c e p t u a l B u i l d i n g E l e v a t i o n s Pr o p o s e d E a s e m e n t Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: June 21, 2016 ITEM NUMBER: $A PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing Continued from June 14, 2016: Public hearing to consider the Urban Renewal Plan for the Ten Mile Road Urban Renewal Project of the Meridian Development Corporation MEETING NOTES hCG VNA�� YY) Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS WWI ME Ten Mile Urban Renewal District (URD) Property Tax Analysis Question: Using today's City Levy what would be the property tax for the City of Meridian and Ten Mile URD? Answer: According to the Ten Mile URD Plan of expected taxable values, the 20yr property tax receipt possible for the City would be $23,805,056. If the District is approved the 20yr tax receipt for the City would be $3,031,924, If the District is approved the 20yr tax receipt for the URD would be $48,091,696. City ofMeridian LEVY 201/5 0.003944925Ten Mile Urban Renewal proposed LEVY `` ' `` � (}.0092 The Ten Mile URD approx acres 301 City Property Taxes without URD approved URD Property Taxes ...Ye , ar — ,Taxable ,Va . I ; u , e- City Prop e rty Ta x TenMileURD URDPropertyTax 2017 38,428,153 $ ­ 151,596 2018 38,812,435 $ 153,112 384,282 $ 3,535 2019 77,450,559 $ 305,537 39,022,406 $ 359,006 2020 85,110,064 $ 335,753 46,681,911 $ 429,474 2021 112,946,540 $ 445,566 74,518,387 $ 2022 121,570,787 $ 479,588 83,142,634 $ 764,912 2023 151,200,339 $ 596,474 112,772,186 $ 1,037,504 2024 153,816,424 $ 606,794 115,388,271 $ 1,061,572 2025 247,608,250 $ 976,796 209,180,097 $ 1,924,457 2026 222,145,729 $ 876,348 183,717,576 $ 1,690,202 2027 252,311,009 $ 995,348 213,882,856 $ 1,967,722 2028 341,979,532 $ 1,349,084 303,551,379 $ 2,792,673 2029 318,615,936 $ 1,256,916 280,187 ' 783 $ 2,577,728 2030 352,298,026 $ 1,389,789 313,869,873 $ 2,887,603 2031 428,949,159 $ 1,692,172 390521,006 $ 3,592,793 2032 432,290,019 $ 1,705,352 393:861,866 $ 3,623,529 2033 444,695,520 $ 1,754,290 406,267,367 $ 3,737,660 2034 549,168,517 $ 2,166,429 510,740,364 $ 4,698,811 2035 530,412,535 $ 2,092,438 491,984,382 $ 4,526,256 2036 573,607,176 $ 2,262,837 535,179,023 $ 4,923,647 2037 560,9312,779 $ 2,212,838 522,504,626 $ 4,807,043_ TOTAL $ 23,805,056 TOTAL $ 48,091,696 City portion ofURD ($151.5U6each year x2Oyre) $ 3,031.924 Finance Miscellaneous Notes Note for comparison ofvalues: The Village commercial taxable value The Town Sq [Na|| commercial taxable value TOTAL Taxable Value Acres $ 233,701.100 107 $ 244,093,000 144 $ 477,794,100 311 Taxable values obtained from Phil Kuoh|anreport dated Aph|2O1O Ten Mile URD proposed Levy obtained from Phil Kushlan report dated April 2016 614/2018 F:\PRDJECTS\UdbonRonewaKTonK4UeURDhaxoeUmute.xlsx CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET Date: June 21, 2016 Item# Project Number: Project Name: Ten Mile Road Urban Renewal Proiect Please print your name For Against Neutral Do you wish to testify (Y/N) =w , C I TY OF ',..e ITY CLERKS 0 !ts Meridian City Council Meeting '&A DATE: June 21, 2016 ITEM NUMBER: A -OA PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Ordinance No. 16-1695 Third Reading Of Ordinance No. 16-1695: An Ordinance Of The City Council Of The City Of Meridian, Approving The Urban Renewal Plan For The Ten Mile Road Urban Renewal Project, Which Plan Includes Revenue Allocation Financing Provisions; Authorizing The City Clerk To Transmit A Copy Of This Ordinance And Other Required Information To The County And State Officials; And Providing An Effective Date. MEETING NOTES 1 0 A [Yf APPROVED Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. � (p , ( �oa BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BIRD, BORTON, CAVENER, MILAM, PALMER, LITTLE ROBERTS AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, APPROVING THE URBAN RENEWAL PLAN FOR THE TEN MILE ROAD URBAN RENEWAL PROJECT, WHICH PLAN INCLUDES REVENUE ALLOCATION FINANCING PROVISIONS; AUTHORIZING THE CITY CLERK TO TRANSMIT A COPY OF THIS ORDINANCE AND OTHER REQUIRED INFORMATION TO THE COUNTY, AFFECTED TAXING ENTITIES, AND STATE OFFICIALS; APPROVING THE SUMMARY OF THE ORDINANCE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Meridian Development Corporation ("MDC" or "Agency") is an independent public body, corporate and politic, an urban renewal agency created by and existing under the authority of and pursuant to the Idaho Urban Renewal Law of 1965, being Idaho Code, Title 50, Chapter 20, as amended and supplemented ("Law") and the Local Economic Development Act, Chapter 29, Title 50, Idaho Code, as amended (the "Act"); WHEREAS, on December 2, 2002, the Meridian City Council adopted Ordinance No. 02- 987 approving an urban renewal Revitalization Plan; WHEREAS, based on inquiries and information presented, it has become apparent that additional property within the City may be deteriorating or deteriorated and should be examined as to whether such an area is eligible for urban renewal planning purposes; WHEREAS, the City and MDC commenced certain discussions concerning examination of the additional area as appropriate for an urban renewal project; WHEREAS, during 2015, the City and MDC authorized the commencement of an eligibility study and preparation of an eligibility report of an area located between I-84 and the West Franklin Road east of Ten Mile Road; WHEREAS, MDC has obtained an eligibility report (the "Report"), which examined an area in Meridian, Idaho, in an area known as the Ten Mile Area for the purpose of determining whether such area was a deteriorating area and deteriorated area as defined by Idaho Code Sections 50-2018(9) and 50-2903(8); WHEREAS, the Report dated November 2015, found the existence of one or more of the statutory criteria for the area to be considered eligible for urban renewal activities; WHEREAS, MDC recommended the Report to the Meridian City Council by way of MDC Resolution 15-061 on November 18, 2015; WHEREAS, the City accepted the Report by way of Resolution 16-1119 on February 9, 2016; ORDINANCE APPROVING URBAN RENEWAL PLAN FOR THE TEN MILE ROAD URBAN RENEWAL PROJECT WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Council considered the steps set forth by the Act and Law, accepting the Report finding the areas set forth in the Report to be "deteriorated" or "deteriorating" areas as defined by Idaho Code sections 50-2018 and 50-2903 declaring the areas as an urban renewal area, making additional findings regarding the characteristics of the areas, making the necessary findings as required by Idaho Code section 50-2008(a) and authorizing MDC to prepare an Urban Renewal Plan; WHEREAS, MDC worked with Phil Kushlan with Kushlan Associates to gather the necessary information and prepare the proposed Ten Mile Road Urban Renewal Plan (the "Plan") which contains the necessary components and analysis required under Idaho Code Title 50, Chapter 20 and 29 and such proposed Plan also contains provisions of revenue allocation financing as allowed by the Act; WHEREAS, MDC, by way of MDC Resolution 16-018, approved and adopted the Plan and recommended that the City approve the Plan; WHEREAS, MDC, by way of MDC Resolution 16-019 approved modifications to the Plan to include a section of the Kennedy Lateral and corresponding costs in the maps and charts of the Plan; WHEREAS, MDC, the Mayor and the City Clerk have worked in good faith to take the necessary action to process the Plan; WHEREAS, at a meeting held on May 19, 2016, the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission considered the Plan and found by P& Z Resolution No 16-1141 that the Plan is in all respects in conformity with the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan; a copy of this Finding is attached hereto as Exhibit 1; WHEREAS, the notice of public hearing of the Plan was caused to be published by the Meridian City Clerk in The Valley Times on May 16 and 23, 2016, a copy of said notice is attached hereto as Exhibit 2; WHEREAS, as of May 12, 2016, the Plan was submitted to the affected taxing entities, available to the public, and under consideration by the City Council; WHEREAS, the City Council during its regular workshop meeting of June 14, 2016, held such public hearing, said hearing being continued to June 21, 2016 for further testimony upon which date the public hearing was closed; WHEREAS, as required by Idaho Code sections 50-2905 and 50-2906, the Plan contains the following information which was made available to the general public and all taxing districts at least thirty (30) days prior to the public hearing on June 14, 2016, the regular workshop meeting of the City Council: ( 1) a statement describing the total assessed valuation of the base assessment roll of the revenue allocation area and the total assessed valuation of all taxable property within the municipality; (2) the kind, number, and location of all proposed public works or improvements within the revenue allocation area; (3) an economic feasibility study; (4) a detailed list of estimated ORDINANCE APPROVING URBAN RENEWAL PLAN FOR THE TEN MILE ROAD URBAN RENEWAL PROJECT project costs; (5) a fiscal impact statement showing the impact of the revenue allocation area, both until and after the bonds, notes and/or other obligations are repaid, upon all taxing districts levying taxes upon property in the revenue allocation area; (6) a description of the methods of financing all estimated project costs and the time when related costs or monetary obligations are to be incurred ; (7) a termination date for the plan and the revenue allocation area as provided for in section 50- 2903(20), Idaho Code. In determining the termination date, the plan shall recognize that the agency shall receive allocation of revenues in the calendar year following the last year of the revenue allocation provision described in the urban renewal plan; and (8) a description of the disposition or retention of any assets of the agency upon the termination date. Provided however, nothing herein shall prevent the agency from retaining assets or revenues generated from such assets as long as the agency shall have resources other than revenue allocation funds to operate and manage such assets; WHEREAS, the Plan authorizes certain projects to be financed by revenue allocation bonds, or loans and proceeds from revenue allocation; WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 14, Title 40, Idaho Code, the Ada County Highway District ("ACHD") is granted certain authority and jurisdiction over public rights of way within the Project Area, as that term is defined in the Plan; WHEREAS, it is necessary and in the best interest of the citizens of the City, to adopt the Plan, including revenue allocation financing provisions because revenue allocation will help finance urban renewal projects to be completed in accordance with the Plan (as now or hereafter amended), in order to: encourage private development in the urban renewal area; prevent and arrest decay of the City due to the inability of existing financing methods to provide needed public improvements ; encourage taxing districts to cooperate in the allocation of future tax revenues arising in the urban renewal area in order to facilitate the long-term growth of their common tax base; encourage private investment within the City; and to further the public purposes of the Agency; WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the equalized assessed valuation of the taxable property in the Project Area is likely to increase, and continue to increase, as a result of initiation and continuation of urban renewal projects in accordance with the Plan; WHEREAS, under the Law and Act any such plan should provide for (1) a feasible method for the location of families who will be displaced from the urban renewal area in decent, safe, and sanitary dwelling accommodations within their means and without undue hardship to such families; (2) the urban renewal plan should conform to the general plan of the municipality as a whole; (3) the urban renewal plan should give due consideration to the provision of adequate park and recreational areas and facilities that may be desirable for neighborhood improvement, with special consideration for the health, safety, and welfare of the children residing in the general vicinity of the site covered by the plan; and (4) the urban renewal plan should afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the municipality as a whole, for the rehabilitation or redevelopment of the urban renewal area by private enterprise; WHEREAS, if the urban renewal area consists of an area of open land to be acquired by the urban renewal agency, such area shall not be so acquired unless (1) if it is to be developed for residential uses, the local governing body shall determine that a shortage of housing of sound standards and design which is decent, safe, and sanitary exists in the municipality; that the need ORDINANCE APPROVING URBAN RENEWAL PLAN FOR THE TEN MILE ROAD URBAN RENEWAL PROJECT for housing accommodations has been or will be increased as a result of the clearance of slums in other areas; that the conditions of blight in the area and the shortage of decent, safe, and sanitary housing cause or contribute to an increase in and spread of disease and crime and constitute a menace to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare; and that the acquisition of the area for residential uses is an integral part of and essential to the program of the municipality; or (2) if it is to be developed for nonresidential uses, the local governing body shall determine that such nonresidential uses are necessary and appropriate to facilitate the proper growth and development of the community in accordance with sound planning standards and local community objectives, which acquisition may require the exercise of governmental action, as provided in the Law, because of defective or unusual conditions of title, diversity of ownership, tax delinquency, improper subdivisions, outmoded street patterns, deterioration of site, economic disuse, unsuitable topography or faulty lot layouts, the need for the correlation of the area with other areas of a municipality by streets and modern traffic requirements, or any combination of such factors or other conditions which retard development of the area; WHEREAS, under the Act a deteriorated area includes any area which is predominantly open and which, because of obsolete platting, diversity of ownership, deterioration of structures or improvements, or otherwise, results in economic underdevelopment of the area, or substantially impairs or arrests the sound growth of a municipality; WHEREAS, under the Law and the Act, specifically sections 50-2018(9) and 50- 2903(8)(f), a deteriorating area may not include an agricultural operation as defined in Idaho Code section 22-4502(1) absent the consent of the owner of the agricultural operation except for an agricultural operation that has not been used for three (3) consecutive years; WHEREAS, the Agency has received written consent concerning certain properties within the urban renewal area, which may have been deemed an agricultural operation as stated above; WHEREAS, the overall base assessment rolls for the various revenue allocation areas cannot exceed ten percent (10%) of the Base Assessment Value of the City of Meridian; WHEREAS, the City at its regular meeting workshop meeting held on June 14, 2016, considered the Plan as proposed and made certain comprehensive findings. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO: SECTION 1: It is hereby found and determined that: (a) The Project Area as defined in the Plan is a deteriorated or a deteriorating area as defined in the Law and the Act and qualifies as an eligible urban renewal area under the Law and Act. (b) The rehabilitation, conservation, and redevelopment of the urban renewal area pursuant to the Plan are necessary in the interests of public health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the City. ORDINANCE APPROVING URBAN RENEWAL PLAN FOR THE TEN MILE ROAD URBAN RENEWAL PROJECT (c) There continues to be a need for the Agency to function in the City. (d) The Plan conforms to the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan as a whole. (e) The Plan gives due consideration to the provision of adequate park and recreation areas and facilities that may be desirable for neighborhood improvement (recognizing the mixed use components of the Plan and the need for overall public improvements), and shows consideration for the health, safety, and welfare of any children, residents or businesses in the general vicinity of the urban renewal area covered by the Plan. (f) The Plan affords maximum opportunity consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole for the rehabilitation and redevelopment of the urban renewal area by private enterprises. (g) The Plan provides a feasible method for relocation of any displaced families residing within the Project Area in decent, safe and sanitary dwelling accommodations within their means and without undue hardship to such families. (h) The collective base assessment roll for the revenue allocation areas under the various revenue allocation areas does not exceed ten percent (10%) of the assessed value of the City. (i) The Plan includes the requirements set forth in Idaho Code § 50-2905. (j) The Plan is sufficiently complete to indicate such land acquisition, demolition and removal of structures, redevelopment, improvements, and rehabilitation as may be proposed to be carried out in the urban renewal area, zoning and planning changes (if any) land uses, maximum densities, building requirements, and any method or methods of financing such plan, which methods may include revenue allocation financing provisions. (k) The urban renewal area, which includes the deteriorating area, as defined in Idaho Code section 50-2018(9), does not include any agricultural operation for which the Agency has not received a written consent, or has not been used for agricultural purposes for three (3) consecutive years. SECTION 2: The City Council finds that the Project Area consists of predominantly open land, that the Agency does not intend to acquire any open land on any widespread basis, and that the Project Area is planned to be redeveloped in a manner that will include nonresidential uses. Provided, however, the City Council finds that for the portions of the Project Area deemed to be "open land," the criteria set forth in the Law and Act have been met. SECTION 3: The City Council finds that the Plan meets the sound needs of the City and will provide opportunities in an area that does not now contain such opportunities, and residential and nonresidential uses under the Plan are necessary and appropriate to facilitate the proper growth ORDINANCE APPROVING URBAN RENEWAL PLAN FOR THE TEN MILE ROAD URBAN RENEWAL PROJECT and development of the community in accordance with sound planning standards and local community objectives because of defective or unusual conditions of title, diversity of ownership, outmoded street patterns, deterioration of site, economic disuse, unsuitable topography or faulty lot layouts, the need for correlation of the area with other areas of the City by streets and modern traffic requirements, or any combination of such factors or other conditions which retard development of the area. SECTION 4: The Plan, a copy of which is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit 3 and made a part hereof by attachment, be, and the same hereby is, approved. As directed by the City Council, the City Clerk and/or the Agency may make certain technical corrections or revisions in keeping with the information and testimony presented at the June 14 and 21, 2016 hearing and incorporate changes or modifications, if any. SECTION 5: The City Council declares that nothing within the Plan is intended or shall be interpreted to usurp the jurisdiction and authority of ACHD as defined in chapter 14, Title 40, Idaho Code. Further, pursuant to Section 40-1415, Idaho Code, ACHD has authority over the planning, location, design, construction, reconstruction, and maintenance of the City rights of way and accompanying curbs, gutters, culverts, sidewalks, paved medians, bulkheads, and retaining walls. In the planning process, ACHD shall take into consideration the principles contained in the Plan. SECTION 6: No direct or collateral action challenging the Plan shall be brought prior to the effective date of this Ordinance or after the elapse of thirty (30) days from and after the effective date of this Ordinance adopting the Plan. SECTION 7: Upon the effective date of this Ordinance, the City Clerk is authorized and directed to transmit to the Ada County Assessor, Joint School District No 2, Ada County EMS, Meridian Cemetery District, Ada County Highway District, College of Western Idaho, Meridian Library District, Ada County Weed, Pest and Mosquito Abatement District, the Western Ada Recreation District, the Meridian Rural Fire District, and the State Tax Commission a copy of this Ordinance, a copy of the legal description of the boundaries of the Revenue Allocation Area, and a map or plat indicating the boundaries of the Project Area. SECTION 8: The City Council hereby finds and declares that the Revenue Allocation Area as defined in the Plan, the equalized assessed valuation of which the City Council hereby determines is in and is part of the Plan is likely to increase as a result of the initiation and completion of urban renewal projects pursuant to the Plan. SECTION 9: The City Council hereby approves and adopts the following statement policy relating to the appointment of City Council members as members of the Agency's Board of Commissioners: If any City Council members are appointed to the Board, they are not acting in an ex officio capacity but, rather, as private citizens who, although they are also members of the City Council, are exercising their independent judgment as private citizens when they sit on the Board. Except for the powers to appoint and terminate Board members and to adopt the Plan, the City Council recognizes that it has no power to control the powers or operations of the Agency. ORDINANCE APPROVING URBAN RENEWAL PLAN FOR THE TEN MILE ROAD URBAN RENEWAL PROJECT SECTION 10: So long as any Agency bonds, notes or other obligations are outstanding, the City Council will not exercise its power under Idaho Code section 50-2006 to designate itself as the Agency Board. SECTION 11: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect immediately upon its passage, approval, and publication and shall be retroactive to January 1, 2016, to the extent permitted by the Act. SECTION 12: The provisions of this Ordinance are severable, and if any provision of this Ordinance or the application of such provision to any person or circumstance is declared invalid for any reason, such determination shall not affect the validity of remaining portions of this Ordinance. SECTION 13: The Summary of this Ordinance, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 4, is hereby approved. SECTION 14: All ordinances, resolutions, orders, or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed, rescinded, and annulled. SECTION 15: This Ordinance does not affect an action or proceeding commenced or right accrued before this Ordinance takes effect. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this 21 st day of June, 2016. APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this 21 st day of June, 2016. APPROVED: r ATTEST: 01v Tammy de erd, Mayor -771-a6 E IDjgN Jacy ones, Clerk I�ANO SEAL ORDINANCE APPROVING URBAN RENEWAL PLAN FOR THE TEN MILE ROAD URBAN RENEWAL PROJECT CITY OF MERIDIAN BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EXHIBIT 1 Resolution No I � — 1 1 I' FITZGERALD, McCARVEL, OLIVER, WILSON, YEARSLEY A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RELATING TO THE URBAN RENEWAL PLAN FOR THE TEN MILE ROAD URBAN RENEWAL PROJECT OF THE MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION; FINDING THAT THE URBAN RENEWAL PLAN IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Meridian Development Corporation, the duly constituted and authorized urban renewal agency for the City of Meridian, Idaho (hereinafter, "Agency") has submitted a proposed urban renewal plan entitled "Urban Renewal Plan for the Ten Mile Road Urban Renewal Project" (the "Plan") to the City of Meridian; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has referred the Plan to the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for review and recommendation concerning the conformity of said Plan with the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission met on May 19, 2016 to consider the Plan and determine its conformity to the Comprehensive Plan; and, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO: Section 1. That the Urban Renewal Plan submitted by the Meridian Development Corporation and referred to this Commission by the City Council for review, is in all respects in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan, Section 2. That City Staff is hereby authorized and directed to provide the Meridian City Council with a signed copy of this Resolution relating to the Plan. Section 3. That this Resolution shall be in full force and effect upon its adoption and approval. ADOPTED AND APPROVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission of Meridian, Idaho this 19th day of May, 2016. Planning and Zoning Commission 4QORp2EDgUCUs�7 ATTEST: City of Steven Yearsley, ChairrJa i z ! A P SEAL tirFs at die T1F A90b�',e ORDINANCE APPROVING URBAN RENEWAL PLAN FOR THE TEN MILE ROAD URBAN RENEWAL PROJECT EXHIBIT 2, Page 1 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY MERIDIAN TO CONSIDER THE URBAN RENEWAL PLAN FOR THE TEN MILE ROAD URBAN RENEWAL PROJECT OF THE MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Meridian will hold during its regular workshop meeting, a public hearing in City Council Chambers at Meridian City Hall, 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho, on June 14, 2016, at 3:00 p.m., pursuant to Idaho Code Section 50-2008(c) to consider for adoption the proposed Urban Renewal Plan for the Ten Mile Road Urban Renewal Project ("Plan") of the Meridian Development Corporation ("Agency"). The Plan being considered for adoption contains a revenue allocation financing provision pursuant to the Local Economic Development Act, chapter 29, title 50, Idaho Code, as amended, that will cause property taxes resulting from any increase in equalized assessed valuation in excess of the equalized assessed valuation as shown on the base assessment roll as of January 1, 2016, to be allocated to the Agency for urban renewal purposes. The Agency has adopted and recommended approval of the Plan. The proposed public works or improvements in the Plan Area include but are not limited to full roadway improvements, sidewalks and pedestrian ways, drainage improvements, public and private utilities such as sewer and water, irrigation facility improvements, right-of-way acquisition, remediation of environmental issues, enhancement of open areas and public recreation facilities, and such other elements required for the project and authorized by Idaho Code Section 50-2007 and 50-2901(13). Any such land uses as described in the Plan will be in conformance with zoning for the City of Meridian and the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, as adopted by the City Council. On May 19, 2016 at its regularly scheduled meeting, the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission will review the Plan for conformance with the approved Comprehensive Plan as required in Idaho Code Section 50-2008. The boundaries of the Urban Renewal Project Area and Revenue Allocation Area consist of approximately 301.45 acres of real property in Meridian City Limits, bounded on the south by I-84, on the west by Ten Mile Road, on the north by Franklin road as more particularly described in Attachment 2 to the Plan and generally depicted in the map below. ORDINANCE APPROVING URBAN RENEWAL PLAN FOR THE TEN MILE ROAD URBAN RENEWAL PROJECT EXHIBIT 2, Page 2 Copies of the proposed Plan are on file for public inspection and copying at the office of the City Clerk at 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, exclusive of holidays. The Plan can also be accessed online at weblink.meridiancit .or weblink8/0/doc/114788/Pa el.as x The public hearing will be held in an accessible facility. Individuals desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing may contact the office of the City Clerk at 208-888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public hearing. At the hearing date, time, and place noted in the first paragrahp above, all persons interested in the above matters may appear before the City Council and be heard. Written comments will also be accepted. Comments should be directed to the Meridian City Clerk. Written comments should be submitted prior to the hearing date. The date set for the final reading of the Ordinance regarding adoption of the Plan will be at the regular meeting of the Meridian City Council on the week following the above -noticed public hearing. DATED this 12th day of May, 2016. Jacy Jones, City Clerk 2 publication dates: May 16, 2016, May 23, 2016 ORDINANCE APPROVING URBAN RENEWAL PLAN FOR THE TEN MILE ROAD URBAN RENEWAL PROJECT Franklin a CreSt Wood S m 'Greenhead K1r+Va � } n Pintail L 6ayeux 01-k COo n Gander Wallman a Brown ro Trout °-T) Eider J J Verbena In state484. ; Nov, Legend 'f !Tara L.:'. tan Rlda SpeMft Veu Plan N Silver Terrace Dula ! RavenuoAlrocawnaroa s w°!c Farm horn Overland O o - =- Copies of the proposed Plan are on file for public inspection and copying at the office of the City Clerk at 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, exclusive of holidays. The Plan can also be accessed online at weblink.meridiancit .or weblink8/0/doc/114788/Pa el.as x The public hearing will be held in an accessible facility. Individuals desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing may contact the office of the City Clerk at 208-888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public hearing. At the hearing date, time, and place noted in the first paragrahp above, all persons interested in the above matters may appear before the City Council and be heard. Written comments will also be accepted. Comments should be directed to the Meridian City Clerk. Written comments should be submitted prior to the hearing date. The date set for the final reading of the Ordinance regarding adoption of the Plan will be at the regular meeting of the Meridian City Council on the week following the above -noticed public hearing. DATED this 12th day of May, 2016. Jacy Jones, City Clerk 2 publication dates: May 16, 2016, May 23, 2016 ORDINANCE APPROVING URBAN RENEWAL PLAN FOR THE TEN MILE ROAD URBAN RENEWAL PROJECT EXHIBIT 3 THE TEN MILE ROAD URBAN RENEWAL PLAN ADOPTED BY MDC RESOLUTION 16-018 AND MODIFIED BY MDC RESOLUTION 16-019 ORDINANCE APPROVING URBAN RENEWAL PLAN FOR THE TEN MILE ROAD URBAN RENEWAL PROJECT MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION THE URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN RESOLUTION NO. 16-018 BY THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, A/K/A THE MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, ADOPTING AND APPROVING THE PROPOSED URBAN RENEWAL PLAN FOR THE TEN MILE ROAD URBAN RENEWAL PROJECT (PLAN) AND RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY OF MERIDIAN APPROVE SAID PLAN; AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN OR ADMINISTRATOR TO TRANSMIT THE PLAN AND THIS RESOLUTION TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN REQUESTING ITS APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED PLAN; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THIS RESOLUTION, made on the date hereinafter set forth by the Urban Renewal MDC of the City of Meridian, Idaho, an independent public body corporate and politic, authorized under the authority of the Idaho Urban Renewal Law of 1965, as amended, Chapter 20, Title 50, Idaho Code, a duly created and functioning urban renewal MDC of the City of Meridian, Idaho, hereinafter referred to as the "MDC." WHEREAS, the MDC, an independent public body, corporate and politic, is an urban renewal MDC created by and existing under the authority of and pursuant to the 'Idaho Urban Renewal Law of 1965, being Idaho Code title 50, chapter 20, as amended and supplemented, and the Local Economic Development Act of 9988, being Idaho Code, Title 50, Chapter 29; as amended and supplemented (collectively the "Act"); WHEREAS, the MDC was established by Resolution No. 01-367 of the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho (hereinafter the "City Council"), adopted July 24, 2001; WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho (the "City"), on October 8, 2002, after notice duly published, conducted a public hearing on the Meridian Revitalization Plan (the "Revitalization Plan"); WHEREAS, following said public hearing the City adopted its Ordinance No. 02- 987 on December 3, 2002, approving the Revitalization Plan and making certain findings; RESOLUTION NO. t6-018 (Ten Mile Urban Renewal Plan) - I WHEREAS, based on inquiries and information presented, it has become apparent that additional property within the City may be deteriorating or deteriorated and should be examined as to whether such an area is eligible for urban renewal planning purposes; WHEREAS, the City and MDC commenced certain discussions concerning examination of the additional area as appropriate for an urban renewal project; WHEREAS, during 2015, the City and MDC authorized the commencement of an eligibility study and preparation of an eligibility report of an area located between 1-84 and the West Franklin Road east of Ten Mile Road; WHEREAS, both MDC and the City approved the findings in the eligibility report dated November 2015 which noted that the proposed area met the criteria for the establishment of an Urban Renewal District with a revenue financing provision; WHEREAS, based upon the eligibility report MDC worked with Phil Kushlan with Kushlan Associates to gather the necessary information and prepare the proposed Ten Mile Urban Renewal Plan which contains the necessary components and analysis required under Idaho Code Title 50, Chapter 20 and 29; WHEREAS, the proposed Plan is attached hereto as Exhibit A; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE URBAN RENEWAL MDC OF MERFIDIAN, IDAHO, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above statements are true and correct. Section 2. That the Board approves and adopts the proposed Plan and recommends that the City approve the Plan. Section 3. That the Chair of the Board of Commissioners or Administrator is hereby authorized to transmit the Plan to the Meridian City Council requesting that the Council consider and approve the proposed Plan which includes a revenue allocation financing provision. Section 4. That this Resolution shall be in full force and effect immediately upon its adoption and approval. RESOLUTION NO. 16-018 (Ten Mile Urban Renewal Plan) - 2 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Meridian, Idaho, a/k/a, the Meridian Development Corporation, on April 27th, 2016. Signed by the Chairman of the Board of Commissioners, and attested by the Secretary to the Board of Commissioners, on this 27th day of April, 2016. APPROVED: By Jim Esco ar, Chairman ATTEST: By c Dave Winder, Secretary RESOLUTION NO. 16-018 (Ten Mile Urban Renewal Plan) - 3 Exhibit A URBAN RENEWAL PLAN FOR THE TEN MILE ROAD URBAN RENEWAL PROJECT RESOLUTION NO. 16-018 (Ten Mile Urban Renewal Plan) - 4 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION THE URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN RESOLUTION NO, 16-019 BY THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, A/K/A THE MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, ADOPTING AND APPROVING THE PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ITS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED URBAN RENEWAL PLAN FOR THE TEN MILE ROAD URBAN RENEWAL PROJECT (PLAN) AND RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY OF MERIDIAN APPROVE SAID PLAN INCLUDING THE ATTACHED MODIFICATIONS; AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN OR ADMINISTRATOR TO TRANSMIT THE PLAN MODIFCIATIONS AND THIS RESOLUTION TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN REQUESTING ITS APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED PLAN MODIFICATIONS;, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE, THIS RESOLUTION, made on the date hereinafter set forth by the Urban Renewal MDC of the City of Meridian, Idaho, an independent public body corporate and politic, authorized under the authority of the Idaho Urban Renewal Law of 1965, as amended, Chapter 20, Title 50, Idaho Code, a duly created and functioning urban renewal MDC of the City of Meridian, Idaho, hereinafter referred to as the "MDC." WHEREAS, the MDC, an independent public body, corporate and politic, is an urban renewal MDC created by and existing under the authority of and pursuant to the 'Idaho Urban Renewal Law of 1965, being Idaho Code title 50, chapter 20, as amended and supplemented, and the Local Economic Development Act of 1988, being Idaho Code, Title 50, Chapter 29; as amended and supplemented (collectively the "Act"); WHEREAS, the MDC was established by Resolution No, 01-367 of the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho (hereinafter the "City Council"), adopted .July 24, 2001; WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho (the "City"), on October 8, 2002, after notice duly published, conducted a public hearing on the Meridian Revitalization Plan (the "Revitalization Plan"); WHEREAS, following said public hearing the City adopted its Ordinance No. 02- 987 on December 3, 2002, approving the Revitalization Plan and making certain RESOLUTION NO. 16-019 (Modifications to Ten Mile Urban Renewal Plan) - 1 findings; WHEREAS, MDC approved the proposed Plan at its meeting on April 27, 2016 and after that meeting one of the property owners that would be included in the proposed Ten Mile Urban Renewal District inquired about whether improvements to the Kennedy Lateral needed to be included in the specifically listed improvements attached to the proposed Pian: WHEREAS, the MDC acknowledges that the current version of the Plan approved on April 27, 2016 already includes references to irrigation and drainage facilities and other public infrastructure and improvements as being part of what may be funded by MDC; WHEREAS, MDC feels that although the current proposed plan covers the potential for reimbursement of irrigation and drainage facility improvements by MDC the Board desires to include a section of the Kennedy Lateral and corresponding costs in the maps and charts attached to the proposed plan; WHEREAS, MDC desires that the City include the attached modifications as part of the Ten Mile Urban Renewal Plan that it is considering for approval; WHEREAS, the proposed modifications to the Plan are attached hereto as Exhibit A; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE URBAN RENEWAL MDC OF MERFIDIAN, IDAHO, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above statements are true and correct. Section 2. That the Board approves and adopts the proposed modifications to the Plan and recommends that the City approve the Plan with said modifications. Section 3. That the Chair of the Board of Commissioners or Administrator is hereby authorized to transmit the modifications to the Plan to the Meridian City Council requesting that the Council consider and approve the proposed Plan modifications. Section 4. That this Resolution shall be in full force and effect immediately upon its adoption and approval. RESOLUTION NO. 16-019 (Modifications to Ten Mile Urban Renewal Plan) - 2 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Meridian, Idaho, a/k/a, the Meridian Development Corporation, on May 10th, 2016. Signed by the Chairman of the Board of Commissioners, and attested by the Secretary to the Board of Commissioners, on this 10th day of May, 2016. By - )ff Jim Esco ar, Chairman ATTEST: B Y Da finder, Secretary RESOLUTION NO. 16-019 (Modifications to Ten Mile Urban Renewal Plan) - 3 Exhibit A MODIFICATIONS TO URBAN RENEWAL PLAN FOR THE TEN MILE ROAD URBAN RENEWAL PROJECT RESOLUTION NO. 16019 (Modifications to Ten Mile Urban Renewal Plan) - 4 Developer Projects: Ten Mile A Urban Renewal District Secure Funding (TIF City of Meridian Loan) Potenti at Funding Segment 1 $462,808 $690,685 $1,160,586 $1,967,642 $1,094,947 $1,645,222 $4,284,734 $8,442,813 $2,223,384 $959,575 $905,984 $3,000,000 $251,570 $1,100,000 $223,850 $23,4.3,300 Segment 2 Segment 3 Segment 4 Segment 5 Segment 6 Segment 7 Segment 8 Segment 9 Segment 10 Segment 11 Segment 12 Kennedy Lateral Segment 13 (street Lights on Ten Mile & Franklin ltd) Segment 14 (Traffic signals at 4 intersections) Segment 15 (Ten Mile and Franklin Street Frontage Improvements) Total Project Costs (un -inflated dollars) Cost of Operations and Improvements by Year (2017-2037) Year Secure Funding (TIF City of Meridian Loan) Potenti at Funding District Operating Expenses OPA Debt Service City Loan Debt Service Add'I Principal Payment Total Project Liabilities 2017 $50,000 $0 $25,000 $0 $0 $0 $25,000 2018 $3,535 $0 $25,000 $0 $0 $0 $25,000 2019 $358,006 $0 $35,901 $287,205 $11,000 $0 $334,105 2020 $429,474 $0 $42,947 $343,579 $11,000 $0 $397,527 2021 $685,569 $0 $50,000 $548,455 $11,000 $0 $609,455 2022 $764,912 $0 $50,000 $611,930 $11,000 $0 $672,930 2023 $1,037,504 $0 $50,000 $830,003 $11,000 $0 $891,003 2024 $1,061,572 $0 $50,000 $849,258 $0 $0 $899,258 2025 $1,924,457 $0 $50,000 $1,539,566 $0 $500,000 $2,089,566 2026 $1,690,202 $0 $50,000 $1,352,162 $0 $500,000 $1,902,162 2027 $1,967,722 $0 $50,000 $1574,178 $0 $100,000 $1,724,178 2028 $2,797,673 $0 $50,000 $2,234,138 $0 $900,000 $3,184,138 2029 $2,577,728 $0 $50,000 $2,062,182 $0 $250,000 $2,362,182 2030 $2,887,603 $0 $50,000 $2,310,082 $0 $500,000 $2,860,082 2031 $3,592,793 $0 $50,000 $2,874,234 $0 $500,000 $3,424,234 2032 $3,623,529 $0 $50,000 $2,898,823 $0 $750,000 $3,698,823 2033 $3,737,660 $0 $50,000 $2,990,128 $0 $1,000,000 $4,040,128 2034 $4,689,811 $0 $50,000 $3,759,049 $0 $0 $3,809,049 2035 $4,526,256 $0 $50,000 $3,621,005 0 $0 $50,000 2036 $4,923,647 $0 $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $50,000 2037 $4,807,043 $0 $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $50,000 2038 $0 $0 0 0 0 $0 Total $48,141,969 $0 $978,848 $30,685,977 $55,000 $5,000,000 $36,719,825 41 'L �t D cu W F w N w o m o w p W t+ w o M r*I O W n o r, n O� w O w aD H t9 c• w n 01 D n O 01 O P N W t m in 1 OW w i m m M n N L m b 0�0 lNA L n v o o m co m o w n rl N w1 M W M m .� L/1 Ut O in vt +O W 4T W W W ilk W W W Vk W W W W W W 4/t W W 4M W W W N N ' U) N 0> O N O N N LOS t0 M ik w O m O to p ID t0 N N 7 it O 00 it H N N O m N H O H N D N 1 H N [6 n 01 +D O' c Irl U1 O UI O O w Q +n n 6 ik O Ln O N iF del, m to O M En tD m W tp W fk it Vk Vk iPr Oft W W W 4h Vk 41t W 4? »% W W y W i? W W Ut 4 �L Ln ,-I uY n O �n p W w O Uf w w ID W r- .-f ap :. w N O O o O w N r N V• n P LA P In in W H ri w t17 r rb 7 P I] r r O O w at in W M Ln ON1 C CL © h n twD W ih W W W VF W W -Vt -W W W ; W Uk W W W Vr V, W W 4N o v �6 ik 4F 4k 4k ik ik t + # 4k o tr� Ln cn rn - m ik ER o if #k ik #k V' n ik ik C In Ok tT' Gi !` I U1' ih iF O O 4k # 4k #t , M ik it 9k 4R v v In w to co M In M C,1 It ik ib ik to ik ik tk i4 ih 9k Yt 4k ! i W ih Uk W W ilk Vr to N- : 1- W W N N W - - -, h ik ik ik ik o 0 0 o qM ano ik ik it 4k o it 4k it ik It #k W ' er 4k if M P O O o C1 ri ik ' 4R o # ik #k 101, Lp' N 4k iR ak O O p M M W W ri rn +b ti j iti ,t ik #k ik ik p in 4k ik i} ik Yk ik M N It 4k co I%L m M . ; ik It #k ik ik c' ilh it W W It W W . W W Vk W 4k W YF 4A- 4k ik W iR $ ; + n C 0O M m p o rpn n a, p ^t'r� M Oai O (wt,,�� o N N W r + P P T O Ol V E'1' w w O rl O w rl O rl ri H N f� +D O O O O O t0 Ok N w w ~ 10 N BOLD• f+l n O 01 O O o N ti M ilk ilk W ih ilk W -U} i/t i/t W tlk W Vk W W W W W W W W Vr W m 01 �I O in trl O Ln n o ak ;f O #k O 4t ik m tp Ln US Ln e r in OL o O Ln to ' R a tl Ln 'd' w R + M II ik 4k o p ik oq 4k C ' 4k kD O of Lri O W t0 ri ai V �, M` 4k n 4t O' ik ik ik o 4k it ik CO w Lb w +C n in i" 7 In 11 H O �o M rL N v ik Yt Ln ik N It n ik '" W ilk W W -Wil} t1 .4v V). thq5 in 6 W M1 W M . W iF SM iPr rk W it at W W ik "t Vk,., O O N W n as w M'n M M M 1 W 4' tT Or N Ln kn M of P r•1 Ln n m 4 M to n N O v O v M � N N in y' y' H tT w �_ M N o+ In � N n w 1, O n N N N 7> W ilr Vt Vr W W W W 4& tIF W W W W W Vr W W W W W w •h Ln kD H N W In O In t0 Yk ik ak iC O 4k 4k ik P ik Yk H i� t m Ln o O I yvrr L/1 p bl o O N N O 4 O H m 'p r� IA w Yk I it p O ak C O ak r ik N r to tll N tn' r n . . t0 it. tt Yk ik 4k Ln ko M p w H M N , N ik tt p Ln 4k p" O 4k #k m Ln ; Yk to ik 4k N t ' If N Uk W 4R W W 4'k W W W a W iR W �, ik tlk 4k W ik �, ik c r7°Y�.4 O Ln LIMY UI umj O O b o Ln tfi - -z Ln m Ory r, M o O O N O N o OD N co m > UI N M GD N Ln cV in N M l h {�. O O Lnl kND O "i 1•` Irm _ N N' N N N ilr W W W W W W W W W •. W W W W W VY th W W W W W 4 O d o tl o o 4 h O tlb o lk ip O 1 O O O O O It 1 t it P 4t O 'it i M N N N N O 4k tt '� 4k O i} .-I l ik # ik 4k 4k v �- W W W W i/k W W W W = �, W ilk Ui //r W - C N c G U e o N 14 c1 o N e +� o C ye" Ln b m L O Ql C u U !D O m a C v Lai 4. CL MV ut io c ? w a ^� w w to " rt w o15 A K U '� a 'L^ iF c ' 4 s tr: • y `k. Ie m a G w¢�i ►" r w e Q O F' m Ir to c a U R LX p V bl C a I`iu' W m O C d LL 3 O £ c 'c d17 IL ' r G O u r - 0 a ° a m ko M Q N t1. 4 a lllquoodS a lainol 7 a a N a N Tim lY- � 'f`4• '� � Ti+ � M -�CDL � yTy � yrs � yT,� � y'IT,� Ti- LO � E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E = zm 0) 0) 0) m W a N Cn 0 co cn co cry U? cn cis Cn w co co {!) a N a N MDC APPROVED (4/27/2016 NIDC Resolution 16-018 and 5/10/2016 N1DC Resolution 16-019) URBAN RENEWAL PLAN FOR THE TEN MILE ROAD A URBAN RENEWAL PROJECT THE URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY FOR THE CITY OF MERIDIAN A/K/A THE MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO Ordinance No. Adopted Effective TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 100 INTRODUCTION ............................. ......................... ................ ................. I .... ................ I ... .. 1 101 General Procedures of the Agency......................................................................... 4 102 Provisions Necessary to Meet State and Local Requirements............ I ................... 4 102.1 Conformance with the Idaho Urban Renewal Law of 1965, as Amended. 5 103 History and Current Conditions of the Area........................................................... 5 104 Purpose of Activities............................................................................................... 6 105 Open Land Criteria................................................................................................. 7 8 200 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AREA............................................................................... 300 PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT ACTIONS.................................................................18 301 General....................................................................................................................8 302 Urban Renewal Plan Objectives............................................................................. 9 303 .................... Participation Opportunities and Agreement ................... .. 11 303.1 Participation Agreements..........................................................................11 303.2 City Fees................................................................................................... 12 304 Cooperation with Public Bodies........................................................................... 13 305 Property Acquisition.............................................................................................13 305.1 Real Property............................................................................................13 305.2 Personal Property...................................................................................... 16 306 Property Management........................................................................................... 16 307 Relocation of Persons (Including Individuals and FamiIies), Business Concerns, and Others Displaced by the Project..................................................................... 16 308 Demolition, Clearance, and Building and Site Preparation .................................. 17 308.1 Demolition and Clearance......................................................................... 17 308.2 Preparation of Building Sites.................................................................... 17 309 Property Disposition and Development................................................................ 18 309.1 Real Property Disposition and Development ............................................ 18 309.1.1 General..............................................................................18 309.1.2 Disposition and Development Documents ........................ 18 309.1.3 Development by the Agency ............................................. 20 309.1.4 Development Plans........................................................... 21 310 Personal Property Disposition............................................................................... 21 311 Rehabilitation and Conservation........................................................................... 21 312 Participation with Private Development or Public Development ......................... 21 313 Conforming Owners.............................................................................................. 22 314 Arts Funding......................................................................................................... 22 400 USES PERMITTED IN THE PROJECT AREA.............................................................. 22 401 Redevelopment Plan Map and Development Strategy ......................................... 22 402 Designated Land Uses........................................................................................... 23 403 [Reserved]............................................................................................................. 23 404 Public Rights-of-Way...........................................................................................23 405 Other Public, Semi -Public, Institutional, and Nonprofit Uses .............................. 24 406 Interim Uses.......................................................................................................... 24 407 General Controls and Limitations......................................................................... 24 407.1 Construction..............................................................................................24 407.2 Rehabilitation and Retention of Properties............................................... 24 407.3 Limitation on Type, Size, and Height of Buildings.................................. 25 407.4 Open Spaces, Landscaping, Light, Air, and Privacy................................ 25 407.5 Signs.......................................................................................................25 407.6 Utilities.....................................................................:................................25 407.7 Incompatible Uses..................................................................................... 25 407.8 Nondiscrimination and Nonsegregation................................................... 25 407.9 Subdivision of Parcels............................................................................... 25 407.10 Minor Variations....................................................................................... 25 408 Design for Development....................................................................................... 26 409 Off -Street Loading................................................................................................ 27 410 Off -Street Parking................................................................................................. 27 411 Nonconforming Uses............................................................................................ 27 412 Design Guidelines for Development under a Disposition and Development Agreement or Owner Participation Agreement...................... .... .... I..................... 27 500 METHODS OF FINANCING THE PROJECT............................................................... 28 501 General Description of the Proposed Financing Method...................................... 28 502 Revenue Bond Funds............................................................................................ 28 503 Other Loans and Grants........................................................................................ 28 504 Revenue Allocation Financing Provisions............................................................ 29 504.1 Economic Feasibility Study...................................................................... 30 504.2 Assumptions and Conditions/Economic Feasibility Statement ................ 30 504.3 Ten Percent Limitation............................................................................. 31 504.4 Financial Limitation.................................................................................. 32 504.5 [Reserved]................................................................................................ 33 504.6 Participation with Local Improvement Districts....................................... 33 504.7 Issuance of Debt and Debt Limitation...................................................... 33 504.8 Impact on Other Taxing Districts and Levy Rate..................................... 33 505 Phasing and Other Fund Sources.......................................................................... 37 506 Lease Revenue, Parking Revenue, and Bonds...................................................... 37 507 Capital Improvement Contribution Policy............................................................ 37 508 Improved Street Design and Construction............................................................ 37 509 Engineers Estimate................................................................................................ 38 510 Time of Payment................................................................................................... 38 511 Sidewalks.............................................................................................................. 39 512 Memorialization of Agreement............................................................................. 39 513 Meanings...............................................................................................................39 514 Retained Authority................................................................................................ 39 515 Developer/Owner Initiated Improvements....................... ............ I.......... ............. 39 516 Variance................................................................................................................ 40 517 Agency Contribution............................................................................................. 40 600 ACTIONS BY THE CITY AND THE COUNTY........................................................... 40 ii 601 Maintenance of Public Improvements.................................................................. 42 700 ENFORCEMENT............................................................................................................. 42 800 DURATION OF THIS PLAN, TERMINATION, AND ASSET REVIEW .................... 42 900 PROCEDURE FOR AMENDMENT............................................................................... 44 1000 SEVERABILITY..............................................................................................................44 1100 ANNUAL REPORT......................................................................................................... 44 1101 APPENDICES, ATTACHMENTS, EXHIBITS, TABLES............................................. 44 iii Attachments Attachment 1 Map of Urban Renewal Project Area and Revenue Allocation Area Attachment 2 Description of Urban Renewal Project Area and Revenue Allocation Area Attachment 3 Private Properties Which May be Acquired by the Agency (Limited to Public Improvements and Facilities) Attachment 4 Map Depicting Expected Land Use and Current Zoning Map of the Project Area Attachment 5.1 Public Improvements within the Revenue Allocation Area Attachment 5.2 Economic Feasibility Study Attachment 5.3 Estimated Net Taxable Value of Growth and New Private Development and Annual Revenue Allocation in the Ten Road -A Urban Renewal Project Attachment 5.4 Estimated Annual Revenues and Costs in the Ten Mile Road — A Urban Renewal Project Attachment 6 Ten Mile Urban Renewal District Eligibility Report — September 2015 Attachment 7 Agricultural Consent iv URBAN RENEWAL PLAN FOR THE TEN MILE ROAD -A URBAN RENEWAL PROJECT THE URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY FOR THE CITY OF MERIDIAN A/K/A THE MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO 100 INTRODUCTION This is the Urban Renewal Plan (the "Plan") for the Ten Mile Road A Urban Renewal Project (the "Project") in the city of Meridian (the "City"), state of Idaho, and consists of the text contained herein and the following attachments: Map of the Urban Renewal Project Area and Revenue Allocation Area Map (Attachment 1), The Description of the Urban Renewal Project Area Boundaries and Revenue Allocation Area (Attachment 2), Private Properties Which May be Acquired by Agency (Limited to Public Improvements and Facilities) (Attachment 3), Map Depicting Expected Land Uses and Current Zoning within Project Area (Attachment 4), Public Improvements within the Revenue Allocation Area (Attachment 5.1), Economic Feasibility Study (Attachment 5.2), Net Estimated Taxable Value of Growth and New Private Development and Annual Revenue Allocation in the Ten Mile Road — A Urban Renewal Project (Attachment 5.3), Estimated Annual Revenues and Costs in the Ten Mile Road - A Urban Renewal Project (Attachment 5.4), Agricultural Consent (Attachment 6). The term "Project" is used herein to describe the overall activities defined in this Plan and confonns to the statutory definition of an urban renewal project. Reference is specifically made to Idaho Code Sections 50-2018(10) and 50-2903(13) for the various activities contemplated by the tenn "Project." Such activities include both private and public development of property within the urban renewal area. The term "Project" is not meant to refer to a specific activity or development scheme. The Ten Mile Road — A Project Area is also referred to as the Project Area. This Plan was prepared by the Board of Commissioners, consultants, and staff of the Urban Renewal Agency for the City of Meridian, also known as the Meridian Development Corporation (the "Agency") and reviewed and recommended by the Agency pursuant to the Idaho Urban Renewal Law of 1965, Chapter 20, Title 50, Idaho Code, as amended (the "Law"), the Local Economic Development Act, Chapter 29, Title 50, Idaho Code, as amended (the "Act"), and all applicable local laws and ordinances. The proposed redevelopment of the Project Area as described in this Plan conforms to The City of Meridian 2013 Comprehensive Plan, as amended (the "Comprehensive Plan"), and adopted by the City Council (the "City Council"). The Project Area is part of the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan within the Comprehensive Plan. The application of the Comprehensive Plan is contained in the eligibility report included as Attachment 6. Development activities within the Project Area are to conform with the Comprehensive Plan. The Agency may create several planning and implementation documents that generally describe the overall Project and identify certain specific public and private capital improvement projects. Because of the changing nature of the Project, these documents, by necessity, must be dynamic and flexible. The Agency anticipates that these documents will be refined as circumstances warrant. Any refinement, however, shall not be deemed as an amendment or modification of this PIan. No refinement will be deemed effective if it is in conflict with this Plan. The planning and implementation documents are purposely flexible and do not constitute specific portions of the Plan. Provided, however, prior to the adoption of any planning or implementation document or proposed refinement to any planning or implementation document, the Agency shall notify the City and publish a public notice of such proposed refinement at least thirty (30) days prior to the consideration of such proposed refinement, thus providing the City and any other interested person or entity an opportunity to comment on said proposed refinement. The Board of Commissioners of the Agency (the "Board") shall consider any such comments and determine whether to adopt the refinement. The planning and 'implementation documents apply to redevelopment activity within the Project Area as described herein. In the event of any conflict between this Plan and the appended documents, the provisions of this Plan shall control. The Agency intends to rely heavily on any applicable City design standards which may cover all or part of the Project Area. This Plan provides the Agency with powers, duties, and obligations to implement and further the program generally formulated in this Plan for the redevelopment, rehabilitation, and revitalization of the area within the boundaries of the Project Area. The Agency retains all powers allowed by the Law and Act. Because of the long-term nature of this Plan, and the need to retain in the Agency flexibility to respond to market and economic conditions, property owner and developer interests, and opportunities from time to time presented for redevelopment, this Plan does not present a precise plan or establish specific projects for the redevelopment, rehabilitation, and revitalization of any area within the Project Area, nor does this Plan present specific proposals in an attempt to solve or alleviate the concerns and problems of the P community relating to the Project Area. Instead, this Plan presents a process and a basic framework within which specific sub -plans will be presented, specific sub -projects will be established, and specific solutions will be proposed, and by which tools are provided to the Agency to fashion, develop, and proceed with such specific sub -plans, sub -projects, and solutions. Sub -plans and sub -projects and narrower more defined plans and projects within the Plan and Project. Implementation of this Plan will require public co -investment to help stimulate desired private development. Typically, the public will fund enhanced public improvements such as utilities, streets, and sidewalks which, in turn, create an attractive setting for adjacent private investment for residential, industrial, office, and commercial facilities. The particular projects or redevelopment projects by private entities described herein are not intended to be an exclusive or exhaustive list of potential redevelopment activity. Allowed projects are those activities which comply with the Law and the Act and meet the overall objectives of this Plan. The public-private relationship is crucial in the successful redevelopment of the Project Area. The purpose of the Urban Renewal Law will be attained through and the major goals of this Plan are: a. The elimination of environmental deficiencies in the Project Area, including, among others, inadequate public improvements including certain streets and improvements; improvements to public utilities including water and sewer improvements and fire protection systems; streetlights; other public improvements (including public buildings and facilities); removal, burying, or relocation of overhead utilities; extension of electrical distribution lines and transformers; improvement of irrigation and drainage ditches and Iaterals; improvement of storm drainage facilities; and environmental remediation of Brownfield sites; b. The assembly of land into parcels suitable for modern, integrated development with improved pedestrian and vehicular circulation in the Project Area; C. The re -planning, redesign, and development of undeveloped or underdeveloped areas which are stagnant or improperly utilized because of limited traffic access, underserved utilities, and other site conditions; d. The strengthening of the economic base of the Project Area and the community by the installation of needed site improvements to stimulate new private development providing, employment, and economic growth; e. The provision of adequate land for parks, open space, street rights-of-way and pedestrian/bicycle facility rights-of-way; 3 The reconstruction and improvement of street corridors to allow traffic flows to move through and around the Project Area along with the accompanying utility connections, through the Project Area; g. The provision of public service utilities such as water system improvements, sewer system improvements and improvements to storm drainage facilities (as part of larger City systems, much of which may be located outside the Project Area); h. The establishment and implementation of performance criteria to assure high site design standards and environmental quality and other design elements which provide unity and integrity to the entire Project Area, including commitment of funds for planning studies, achieving high standards of development, and leveraging such development to achieve public objectives and efficient use of scarce resources; i. The strengthening of the tax base by encouraging private development, thus increasing the assessed valuation of properties within the Revenue Allocation Area and the Project Area as a whole and benefiting the various taxing districts in which the urban renewal area is located; and j. The funding of necessary public infrastructure to accommodate both public and private development. 101 General Procedures of the Agency The Agency is an established public body, corporate and politic, as defined and described under the Law and the Act. The Agency is also governed by its bylaws as authorized by the Law and adopted by the Agency. Under the Law, the Agency is governed by the Idaho open meeting law, the Public Records Act, the Ethics in Government Act, financial reporting requirements, and the competitive bidding requirements under Chapter 28, Title 67, Idaho Code. Generally, the Agency conducts its business in open session and allows meaningful public input as needed by the issue considered or by any statutory or regulatory provision. Whenever in this Plan it is stated that the Agency may refine, modify, change, or adopt certain policy statements or contents of this Plan not requiring a formal amendment to the Plan as required by the Law or the Act, it shall be deemed to mean a consideration by the Board of such policy or procedure, duly noticed upon the Agency meeting agenda and considered by the Agency at an open public meeting and adopted by a majority of the Board members present, constituting a quorum, unless any bylaw, provision of law, or provision herein provides otherwise. 102 Provisions Necessary to Meet State and Local Requirements 18 102.1 Conformance with the Idaho Urban Renewal Law of 1965, as Amended a. The laws of the state of Idaho require that an urban renewal plan be prepared for an area certified as an urban renewal area by the City Council, The Project Area was originally certified by the City Council by Resolution No. 16-1119 on February 9, 2016. b. With the adoption of Resolution No. 16-1119, the City Council found the Project Area a deteriorated and deteriorating area existing in the City as defined by the Law and Act, and authorized the preparation of an urban renewal plan. In accordance with the Law and Act, the necessary agricultural consents were obtained from owners of any agricultural operations within the Project Area that have been used as an agricultural operation for three consecutive years. A copy of the agricultural consent is attached hereto as Attachment 6 d. In accordance with the Law, this Plan was submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City. After consideration of the Plan, the Commission reported to the City Council stating that this Plan is in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian. e. Pursuant to the Law, and Act, the City Council having published due notice thereof, a public hearing was held on this Plan. Notice of the hearing was duly published in a newspaper having general circulation. The City Council adopted this Plan on _, 2016, by Ordinance No. 103 History and Current Conditions of the Area This Project Area is located north of Interstate 84, east of Ten Mile Road and south of Franklin Road. The area is part of a larger planning area designated as the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan adopted by the Meridian City Council in June of 2007. The area consists of approximately 301acres, included in 16 tax parcels under three separate ownerships. The Plan calls for inclusion of adjacent public rights-of-way not included in the totals above. While the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan calls for intense residential and commercial development consistent with proximity to major transportation access, the implementation of that Plan has not materialized due to the high cost of infrastructure development and the lack of public and private funding mechanisms to support the cost burden. Therefore, the implementation of the Plan and thus the normal growth of the city has been impeded. 5 The Project Area remains in agricultural use with no urban level infrastructure existing within the area except for the area improvements made within the adjacent arterial rights-of-way (Ten Mile and Franklin Roads). Thus the current development pattern remains inconsistent with the established vision for the area as expressed in both the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan and the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan, of which it is a part. Implementation activities as provided for in this Plan will allow for development consistent with the adopted plans. What development does exist within the Project Area relates to the historic agricultural uses, and while perhaps appropriate for the continuation of that use, is functionally obsolete when considered in the context of the adopted plans of the City of Meridian. Part of the original Study Area considered for this Project Area was located within unincorporated Ada County. Including such properties is permissible under State Law with an intergovernmental agreement between the City and the County. However, most of the properties included with the Study Area were annexed into the city limits resulting in the final boundaries of the Project Area fully under the jurisdiction of the City of Meridian obviating any need for an intergovernmental agreement. The Plan primarily includes improvements to public infrastructure, creating the framework for the development of residential and commercial property and the provision of public parks, open spaces and/or other public recreation areas. The Plan also includes remediation of environmental conditions that may exist in the Project Area. Most of the Project Area is underdeveloped or vacant and is not being used to its highest and- best use due to deteriorating structures, the age and obsolescence of infrastructure, the predominance of defective or inadequate street layout, outmoded street patterns, need for modern traffic requirements, insanitary and unsafe conditions, faulty lot layout and inadequate utility infrastructure needed for a larger development. The foregoing conditions have arrested or impaired growth in the Project Area. The preparation and approval of an urban renewal plan, including a revenue allocation financing provision, gives the community additional resources to solve the public infrastructure problems in this area. Revenue allocation financing will help to improve the situation. In effect, property taxes generated by new developments within the Project Area may be used by the Agency to finance a variety of needed public improvements and facilities. Finally, the new developments will also generate new jobs in the community that will, in turn, benefit the Project Area, city and county residents. Additional history of the Project Area is contained in the Eligibility Report which is included as Attachment 6. 104 Purpose of Activities The description of activities, public improvements, and the estimated costs of those items are intended to define the limit of the Agency's activity. The Agency reserves the right to change amounts from one category to another. The aforementioned costs are estimated and may N fluctuate based on market conditions and the passage of time. The Agency does not anticipate that the overall total amount estimated will substantially exceeded but projections are based on current information and conditions. The items and amounts are not intended to relate to any one particular development, developer, or owner. Rather, the Agency intends to discuss and negotiate with any owner or developer who seeks Agency assistance. During such negotiation, the Agency will determine, on an individual basis, the eligibility of the activities sought for Agency funding, the amount the Agency may fund by way of percentage or other criteria including the need for such assistance. The Agency will also take into account the amount of revenue allocation proceeds estimated to be generated from the developer's activities. The Agency also reserves the right to establish by way of policy, its funding percentage or participation, which would apply to all developers and owners. Throughout this Plan, there are references to Agency activities, Agency funding, and the acquisition, development, and contribution of public improvements. Such references do not necessarily constitute a full, final, and formal commitment by the Agency but, rather, grant to the Agency the discretion to participate as stated subject to achieving the objectives of this Plan and provided such activity is deemed eligible under the Law and the Act. In some respects, the activities listed in Attachments 5.1-5.4 are concepts which will be determined or prioritized as the overall Project Area develops. The Agency reserves the right to prioritize the projects described in this Plan. The Agency also reserves the right to retain its flexibility in funding the various activities. The Agency also reserves its discretion and flexibility in deciding which improvements should be funded and what Ievel, whether using its own funds or fiends generated by other sources. One of the purposes of this Plan is to facilitate the creation of family wage jobs as defined by the State of Idaho. The activities listed in Attachments 5.1-5.4 are also prioritized by way of importance to the Agency by the amounts funded, and by year of funding, with earlier years reflecting the more important activities, achievement of higher objectives, long-term goals, and commitments. As required by the Law and Act, the Agency will adopt more specific budgets annually. 105 Open Land Criteria Such open land areas may be acquired by the Agency and developed if such acquisition is needed to solve various problems, associated with the land or the public infrastructure, that have retarded its development. These problems may include defective or unusual conditions of title, diversity of ownership, tax delinquency, improper subdivisions, outmoded street patterns, deterioration of site, and faulty lot layout, all of which are included in one forth or another in the Section 50-2903(8)(b) definition of deteriorated area. The problems that are listed only in Section 50-2008(d)(4)(2) (the open land section) include economic disuse, unsuitable topography, and "the need for the correlation of the area with other areas of a municipality by streets and modern traffic requirements, or any combination of such factors or other conditions which retard development of the area." 7 Such areas qualify if any of the standard 50-2018(8), (9) and 50-2903(8) characteristics apply. But such areas also qualify if any of the problems listed only in 50-2008(d)(4)(2) apply. Clearly, lack of water and sewer facilities, a deficient street system and lack of fire protection facilities are all conditions which retard development of the open land areas. 200 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AREA The boundaries of the Project Area and the Revenue Allocation Area are shown on the Project Area and Revenue Allocation Boundary Map, attached hereto as Attachment 1 and incorporated herein by reference, and are described in the Description of the Project Area and Revenue Allocation Area, attached hereto as Attachment 2 and incorporated herein by reference. For purposes of boundary descriptions and use of proceeds for payment of improvements, the boundary shall be deemed to extend to the outer boundary of rights-of-way located within the corporate limits of the City of Meridian or other natural boundary unless otherwise stated. 300 PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT ACTIONS 301 General The Agency proposes to eliminate and prevent the spread of deteriorating conditions and deterioration in the Project Area by any of the following means: a. The acquisition of certain real property (if needed); b. The demolition or removal of certain buildings and improvements for public rights-of-way for streets, utilities, walkways, and other improvements, for public facility building sites, to eliminate unhealthful, unsanitary, or unsafe conditions, enhance density, eliminate obsolete or other uses detrimental to the public welfare or otherwise to remove or to prevent the spread of deteriorating or deteriorated conditions; C. The provision for participation by property owners within the Project Area to achieve the objectives of this Plan; d. The management of any property acquired by and under the ownership and control of the Agency; C. The provision for relocation assistance to displaced Project Area occupants, as needed and required by law; f The installation, construction, or reconstruction of streets, utilities, including electrical distribution and transmission lines in underground configuration, if needed to encourage new developments, fiber optic or other communication systems, parking facilities, and other public improvements, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage laterals and ditches, canal crossings, storm drain systems, water and sewer improvements, fire protection systems, traffic signals, streetlights, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, and other public improvements, including public or other community facilities or buildings owned or occupied by the Agency or other public agencies, including the City's walkways, public open spaces, community centers, cultural centers and visitors or information centers as may be deemed appropriate by the Board; g. The disposition of property for uses in accordance with this Plan; h. The redevelopment of land by private enterprise or public agencies for uses in accordance with this Plan; i. The rehabilitation of structures and improvements by present owners, their successors, and the Agency; j. The preparation and assembly of adequate sites for the development and construction of facilities for industrial, commercial, retail, residential and governmental use; k. To the extent allowed by law, lend or invest federal funds to facilitate redevelopment; and The construction of foundations, platforms, and other like structural forms necessary for the provision or utilization of air rights, sites for buildings to be used for residential, commercial, industrial, and other uses contemplated by the Plan, and to provide utilities to the development site. In the accomplishment of these purposes and activities and in the implementation and furtherance of this Plan, the Agency is authorized to use all the powers provided in this Plan and all the powers now or hereafter permitted by law. 302 Urban Renewal Plan Objectives Urban renewal action is necessary in the Project Area to combat problems of physical deterioration or deteriorating conditions. The Project Area and revenue allocation area consist of approximately 301.45 acres of property. The Project Area boundaries are specifically identified on Attachments 1 and 2. As set forth in greater detail in Section 103, the Project Area has a history of a slow-growing tax base primarily attributed to undeveloped or underdeveloped properties, a number of deteriorating and/or deteriorated structures, deteriorated and vacant lots, faulty lot layout, lack of adequate public infrastructure, potential environmental issues and other deteriorating factors. Site preparation, remediation of any environmental issues, enhancement of open areas and public recreation facilities, enhancement of infrastructure, including sidewalk, curb, gutter, Z improvements to water and sewer facilities, as well as, remediating any drainage issues will enhance the overall development of the Project Area. Hence, the Plan for the Project Area is a proposal for street and utility improvements to provide an improved environment for new retail, residential and commercial facilities, public improvements or facilities, including but not limited to construction of public facilities or buildings, the elimination of unsafe conditions, and to otherwise prevent the extension of deterioration and reverse the deteriorating action of the area. Air rights and subterranean rights may be disposed of for any permitted use within the Project Area boundaries, Less than fee acquisition may be utilized by the Agency when and if necessary to promote redevelopment in accordance with the objectives of the Plan. Temporary project improvements may be provided to facilitate adequate vehicular and pedestrian circulation. The provisions of this Plan are applicable to all public and private property in the Project Area. The provisions of the Plan shall be interpreted and applied as objectives and goals, recognizing the need for flexibility in interpretation and implementation, while at the same time not in any way abdicating the rights and privileges of the property owners which are vested in the present and future zoning classifications of the properties. All development under an owner participation agreement shall conform to those standards specified in Section 303.1 of this Plan. This Plan must be practical in order to succeed. Particular attention has been paid to how it can be implemented, given the changing nature of market conditions. Transforming the Project Area into a vital, thriving part of the community requires an assertive strategy. The following list represents the key elements of that effort: a. Initiate simultaneous projects designed to revitalize the Project Area. From street and utility improvements to significant new development, the Agency plans a Ivey role in creating the necessary momentum. b. Develop new residential and commercial opportunities encouraging economic development. Without direct public intervention, much of the Project Area could conceivably remain unchanged for the next several years. It is anticipated that success will come through public- private partnerships as appropriate to accomplish Plan goals. The Plan creates the necessary flexible framework for the Project Area to support the City's economic development. Land use in the Project Area will be modified to the extent that obsolete buildings and land now devoted to inconsistent uses will be converted to professional offices, residential housing, commercial structures, public and private parking, and/or public/semi-public uses. In 10 implementing the activities described in this Plan, the Agency shall give due consideration to the provision of adequate park and recreational areas and facilities that may be desirable for neighborhood improvement, with special consideration for the health, safety and welfare of residents in the general vicinity of the site covered by the Plan. 303 Participation Opportunities and Agreement 303.1 Participation Agreements The Agency may enter into an owner participation agreement with any existing or future owner of property, in the event the property owner seeks and/or receives assistance from the Agency in the redevelopment of the property. In that event, the Agency may allow for an existing or fixture owner of property to remove the property and/or structure subject to such an agreement from future Agency acquisition. Each structure, infrastructure and building in the Project Area to be rehabilitated or to be constructed as a condition of the owner participation agreement between the Agency and the owner pursuant to this Plan will be considered to be satisfactorily rehabilitated and constructed, and the Agency will so certify, if the rehabilitated or new structure or infrastructure meets the following standards through an executed owner participation agreement to meet conditions described below. a. Any such property within the Project Area shall be required to conform to all applicable provisions, requirements, and regulations of this Plan. The owner participation agreement may require as a condition of financial participation by the Agency a commitment by the property owner to meet the greater objectives of the land use elements identified in the Comprehensive Plan, and applicable zoning ordinances. Upon completion of any rehabilitation each structure must be safe and sound in all physical respects and be refurbished and altered to bring the property to an upgraded marketable condition that will continue throughout an estimated useful life for a minimum of twenty (20) years. b. All such buildings or portions of buildings which are to remain within the Project Area shall be rehabilitated in conformity with all applicable codes and ordinances of the City. C. Any new construction shall also conform to all applicable provisions, requirements, and regulations of this Plan. d. Any new construction shall also conform to all applicable codes and ordinances of the City of Meridian as well as other applicable local, state and federal laws and regulations. 11 All such agreements will address phasing issues (as needed), Justification and eligibility of proiect costs, and achievement of the objectives of the Plan. Agency shall retain its discretion in the funding level of its participation. In such participation agreements, participants who retain real property shall be required to join in the recordation of such documents as may be necessary to make the provisions of this Plan applicable to their properties. Whether or not a participant enters into a participation agreement with the Agency, the provisions of this Plan are applicable to all public and private property in the Project Area as those owning said property seek any form of assistance, cooperation or support from the Agency. In the event a participant fails or refuses to rehabilitate, develop, use, and maintain its real property pursuant to this Plan and a participation agreement, the real property or any interest therein may be acquired by the Agency in accordance with Section 305.1 of this Plan and sold or leased for rehabilitation or development in accordance with this Plan. Owner participation agreements may be used to implement the following objectives: a. Encouraging established businesses to revitalize any deteriorating areas of their parcels to accelerate the enhancement of the street environment in the Plan area. b. Subject to the limitations of the Law and the Act, providing incentives to existing business owners to encourage continued utilization and expansion of existing permitted uses to prevent properties from falling into disuse, a proliferation of vacant and deteriorated parcels and a reduction in area employment. C. Recognizing the right of existing nonconforming uses to continue in accordance with applicable law and to accommodate improvements and expansions as allowed by applicable law. d. Subject to the limitations of the Act, providing incentives to improve nonconforming properties so they implement the design guidelines contained in this Plan to the extent possible and to encourage an orderly transition from nonconforming to conforming uses over the next twenty (20) years. e. Provide reimbursement for previously constructed public infrastructure improvements if the Agency determines that said improvements were completed recently enough to be sufficiently connected to the purposes, goals and objectives of the Plan and otherwise meet the criteria and requirements of the Plan. 303.2 Public Agency Fees For any development covered by an owner participation agreement or disposition and development agreement, the Agency shall have the authority, but not the obligation, to consider the payment of all or part of any public agency fee assessed on the development from revenue allocation proceeds to the extent allowed by law. 12 304 Cooperation with Public Bodies Certain public bodies are authorized by state law to aid and cooperate, with or without consideration, in the planning, undertaking, construction, or operation of this Project. The Agency shall seek the aid and cooperation of such public bodies and shall attempt to coordinate this Plan with the activities of such public bodies in order to accomplish the purposes of redevelopment and the highest public good. The Agency, by law, is not authorized to acquire real property owned by public bodies without the consent of such public bodies. The Agency will seek the cooperation of all public bodies which own or intend to acquire property in the Project Area. All pians for development of property in the Project Area by a public body shall be subject to Agency approval, in the event the Agency is providing any financial assistance. Subject to applicable authority, the Agency may impose on all public bodies the planning and design controls contained in this Plan to insure that development or redevelopment of property within the Project Area owned by public bodies will conform to the requirements of this Plan. Subject to applicable law, the Agency is authorized to financially (and otherwise) assist any public entity in the cost of public land, buildings, facilities, structures, or other improvements of the Project Area. The Agency specifically intends to cooperate to the extent allowable with the City of Meridian and the Ada County Highway District (ACED) (as the case may be) for the construction of street and utility improvements. The Agency shall also cooperate with the City of Meridian and ACRD on various relocation, screening, or underground projects, the providing of fiber optic capability, and the funding of water and sewer improvements. To the extent any public entity, including the City of Meridian, has funded certain improvements such as water and sewer facilities, the Agency may, at the discretion of the Agency Board, reimburse those entities for those expenses should funding be available. The Agency shall also cooperate with any public entity having jurisdiction over rights -of way for the improvement of roads within the Project Area and with the public bodies responsible for water and sewer improvements. The Agency also intends to cooperate and seek available assistance from state and federal sources for economic development. In the event the Agency is participating in public development, by way of financial incentive or otherwise, the public body receiving assistance from the Agency shall enter into a participation agreement with the Agency and then shall be bound by the Plan and other land use elements and shall conform to those standards specified in Section 303.1 of this Plan. 305 Property Acquisition 3051 Real Property 13 Generally, the Agency intends to acquire any real property or interests in real property through voluntary measures; however, the Agency is not required to acquire any real property located in the Project Area. Any acquisition shall be by any means authorized by law, including, but not limited to, the Law, the Act, the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, and the Idaho Eminent Domain laws set forth in Title 7, Chapter 7, Idaho Code. The Agency is authorized to acquire either the entire fee or any other interest in real property less than a fee, including strictures and fixtures upon the real property without acquiring the land upon which those structures and fixtures are located. The Agency may, in considerations of the obligations of the developer or owner in any development agreement, waive its rights to acquire the real property covered by the development agreement, if the developer or owner fully performed under the development agreement. Idaho Code Section 7-701 A specifically limits the Agency's ability to exercise eminent domain to involuntarily acquire real property in the Project Area for purposes of conveying property for non-public uses: 7-701A. Limitation on eminent domain for private parties, urban renewal or economic development purposes. (1) This section limits and restricts the use of eminent domain under the laws of this state or local ordinance by the state of Idaho, its instrumentalities, political subdivisions, public agencies, or bodies corporate and politic of the state to condemn any interest in property in order to convey the condemned interest to a private interest or person as provided herein. (2) Eminent domain shall not be used to acquire private property: (a) For any alleged public use which is merely a pretext for the transfer of the condemned property or any interest in that property to a private party; or (b) For the purpose of promoting or effectuating economic development; provided however, that nothing herein shall affect the exercise of eminent domain: (i) Pursuant to chapter 15, title 70, Idaho Code, and title 42, Idaho Code; or (ii) Pursuant to chapters 19, 20 or 29, title 50, Idaho Code, except that no private property shall be taken through exercise of eminent domain within the area of operation of a housing authority or within an urban renewal area or within a deteriorated or deteriorating area or within a competitively disadvantaged border community area unless the specific property to be condemned is proven by clear and convincing evidence to be in such condition that it meets all of the requirements: 1. The property, due to general dilapidation, compromised structural integrity, or failed mechanical systems, endangers life or endangers property by fire or by other perils that pose an actual identifiable threat to building occupants; and 14 2. The property contains specifically identifiable conditions that pose an actual risk to human health, transmission of disease, juvenile delinquency or criminal content; and 3. The property presents an actual risk of harm to the public health, safety, morals or general welfare; or (iii) For those public and private uses for which eminent domain is expressly provided in the constitution of the state of Idaho. (3) This section shall not affect the authority of a governmental entity to condemn a leasehold estate on property owned by the governmental entity. (4) The rationale for condemnation by the governmental entity proposing to condemn property shall be freely reviewable in the course of judicial proceedings involving exercise of the power of eminent domain. It is in the public interest and is necessary, in order to eliminate the conditions requiring redevelopment and in order to execute this Plan, for the power of eminent domain to be retained by the Agency to acquire real property in the Project Area, which cannot be acquired by gift, devise, exchange, purchase, or any other lawful method, for a public purpose or for private redevelopment within the limits described above. However, the Agency's authority to invoke eminent domain to acquire real property for disposition to private parties for economic development is limited by Idaho Code S 7-701A. Under the provisions of the Act, the urban renewal plan "shall be sufficiently complete to indicate such land acquisition, demolition, and removal of structures, redevelopment, improvements, and rehabilitation as may be proposed to be carried out in the urban renewal area." Idaho Code § 50-201$(12). At the present time the Agency has not identified any particular parcel for acquisition for the construction of public improvements or for private redevelopment. These activities are generally described in Attachment 3. Properties which may be subject to acquisition are those parcels which may be vacant or abandoned, parcels which are currently limited in use such as small parcels that could be assembled for redevelopment and those which are significantly deteriorated, parcels which maybe adjacent to right-of-way to improve configuration and enlarge parcels for redevelopment, adapt and possibly enlarge an existing building for a new use, reconfigure sites for development and possible extension street or pathway. Other parcels may be acquired for the purpose of facilitating catalyst or demonstration projects, constructing public parking, constructing new streets or pathways, enhancing public spaces, or to implement other elements of the Plan strategy. Generally, the Agency reserves the right to determine which properties, if any, should be acquired. The Agency intends to acquire any real property through voluntary or consensual gift, devise, exchange, or purchase. Such acquisition of property may be for the development of any public improvements identified in this PIan, for the assembly of properties for the purpose of redevelopment of those properties to achieve the objectives of this Plan, and/or for purposes of redevelopment and reuse as identified in the Plan. Such properties may include properties 15 owned by private parties or public entities. The Agency shall coordinate any voluntary property acquisition with any other public entity, as may be necessary. 305.2 Personal Property Generally, personal property shall not be acquired. However, where necessary in the execution of this Plan, the Agency is authorized to acquire personal property in the Project Area by any lawful means, including eminent domain. For purposes of this Plan, acquisition of certain permanent fixtures or improvements upon real property shall be governed by this section. The Agency retains the right to purchase those fixtures or improvements (including buildings) for the purpose of eliminating certain deteriorated or deteriorated structures to facilitate the redevelopment the real property upon which the buildings and structures are located. Such acquisition shall be based upon appraised value of the structures and negotiation with the owner of the structures. The Agency shall take into account, before committing to such acquisition, any environmental or other liability present or potentially present in such structures. In the event, the Agency determines to acquire such property; it shall do so upon the successful negotiation of an owner participation agreement in compliance with the terms of Section 303.1 of this Plan. In addition, such owner shall commit to the redevelopment of the real property and to maintain the real property in a safe and clean manner. The Agency shall acquire such property by way of any acceptable conveyance. 306 Property Management During such time such property, if any, in the Project Area is owned by the Agency, such property shall be under the management and control of the Agency. Subject to applicable law, such property may be rented or leased by the Agency pending its disposition for redevelopment, and such rental or lease shall be pursuant to such policies as the Agency may adopt. 307 Relocation of Persons (Including Individuals and Families), Business Concerns, and Others Displaced by the Project If the Agency receives federal funds for real estate acquisition and relocation, the Agency shall comply with 24 C.F.R. Part 42, implementing the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended. The Agency may also undertake relocation activities for those not entitled to benefit under federal law, as the Agency may deem appropriate for which funds are available. The Agency's activities should not result in the displacement of families within the area. In the event the Agency's activities result in displacement, the Agency shall compensate such residents by providing reasonable moving expenses into decent, safe, and sanitary dwelling accommodations within their means and without undue hardship to such families. The Agency will not participate in any private redevelopment activity which will result in displacement of families unless a method exists for the relocation of displaced families in decent, safe, and sanitary dwelling accommodations within their means and without undue hardship to such families. For any other activity, the Agency will comply with the provisions of the Law regarding relocation, 16 The Agency reserves the right to extend benefits for relocation to those not otherwise entitled to relocation benefits as a matter of state law under the Act or the Law. The Agency may determine to use as a reference the relocation benefits and guidelines promulgated by the federal government, the state government, or local government, including the State Department of Transportation. The intent of this section is to allow the Agency sufficient flexibility to award relocation benefits on some rational basis, or by payment of some lump sum per case basis. The Agency may also consider the analysis of replacement value for the compensation awarded to either owner occupants or businesses displaced by the Agency to achieve the objectives of this Plan. The Agency may adopt relocation guidelines which would define the extent of relocation assistance in non -federally -assisted projects and which relocation assistance to the greatest extent feasible would be uniform. The Agency shall also coordinate with the various local, state, or federal agencies concerning relocation assistance. For displacement of families, the Agency shall comply with, at a minimum, the standards set forth in the Law. The Agency shall also comply with all applicable state laws concerning relocation benefits. If such a program is considered, it shall be adopted by resolution of the Agency Board. 308 Demolition, Clearance, and Building and Site Preparation 308.1 Demolition and Clearance The Agency is authorized (but not required) to lawfully demolish and clear buildings, structures, and other improvements from any real property in the Project Area as necessary to carry out the purposes of this Plan. 308.2 Preparation of Building Sites The Agency is authorized (but not required) to prepare, or cause to be prepared, as building sites, any real property in the Project Area owned by the Agency, including rock removal and site preparation. In connection therewith, the Agency may cause, provide for, or undertake the installation or construction of streets, utilities, stone drainage facilities, and other public improvements necessary to carry out this Plan. The Agency is also authorized (but not required) to construct foundations, platforms, and other structural forms necessary for the provision or utilization of air rights sites for buildings to be used for industrial, commercial, private, public, and other uses provided in this Plan. To the extent allowed by the Law and Act, the Agency may assist in the preparation of building sites by way of reclamation, remediation, or elimination of deteriorated conditions. The Agency is also authorized (but not required) to purchase certain site or building improvements for purpose of site preparation and development. 17 309 Property Disposition and Development 309.1 Real Property Disposition and Development 309.1.1 General For the purposes of this Plan, the Agency is authorized to sell, lease, exchange, subdivide, transfer, assign, pledge, encumber by mortgage or deed of trust, or otherwise dispose of any interest in real property under the reuse provisions set forth in the Law. To the extent permitted by law, the Agency is authorized to dispose of real property by negotiated lease, sale, or transfer without public bidding. Real property acquired by the Agency may be conveyed by the Agency and, where beneficial to the Project Area, without charge to any public body as allowed by law. All real property acquired by the Agency in the Project Area shall be sold or leased to public or private persons or entities for development for the uses permitted in this Plan. All purchasers or lessees of property acquired from the Agency shall be obligated to use the property for the purposes designated in this Plan, to begin and complete development of the property within a period of time, if any, which the Agency fixes as reasonable, and to comply with other conditions which the Agency deems necessary to carry out the purposes of this Plan. The Agency shall give due consideration to the provision of adequate park and recreational areas and facilities that may be desirable for neighborhood improvement, with special consideration for the health, safety and welfare of residents residing in the general vicinity of the site covered by the Plan. 309.1.2 Disposition and Development Documents To provide adequate safeguards to ensure that the provisions of this Plan will be carried out and to prevent the recurrence of deteriorating conditions, all real property sold, leased, or conveyed by the Agency, as well as all property subject to participation agreements, is subject to the provisions of this Plan. The Agency shall reserve such powers and controls in the disposition and development documents as may be necessary to prevent transfer, retention, or use of property for speculative purposes and to ensure that development is carried out pursuant to this Plan. Leases, deeds, contracts, agreements, and declarations of restrictions of the Agency may contain restrictions, covenants, covenants running with the land, rights of reverter, conditions subsequent, equitable servitudes, or any other provisions necessary to carry out this Plan. Where appropriate, as determined by the Agency, such documents, or portions thereof, shall be recorded in the office of the Recorder of Ada County. All property in the Project Area is hereby subject to the restriction that there shall be no discrimination or segregation based upon race, color, creed, religion, sex, age, national origin, or ancestry in the sale, lease, sublease, transfer, use, occupancy, disability/handicap, tenure, or enjoyment of property in the Project Area. All property sold, leased, conveyed, or subject to a participation agreement shall be expressly subject by appropriate documents to the restriction that all deeds, leases, or contracts for the sale, lease, sublease, or other transfer of land in the Project Area shall contain such nondiscrimination and nonsegregation clauses as required by law. The land and/or air rights and subterranean rights acquired by the Agency will be disposed of subject to an agreement between the Agency and the developers. The developers (including owner/participants) will be required by the contractual agreement to observe the Land Use and Building Requirements provision of this Plan and to submit a redevelopment schedule satisfactory to the Agency. Schedule revisions will be made only at the option of the Agency. As required by law or as determined in the Agency's discretion to be in the best interest of the Agency and the public, the following requirements and obligations shall be included in the agreement. That the developers, their successors, and assigns agree: a. That a plan and time schedule for the proposed development shall be submitted to the Agency. b. That the purchase or lease of the land and/or subterranean rights and/or air rights is for the purpose of redevelopment and not for speculation. C. That the building of improvements will be commenced and completed as jointly scheduled and determined by the Agency and the developer(s). d. That there will be no discrimination or segregation based upon race, color, creed, religion, sex, age, national origin, or ancestry in the sale, lease, sublease, transfer, use, occupancy, disability/handicap, tenure, or enjoyment of the premises or any improvements erected or to be erected thereon, therein conveyed; nor will the Developer himself or any person claiming under or through him establish or permit any such practice or practices of discrimination or segregation with reference to the selection, location, number, use, or occupancy of tenants, lessees, sublessees, or vendees in the premises or any improvements erected, or to be erected thereon, therein conveyed. The above provision will be perpetual and will be appended to the land disposed of within the Project Area by the Agency. e. That the site and construction plans will be submitted to the Agency for review as to conformity with the provisions and purposes of this Plan. 19 f. All new construction shall have a minimum estimated life of no less than twenty (20) years. g. That rehabilitation of any existing structure must assure that the structure is safe and sound in all physical respects and be refurbished and altered to bring the property to an upgraded marketable condition which will continue throughout an estimated useful life for a minimum of twenty (20) years. h. That the Agency receives adequate assurance acceptable to the Agency to ensure performance under the contract for sale. i. All such buildings or portions of the buildings which are to remain within the Project Area shall be reconstructed in conformity with all applicable codes and ordinances of the City. All disposition and development documents shall be governed by the provisions of Section 408 and 412 of this Plan. The Agency also reserves the right to determine the extent of its participation based upon the achievements of the objectives of this Plan 309.1.3 Development by the Agency To the extent now or hereafter permitted by law, the Agency is authorized to pay for, develop, or construct any publicly -owned building, facility, structure, or other improvement within the Project Area for itself or for any public body or entity, which buildings, facilities, structures, or other improvements are or would be of benefit to the Project Area. Specifically, the Agency may pay for, install, or construct the buildings, facilities, structures, and other improvements identified in Attachments 5.15.4, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, and may acquire or pay for the land required therefore. The Agency may also prepare properties for development by renovation or other means as allowed by law. The Agency may also, as allowed by law, assist in the development of private projects. In addition to the public improvements authorized under Idaho Code Section 50-2007, 50-2018, and 50-2903(9), (13), and (14), the Agency is authorized to install and construct, or to cause to be installed and constructed, within the Project Area for itself or for any public body or entity, public improvements and public facilities, including, but not limited to, the following: (1) utilities; (2) telecommunications (including fiber-optic) facilities; (3) parks, plazas, open space, recreational facilities and pedestrian paths; (4) landscaped areas; (5) street improvements; (6) sanitary sewers; (7) flood control facilities and stone drains; (8) water mains; (9) canal crossings; (10) fire prevention; (11) community facilities; (12) remediation of environmental conditions; and (13) other public infrastructure or improvements, including but not limited to construction of public buildings and facilities as authorized by law. 20 Any public facility ultimately owned by the Agency shall be operated and managed in such a manner to preserve the public purpose nature of the facility. Any lease agreement with a private entity or management contract agreement shall include all necessary provisions sufficient to protect the public interest and public purpose. The Agency may enter into contracts, leases, and agreements with the City, County or other public body or private entity pursuant to this section, and the obligation of the Agency under such contract, lease, or agreement shall constitute an indebtedness of the Agency as described in Idaho Code Section 50-2909 which may be made payable out of the taxes levied in the Project Area and allocated to the Agency under subdivision (2)(b) of Section 50-2908 of the Act and Section 504 to this Plan or out of any other available funds. 309.1.4 Development Plans All development plans (whether public or private) prepared pursuant or related to assistance or support received from the Agency or owner participation agreements, shall be submitted to the Agency for approval and architectural review. All such development in the Project Area must conform to those standards specified in Sections 408 and 412, infra. 310 Personal Property Disposition For the purposes of this Plan, the Agency is authorized to lease, sell, exchange, transfer, assign, pledge, encumber, or otherwise dispose of personal property which is acquired by the Agency. 311 Rehabilitation and Conservation The Agency is authorized to rehabilitate, renovate, and conserve, or to cause to be rehabilitated, renovated, and conserved, any building or structure in the Project Area owned by the Agency for preparation of redevelopment and disposition. The Agency is also authorized and directed to advise, encourage, and assist in the rehabilitation and conservation of property in the Project Area not owned by the Agency. As necessary in carrying out this Plan, the Agency is authorized to move, or to cause to be moved, any substandard structure or building or any structure or building which can be rehabilitated to a location within or outside the Project Area. 312 Participation with Private Development or Public Development Under the Law, the Agency has the authority to lend or invest funds obtained from the federal government for the purposes of the Law if allowable under federal laws or regulations. The federal funds that may be available to the Agency are governed by regulations promulgated by the Department of Housing and Urban Development for the Community Development Block Grant Program ("CDBG"), the Economic Development Administration, the Small Business 21 Administration, or other federal agencies. in order to enhance such grants, the Agency's use of revenue allocation funds is critical. Under those regulations the Agency may participate with the private sector in the development and financing of those private projects that will attain certain federal objectives. The Agency may, therefore, use the federal funds for the provision of assistance to private for-profit business, including, but not limited to, grants, loads, loan guarantees, interest supplements, technical assistance, and other forms to support, for any other activity necessary or appropriate to carry out an economic development project. As allowed by law, the Agency may also use funds from any other sources for any purpose set forth under the Law or Act. The Agency may enter into contracts, leases, and agreements with the City, or other public body or private entity, pursuant to this section, and the obligation of the Agency under such contract, lease, or agreement shall constitute an indebtedness of the Agency as described in Idaho Code Section 50-2909 which may be made payable out of the taxes levied in the Project Area and allocated to the Agency under subdivision 2(b) of Section 50-2908 of the Local Economic Development Act and Section 504 to this Plan or out of any other available funds. 31.3 Conforming Owners The Agency may, at the Agency's sole and absolute discretion, determine that certain real property within the Project Area presently meets the requirements of this Plan, and the owner of such property will be permitted to remain as a conforming owner, provided such owner continues to operate, use, and maintain the real property within the requirements of this Plan. 314 Arts Funding The Agency encourages public art and performing arts through joint ventures with private developers and in cooperation with the City. Whenever possible, any Agency arts funding will be used to leverage additional contributions from developers, other private sources, and public or quasi -public entitles. 400 USES PERMITTED IN THE PROJECT AREA 401 Redevelopment Plan Map and Development Strategy The Urban Renewal Project Area Map, the Revenue Allocation Map, and the Description of the Urban Renewal Project Area Boundaries, are attached hereto as Attachments 1 and 2, and are incorporated by reference. The proposed land uses and permitted land uses in the Project Area for all land, public and private, are described in Attachment 4. 22 402 Designated Land Uses The Agency intends to rely upon the overall land use designations and zoning classifications of the City of Meridian, as depicted on Attachment 4 and as set forth in the City Comprehensive Plan, including the future land use map and zoning classifications. For the most part, the Project Area is proposed as residential, retail, office, and commercial development. Provided, however, nothing herein within this Plan shall be deemed to be granting any particular right to zoning classification or use. 403 [Reserved] 404 Public Rights -of -Way The major public streets currently within the Project Area are portions of Ten Mile Road, and Franklin Road, and any others not listed, but within the boundaries of the Project Area as more specifically set forth in Attachment 1. Additional improvements to existing streets and easements may be created, improved, or extended in the Project Area as needed for development. Existing streets, easements, and irrigation or drainage laterals or ditches may be abandoned, closed, or modified as necessary for proper development of the Project Area, in conjunction with any applicable policies and standards of the City regarding changes to dedicated rights-of-way, and appropriate irrigation or drainage districts regarding changes to laterals or ditches. Any changes in the existing interior or exterior street layout shall be in accordance with the objectives of this Plan and the City's and ACHD's design standards; shall be effectuated in the manner prescribed by State and local law; and shall be guided by the following criteria: a. A balancing of the needs of proposed and potential new developments for adequate vehicular access, vehicular parking, and delivery loading docks with the similar needs of any existing developments permitted to remain. Such balancing shall take into consideration the rights of existing owners and tenants under the rules for owner and tenant participation adopted by the Agency for the Project and any participation agreements executed thereunder; b. The requirements imposed by such factors as topography, traffic safety, and aesthetics; and c. The potential need to serve not only the Project Area and new or existing developments, but to also serve areas outside the Project Area by providing convenient and efficient vehicular access and movement. The public rights-of-way may be used for vehicular and/or pedestrian traffic, as well as for public improvements, public and private utilities, and activities typically found in public rights -of --way. 23 405 Other Public, Semi -Public, Institutional, and Nonprofit Uses The Agency is also authorized to support, subject to applicable law, the maintenance, establishment, or enlargement of public, semi-public, institutional, or nonprofit uses, including park and recreational facilities; educational, fraternal, employee; philanthropic and charitable institutions; utilities; governmental facilities; equipment; and facilities of other similar associations or organizations. All such uses shall, to the extent possible, conform to the provisions of this Plan applicable to the uses in the specific area involved. The Agency may impose such other reasonable requirements and/or restrictions on those seeking its assistance or support as the Agency determines may be necessary to protect the development and use of the Project Area. 406 Interim Uses Pending the ultimate development of land by developers and participants, the Agency is authorized to use or permit the use of any land in the Project Area for interim uses that are not in conformity with the uses permitted in this Plan. However, any interim use must comply with applicable City Code. 407 General Controls and Limitations All real property in the Project Area, under the provisions of either a disposition and development agreement or owner participation agreement, is made subject to the controls and requirements of this Plan. No such real property shall be developed, rehabilitated, or otherwise changed after the date of the adoption of this Plan, except in conformance with the provisions of this Plan. 407.1 Construction All construction in the Project Area shall comply with all applicable state and local laws and codes in effect from time to time. In addition to applicable codes, ordinances, or other requirements governing development in the Project Area, additional specific performance and development standards may be adopted by the Agency to control and direct redevelopment activities in the Project Area in the event of a disposition and development agreement or owner participation agreement. 407.2 Rehabilitation and Retention of Properties Any existing structure within the Project Area, subject to either a disposition and development agreement or owner participation agreement, approved by the Agency for retention and rehabilitation, shall be repaired, altered, reconstructed, or rehabilitated in such a manner that it will be safe and sound in all physical respects and be attractive in appearance and not detrimental to the surrounding uses. 24 407.3 Limitation on Type, Size, and Height of Buildings Except as set forth in other sections of this Plan, the type, size, and height of buildings shall be as limited by applicable federal, state, and local statutes, ordinances, and regulations. 407.4 Open Spaces, Landscaping, Light, Air, and Privacy The issues of open space, landscaping, light, air, and privacy shall be governed by applicable federal, state, and local laws and ordinances. 407.5 Signs All signs shall conform to City of Meridian sign ordinances as they now exist or are hereafter amended. 407.6 Utilities The Agency shall require that all utilities be placed underground whenever physically and economically feasible. 407.7 Incompatible Uses No use or structure which by reason of appearance, traffic, smoke, glare, noise, odor, or similar factors which would be incompatible with the surrounding areas or structures shall receive any support or assistance from the Agency in any part of the Project Area. 407.8 Nondiscrimination and Nonsegregation There shall be no discrimination or segregation based upon race, color, creed, religion, sex, age, marital status, disability/handicap, national origin, or ancestry permitted in the sale, lease sublease, transfer, use, occupancy, tenure, or enjoyment of property in the Project Area. 407.9 Subdivision of Parcels Any parcel in the Project Area shall be subdivided only in compliance with the City of Meridian subdivision ordinance. 407.10 Minor Variations Under exceptional circumstances, the Agency is authorized to permit a variation from the limits, restrictions, and controls established by this Plan. In order to permit such variation, the Agency must determine that: 25 a. The application of certain provisions of this Plan would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships inconsistent with the general purpose and intent of this Plan; b. There are exceptional circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or to the intended development of the property which do not apply generally to other properties having the same standards, restrictions, and controls; C, Permitting a variation will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the area; and d. Permitting a variation will not be contrary to the objectives of this Plan. No variation shall be granted which permits other than a minor departure from the provisions of this Plan. In permitting any such variation, the Agency may impose such conditions as it deems necessary to protect the public peace, health, safety, or welfare and to assure compliance with the purposes of the Plan. Any variation permitted by the Agency hereunder shall not supersede any other approval required under City codes and ordinances. 408 Design for Development Within the limits, restrictions, and controls established in this Plan, the Agency is authorized to establish heights of buildings, land coverage, setback requirements, design criteria, traffic circulation, traffic access, and other development and design controls necessary for proper development of both private and public areas within the Project Area. Any individual or entity seeking the Agency's assistance, support or cooperation must comply with Agency standards and must also comply with the City's zoning ordinance regarding heights, setbacks, and other like standards. In the case of property which is the subject of a disposition and development or participation agreement with the Agency, no new improvement shall be constructed, and no existing improvement shall be substantially modified, altered, repaired, or rehabilitated, except in accordance with this Plan. Under those agreements the architectural, landscape, and site plans shall be submitted to the Agency and approved in writing by the Agency. One of the objectives of this Plan is to create an attractive and pleasant environment in the Project Area. Therefore, such plans shall give consideration to good design, open space, and other amenities to enhance the aesthetic quality of the Project Area. The Agency shall not approve any plans that do not comply with this Plan. The Agency reserves the right to impose such design standards on an ad hoc, case-by-case basis through the approval process of the owner participation agreement or disposition and development agreement. Any change to such approved design must be consented to by the Agency and such consent may be conditioned upon reduction of Agency's financial participation towards the Project. In the event the Agency adopts design standards or controls, those provisions will thereafter apply to each site or portion thereof in the Project Area. Those controls and standards 26 will be implemented through the provisions of any disposition and development agreement or owner participation agreement or by appropriate covenants appended to the land and instruments of conveyance executed pursuant thereto. These controls are in addition to any standards and provisions of any applicable City building or zoning ordinances; provided, however, each and every development shall comply with all applicable City zoning and building ordinance. 409 Off -Street Loading Any development and improvements shall provide for off-street loading as required by the City ordinances as they now exist or are hereafter amended. 410 Off -Street Parking All new construction in the area shall provide off-street parking as required by the City ordinances as they now exist or are hereafter amended. The off-street parking requirement may be met by a public parking facility, including a parking garage and/or parking lot within proximity to the new construction. 411 Nonconforming Uses As part of the Agency's development, redevelopment and rehabilitation efforts. the Agency may permit an existing use to remain in an existing building and site usage in good condition, which use does not conform to the provisions of this Plan, provided that such use is generally compatible with existing and proposed developments and uses in the Project Area. If the owner of such a property is retaining said property, then they must be willing to enter into a participation agreement and agree to the imposition of such reasonable restrictions as may be necessary to protect the development and use of the Project Area. The Agency may assist with or support additions, alterations, repairs, or other improvements in the Project Area for uses which do not conform to the provisions of this Plan where such improvements are within a portion of the Project Area where, in the detennination of the Agency, such improvements would be compatible with surrounding compliant uses and development. All nonconforming uses shall also comply with applicable law. 412 Design Guidelines for Development under a Disposition and Development Agreement or Owner Participation Agreement Under an owner participation agreement or a development and disposition agreement the design guidelines and land use elements of the Plan shall be achieved to the greatest extent feasible, though the Agency retains the authority to grant minor variations under Section 407.10 of this Plan and subject to a negotiated agreement between the Agency and the developer or property owner. 27 Under those agreements, the architectural, landscape, and site plans shall be submitted to the Agency and approved in writing by the Agency. In such agreements, the Agency may impose additional design controls. One of the objectives of this Plan is to create an attractive pedestrian environment in the Project Area. Therefore, such plans shall give consideration to good design and amenities to enhance the aesthetic quality of the Project Area. These additional design standards or controls will be implemented through the provisions of any development and disposition agreement or owner participation agreement or by appropriate covenants appended to the land and instruments of conveyance executed pursuant thereto. These controls are in addition to any standards and provisions of any applicable City building or zoning ordinances; provided, however, each and every development shall comply with all applicable City zoning and building ordinances. 500 METHODS OF FINANCING THE PROJECT 501 General Description of the Proposed Financing Method The Agency is authorized to finance this Project with financial assistance from the City, state of Idaho, federal government, interest income, Agency bonds, donations, loans from private financial institutions, the lease or sale of Agency -owned property, or any other available source, public or private, including assistance from any taxing district or any public entity. The Agency is also authorized to obtain advances, borrow funds, and create indebtedness in carrying out this Plan. The Agency may also consider an inter -fund transfer from other urban renewal project areas. The principal and interest on such advances, funds, and indebtedness may be paid from any funds available to the Agency. The City, as it is able, may also supply additional assistance through City loans and grants for various public facilities. The City or any other public agency may expend money to assist the Agency in carrying out this Project. 502 Revenue Bond Funds As allowed by Iaw and subject to restrictions as are imposed by law, the Agency is authorized to issue bonds from time to time, if it deems appropriate to do so, in order to finance all or any part of the Project. Neither the members of the Agency nor any persons executing the bonds are liable personally on the bonds by reason of their issuance. 503 Other Loans and Grants Any other loans, grants, guarantees, or financial assistance from the United States, the state of Idaho CDBG funds, or any other public or private source will be utilized if available. The Agency may consider funding sources through Local Improvement Districts as authorized by state law. Neither the members of the Agency nor any persons executing such loans or grants shall be liable on the loans or grants by reason of their issuance. W. The Agency also intends to seek appropriate private contributions, where applicable, to assist in the funding of the activities described herein. 504 Revenue Allocation Financing Provisions The Agency hereby adopts revenue allocation financing provisions as authorized by the Act, effective retroactively to January 1, 2016. These revenue allocation provisions shall apply to all taxing districts which are located in or overlap the Revenue Allocation Area described on Attachments 1 and 2 to this Plan. The Agency shall take all actions necessary or convenient to implement these revenue allocation financing provisions. The Agency specifically finds that the equalized assessed valuation of property within the Revenue Allocation Area is likely to increase as a result of the initiation of the Project. The Agency, acting by one or more resolutions or agreements, as applicable, adopted by its Board, is hereby authorized to apply all or any portion of the revenues allocated to the Agency pursuant to the Act to pay as costs are incurred or to pledge all or any portion of such revenues to the repayment of any moneys borrowed, indebtedness incurred, or bonds issued by the Agency to finance or to refinance the Project Costs (as defined in Idaho Code Section 50-2903(14)) of one or more urban renewal projects. Upon enactment of an ordinance by the governing body of the City of Meridian finally adopting these revenue allocation financing provisions and defining the Revenue Allocation Area described herein as part of the Plan, there shall hereby be created a special fund of the Agency into which the County Treasurer shall deposit allocated revenues as provided in Idaho Code Section 50-2908. The Agency shall use such funds solely in accordance with Idaho Code Section 50-2909 and solely for the purpose of providing funds to pay the Project Costs, including any incidental costs, of such urban renewal projects as the Agency may determine by resolution or resolutions of its Board. A statement listing proposed public improvements and facilities, an economic feasibility study, estimated project costs, fiscal impact upon other taxing districts, and methods of financing project costs required by Idaho Code Section 50-2905 is included in Attachments 5.1-5.4 to this Plan. This statement necessarily incorporates estimates and projections based on the Agency's present knowledge and expectations. The Agency is hereby authorized to refine the presently anticipated urban renewal projects and use of revenue allocation financing of the related Project Costs if the Board deems such refinement necessary or convenient to effectuate the general objectives of the Plan. The Agency may also appropriate funds consisting of revenue allocation proceeds on an annual basis without the issuance of bonds. The Agency has also provided for obtaining advances or loans from the City or Agency, or from the Agency's other revenue allocation area, or pursuant to the terms of an owner participation agreement, or private entity and financial institutions in order to immediately commence construction of certain of the public improvements. Revenues will continue to be allocated to the Agency until the improvements identified in Attachments 5.1-5.4 are completely constructed or until any obligation to the City or 29 any other public entity, other revenue allocation area, or private entity are fulfilled. Attachments 5.1-5.4 incorporate estimates and projections based on the Agency's present knowledge and expectations concerning the length of time to complete the improvements. The activity may take longer depending on the significance and timeliness of development. Alternatively, the activity may be completed earlier if revenue allocation proceeds are greater or the Agency obtains additional funds. The revenue allocation proceeds are hereby irrevocably pledged for the payment of the principal and interest on the advance of monies or making of loans or the incurring of any indebtedness such as bonds, notes, and other obligations (whether funded, refiulded, assumed, or otherwise) by the Agency to finance or refinance the Project in whole or in part. The Agency is authorized to make such pledges as to specific advances, loans, and indebtedness as appropriate in carrying out the Project. The Agency reserves the right to either pay for Project Costs from available revenue (pay as you go basis) or borrow funds by incurring debt through notes or other obligations. The Agency is authorized to make such pledges as to specific advances, loans, and indebtedness as appropriate in carrying out the Project. Revenue allocation proceeds are deemed to be only a part of the proposed funding sources for the payment of public improvements and other project improvements. Additionally, project funding is proposed to be phased for the improvements, allowing various sources of funds to be accumulated for use. 504.1 Economic Feasibility Study Attachment 5.2 constitutes the Economic Feasibility Study ("Study") as supported by Attachments 5.1, 5.3 and 5.4, for the urban renewal area prepared by Phil Kushlan, Kushlan and Associates. The Study constitutes the financial analysis required by the Act and is based upon existing information from the Agency, City and developers. Projections are based upon input from the Agency, property owners, developers, and others. 504.2 Assumptions and Conditions/Economic Feasibility Statement The information contained in Attachments 5.1-5.4 assumes certain completed and projected actions. Under the provisions of the Act, the revenue allocation shall continue until the debt or other obligations or other project activity is completed or satisfied. All debt is projected to be repaid no later than the duration period of the PIan. The total amount of bonded indebtedness (and all other loans or indebtedness) and the amount of revenue generated by revenue allocation are dependent upon the extent and timing of private development. Should all of the development take place as projected, the project indebtedness could be extinguished earlier, dependent upon the bond sale documents or other legal obligations. Should private 30 development take longer to materialize or should the private development be substantially less than projected, then the amount of revenue generated will be substantially reduced and debt may continue for its full term. The Plan and attachments incorporate estimates and projections based on the Agency's present knowledge and expectations. The Agency may refine the project if the Board deems such refinements necessary to effectuate the Plan. The Plan proposes certain public improvements, including utility and street improvements, which will facilitate development in the Revenue Allocation Area. The assumptions set forth in the Study are based upon the best information available to the Agency through public sources or discussions with property owners, developers, and others. The information has been analyzed by the Agency and its consultants in order to provide an analysis that meets the requirements set forth under the Law and Act. At the point in time when the Agency may seek a loan from lenders or others, a more detailed and then -current financial pro forma will be presented to those lenders or underwriters for analysis to determine the borrowing capacity of the Agency. As set forth herein, the Agency reserves the right to fund the Project on a "pay as you go" basis. The Agency Board will prioritize the activities set forth in this Plan and determine what funds are available and what activities can be funded. The Agency will establish those priorities through its mandated annual budgetary process. The assumptions concerning revenue allocation proceeds are based upon certain assessed value increases and assumed tax levy rates. House Bill 1 adopted by the 58`x' Idaho Legislature convening in Special Session in August 2006 (codified at Idaho Code Section 33-802) repealed the operation and maintenance property tax levy imposed by school districts. House Bill 1 also repealed Idaho Code Section 50-2908(2)(a)(iii) which required certain revenue allocation fiords to be disbursed to school districts. The financial analysis set forth in Attachments 5.1-5.4 has taken into account the provisions of Idaho Code S 33-802. House Bill 315 adopted by the 62"d Idaho Legislature amends Idaho Code Section 63- 602KK, and provides for personal property tax exemption to businesses. Application of the exemption may have the effect of reducing the increment value and the base value. The Agency, for this Project Area, will not receive any backfill funds from the State to replace revenue lost by the imposition of the personal property tax exemption. The feasibility study has taken HB315 into account. 504.3 Ten Percent Limitation Under the Act, the base assessed valuation for all revenue allocation areas cannot exceed gross/net ten percent (10%) of the current assessed valuation for the entire City. According to the Ada County Assessor, the base assessment roll for the Project Area as of January 1, 2015, is $39,539,125. The total assessed value for the City as of January 1, 2015, is $6,848,682,967. Therefore, the 10% limit is $684,868,297. The estimated adjusted base value for the existing 31 Downtown Meridian URD, is $146,334,050; The base values for the combined revenue allocation areas total $185,873,125, which is 2.714% of the City's 2015 value, which is significantly below the 10% maximum. 504.4 Financial Limitation The Study identifies several capital improvement projects. Use. of any particular financing source for any particular purpose is not assured or identified. Use of the funding source shall be conditioned on any limiting authority. If revenue allocation funds are unavailable, then the Agency will need to use a different fielding source for that improvement. The amount of funds available to the Agency from revenue allocation financing is directly related to the assessed value of new improvements within the Revenue Allocation Area. Under the Act, the Agency is allowed the revenue allocation generated from inflationary increases and new development value. Increases have been assumed based upon the projected value of new development as that development occurs along with possible land reassessment based on a construction start. The Study, with the various estimates and projections, constitutes an economic feasibility study. Costs and revenues are analyzed, and the analysis shows the need for public capital funds during the project. Multiple financing sources including proposed revenue allocation notes and bonds, annual revenue allocations, developer contributions, city contributions, and other funds are shown. This Study identifies the kind, number, and location of all proposed public works or improvements, a detailed list of estimated project costs, a description of the methods of financing illustrating project costs, and the time when related costs or monetary obligations are to be incurred. See Idaho Code § 50-2905. Based on these funding sources, the conclusion is that the project is feasible. The information contained in the Study assumes certain projected actions. First, the Agency has projected an advance from the City and owner participation agreements. Under the provisions of the Act, the revenue allocation may continue until the end of the Plan term. Second, the total amount of indebtedness and the amount of revenue generated by revenue allocation is dependent upon the extent and timing of private development. Should the development take place as projected, indebtedness would be extinguished earlier, dependent upon the note documents and legal obligations therein. Should private development take longer to materialize or should the private development be substantially less than projected, then the amount of revenue generated will be substantially reduced and bonds or other legal obligations may continue for their full term. The proposed timing for the public improvements may very well have to be refined depending upon the availability of some of the funds and the Agency's ability to sell an initial issue of notes or bonds, or the ability to execute an owner participation agreement. Attachments 5.1-5.4 list those public improvements the Agency intends to be constructed through the term of the Plan. The costs of improvements are estimates only. Final costs will be 32 determined by way of construction contract, public bidding or by an agreement between the developer/owner and Agency. The listing of public improvements does not commit the Agency to any particular improvement, any particular cost, or any particular order of construction. The Agency reserves its discretion and flexibility in deciding which improvements are more critical for redevelopment, and the Agency intends to coordinate its public improvements with associated development by private developers/owners. Generally, the Agency expects to develop those improvements identified in Attachments 5.1-5.4 first, in conjunction with private development within the Project Area generating the increment as identified in Attachments 5.1-5.4. The Plan has shown that the equalized valuation of the Revenue Allocation Area as defined in the Plan is likely to increase as a result of the initiation and completion of urban renewal projects pursuant to the Plan. 504.5 [Reserved] 504.6 Participation with Local Improvement Districts Under the Idaho Local Improvement District Code, Chapter 17, Title 50, Idaho Code, the City has the authority to establish local improvement districts for various public facilities, including, but not limited to, streets, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, stone drains, landscaping, and other like facilities. To the extent allowed by the Law and the Act, the Agency reserves the authority to participate in the funding of local improvement district facilities. This participation may include either direct funding to reduce the overall cost of the LID or to participate as an assessed entity to finance the LID project. 504.7 Issuance of Debt and Debt Limitation Any debt incurred by the Agency as allowed by the Law and Act shall be secured by revenues identified in the debt resolution or revenue allocation funds as allowed by the Act. All such debt shall be repaid within the duration of this Plan, except as may be authorized by law. 504.8 Impact on Other Taxing Districts and Levy Rate A specific delineation of tax dollars generated by revenue allocation upon each taxing district has not been prepared. The overall impact of the revenue allocation project is shown in the Study. Pursuant to Idaho Code, Section 63-802, taxing entities are constrained in establishing levy rates by a function of the amount each budget of each taxing district can increase on an annual basis. The amounts set forth in the Study would constitute the amounts distributed to other taxing entities from the Revenue Allocation Area if there were no urban renewal project. Each individual district's share of that amount would be determined by its particular levy rate as compared to the other districts in any given year. Therefore, the impact of 33 revenue allocation is more of a product of the imposition of Section 63-802. In addition, without the revenue allocation district and its ability to pay for public improvements and public facilities, fewer substantial improvements within the Revenue Allocation Area would be expected in the next five to ten years, hence there would be lower increases in assessed valuation to be used by the taxing entities. If the overall levy rate is less than assumed, the Agency will receive fewer funds from revenue allocation. The assessed value for each property in a revenue allocation area consists of a base value and an increment value. The base value is the assessed value as of January 1 of the year in which a revenue allocation area is approved by a municipality, with periodic adjustments allowed by Idaho state code. The increment value is the difference between the base assessed value and current assessed value in any given year while the property is in a revenue allocation area. Under Section § 63-802, Idaho Code, taxing entities are constrained in establishing levy rates by the amount each budget of each taxing district can increase on an annual basis. Taxing entities submit proposed budgets to the County Board of Commissioners, which budgets are required to comply with the limitations set forth in Section 63-802, Idaho Code. The County Board of Commissioners calculates the levy rate required to produce the proposed budget amount for each taxing entity using the assessed values which are subject to each taxing entity's levy rate. Assessed values in urban renewal districts which are subject to revenue allocation (incremental values) are not included in this calculation. The combined levy rate for the taxing entities is applied to the incremental property values in a revenue allocation area to detennine the amount of property tax revenue which is allocated to an urban renewal agency. The property taxes generated by the property values in the urban renewal districts that are not subject to revenue allocation and by properties outside revenue allocation areas are distributed to the other taxing entities. Properties in revenue allocation areas are subject to the same levy rate as they would be outside a revenue allocation area. The difference is how the revenue is distributed. In addition, without the Revenue Allocation Area and its ability to pay for public improvements and public facilities, fewer substantial improvements within the Revenue Allocation Area would be expected in the next five to ten years; hence, there would be lower increases in assessed valuation to be used by the other taxing entities. If the overall levy rate is less than as assumed, the Agency shall receive fewer funds from revenue allocation. One result of Section 63-802, Idaho Code and Section 63-301A, Idaho Code is the likely reduction of the levy rate as assessed values increase for property within each taxing entity's jurisdiction. If the overall levy rate is less than as assumed, the Agency shall receive fewer funds from revenue allocation. Section 63-301A, Idaho Code, prohibits taxing entities from 'including, as part of the new construction ro1l, the increased value related to new construction within a revenue allocation area until the revenue allocation authority is terminated. Any new construction within the Project Area will no longer be available for inclusion by the taxing entities to increase their budgets. Less tax revenue will be available to those taxing entities. Upon termination of this flan, the taxing entities will be able to include the accumulated new 34 construction roll value in setting the following year's budget and revenue from such value is not limited to the three percent increase allowed in Section 63-802(l)(a). Section 63-V802, Idaho Code, may have the effect of reducing the levy rate as assessed values increase for property within each taxing entity's jurisdiction; however, it is unclear how Section 63-602KK may impact the levy rate. The Study has made certain assumptions concerning the levy rate. The levy rate is estimated to stay level for the life of the revenue allocation area. The annual increment value is expected to increase by approximately 3% (1% increase in land values and 2% increase in improvement values) a year with larger increases expected throughout the life of the District due to probable commercial and residential developments. If the overall levy rate is less than projected, the Agency shall receive fewer funds from revenue allocation. The 2008 Idaho Legislature passed and Governor Otter signed House Bill 470 as amended in the Idaho Senate, which bill became effective retroactive to January 1, 2008 (Session Laws, Chapter 253). The bill amended Idaho Code Sections 50-2908, 63-803, and 63-811. In brief, the bill provided that an urban renewal agency shall not be entitled to revenue allocation proceeds from certain levy increases which are allowed by either specific statutory authorization or approved by an election of the qualified electors of the particular taxing district. Therefore, for any levy election held after January 1, 2008, the Agency will not receive revenue allocation funds which would have been generated by imposing that levy on the assessed valuation within the Project Area. Additionally, as this Plan has been adopted after January 1, 2008, any voter approved levy adopted prior to January 1, 2008, will not be available for use by the Agency. The Study which is attached as Attachments 5.1-5.4 has taken this statute into account. The levy rates for the West Ada School District and the County shown above are the aggregate levy rates for the school district and County as of 2016 less voter approved levies. The Study has assumed the impact of House Bill 470. Generally, the impact on the taxing entities would be to detennine the Agency's projected revenue and disburse those funds in the same ratio as the respective levy rates in the Revenue Allocation Area of each taxing district. For Tax Year 2015, those districts and rates are as follows for properties located within the City: Taxing District Total Levy Rate Exempt From Urban Renewal Urban Renewal Applicable Ada County Current Expense 0,002278652 0 0.002278652 Tort 0 0 0 Bond 0 0 0 Charity-/ Indigent 0.000308508 0 0.000308508 District Court 0.00026101 0 0.00026101 Health 0.000059924 0 0.000059924 Noxious Weeds 0.000015996 0 0.000015996 Parks and Recreation 0.000005486 0 0.000005486 Revaluation 0.000094225 0 0.000094225 Veterans' Memorial 0.000000631 0.000000631 IN Total Ada County 0.003024432 0 0.003024432 City of Meridian General Fund 0.004005842 0 0.004005842 Total City of Meridian 0.004005842 0 0.004005842 West Ada School District #2 M&O 0 0 0 Tort 0.000018532 0.000018532 0 Bond 0.001573513 0.001573513 0 Emergency 0,000078696 0.000078696 0 Plant Facility 0.001425011 0.001425011 0 Permanent Override 0 0 0 Supplemental 0.000991475 0.000991475 0 63-1035 Judgment 0.000000193 0.000000193 0 Total West Ada #2 0.00408742 0.00408742 0 Ada County EMS M&O 0.000157028 0 0.000157028 Total EMS 0.000157028 0 0.000157028 Meridian Cemetery M&O 0.000072285 0 0.000072285 Total Cemetery 0.000072285 0 0.000072285 Ada County Highway M&O 0.001083315 0 0.001083315 Total ACHD 0.001083315 0 0.001083315 CWI M&O 0.00016628 0 0.00016628 Total CWT 0.00016628 0 0.00016628 Meridian Free Library M&O 0.000559958 0 0.000559958 Total Library 0.000559958 0 0.000559958 Mosquito Abatement M & 0 0.000030348 0 0.000030348 Total Mosquito Abatement 0.000030348 0 0.000030348 West Ada Recreation M & 0 0.000086663 0 0.000086663 Total West Ada Recreation 0,000086663 j 0 0.000086663 ME Total Levy 0.013273571 0.00408742 0.00918615 505 Phasing and Other Fund Sources The Agency anticipates Rinding a major portion of the cost of the public improvements shown on Attachments 5.1-5.4. Other sources of funds shall include developer contributions and City and other public agency participation. Agency participation shall be determined by the amount of revenue allocation funds generated. 506 Lease Revenue, Parking Revenue, and Bonds Under the Law, the Agency is authorized to issue revenue bonds to finance certain public improvements identified in the Plan. Under that type of financing, the public entity would pay the Agency a lease payment annually, which provides certain funds to the Agency to retire the bond debt. Another variation of this type of financing is sometimes referred to as conduit financing, which provides a mechanism where the Agency uses its bonding authority for the Project, with the end user making payments to the Agency to retire the bond debt. These sources of revenues are not related to revenue allocation funds and may not be particularly noted in the Study, because of the "pass through" aspects of the financing. Under the Act, the economic feasibility study focuses on the revenue allocation aspects of the Agency's financial model. These financing models typically are for a longer period of time than the 20 -year period set forth in the Act. However, these financing models do not involve revenue allocation funds, but rather fiends from the end users which provide a funding source for the Agency to continue to own and operate the facility beyond the term of the Plan as allowed by Idaho Code Section 50- 2905(8) as those resources involve funds not related to revenue allocation funds. 507 Capital Improvement Contribution Policy The Agency does hereby establish and fix the following policy for the Agency supported design., acquisition, and construction costs of the development of new utilities, streets or bridges or the extension of any existing street within the Project Area as described and defined in the Plan. 507.1 Streets All streets constructed within the boundaries of the Ten Mile Urban Renewal District shall be developed in accordance with the adopted standards of the Ada County Highway District. Design of all streets will be subject to review and approval of the ACHD and the Agency. 37 507.2 Utilities All public and private utilities constructed within the boundaries of the Ten Mile Urban Renewal District shall be developed in accordance with the adopted standards of the entity who will ultimately assume responsibility for on-going operations and maintenance of such facility. Design of such utilities will be subject to the review and approval of the City of Meridian, the applicable private utility provider and the Agency 507.3 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities All sidewalks and bicycle lanes constructed in conjunction with streets within the Ten Mile Urban Renewal District shall be developed in accordance with the adopted standards of the Ada County Highway District. Off-street pedestrian and bicycle facilities shall be developed accordance with the adopted standards of the City of Meridian. Design of such facilities shall be subject to the review and approval of ACHD or the City of Meridian as appropriate and the Agency. 508 Improvement Design and Construction It is anticipated that the public improvements to be installed in the District will be designed and constructed by the Developer in accordance with the design requirements of the City of Meridian, the Ada County Highway District, the Idaho Department of Transportation ("ITD") and relevant utility providers in the area, as applicable. The terms and conditions of reimbursement for the design and construction costs will be set forth in the agreement between the Developer and the Agency. 509 Engineer's Estimate The Developer's obligation shall be calculated based upon an engineer's estimate of the costs described above. Upon completion of construction, the actual costs shall be determined by the project engineer. If the actual costs are less than the engineer's estimate, the difference shall be reimbursed to the Developer. 510 Time of Payment The Developer shall pay such amount no later than the commencement of construction of the street project; provided, however, the Agency, in its sole discretion, may agree to defer the Developer's payment until completion of the project or until the time the Developer actually commences improvements on the Developer's property. In the event the payment is deferred, the Developer's contribution shall be based upon the actual cost of construction for the improvements described above. Additionally, in the event the payment is deferred, the Developer's obligation to pay shall be contained within the agreement referenced below, and an appropriate memorandum of agreement shall be filed against the property through the County Recorder's office. The Agency shall request that the City not issue a building permit until the payment is made. 511. Sidewalks The Developer shall be solely responsible for the design and construction of sidewalks adjacent to the street along the property frontage of the Developer. The sidewalk shall be constructed upon commencement of construction of improvements to the Developer's property. The design shall be approved by the Agency and must meet Agency standards. This obligation by the Developer shall be contained within the agreement and subject to the other provisions of Section 507.5 above. 512 Memorialization of Agreement The obligations of the Developer as described herein shall be memorialized in either an owner -participation agreement or a disposition and development agreement as defined in the Plan. Such agreement shall also commit the Developer to a specific scope of development for the Developer's property in compliance with the Plan, which agreement or memorandum of agreement shall be recorded. 513 Meanings Words and phrases used in Section 507 shall have the meanings ascribed in the City of Meridian and Ada County Highways District ordinances 514 Retained Authority The Agency retains its authority to decide in its sole discretion not to proceed with the construction of any new street, street extension, or bridge in the event a Developer does not voluntarily agree to contribute to the cost of construction as described herein. 515 Developer/Owner Initiated Improvements The Agency recognizes the right and possible interest of Developers/Owners to initiate the construction of designated new streets and utilities in the Project Area through such methods: (a) One or more Local Improvement Districts ("LID"); (b) Private financing; or (c) Direct payment of construction costs. Any LID would be established by the City of Meridian or the Ada County Highway District. Any of the three alternatives listed above would provide a means of financing necessary public improvements before the Agency would have the necessary funds to pay for such improvements. As an incentive for such Developer/Owner financed improvements, the Agency may establish 39 provisions for reimbursement from available annual revenue allocation funds in an owner reimbursement agreement between the Agency and said Developer/Owner. For purposes of this section, "available annual revenue allocation funds" shall mean those incremental tax (revenue allocation) revenues received by the Agency after all necessary payments have been made to: (a) Pay the obligations of the Agency as described in Section 504G or any other obligations of the Agency; (b) Fund the Administration Fund; (c) Fund any Debt Service Reserve Fund deposits; and (d) Fund any other pre-existing obligations of the Agency. 516 Variance The Agency reserves the right to grant rninor variations from these standards under the guidelines established under Section 407.10 of this Plan. 517 Agency Contribution The Agency reserves the discretion to provide additional contributions which may deviate from the above sections to more closely achieve the important objectives of the Plan, including increased or more desirable private development and land use in the Plan area. In those circumstances, the Agency may achieve the objectives of this Plan (such as greater open areas, more pedestrian -friendly environments, and the like) by funding the greater percentages of the street and utility contributions required herein. In those circumstances, the Agency shall provide an amount determined in an agreement with project participants. Provided, however, the private development under any circumstances must be completed no later than the termination date of this Plan as set forth in Section 800. The Agency reserves the right to adopt, by resolution, more detailed policies to implement this Section 507. Additionally, this commitment by the Agency and developer shall be included in an owner participation agreement as described in Section 303 of this Plan. 600 ACTIONS BY THE CITY The City has agreed to aid and cooperate with the Agency in carrying out this Plan and shall take all actions necessary to ensure the continued fulfillment of the purposes of this Plan and to prevent the recurrence or spread in the area of conditions causing blight. Actions by the City will include, but not be limited to, the following: a. Institution and completion of proceedings necessary for changes and improvements in private and publicly owned utilities within or affecting the Project Area. b. Revision of zoning (if necessary) within the Project Area to permit the land uses and development authorized by this Plan. c. Imposition wherever necessary of appropriate controls within the limits of this Plan upon parcels in the Project Area to ensure their proper development and use. d. Provision for administrative enforcement of this Plan by the City after development. The City and the Agency may develop and provide for enforcement of a program for continued maintenance by owners of all real property, both public and private, within the Project Area throughout the duration of this Plan. e. Building Code enforcement. f Performance of the above actions and of all other functions and services relating to public peace, health, safety, and physical development normally rendered in accordance with a schedule which will permit the redevelopment of the Project Area to be commenced and carried to completion without unnecessary delays. g. Institutional and completion of proceedings necessary for the establishment of local improvement districts under Chapter 17, Title 50, Idaho Code as appropriate. h. The undertaking and completing of any other proceedings necessary to carry out the Project. Administration of Community Development Block Grant funds that may be made available for this Project. j. Appropriate agreements with the Agency for administration, supporting services, funding sources, and the like. k. Imposition, whenever necessary of controls within the limits of this Plan upon parcels in the Project Area to ensure their proper development and use. 1. Joint funding of certain public improvements, including but not limited to improvements to sewer treatment facilities as needed. M. Use of public entity labor, services, and materials for construction of the public improvements listed in this Plan, if required. n. Preservation of historical sites (if possible). 41 The foregoing actions to be taken by the City do not constitute any commitment for financial outlays by the City. 601 Maintenance of Public Improvements The Agency has not identified any commitment or obligation for long-term maintenance of the public improvements identified. The Agency will need to address this issue with the appropriate entity, public or private, who has benefited from or is involved in the ongoing preservation of the public improvement. 700 ENFORCEMENT The administration and efforts to assure compliance with this Plan, including the preparation and execution of any documents implementing this Plan, will be performed by the Agency and/or the City, as applicable. The provisions of this Plan or other documents entered into pursuant to this Plan may also be enforced by court litigation instituted by either the Agency or the City. Such remedies may include, but are not limited to, specific performance, damages, reentry, injunctions, or any other remedies appropriate to the purposes of this Plan. In addition, any recorded provisions which are expressly for the benefit of owners of property in the Project Area may be enforced by such owners. 800 DURATION OF THIS PLAN, TERMINATION, AND ASSET REVIEW Except for the nondiscrimination and nonsegregation provisions which shall run in perpetuity, the provisions of this Plan shall be effective, and the provisions of other documents formulated pursuant to this Plan, shall be effective for twenty (20) years from the effective date of the Plan subject to modifications and/or extensions set forth in Idaho Code § 50-2904. The revenue allocation authority will expire on December 31, 2036, except for any revenue allocation proceeds received in calendar year 2037. This Plan shall terminate no later than December 31, 2036, except for revenues which may be received in 2037. In order to provide sufficient notice of termination to the affected taxing districts, either on May 1, 2036, or if the Agency determines an earlier terminate date: a. When the Revenue Allocation Area plan budget estimates that all financial obligations have been provided for, the principal of and interest on such moneys, indebtedness, and bonds have been paid in full or when deposits in the special fund or funds created under this chapter are sufficient to pay such principal and interest as they come due, and to fund reserves, if any, or any other obligations of the Agency funded through revenue allocation proceeds shall be satisfied and the Agency has determined no additional project costs need be funded through revenue allocation financing, the allocation of revenues under Section 50-2908, Idaho Code, shall thereupon cease; any moneys in such fund or funds in excess of 42 the amount necessary to pay such principal and interest shall be distributed to the affected taxing districts in which the Revenue Allocation Area is located in the same manner and proportion as the most recent distribution to the affected taxing districts of the taxes on the taxable property located within the Revenue Allocation Area; and the powers granted to the urban renewal agency under Section 50-2909, Idaho Code, shall thereupon terminate. b. In determining the termination date, the PIan shall recognize that the Agency shall receive allocation of revenues in the calendar year following the last year of the revenue allocation provision described in the Plan. C. For the fiscal year that immediately predates the termination date, the Agency shall adopt and publish a budget specifically for the projected revenues and expenses of the Plan and make a determination as to whether the Revenue Allocation Area can be terminated before January 1 of the termination year pursuant to the terms of Section 50-2909(4), Idaho Code. In the event that the Agency determines that current tax year revenues are sufficient to cover all estimated expenses for the current year and all future years, by May 1, but in any event, no later than September 1, the Agency shall adopt a resolution advising and notifying the local governing body, the county auditor, and the State Tax Commission, recommending the adoption of an ordinance for termination of the Revenue Allocation Area by December 31 of the current year, and declaring a surplus to be distributed as described in Section 50-2909, Idaho Code, should a surplus be determined to exist. The Agency shall cause the ordinance to be filed with the office of the county recorder and the Idaho State Tax Commission as provided in Section 63-215, Idaho Code. Upon termination of the revenue allocation authority of the Plan to the extent the Agency owns or possesses any assets, the Agency shall dispose of any remaining assets by granting or conveying or dedicating such assets to the appropriate public entity. As allowed by Idaho Code Section 50-2905(8), the Agency may retain assets or revenues generated from such assets as loans; the Agency shall have resources other than revenue allocation funds to operate and manage such assets. Similarly, facilities which provide a lease income stream to the Agency for full retirement of the facility debt will allow the Agency to meet debt services obligations and provide for the continued operation and management of the facility. For those assets which do not provide such resources or revenues, the Agency will likely convey such assets to the City or other public entity, depending on the nature of the asset. Upon termination of the revenue allocation authority of the Plan, to the extent the Agency owns or possesses any assets, the Agency shall dispose of any remaining assets by granting or conveying or dedicating such assets to the City or other public entity. 43 900 PROCEDURE FOR AMENDMENT The Plan may be further refined at any time by the Agency provided that, if refined after disposition of real property in the Project Area, the modifications must be consented to by the developer or developers or his successor or successors of such real property whose interest is substantially affected by the proposed refinement to be effective against such persons or entities. Where the proposed refinement will substantially change the Plan, the refinements must be approved by the City Council in the same manner as the original Plan. Substantial changes for City Council approval purposes shall be regarded as revisions in project boundaries, land uses permitted, land acquisition, and other changes which will violate the objectives of this Plan. Amendments are subject to certain limitations as set forth in Idaho Code § 50-2033; however, amendments that do not seek to increase the geographic area of the plan, or do not seek to extend the years of the plan beyond the maximum term allowed are permissible, and include amendments to add additional substantially different sub -projects that were not originally anticipated and included in the Plan. 1000 SEVERABILITY If any one or more of the provisions contained in this Plan to be performed on the part of the Agency shall be declared by any court of competent jurisdiction to be contrary to law, then such provision or provisions shall be null and void and shall be deemed separable from the remaining provisions in this Plan and shall in no way affect the validity of the other provisions of this Plan. 1100 ANNUAL REPORT Under the Law, the Agency is required to file with the City, on or before March 31 of each year, a report of the Agency's activities for the preceding calendar year, which report shall include a complete financial statement setting forth its assets, liabilities, income, and operating expenses as of the end of such calendar year. This annual report shall be considered at a public meeting to report these findings and take comments from the public. Additionally, House Bill 560 adopted by the 62"d Idaho Legislature, Second Regular Session, codified at Idaho Code Section 67-450E, requires the Agency to comply with certain reporting requirements. On or before December 1 of each year, the Agency must submit to the online central registry certain administrative information and financial information, including information regarding bonds or other indebtedness. Failure to comply with the mandatory reporting requirements may result in compliance measures imposed by the Ada County Board of County Commissioners. 1101 APPENDICES, ATTACHMENTS, EXHIBITS, TABLES All attachments and tables referenced in this Plan are attached and incorporated herein by their reference. All other documents referenced in this Plan but not attached are incorporated by their reference as if set forth fully. Attachment 1 Project Area and Revenue Allocation Area Boundary Map a � L Franklin l crest � Wood:S cv J T 'Gceenhead K,mra C mC� h! Pintail 4 �/'��r Bayeux °ck 'vo1 Gander Waltman Brown ro , CD = Trout po Q m e=ider U J J J Vert�na Jam, kSj��Pe _ Interstateal)4 Legend NQ" �1 !Y .Tasa `i�a7an MiM $pscdeAfea P4an SiiverTerrace QdYjs. Dutch N j R9wn.eAWcabWAm2 y f Farm myThom Overland o O - — rew Attachment 2 Description of Project Area and Revenue Allocation Area This Project Area is located within the City of Meridian between 1-84 and Franklin Road east of Ten Mile Road. The Project Area consists of approximately 301.45 acres {Excluding public rights-of- way} as more particularly described as follows: THE LANA GROUP, INC. April 29, 2016 Project No. 115055 Exhibit "A" TEN MILE URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT DESCRIPTION A parcel of land located in the North One Half, and the Southwest One Quarter of Section 14, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest Corner of Section 14 of said Township 3 North, Range 1 West, said point being the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence South 89"09'27" East, a distance of 2657.99 feet on the northerly line of said Section 14 to the North One Quarter Corner of said Section 14; Thence South 89"13'26" East, a distance of 786.90 feet on the northerly line of said Section 14 to the Northwest corner of the "Parcel 2" as described in Record of Survey Number 5870, recorded as Instrument Number 102077543, Ada County Records; Thence South 00°33'13" West, a distance of 234.03 feet to the Southwest corner of said "Parcel 2"; Thence South 76°26'48" East, a distance of 556.62 feet to the Southeast corner of said "Parcel 2", said point being on the north -south 1/16th Section line of the NE 1/4 of said Section 14; Thence South 00°34'59" West, a distance of 2009.77 feet on said 1/16th line to an angle point in the southerly boundary line of the parcel described in Record of Survey Number 8353, recorded as Instrument Number 108074837, Ada County Records; Thence North 89"13'39" West, a distance of 450.00 feet on the boundary line described in said Record of Survey Number 8353; Thence South 00°35'31" West, a distance of 290.40 feet on the boundary line described in said Record of Survey Number 8353; Thence North 89°11'30" West, a distance of 879.81 feet on the boundary line described in said Record of Survey Number 8353 to the Northeast corner of the parcel described in Record of Survey Number 10438, recorded as Instrument Number 2016-024674, said point also being the Center One Quarter Corner of said Section 14; Thence South 00°35'32" West, a distance of 1344.58 feet on the easterly boundary of the parcel described in said Record of Survey Number 10438 to a point on the Southerly boundary of the parcel described in said Record of Survey Number 10438, said point being on the northerly right-of-way line of Interstate Highway 1-84; Thence on the southerly boundary of the parcel described in said Record of Survey Number 10438 and the northerly right-of-way line of Interstate Highway 1-84 for the following courses and distances; Thence North 89°34'03" West, a distance of 501..32 feet; Thence North 81°01'33" West, a distance of 83.12 feet; Thence North 85°34'01" West, a distance of 670.00 feet; Thence North 04°25'59" East, a distance of 25.00 feet; Thence North 85"34'01" West, a distance of 110.00 feet; Thence South 0425'59" West, a distance of 15.00 feet; Thence North 81°28'53" West, a distance of 421.07 feet; Site Planning + Landscape Architecture • Civil Engineering o Golf Course Irrigation & Engineering • Graphic Design * Surveying 462 E. Shore Drive, Suite 100 1 Eagle, Idaho 83616 • P 208.939.4041 9 www.thelandgroupinc.com Thence North 82°36'22" West, a distance of 580.78 feet; Thence North 73055'01" West, a distance of 104.40 feet; Thence North 46°58'34" West, a distance of 166.76 feet; Thence North 12°05'45" West, a distance of 92.20 feet; Thence leaving the northerly right-of-way line of Interstate Highway 1-84 and on the easterly right-of- way line of South Ten Mile Road for the following courses and distances: Thence North 01°31'40" West, a distance of 468.03 feet; Thence North 89°42'50" West, a distance of 4.00 feet; Thence North 00°30'10" East, a distance of 177.37 feet to a point on the westerly boundary of the parcel described in said Record of Survey Number 10438; Thence North 89°29'57" West, a distance of 35.97 feet to a point on the section line common to said Section 14 and Section 15 of said Township 3 North, Range 1 West; Thence North 00`29'59" East, a distance of 279.65 feet on said section line to the West One Quarter Corner of said Section 14; Thence North 00°3332" East, a distance of 2658.34 feet on said Section line to the point of beginning. The above described parcel contains 312.23 acres more or less. PREPARED BY: THE LAND GROUP, INC. James R. Washburn Site Planning • Landscape Architecture - Civil Engineering - Golf Course Irrigation & Engineering, Graphic Design • Surveying 462 E. Shore Drive, Suite 100 • Eagle, Idaho 83616 - P 208.939.4041. F 208.939.4445 • www.tlielandgroupinc.com r r POINT OF BEGINNING NW CORNER S. 14 T. 3 N„ R.1 W., B M. S.10 S,l1 WEST TRANICLIN ROAD S.15 YS.14 S.11 T Ov` S.15 S,14 S.14 114 5,22 s.23 T s23 a 7888 -z� zDr x'91 T9% OF �OP� R. w h, o IfA7 2oav Exhibit "B" HORIZONTAL $Cki: V= 1600' ®p -, LAN i THE D GROUP er�14� � D"11" e, Exhibit B,� 462 call "I to 0"o. Lw IN Ear �=r�°616 Ten Bile Urban Renewal Pt>;me 208 933 40i I � FY 203 9:0 4445 District Description Melidlan debo Vm N) Ten Mile URA Ownerships SCS Brighton LLC 12601 W EXPLORER DR STE 200 BOISE, ID 83713 Parcel Number: S1214314810 Parcel description: PAR #4810 @ NE COR NW4SW4 SEC 14 3N 1W #314807-C, #325415-C, #325505-C Parcel Number: S1214223260 Parcel description: PAR #3260 @ SE COR NW4NW4 SEC 14 3N 1W #223250-C, #223015-C Parcel Number: S1214212560 Parcel description: PAR #2560 @ W SIDE NE4NW4 SEC 14 3N 1W #223207-13 Parcel Number: S1214212800 Parcel description: PAR #2800 @ SW COR NE4NW4 SEC 14 3N 1W #223405-13 Parcel Number: 51214212580 Parcel description: PAR #2580 NR N SIDE NE 4NW4 SEC 14 3N 1W #2126205 Parcel Number: 51214212820 Parcel description: PAR #2820 @ S SIDE NE4NW4 SEC 14 3N 1W #212620S Parcel Number:S1214212740 Parcel description: PAR #2740 POR NE4NW4 TEN MILE STUB DRAIN SEC 14 3N 1W #121170S Parcel Number: S1214212720 Parcel description: PAR #2720 @ W SIDE NE4NW4 TEN MILE STUB DRAIN SEC 14 3N 1W #121170S Treasure Valley Investments 4313 Mansville Dr. Danville, CA 94506 Parcel Number: S1214233665 Parcel Description: PAR #36665 OF S2N2 SEC 14 3N 1W Parcel Number: 51214234020 Parcel Description: PAR #4020 @ SW COR SW4NW4 SEC 14 3N 1W Parcel Number: S1214223567 Parcel Description: PAR 43567 NW4NW4 S OF KENNEDY LATERAL EXC R/W SEC 14 3N 1W #223565-B Kostka and Calnon, LLC 2215 W. Franklin Road Meridian, Idaho 83642 Parcel Number: 51214120710 Parcel Description: PAR #0710 @N SIDE NW4NE4 SEC 14 3N 1W #120700-8 Parcel Number: 51214121172 Parcel Description: PAR #1172 POR N2 NWNE4 NE4NW TEN MILE STUB DRAIN SEC 14 3N 1W #121170-B Parcel Number: 51214121133 Parcel Description: PAR #1130 S'LY POR NW4NE4 &NE4NW4 SEC 14 3N 1W #121130-8 Parcel Number: S1214212622 Parcel Description: PAR #2622 POR NW4NE4 & NE4NW4 SEC 14 3N 1W #212620-13 Parcel Number: 51214121134 Parcel Description: PAR #1134 POR NW4NE4 SEC 14 3N 1W PARCEL B R/S 8885 #121132- S Attachment 3 Private Properties Which May Be Acquired by Agency 1. Property is intended to be acquired that is necessary for the extension or expansion of certain rights-of-way for streets, utilities and pedestrian / bicycle trails. No other particular properties have been identified for acquisition by the Agency. The Agency does not intend to purchase property for future development by private persons. 2. The Agency reserves the right to acquire any additional right-of-way or access routes near or around existing or planned rights-of-way. 3. The Agency reserves the right to acquire property needed for the development of public improvements and public facilities and/or to further remediation of environmental conditions that may exist on private property. 4. The Agency reserves the right to acquire deteriorated or deteriorating property in the Project Area for subsequent public use or other lawful disposition as part of its efforts to clean up, revitalize, rehabilitate, develop and/or redevelop property in the Project Area. Attachment 4 Maps Depicting Expected Land Uses and Current Zoning Within Revenue Allocation Area and Project Area Future Land Uses Inc - - Pine - LDR MUN -•. MDR - . TM -c" MHDR PqX [ HDR ® LDE CAM - HDE - OFF _ Pak IND ME OT ® Mu�—' MUC _ LC L �Pw d9Ge"o State ayton — a ;r r� .Idalw -a ~ a. -r Broadway ro I.�' Wood Green/,eaa ''nra Pintail t a � brown pD •+,� '_�'''-�` � r s Trout Eider J ,r b. n� . °nker Silver ! Taxa Terrace 1 JO`ver 9e o' E, H E z 1 o r�6Ry 1 Lamont y,D r�} Legend N ■Tan m"'s f -Area Plan Lam] Revenue Allaea6un AMA a 2.000 SOC 5001,066 3.000 _ ._.Feel Zoning PinePine J SO 3 m , -- GN - ar — _ 1a ton m Y W c 3; Idairo c-• GG R�2 (L ,y Broadwa aw r - C-0 R-8 F3w.Yer,{ v` C Taylor Ada , p{ R.95 J Z!-: Kind TNS R-40 — --Franklin• - •I �•1 Crest a TN -R I j Wood j GreerrhQa� arnra d = '7'?W�roo m Pintail { L) ] m fF9re1 Corporafej V �-i r Brown IN ooh Waltman ip Trout a=lder born'." C" Verbena e'o Silver • Tasa ■ 1 q 1 Terrace 1 a 1Overland 1 o' I H ■ Legend P z V p �,;ybef 1 �=� Re+�enue AllaeaharoAree 1 1 1 A L� Ten IMI SpeWc Area Ran "N Lamont 5�4•CADVe rry t C 6 500 COW 2.000 3. C C( Attachments 5.1-5.4 ATTACHMENT 5.1 Public Improvements within the Revenue Allocation Area This attachment includes a projected list of proposed public works or improvements within the Project area. The Project area includes streets and other public rights-of-way. The Meridian Development Corporation (MDC) Improvement List identifies needed investments in capital facilities. Capital facilities generally have long useful lives and significant costs. Some of the improvement projects contained in -the MDC Public Improvement List are also contained in the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan. Some improvement projects included in the MDC Public Improvement List have evolved upon consideration of these and various other City plans and polices, including the Comprehensive Plan, and may have potential grant funding. The project list is not an appropriation or approval of any specific project. The identification of projects needs to be flexible and updated periodically to respond to changing circumstances. The Ten Mile Urban Renewal Plan covers the 20 -year period 2017 to 2037. The Ten Mile A URD is estimated to generate $48,091,696 in tax increment revenue between 2018 and 2037 in addition to the initial $50,000 loan from the City of Meridian to activate the program. The total from both sources is estimated to be $48,141,696. There is presently $20,413,300 of project costs identified in the Public Improvement List for public improvement costs provided by the developer. Interest on the debt incurred through the anticipated Owner Participation Agreement (OPA) and City loan is estimated at $5,240,540. Administrative costs over the 20 -year life of the district are estimated at $978,848. Total estimated expenditures therefore, equal $33,098,820 leaving a positive program balance of $15,042,876 at the end of the 20 -year term. See attached cash flow analysis for detailed estimates. Secure funding includes revenue allocation funds and is money the MDC is highly likely to receive. The funds may not be in the MDC's possession at the beginning of the Plan period, but it is virtually certain that the Agency will receive the funds. The MDC may need to take specific actions to generate the funding, but those actions are within their powers. Despite the high probability of secure funding, no project can proceed until a specific, enforceable funding plan is in place. Potential funding is money that might be received by the MDC. In every case the MDC is eligible for the funding, and the source of funding exists under current law. However, each potential funding source requires one or more additional steps or decisions before the MDC can obtain the resources, and the ultimate decision is outside of the MDC's independent control. Grant funds are an example of potential funding. Thus potential funding is not assumed in determining financial feasibility. Unfunded projects, or portions of projects lack secure or potential funding. The amount of tax increment contributed to each project will vary. These projects may be funded in part from a variety of other revenue sources. The timing of each project and the availability of all revenue sources will determine the final combination of funding sources. The plan proposes certain public improvements that will facilitate development and support rehabilitation in the Project area. The investments will be funded from a variety of financing methods and sources. The primary method of financing will be through the use of tax increment revenue (i.e., incremental property taxes from the revenue allocation area). This plan anticipates that the tax increment revenue may be used to pay for improvements through an Owner Participation Agreements with developers of property located within the district. The issuance of bonds is not anticipated in this analysis of financial feasibility but may be an option to be pursued during the life of the district. Other sources of funding for project may include, but are not limited to: • Local Improvement District (LID) • Business Improvement District (BID) + Development Impact Fees + Franchise Fees + Grants from federal, state, local, regional agencies and/or private entities + Other bonds, notes and/or loans + Improvements and/or payments by developers The total project costs and the amount of tax increment contributed to each project are estimates. The estimated project costs and revenues are based on the MDC's present knowledge and expectations supported by detailed information from development interests associated with the properties in the District. The MDC may modify the projects and/or the plan if the Board deems such modifications necessary to effectuate the plan. The timing of each project and the availability of all revenue sources will determine the final combination of funding sources. Assuming the Ten Mile Urban Renewal Plan is adopted and in force before July 1, 2016, such modifications to the Plan will be permissible. If the Plan is adopted after July 1, 2016, the provisions of legislation adopted by the Idaho Legislature in 2016 may cause any modification to the Plan to trigger the resetting of the base value to the then -current market value thus eliminating any incremental value accrued to that date. Summary of Proiects The following tables summarize the estimated total costs for each project category. Specific project funding will be reviewed by the MDC Board during the development of the Owner Participation Agreements, the execution of and any up -dates to such agreements. The numbers displayed below represent the full public improvement costs including right -of way acquisition and full roadway improvements, sidewalks and pedestrian ways, drainage improvements as well as public and private utilities. The improvements and estimated costs are listed by street segment as reflected in the attached map of the District. The costs presented are in 2016 dollars and are not inflated over time. Developer Projects: Ten Mile Urban Renewal District Segment 1 $462,308 $690,685 $1,160,586 $1,967,642 $1,094,947 $1,645,222 $4,284,734 $3,442,813 $2,223,384 $959,575 $905,984 $3,000,000 $251,570 $1,100,000 $223,850 $23,413,300 Segment 2 Segment 3 Segment 4 Segment 5 Segment 6 Segment 7 Segment 8 Segment 9 Segment 10 Segment 11 Segment 12 (Kennedy Lateral) Segment 13 (Street Lights on Ten Mile & Franklin Rd) Segment 14 (Traffic Signals at 4 intersections) Segment 15 (Ten Mile and Franklin Street frontage Improvements) Total Project Costs (un -inflated dollars) Legend Parcels 5egmenfs Segment #1 i Segment #2 Segment #3 Segment #4 or Segment #5 i Segment #6 Segment #7 Segment #6 Segment #9 Segment#10 Segment #11 Segment #12 Segment #13 a>_ Segment #14 r Segment #15 Taso 0 500 1,000 2,000 Feet 0 Gxeent ead w ealdte u `o �oIN N e mer S p og Waltman a a .= Y Verbena T 3 8 r Bayeux .a C 0 0 e 0 N Cost of Onerations and Improvements by Year (2017-2037) Year Secure Funding (TIF City of Meridian Loan) Potent] al Funding District Operating Expenses OPA Debt Service City Loan Debt Service Add'I Principal Payment Total Project Liabilities 2017 $50,000 $0 $25,000 $0 $0 $0 $25,000 2018 $3,535 $0 $25,000 $0 $0 $0 $25,000 2019 $358,006 $0 $35,901 $287,205 $11,000 $0 $334,105 2020 $429,474 $0 $42,947 $343,579 $11,000 $0 $397,527 2021 $685,569 $0 $50,000 $548,455 $11,000 $0 $609,455 2022 $764,912 $0 $50,000 $611,930 $11,000 $0 $672,930 2023 $1,037,504 $0 $50,000 $830,003 $11,000 $0 $891,003 2024 $1,061,572 $0 $50,000 $849,258 $0 $0 $899,258 2025 $1,924,457 $0 $50,000 $1,539,566 $0 $500,000 $2,089,566 2026 $1,690,202 $0 $50,000 $1,352,162 $0 $500,000 $1,902,162 2027 $1,967,722 $0 $50,000 $1,574,178 $0 $100,000 $1,724,178 2028 $2,797,673 $0 $50,000 $2,234,138 $0 $900,000 $3,184,138 2029 $2,577,728 $0 $50,000 $2,062,182 $0 $250,000 $2,362,182 2030 $2,887,603 $0 $50,000 $2,310,082 $0 $500,000 $2,860,082 2031 $3,592,793 $0 $50,000 $2,874,234 $0 $500,000 $3,424,234 2032 $3,623,529 $0 $50,000 $2,898,823 $0 $750,000 $3,698,823 2033 $3,737,660 $0 $50,000 $2,990,128 $0 $1,000,000 $4,040,128 2034 $4,689,811 $0 $50,000 $3,759,049 $0 $0 $3,809,049 2035 $4,526,256 $0 $50,000 $3,621,005 0 $0 $50,000 2036 $4,923,647 $0 $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $50,000 2037 $4,807,043 $0 $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $50,000 2038 $0 $0 01 0 0 $0 Total $48,141,969 $0 $978,848 $30,685,977 $55,000 $5,M)'ciou ::36,7i%uzb Note: This analysis anticipates a positive fund balance of $15,042,$76 the end of the project. If Revenue Allocation funding exceeds the forecast amounts, earlier termination of the may be possible ATTACHMENT 5.2 Economic Feasibility Study The Meridian Development Corporation (MDC) Ten Mile Urban Renewal Plan is economically feasible because the proposed development is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, the amount of growth in the area is consistent with the growth projected in the Comprehensive Plan and the revenue from the MDC Ten Mile Urban Renewal District equals or exceeds the estimated costs of the projects to be funded by the District. The economic feasibility of the MDC Ten Mile Urban Renewal Plan is based on the following factors: • The amount of development proposed in the Project area • The amount of tax revenue to be generated by the proposed development • The amount of other revenue to be received for MDC public improvement projects • The cost of public improvement projects is to be funded by the MDC's tax increment revenue. • if revenue equals or exceeds project costs, the URA Plan is economically feasible. The following is a summary of the analysis and estimates of the factors used to determine the economic feasibility of Meridian's Ten Mile Urban Renewal Plan. Meridian Development Corporation Ten Mile Urban Renewal Plan Financial Feasibility Analysis Summary: It is estimated that over the course of the Revenue Allocation District, $48,091,696 of Tax Increment Revenue will be generated. It is also estimated that ten percent (10%) will be used annually for administration of the Urban Renewal District (capped at $50,000 / year for a total of $978,848 for administration costs over the 20 -year lifespan of the District. At this time, no Revenue bonds are planned for the Project Area; however, debt scenarios may be feasible as ultimate costs are determined and the cash flow refined should these estimates prove conservative. At the conclusion of the Ten Mile Urban Renewal District in 2037, the termination plan will submit any unspent funds by September 2038 to the County Treasurer to distribute to the taxing districts according to their levy percentages. The Cash Flow analysis indicates that there may be potential to terminate the district at an earlier point than suggested by the conservative estimates. The graph entitled "Ten Mile Urban Renewal District Cash Flow Analysis 2016" gives a more detailed outlook on the revenues and expenses of the MDC Ten Mile Urban Renewal District. The following assumptions were made in the formulation of the Financial Feasibility Analysis: o Land Value Increase @ 1%/Yr o Improvement Value Increase @ 2%/ Yr, o Tax Rate remains constant o Total Cost (inflated) of Improvements over the life of the project: $21,829,432 o Developer installed improvements would be subject to an Owner Participation Agreement with MDC repaying the developer for such costs from the tax increment revenue generated by the project. o The Cash Flow Analysis assumes 80% Of the annual Revenue Allocation funds will be committed to repayment of the debt created through the OPA. o Additional principal payments are assumed as excess cash accumulates in the Ten Mile URD A Fund at the discretion of the MDC Board. 0 10% of annual tax increment revenue would be allocated for District operational expenses, however that amount would be capped at $50,000 per year. o Tax rate does not include debt service for bonds issued after 2007, judgment levies or the School District Plant or supplemental levies excluded by law. The Financial Feasibility Analysis shows that the project is 100% financially feasible and will generate adequate funds within the project area to fund the necessary capital improvements. The Agency is committed to closing the district as soon as the project is deemed complete and all infrastructure improvements are made and financial obligations satisfied. This would result in a benefit to the taxing districts and taxpayers supporting those districts. �e O p n e e n fl p 9 g y b D 0 c a e p e ° m C W u a m m w a m y =_� n � � R � � n n � '� n 2 0 3' �• o � '� w a =. a. Cc r a; a* p M S 7 P F hr A•- V w p is � `•- o �-' o a m ' c o c o N N N � N O N tJt O 6 U N 'b W uNi Vo � w N 'm1 � N U P m N Ih Q Q llI U W N N OL m N 4' m tJ C W W W 10 'D w Q 6 O Cm P L b O O� N N IO Q Q V' m Q N p IJ Q p F U O w W O• N Q 4 Q 0 4� 9 V. ++ �' w wW N w w N N U U U N d w N C O� w W 4 W 4 a U N U O V l!t Q Vl U Q U N b W O Q Q © 4 D � W W � N Q •- A O� w o a o rn o 0 o c Q o w At' �O 4 4 d d IO Oc �•W p P O O w 47 d O U � N N D lD U Q t� O U W V Q U W W U O N U A U ti0 No O N O+ aFl N do U1 P d Q A m Q 6 4 N N Q N U U U U U U ba N N N U V U N N N N N e-• N m O O � V Ol 4+ C O Q• O V A N N N N U N U U U U U v m m P •- ,c �n w iu IN Y Q r V A Q � N Q ?" � m o 0 oz a i.: :• o oa o � m N v o v a rJ Ia c� u+ o N N ✓, N N V' N N N N N N N N N I{l Q 4 J Qo j d m O V w W W 0O, m +1 V W Q 4 O b b m N N N �e L2 a N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N C O O w O O O O O 4 O O O O O O O O O O O 3 W w W W W W W W N N N N N N N N N N Y H N 9 V O• to b W N r O �^ Da V R to A W N *+ O � D7 V 3 � N M w w V• w N w w w w U M w ut N U w Vr w M A A $ A 4i 47 W W W W W W W W W a W i+t w w W W o a G q C �.- o 0 ip �D is m J � m m o+ u+ in �tin a � $ `W m m U N m m f$+ w m V ill Ip W O m O Ol V [ll m W m A W O 3 H O �o n` o m © M w N M ilI M a M- rw N M M v+ in in w N M N W N dR_ A A -JA W 4{ W W W W W 43 W W W W W W W W W o p O O O �O �O Oo do m �l �l R R T Ul VI Y A A Y A m1 w m A O R N m A O V W aLT 4/'I N m � m A VI W N N N N w A Ue O N t1f W W V p� V W O W rA-' O iWll N po O d v 4W'I bu W OWr A W o do ~ y w U w w w w w U N M M M U In U U M w w M U ~ A A A A A A A A A A a A A r A A W W W W w Oma N MWW R � V W O � A N � ON b w CWb 'Wo ON m N �D V1 l!1 O O w N A W m m N O N iP Oo N O w m O+ W •J Or O m r W m Q VI W H r iV iN 1.11 d Y O R m N wN 40 i N W N A m 1A w W V. N U M M N M M #Yh M M M M N w M N M M M 9F M A O W W A N 6 O O O W iD 41 s4 wO6 Q V V W V R V R m R W A m J O V N9 N �p iv :� in m in itiz cn v i.� i.l iv v w a a o o W N m V UI m J W m N 4 V O VI O O m W V m m N m A m Y V A W 4i N O O O w w M M U M U U U U M U U N N M M M N U m m w m m A �n U lYls O m m in w A W r rL V V ID LD w V '- 1O Ut N O 0 W N O O R V 0 O Y Y O O V Ol d 1�+ A m r O r W $ $ VI V! m W A SI1 O VI m N W W ID m V W W R V �p MD W V W m N O N 111 m W WD N ? A T + m A UI O A ill 4 r N ill W O V r N N ID V O v W �p N a Ip N R m OG O O J W O W O O O O O Vr U M U U N N w U U U w U U U N M M U w U U U M M w w U M U M M w U M U U w M w w w N 111 m w St. V W A W N W A M N A UI ili N m V W W O W O rD A N m N m N N V W N lP V m m w orn A fA N N Orn m W Q+ 4 N UI ip A iP A W O m Ift ID A l➢ V A O F+ P V A Ni N N J N m Ill O lD m 111 Ifl i/t m R O Q m Q O N m U F' VI 111 [YI O W rp Llt O v N A W J VI O ill b H J V W N M In N W W O N V N w m A m v In ID m VI V O W ID m m N W ID O A 1p V O A ID W w N M M M U U U U U w N w M U U w M M w w N w µ Q rli ID m Q m b •Y.. m A W rl �n o m w Q i,.i o w w w w to N w a rn `D O V m A m R N R m VI m Y m W V A m N m R O W W W ID O m V W m G5 Q N Y 4r W W A N � N N m R R R O J Oa J 111 4 �D r m W m Y Q m O O O O Q Q O O O O O O Q O 4 P P O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Q P C C O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N w w w M M M w M M w N M U w M M M M M U U A m A A A A W W W N N N r Y O m w N R V m N wIJI J w m ID O O V m A w rO N N W w N t7 w V w m i N m W m m N Lil J W m ® V w N J V N V O $ r J A N Ip Ip W M O m N m m to �! Ch V m V N A i!1 to i? In A O ili tD $ $ o, R w t6 Q N J N O In V O r R V O W m W J w w w w w w w w u, w w w w w w M M w sn w in In � w in an � to in cn Ir w to In cn N R a W 4 4 O d rl O D 4 O O o 6 O O O Q m N Sl1 O P O O P i7 O O O O P O O o O O In W vD w P P P P P P P P P P P P O O O O In $ O In w w w w w w w w w ut w w w w w M M w w iR w A V A $ a A W w W N N N Y H Y N r J Om $ R R N W m tV ID m m O J m W W $ VI V V $ ,j V A. W N N $ w $ J N m m N W V W m m V ia1 N V V N V OA 1p O m N m m V5 V m til m V N A w tD O I.I3 W A $ 4n F+ R N W P N V N O VI V O Y Y N O m W W V P. Y 0 W W W m W N N V N 4 N N m R N � F " 3 G 3 — F n. '^ O G Attachment 6 Ten Mile Urban Renewal District Eligibility Report -- September 2015 C�,(fIEN Ten Mile Mile Urban Renewal District (Proposed) Eligibility Report Prepared for The City of Meridian and The Meridian Development Corporation November 2015 Kushlan I Associates Boise, Idaho Introduction: Kushlan j Associates was retained by the City of Meridian to assist in their consideration of establishing a new urban renewal district in the City of Meridian, Idaho. Elected Officials serving the City of Meridian are: Mayor: Council President: Council Vice President: Council Members: City Staff Community Development Director: Planning Division Manager: Economic Development Administrator: Tammy de Weerd Charles Rountree Keith Bird Joe Borton Luke Cavener Genesis Milam David Zaremba Bruce Chatterton Caleb Hood Brenda Sherwood Idaho statutes, at Title 50-2006 states: "URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY. (a) There is hereby created in each municipality an independent public body corporate and politic to be known as the "urban renewal agency" that was created by resolution as provided in section 50-2005" to carry out the powers enumerated in the statutes." The Meridian City Council adopted Resolution 01-397 on July 24, 2001 bringing forth those powers within the City of Meridian. The Mayor, with the confirmation of the City Council, has appointed nine members to the Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Meridian, also doing business as the Meridian Development Corporation (MDC). The MDC currently oversees the implementation of one urban renewal district focused on the revitalization of downtown Meridian that was established by the City Council's adoption of Ordinance No. 02-987 on December 3, 2002. The current membership of the Commission is as follows: Chair: Jim Escobar Vice Chairman Dan Basalone Secretary David Winder Commissioners Calvin Barrett Keith Bird Tammy de Weerd Kit Fitzgerald Eric Jensen Callie Zamzow Staff: Urban Renewal Administrator: Ashley Squyres Legal Counsel: Todd Lakey Map of Existing Downtown Meridian Urban Renewal District -—G,he.r y- . — - - — . Fairview, Q, I {,rubes , C 3 Elm, r 'Maple w Bad1ley n _0 = ' <_ r r . perry Washington ry < i �- • — - I . — '� Carlton • 9I 4Sl�tnrd Applegate f S , Cr;terior� M '� State, I Pine • e I'?all I Broncftivaly l - r City M 1 p Bo.WVM,f I I 7 � f Ada I Taylor . l K;nc9 I Williams Franklin I -- Q , � r Gens B Pennwnprl �y Watertnurer Corporate i i,,, CO I- Mailman /• Central a ul � p I lo I r s; Interstate B4 Legend r U,b- Re -.W 0 250 590 1.000 �r Feet Background: While Native Americans inhabited the area for centuries, the development of the community of Meridian, as we know it today, evolved through the late nineteenth century. European settlement started in the 188os and was originally located on a farm owned by the Onweiler family. A school was opened in 1885. The U.S. Postal Service established a mail drop along the Oregon Short Line Railroad and the site was named Hunter after its superintendent. Community activity grew around this mail stop focused on the railroad. In 1893 an Odd Fellows lodge was organized and called itself Meridian, acknowledging that it was located on the Boise Meridian the primary North-South survey benchmark for Idaho. That name grew in primary use as the name of the settlement and the Village of Meridian was incorporated in 1903 with a population of approximately Zoo. The economy had traditionally been focused on the support of the surrounding agricultural activities. A major creamery was established in the community in 1897 to support the nearby dairies. Fruit orchards were located throughout the area. Meridian was a significant stop on the Interurban electric railway from 1908 to 1928. This service provided convenient access for passengers and freight in both easterly and westerly directions. Throughout most of the 20t1, century, Meridian remained a relatively quiet community focused on its agricultural roots. US Census Bureau data, reflects a 1910 population of 619 people growing to 2,616 by 1970. However, starting in 2970 the pace of growth in Southwest Idaho quickened and Meridian's growth initially reflected, and then exceeded the regional rates by significant margins. Over the past twenty-five years the rate of growth has been startling by any reasonable standard. The following table reflects that population growth over the city's history. 1903 (Incorporation Estimate) 200 1910 619 1920 1,013 1930 1,004 1940 1,465 1950 2,081 196o 2,616 1970 6,658 1990 9,596 2000 34919 2010 75,092 2014 (Estimate) 85,000 When income statistics are compared to statewide numbers, the population of Meridian compares favorably with the rest of Idaho in these categories. The median household income in Meridian is $63,571, approximately 37% above the statewide figure of $46,767. Per capita money income for the Meridian population is $26,377 as compared to the statewide number of $22,568. The percentage of the Meridian population below poverty level is 8.4% as compared to the statewide number of 15.5%. Investment Capacity: Cities across the nation actively participate in the economic vitality of their communities through investment in infrastructure. Water and sewer facilities as well as transportation, communication, electrical distribution and other systems are all integral elements of an economically viable community. Idaho cities have a significant challenge in responding to these demands along with the on-going need to reinvest in their general physical plant to ensure it does not deteriorate to the point of system failure. They face stringent statutory and constitutional limitations on revenue generation and debt as well as near total dependence upon state legislative action to provide funding options. These strictures severely constrain capital investment strategies. The tools made available to cities in Title 5o, Chapters 20 and 29, the Urban Renewal Law and Economic Development Act are some of the few that are available to assist communities in their efforts to support economic vitality. New sources of State support are unlikely to become available in the foreseeable future, thus the City of Meridian's interest in exploring the potential for establishing their second urban renewal district is an appropriate public policy consideration. The City of Meridian initially established its Urban Renewal Agency in 2001. As noted above, its exclusive focus, limited by the boundaries of the district, is on the traditional downtown area of Meridian. Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan The Idaho Transportation Department initiated planning for the development of a new interchange with Interstate 84 at Ten Mile Road in the 199os. Construction of the interchange was completed in 2012. In support of the State's investment and in anticipation of the resultant development pressure from the opening of the new interchange on the area immediately west of the Meridian City limits, the City initiated a broad-based planning effort for the general area. The Plan that was produced was the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan and was adopted by the City Council on June 19, 2007. The Plan remains in effect and is intended to guide development decisions within the study area. A map of the Tera Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan is provided below: As indicated in the Plan map, substantial public infrastructure is called for in implementing the development patterned envisioned. Thus far, development opportunities considered for the area covered by the Plan have been insufficient in scale to support the required public facility investment. This imbalance has thwarted the orderly implementation of the planning undertaken by the City and the property owners. This lack of progress has stimulated the current interest in exercising the powers granted under State Law in the establishment of a second urban renewal district in Meridian. Steps in Consideration of an Urban Renewal District: The first step in consideration of establishing an urban renewal district in Idaho is to define a potential area for analysis as to whether conditions exist within it to qualify for redevelopment activities under the statute. In this report, the lands evaluated are called the "Study Area". The next step in the process is to review the conditions within the Study Area to determine whether the area is eligible for creating a district. The State Law governing urban renewal sets out the following criteria, at least one of which must be found, for an area to be considered eligible for urban renewal activities. 1. The Presence of a Substantial Number of Deteriorated or Deteriorating Structures; and Deterioration of Site; 150-2018(9); and 50-2903(8)(b) and (8)(c); and 52oo8(d)(4)(2) 2. Age or Obsolescence 150-2018(8) and 50-2903(8)(a)] 3. Predominance of Defective or Inadequate Street Layout 150-2018(9) and a. 50-2903($) 4. Outmoded Street Patterns 150-2008(d)(4)(2) 5. Need for Correlation of Area with Other Areas of a Municipality by Streets; and Modern Traffic Requirements [50-2oo8(d)(4)(2)]. 6. Faulty Lot Layout in Relation to Size, Adequacy, Accessibility or Usefulness 150-2018(9) and 50-2903($)0] 7. Unsuitable Topography or Faulty Lot Layouts [50-2008(d)(4)(2)] 8. Insanitary or Unsafe Conditions [50-2018(9)] and [50-2903(8)(b)] 9. Diversity of Ownership [50-2018(g); [50-2903(8)(b) and (8)(c)]; and 150- a. 2008(d)(4)(2)] 10. Tax or Special Assessment Delinquency; 150-2018(9) 11. Defective or unusual condition of title; [50-2018(9) 12. Substantially Impairs or Arrests the Sound Growth of a Municipality a. [50-2o18(g) and [50-2903(8)Cb) 13. Conditions Which Retard Development of the Area [50-2008(d)(4)(2)] 14. Results in Economic Underdevelopment of the Area [50-2903(8)(b)]; and Economic Disuse L50 -2008(d)(4)(2)] If the Eligibility Report finds that one or more of the conditions noted above exist within the Study Area, then the Urban Renewal Agency may adopt it and forward it to the City Council for their consideration. If the City Council concurs with the determination of the Urban Renewal Agency, they may direct that an Urban Renewal Plan be developed for the area that addresses the issues raised in the Eligibility Report. The Urban Renewal Agency, then acts to prepare the Urban Renewal Plan for the new District and determines whether to also recommend the establishment of a Revenue Allocation Area to fund improvements called for in the Plan. Once the Plan for the District and Revenue Allocation Area are completed, the Urban Renewal Board of Commissioners forwards it, along with their recommendation, to the City Council for their formal consideration. The City Council must refer the proposed Urban Renewal Plan to the Planning and Zoning Commission for a finding that the Plan, as presented, is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Planning and Zoning Commission has 6o days to complete their review. At the same time, other taxing entities levying property taxes within the boundaries of the proposed Urban Renewal District are provided a thirty -day opportunity to comment on the Plan to the City Council. While the taxing entities are invited to comment on the Plan, their concurrence is not required for the City Council to proceed with their consideration. In the case of the Ten Mile Study Area, the effected taxing districts for those properties located within the city limits of Meridian are: • The City of Meridian The West Ada School District (School District No. 2) • Ada County • Emergency Medical District • Mosquito Abatement District • The Ada County Highway District • Meridian Library District • Meridian Cemetery District • Western Ada Recreation District • College of Western Idaho For those properties located in unincorporated Ada County, the effected taxing districts are: • The West Ada School District (Joint School District No. 2) • Ada County • Emergency Medical District • Mosquito Abatement District • The Ada County Highway District • Meridian Library District • Meridian Cemetery District • Western Ada Recreation District • College of Western Idaho + Meridian Fire District + Pest Extermination District Once/If the Planning and Zoning Commission makes their finding of consistency and the thirty -day comment period for the various taxing entities has passed, the City Council is permitted to hold a public hearing and formally consider the Adoption of the Plan creating the new Urban Renewal District and Revenue Allocation Area. The City Council also must find that the taxable value within the district to be created, plus the Base Assessed Value of any existing Urban Renewal / Revenue Allocation areas do not exceed the statutory maximum of xo% of the citywide assessed valuation. If the City Council, in their discretion, chooses to proceed, they will officially adopt the Urban Renewal Plan and Revenue Allocation Area and provide official notification of that action to the County Assessor and Idaho State Tax Commission. The Urban Renewal Agency then proceeds to implement the Plan. Description of the Ten Male Study Area: The Study Area subject to the current review is located on the east side of Ten Mile Road, north of the Interstate 84 right-of-way and south of Franklin Road. All properties included are within the boundaries of the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan. The Study Area consists of twenty (20), relatively large, tax parcels. To provide the Agency and the City maximum flexibility in considering the ultimate extent of the District, the Study Area has been divided into sub -districts, defined primarily by ownership, for analysis. This will allow convenient decision- making by the Agency and City on which properties to include in the formation of a District should that be their determination. The Study Area has been divided 'into four Sub -districts designated as TM -i through TM -4 as noted in the following map and table. The size and value information presented in Table r was derived from the Ada County Assessor's on-line parcel information system. The current taxable value of the Study Area is $4,482,400. However, a substantial portion of that area maintains an agricultural property tax exemption. This is important because State Law requires that when such properties transition from this exemption, the resultant increase in taxable value accrues to the Base Assessed Value instead of the Incremental Value. This requires estimating the impact of this transition. In reviewing the values ascribed to the various parcels, values range from $.04 to $.o8 per square foot for agricultural exempt land. The consultant met with the staff of the Ada County Assessor to determine the value they place on the subject parcels before the exemption is applied. They indicated that a per square foot value of between $2.00 and $3.00 would be consistent with values they place on similarly zoned properties within the immediate area. They indicated that value, absent other information, is what should be used in considering the non-exempt values. Therefore, the taxable values have been adjusted to reflect this higher number as a basis for making the 1o% calculation. Using the higher value ($3.00) to be conservative, we calculate that the Base Assessed Value of the Ten Mile URD moves from the $4,482,400 amount with the agricultural exemptions to $39,539,125 with those exemptions removed. It should be noted that the mere inclusion of a parcel within an urban renewal district does not have any effect on the agricultural exemption. That status would change only upon a change of use away from agricultural Ten Mile Urban Renewal District Study Area & Sub -Districts Table i Ownership Parcel # Acreage 2015 Est. 2015 Sub -District Taxable AV Base AV w/o ag. Exemption TM -1 SCS Brighton LLC South Parcel Si2i4 i4810 75.52 $26 ,boo $9,868,954 7 Franklin 3 - Crest srj Wood= le- r d M�Gleenhend k,n+ra tr Pintail Bayeux °cyr tDpq _ Gander � Wallman Brown m x a`. 7roet c Eider o (G Y C. 0] .t 7 J � Verbena Y Legend •� .�__.�.�...... ' In er5tdte R4' =i ... .. L —■ Tan Mie $Pecr A"' FNa -_ Proposed Districts ''ova �- TM.I N asa arta I Silver Terrace TM -3 Dutch in TM4 Farm cy ,Thorn Overland: ■ [� 0 Soo 1.0W F,cr Table i Ownership Parcel # Acreage 2015 Est. 2015 Sub -District Taxable AV Base AV w/o ag. Exemption TM -1 SCS Brighton LLC South Parcel Si2i4 i4810 75.52 $26 ,boo $9,868,954 • Note: These acreages are exclusive of adjacent public rights-of-way for Ten Mile and Franklin Roads that should be included in the ultimate boundaries of any district established. Publicly owned properties are assigned no value in Idaho assessments, so including them makes no difference to the value calculation, but will slightly increase the ultimate acreage. Only half of the right -of way for Ten Mile Road and Franklin Road adjacent to TM -i (northern portion) are included as only half of the right -of way has been annexed into the City. Description of the sub -districts: North Parcels 5121422 260 34.63 $2,494,200 $4,52.5,448 51214212560 3.631 $138,500 $474,499 51214212800 2.875 $4,600 $315,705 .. .. Sub 116:6 6:::::::'$2; a2;goo:;;.::< 1 .z. o _..: Tnvestnaents'LLG ... . 51214283665 111.572 $235,300 $14,580,229 S1214234020 4.211 $9,50 $5,50,293 S12-14223567 2.131 $4,800 $278,479 .:.:.:::<:;:::.•::::..:.:.;::::.:: :Sub-Dlstrlct TM-2.To tal>.:.:::::.::::<,:::>:::>,::::::::::. >:.::.::>:::.::x1 _ ..... . 1 $ , TM- : 51214212580 6.557 $10,700 $856,869 51214212820 5,443 $8,900 $711,291 S1214212740 1.286 0 0 51214212720 0.686 0 0 SCS Brighton LLC sub- , 13 972 $1g,600 1;56$,1bo Kostka Calnon Enterprises Limited Partnership 51214120710 2.201 $163,100 $287,1627 S1214121133 20.18 $ 2,600 $2,637,122 51214212622 12.912 $21,000 $1,687,340 51214121134 12.2 $47,700 $1,594,296 51214121172 5.41 0 0 >Sub,total:Kostka o $26 -"o0 6 2oG 8 Bainbridge 51214120631 0.972 $167,300 $127,021 51214120331 2.104 $x69,6o0 $274,951 Sub-total Bainbridge 3.076 $336,goo $401,972 Sub-D1strlct<TM- Twe ve.Oalres : R85 804800x0 1.438 $108,174 $108474 R8580480020 7.987 $600,826 $600,826 ub-D1strlct;TM� .Totai Consolidated...:........_..... ................................ _............................ $ • Note: These acreages are exclusive of adjacent public rights-of-way for Ten Mile and Franklin Roads that should be included in the ultimate boundaries of any district established. Publicly owned properties are assigned no value in Idaho assessments, so including them makes no difference to the value calculation, but will slightly increase the ultimate acreage. Only half of the right -of way for Ten Mile Road and Franklin Road adjacent to TM -i (northern portion) are included as only half of the right -of way has been annexed into the City. Description of the sub -districts: Sub -District TM -x; As noted in the table above, Sub -District TM -1 consists of four tax parcels. The largest parcel (76.25 acres) is located at the southern limits of the Sub -district immediately adjacent to the freeway interchange. It remains primarily in agricultural use. Of the total acreage, 4.o acres has been designated by the Assessor as the homesite and thus not subject to the agricultural exemption accruing to the balance of the property. The homesite is assessed at $143400. Associated with the homesite, there was a residence constructed in 1969 with an assessed value of $14,100. However, that residence has been removed from the property, but a large equipment shed remains on the property and in use. The balance of the property (67.8 acres) carries a valuation of $1o8,400. The relatively low taxable value of the majority of the land is a result of the agricultural land property tax exemption available to owners of property dedicated to agricultural uses under Idaho law. When the improvement value assigned to a parcel is less than the land value, a deteriorated or deteriorating condition is present. National real estate appraisal standards suggest that in an economically viable property, land value should contribute approximately 30% of the total value leaving 70% to the improvements. As that ratio shifts, with improvement value declining as a proportion of the total, a condition of disinvestment is determined to be present. At a point when the improvement value represents less than 50% of the total (i.e. improvement value is less than land value) such condition represents a "deteriorating condition" for the purposes of this analysis. A random survey of Ada County Assessor property records of parcels in the immediate proximity of the proposed Ten Mile Urban Renewal District Study Area reflects these ratios. Sample residential properties constructed within the past 20 years reflect a land value of between 27% and 39% of the total values. Commercial properties, where appraisals are determined on an income basis instead of cost or comparable properties, reflected land values of between 20% and 29% of total value. When the homesite in Subdistrict TM -1 is analyzed, an improvement value was found that is less than 1o% (9.85%) of the land value. However, the residence and various outbuildings on the property have been removed, even though they are still recognized on Ada County Assessor records. The Ten Mile Road frontage has been improved to current urban standards but the balance of the property has no public infrastructure to support the development pattern envisioned in the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan. A short portion of the Ten Mile Drain extends from the east into the northern Brighton properties, but is not part of that ownership and various maps show this small parcel remains outside the incorporated area of the City of Meridian. Since this small parcel is not in the city limits, it is included in TM -3, not TM -1. The drain physically continues in a northwesterly direction cross the Brighton parcels, but it is not recognized as a separate parcel in this area. The parcels located within the northerly portion of the sub -district have recently been platted for commercial development, but no investment has been made. Some preliminary planning has been conducted on potential development consistent with the Specific Area Plan, but no formal process implementing the Plan has been pursued. One lot (S1214212800) containing 2.875 acres has no access to a public street. While the parcels included in Sub-District TM-1 are under one ownership, they are not all contiguous. The statute does not require contiguity in the establishment of a district, however, the State Tax Commission maintains a policy that does. This contiguity can be achieved by including the Ten Mile Road right-of-way that is adjacent to the intervening parcel to establish one contiguous district boundary should the City determine to not include the TM-2 Sub- District. Sub-District TM-2: This Sub-District consists of three (3) parcels, all of which remain in active agricultural use. One parcel contains 111.572 acres, one contains 4.211 acres and one contains 2.131 acres for a total of 117.914 areas. As in TM-1, the properties located in TM-2 have no infrastructure installed other than the improvements to Ten Mile Road. No structures or other improvements are located within the boundaries of Sub-District TM-2. One lot (51214223567) has no access to a public street. A dedicated but unimproved right-of- way separates the larger parcel from the 4-acre lot. Questions exist with regard to the sufficiency of the right-of-way, both in terms of width and alignment. According to representatives of the property owner, a low spot exists at the extreme southeast corner of the larger parcel allowing for the ponding of run-off from neighboring properties. The Kennedy Lateral extends in an east-west direction across most of the site. These properties are annexed and a general concept for development of the sub-district exists but no active progress has been made toward implementation. Sub-District TM-3: Sub-District TM-3 contains eleven (11) parcels under three ownerships. SCS Brighton LLC owns four parcels consisting of 6.o65 acres located along the westerly edge of the sub-district and adjacent to their holdings in TM-1. The lot located south of the Ten Mile Drain has no access to a public street. One of the parcels is the extension of the Ten Mile Drain and another is designated as "wasteland" by the County Assessor, and thus carry no value. Steven J. Bainbridge owns two residential parcels located at the easterly end of the sub-district fronting on West Franldin Road and consisting of 3.076 acres. One parcel (S121412o631) consists of 0.972 acres and carries a land value of $93,20o and improvement value of $74,100 (8o% of land value) thus suggesting disinvestment. The other parcel (S121412o661) is 2.104 acres in size and has a land value of $117,70o and improvement value of $5X,900 (44% of land value) also suggesting a condition of disinvestment. The majority of the sub-district is held in the ownership of Kostka-Calnon Limited Partnership. This ownership is made up of five (5) parcels containing 52.903 acres. The Ten Mile drainage facility consisting of 5.41 acres traverses the Kostka-Calnon ownership and is classified as "wasteland" by the Ada County Assessor and therefore has been assigned no assessed value for taxation purposes. The total area of Sub-District TM-3, including the three ownerships and the "waste" parcels is 69.951 acres. The Kostka — Calnon parcels also remain in active agricultural usage, but 1.5 acres have been designated as the homesite (51214121134), with an assessed value of $20,000. The residential improvement on the homesite includes a residence constructed in 1916 and carries a valuation of $10,300 or 51.5% of the associated land value. The remaining value on the homesite parcel ($1740o) and the values of the other two parcels ($53,600) used for agricultural purposes are subject to the agricultural exemption. An additional residential parcel (51214120710) consists of 2.201 acres and has an assessed value of $163,100 for both land and improvement values. In this case the improvement value is assessed at 40% of the land value, suggesting disinvestment. An open irrigation lateral runs through the properties. The Brighton parcels remain fully in agricultural usage and no structures are present on the properties. The Ten Mile drain separates the two Brighton parcels creating a land- locked parcel. One lot under Kostka -- Calnon ownership (51214121133) consisting of 20.18 acres is situated south of the Ten Mile Drain and, like the Brighton parcel, has no access to a public street. No active development planning is evident on the properties located within the sub -district. The entire extent of Sub -District TM -3 remains in unincorporated Ada County. Should the Agency and City conclude that the properties located within this area be included in an urban renewal district, the parcels to be included would need to be either annexed into the City of Meridian prior to the effective date of the creation of the district, or be subject to an agreement between the City of Meridian and Ada County permitting the unincorporated parcels to be included. The Brighton and I(ostka / Calnon properties have petitioned for annexation and that process is currently underway. The Bainbridge properties are not part of the annexation petition. Sub -District TM -4: Sub -District TM -4 consists of two tax parcels under the ownership of Twelve Oakes LLC, according to the records of the Ada County Assessor. The ownership is divided between a commercial tract located along the Franklin Road frontage and the majority (7.987 acres) designated for mixed-use development. There are no improvements or structures on the property. As noted above, the property has received initial entitlements for development but no schedule for installation of improvements has been established. The only public infrastructure serving the site, at this time, is the fully improved frontage of Franklin Road and an irrigation lateral located along the west property line. The north -south portion of the irrigation lateral separating TM -4 from TM -3 has been piped as required by City approvals. Analysis of the Study Area: A review of the Study Area reflects a pattern of delayed investment or an area in transition. This is particularly notable given the area's proximity to substantial public investment in the Ten Mile interchange and street and utility improvements to both Ten Mile Road and Franklin Road. The Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan provides a clearly articulated vision for a high- density mixed-use development pattern in this area that would capitalize on the access and utility investments already made by public entities. To date, however, while some planning has been done consistent with the Plan, little progress has been made to implement the vision. The Plan calls for substantial investment in public infrastructure but the market to date has proven incapable of supporting the capital costs. It appears as though meaningful progress may depend upon some level of public intervention to support the desired private investment to bring the Plan to reality. The individual sub -districts will be analyzed in the context of the adopted Specific Area Plan, and then the Study Area as a whole will be looked at to determine a final recommendation. For the convenience of the reader, the statutory criteria are reiterated, at least one of which must be found to qualify an area for urban renewal activities. Those conditions are: 1. The Presence of a Substantial Number of Deteriorated or Deteriorating Structures; and Deterioration of Site; 150-2018(g); and 50-2903(8)(b) and (8)(c); and 52oo8(d)(4)(2)] 2. Age or Obsolescence 150-2018(8) and 50-2903(8)(a)] 3. Predominance of Defective or Inadequate Street Layout 150-2018(9) and 50-2903(8)] 4. Outmoded Street Patterns [50-20o8(d)(4)(2)] 5. Need for Correlation of Area with Other Areas of a Municipality by Streets; and Modern Traffic Requirements [50-2008(d)(4)(2)]. 6. Faulty Lot Layout in Relation to Size, Adequacy, Accessibility or Usefulness [50-2018(9) and 50-2903(8)(b)] 7. Unsuitable Topography or Faulty Lot Layouts L50-20o8(d)(4)(2)1 8. Insanitary or Unsafe Conditions [50-2o1$(g)] and [50-2903(8)(b)] 9. Diversity of Ownership [50-2018(9)]; [50-2903(8)(b) and (8)(c)]; and [50- 2008(d)(4)(2)] 10. Tax or Special Assessment Delinquency; [50-2o18(9)] 11. Defective or unusual condition of title; [50-2018(9)] 12. Substantially Impairs or Arrests the Sound Growth of a Municipality a. [50-2018(9) and [50-2903(8)(b)] 13. Conditions Which Retard Development of the Area [50-2008(4)(4)(2)] 14. Results in Economic Underdevelopment of the Area [50-2903(8)(b)]; and Economic Disuse [50-2oo8(d)(4)(2)] .Analysis: Sub -District TM -:t Criterion #x: The Presence of a Substantial Number of Deteriorated or Deteriorating Structures; and Deterioration of Site: The structures associated with these properties are located at the extreme south end of the Study Area and are adjacent to the recently constructed interchange. As noted above, the house and other outbuildings on the homesite have been removed, leaving only a large equipment shed on the property. That structure is relatively new and is appropriate to support a continued agricultural use but is inconsistent with the vision inherent in the Specific Area Plan. Since the majority of the structures previously located on the property have been removed, no deteriorated or deteriorating structures remain. Therefore, criterion #x is not met. Criterion #2: Age or Obsolescence: Again, as noted above the structures were built to serve the historic agricultural use. While the remaining structure is not old, it is not of a nature to support the high-density mixed-use envisioned in the Plan. Additionally a significantly large and open drainage channel traverses the northerly parcels. This remains a common method of providing drainage to agricultural lands, but is inconsistent with high-density urban uses envisioned for the area. Therefore the remaining equipment shed and the open drainage channel are obsolete in this context and as such, criterion #2 is met. Criterion #g: Predominance of Defective or Inadequate Street Layout: As noted above, it is recommended to include the Ten Mile Road and Franklin Road rights -off way within the boundaries of the sub -district. As such, the improvements made to these facilities in recent years appear adequate to serve the anticipated development. However, there are no streets in place to serve the internal development of these relatively large parcels. implementation of the Specific Area Plan requires circulation throughout the planning area and since no streets currently exist to serve the anticipated interior development, criterion #3 is met. Criterion #4: Outmoded Street Patterns: This criterion is addressed in the same manner as the previous one and since there is no interior circulation pattern in place, criterion #4 is met. Criterion #5: Need for Correlation of Area with Other Areas of a Municipality by Streets; and Modern Traffic Requirements: While the Ten Mile Interchange and the Ten Mile Road and Franklin Road improvements provide good access to the area for the broader Meridian and regional community, the internal circulation system is non-existent at this point in time. The Specific Area Plan calls -out specific locations for access points into the sub -district so as to coordinate access into adjacent properties and thus allowing future signalization enhancing traffic safety in the area. While curb returns have been installed at specific locations, no means of providing streets connecting to these access points is currently in place so criterion #5 is met. Criterion #6: Faulty Lot Layout in Relation to Size, Adequacy, Accessibility or Usefulness: The parcels in the sub -district are of a size and configuration appropriate for the historic agricultural use for which they have been deployed for several decades. However, as the City and region have developed around these properties, the large lots in the sub -district are not properly configured to accommodate the development pattern envisioned in the Specific Area Plan. A more fine-grained and high-density development pattern is represented in the adopted Plan. Also, as noted above, one of the lots in the northerly section of TM -z has no access to a public right-of-way. Therefore criterion #6 is met. Criterion #7: Unsuitable Topography or Faulty Lot Layouts: While the topography of the sub- district presents no difficulty for implementation of the Plan the lot layout as noted above is inappropriate for the uses envisioned and one parcel is land -locked. Thus criterion # 7 is met. Criterion #8: insanitary or Unsafe Conditions: Again, given the current agricultural use "insanitary and unsafe conditions" are not present. However, when considering the anticipated development pattern, the sub -area is completely devoid of public water supply and distribution facilities. No provision for required fire flows nor any provision of sanitary sewer or storm drainage facilities adequate to the demand has been made. Therefore, criterion #8 is met. Criterion #9: Diversity of ownership: There are four parcels included in Sub -District TM -1. ,All of these parcels are under the ownership of a single entity. Therefore, criterion # 9 is not met. Criterion #1o: Tax or Special Assessment Delinquency: According to Ada County Assessor records, no delinquencies exist. Therefore, criterion #to is not met Criterion #11: Defective or unusual condition of title: The two smaller parcels in the northern section of TM -i appear to have been created by an informal "Lot split" and not through formal subdivision. Therefore they do not represent a legal lot of record, but merely a separate parcel for taxation purposes. While this is a legal process in the State of Idaho such tax parcels may not comply with zoning and other site requirements. This can be viewed as an unusual condition of title. Therefore, criterion #11 is met. Criterion #12: Substantially .Impairs or Arrests the Sound Growth of a Municipality: The State of Idaho, the City of Meridian and the Ada County Highway District have made substantial investment in the transportation and utility facilities serving this and the surrounding areas. The City of Meridian has expressed its vision for this area in the creation and adoption of the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan, but without the capacity to provide public infrastructure, the Study Area will remain an under-utilized area in the midst of the fastest growing area in the State of Idaho. Criterion #12 is met. Criterion #13: Conditions Which Retard Development of the Area: See discussion of Criterion #12 above. Criterion #13 is met. Criterion #14: Results in Economic Underdevelopment of the Area: See discussion of Criterion #12 above. Criterion #14 is met. Findings: Sub -District TM -1: Conditions exist within the sub -district to allow the Board of Commissioners of the Meridian Development Corporation and the Meridian City Council to determine that the area is eligible for urban renewal activities as prescribed in State Law. Analysis: Sub -District TM -2 Criterion #x: The Presence of a Substantial Number of Deteriorated or Deteriorating Structures; and Deterioration of Site: Sub -District TM -2 consists of approximately 118 acres of undeveloped farmland. The entire acreage is used for agricultural purposes with no structures present on the properties. Therefore, criterion #1 is not met. Criterion #2: Age or Obsolescence: Again, no structures are present on the property and the only infrastructure serving the property is the recently improved Ten Mile Road which meets current standards. The Kennedy Lateral serves the current agricultural uses, but the open nature of the facility is not compatible with the development pattern envisioned in the Specific Area Plan and thus can be considered obsolete. Therefore, criterion #2 is met. Criterion #3: Predominance of Defective or Inadequate Street Layout: The only street serving this sub -district is Ten Mile Road which fronts the westerly edge of the sub -district. An unimproved right-of-way exists in the Southwest corner of the Sub -district This dedicated right- of-way extending into the property in a curvilinear fashion is viewed by the property owner as inadequate both in terms of width and alignment to support development plans for the property. No mechanism is in place to install required infrastructure. Effective development of the 118 acres requires public street access to the full extent of the property. Such street network does not exist at this time. Therefore, criterion # 3 is met. Criterion #4: Outmoded Street Patterns: This criterion is addressed in the same manner as the previous one and since there is no interior circulation pattern in place, criterion #4 is met. Criterion #5: Need for Correlation of Area with Other Areas of a Municipality by Streets; and Modern Traffic Requirements: While the Ten Mile Interchange and the Ten Mile Road and Franklin Road improvements provide good access to the area for the broader Meridian and regional community, the internal circulation system is non-existent at this point in time. The Specific Area Plan calls out specific locations for access points into the sub-district so as to coordinate access into adjacent properties and thus allowing future signalization enhancing traffic safety in the area. While curb returns have been installed at specific locations, no means of providing streets connecting to these access points is currently in place. The right-of—way extending into the property is viewed as inadequate by the property owner. Therefore, criterion #5 is met. Criterion #6: Faulty Lot Layout in Relation to Size, Adequacy, Accessibility or Usefulness: The parcels in the sub-district are of a size and configuration appropriate for the historic agricultural use for which they have been deployed for several decades. However, as the City and region has developed around these properties, the large lots in the sub-district are not properly configured to accommodate the development pattern envisioned in the Specific Area Plan. A more fine- grained and high-density development pattern is represented in the adopted Plan. One land- locked lot has no access to public right-of-way. Therefore, criterion #6 is met. Criterion #7: Unsuitable Topography or Faulty Lot Layouts: A low area at the southeast corner of the largest parcel acts as an informal drainage basin, receiving run-off from adjacent residential properties. The topography of the rest of the sub-district presents no difficulty for implementation of the Specific Area Plan. The lot layout as noted above is inappropriate for the uses envisioned. Again, one lot has no access to a public street. Thus, criterion # 7 is met. Criterion #8: Insanitary or Unsafe Conditions: Again, given the current agricultural use "insanitary and unsafe conditions" are not present. However, when considering the anticipated development pattern, the sub-district is completely devoid of public water supply and distribution facilities. No provision for required fire flows nor any provision of sanitary sewer or storm drainage facilities adequate to the demand has been made. The open configuration of the Kennedy Lateral would create an unsafe condition under the development pattern envisioned in the Specific Area Plan. Therefore, criterion #8 is met. Criterion #9: Diversity of Ownership: There are three parcels included in Sub-District TM-z. All of these parcels are under the ownership of a single entity. Therefore, criterion # 9 is not met. Criterion #1o: Tax or Special Assessment Delinquency: According to Ada County Assessor records, no delinquencies exist. Therefore, criterion #io is not met. Criterion #11: Defective or unusual condition of title: No defective or unusual conditions of title exist. Therefore, criterion #xx is not met. Criterion #12: Substantially Impairs or Arrests the Sound Growth of a Municipality: The State of Idaho, the City of Meridian and the Ada County Highway District have made substantial investment in the transportation and utility facilities serving this and the surrounding areas. City of Meridian has expressed its vision for this area in the creation and adoption of the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan, but without the capacity to provide public infrastructure, the Study Area will remain and under-utilized area in the midst of the fastest growing areas in the State of Idaho. Criterion #12 is met. Criterion #13: Conditions Which Retard Development of the Area: See discussion of Criterion #12 above. Criterion #13 is met. Criterion #14: Results in Economic Underdevelopment of the Area: See discussion of Criterion #12 above. Criterion #14 is met. Findings: Sub -District TM -2: Conditions exist within the sub -district to allow the Board of Commissioners of the Meridian Development Corporation and the Meridian City Council to determine that the area is eligible for urban renewal activities as prescribed in State Law. Analysis: Sub -District TM -3 Criterion #1: The Presence of a Substantial Number of Deteriorated or Deteriorating Structures; and Deterioration of Site: As with the other sub -districts previously reviewed, the properties included within Sub -District TM -3 have been dedicated to agricultural pursuits for many decades. Structures, both residences and outbuildings were developed on the properties fronting on West Franklin Road to support that use. The Ada County Assessor recognizes four residential structures and several outbuildings in this sub -district, all of which reflect improvement values less than the values assigned to the parcels on which they are located. These residences reflect values ranging from 28% to 80% of the land value. This situation suggests a deteriorating condition of the improvements. While the condition of many of the structures remains serviceable for their historic use, the higher intensity uses envisioned in the Specific Area Plan are incompatible with the older buildings. Therefore, criterion #1 is met. Criterion #2: Age or Obsolescence: The County Assessor recognizes four residential structures in the sub -district two of which approach loo years of age and one being 85 years old. The other dwelling was constructed in 1g80. A variety of out buildings exist on the properties. The age of the majority of the buildings suggests that the structures on the properties are functionally obsolete. it is most likely that implementation of the City's plans for the area will require demolition or relocation of most of the structures currently in place. Another infrastructure element located in the sub -district is the Ten Mile Drainage facility. It is an open ditch that traverses the sub -district actually separating the southerly lot from those fronting on Franklin Road and thus creating a relatively large parcel with no public access. The ditch may be adequate for the current use of the property, but the higher density uses envisioned in the planning documents render this facility obsolete in the more urban context that has evolved around this property. Finally, the property is served by an irrigation lateral (Vaughan Lateral) that runs along the east boundary of the sub -district then traverses the area in an east -west configuration before returning to the north boundary at Franklin Road. As long as the properties remain in agricultural use the open facility functions adequately. However, as the development on the properties intensifies, the open nature of the lateral will present a potentially hazardous condition and therefore would be rendered obsolete. The lateral has been piped along the easterly boundary of TM -3 suggesting that a similar treatment of the east -west section will be required as a condition of development at some time in the future. Therefore, criterion #2 is met. Criterion #g: Predominance of Defective or Inadequate Street Layout: West Franklin Road has been improved to full urban standards across the northerly frontage of this sub -district. An unimproved private roadway provides the only access to the interior part of the sub -district. To fully respond to the vision expressed in the Specific Area Plan, a more robust system of public streets will be required. The southerly lot has no access to a public street. Since those streets do not exist at this time, criterion #3 is met. Criterion #4: Outmoded Street Patterns: This criterion is addressed in the same manner as the previous one and since there is no interior circulation pattern in place, criterion #4 is met. Criterion #5: Need for Correlation of Area with Other Areas of a Municipality by Streets; and Modern Traffic Requirements: While the Ten Mile Interchange and the Ten Mile Road and Franklin Road improvements provide good access to the area for the broader Meridian and regional community, the internal circulation system is non-existent at this point in time. The Plan called out specific locations for access points into the sub -district so as to coordinate access into adjacent properties and thus allowing future signalization enhancing traffic safety in the area. While curb returns have been installed at specific locations, no means of providing streets connecting to these access points is currently in place so criterion #5 is met. Criterion #6: Faulty Lot Layout in Relation to Size, Adequacy, Accessibility or Usefulness: The parcels in the sub -district are of a size and configuration appropriate for the historic agricultural use for which they have been deployed for several decades. Three parcels fronting West Franklin Road have been divided off from the original property but even these lots range from approximately one acre to 2.2 acres making them ill-suited for the type of development envisioned in the adopted plans. A more fine-grained and high-density development pattern is represented in the adopted Plan. The largest lot in TM -3 (20.13 acres) has no public access. Therefore, criterion #6 is met. Criterion #7. Unsuitable Topography or Faulty Lot Layouts: While the topography of the sub- district presents no difficulty for implementation of the Specific Area Plan the lot layout as noted above is inappropriate for the uses envisioned. The largest lot has no access to a public right-of- way. ight-ofway. Thus, criterion # 7 is met. Criterion #8: Insanitary or Unsafe Conditions: While public water and sewer facilities are available to the site in the recently improved Franklin Road, City policy precludes providing utility service to properties outside the city limits. Therefore the existing residences located in Sub -District TM -3 do not currently have access to public water and sewer service. This condition will be rectified if the current annexation petition ultimately results in their inclusion within the city limits. The property is served by an open irrigation channel (Vaughan Lateral). That portion of the Lateral running along the east property line of Sub -District TM -3 has recently been piped. The portion traversing the area in an east -west direction remains open and unprotected creating a potentially hazardous condition as activities intensify in the area. Criterion #8 is met. Criterion #9: Diversity of Ownership, The 62.485 acres included within Sub -District TM -3 are held under three separate ownerships: (Brighton, Kostka / Calnon and Bainbridge) with the majority (53 acres) being controlled by Kostka / Calnon. A large number of small parcels with diverse ownerships make reinvestment difficult. However, the properties located here are relatively large and one can expect three sophisticated property owners to work together. Therefore, it is determined that criterion#9 is not met. Criterion #1o: Tax or Special Assessment Delinquency: According to Ada. County Assessor records, no delinquencies exist. Therefore, criterion #10 is not met. Criterion #11: Defective or unusual condition of title: The two smaller parcels at the westerly end of TM -3 appear to have been created by an informal "Lot split" and not through formal subdivision. Therefore they do not represent a legal lot of record, but merely a separate parcel for taxation purposes. The larger 20 acre parcel appears to be created in a similar manner. While this is a legal process in the State of Idaho such tax parcels may not comply with zoning and other site requirements. This can be viewed as an unusual condition of title. Therefore, criterion #11 is met. Criterion #12: Substantially Impairs or Arrests the Sound Growth of a Municipality: The State of Idaho, the City of Meridian and the Ada County Highway District have made substantial investment in the transportation and utility facilities serving this and the surrounding areas. City of Meridian has expressed its vision for this area in the creation and adoption of the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan, but without the capacity to provide public infrastructure, the Study Area will remain and under-utilized area in the midst of the fastest growing areas in the State of Idaho. Criterion #12 is met. Criterion #13: Conditions Which Retard Development of the Area: See discussion of Criterion #12 above. Criterion #13 is met. Criterion #14: Results in Economic Underdevelopment of the Area: See discussion of Criterion #12 above. Criterion #14 is met. Findings: Sub -District TM -3: Conditions exist within the sub -district to allow the Board of Commissioners of the Meridian Development Corporation and the Meridian City Council to determine that the area is eligible for urban renewal activities as prescribed in State Law. While the entire area of Sub -District TM -3 currently remains in unincorporated Ada County a petition for annexation to the City of Meridian has been filed for the Brighton and Kostka / Calnon properties. Should that annexation become effective prior to the creation of an�Vurban renewal district in this area, the inclusion of these parcels could occur without hindrance. The Bainbridge parcels were not included in the annexation petition, And while statute allows for inclusion of unincorporated areas in an urban renewal district created by a city in Idaho, that can only be accomplished by way of an intergovernmental agreement between the city and the county permitting such inclusion. This option would create complexity and potential delay, especially if any opposition surfaces. We are unaware of any interest of this ownership to be included. Analysis: Sub -District TM -4 Criterion #x: The Presence of a Substantial Number of Deteriorated or Deteriorating S&uctures; and Deterioration of Site: The properties located within this sub -district have no structures on them; therefore, criterion #i is not met. Criterion #2: Age or Obsolescence: Again, given the fact that no structures exist on the properties, age and obsolescence are not an issue. The irrigation lateral, previously existing in an open -ditch condition has been enclosed in a piped system. Therefore, criterion #2 is not met. Criterion #3: Predominance of Defective or Inadequate Street Layout: While the property fronts on a street improved to full urban standards, no internal circulation is currently in place. However, this sub -district is relatively small and current plans call for the property to be served by private streets. Given that this development is planned in isolation from the surrounding properties and the relatively small traffic demand anticipated, the private streets should be adequate. Therefore, criterion #3 is not met. Criterion #4: Outmoded Street Patterns: The analysis for this criterion is essentially the same as for criterion #3 and thus, criterion #4 is not met. Criterion #g: Need for Correlation of Area with Other Areas of a Municipality by Streets; and Modern Traffic Requirements: Again, Sub -District TM -4 is relatively small (9.425 acres) and the proposed development does not negatively impact development potential around it. The Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan that covers this property does not call for street extensions through this area. Therefore, criterion #5 is not met. Criterion #6: Faulty Lot Layout in Relation to Size, Adequacy, Accessibility or Usefulness: The property within this sub -district has recently been divided to accommodate a specific development scheme; therefore the lot layout is appropriate for the anticipated uses. Criterion #6 is not met. Criterion #7: Unsuitable Topography or Faulty Lot Layouts: As noted above, the lot configuration is suitable for the proposed development having recently been divided and the site is relatively flat allowing services to be extended. Therefore, criterion #7 is not met. Criterion #8: Insanitary or Unsafe Conditions: No insanitary conditions exist on the site and public sewers will be extended throughout the property with the proposed development. The Vaughan Lateral has been piped thereby eliminating that potentially unsafe condition. Criterion #8 is not met. Criterion #9: Diversity of Ownership: The entire sub -district is under one ownership; therefore Criterion #9 is not met. Criterion #10: Tax or Special Assessment Delinquency: According to Ada County Assessor records, no delinquencies exist. Therefore, criterion #xo is not met Criterion #xr: Defective or unusual condition of title: No defective or unusual conditions of title exist. Therefore, criterion #xx is not met. Criterion #12: Substantially Impairs or Arrests the Sound Growth of a Municipality: The State of Idaho, the City of Meridian and the Ada County Highway District have made substantial investment in the transportation and utility facilities serving this and the surrounding areas. City of Meridian has expressed its vision for this area in the creation and adoption of the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan. The proposed development is consistent with the Plan. The relatively small area and isolation from the rest of the Specific Area Plan properties suggest no substantial impact on the development of nearby areas or the community as a whole. The sub -district is separated from the other in -city sub -districts by the unincorporated areas included in Sub -District TM -3. Criterion #12 is not met. Criterion #13: Conditions Which Retard Development of the Area: See discussion of Criterion #12 above. Criterion #13 is not met. Criterion #14: Results in Economic Underdevelopment of the Area: See discussion of Criterion #12 above. Criterion #14 is not met. Findings: Sub -District TM -4: Conditions do not exist within the sub -district to allow the Board of Commissioners of the Meridian Development Corporation and the Meridian City Council to determine that the area is eligible for urban renewal activities as prescribed in State Law. Should the Agency and City Council want to bring urban renewal tools to assist in the development of this sub -district, appending it to Sub -District TM -3 may be a better option than a stand-alone, geographically isolated district. Consolidated Sub -District Analysis: Having reviewed the existing conditions in the four sub -districts separately, the Study Area as a whole will be evaluated. Conditions exist in Sub - Districts TM -1, TM -2 and TM -3 that warrant a finding that these areas may be included in an urban renewal district. Sub -District TM -4, in a stand-alone condition, would prove difficult to justify. However, it could legitimately be included in a larger district, associated with an area or areas where the conditions/findings were met. A significant issue in determining what areas to include is the timing of potential development. Recent amendments to the Urban Renewal Law and Economic Development Act have limited the maximum life of a district to 20 years. The longer development is delayed after creation of an urban renewal district, the fewer years of incremental revenue are thus available to support required infrastructure investments. Should the City Council direct the creation of an urban renewal plan in this area, one of the required elements of that Plan is a financial feasibility analysis. In that analysis, one will need to consider the cost of installation of public facilities against the anticipated revenue produced by the private, taxable investment. This suggests that a district wherein development in not foreseen in the very near future may prove financially infeasible. Another significant factor is the type of development anticipated in the area under consideration. Of particular concern is the proportion of owner -occupied residential properties. These uses enjoy a substantial property tax exemption prescribed by State Law, thereby reducing the revenue yield needed to support infrastructure investment. Such residential uses need properties carrying their full tax burden to supplement their limited yields. CONCLUSION: Based upon the data and the conditions that exist within the Study Area as noted above, the Meridian Development Corporation Board and Meridian City Council may determine that Sub- Districts TM -1, TM -2 and TM -3 are eligible for the establishment of an urban renewal district and could be combined into a single urban renewal district. Sub -District TM -4 appears ineligible as a stand-alone district but could be included in a larger district. A variety of configurations are available at the discretion of the City Council. lo% Anal siS: In addition to the findings reported above, verification that the assessed value of the proposed Study Area is within the statutory limits is needed. As noted above, State Law limits the percentage of assessed value that can be included in urban renewal / revenue allocation districts to Io% of the total valuation of the City. According to Ada County Assessor records, the most recent total certified value for the City of Meridian is $ 8,89o,80,600. This number does not reflect exemptions. Therefore taking a more conservative approach, the net taxable value for this calculation is used. That number is $6,848,682,967. As shown in the analysis in Table 1 the current taxable value of the entire Study Area after the agricultural exemptions are lifted is estimated to be $39,539,125. This value then must be added to the Base Assessed Value of the Downtown Meridian Urban Renewal District to test for the 10% limitation. The Base Assessed Value of the Downtown District established at the time of its creation, is $146,334,050• The analysis for these purposes in presented in Table 2, below. The combined amounts are well below the statutory limit. Deducing the area to be included in the new district would reduce the percentage. Statutory 1o% Limitation Analysis Area Total Ci Taxable Value $6,848,682,967 Percentage 100% Downtown Meridian URA Base Value Proposed Ten Mile URA $146,334,050 $ 39,539,125 2.140/2 0.58% Total UR Base Assessed Value Percenta a $i8�,8�3�175 2.7140 The effect of creating this district on the capacity of the City and MDC to consider future districts should they choose to do so is also explored. The table below shows that even if a new district similar to the Ten Mile URD were to be established, approximately 7.66% of the citywide taxable value would remain uncommitted. Images: Sub -District #1 Images: Sub -.District #2 Images: Sub -District #3 Images: Sub -District #4 Attachment 7 Agricultural Consent Forms CONSENT FORM COME NOW Kostka and Calnon, LLC, and states that it owns certain property generally described as Parcel S1214121133, and more particularly described as Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (the "Property"), and hereby certifies: (1). that the Property has been used, within the last three (3) years, as an agricultural operation; and (2). that the undersigned has reviewed the applicable Idaho Code provisions and the materials provided in Exhibit B [OPEN LAND INFORMATION SHEET/STATUSES], and has had an opportunity to review the urban renewal eligibility report, dated November 2015, entitled Ten Mile Urban Renewal District Eligibility Report, prepared by Phil Kushlan of Kushlan Associates, and as attached hereto as Exhibit C [ELIGIBILITY REPORT]. Further, Kostka and Calnon, LLC hereby provides its consent and approval that the Property may be included within a proposed urban renewal area, and may be deemed appropriate for inclusion within an urban renewal project area as defined by the Idaho Urban Renewal Law of 1965, Title 50, Chapter 20, Idaho Code, as amended, and the Local Economic Development Act of 1988, Title 50, Chapter 29, Idaho Code, as amended, as the property possesses certain characteristics of eligibility. DATED this ge?day of 2016 or Kostka and Calnon, LLC By: �... tel'/� ,ems Kathleen A. Kostka, Manager STATE OF WASHINGTON ) } ss: County of ) On this 7Zday of AL )2016 . , before me, a notary public in and for said state, personally appeared Kathleen . Kostka, known or identified to me to be the Manager of Kostka and Calnon, LLC, and acknowledged to me that she executed the same on behalf of said company. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. otary Public f r Washington Notary Pablic Residing a �1 I I State of Washlnpton My Commission Expires�cj CHELSIE E MONCECCHI My Appointment Expires Apr 13. 2019 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION PAR#1130 STYPORNW4NE4 &NE4NW4 SEC 14 3N 1W #121130-B B & A Engineers, Inc. Consulting Engineers & Land Surveyors 5505 West Franklin Road. Boise, ID 83705 Telephone 208+343+3381 Facsimile 208+342+5792 Calnon Enterprises, Limited Partnership Tax Parcel S1214121133 Land South of the Ten Mile Stub Drain 15 June 2016 A parcel of land situate in the northwest quarter of the northeast quarter and in the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 14, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at northwest corner of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of said Section 14, which bears N89037'56"W, 1,328.98 feet from the north quarter corner of said Section 14; thence S00006'37"W, 828.98 feet along the westerly boundary of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of said Section 14 to the southerly boundary the Ten Mile Stub Drain; thence N89023'03"E, 249.02 feet along the southerly boundary of the Ten Mile Stub Drain; thence continuing N89023'03"E, 466.97 feet along the southerly boundary of the Ten Mile Stub Drain to the Point of Beginning: Thence the following courses and distances along the southerly boundary of the Ten Mile Stub Drain: N89023'03"E, 21.08 feet; S85°36'57"E, 1,651.08 feet; 117.09 feet along a tangent curve deflecting to the left with a radius of 346.50 feet, a central angle of 19021'43", a long chord of 116.54 feet on a bearing of N84042'11"E; N75003'03"E, 164.04 feet to the easterly boundary of the northwest quarter of the northeast quarter of said Section 14; Thence S00006'24"W, 449.98 feet along the easterly boundary of the northwest quarter of the northeast quarter of said Section 14 to the southeast corner of the northwest quarter of the northeast quarter of said Section 14; Thence N89040'48"W, 1,329.35 feet along the southerly boundary of the northwest quarter of the northeast quarter of said Section 14 to the southwest corner of the northwest quarter of the northeast quarter of said Section 14; Thence N89039'03"W, 612.67 feet along the southerly boundary of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of said Section 14; Thence N00006'37"E, 511.74 feet along a line parallel to the westerly boundary of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of said Section 14 to the Point of Beginning. Comprising 20.01 acres, more or less. Subject to easements or right-of-ways of record or apparent. r�L 191-,11.003 INFO SHEET Open Land Areas under the Idaho Urban Renewal Law and the Local Economic Development Act To plan or initiate an urban renewal project for an urban renewal area, the local governing body must determine that such an area is a deteriorated area or a deteriorating area or a combination thereof. The attached definition of deteriorating area, Idaho Code Section 50-2018(9) lists ten characteristics that may be present in a deteriorating area. In addition, the definition includes a reference to open land areas: it... provided, that if such deteriorating area consists of open land the conditions contained in the proviso in section 50-2008(d), Idaho Code, shall apply." The statute recognizes the possibility that a deteriorating area may consist of open land. Pursuant to Idaho Code Section 50-2008(d), an urban renewal agency cannot acquire an area of open land for residential or nonresidential uses unless the local governing body makes certain findings. The proviso also lists justifications why such acquisition "may require the exercise of governmental actions, as provided in this act..." The list includes: "defective or unusual conditions of title, diversity of ownership, tax delinquency, improper subdivisions, outmoded street patterns, deterioration of site, economic disuse, unsuitable topography or faulty lot layouts, the need for the correlation of the area with other areas of a municipality by streets and modem traffic requirements, or any combination of such factors or other conditions which retard development of the area" In effect, to the extent the list includes characteristics not found in the standard deteriorating area definition, it provides other defining characteristics of an open land area. The Local Economic Development Act, Chapter 29, Title 50, Idaho Code, as amended (the "Act"), also addresses open land in the Act's definition of deteriorated area: (c) Any area which is predominately open and which because of obsolete platting, diversity of ownership, deterioration of structures or improvements, or otherwise, results in economic underdevelopment of the area or substantially impairs or arrests the sound grown of a municipality. The provisions of Section 50- 2008(d), Idaho Code, shall apply to open areas. Idaho Code Sections 50-2018(8) and (9) and 50-2903(8)(0 require consent of any property owner whose property has been used for an agricultural operation anytime within the last three (3) consecutive years in order to allow that property to be included within a proposed urban renewal area. Consent of the property owner is not required for property that has not been used as an agricultural operation within the last three consecutive years. Attached hereto, please find copies of the following statutes: 50-2018(8) and (9),50-2008, and SO -2903(8). EXHIBIT C TEN MILE URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT ELIGIBILITY REPORT (Sent under separate cover due to file size) CONSENT FORM COME NOW Kostka and Calnon, LLC, and states that it owns certain property generally described as Parcel S1214212622, and more particularly described as Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (the "Property"), and hereby certifies: (1). that the Property has been used, within the last three (3) years, as an agricultural operation; and (2). that the undersigned has reviewed the applicable Idaho Code provisions and the materials provided in Exhibit B [OPEN LAND INFORMATION SHEEVSTATUSES], and has had an opportunity to review the urban renewal eligibility report, dated November 2015, entitled Ten Mile Urban Renewal District Eligibility Report, prepared by Phil Kushlan of Kushlan Associates, and as attached hereto as Exhibit C [ELIGIBILITY REPORT]. Flrrther, Kostka and Calnon, LLC hereby provides its consent and approval that the Property may be included within a proposed urban renewal area, and may be deemed appropriate for inclusion within an urban renewal project area as defined by the Idaho Urban Renewal Law of 1965, Title 50, Chapter 20, Idaho Code, as amended, and the Local Economic Development Act of 1988, Title 50, Chapter 29, Idaho Code, as amended, as the property possesses certain characteristics of eligibility. DATED this day of , 2016 IF Kostka and Calnon, LLC By: Kathleen A. Kostka, Manager STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss: County of ) On thisQ-- day of Y; I , 2016, before me, a notary public in and for said state, personally appeared Kathleen A. Kostka, known or identified to me to be the Manager of Kostka and Calnon, LLC, and acknowledged to me that she executed the same on behalf of said company. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. D 4otaryta nL Public for Washington Residing at �U CiAhby UVB -S7Jzr,? Nalitrywashllo. M Commission Expires 1� C� sate W tfif>eahlnpton Y p � 9 CHEISIE E MCNCECCHI My Appoimment Expires Apr 13, 2019 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION PAR #2622 POR NW4NE4 & NE4NW4 SEC 14 3N 1 W #212620-B B & A Engineers, Inc. Consulting Engineers & Land Surveyors SSOS West Franklin Road. Boise, ID 83705 Telephone 208+343+3381 Facsimile 208+342+5792 Calnon Enterprises, Limited Partnership Tax Parcel S1214212622 15 June 2016 A parcel of land situate in the northwest quarter of the northeast quarter and in the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 14, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at northwest corner of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of said Section 14, which bears N89037'56"W, 1,328.98 feet from the north quarter corner of said Section 14; thence S00006'37"W, 89.00 feet along the westerly boundary of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of said Section 14; thence S89037'56"E, 249.00 feet along a line parallel to the northerly boundary of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of said Section 14; thence continuing S89037'56"E, 466.93 feet along a line parallel to the northerly boundary of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of said Section 14 to the Point of Beginning: Thence continuing S89037'56"E, 613.17 feet along a line parallel to the northerly boundary of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of said Section 14 to a point that bears S00001'40"W, 89.00 feet from the north quarter corner of said Section 14; Thence S89041'43"E, 157.95 feet along a line parallel to the northerly boundary of the northwest quarter of the northeast quarter of said Section 14; Thence S00°16'38"E, 115.49 feet; Thence S48°21'35"E, 182.51 feet; Thence S00°00'00"W, 433.70 feet to the northerly boundary of the Ten Mile Stub Drain; Thence the following courses and distances along the northerly boundary of the Ten Mile Stub Drain: N85036'57"W, 887.04 feet; S89023'03"W, 24.80 feet; Thence N00°06'37"E, 607.69 feet along a line parallel to the westerly boundary of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of said Section 14 to the Point of Beginning. Comprising 12.75 acres, more or less. Subject to easements or right-of-ways of record or apparent. EXHIBIT B INFO SHEET Open Land Areas under the Idaho Urban Renewal Law and the Local Economic Development Act To plan or initiate an urban renewal project for an urban renewal area, the local governing body must determine that such an area is a deteriorated area or a deteriorating area or a combination thereof. The attached definition of deteriorating area, Idaho Code Section 50-2018(9) lists ten characteristics that may be present in a deteriorating area. In addition, the definition includes a reference to open land areas: "... provided, that if such deteriorating area consists of open land the conditions contained in the proviso in section 50-2008(d), Idaho Code, shall apply." The statute recognizes the possibility that a deteriorating area may consist of open land. Pursuant to Idaho Code Section 50-2008(d), an urban renewal agency cannot acquire an area of open land for residential or nonresidential uses unless the local governing body makes certain findings. The proviso also lists justifications why such acquisition "may require the exercise of governmental actions, as provided in this act..." The list includes: "defective or unusual conditions of title, diversity of ownership, tax delinquency, improper subdivisions, outmoded street patterns, deterioration of site, economic disuse, unsuitable topography or faulty lot layouts, the need for the correlation of the area with other areas of a municipality by streets and modem traffic requirements, or any combination of such factors or other conditions which retard development of the area" In effect, to the extent the list includes characteristics not found in the standard deteriorating area definition, it provides other defining characteristics of an open land area. The Local Economic Development Act, Chapter 29, Title 50, Idaho Code, as amended (the "Act"), also addresses open land in the Act's definition of deteriorated area: (c) Any area which is predominately open and which because of obsolete platting, diversity of ownership, deterioration of structures or improvements, or otherwise, results in economic underdevelopment of the area or substantially impairs or arrests the sound grown of a municipality. The provisions of Section 50- 2008(d), Idaho Code, shall apply to open areas. Idaho Code Sections 50-2018(8) and (9) and 50-2903(8)(0 require consent of any property owner whose property has been used for an agricultural operation anytime within the last three (3) consecutive years in order to allow that property to be included within a proposed urban renewal area. Consent of the property owner is not required for property that has not been used as an agricultural operation within the last three consecutive years. Attached hereto, please find copies of the following statutes: 50-2018(8) and (9),50-2008, and SO -2903(8). EXHIBIT C TEN MILE URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT ELIGIBILITY REPORT (Sent under separate cover due to file size) CONSENT FORM COME NOW Kostka and Calnon, LLC, and states that it owns certain property generally described as Parcel S1214121172, and more particularly described as Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (the "Property"), and hereby certifies: (1). that the Property has been used, within the last three (3) years, as an agricultural operation; and (2). that the undersigned has reviewed the applicable Idaho Code provisions and the materials provided in Exhibit B [OPEN LAND INFORMATION SHEET/STATUSES], and has had an opportunity to review the urban renewal eligibility report, dated November 2015, entitled Ten Mile Urban Renewal District Eligibility Report, prepared by Phil Kushlan of Kushlan Associates, and as attached hereto as Exhibit C [ELIGIBILITY REPORT]. Further, Kostka and Calnon, LLC hereby provides its consent and approval that the Property may be included within a proposed urban renewal area, and may be deemed appropriate for inclusion within an urban renewal project area as defined by the Idaho Urban Renewal Law of 1965, Title 50, Chapter 20, Idaho Code, as amended, and the Local Economic Development Act of 1988, Title 50, Chapter 29, Idaho Code, as amended, as the property possesses certain characteristics of eligibility. DATED this,20ay of/,0/'0,:6:2,20l6 Kostka and Calnon, LLC By: Kathleen A. Kostka, Manager STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss: County of� ) On this 2.2 day of , 2016, before me, a notary public in and for said state, personally appeared Kathleen X. Kostka, known or identified to me to be the Manager of Kostka and Calnon, LLC, and acknowledged to me that she executed the same on behalf of said company. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. Notary Public for Washington Notary Pubttc Residing at78 IWL A C Cl -tA �S 35 State o1 Washington My Commission Expires 190-1 CHEISIE E MONCECCHI My Appointment Expires Apr 13, 2019 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION PAR #1172 POR N2 NWNE4 NE4NW TEN MILE STUB DRAIN SEC 14 3N 1 W # 121170-B B & A Engineers, Inc. Consulting Engineers & Land Surveyors 5505 West Franklin Road. Boise, ID 83705 Telephone 208+343+3381 Facsimile 208+342.1-5792 Calnon Enterprises, Limited Partnership Ten Mile Stub Drain 28 September 2015 A parcel of land situate in the northwest quarter of the northeast quarter and in the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 14, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the northwest corner of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of said Section 14, which bears N89037'56"W, 1,328.98 feet from the north quarter corner of said Section 14; thence S00°06'37"W, 828.98 feet along the westerly boundary of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of said Section 14 to the southerly boundary the Ten Mile Stub Drain; thence N89023'03"E, 715.99 feet along the southerly boundary of the Ten Mile Stub Drain to the Point of Beginning: Thence N00006'37"E, 120.00 feet along a line parallel to the westerly boundary of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of said Section 14 to the northerly boundary of the Ten Mile Stub Drain; Thence the following courses and distances along the northerly boundary of the Ten Mile Stub Drain: N89023'03"E, 24.79 feet; S85036'57"E, 1,656.32 feet; 76.54 feet along a tangent curve deflecting to the left with a radius of 226.50 feet, a central angle of 19021'43", a long chord of 76.18 feet on a bearing of N84°42'11"E; N75003'03"E, 196.38 feet to the easterly boundary of the northwest quarter of the northeast quarter of said Section 14; Thence S00006'24"W, 124.26 feet along the easterly boundary of the northwest quarter of the northeast quarter of said Section 14 to the southerly boundary of the Ten Mile Stub Drain; Thence the following courses and distances along the southerly boundary of the Ten Mile Stub Drain: S75°03'03"W, 164.04 feet; 117.09 feet along a tangent curve deflecting to the right with a radius of 346.50 feet, a central angle of 19021'43", a long chord of 116.54 feet on a bearing of S84°42'11"W; N85036'57"W, 1,651.08 feet S89023'03"W, 21.06 feet to the Point of Beginning. Comprising 5.38 acres, more or less. Subject to easements or right-of-ways of record or apparent. p c� j�rS'j�. s/Yi EXHIBIT B INFO SHEET Open Land Areas under the Idaho Urban Renewal Law and the Local Economic Development Act To plan or initiate an urban renewal project for an urban renewal area, the local governing body must determine that such an area is a deteriorated area or a deteriorating area or a combination thereof. The attached definition of deteriorating area, Idaho Code Section 50-2018(9) lists ten characteristics that may be present in a deteriorating area. In addition, the definition includes a reference to open land areas: ". . . provided, that if such deteriorating area consists of open land the conditions contained in the proviso in section 50-2008(d), Idaho Code, shall apply." The statute recognizes the possibility that a deteriorating area may consist of open land. Pursuant to Idaho Code Section 50-2008(d), an urban renewal agency cannot acquire an area of open land for residential or nonresidential uses unless the local governing body makes certain findings. The proviso also lists justifications why such acquisition "may require the exercise of governmental actions, as provided in this act..." The list includes: "defective or unusual conditions of title, diversity of ownership, tax delinquency, improper subdivisions, outmoded street patterns, deterioration of site, economic disuse, unsuitable topography or faulty lot layouts, the need for the correlation of the area with other areas of a municipality by streets and modem traffic requirements, or any combination of such factors or other conditions which retard development of the area" In effect, to the extent the list includes characteristics not found in the standard deteriorating area definition, it provides other defining characteristics of an open land area. The Local Economic Development Act, Chapter 29, Title 50, Idaho Code, as amended (the "Act"), also addresses open land in the Act's definition of deteriorated area: (c) Any area which is predominately open and which because of obsolete platting, diversity of ownership, deterioration of structures or improvements, or otherwise, results in economic underdevelopment of the area or substantially impairs or arrests the sound grown of a municipality. The provisions of Section 50- 2008(d), Idaho Code, shall apply to open areas. Idaho Code Sections 50-2018(8) and (9) and 50-2903(8)(0 require consent of any property owner whose property has been used for an agricultural operation anytime within the last three (3) consecutive years in order to allow that property to be included within a proposed urban renewal area. Consent of the property owner is not required for property that has not been used as an, agricultural operation within the last three consecutive years. Attached hereto, please find copies of the following statutes: 50-2018(8) and (9),50-2008, and SO -2903(8). EXHIBIT C TEN MILE URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT ELIGIBILITY REPORT (Sent under separate cover due to file size) CONSENT FORM COME NOW Kostka and Calnon, LLC, and states that it owns certain property generally described as Parcel S1214120710, and more particularly described as Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (the "Property"), and hereby certifies: (1). that the Property has been used, within the last three (3) years, as an agricultural operation; and (2). that the undersigned has reviewed the applicable Idaho Code provisions and the materials provided in Exhibit B [OPEN LAND INFORMATION SHEET/STATUSES], and has had an opportunity to review the urban renewal eligibility report, dated November 2015, entitled Ten Mile Urban Renewal District Eligibility Report, prepared by Phil Kushlan of Kushlan Associates, and as attached hereto as Exhibit C [ELIGIBILITY REPORT]. Further, Kostka and Calnon, LLC hereby provides its consent and approval that the Property may be included within a proposed urban renewal area, and may be deemed appropriate for inclusion within an urban renewal project area as defined by the Idaho Urban Renewal Law of 1965, Title 50, Chapter 20, Idaho Code, as amended, and the Local Economic Development Act of 1988; Title 50, Chapter 29, Idaho Code, as amended, as the property possesses certain characteristics of eligibility. DATED this ZZay of 2016 Kostka and Calnon, LLC By: Ka hleen A. Kostka, Manager STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss: County of On this22 day offt) , 2016, before me, a notary public in and for said state, personally appeared Kathleen A. Kostka, known or identified to me to be the Manager of Kostka and Calnon, LLC, and acknowledged to me that she executed the same on behalf of said company. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set day and year in this certificate first above written. Notary Public State of Washington CHELSIE E MONCECCHI My Appointment Expires Apr 13, 2019 hand and affixed my official seal the Notary Public ,,f l Residing at -40- My Commission ung R5'53� EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION PAR #0710 @N SIDE NW4NE4 SEC 14 3N IW #120700-B B & A Engineers, Inc. Consulting Engineers & Land Surveyors 5505 West Franklin Road. Boise, ID 83705 Telephone 208+343+3381 Facsimile 208+342+5792 Calnon Enterprises, Limited Partnership Parcel After ACHD RNV Take East and North of the Von Lateral 22 August 2011 A parcel of land situate in the northwest quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 14, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at northeast corner of the northwest quarter of the northeast quarter of said Section 14, which bears S89041'26"E, 1,328.89 feet from the north quarter corner of said Section 14; thence S00006'24"W, 357.00 feet along the easterly boundary of the northwest quarter of the northeast quarter of said Section 14 to the northerly boundary of the Von Lateral; thence N76054'53"W, 10.26 feet along the northeasterly boundary of the Von Lateral to the Point of Beginning: Thence the following courses and distances along the northerly and easterly boundary of the Von Lateral: S00006'24"W, 29.09 feet; N74021'24"W, 463.88 feet; S80017'35"W, 385.39 feet; 34.71 feet along a tangent curve deflecting to the right, with a radius of 20.00 feet, a central angle of 99°25'47", a long chord of 30.51 feet and a chord bearing of N49059'31"W; N00°16'38"W, 221.62 feet; 19.44 feet along a tangent curve deflecting to the left, with a radius of 60.00 feet, a central angle of 18034'00", a long chord of 19.36 feet and a chord bearing of N09°33'38"W; Thence S89041'26"E, 322.83 feet along a line 68.00 feet southerly of and parallel to the northerly boundary of the northwest quarter of the northeast quarter of said Section 14; Thence S00006'24"W, 166.00 feet; Thence S76054'53"E, 545.95 feet to the Point of Comprising 1.97 acres, more or less. Subject to easements or right-of-ways of record or apparent. EXHIBIT B INFO SHEET Open Land Areas under the Idaho Urban Renewal Law and the Local Economic Development Act To plan or initiate an urban renewal project for an urban renewal area, the local governing body must determine that such an area is a deteriorated area or a deteriorating area or a combination thereof. The attached definition of deteriorating area, Idaho Code Section 50-2018(9) lists ten characteristics that may be present in a deteriorating area. In addition, the definition includes a reference to open land areas: ". . . provided, that if such deteriorating area consists of open land the conditions contained in the proviso in section 50-2008(d), Idaho Code, shall apply." The statute recognizes the possibility that a deteriorating area may consist of open land. Pursuant to Idaho Code Section 50-2008(d), an urban renewal agency cannot acquire an area of open land for residential or nonresidential uses unless the local governing body makes certain findings. The proviso also lists justifications why such acquisition "may require the exercise of governmental actions, as provided in this act..." The list includes: "defective or unusual conditions of title, diversity of ownership, tax delinquency, improper subdivisions, outmoded street patterns, deterioration of site, economic disuse, unsuitable topography or faulty lot layouts, the need for the correlation of the area with other areas of a municipality by streets and modem traffic requirements, or any combination of such factors or other conditions which retard development of the area" In effect, to the extent the list includes characteristics not found in the standard deteriorating area definition, it provides other defining characteristics of an open land area. The Local Economic Development Act, Chapter 29, Title 50, Idaho Code, as amended (the "Act"), also addresses open land in the Act's definition of deteriorated area: (c) Any area which is predominately open and which because of obsolete platting, diversity of ownership, deterioration of structures or improvements, or otherwise, results in economic underdevelopment of the area or substantially impairs or arrests the sound grown of a municipality. The provisions of Section 50- 2008(d), Idaho Code, shall apply to open areas. Idaho Code Sections 50-2018(8) and (9) and 50-2903(8)(0 require consent of any property owner whose property has been used for an agricultural operation anytime within the last three (3) consecutive years in order to allow that property to be included within a proposed urban renewal area. Consent of the property owner is not required for property that has not been used as an agricultural operation within the last three consecutive years. Attached hereto, please find copies of the following statutes:50-2018(8) and (9),50-2008, and SO -2903(8). EXHIBIT C TEN MILE URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT ELIGIBILITY REPORT (Sent under separate cover due to file size) CONSENT FORM COME NOW Kostka and Calnon, LLC, and states that it owns certain property generally described as Parcel 51214121134, and more particularly described as Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (the "Property"), and hereby certifies: (1). that the Property has been used, within the last three (3) years, as an agricultural operation; and (2). that the undersigned has reviewed the applicable Idaho Code provisions and the materials provided in Exhibit B [OPEN LAND INFORMATION SHEET/STATUSES], and has had an opportunity to review the urban renewal eligibility report, dated November 2015, entitled Ten Mile Urban Renewal District Eligibility Report, prepared by Phil Kushlan of Kushlan Associates, and as attached hereto as Exhibit C [ELIGIBILITY REPORT]. Further, Kostka and Calnon. LLC hereby provides its consent and approval that the Property may be included within a proposed urban renewal area, and may be deemed appropriate for inclusion within an urban renewal project area as defined by the Idaho Urban Renewal Law of 1965, Title 50, Chapter 20, Idaho Code, as amended, and the Local Economic Development Act of 1988, Title 50, Chapter 29, Idaho Code, as amended, as the property possesses certain characteristics of eligibility. DATED this ` 22ay of , 2016 Ir Kostka and Calnon, LLC By: - r . 4, K thleen A. Kostka, Manager STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss: County of On this'f � day of , 2016, before me, a notary public in and for said state, personally appeared Kathleen A. Kostka, known or identified to me to be the Manager of Kostka and Calnon, LLC, and acknowledged to me that she executed the same on behalf of said company. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. n T Notary Public for Washington �,, Notary Public Residing a: nan 1*t► L-tvUW �33� State of Washington My Commission Expires ,� CHELSIE E MONCECCHI My Appointment Expires Apr 13, 2019 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION PAR #1134 POR NW4NE4 SEC 14 3N IW PARCEL B R/S 8885 #121132-5 B & A Engineers, Inc. Consulting Engineers & Land Surveyors 5505 West Franklin Road. Boise, ID 83705 Telephone 208+343+3381 Facsimile 208+342+5792 Calnon Enterprises, Limited Partnership Parcel B — Record of Survey #8885 After ACHD RM Take 25 November 2013 A parcel of land situate in the northwest quarter of the northeast quarter and in the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 14, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at northwest corner of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of said Section 14, which bears N89037'56"W, 1,328.98 feet from the north quarter corner of said Section 14; thence S00006'37"W, 89.00 feet along the westerly boundary of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of said Section 14; thence S89°37'56"E, 1,329.10 feet along a line parallel to the northerly boundary of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of said Section 14 to a point that bears S00°01'40"W, 89.00 feet from the north quarter corner of said Section 14; thence S89041'43"E, 157.95 feet along a line parallel to the northerly boundary of the northwest quarter of the northeast quarter of said Section 14 to the Point of Beginning: Thence continuing S89041'43"E, 289.26 feet along a line parallel to the northerly boundary of the northwest quarter of the northeast quarter of said Section 14 to the westerly boundary of the Von Lateral; Thence the following courses and distances along the westerly and southerly boundary of the Von Lateral: S00°16'38"E, 219.94 feet; 69.42 feet along a tangent curve deflecting to the left, with a radius of 40.00 feet, a central angle of 99°25'47", a long chord of 61.03 feet and a chord bearing of S49059'31"E; N80017'35"E, 380.89 feet; S74021'24"E, 475.32 feet to the easterly boundary of the northwest quarter of the northeast quarter of said Section 14; Thence S00006'24"W, 346.92 feet along the easterly boundary of the northwest quarter of the northeast quarter of said Section 14 to the northerly boundary of the Ten Mile Stub Drain; Calnon - Parcel B - ROS #8885 After ACHD RNV Take Page 1 of 2 Thence the following courses and distances along the northerly boundary of the Ten Mile Stub Drain: S75003'03"W, 196.38 feet; 76.54 feet along a tangent curve deflecting to the right, with a radius of 226.50 feet, a central angle of 19°21'43", a long chord of 76.18 feet and a chord bearing of S84042'1 1"W; N85036'57"W, 769.28 feet; Thence N00°00'00"E, 433.70 feet; Thence N48°21'35"W, 182.51 feet; Thence N00°16'38"W, 115.49 feet to the Point of Beginning. Comprising 12.20 acres, more or less. Subject to easements or right-of-ways of record or apparent. Calnon — Parcel B — ROS #8885 After ACHD RNV Take Page 2 of 2 EXHIBIT B INFO SHEET Open Land Areas under the Idaho Urban Renewal Law and the Local Economic Development Act To plan or initiate an urban renewal project for an urban renewal area, the local governing body must determine that such an area is a deteriorated area or a deteriorating area or a combination thereof. The attached definition of deteriorating area, Idaho Code Section 50-2018(9) lists ten characteristics that may be present in a deteriorating area. In addition, the definition includes a reference to open land areas: "... provided, that if such deteriorating area consists of open land the conditions contained in the proviso in section 50-2008(d), Idaho Code, shall apply." The statute recognizes the possibility that a deteriorating area may consist of open land. Pursuant to Idaho Code Section 50-2008(d), an urban renewal agency cannot acquire an area of open land for residential or nonresidential uses unless the local governing body makes certain findings. The proviso also lists justifications why such acquisition "may require the exercise of governmental actions, as provided in this act..." The list includes: "defective or unusual conditions of title, diversity of ownership, tax delinquency, improper subdivisions, outmoded street patterns, deterioration of site, economic disuse, unsuitable topography or faulty lot layouts, the need for the correlation of the area with other areas of a municipality by streets and modem traffic requirements, or any combination of such factors or other conditions which retard development of the area" In effect, to the extent the list includes characteristics not found in the standard deteriorating area definition, it provides other defining characteristics of an open land area. The Local Economic Development Act, Chapter 29, Title 50, Idaho Code, as amended (the "Act"), also addresses open land in the Act's definition of deteriorated area: (c) Any area which is predominately open and which because of obsolete platting, diversity of ownership, deterioration of structures or improvements, or otherwise, results in economic underdevelopment of the area or substantially impairs or arrests the sound grown of a municipality. The provisions of Section 50- 2008(d), Idaho Code, shall apply to open areas. Idaho Code Sections 50-2018(8) and (9) and 50-2903(8)(0 require consent of any property owner whose property has been used for an agricultural operation anytime within the last three (3) consecutive years in order to allow that property to be included within a proposed urban renewal area. Consent of the property owner is not required for property that has not been used as an agricultural operation within the last three consecutive years. Attached hereto, please find copies of the following statutes: 50-2018(8) and (9),50-2008, and SO -2903(8). EXHIBIT C TEN MILE URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT ELIGIBILITY REPORT (Sent under separate cover due to file size) VA 051111 COMES NOW Mirazim Shakoori, Manager of Treasure Valley Investments, LLC, an Idaho limited liability company; and states that Treasure Valley Investments, LLC owns certain property in the city of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, generally described as Parcel Number: S 1214233665, and more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (the "Property"), and hereby certifies: (1) that the Property has been used, within the last three (3) years, as an agricultural operation; (2) that the undersigned has reviewed the materials provided in Exhibit B, and has had an opportunity to review the urban renewal eligibility report, dated November 2015, entitled Ten Mile Urban Renewal District Eligibility Report, prepared by Phil Kushlan of Kushlan Associates, and as attached hereto as Exhibit C; and (3) that the undersigned has been advised that the urban renewal agency of the city of Meridian doing business as the Meridian Development Corporation ("MDC') would be unable to invoke eminent domain to purchase the property described above and on Exhibit A for the purpose of disposing of the property for economic development. Further, Mirazim Shakoori, as Manager of Treasure Valley mirazim shaknari 825 6480954 p.I Investments, LLC hereby provides consent and approval that the Property may be included within a proposed urban renewal area, and may be deemed appropriate for inclusion within an urban renewal project area as defined by the Idaho Urban Renewal Law of 1965, Title 50, Chapter 20, Idaho Code, as amended, and the Local Economic Development Act, Title 50, Chapter 29, Idaho Code, as amended, as the property possesses certain characteristics of eligibility. Provided, however, consent may be withdrawn if the Urban Renewal Plan for the Ten Mile Road — A Urban Renewal Project, including the attachments thereto (the "Plan"), is amended, revised, or otherwise modified by the Meridian City Council prior to the third and final reading of the ordinance approving the plan on June 21, 2016, to remove references to certain improvements, including but not limited to, irrigation and drainage facilities, improvements to the Kennedy Lateral, street lights, traffic signals, frontage improvements in an around Ten Mile and Franklin Road, and all costs related to the foregoing improvements. Such a withdrawal of consent may only be exercised at or before the June 21, 2016 meeting of the Meridian City Council. DATED this __.�_ day of 2016 TREASURE VALLEY INVESTMENTS, LLC Name: Title: PLEASE SEE ATTACHED NOTARY' mirazim shakoori 925 6480954 p.z A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss: County of 64--� On this ?;114day of 2016, before me, 13. M � �- Mirazim Shakoori, the Manager of Treasure Valley Investments, LLC, an Idaho limited liability company, personally appeared, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same in his authorized capacity, and that by his signature on the instrument the person, or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature of Notary Public [NOTARIAL SEAL] My commission expires: F MM, POMM. 0 2026975RYPU9UC •CALIFORNIATRA COSTA COUNTY. iresJUNE 1, 2017KY V V f f f! W lY1t EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR PARCEL NO. S1214233665 TREASURE VALLEY INVESTMENTS LLC A parcel of land located in the S1/2 of the NW 1/4 of Section 14, T.3N., R.1W., B.M., Meridian, Ada County; Idaho more particularly described as follows; Commencing W1/4 corner of said Section 14 from which the NE corner of said Section 14 bears North 00033'27" East, 2658.31 feet; thence along the West boundary line of said Section 14 North 00033'27" East, 1,329.11 feet to the N1/16 corner of said Section 14; thence along the North boundary line of the S1/2 of the NW 1/4 of said Section 14 South 89°10'51" East, 39.31 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING; thence continuing along said North boundary line South 89°10'51" East, 2,617.88 feet to the NW1/16 corner of said Section 14; thence continuing along said North boundary line South 89014'27" East, 1,329.40 feet to the C -N 1/16 corner of said Section 14; thence along the North-South centerline of said Section 14 South 00034'20" West, 1,038.91 feet; thence leaving said North-South centerline North 89012'27" West, 449.80 feet; thence South 00036'42" West, 290.71 feet to a point on the East-West centerline of said Section 14; thence along said East-West centerline North 89°11'30" West, 2,616.90 feet to a point on the northeasterly right-of-way line of that roadway designated as East Access Road per that Warranty Deed recorded as Instrument No. 113049411, records of Ada County, Idaho; thence along said northeasterly right-of-way line the following 6 courses and distances: thence North 39°25'54" West, 66.49 feet; thence 283.15 feet along the arc of a non -tangent curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 1,036.50 feet, a central angle of 15°39'07" and a long chord of 282.27 feet which bears North 47015'28" West; thence 124.89 feet along the arc of a non -tangent curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 1,038.31 feet, a central angle of 06053'29" and a long chord of 124.81 feet which bears North 55046'15" West; thence 474.34 feet along the arc of a non -tangent curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 1,042.50 feet, a central angle of 26°04'11" and a long chord of 470.26 feet which bears North 74059'38" West; .91 thence North 86°07'21" West, 45.02 feet; thence North 88°01'54" West, 38.23 feet to a point on the East right-of-way line of S. Ten Mile Road; thence along said East right-of-way line the following 3 courses and distances: thence North 0003327" East, 881.26 feet; thence South 86020'29" East, 13.12 feet; thence North 03°39'31" East, 21.86 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 111.60 acres, more or less. 7729 Of M S. 10 S. 11 S, 15 I S. 14 0 N 0) N t+7 N89'10'51 "W 39.31 S89'10'51"E 2617.88' NW 1/16 S89'14'27"E _ -_CN 1/16 N3'39'31 "E - T _ - - - 1329.40' ad 21.86' I Q c(0 I_ S86'20'29"E I mW IIN 13.12' Irn ON �II� ori m I J 100 <�00 QO . N MZ PARCEL #S1214223567 3- 111,60 ACRES la N J I1 I� N 86'07'21 "W I o 45,02' N C4 I vi N88'01'54"W - I • CS N89'12'27"W 38.23' I��a__ gCC�ss Co,N39'25'54"W So'36'42"W-�� 49.80' R� 66.49' 290.71' 1/4 ® _ N89'11'30"W_ r _ - -- C 1/4 S. 151S. 14 919.34'-N89'11'30"W 2616.90 dY CURVE TABLE CURVE RADIUS LENGTH CHORD DIST. CHORD BRIG. DELTA C4 1042.50 474.34 470.26 N74'59'38"W 26'04'11" C5 1038.31 124.89 124.81 N55'46'15"W 6'53'29" C6 1036.50 283.15 282.27 N47'15'28"W 15'39'07" IDAHO 1450 E, WATERTOWER ST. S U R'V"EY ' - "MER DIAN, I,AH0 63642 P.C. I20el 84&8570GROUP, 25 100 400 0 50 200 600 SCALE: 1 " = 200' EXHIBIT DRAWING FOR JOB NO. PARCEL S1214233665 1737 SHEET N0, TREASURE VALLEY -IN VESTMENTS LLC 1 LOCATED IN THE St/2 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 14, T.3N., RAW., O.M., DWG. DATE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO 6/2/2016 EXHIBIT B INFO SHEET Open Land Areas under the Idaho Urban Renewal Law and the Local Economic Development Act To plan or initiate an urban renewal project for an urban renewal area, the local governing body must determine that such an area is a deteriorated area or a deteriorating area or a combination thereof. The definition of deteriorating area, Idaho Code Section 50-2018(9), lists ten characteristics that may be present in a deteriorating area. In addition, the definition includes a reference to open land areas: ... provided, that if such deteriorating area consists of open land the conditions contained in the proviso in section 50-2008(d), Idaho Code, shall apply; The statute recognizes the possibility that a deteriorating area may consist of open land. Pursuant to Idaho Code Section 50-2008(d), an urban renewal agency cannot acquire an area of open land for residential or nonresidential uses unless the local governing body makes certain findings. The proviso also lists justifications why such acquisition "may require the exercise of governmental actions, as provided in this act..." The list includes: ...defective or unusual conditions of title, diversity of ownership, tax delinquency, improper subdivisions, outmoded street patterns, deterioration of site, economic disuse, unsuitable topography or faulty lot layouts, the need for the correlation of the area with other areas of a municipality by streets and modern traffic requirements, or any combination of such factors or other conditions which retard development of the area. In effect, to the extent the list includes characteristics not found in the standard deteriorating area definition, it provides other defining characteristics of an open land area. The Local Economic Development Act, Chapter 29, Title 50, Idaho Code, as amended (the "Act"), also addresses open land in the Act's definition of deteriorated area: (c) Any area which is predominately open and which because of obsolete platting, diversity of ownership, deterioration of structures or improvements, or otherwise, results in economic underdevelopment of the area or substantially impairs or arrests the sound growth of a municipality. The provisions of section 50- 2008(d), Idaho Code, shall apply to open areas. Idaho Code Section 50-2903(8)(c). Idaho Code Sections 50-2018(8) and (9) and 50- 2903(8)(f) require consent of any property owner whose property has been used for an agricultural operation anytime within the last three (3) consecutive years in order to allow that property to be included within a proposed urban renewal area. Consent of the property owner is not required for property that has not been used as an agricultural operation within the last three consecutive years. See also, Idaho Code §§ 50-2018(8) and (9) (8) "Deteriorated area" shall mean an area in which there is a predominance of buildings or improvements, whether residential or nonresidential, which by reason of dilapidation, deterioration, age or obsolescence, inadequate provision for ventilation, light, air, sanitation, or open spaces, high density of population and overcrowding, or the existence of conditions which endanger life or property by fire and other causes, or any combination of such factors is conducive to ill health, transmission of disease, infant mortality, juvenile delinquency, or crime, and is detrimental to the public health, safety, morals or welfare. Provided however, this definition shall not apply to any agricultural operation, as defined in section 22- 4502(2), Idaho Code, absent the consent of the owner of the agricultural operation or to any forest land as defined in section 63-1701(4), Idaho Code, absent the consent of the forest landowner, as defined in section 63-1701(5), Idaho Code, except for an agricultural operation or forest land that has not been used for three (3) consecutive years. (9) "Deteriorating area" shall mean an area which by reason of the presence of a substantial number of deteriorated or deteriorating structures, predominance of defective or inadequate street layout, faulty lot layout in relation to size, adequacy, accessibility or usefulness, insanitary or unsafe conditions, deterioration of site or other improvements, diversity of ownership, tax or special assessment delinquency exceeding the fair value of the land, defective or unusual conditions of title, or the existence of conditions which endanger life or property by fire and other causes, or any combination of such factors, substantially impairs or arrests the sound growth of a municipality, retards the provision of housing accommodations or constitutes an economic or social liability and is a menace to the public health, safety, morals or welfare in its present condition and use; provided, that if such deteriorating area consists of open land the conditions contained in the proviso in section 50-2008(d), Idaho Code, shall apply; and provided further, that any disaster area referred to in section 50-2008(g), Idaho Code, shall constitute a deteriorating area. Provided however, this definition shall not apply to any agricultural operation, as defined in section 22-4502(2), Idaho Code, absent the consent of the owner of the agricultural operation or to any forest land as defined in section 63-1701(4), Idaho Code, absent the consent of the forest landowner, as defined in section 63-1701(5), Idaho Code, except for an agricultural operation or forest land that has not been used for three (3) consecutive years. Idaho Code § 50-2008: 50-2008. Preparation and approval of plan for urban renewal project. (a) An urban renewal project for an urban renewal area shall not be planned or initiated unless the local governing body has, by resolution, determined such area to be a deteriorated area or a deteriorating area or a combination thereof and designated such area as appropriate for an urban renewal project. (b) An urban renewal agency may itself prepare or cause to be prepared an urban renewal plan, or any person or agency, public or private, may submit such a plan to an urban renewal agency. Prior to its approval of an urban renewal project, the local governing body shall submit such plan to the planning commission of the municipality, if any, for review and recommendations as to its conformity with the general plan for the development of the municipality as a whole. The planning commission shall submit its written recommendations with respect to the proposed urban renewal plan to the local governing body within sixty (60) days after receipt of the plan for review. Upon receipt of the recommendations of the planning commission, or if no recommendations are received within said sixty (60) days, then without such recommendations, the local governing body may proceed with the hearing on the proposed urban renewal project prescribed by subsection (c) hereof. (c) The local governing body shall hold a public hearing on an urban renewal project, after public notice thereof by publication in a newspaper having a general circulation in the area of operation of the municipality. The notice shall describe the time, date, place and purpose of the hearing, shall generally identify the urban renewal area covered by the plan, and shall outline the general scope of the urban renewal project under consideration. (d) Following such hearing, the local governing body may approve an urban renewal project and the plan therefor if it finds that (1) a feasible method an for the location of families who will be displaced from the urban renewal area in decent, safe and sanitary dwelling accommodations within their means and without undue hardship to such families; (2) the urban renewal plan conforms to the general plan of the municipality as a whole; (3) the urban renewal plan gives due consideration to the provision of adequate park and recreational areas and facilities that may be desirable for neighborhood improvement, with special consideration for the health, safety and welfare of children residing in the general vicinity of the site covered by the plan; and (4) the urban renewal plan will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the municipality as a whole, for the rehabilitation or redevelopment of the urban renewal area by private enterprise: Provided, that if the urban renewal area consists of an area of open land to be acquired by the urban renewal agency, such area shall not be so acquired unless (1) if it is to be developed for residential uses, the local governing body shall determine that a shortage of housing of sound standards and design which is decent, safe and sanitary exists in the municipality; that the need for housing accommodations has been or will be increased as a result of the clearance of slums in other areas; that the conditions of blight in the area and the shortage of decent, safe and sanitary housing cause or contribute to an increase in and spread of disease and crime and constitute a menace to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare; and that the acquisition of the area for residential uses is an integral part of and essential to the program of the municipality, or (2) if it is to be developed for nonresidential uses, the local governing body shall determine that such nonresidential uses are necessary and appropriate to facilitate the proper growth and development of the community in accordance with sound planning standards and local community objectives, which acquisition may require the exercise of governmental action, as provided in this act, because of defective or unusual conditions of title, diversity of ownership, tax delinquency, improper subdivisions, outmoded street patterns, deterioration of site, economic disuse, unsuitable topography or faulty lot layouts, the need for the correlation of the area with other areas of a municipality by streets and modern traffic requirements, or any combination of such factors or other conditions which retard development of the area. - (e) An urban renewal plan may be modified at any time: Provided that if modified after the lease or sale by the urban renewal agency of real property in the urban renewal project area, such modification may be conditioned upon such approval of the owner, lessee or successor in interest as the urban renewal agency may deem advisable and in any event shall be subject to such rights at law or in equity as a lessee or purchaser, or his successor or successors in interest, may be entitled to assert. (f) Upon the approval by the local governing body of an urban renewal plan or of any modification thereof, such plan or modification shall be deemed to be in full force and effect for the respective urban renewal area, and the urban renewal agency may then cause such plan or modification to be carried out in accordance with its terms. (g) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this act, where the local governing body certifies that an area is in need of redevelopment or rehabilitation as a result of a flood, fire, hurricane, earthquake, storm, or other catastrophe respecting which the governor of the state has certified the need for disaster assistance under 42 U.S.C. section 5121, or other federal law, the local governing body may approve an urban renewal plan and an urban renewal project with respect to such area without regard to the provisions of subsection (d) of this section and the provisions of this section requiring a general plan for the municipality and a public hearing on the urban renewal project. (h) Any urban renewal plan containing a revenue allocation financing provision shall include the information set forth in section 50-2905, Idaho Code, Idaho Code § 50-2903(8): (8) "Deteriorated area" means: (a) Any area, including a slum area, in which there is a predominance of buildings or improvements, whether residential or nonresidential, which by reason of dilapidation, deterioration, age or obsolescence, inadequate provision for ventilation, light, air, sanitation, or open spaces, high density of population and overcrowding, or the existence of conditions which endanger life or property by fire and other causes, or any combination of such factors, is conducive to ill health, transmission of disease, infant mortality, juvenile delinquency, or crime, and is detrimental to the public health, safety, morals or welfare. (b) Any area which by reason of the presence of a substantial number of deteriorated or deteriorating structures, predominance of defective or inadequate street layout, faulty lot layout in relation to size, adequacy, accessibility or usefulness, insanitary or unsafe conditions, deterioration of site or other improvements, diversity of ownership, tax or special assessment delinquency exceeding the fair value of the land, defective or unusual conditions of title, or the existence of conditions which endanger life or property by fire and other causes, or any combination of such factors, results in economic underdevelopment of the area, substantially impairs or arrests the sound growth of a municipality, retards the provision of housing accommodations or constitutes an economic or social liability and is a menace to the public health, safety, morals or welfare in its present condition and use. (c) Any area which is predominately open and which because of obsolete platting, diversity of ownership, deterioration of structures or improvements, or otherwise, results in economic underdevelopment of the area or substantially impairs or arrests the sound growth of a municipality. The provisions of section 50-2008(d), Idaho Code, shall apply to open areas. (d) Any area which the local governing body certifies is in need of redevelopment or rehabilitation as a result of a flood, storm, earthquake, or other natural disaster or catastrophe respecting which the governor of the state has certified the need for disaster assistance under any federal law. (e) Any area which by reason of its proximity to the border of an adjacent state is competitively disadvantaged in its ability to attract private investment, business or commercial development which would promote the purposes of this chapter. (f) "Deteriorated area" does not mean not developed beyond agricultural, or any agricultural operation as defined in section 22-4502(1), Idaho Code, or any forest land as defined in section 63-1701(4), Idaho Code, unless the owner of the agricultural operation or the forest landowner of the forest land gives written consent to be included in the deteriorated area, except for an agricultural operation or forest land that has not been used for three (3) consecutive years. EXHIBIT C TEN MILE URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT ELIGIBILITY REPORT COMES NOW Mirazim Shakoori, Manager of Treasure Valley Investments, LLC, an Idaho limited liability company, and states that Treasure Valley Investments, LLC owns certain property in the city of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, generally described as Parcel Number: S 1214234020, and more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (the "Property"), and hereby certifies: (1) that the Property has been used, within the last three (3) years, as an agricultural operation; (2) that the undersigned has reviewed the materials provided in Exhibit B, and has had an opportunity to review the urban renewal eligibility report, dated November 2015, entitled Ten Mile Urban Renewal District Eligibility Report, prepared by Phil Kushlan of Kushlan Associates, and as attached hereto as Exhibit C; and (3) that the undersigned has been advised that the urban renewal agency of the city of Meridian doing business as the Meridian Development Corporation ("MDC') would be unable to invoke eminent domain to purchase the property described above and on Exhibit A for the purpose of disposing of the property for economic development. Further, Mirazim Shakoori, as Manager of Treasure Valley Investments, LLC hereby provides consent and approval that the Property may be included within a proposed urbad renewal area, and may be deemed appropriate for inclusion within an urban renewal project area as defined by the Idaho Urban Renewal Law of 1965, Title 50, Chapter 20, Idaho Code, as amended, and the Local Economic Development Act, Title 50, Chapter 29, Idaho Code, as amended, as the property possesses certain characteristics of eligibility. Provided, however, consent may be withdrawn if the Urban Renewal Plan for the Ten Mile Road — A Urban Renewal Project, including the attachments thereto (the "Plan"), is amended, revised, or otherwise modified by the Meridian City Council prior to the third and final reading of the ordinance approving the plan on June 21, 2016, to remove references to certain improvements, including but not limited to, irrigation and drainage facilities, improvements to the Kennedy Lateral, street lights, traffic signals, frontage improvements in an around Ten Mile and Franklin Road, and all costs related to the foregoing improvements. Such a withdrawal of consent may only be exercised at or before the June 21, 2016 meeting of the Meridian City Council. DATED this 3 day of 2016 TREASURE VALLEY INVESTMENTS, LLC Name: PLEASE SEE S - d -bSGM79 SZ6 z JOO�Jeys w tzeJ 1W A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) } ss: County of :�2' C --s i-�--} On this 5!n day of fr, _ , 2416, before me, IS • M- P14`-z-- Mirazim Shakoori, the Manager of Treasure 'Valley Investments, LLC, an Idaho limited liability company, personally appeared, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same in his authorized capacity, and that by his signature on the instrument the person, or the entity upon behalf of which -the person acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature of Notary Public [NOTARIAL SEAL] My commission expires: }5.Y.1Y.Wi1 M PATEL COtdM, #2026975 1-�•. v. NOTARY PUO6C �CAUFORNIA Lam' CONTRACOSTACOUNTY Conm. vlresJUNE 1 2017 i":d✓rV.11Y.K1WVWIl1�W5MllR7t• ti 9'd +196O6ib9 SZ6 Tj00-'{eys wizei1w EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR PARCEL NO. S1214234020 TREASURE VALLEY INVESTMENTS LLC A parcel of land located in the SW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 14, T.3N., R.1W., B.M., Meridian, Ada County, Idaho being more particularly -described as follows: Commencing at the W 1/4 corner of said Section 14 from which the NE corner of said Section 14 bears North 00033'27" West, 2,658.31 feet; thence along the East-West centerline of said Section 14 South 89°11'30" East, 71.20 feet to a point on the East right-of-way line of S. Ten Mile Road, said point also being the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING, thence along said East right-of-way line the following 3 courses and distances: thence North 00°31'28" East, 236.35 feet; thence North 89°26'33" West, 46.04 feet; thence North 00033'27" East, 102.48 feet to a point on the southwesterly right-of-way line of that roadway designated as E. Access Road per that Warranty Deed recorded as Instrument No. 113049411, records of Ada County, Idaho; thence along said southwesterly right-of-way line the following 6 courses and distances; thence South 88001'54" East, 36.07 feet; thence South 89056127" East, 45.02 feet; thence 435.66 feet along the arc of a non -tangent curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 957.50 feet, a central angle of 26°04'10" and a long chord of 431.91 feet which bears South 74059'38" East; thence 115.42 feet along the arc of a non -tangent curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 959.21 feet, a central angle of 06053'39" and a long chord of 115.35 feet which bears South 61029'52" East; thence 263.21 feet along the arc of a non -tangent curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 963.50 feet, a central angle of 15°39'07" and a long chord of 262.39 feet which bears South 47015'28" East; thence South 39025'54" East, 4.71 feet to a point on the East-West centerline of said Section 14; thence along said East-West centerline North 89"11'30" West, 752.51 feet to the R AL POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 4.21 acres, more or less. �,—T-� U7729 �4 of ��RY G. cPQ' CURVE TABLE CURVE RADIUS LENGTH CHORD DIST, CHORD BRG. -DELTA C1 957.50 435.66 431.91 S74'59'38"E 26'04'10" C2 959.21 115.42 115.35 S61'29'52"E 6'53'39" C3 963.50 263.21 262.39 S47'15'28"E 15'39'07" S. 10 S. 11 S88'01'54"E S. 15 S, 14 36.07' S89'56' 27"E 45.02' f ACOESS RD NO'33'27"E �� -Cl ozM I 102.48' o;- as N89'26'33"W Lu u NI46.04' �mLd Z O U) M �I r� NI PARCEL #S1214234020 \ 4,21 ACRES 00I Z C) I I I 539'25'54"E \� 1/4 COR. 1 4.71 S. 15 S. 14 N89'11'30"W 752.51' S89'1 1'30"E d y 71.20' sG� nt Y 7729 N� I pv �0 o F \61- \�R Y G. C P� IDAHO 1450 E. WATERTOWER ST. SUITE 130 .SURVEY. MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 GROUP, P.C. (208)846-8570 . 20 120 360 0 60 240 SCALE: 1 " = 120' EXHIBIT DRAWING FOR PARCEL S1214234020 TREASURE -VALLEY INVESTMENTS LLC LOCATED IN THE SW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 SECTION 14, T.3N„ R.1W., 9,M„ MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO 14-137 1 DWG, DATE 6/2/2016 DI . INFO SHEET Open Land Areas under the Idaho Urban Renewal Law and the Local Economic Development Act To plan or initiate an urban renewal project for an urban renewal area, the local governing body must determine that such an area is a deteriorated area or a deteriorating area or a combination thereof. The definition of deteriorating area, Idaho Code Section 50-2018(9), lists ten characteristics that may be present in a deteriorating area. In addition, the definition includes a reference to open land areas: ... provided, that if such deteriorating area consists of open land the conditions contained in the proviso in section 50-2008(d), Idaho Code, shall apply; The statute recognizes the possibility that a deteriorating area may consist of open land. Pursuant to Idaho Code Section 50-2008(d), an urban renewal agency cannot acquire an area of open land for residential or nonresidential uses unless the local governing body makes certain findings. The proviso also lists justifications why such acquisition "may require the exercise of governmental actions, as provided in this act..." The list includes: ...defective or unusual conditions of title, diversity of ownership, tax delinquency, improper subdivisions, outmoded street patterns, deterioration of site, economic disuse, unsuitable topography or faulty lot layouts, the need for the correlation, of the area with other areas of a municipality by streets and modern traffic requirements, or any combination of such factors or other conditions which retard development of the area. In effect, to the extent the list includes characteristics not found in the standard deteriorating area definition, it provides other defining characteristics of an open land area. The Local Economic Development Act, Chapter 29, Title 50, Idaho Code, as amended (the "Act"), also addresses open land in the Act's definition of deteriorated area: (c) Any area which is predominately open and which because of obsolete platting, diversity of ownership, deterioration of structures or improvements, or otherwise, results in economic underdevelopment of the area or substantially impairs or arrests the sound growth of a municipality. The provisions of section 50- 2008(4), Idaho Code, shall apply to open areas. Idaho Code Section 50-2903(8)(c). Idaho Code Sections 50-2018(8) and (9) and 50- 2903(8)(f) require consent of any property owner whose property has been used for an agricultural operation anytime within the last three (3) consecutive years in order to allow that property to be included within a proposed urban renewal area. Consent of the property owner is not required for property that has not been used as an agricultural operation within the last three consecutive years. See also, Idaho Code §§ 50-201.8(8) and (9) (8) "Deteriorated area" shall mean an area in which there is a predominance of buildings or improvements, whether residential or nonresidential, which by reason of dilapidation, deterioration, age or obsolescence, inadequate provision for ventilation, light, air, sanitation, or open spaces, high density of population and overcrowding, or the existence of conditions which endanger life or property by fire and other causes, or any combination of such factors is conducive to ill health, transmission of disease, infant mortality, juvenile delinquency, or crime, and is detrimental to the public health, safety, morals or welfare. Provided however, this definition shall not apply to any agricultural operation, as defined in section 22- 4502(2), Idaho Code, absent the consent of the owner of the agricultural operation or to any forest land as defined in section 63-1701(4), Idaho Code, absent the consent of the forest landowner, as defined in section 63-1701(5), Idaho Code, except for an agricultural operation or forest land that has not been used for three (3) consecutive years. (9) "Deteriorating area" shall mean an area which by reason of the presence of a substantial number of deteriorated or deteriorating structures, predominance of defective or inadequate street layout, faulty lot layout in relation to size, adequacy, accessibility or usefulness, insanitary or unsafe conditions, deterioration of site or other improvements, diversity of ownership, tax or special assessment delinquency exceeding the fair value of the land, defective or unusual conditions of title, or the existence of conditions which endanger life or property by fire and other causes, or any combination of such factors, substantially impairs or arrests the sound growth of a municipality, retards the provision of housing accommodations or constitutes an economic or social liability and is a menace to the public health, safety, morals or welfare in its present condition and use; provided, that if such deteriorating area consists of open land the conditions contained in the proviso in section 50-2008(d), Idaho Code, shall apply; and provided further, that any disaster area referred to in section 50-2008(g), Idaho Code, shall constitute a deteriorating area. Provided however, this definition shall not apply to any agricultural operation, as defined in section 22-4502(2), Idaho Code, absent the consent of the owner of the agricultural operation or to any forest land as defined in section 63-1701(4), Idaho Code, absent the consent of the forest landowner, as defined in section 63-1701(5), Idaho Code, except for an agricultural operation or forest land that has not been used for three (3) consecutive years. Idaho Code § 50-2008: 50-2008. Preparation and approval of plan for urban renewal project. (a) An urban renewal project for an urban renewal area shall not be planned or initiated unless the local governing body has, by resolution, determined such area to be a deteriorated area or a deteriorating area or a combination thereof and designated such area as appropriate for an urban renewal project. (b) An urban renewal agency may itself prepare or cause to be prepared an urban renewal plan, or any person or agency, public or private, may submit such a plan to an urban renewal agency. Prior to its approval of an urban renewal project, the local governing body shall submit such plan to the planning commission of the municipality, if any, for review and recommendations as to its conformity with the general plan for the development of the municipality as a whole. The planning commission shall submit its written recommendations with respect to the proposed urban renewal plan to the Iocal governing body within sixty (60) days after receipt of the plan for review. Upon receipt of the recommendations of the planning commission, or if no recommendations are received within said sixty (60) days, then without such recommendations, the local governing body may proceed with the hearing on the proposed urban renewal project prescribed by subsection (c) hereof. (c) The local governing body shall hold a public hearing on an urban renewal project, after public notice thereof by publication in a newspaper having a general circulation in the area of operation of the municipality. The notice shall describe the time, date, place and purpose of the hearing, shall generally identify the urban renewal area covered by the plan, and shall outline the general scope of the urban renewal project under consideration. . (d) Following such hearing, the local governing body may approve an urban renewal project and the plan therefor if it finds that (1) a feasible method exists for the location of families who will be displaced from the urban renewal area in decent, safe and sanitary dwelling accommodations within their means and without undue hardship to such families; (2) the urban renewal plan conforms to the general plan of the municipality as a whole; (3) the urban renewal plan gives due consideration to the provision of adequate park and recreational areas and facilities that may be desirable for neighborhood improvement, with special consideration for the health, safety and welfare of children residing in the general vicinity of the site covered by the plan; and (4) the urban renewal plan will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the municipality as a whole, for the rehabilitation or redevelopment of the urban renewal area by private enterprise: Provided, that if the urban renewal area consists of an area of open land to be acquired by the urban renewal agency, such area shall not be so acquired unless (1) if it is to be developed for residential uses, the local governing body shall determine that a shortage of housing of sound standards and design which is decent, safe and sanitary exists in the municipality; that the need for housing accommodations has been or will be increased as a result of the clearance of slums in other areas; that the conditions of blight in the area and the shortage of decent, safe and sanitary housing cause or contribute to an increase in and spread of disease and crime and constitute a menace to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare; and that the acquisition of the area for residential uses is an integral part of and essential to the program of the municipality, or (2) if it is to be developed for nonresidential uses, the local governing body shall determine that such nonresidential uses are necessary and appropriate to facilitate the proper growth and development of the community in accordance with sound planning standards and local community objectives, which acquisition may require the exercise of governmental action, as provided in this act, because of defective or unusual conditions of title, diversity of ownership, tax delinquency, improper subdivisions, outmoded street patterns, deterioration of site, economic disuse, unsuitable topography or faulty lot layouts, the need for the correlation of the area with other areas of a municipality by streets and modern traffic requirements, or any combination of such factors or other conditions which retard development of the area. (e) An urban renewal plan may be modified at any time: Provided that if modified after the lease or sale by the urban renewal agency of real property in the urban renewal project area, such modification may be conditioned upon such approval of the owner, lessee or successor in interest as the urban renewal agency may deem advisable and in any event shall be subject to such rights at law or in equity as a lessee or purchaser, or his successor or successors in interest, may be entitled to assert. (f) Upon the approval by the local governing body of an urban renewal plan or of any modification thereof, such plan or modification shall be deemed to be in full force and effect for the respective urban renewal area, and the urban renewal agency may then cause such plan or modification to be carried out in accordance with its terms. (g) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this act, where the local governing body certifies that an area is in need of redevelopment or rehabilitation as a result of a flood, fire, hurricane, earthquake, storm, or other catastrophe respecting which the governor of the state has certified the need for disaster assistance under 42 U.S.C. section 5121, or other federal law, the local governing body may approve an urban renewal plan and an urban renewal project with respect to such area without regard to the provisions of subsection (d) of this section and the provisions of this section requiring a general plan for the municipality and a public hearing on the urban renewal project. (h) Any urban renewal plan containing a revenue allocation financing provision shall include the information set forth in section 50-2905, Idaho Code. Idaho Code § 50-2903(8): (8) "Deteriorated area" means: (a) Any area, including a slum area, in which there is a predominance of buildings or improvements, whether residential or nonresidential, which by reason of dilapidation, deterioration, age or obsolescence, inadequate provision for ventilation, light, air, sanitation, or open spaces, high density of population and overcrowding, or the existence of conditions which endanger life or property by fire and other causes, or any combination of such factors, is conducive to ill health, transmission of disease, infant mortality, juvenile delinquency, or crime, and is detrimental to the public health, safety, morals or welfare. (b) Any area which by reason of the presence of a substantial number of deteriorated or deteriorating structures, predominance of defective or inadequate street layout, faulty lot layout in relation to size, adequacy, accessibility or usefulness, insanitary or unsafe conditions, deterioration of site or other improvements, diversity of ownership, tax or special assessment delinquency exceeding the fair value of the land, defective or unusual conditions of title, or the existence of conditions which endanger life or property by fire and other causes, or any combination of such factors, results in economic underdevelopment of the area, substantially impairs or arrests the sound growth of a municipality, retards the provision of housing accommodations or constitutes an economic or social liability and is a menace to the public health, safety, morals or welfare in its present condition and use. (c) Any area which is predominately open and which because of obsolete platting, diversity of ownership, deterioration of structures or improvements, or otherwise, results in economic underdevelopment of the area or substantially impairs or arrests the sound growth of a municipality. The provisions of section 50-2008(d), Idaho Code, shall apply to open areas. (d) Any area which the local governing body certifies is in need of redevelopment or rehabilitation as a result of a flood, storm, earthquake, or other natural disaster or catastrophe respecting which the governor of the state has certified the need for disaster assistance under any federal law. (e) Any area which by reason of its proximity to the border of an adjacent state is competitively disadvantaged in its ability to attract private investment, business or commercial development which would promote the purposes of this chapter. (f) "Deteriorated area" does not mean not developed beyond agricultural, or any agricultural operation as defined in section 22-4502(1), Idaho Code, or any forest land as defined in section 63-1701(4), Idaho Code, unless the owner of the agricultural operation or the forest landowner of the forest land gives written consent to be included in the deteriorated area, except for an agricultural operation or forest land that has not been used for three (3) consecutive years. EXHIBIT C TEN MILE URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT ELIGIBILITY REPORT COMES NOW Mirazim Shakoori, Manager of Treasure Valley Investments, LLC, an Idaho limited liability company, and states that Treasure Valley Investments, LLC owns certain property in the city of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, generally described as Parcel Number: S 1214223567, and more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (the "Property"), and hereby certifies: (1) that the Property has been used, within the last three (3) years, as an agricultural operation; (2) that the undersigned has reviewed the materials provided in Exhibit B, and has had an opportunity to review the urban renewal eligibility report, dated November 2015, entitled Ten Mile Urban Renewal District Eligibility Report, prepared by Phil Kushlan of Kushlan Associates, and as attached hereto as Exhibit C; and (3) that the undersigned has been advised that the urban renewal agency of the city of Meridian doing business as the Meridian Development Corporation ("MDC") would be unable to invoke eminent domain to purchase the property described above and on Exhibit A for the purpose of disposing of the property for economic development. Further, Mirazim Shakoori, as Manager of Treasure Valley mirazim shakoori 925 6480954 p.3 Property may be included within a proposed urban renewal area, and may be deemed appropriate for inclusion within an urban renewal project area as defined by the Idaho Urban Renewal Law of 1965, Title 50, Chapter 20, Idaho Code, as amended, and the Local Economic Development Act, Title 50, Chapter 29, Idaho Code, as amended, as the property possesses certain characteristics of eligibility. Provided, however, consent may be withdrawn if the Urban Renewal Plan for the Ten Mile Road — A Urban Renewal Project, including the attachments thereto (the "Plan"), is amended, revised, or otherwise modified by the Meridian City Council prior to the third and final reading of the ordinance approving the plan on June 21, 2016, to remove references to certain improvements, including but not limited to, irrigation and drainage facilities, improvements to the Kennedy Lateral, street lights, traffic signals, frontage improvements in an around Ten Mile and Franklin Road, and all costs related to the foregoing improvements. Such a withdrawal of consent may only be exercised at or before the June 21, 2016 meeting of the Meridian City Council. DATED this day of��.,, 2016 TREASURE 'VALLEY INVESTMENTS, LLC I-/'�,�"I ` Name: Title: i PLEASE SEE if r' mirazim shakoori 925 6480954 p.4 A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss: County of On this 'Yoi day of 2016, before me, Mirazim Shakoori, the Manager of Treasure Valley Investments, LLC, an Idaho limited liability company, personally appeared, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same in his authorized capacity, and that by his signature on the instrument the person, or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY'' OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature of Notary Public [NOTARIAL SEAL] My commission expires: lS►- 7 COMM. # 2026975 NOTARY PUBLIC •CALIFORNIA � ,; CONTRACOSTACOUNIY r ., } CcrnrcExpfesJUNE1,2017 } ti.wiwrnvrw xr.�vw.w+�vr�vrnM�ti �{ EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR PARCEL NO. S1214223567 TREASURE VALLEY INVESTMENTS LLC A parcel of land located in the NW 1/4 of the NW1/4 of Section 14, T.3N., RAW., B.M., Meridian, Ada County, Idaho more particularly described as follows: Commencing W1/4 corner of said Section 14 from which the NE corner of said Section 14 bears North 00033'27" East, 2658.31 feet; thence along the West boundary line of said Section 14 North 00033'27" East, 1,329.11 feet to the N1/16 corner of said Section 14; thence along the South boundary line of the NW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of said Section 14 South 89°10'51" East, 39.31 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING; thence leaving said South boundary line North 03°39'31" East, 14.33 feet to a point on the centerline of the Kennedy Lateral; _ thence along said centerline the following 9 courses and distances: thence North 66050'27" East, 186.41 feet; thence 92.42 feet along the arc of a curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 199.99 feet, a central angle of 26028'40" and a long chord of 91.60 feet which bears North 80°04'47" East; thence South 86040'09" East, 156.20 feet; thence 107.70 feet along the arc of a curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 199.99 feet, a central angle of 30°51'16" and a long chord of 106.40 feet which bears North 77054'13" East; thence North 62°27'51" East, 91.30 feet; thence 68.61 feet along the arc of a curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 69.99 feet, a central angle of 56010'12" and a long chord of 65.90 feet which bears South 89°27'03" East; thence South 61°20'51" East, 85.70 feet; thence South 53011'03" East, 198.60 feet; thence South 50058'27" East, 17.80 feet to a point on the South boundary line of the NW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of said Section 14; thence along said South Boundary line North 89°10'51" West, 917.48 feet to tl POINT OF BEGINNING, Containing 2.09 acres, more or less. YG S50'58'27"E 17.80' 'A/ y i S61'20'S1 85,70' i r� U r ti cD 6� Lo d- cA� U � Q 0) 0 �1 0� N1 � Q a W( (. IN O � co 00 1 N( KENNEDY LATERAL 2 rn a a S89'10'51 "E- 39.31' 1329,20' 0 u7 ci vi 20 120 0 60 240 SCALE: 1 " = 120' rn W c ia). 72 9 po c�Fc�� o � G P���� Y G. 360 CURVE TABLE CURVE RADIUS LENGTH CHORD DIST. CHORD BRIG. DELTA C1 199.99 92.42 91.60 N80'04'47"E 26'28'40" C2 199.99 107.70 106.40 N77'54'13"E 30'51'16" C3 69.99. 68.61 65.90 S89'27'03"E 56'10'12" -N 3'39' 31 "E 14.33' _ __~1329.11'_ ui `D NO'33'27"E 2658.31' BASIS OF BEARING to Z S. TENMILE RD. V) IDAHO 1450 E. WATERTOWER ST. Q / �/ S U R SUITE 130 '- �VE i - ' ' -MERIDIAN; IDAHO 83642 GROUP, P.C. (208) 848-0570 EXHIBIT DRAWING FOR d"a "D. PARCEL S1214223567 1137 SHEET N0, TREASURE' VALLEY INVESTMENTS- -LLC - 1 . LOCATED IN THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 14, T.3N., RAW., B.M., DWG. DATE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO 6/2/2016 EXHIBIT B INFO SHEET Open Land Areas under the Idaho Urban Renewal Law and the Local Economic Development Act To plan or initiate an urban renewal project for an urban renewal area, the local governing body must determine that such an area is a deteriorated area or a deteriorating area or a combination thereof. The definition of deteriorating area, Idaho Code Section 50-2018(9), lists ten characteristics that may be present in a deteriorating area. In addition, the definition includes a reference to open land areas: ... provided, that if such deteriorating area consists of open land the conditions contained in the proviso in section 50-2008(d), Idaho Code, shall apply; The statute recognizes the possibility that a deteriorating area may consist of open land. Pursuant to Idaho Code Section 50-2008(d), an urban renewal agency cannot acquire an area of open land for residential or nonresidential uses unless the local governing body makes certain findings. The proviso also lists justifications why such acquisition "may require the exercise of governmental actions, as provided in this act..." The list includes: ... defective or unusual conditions of title, diversity of ownership, tax delinquency, improper subdivisions, outmoded street patterns, deterioration of site, economic disuse, unsuitable topography or faulty lot layouts, the need for the correlation of the area with other areas of a municipality by streets and modern traffic requirements, or any combination of such factors or other conditions which retard development of the area. In effect, to the extent the list includes characteristics not found in the standard deteriorating area definition, it provides other defining characteristics of an open land area. The Local Economic Development Act, Chapter 29, Title 50, Idaho Code, as amended (the "Act"), also addresses open land in the Act's definition of deteriorated area: (c) Any area which is predominately open and which because of obsolete platting, diversity of ownership, deterioration of structures or improvements, or otherwise, results in economic underdevelopment of the area or substantially impairs or arrests the sound growth of a municipality. The provisions of section 50- 2008(d), Idaho Code, shall apply to open areas. Idaho Code Section 50-2903(8)(c). Idaho Code Sections 50-2018(8) and (9) and 50- 2903(8)(f) require consent of any property owner whose property has been used for an agricultural operation anytime within the last three (3) consecutive years in order to allow that property to be included within a proposed urban renewal area. Consent of the property owner is not required for property that has not been used as an agricultural operation within the last three consecutive years. See also, Idaho Code §§ 50-2018(8) and (9) (8) "Deteriorated area" shall mean an area in which there is a predominance of buildings or improvements, whether residential or nonresidential, which by reason of dilapidation, deterioration, age or obsolescence, inadequate provision for ventilation, light, air, sanitation, or open spaces, high density of population and overcrowding, or the existence of conditions which endanger life or property by fire and other causes, or any combination of such factors is conducive to ill health, transmission of disease, infant mortality, juvenile delinquency, or crime, and is detrimental to the public health, safety, morals or welfare. Provided however, this definition shall not apply to any agricultural operation, as defined in section 22- 4502(2), Idaho Code, absent the consent of the owner of the agricultural operation or to any forest land as defined in section 63-1701(4), Idaho Code, absent the consent of the forest landowner, as defined in section 63-1701(5), Idaho Code, except for an agricultural operation or forest land that has not been used for three (3),consecutive years. (9) 'Deteriorating area" shall mean an area which by reason of the presence of a substantial number of deteriorated or deteriorating structures, predominance of defective or inadequate street layout, faulty lot layout in relation to size, adequacy, accessibility or usefulness, insanitary or unsafe conditions, deterioration of site or other improvements, diversity of ownership, tax or special assessment delinquency exceeding the fair value of the land, defective or unusual conditions of title, or the existence of conditions which endanger life or property by fire and other causes, or any combination of such factors, substantially impairs or arrests the sound growth of a municipality, retards the provision of housing accommodations or constitutes an economic or social liability and is a menace to the public health, safety, morals or welfare in its present condition and use; provided, that if such deteriorating area consists of open land the conditions contained in the proviso in section 50-2008(d), Idaho Code, shall apply; and provided further, that any disaster area referred to in section 50-2008(g), Idaho Code, shall constitute a deteriorating area. Provided however, this definition shall not apply to any agricultural operation, as defined in section 22-4502(2), Idaho Code, absent the consent of the owner of the agricultural operation or to any forest land as defined in section 63-1701(4), Idaho Code, absent the consent of the forest landowner, as defined in section 63-1701(5), Idaho Code, except for an agricultural operation or forest land that has not been used for three (3) consecutive years. Idaho Code § 50-2008: 50-2008. Preparation and approval of plan for urban renewal project. (a) An urban renewal project for an urban renewal area shall not be planned or initiated unless the local governing body has, by resolution, determined such area to be a deteriorated area or a deteriorating area or a combination thereof and designated such area as appropriate for an urban renewal project. (b) An urban renewal agency may itself prepare or cause to be prepared an urban renewal plan, or any person or agency, public or private, may submit such a plan to an urban renewal agency. Prior to its approval of an urban renewal project, the local governing body shall submit such plan to the planning commission of the municipality, if any, for review and recommendations as to its conformity with the general plan for the development of the municipality as a whole. The planning commission shall submit its written recommendations with respect to the proposed urban renewal plan to the local governing body within sixty (60) days after receipt of the plan for review. Upon receipt of the recommendations of the planning commission, or if no recommendations are received within said sixty (60) days, then without such recommendations, the local governing body may proceed with the hearing on the proposed urban renewal project prescribed by subsection (c) hereof. (e) The local governing body shall hold a public hearing on an urban renewal project, after public notice thereof by publication in a newspaper having a general circulation in the area of operation of the municipality. The notice shall describe the time, date, place and purpose of the hearing, shall generally identify the urban renewal area covered by the plan, and shall outline the general scope of the urban renewal project under consideration. (d) Following such hearing, the local governing body may approve an urban renewal project and the plan therefor if it finds that (1) a feasible method exists for the Iocation of families who will be displaced from the urban renewal area in decent, safe and sanitary dwelling accommodations within their means and without undue hardship to such families; (2) the urban renewal plan conforms to the general plan of the municipality as a whole; (3) the urban renewal plan gives due consideration to the provision of adequate park and recreational areas and facilities that may be desirable for neighborhood improvement, with special consideration for the health, safety and welfare of children residing in the general vicinity of the site covered by the plan; and (4) the urban renewal plan will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the municipality as a whole, for the rehabilitation or redevelopment of the urban renewal area by private enterprise: Provided, that if the urban renewal area consists of an area of open land to be acquired by the urban renewal agency, such area shall not be so acquired unless (1) if it is to be developed for residential uses, the local governing body shall determine that a shortage of housing of sound standards and design which is decent, safe and sanitary exists in the municipality; that the need for housing accommodations has been or will be increased as a result of the clearance of slums in other areas; that the conditions of blight in the area and the shortage of decent, safe and sanitary housing cause or contribute to an increase in and spread of disease and crime and constitute a menace to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare; and that the acquisition of the area for residential uses is an integral part of and essential to the program of the municipality, or (2) if it is to be developed for nonresidential uses, the local governing body shall determine that such nonresidential uses are necessary and appropriate to facilitate the proper growth and development of the community in accordance with sound planning standards and local community objectives, which acquisition may require the exercise of governmental action, as provided in this act, because of defective or unusual conditions of title, diversity of ownership, tax delinquency, improper subdivisions, outmoded street patterns, deterioration of site, economic disuse, unsuitable topography or faulty lot layouts, the need for the correlation of the area with other areas of a municipality by streets and modern traffic requirements, or any combination of such factors or other conditions which retard development of the area. (e) An urban renewal plan may be modified at any time: Provided that if modified after the lease or sale by the urban renewal agency of real property in the urban renewal project area, such modification may be conditioned upon such approval of the owner, lessee or successor in interest as the urban renewal agency may deem advisable and in any event shall be subject to such rights at law or in equity as a lessee or purchaser, or his successor or successors in interest, may be entitled to assert. (f) Upon the approval by the local governing body of an urban renewal plan or of any modification thereof, such plan or modification shall be deemed to be in full force and effect for the respective urban renewal area, and the urban renewal agency may then cause such plan or modification to be carried out in accordance with its terms. (g) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this act, where the local governing body certifies that an area is in need of redevelopment or rehabilitation as a result of a flood, fire, hurricane, earthquake, storm, or other catastrophe respecting which the governor of the state has certified the need for disaster assistance under 42 U.S.C. section 5121, or other federal law, the local governing body may approve an urban renewal plan and an urban renewal project with respect to such area without regard to the provisions of subsection (d) of this section and the provisions of this section requiring a general plan for the municipality and a public hearing on the urban renewal project. (h) Any urban renewal plan containing a revenue allocation financing provision shall include the information set forth in section 50-2905, Idaho Code. Idaho Code § 50-2903(8): (8) "Deteriorated area" means: (a) Any area, including a slum area, in which there is a predominance of buildings or improvements, whether residential or nonresidential, which by reason of dilapidation, deterioration, age or obsolescence, inadequate provision for ventilation, light, air, sanitation, or open spaces, high density of population and overcrowding, or the existence of conditions which endanger life or property by fire and other causes, or any combination of such factors, is conducive to ill health, transmission of disease, infant mortality, juvenile delinquency, or crime, and is detrimental to the public health, safety, morals or welfare. (b) Any area which by reason of the presence of a substantial number of deteriorated or deteriorating structures, predominance of defective or inadequate street layout, faulty lot layout in relation to size, adequacy, accessibility or usefulness, insanitary or unsafe conditions, deterioration of site or other improvements, diversity of ownership, tax or special assessment delinquency exceeding the fair value of the land, defective or unusual conditions of title, or the existence of conditions which endanger life or property by fire and other causes, or any combination of such factors, results in economic underdevelopment of the area, substantially impairs or arrests the sound growth of a municipality, retards the provision of housing accommodations or constitutes an economic or social liability and is a menace to the public health, safety, morals or welfare in its present condition and use. (c) Any area which is predominately open and which because of obsolete platting, diversity of ownership, deterioration of structures or improvements, or otherwise, results in economic underdevelopment of the area or substantially impairs or arrests the sound growth of a municipality. The provisions of section 50-2008(d), Idaho Code, shall apply to open areas. (d) Any area which the local governing body certifies is in need of redevelopment or rehabilitation as a result of a flood, storm, earthquake, or other natural disaster or catastrophe respecting which the governor of the state has certified the need for disaster assistance under any federal law. (e) Any area which by reason of its proximity to the border of an adjacent state is competitively disadvantaged in its ability to attract private investment, business or commercial development which would promote the purposes of this chapter, (f) "Deteriorated area" does not mean not developed beyond agricultural, or any agricultural operation as defined in section 22-4502(1), Idaho Code, or any forest land as defined in section 63-1701(4), Idaho Code, unless the owner of the agricultural operation or the forest landowner of the forest land gives written consent to be included in the deteriorated area, except for an agricultural operation or forest land that has not been used for three (3) consecutive years. EXHIBIT C TEN MILE URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT ELIGIBILITY REPORT CONSENT FORM COME NOW Ten Mile Crossing Inc., and states that it owns certain property generally described as Parcel 51214223211, and more particularly described as Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (the "Property"), and hereby certifies: (1). that the Property has been used, within the last three (3) years, as an agricultural operation; and (2). that the undersigned has reviews the applicable Idaho Code provisions and the materials provided in Exhibit B [OPEN LAND INFORMATION SHEET/STATUSES], and has had an opportunity to review the urban renewal eligibility report, dated November , entitled 2015Ten Mile Urban Renewal District Eligibility Report, prepared by Phil Kushlan of Kushlan Associates, and as attached hereto as Exhibit C [ELIGIBILITY REPORT]. Further, Ten Mile Crossing Inc. hereby provides its consent and approval that the Property may be included within a proposed urban renewal area, and may be deemed appropriate for inclusion within an urban renewal project area as defined by the Idaho Urban Renewal Law of 1965, Title 50, Chapter 20, Idaho Code, as amended, and the Local Economic Development Act of 1988, Title 50, Chapter 29, Idaho Code, as amended, as the property possesses certain characteristics of eligibility. DATED this Wday of June, 2016. TEN MILE CROSSING INC., an Idaho corporation By: flG�i, David W. Turnbull, President STATE OF IDAHO ) ss. County of Ada ) On this day of , in the year of 2016, before me a Notary Public of said State, personally appeared David W. Turnbull, known or identified to me to be the President of Ten Mile Crossing Inc., the company that executed the instrument or the person who executed the instrument on behalf of said company, and acknowledged to me that such company executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written.' f � ANIAND'A !\A C;(. HHS ( Notary Public for Idaho p NOTi�'t,)Bl.. G My Commission expires 6 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION A parcel of land located in the Northwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 14, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest corner of Section 14, of said Township 3 North, Range 1 West; Thence South 00'33'33" West, a distance of 392.01 feet on the Westerly line of said Section 14; Thence South 89°26'50" East, a distance of 48.00 feet to a point on the easterly right-of-way line of South Ten Mile Road, said point being the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence South 89'26'50" East, a distance of 353.35 feet; Thence South 00'33'10" West, a distance of 667.72 feet to a point of curve; Thence 8.35 feet on the arc of a curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 49.50 feet, a central angle of 09°40'03", a chord bearing of South 05'23'12" West, and a chord length of 8.34 feet; Thence South 10'13'14" West, a distance of 161.11 feet to the centerline of the Kennedy Lateral; Thence on the centerline of the Kennedy Lateral for the following courses and distances: Thence North 86'40'15" West, a distance of 73.07 feet to a point of curve; Thence 92.42 feet on the arc of a curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 199.99 feet, a central angle of 26'28'40", a chord bearing of South 80'05'03" West, and a chord length of 91.60 feet; Thence South 66'50'21" West, a distance of 186.29 feet to a point on the easterly right-of-way line of South Ten Mile Road; Thence leaving the centerline of the Kennedy Lateral and on the easterly right-of-way line of South Ten Mile Road for the following courses and distances: Thence North 03'39'37" East, a distance of 20.72 feet; Thence North 86'20'23" West, a distance of 16.21 feet; Thence North 00'33'51" East, a distance of 4.41 feet; Thence North 10'47'07" East, a distance of 43.38 feet; Thence North 53'31'44" East, a distance of 54.14 feet; Thence North 03'31'44" East, a distance of 66.88 feet; Thence North 49026'27"West, a distance of 43.98 feet; Thence North 03'3937" East, a distance of 45.01 feet; Thence North 01'43'37" West, a distance of 132.83 feet to a point of curve; Thence 19.74 feet on the arc of a curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 7272.00 feet, a central angle of 00'09'20", a chord bearing of North 02'55'55" East, and a chord length of 19.74 feet; Thence North 89'41'52" East, a distance of 4.35 feet; Thence North 00'33'33" East, a distance of 529.09 feet to the point of beginning. The above described parcel contains 6.88 acres more or less. PREPARED BY: THE LAND GROUP, INC. O James R. Washburn V P. 7880 2 s`f-ZJ-ZDI Site Planning • landscape Architecture • Civil Engineering • Golf Course Irrigation & Engineering OF 1� 462 E. Shore Drive, Suite 100 • Eagle, Idaho 83616 • P 208.939.4041 • www.thelandl k. WA EXHIBIT B INFO SHEET Open Land Areas under the Idaho Urban Renewal Law and the Local Economic Development Act To plan or initiate an urban renewal project for an urban renewal area, the local governing body must determine that such an area is a deteriorated area or a deteriorating area or a combination thereof. The attached definition of deteriorating area, Idaho Code Section 50-2018(9) lists ten characteristics that may be present in a deteriorating area. In addition, the definition includes a reference to open land areas: ". . . provided, that if such deteriorating area consists of open land the conditions contained in the proviso in section 50-2008(d), Idaho Code, shall apply." The statute recognizes the possibility that a deteriorating area may consist of open land. Pursuant to Idaho Code Section 50-2008(4), an urban renewal agency cannot acquire an area of open land for residential or nonresidential uses unless the local governing body makes certain findings. The proviso also lists justifications why such acquisition "may require the exercise of governmental actions, as provided in this act..." The list includes: "defective or unusual conditions of title, diversity of ownership, tax delinquency, improper subdivisions, outmoded street patterns, deterioration of site, economic disuse, unsuitable topography or faulty lot layouts, the need for the correlation of the area with other areas of a municipality by streets and modem traffic requirements, or any combination of such factors or other conditions which retard development of the area" In effect, to the extent the list includes characteristics not found in the standard deteriorating area definition, it provides other defining characteristics of an open land area. The Local Economic Development Act, Chapter 29, Title 50, Idaho Code, as amended (the "Act"), also addresses open land in the Act's definition of deteriorated area: (c) Any area which is predominately open and which because of obsolete platting, diversity of ownership, deterioration of structures or improvements, or otherwise, results in economic underdevelopment of the area or substantially impairs or arrests the sound grown of a municipality. The provisions of Section 50- 2008(d), Idaho Code, shall apply to open areas. Idaho Code Sections 50-2018(8) and (9) and 50-2903(8)(0 require consent of any property owner whose property has been used for an agricultural operation anytime within the last three (3) consecutive years in order to allow that property to be included within a proposed urban renewal area. Consent of the property owner is not required for property that has not been used as an agricultural operation within the last three consecutive years. Attached hereto, please find copies of the following statutes: 50-2018(8) and (9),50-2008, and SO -2903(8). EXHIBIT C TEM MILE URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT ELIGIBILITY REPORT (Sent under separate cover due to file size) CONSENT FORM COME NOW SCS Brighton LLC, and states that it owns certain property generally described as Parcel 51214212560, and more particularly described as Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (the "Property"), and hereby certifies: (1). that the Property has been used, within the last three (3) years, as an agricultural operation; and (2), that the undersigned has reviews the applicable Idaho Code provisions and the materials provided in Exhibit B [OPEN LAND INFORMATION SHEET/STATUSES], and has had an opportunity to review the urban renewal eligibility report, dated November , entitled 2015Ten Mile Urban Renewal District Eligibility Report, prepared by Phil Kushlan of Kushlan Associates, and as attached hereto as Exhibit C [ELIGIBILITY REPORT]. Further, SCS Brighton LLC hereby provides its consent and approval that the Property may be included within a proposed urban renewal area, and may be deemed appropriate for inclusion within an urban renewal project area as defined by the Idaho Urban Renewal Law of 1965, Title 50, Chapter 20, Idaho Code, as amended, and the Local Economic Development Act of 1988, Title 50, Chapter 29, Idaho Code, as amended, as the property possesses certain characteristics of eligibility. DATED this _ day of June, 2016 SCS BRIGHTON LLC an Idaho limited liability company By: Brighton Corporation, an Idaho corporation, Manager By: Blake R. Alder, President STATE OF IDAHO ) SS. County of Ada ) On this 2nd day of June, in the year of 2016, before me a Notary Public of said State, personally appeared Blake R. Alder, known or identified to me to be the President of Brighton Corporation, the Manager of SCS Brighton LLC, the company that executed the instrument or the person who executed the instrument on behalf of said company, and acknowledged to me that such company executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and pffixed my official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. tr, r.NotarblicfoIdahAMANDA! E I IARN PUBLI My Comm'%ission expires s(&l'? STATE OF I D ��� EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE NORTHEAST OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 WEST, BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT NORTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 14; THENCE NORTH 89037'56" WEST, 1,328.98 FEET ALONG THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID SECTION 14 TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 14; THENCE SOUTH 00006'37" WEST, 69.50 FEET ALONG THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 14 TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING: THENCE SOUTH 89037'56" EAST, 249.00 FEET ALONG A LINE PARALLEL TO THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID SECTION 14; THENCE SOUTH 00006'37" WEST, 635.21 FEET ALONG A LINE PARALLEL TO THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 14 TO THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF THE TEN MILE STUB DRAIN; THENCE SOUTH 89023'03" WEST, 249.02 FEET ALONG THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF THE TEN MILE STUB DRAIN TO THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 14; THENCE NORTH 00006'37" EAST, 639.49 FEET ALONG THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 14 TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXHIBIT B INFO SHEET Open Land Areas under the Idaho Urban Renewal Law and the Local Economic Development Act To plan or initiate an urban renewal project for an urban renewal area, the local governing body must determine that such an area is a deteriorated area or a deteriorating area or a combination thereof. The attached definition of deteriorating area, Idaho Code Section 50-2018(9) lists ten characteristics that may be present in a deteriorating area. In addition, the definition includes a reference to open land areas: "... provided, that if such deteriorating area consists of open land the conditions contained in the proviso in section 50-2008(4), Idaho Code, shall apply." The statute recognizes the possibility that a deteriorating area may consist of open land. Pursuant to Idaho Code Section 50-2008(d), an urban renewal agency cannot acquire an area of open land for residential or nonresidential uses unless the local governing body makes certain findings. The proviso also lists justifications why such acquisition "may require the exercise of governmental actions, as provided in this act..." The list includes: "defective or unusual conditions of title, diversity of ownership, tax delinquency, improper subdivisions, outmoded street patterns, deterioration of site, economic disuse, unsuitable topography or faulty lot layouts, the need for the correlation of the area with other areas of a municipality by streets and modem traffic requirements, or any combination of such factors or other conditions which retard development of the area" In effect, to the extent the list includes characteristics not found in the standard deteriorating area definition, it provides other defining characteristics of an open land area. The Local Economic Development Act, Chapter 29, Title 50, Idaho Code, as amended (the "Act"), also addresses open land in the Act's definition of deteriorated area: (c) Any area which is predominately open and which because of obsolete platting, diversity of ownership, deterioration of structures or improvements, or otherwise, results in economic underdevelopment of the area or substantially impairs or arrests the sound grown of a municipality. The provisions of Section 50- 2008(d), Idaho Code, shall apply to open areas. Idaho Code Sections 50-2018(8) and (9) and 50-2903(8)(0 require consent of any property owner whose property has been used for an agricultural operation anytime within the last three (3) consecutive years in order to allow that property to be included within a proposed urban renewal area. Consent of the property owner is not required for property that has not been used as an agricultural operation within the last three consecutive years. Attached hereto, please find copies of the following statutes:50-2018(8) and (9),50-2008, and SO -2903(8). EXHIBIT C TEN MILE URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT ELIGIBILITY REPORT (sent under separate cover due to file size) CONSENT FORM COME NOW _SCS Brighton LLC, and states that it owns certain property generally described as Parcel S1214212720, and more particularly described as Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (the "Property"), and hereby certifies: (1). that the Property has been used, within the last three (3) years, as an agricultural operation; and (2). that the undersigned has reviews the applicable Idaho Code provisions and the materials provided in Exhibit B [OPEN LAND INFORMATION SHEET/STATUSES], and has had an opportunity to review the urban renewal eligibility report, dated November , entitled 2015Ten Mile Urban Renewal District Eligibility Report, prepared by Phil Kushlan of Kushlan Associates, and as attached hereto as Exhibit C [ELIGIBILITY REPORT]. Further, SCS Brighton LLC hereby provides its consent and approval that the Property may be included within a proposed urban renewal area, and may be deemed appropriate for inclusion within an urban renewal project area as defined by the Idaho Urban Renewal Law of 1965, Title 50, Chapter 20, Idaho Code, as amended, and the Local Economic Development Act of 1988, Title 50, Chapter 29, Idaho Code, as amended, as the property possesses certain characteristics of eligibility. DATED this day of June, 2016 SCS BRIGHTON LLC an Idaho limited liability company By: Brighton Corporation, an Idaho corporation, Manager By: _;a Blake R. Alder, President STATE OF IDAHO ) ss. County of Ada ) On this 2nd day of June, in the year of 2016, before me a Notary Public of said State, personally appeared Blake R. Alder, known or identified to me to be the President of Brighton Corporation, the Manager of SCS Brighton LLC, the company that executed the instrument or the person who executed the instrument on behalf of said company, and acknowledged to me that such company executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. / j VLV - r -- Notary Public for I�rho f N �1c"'UR �-�`� My Commission expires W1 A N0TAR Y PUBLIC- STATE OF IDAHO EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION A parcel of land situate In the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 14, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, being more particularly described as follows' Commencing at north quarter corner of said Section 14; thence N89°3T56"VII, 1,328.98 feet along the northerly boundary of said Section 14 to the northwest comer of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of said Section 14; thence S00°06'37W, 708.99 feet along the westerly boundary of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of said Section 14 to northerly boundary of the Ten Mile Drain and to the Point of Beginning: Thence N89°23'03"E, 249.02 feet along the northerly boundary of the Ten Mile Drain; Thende S00°0637W, 120.00 feet along a. line parallel to the westerly boundary of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of said Section 14 to the southerly boundary of the Ten Mile Drain; Thence S89023'03"W, 249.01 feet along the southerly boundary of the Ten Mlle Drain to the westerly boundary of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of said Section 14; Thence N00°06'37°E, 120.00 feet along the westerly boundary of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of said Section 14 to the Point of Beginning. EXHIBIT B INFO SHEET Open Land Areas under the Idaho Urban Renewal Law and the Local Economic Development Act To plan or initiate an urban renewal project for an urban renewal area, the local governing body must determine that such an area is a deteriorated area or a deteriorating area or a combination thereof. The attached definition of deteriorating area, Idaho Code Section 50-2018(9) lists ten characteristics that may be present in a deteriorating area. In addition, the definition includes a reference to open land areas: "... provided, that if such deteriorating area consists of open land the conditions contained in the proviso in section 50-2008(d), Idaho Code, shall apply." The statute recognizes the possibility that a deteriorating area may consist of open land. Pursuant to Idaho Code Section 50-2008(d), an urban renewal agency cannot acquire an area of open land for residential or nonresidential uses unless the local governing body makes certain findings. The proviso also lists justifications why such acquisition "may require the exercise of governmental actions, as provided in this act..." The list includes: "defective or unusual conditions of title, diversity of ownership, tax delinquency, improper subdivisions, outmoded street patterns, deterioration of site, economic disuse, unsuitable topography or faulty lot layouts, the need for the correlation of the area with other areas of a municipality by streets and modem traffic requirements, or any combination of such factors or other conditions which retard development of the area" In effect, to the extent the list includes characteristics not found in the standard deteriorating area definition, it provides other defining characteristics of an open land area. The Local Economic Development Act, Chapter 29, Title 50, Idaho Code, as amended (the "Act"), also addresses open land in the Act's definition of deteriorated area: (c) Any area which is predominately open and which because of obsolete platting, diversity of ownership, deterioration of structures or improvements, or otherwise, results in economic underdevelopment of the area or substantially impairs or arrests the sound grown of a municipality. The provisions of Section 50- 2008(d), Idaho Code, shall apply to open areas. Idaho Code Sections 50-2018(8) and (9) and 50-2903(8)(0 require consent of any property owner whose property has been used for an agricultural operation anytime within the last three (3) consecutive years in order to allow that property to be included within a proposed urban renewal area. Consent of the property owner is not required for property that has not been used as an agricultural operation within the last three consecutive years. Attached hereto, please find copies of the following statutes: 50-2018(8) and (9),50-2008, and SO -2903(8). EXHIBIT C TEN MILE URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT ELIGIBILITY REPORT (Sent under separate cover due to file size) CONSENT FORM COME NOW SCS Brighton LLC, and states that it owns certain property generally described as Parcel S1214212800, and more particularly described as Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (the "Property"), and hereby certifies: (1). that the Property has been used, within the last three (3) years, as an agricultural operation; and (2). that the undersigned has reviews the applicable Idaho Code provisions and the materials provided in Exhibit B [OPEN LAND INFORMATION SHEET/STATUSES], and has had an opportunity to review the urban renewal eligibility report, dated November, entitled 2015Ten Mile Urban Renewal District Eligibility Report, prepared by Phil Kushlan of Kushlan Associates, and as attached hereto as Exhibit C [ELIGIBILITY REPORT]. Further, SCS Brighton LLC hereby provides its consent and approval that the Property may be included within a proposed urban renewal area, and may be deemed appropriate for inclusion within an urban renewal project area as defined by the Idaho Urban Renewal Law of 1965, Title 50, Chapter 20, Idaho Code, as amended, and the Local Economic Development Act of 1988, Title 50, Chapter 29, Idaho Code, as amended, as the property possesses certain characteristics of eligibility. DATED this ay of June, 2016 SCS BRIGHTON LLC an Idaho limited liability company By: Brighton Corporation, an Idaho corporation, Manager B _ Y Blake R. Alder, President STATE OF IDAHO ) ss. County of Ada ) On this 2nd day of June, in the year of 2016, before me a Notary Public of said State, personally appeared Blake R. Alder, known or identified to me to be the President of Brighton Corporation, the Manager of SCS Brighton LLC, the company that executed the instrument or the person who executed the instrument on behalf of said company, and acknowledged to me that such company executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year in this certificate first above writte4Nota AMANDA DA M "JURR Public for Ill• io V,40sly! Y PUBLIC My Commission expires 05120t . TAI E OF i DAI--i0 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE NORTHEAST OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 WEST, BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT NORTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 14; THENCE NORTH 89037'56" WEST, 1,328.98 FEET ALONG THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID SECTION 14 TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 14; THENCE SOUTH 00006'37" WEST, 828.99 FEET ALONG THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 14 TO THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY OF THE TEN MILE STUB DRAIN AND TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING: THENCE NORTH 89023'03" EAST, 249.02 FEET ALONG THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY OF THE TEN MILE STUB DRAIN; THENCE SOUTH 00006'37" WEST, 503.86 FEET ALONG A LINE PARALLEL TO THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 14 TO THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 14; THENCE NORTH 89039'03" WEST, 249.00 FEET ALONG THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 14 TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 14; THENCE NORTH 00006'37" EAST, 499.67 FEET ALONG THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 14 TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXHIBIT B INFO SHEET Open Land Areas under the Idaho Urban Renewal Law and the Local Economic Development Act To plan or initiate an urban renewal project for an urban renewal area, the local governing body must determine that such an area is a deteriorated area or a deteriorating area or a combination thereof. The attached definition of deteriorating area, Idaho Code Section 50-2018(9) lists ten characteristics that may be present in a deteriorating area. In addition, the definition includes a reference to open land areas: "... provided, that if such deteriorating area consists of open land the conditions contained in the proviso in section 50-2008(d), Idaho Code, shall apply." The statute recognizes the possibility that a deteriorating area may consist of open land. Pursuant to Idaho Code Section 50-2008(d), an urban renewal agency cannot acquire an area of open land for residential or nonresidential uses unless the local governing body makes certain findings. The proviso also lists justifications why such acquisition "may require the exercise of governmental actions, as provided in this act..." The list includes: "defective or unusual conditions of title, diversity of ownership, tax delinquency, improper subdivisions, outmoded street patterns, deterioration of site, economic disuse, unsuitable topography or faulty lot layouts, the need for the correlation of the area with other areas of a municipality by streets and modem traffic requirements, or any combination of such factors or other conditions which retard development of the area" In effect, to the extent the list includes characteristics not found in the standard deteriorating area definition, it provides other defining characteristics of an open land area. The Local Economic Development Act, Chapter 29, Title 50, Idaho Code, as amended (the "Act"), also addresses open land in the Act's definition of deteriorated area: (c) Any area which is predominately open and which because of obsolete platting, diversity of ownership, deterioration of structures or improvements, or otherwise, results in economic underdevelopment of the area or substantially impairs or arrests the sound grown of a municipality. The provisions of Section 50- 2008(d), Idaho Code, shall apply to open areas. Idaho Code Sections 50-2018(8) and (9) and 50-2903(8)(0 require consent of any property owner whose property has been used for an agricultural operation anytime within the last three (3) consecutive years in order to allow that property to be included within a proposed urban renewal area. Consent of the property owner is not required for property that has not been used as an agricultural operation within the last three consecutive years. Attached hereto, please find copies of the following statutes:50-2018(8) and (9),50-2008, and SO -2903(8). I a I- � TEN MILE URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT ELIGIBILITY REPORT (Sent under separate cover due to file size) CONSENT FORM COME NOW _SCS Brighton LLC, and states that it owns certain property generally described as Parcel 51214212580, and more particularly described as Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (the "Property"), and hereby certifies: (1). that the Property has been used, within the last three (3) years, as an agricultural operation; and (2). that the undersigned has reviews the applicable Idaho Code provisions and the materials provided in Exhibit B [OPEN LAND INFORMATION SHEET/STATUSES], and has had an opportunity to review the urban renewal eligibility report, dated November , entitled 2015Ten Mile Urban Renewal District Eligibility Report, prepared by Phil Kushlan of Kushlan Associates, and as attached hereto as Exhibit C [ELIGIBILITY REPORT]. Further, SCS Brighton LLC hereby provides its consent and approval that the Property may be included within a proposed urban renewal area, and may be deemed appropriate for inclusion within an urban renewal project area as defined by the Idaho Urban Renewal Law of 1965, Title 50, Chapter 20, Idaho Code, as amended, and the Local Economic Development Act of 1988, Title 50, Chapter 29, Idaho Code, as amended, as the property possesses certain characteristics of eligibility. DATED this L/11 day of June, 2016 SCS BRIGHTON LLC an Idaho limited liability company By: Brighton Corporation, an Idaho corporation, Manager By: �- Blake R. Alder, President STATE OF IDAHO ) ss. County of Ada ) On this 2nd day of June, in the year of 2016, before me a Notary Public of said State, personally appeared Blake R. Alder, known or identified to me to be the President of Brighton Corporation, the Manager of SCS Brighton LLC, the company that executed the instrument or the person who executed the instrument on behalf of said company, and acknowledged to me that such company executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. 4 n AM1A'0)ir.iA N1c U1RR"Y No a►yPublic for lda o NOTARY PUP31 16 My Commission kpires STATE OF VAH 4b EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION A parcel of land situate in the northeast of the northwest quarter of Section 14, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at north quarter corner of said Section 14; thence N89°37'56"W, 1,328.98 feet along the northerly boundary of said Section 14 to the northwest corner of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of said Section 14; thence S00°06'37"W, 89.00 feet along the westerly boundary of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of said Section 14 to the southerly right-of-way of the Von Lateral; thence S89037'56"E, 249.00 feet along the southerly right-of-way of the Von Lateral to the Point of Beginning: Thence continuing S89°37'56"E, 466.93 feet along the southerly right-of-way of the Von Lateral; Thence S00°06'37"W, 607.69 feet along a line parallel to the westerly boundary of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of said Section 14 to the northerly boundary of the Ten Mile Drain; Thence S89023'03"W, 466.96 feet along the northerly boundary of the Ten Mile Drain; Thence N00°06'37"E, 615.71 feet along a line parallel to the westerly boundary of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of said Section 14 to the Point of Beginning. EXHIBIT B INFO SHEET Open Land Areas under the Idaho Urban Renewal Law and the Local Economic Development Act To plan or initiate an urban renewal project for an urban renewal area, the local governing body must determine that such an area is a deteriorated area or a deteriorating area or a combination thereof. The attached definition of deteriorating area, Idaho Code Section 50-2018(9) lists ten characteristics that may be present in a deteriorating area. In addition, the definition includes a reference to open land areas: "... provided, that if such deteriorating area consists of open land the conditions contained in the proviso in section 50-2008(d), Idaho Code, shall apply." The statute recognizes the possibility that a deteriorating area may consist of open land. Pursuant to Idaho Code Section 50-2008(d), an urban renewal agency cannot acquire an area of open land for residential or nonresidential uses unless the local governing body makes certain findings. The proviso also lists justifications why such acquisition "may require the exercise of governmental actions, as provided in this act..." The list includes: "defective or unusual conditions of title, diversity of ownership, tax delinquency, improper subdivisions, outmoded street patterns, deterioration of site, economic disuse, unsuitable topography or faulty lot layouts, the need for the correlation of the area with other areas of a municipality by streets and modem traffic requirements, or any combination of such factors or other conditions which retard development of the area" In effect, to the extent the list includes characteristics not found in the standard deteriorating area definition, it provides other defining characteristics of an open land area. The Local Economic Development Act, Chapter 29, Title 50, Idaho Code, as amended (the "Act"), also addresses open land in the Act's definition of deteriorated area: (c) Any area which is predominately open and which because of obsolete platting, diversity of ownership, deterioration of structures or improvements, or otherwise, results in economic underdevelopment of the area or substantially impairs or arrests the sound grown of a municipality. The provisions of Section 50- 2008(d), Idaho Code, shall apply to open areas. Idaho Code Sections 50-2018(8) and (9) and 50-2903(8)(0 require consent of any property owner whose property has been used for an agricultural operation anytime within the last three (3) consecutive years in order to allow that property to be included within a proposed urban renewal area. Consent of the property owner is not required for property that has not been used as an agricultural operation within the last three consecutive years. Attached hereto, please find copies of the following statutes: 50-2018(8) and (9),50-2008, and SO -2903(8). EXHIBIT C TEN MILE URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT ELIGIBILITY REPORT (Sent under separate cover due to file size) CONSENT FORM COME NOW SCS Brighton LLC, and states that it owns certain property generally described as Parcel S1214212740, and more particularly described as Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (the "Property"), and hereby certifies: (1). that the Property has been used, within the last three (3) years, as an agricultural operation; and (2). that the undersigned has reviews the applicable Idaho Code provisions and the materials provided in Exhibit B [OPEN LAND INFORMATION SHEET/STATUSES], and has had an opportunity to review the urban renewal eligibility report, dated November , entitled 2015Ten Mile Urban Renewal District Eligibility Report, prepared by Phil Kushlan of Kushlan Associates, and as attached hereto as Exhibit C [ELIGIBILITY REPORT]. Further, SCS Brighton LLC hereby provides its consent and approval that the Property may be included within a proposed urban renewal area, and may be deemed appropriate for inclusion within an urban renewal project area as defined by the Idaho Urban Renewal Law of 1965, Title 50, Chapter 20, Idaho Code, as amended, and the Local Economic Development Act of 1988, Title 50, Chapter 29, Idaho Code, as amended, as the property possesses certain characteristics of eligibility. DATED thislA day of June, 2016 STATE OF IDAHO . ss. County of Ada SCS BRIGHTON LLC an Idaho limited liability company By: Brighton Corporation, an Idaho corporation, Manager By: Blake R. Alder, President On this 2nd day of June, in the year of 2016, before me it Notary Public of said State, personally appeared Blake R. Alder, known or identified to me to be the President of Brighton Corporation, the Manager of SCS Brighton LLC, the company that executed the instrument or the person who executed the instrument on behalf of said company, and acknowledged to me that such company executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written.AMANDA McCURAY t "� PUBLIC Notary Public foridaho NOTARYMy Commission expires_ EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION A parcel of land situate in the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 14, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at north quarter comer of said Section 14; thence N89037'56W, 1,328.98 feet along the northerly boundary of said Section 14 to the northwest comer of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of said Section 14; thence S00606'37"W, 89.00 feet along the westerly boundary of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of said Section 14 to. the southerly right-of-way of the Von Lateral; thence S89°31r56E, 715.93 feet along the southerly right-of-way of the Von Lateral; thence S00006'37W, 607.69 feet along a line parallel to the westerly boundary of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of said Section 14 to the northerly boundary of the Ten Mile Drain and to the Point of Beginning: Thence S00006'37"W, 120.00 feet along a line parallel to the westerly boundary of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of said Section 14 to the southerly boundary of the Ten Mile Drain; Thence S89°23'03"W, 466.97 feet along the southerly boundary of the Ten Mile Drain; Thence N00606'37"B, 120.00 feet along a line parallel to the westerly boundary of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of said Section 14 to the northerly boundary of the Ten Mile Drain; Thence N89023'03"E, 466.96 feet along the northerly boundary of the Ten Mile Drain to the Point of Beginning. EXHIBIT B INFO SHEET Open Land Areas under the Idaho Urban Renewal Law and the Local Economic Development Act To plan or initiate an urban renewal project for an urban renewal area, the local governing body must determine that such an area is a deteriorated area or a deteriorating area or a combination thereof. The attached definition of deteriorating area, Idaho Code Section 50-2018(9) lists ten characteristics that may be present in a deteriorating area. In addition, the definition includes a reference to open land areas: "... provided, that if such deteriorating area consists of open land the conditions contained in the proviso in section 50-2008(d), Idaho Code, shall apply." The statute recognizes the possibility that a deteriorating area may consist of open land. Pursuant to Idaho Code Section 50-2008(d), an urban renewal agency cannot acquire an area of open land for residential or nonresidential uses unless the local governing body makes certain findings. The proviso also lists justifications why such acquisition "may require the exercise of governmental actions, as provided in this act..." The list includes: "defective or unusual conditions of title, diversity of ownership, tax delinquency, improper subdivisions, outmoded street patterns, deterioration of site, economic disuse, unsuitable topography or faulty lot layouts, the need for the correlation of the area with other areas of a municipality by streets and modem traffic requirements, or any combination of such factors or other conditions which retard development of the area" In effect, to the extent the list includes characteristics not found in the standard deteriorating area definition, it provides other defining characteristics of an open land area. The Local Economic Development Act, Chapter 29, Title 50, Idaho Code, as amended (the "Act"), also addresses open land in the Act's definition of deteriorated area: (c) Any area which is predominately open and which because of obsolete platting, diversity of ownership, deterioration of structures or improvements, or otherwise, results in economic underdevelopment of the area or substantially impairs or arrests the sound grown of a municipality. The provisions of Section 50- 2008(d), Idaho Code, shall apply to open areas. Idaho Code Sections 50-2018(8) and (9) and 50-2903(8)(0 require consent of any property owner whose property has been used for an agricultural operation anytime within the last three (3) consecutive years in order to allow that property to be included within a proposed urban renewal area. Consent of the property owner is not required for property that has not been used as an agricultural operation within the last three consecutive years. Attached hereto, please find copies of the following statutes: 50-2018(8) and (9),50-2008, and SO -2903(8). EXHIBIT C TEN MILE URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT ELIGIBILITY REPORT (Sent under separate cover due to file size) CONSENT FORINT COME NOW SCS Brighton LLC, and states that it owns certain property generally described as Parcel S1214212820, and more particularly described as Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (the "Property"), and hereby certifies: (1). that the Property has been used, within the last three (3) years, as an agricultural operation; and (2). that the undersigned has reviews the applicable Idaho Code provisions and the materials provided in Exhibit B [OPEN LAND INFORMATION SHEET/STATUSES], and has had an opportunity to review the urban renewal eligibility report, dated November , entitled 2015Ten Mile Urban Renewal District Eligibility Report, prepared by Phil Kushlan of Kushlan Associates, and as attached hereto as Exhibit C [ELIGIBILITY REPORT]. Further, SCS Brighton LLC hereby provides its consent and approval that the Property may be included within a proposed urban renewal area, and may be deemed appropriate for inclusion within an urban renewal project area as defined by the Idaho Urban Renewal Law of 1965, Title 50, Chapter 20, Idaho Code, as amended, and the Local Economic Development Act of 1988, Title 50, Chapter 29, Idaho Code, as amended, as the property possesses certain characteristics of eligibility. DATED this z Oday of JVAAL , 2016 SCS BRIGHTON LLC, an Idaho limited liability company By: Brighton Corporation, an Idaho corporation, Manage By: Blake R. Alder, President STATE OF IDAHO ) ss. County of Ada ) On this 2nd day of June, in the year of 2016, before me a Notary Public of said State, personally appeared Blake R. Alder, known or identified to me to be the President of Brighton Corporation, the Manager of SCS Brighton LLC, the company that executed the instrument or the person who executed the instrument on behalf of said company, and acknowledged to me that such company executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. A 1 1 10 A N D Ai`V'lr,'UR AY NOTA l='Y Pt1LdC STATE OF I DA H0 a Notary Public for Idal My Commission expi EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION A parcel of land situate in the northeast of the northwest quarter of Section 14, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at north quarter comer of said Section 14; thence N89037'56"W, 1,328.98 feet along the northerly boundary of said Section 14 to the northwest corner of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of said Section 14; thence S00°06'37"W, 89.00 feet along the westerly boundary of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of said Section 14 to the southerly right-of-way of the Von Lateral; thence S89037'56"E, 249.00 feet along the southerly right-of-way of the Von Lateral; thence S00006'37"W, 735.71 feet along a line parallel to the westerly boundary of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of said Section 14 to the southerly boundary of Ten Mile Drain and to the Point of Beginning: Thence N89023'03"E, 466.97 feet along the southerly boundary of the Ten Mile Drain; Thence S00°06'37"W, 511.74 feet along a line parallel to the westerly boundary of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of said Section 14 to the southerly boundary of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of said Section 14; Thence N89°39'03"W, 466.94 feet along the southerly boundary of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of said Section 14; Thence N00°06'37"E, 503.87 feet along a line parallel to the westerly boundary of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of said Section 14 to the Point of Beginning. EXHIBIT B INFO SHEET Open Land Areas under the Idaho Urban Renewal Law and the Local Economic Development Act To plan or initiate an urban renewal project for an urban renewal area, the local governing body must determine that such an area is a deteriorated area or a deteriorating area or a combination thereof. The attached definition of deteriorating area, Idaho Code Section 50-2018(9) lists ten characteristics that may be present in a deteriorating area. In addition, the definition includes a reference to open land areas: "... provided, that if such deteriorating area consists of open land the conditions contained in the proviso in section 50-2008(d), Idaho Code, shall apply." The statute recognizes the possibility that a deteriorating area may consist of open land. Pursuant to Idaho Code Section 50-2008(d), an urban renewal agency cannot acquire an area of open land for residential or nonresidential uses unless the local governing body makes certain findings. The proviso also lists justifications why such acquisition "may require the exercise of governmental actions, as provided in this act..." The list includes: "defective or unusual conditions of title, diversity of ownership, tax delinquency, improper subdivisions, outmoded street patterns, deterioration of site, economic disuse, unsuitable topography or faulty lot layouts, the need for the correlation of the area with other areas of a municipality by streets and modem traffic requirements, or any combination of such factors or other conditions which retard development of the area" In effect, to the extent the list includes characteristics not found in the standard deteriorating area definition, it provides other defining characteristics of an open land area. The Local Economic Development Act, Chapter 29, Title 50, Idaho Code, as amended (the "Act"), also addresses open land in the Act's definition of deteriorated area: (c) Any area which is predominately open and which because of obsolete platting, diversity of ownership, deterioration of structures or improvements, or otherwise, results in economic underdevelopment of the area or substantially impairs or arrests the sound grown of a municipality. The provisions of Section 50- 2008(d), Idaho Code, shall apply to open areas. Idaho Code Sections 50-2018(8) and (9) and 50-2903(8)(0 require consent of any property owner whose property has been used for an agricultural operation anytime within the last three (3) consecutive years in order to allow that property to be included within a proposed urban renewal area. Consent of the property owner is not required for property that has not been used as an agricultural operation within the last three consecutive years. Attached hereto, please find copies of the following statutes: 50-2018(8) and (9),50-2008, and SO -2903(8). EXHIBIT C TEN NHLE URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT ELIGIBILITY REPORT (Sent under separate cover due to rile size) CONSENT FORM COME NOW SCS Brighton LLC, and states that it owns certain property generally described as Parcel 51214325416, and more particularly described as Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (the "Property"), and hereby certifies: (1). that the Property has been used, within the last three (3) years, as an agricultural operation; and (2). that the undersigned has reviews the applicable Idaho Code provisions and the materials provided in Exhibit B [OPEN LAND INFORMATION SHEET/STATUSES], and has had an opportunity to review the urban renewal eligibility report, dated November , entitled 2015Ten Mile Urban Renewal District Eligibility Report, prepared by Phil Kushlan of Kushlan Associates, and as attached hereto as Exhibit C [ELIGIBILITY REPORT]. Further, SCS Brighton LLC hereby provides its consent and approval that the Property may be included within a proposed urban renewal area, and may be deemed appropriate for inclusion within an urban renewal project area as defined by the Idaho Urban Renewal Law of 1965, Title 50, Chapter 20, Idaho Code, as amended, and the Local Economic Development Act of 1988, Title 50, Chapter 29, Idaho Code, as amended, as the property possesses certain characteristics of eligibility. DATED this -W day of June, 2016 STATE OF IDAHO ss. County of Ada SCS BRIGHTON LLC an Idaho limited liability company By: Brighton Corporation, an Idaho corporation, Manager By: _ �?a A Blake R. Alder, President On this 2nd day of June, in the year of 2016, before me a Notary Public of said State, personally appeared Blake R. Alder, known or identified to me to be the President of Brighton Corporation, the Manager of SCS Brighton LLC, the company that executed the instrument or the person who executed the instrument on behalf of said company, and acknowledged to me that such company executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. j I 1 11 V k/ v VvV -• wI v N6& -y Public for I61f AMANDA McCURRY My Commission expires— _ -3i NOTf%, H Y PUBLI STATE OF IDAHO EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION A parcel of land located in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 14, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho. Being further described as follows: BASIS OF BEARINGS: The North line of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 14, Township 3 North, Range l West, Boise Meridian, derived from found monuments and taken as South 8911 1'34" East with the distance between monuments found to be 2,656.39. Beginning at a point on the East Right -of -Way of Ten mile Road fi•om which the West 1/4 corner of Section 14, Township 3 North, Range I West, Boise Meridian bears, North 11 °41'27" West a distance of 170.44 feet; Thence leaving said Right -of -Way, South 88'33'15" East a distance of 224.03 feet; thence South 00°30'19" West, to a point on the Northerly right -of -Way of the Ten Mile Road Interstate 84 interchange, a distance of 973.91 feet; thence along said Right -of -Way the Following six (6) courses: North 73°55'01" West a distance of 62.65 feet; North 46158'34" West a distance of 166.76 feet; North 12°05'45" West a distance of 92.20 feet; North 01'31'40" West a distance of 468.03 feet; North 89°42'50" West a distance of 4.00 feet; North 00°30'10" East a distance of 290.36 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said Parcel containing 195,260 square feet or 4.48 acres, more or less and is subject to all existing easements and rights -of -ways of record or implied. END OF DESCRIPTION Kenneth H. Cook, P.L.S. 9895 Timberline Surveying 847 Park Centre Way, Suite 3 Nampa, Idaho 83651 (208) 465-5687 EXHIBIT B IN I COMM I DIM Open Land Areas under the Idaho Urban Renewal Law and the Local Economic Development Act To plan or initiate an urban renewal project for an urban renewal area, the local governing body must determine that such an area is a deteriorated area or a deteriorating area or a combination thereof. The attached definition of deteriorating area, Idaho Code Section 50-2018(9) lists ten characteristics that may be present in a deteriorating area. In addition, the definition includes a reference to open land areas: "... provided, that if such deteriorating area consists of open land the conditions contained in the proviso in section 50-2008(d), Idaho Code, shall apply." The statute recognizes the possibility that a deteriorating area may consist of open land. Pursuant to Idaho Code Section 50-2008(d), an urban renewal agency cannot acquire an area of open land for residential or nonresidential uses unless the local governing body makes certain findings. The proviso also lists justifications why such acquisition "may require the exercise of governmental actions, as provided in this act..." The list includes: "defective or unusual conditions of title, diversity of ownership, tax delinquency, improper subdivisions, outmoded street patterns, deterioration of site, economic disuse, unsuitable topography or faulty lot layouts, the need for the correlation of the area with other areas of a municipality by streets and modem traffic requirements, or any combination of such factors or other conditions which retard development of the area" In effect, to the extent the list includes characteristics not found in the standard deteriorating area definition, it provides other defining characteristics of an open land area. The Local Economic Development Act, Chapter 29, Title 50, Idaho Code, as amended (the "Act"), also addresses open land in the Act's definition of deteriorated area: (c) Any area which is predominately open and which because of obsolete platting, diversity of ownership, deterioration of structures or improvements, or otherwise, results in economic underdevelopment of the area or substantially impairs or arrests the sound grown of a municipality. The provisions of Section 50- 2008(d), Idaho Code, shall apply to open areas. Idaho Code Sections 50-2018(8) and (9) and 50-2903(8)(0 require consent of any property owner whose property has been used for an agricultural operation anytime within the last three (3) consecutive years in order to allow that property to be included within a proposed urban renewal area. Consent of the property owner is not required for property that has not been used as an agricultural operation within the last three consecutive years. Attached hereto, please find copies of the following statutes: 50-2018(8) and (9),50-2008, and SO -2903(8). EXHIBIT C TEM MILE URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT ELIGIBILITY REPORT (Sent under separate cover due to file size) CONSENT FORM COME NOW SCS Brighton LLC, and states that it owns certain property generally described as Parcel S1214325506, and more particularly described as Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (the "Property"), and hereby certifies: (1). that the Property has been used, within the last three (3) years, as an agricultural operation; and (2). that the undersigned has reviews the applicable Idaho Code provisions and the materials provided in Exhibit B [OPEN LAND INFORMATION SHEET/STATUSES], and has had an opportunity to review the urban renewal eligibility report, dated November, entitled 2015Ten Mile Urban Renewal District Eligibility Report, prepared by Phil Kushlan of Kushlan Associates, and as attached hereto as Exhibit C [ELIGIBILITY REPORT]. Further, SCS Brighton LLC hereby provides its consent and approval that the Property may be included within a proposed urban renewal area, and may be deemed appropriate for inclusion within an urban renewal project area as defined by the Idaho Urban Renewal Law of 1965, Title 50, Chapter 20, Idaho Code, as amended, and the Local Economic Development Act of 1988, Title 50, Chapter 29, Idaho Code, as amended, as the property possesses certain characteristics of eligibility. DATED this day of June, 2016 STATE OF IDAHO ss. County of Ada SCS BRIGHTON LLC an Idaho limited liability company By: Brighton Corporation, an Idaho corporation, Manager Blake R. Alder, President On this 2nd day of June, in the year of 2016, before me a Notary Public of said State, personally appeared Blake R. Alder, known or identified to me to be the President of Brighton Corporation, the Manager of SCS Brighton LLC, the company that executed the instrument or the person who executed the instrument on behalf of said company, and acknowledged to me that such company executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. I A /e Nota►y Public for Idah, iAi�i Dt,% iiV��,�) W � My Commission expires :113 M LEGAL DESCRIPTION A parcel of land located in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 14, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho. Being further described as follows: BASIS OF BEARINGS: The North line of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 14, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, derived from found monuments and taken as South 89111'34" East with the distance between monuments found to be 2,656.39. Beginning at a point on the East Right -of -Way of Ten mile Road from which the West]/4 corner of Section 14 Township 3 North, Range I West, Boise Meridian bears, North 64°45'28" West a distance of 39.64 feet thence leaving said Right of Way South 88'33'15" East a distance of 281.14 feet; thence South 39°38'38" East a distance of 352.80 Feet; thence South 40°44'57" East a distance of 183.51 feet; thence South 55'l Y2 1 " East a distance of 837.82 feet; thence South 59°40'21" East a distance of 883.45 feet; thence South 00°46'45" East, to a point on the Northerly Right -of -Way of Interstate 84, a distance of IS. 10 feet; thence along said Right -of -Way the following eight (8) courses: North 81'0 V33" West a distance of 54.47 feet; North 85°34'01" West a distance of 670.00 feet; North 04°25'59" East a distance of 25.00 feet; North 85°34'01" West a distance of 110.00 feet; South 04°2559" West a distance of 15.00 feet; North 81°28'53" West a distance of 421.07 feet; North 82°36'22" West a distance of 580.78 feet; North 73°55'01" West a distance of 41.34 feet; thence leaving said Right -of -Way ,Nortli 00'30'19" East a distance of 973.92 feet; thence North 88°33'16" West, to a point on the Easterly Right -of -Way of Ten Mile Road, a distance of 224.03 feet; thence along said Right -of -Way, North 00°30'10" East a distance of 150.00 feet, to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said Parcel containing 985,615 square feet or 22.63 acres, more or less and is subject to all existing easements and rights -of -ways of record or implied. END OF DESCRIPTION Kenneth H. Cook, P.L.S. 9895 Timberline Surveying 847 Park Centre Way, Suite 3 Nampa, Idaho 83651 (208)465-5687 EXHIBIT B INFO SHEET Open Land Areas under the Idaho Urban Renewal Law and the Local Economic Development Act To plan or initiate an urban renewal project for an urban renewal area, the local governing body must determine that such an area is a deteriorated area or a deteriorating area or a combination thereof. The attached definition of deteriorating area, Idaho Code Section 50-2018(9) lists ten characteristics that may be present in a deteriorating area. In addition, the definition includes a reference to open land areas: "... provided, that if such deteriorating area consists of open land the conditions contained in the proviso in section 50-2008(d), Idaho Code, shall apply." The statute recognizes the possibility that a deteriorating area may consist of open land. Pursuant to Idaho Code Section 50-2008(d), an urban renewal agency cannot acquire an area of open land for residential or nonresidential uses unless the local governing body makes certain findings. The proviso also lists justifications why such acquisition "may require the exercise of governmental actions, as provided in this act..." The list includes: "defective or unusual conditions of title, diversity of ownership, tax delinquency, improper subdivisions, outmoded street patterns, deterioration of site, economic disuse, unsuitable topography or faulty lot layouts, the need for the correlation of the area with other areas of a municipality by streets and modem traffic requirements, or any combination of such factors or other conditions which retard development of the area" In effect, to the extent the list includes characteristics not found in the standard deteriorating area definition, it provides other defining characteristics of an open land area. The Local Economic Development Act, Chapter 29, Title 50, Idaho Code, as amended (the "Act"), also addresses open land in the Act's definition of deteriorated area: (c) Any area which is predominately open and which because of obsolete platting, diversity of ownership, deterioration of structures or improvements, or otherwise, results in economic underdevelopment of the area or substantially impairs or arrests the sound grown of a municipality. The provisions of Section 50- 2008(d), Idaho Code, shall apply to open areas. Idaho Code Sections 50-2018(8) and (9) and 50-2903(8)(0 require consent of any property owner whose property has been used for an agricultural operation anytime within the last three (3) consecutive years in order to allow that property to be included within a proposed urban renewal area. Consent of the property owner is not required for property that has not been used as an agricultural operation within the last three consecutive years. Attached hereto, please find copies of the following statutes:50-2018(8) and (9),50-2008, and SO -2903(8). TEM MILE URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT ELIGIBILITY REPORT (Sent under separate cover due to file size) CONSENT FORM COME NOW _SCS Brighton LLC, and states that it owns certain property generally described as Parcel 51214314808, and more particularly described as Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (the "Property"), and hereby certifies: (1). that the Property has been used, within the last three (3) years, as an agricultural operation; and (2). that the undersigned has reviews the applicable Idaho Code provisions and the materials provided in Exhibit B [OPEN LAND INFORMATION SHEET/STATUSES], and has had an opportunity to review the urban renewal eligibility report, dated November , entitled 2015Ten Mile Urban Renewal District Eligibility Report, prepared by Phil Kushlan of Kushlan Associates, and as attached hereto as Exhibit C [ELIGIBILITY REPORT]. Further, SCS Brighton LLC hereby provides its consent and approval that the Property may be included within a proposed urban renewal area, and may be deemed appropriate for inclusion within an urban renewal project area as defined by the Idaho Urban Renewal Law of 1965, Title 50, Chapter 20, Idaho Code, as amended, and the Local Economic Development Act of 1988, Title 50, Chapter 29, Idaho Code, as amended, as the property possesses certain characteristics of eligibility. DATED this day of , 2016. SCS BRIGHTON LLC, an Idaho limited liability company By: Brighton Corporation, an Idaho corporation, Manager By: Blake R. Alder, President STATE OF IDAHO ) ss. County of Ada ) On this 2nd day of June, in the year of 2016, before me a Notary Public of said State, personally appeared Blake R. Alder, known or identified to me to be the President of Brighton Corporation, the Manager of SCS Brighton LLC, the company that executed the instrument or the person who executed the instrument on behalf of said company, and acknowledged to me that such company executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. 4 A A n N tary Public fVr daho / A Mi- iN DP, M1 C, ► A °/ My Commission expires f ' NUTI `DRi`°►r RP LIC TATE OF IDAHO EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION A parcel of land located in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 14, Township 3 North, Range I West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho. Being htrther described as follows: BASIS OF BEARINGS: The North line of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 14, Township 3 North, Range I West, Boise Meridian, derived from found monuments and taken as South 89° 11'34" East with the distance between monuments found to be 2,656.39. Beginning at a point on the North line of said Southwest '/4 of Section 14, Township 3 North, Range I West, Boise Meridian from which the West'/4 corner of said Section 14 bears North 89'11'34" West a distance of 36.00 Feet thence along said North Line, South 89'11'34" East to the Center'/ corner of said Section 14 a distance of 2,620.39 feet ; thence leaving said North Line and along the East line of said Southwest ''A ,South 00135'28" West to a point on the Northerly Right -of -Way on Interstate 84 a distance of 1,344.66 feet; thence along said Right -of -Way, North 89°34'03" West a distance of 501.27 feet; thence continuing along said Right -of -Way, Nath 81°01'33" West a distance of 28.65 feet; thence leaving said Right -of -Way, North 00°46'45" West a distance of 15.10 feet; thence North 59°40'21" West a distance of 883.45 feet; thence North 55° 1321" West a distance of 837.82 feet; thence North 40°44'57" West a distance of 183.51 feet; thence North 39°3838" West a distance of 352,80 feet; thence North 88°33'15" West to a point on the Easterly Right -of -Way of Ten Mile Road, a distance of 281.14 feet; thence along said Right -of -Way, North 00'30'10" East a distance of' 16.40 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said Parcel containing 2,106,164 square feet or 48.35 acres, more or less and is subject to all existing easements and rights -of -ways of record or implied. END OF DESCRIPTION Kenneth H. Cook, P.L.S. 9895 Timberline Surveying 847 Park Centre Way, Suite 3 Nampa, Idaho 83651 (208)465-5687 EXHIBIT B INFO SHEET Open Land Areas under the Idaho Urban Renewal Law and the Local Economic Development Act To plan or initiate an urban renewal project for an urban renewal area, the local governing body must determine that such an area is a deteriorated area or a deteriorating area or a combination thereof. The attached definition of deteriorating area, Idaho Code Section 50-2018(9) lists ten characteristics that may be present in a deteriorating area. In addition, the definition includes a reference to open land areas: "... provided, that if such deteriorating area consists of open land the conditions contained in the proviso in section 50-2008(d), Idaho Code, shall apply." The statute recognizes the possibility that a deteriorating area may consist of open land. Pursuant to Idaho Code Section 50-2008(d), an urban renewal agency cannot acquire an area of open land for residential or nonresidential uses unless the local governing body makes certain findings. The proviso also lists justifications why such acquisition "may require the exercise of governmental actions, as provided in this act..." The list includes: "defective or unusual conditions of title, diversity of ownership, tax delinquency, improper subdivisions, outmoded street patterns, deterioration of site, economic disuse, unsuitable topography or faulty lot layouts, the need for the correlation of the area with other areas of a municipality by streets and modem traffic requirements, or any combination of such factors or other conditions which retard development of the area" In effect, to the extent the list includes characteristics not found in the standard deteriorating area definition, it provides other defining characteristics of an open land area. The Local Economic Development Act, Chapter 29, Title 50, Idaho Code, as amended (the "Act"), also addresses open land in the Act's definition of deteriorated area: (c) Any area which is predominately open and which because of obsolete platting, diversity of ownership, deterioration of structures or improvements, or otherwise, results in economic underdevelopment of the area or substantially impairs or arrests the sound grown of a municipality. The provisions of Section 50- 2008(d), Idaho Code, shall apply to open areas. Idaho Code Sections 50-2018(8) and (9) and 50-2903(8)(0 require consent of any property owner whose property has been used for an agricultural operation anytime within the last three (3) consecutive years in order to allow that property to be included within a proposed urban renewal area. Consent of the property owner is not required for property that has not been used as an agricultural operation within the last three consecutive years. Attached hereto, please find copies of the following statutes: 50-2018(8) and (9),50-2008, and SO -2903(8). EXHIBIT C TEM MILE URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT ELIGIBILITY REPORT (Sent under separate cover due to file size) CONSENT FORM COME NOW SCS Brighton LLC, and states that it owns certain property generally described as Parcel S1214223270, and more particularly described as Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (the "Property"), and hereby certifies: (1). that the Property has been used, within the last three (3) years, as an agricultural operation; and (2). that the undersigned has reviews the applicable Idaho Code provisions and the materials provided in Exhibit B [OPEN LAND INFORMATION SHEET/STATUSES], and has had an opportunity to review the urban renewal eligibility report, dated November , entitled 2015Ten Mile Urban Renewal District Eligibility Report, prepared by Phil Kushlan of Kushlan Associates, and as attached hereto as Exhibit C [ELIGIBILITY REPORT]. Further, SCS Brighton LLC hereby provides its consent and approval that the Property may be included within a proposed urban renewal area, and may be deemed appropriate for inclusion within an urban renewal project area as defined by the Idaho Urban Renewal Law of 1965, Title 50, Chapter 20, Idaho Code, as amended, and the Local Economic Development Act of 1988, Title 50, Chapter 29, Idaho Code, as amended, as the property possesses certain characteristics of eligibility. DATED this 61M day of June, 2016. SCS BRIGHTON LLC an Idaho limited liability company By: Brighton Corporation, an Idaho corporation, Manager BY: Blake R. Alder, President STATE OF IDAHO ) SS. County of Ada ) On this 2nd day of June, in the year of 2016, before me a Notary Public of said State, personally appeared Blake R. Alder, known or identified to me to be the President of Brighton Corporation, the Manager of SCS Brighton LLC, the company that executed the instrument or the person who executed the instrument on behalf of said company, and acknowledged to me that such company executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and a fixed my official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. Ir "i k A110 A N D A M r,CUR R Y ublic for Idaho ? �` i -\R ��` PURL1 My Commission expires EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION June 2l2O1G Project No, 115OS6 THE 1,AND GROUP, INC TMCREEK SUBDIVISION REMAINDER PARCEL DESCRIPTION A parcel of land located In the Northwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 14, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows: Commencing atthe Northwest corner ufsaid Section 14,(from which point the West 1/4corner ofsaid Section 14bears onthe west line ofsaid Northwest 1/4ufthe Northwest 1/4,South 0O"33'33^West, 2G58.39feet); Thence from said Section corner, onsaid west line South OO,33"83"West, 3g2.O1feet; Thence leaving said west line, South 89'26'50" East, 48.00 feet to a point on the easterly right-of-way line of South Ten Mile Road, said point being the POINT OFBEGINNING; Thence on said easterly right-of-way line for the following courses and distances: Thence North OD"33'33" East, l23.31feet; Thence North O7"S731" East, UO.S0feet (formerly described asOO.62feet); Thence North DO~33'ZO" East, 1UD.DOfeet; Thence North 45*09'55" East, 23.06 feet to the southerly right-of-way line of West Franklin Road; Thence on said southerly right-of-way line for the following courses and distances, Thence South O9,0g'27" East, 17G.4Sfeet; Thence South 0O^SO'3]" West, 1O.00feet; Thence South 89^D9'27" East, 7U.ODfeet; Thence North UO"5o'33" East, 1O.D0feet; Thence South 8g"0g'27" East, 44.37feet; Thence North 88~23'22" East, 9.G4feet; Thence South D0"58^33" West, 7.41feet, Thence South D9"D9'27" East, 61.72feet; Thence South 84,34'43" East, 113.53feet; Thence South DQ°42'I1° East, 128.7Gfeet; Thence North 84"Z1'4D^ East, 84.SWfeet; Thence North O7"36'44" East, 18O.0Dfeet; Thence South 83°19'S4" East, 144.4gfeet; Thence South 89^06'53" East, 1SO.J4feet; 'Thence North O0,35'O3» East, 12.O5feet; Thence South 89"O9'Z7" East, 75.8gfeet (formerly described as75.80feet) tothe east line ofsaid Northwest 1/4ofthe Northwest 1/4/ Thence |eav|n0said southerly dght-of-woyline and onsaid east line, South 0D"34'31''West, 1257.OUfeet tothe Southeast corner ofsaid Northwest 1/4ofthe Northwest 1/4; Thence along the south line ofsaid Northwest 1/4ofthe Northwest 1/4,North B9°1D'27"West, 371.62 feet (formerly described as 371.69 feet) to the centerline of the Kennedy Lateral; Thence leaving said south line and on said centerline for the following courses and distances: Thence North 50^SO'33" West, 1Q.22feet (formerly described aa17.95feet); Thence North 53°11'09'' West, 19D.GDfeet; 0 Site Planning * Landscape Architecture # Civil Engineering # Golf Course Irrigation & Engineering * Graphic Design 0 Surveying Thence North G1*2Y57"West, 8SJOfeet tothe beginning ofocurve; Thence 68,62 feet on the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 69.97 feet, through a central angle of56"1l'12",having achord bearing ofNorth Dg"2G'39"West, and echord length of6S.9Ofeet; Thence South GZ.27'45"West, A138feet tothe beginning ofacurve, Thence 187.78feet un the arc o[acurve tothe right, having uradius uf199.81feet, through a central angle oy80"S2'OO°,having achord bearing ofSouth 77"S3^4S"West, and achord length of18G.4Ofeet; Thence North B6"4D'15"West, 83.13feet; Thence |uav|ngsa|dcenterline, North 1O"I3'14"East, 161.11feet tothe beginning ofacurve; Thence 8.35 feet on the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 49.50 feet, through a central angle uf0g"4n'n3",having wchord bearing o[North O5"Z3'12"East, and ochord length ofQ.34feet; Thence North OO,33'1O"East, G67.7Zfeet; Thence North 89^26'SU"West, 3S9.35feet tothe point ofbeginning, Said parcel contains 27.74acres more o,less. PREPARED BY: THE LAND GROUP, INC, James R.Washburn �7 Site Planning , Landscape Architecture - Civil Engineering , Golf Course Irrigation & Engineering ^ Graphic Design 'Surveying 4G2E.Shore Drive, Suite 1OO^Eagle, Idaho 83616'PZO8.938.4041'F20B.838,4445'wwvxthe!undymupinc.cum SAO S'11 S89'09'27"E W. FRANKLIN RD. . . ........ 5,15 5.14L2 L5 -16 /-48 N84'2140E 94,58'. S83'19'54*'E 144,49'- S89'09'27"E 75-09" L4 L7-N87*36'44"E MOM' LS -88'42'211 12K16' NOO'33'20"E 100,00' 589*06'53"E 158,24' 584*34'43"E 113.53' `...589'09'27"E 4437' '---N07'37'31"E 80,50 r-urvo Tahf- CURVE ,,,--N00'33'33"[ 123,311' DELTA WORD BEARING MORD LENGTH C1 UK' 69,97' ... .......... 56'11'12" POINT OF BEGINNING C2 107,70' 48,00' Ci 577'5,3'45)V 106.40' Cj Cr 49M' 9'40'03` N05 23'12'1= w 0 1W z W1 F - rn ua LU ir U N1101SWE CURVE LENGTH RADIUS DELTA WORD BEARING MORD LENGTH C1 UK' 69,97' ... .......... 56'11'12" N8926'39"W 65,90* C2 107,70' 199,91' 30'52'00 577'5,3'45)V 106.40' C3 &35' 49M' 9'40'03` N05 23'12'1= 8,,( 4' Line Tablo I LINE I BEARING I LENGTH I Ll N45'09'551 23.06' L2 S89'09'27"E 96,45' L3 SOO'50'33"W 10,00' L4 S89'09'27"E 70,00' Nt�O 10,00, GI Line Tablo LINE BEARING LENGT11 L6 N88'23'22"E _9.64' L7 500"50'33'w 7.41' 1-8 589*09'27"E 6132' 1,9 N00'35V"E 1 12,05' I'Vb 7880 G - ?-a- zo/ 0� 05V 63,13'--/ 562'27'45"W 91,30'--1 NVM, j, 8570 N89'10'27"1V 371,62' N50'58'33"W 18.22' 200' 400' Parcel Remainder Exhibit HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1' - 200' Dole of llt��pcet 51+;ee rite; THE LAND GROUP �atiqntd by. Wit i�eW�11 INCOMURAMD TM Creek Subdivision UU Parcel Remainder 5hsat Nu.: Exhibit I of X,W EXHIBIT B M,V-00l.Y.i -WA Open Land Areas under the Idaho Urban Renewal Law and the Local Economic Development Act To plan or initiate an urban renewal project for an urban renewal area, the local governing body must determine that such an area is a deteriorated area or a deteriorating area or a combination thereof. The attached definition of deteriorating area, Idaho Code Section 50-2018(9) lists ten characteristics that may be present in a deteriorating area. In addition, the definition includes a reference to open land areas: "... provided, that if such deteriorating area consists of open land the conditions contained in the proviso in section 50-2008(4), Idaho Code, shall apply." The statute recognizes the possibility that a deteriorating area may consist of open land. Pursuant to Idaho Code Section 50-2008(d), an urban renewal agency cannot acquire an area of open land for residential or nonresidential uses unless the local governing body makes certain findings. The proviso also lists justifications why such acquisition "may require the exercise of governmental actions, as provided in this act..." The list includes: "defective or unusual conditions of title, diversity of ownership, tax delinquency, improper subdivisions, outmoded street patterns, deterioration of site, economic disuse, unsuitable topography or faulty lot layouts, the need for the correlation of the area with other areas of a municipality by streets and modem traffic requirements, or any combination of such factors or other conditions which retard development of the area" In effect, to the extent the list includes characteristics not found in the standard deteriorating area definition, it provides other defining characteristics of an open land area. The Local Economic Development Act, Chapter 29, Title 50, Idaho Code, as amended (the "Act"), also addresses open land in the Act's definition of deteriorated area: (c) Any area which is predominately open and which because of obsolete platting, diversity of ownership, deterioration of structures or improvements, or otherwise, results in economic underdevelopment of the area or substantially impairs or arrests the sound grown of a municipality. The provisions of Section 50- 2008(d), Idaho Code, shall apply to open areas. Idaho Code Sections 50-2018(8) and (9) and 50-2903(8)(0 require consent of any property owner whose property has been used for an agricultural operation anytime within the last three (3) consecutive years in order to allow that property to be included within a proposed urban renewal area. Consent of the property owner is not required for property that has not been used as an agricultural operation within the Iast three consecutive years. Attached hereto, please find copies of the following statutes: 50-2018(8) and (9),50-2008, and SO -2903(8). EXHIBIT C TEM MILE URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT ELIGIBILITY REPORT (Sent under separate cover due to file size) EXHIBIT 4 Summary of Ordinance ORDINANCE APPROVING URBAN RENEWAL PLAN FOR THE TEN MILE ROAD URBAN RENEWAL PROJECT - EXHIBIT 4 NOTICE AND PUBLISHED SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE PURSUANT TO I.C. § 50-901(A) CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 16 - An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Meridian Approving the Urban Renewal Plan for the Ten Mile Road Urban Renewal Project, Which Plan includes Revenue Allocation Financing Provisions; Authorizing the City Clerk to Transmit a Copy of the Ordinance and Other Required Information to the County, Affected Taxing Entities, and State Officials; Approving the Summary of the Ordinance; and Providing an Effective Date. The proposed public works or improvements in the Plan Area include but are not limited to full roadway improvements, sidewalks and pedestrian ways, drainage improvements, public and private utilities such as sewer and water, irrigation facility improvements, right-of-way acquisition, remediation of environmental issues, enhancement of open areas and public recreation facilities, and such other elements required for the project and authorized by Idaho Code Section 50-2007 and 50-2901(13). Any such land uses as described in the Plan will be in conformance with zoning for the City of Meridian and the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. The boundaries of the Urban Renewal Project Area and Revenue Allocation Area consist of approximately 301.45 acres of real property in Meridian City Limits, bounded on the south by I-84, on the west by Ten Mile Road, on the north by Franklin road as more particularly described in Attachment 2 to the Plan and generally depicted in the map below. Franklin 1 W710'' .� ..: crest Wood N m % Greenhead K%mra Pintail BaYeuxi < 400 oo, Waltman Gander � Brown -u Troul o° Elder Verbena JI - �_-�Inte�state.e4._� Nora Legend !rasa T.nl.ljospe04/ueapia' N - SilverTerrace adv/ DutchRevenw AJI.Ww nroa s Farm ., ,Thorn Overland - O o soo 000 �—reel....... ORDINANCE SUMMARY APPROVING URBAN RENEWAL PLAN FOR THE TEN MILE ROAD URBAN RENEWAL PROJECT This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect immediately upon its passage, approval, and publication and shall be retroactive to January 1, 2016, to the extent permitted by the Act. Upon the effective date of this Ordinance, the City Clerk is authorized and directed to transmit to the Ada County Assessor, Joint School District No 2, Ada County EMS, Meridian Cemetery District, Ada County Highway District, College of Western Idaho, Meridian Library District, Ada County Weed, Pest and Mosquito Abatement District, the Western Ada Recreation District, the Meridian Rural Fire District, and the State Tax Commission a copy of this Ordinance, a copy of the legal description of the boundaries of the Revenue Allocation Area, and a map or plat indicating the boundaries of the Project Area. A full text of this ordinance and the Plan are available for inspection at City Hall, City of Meridian, 33 East Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho. This ordinance shall become effective upon the passage and publication. City of Meridian Mayor and City Council By: Jacy Jones, City Clerk First Reading: 6/7/2016 Second Reading: 6/14/2016 Third Reading: 6/21/2016 STATEMENT OF MERIDIAN CITY ATTORNEY AS TO ADEQUACY OF SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 16 - The undersigned, William L.M. Nary, City Attorney of the City of Meridian, Idaho, hereby certifies that he is the legal advisor of the City and has reviewed a copy of the attached Ordinance No. 16- of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and has found the same to be true and complete and provides adequate notice to the public pursuant to Idaho Code § 50-901A (3). DATED this day of June, 2016. William. L.M. Nary City Attorney ORDINANCE SUMMARY APPROVING URBAN RENEWAL PLAN FOR THE TEN MILE ROAD URBAN RENEWAL PROJECT Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: June 21, 2016 ITEM NUMBER: $B PROJECT NUMBER: H-2016-0056 ITEM TITLE: Volante Investments FUNIC Hearing tor Volante Investments - - y Volante Investments LLLF- Located at 2600 & 2700 E Overland Road Request: New Development Agreement and Modification to the Conditions of Approval Referenced in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Approved with the Annexation and Zoning Request (Ord. Ws 661 & 665) MEETING NOTES Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET Date: June 21, 2016 Item # 813 Project Number: Project Name: H-2016-0056 Volante Investments Pleaseour rint name For Against Neutral Do you wish p Y 9 to testifv (Y/N) Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: June 21, 2016 ITEM NUMBER: $C PROJECT NUMBER: H-2016-0057 ITEM TITLE: CentrePoint N Eagle Road and E Ustick Road Request for a Modification to the Development Agreement to Allow the Development of a Self -Service Storage Facility with Outdoor Storage at the Northwest Corner of the Site with a Conditional Use Permit; Reduction in the Width of the Street Buffer Required Along E Jasmine Lane from 25 Feet to Zero Feet; Authorization to Close off the Micropath from Champion Park Subdivision; and Allowance for a Building Permit to be Issued in Phase 2 of CentrePoint Subdivision Prior to Recordation of the Final Plat MEETING NOTES Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET Date: June 21, 2016 Item # 8C Project Number: H-2016-0057 Project Name: CentrePoint Subdivision Please print your name For I Against I Neutral Do you wish to testifv (Y/N) Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: June 21, 2016 ITEM NUMBER: $D PROJECT NUMBER: H-2016-0001 ITEM TITLE: Brundage Estates Public Hearing Continued from 06/07/2016 for Brundage Estates (H-2016-0001) by L.C. Development, Inc. Located East of S. Linder Road Between Victory and Amity Roads Request: Preliminary Plat Consisting of 366 Building Lots, 20 Common Lots and 1 Other Lot on 136.63 Acres of Land in an R-4 Zoning District MEETING NOTES Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Br u n d a g e E s t a t e s Ci t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g Ju n e 2 1 , 2 0 1 6 all CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET Date: June 21, 2016 Item # Project Number: H-2016-0001 :f Project Name: Brundage Estates Please print your name For Against Neutral Do you wish to testify (Y/N) UG U yle S fA C Ce BLOCK �►. u� 4 3 2 m - 13 12 45' 56 3 114 26 25 - - - 6 5 4 3 2 56 45, 7� LOCK UnUff d Map Legend Write a description for your map. r { 4035 S Linder Rd _ .. ,.: ;% � � � Ott � .,, " . •� � . I 1 • I . '' t _ I I ~ 4 • � i; ,fir ` _ ':� i �,r` � :� i ��� � �•. t 7 -V , Google earth i'E, 2016 Google .�� Russ Fulcher russp russfuIcher.corn wvjw.russ€uiCher.Cog n PO Box 1375 Meridian, ID 936,90 Honorable Mayor — Tammy De eerd Meridian City Council Re: Proposed Brundage Estates Development Dear Tammy, RECEIVE—U July 21, 2016 Thank you for your service to the citizens in the Meridian area! We are writing in regard to the proposed Brundage Estates residential development on S. Linder Road in Meridian. Our residence for the last 28 years (and affiliated acreage) is adjacent to the west side of the proposed development with S. Linder Road as the only separation (see Exhibit A). Please accept this letter as testimony opposing the development as proposed, due to following: 1. DENSITY: 387 lots on 136.63 acres, with a minimum lot size of only 8,000' will unduly strain service capabilities, re -direct traffic en -masse to an arterial with no 1-84 overpass or access, and cheapen the residential character and environment that has helped make Meridian a desirable destination to work, live, and raise a family. 2. SAFETY: The newly proposed outlet road planned to service the development (W. Harris St.), is located atop a natural rise on Linder Rd. North -bound traffic is blind to the roadway until reaching the top of the rise. Traffic traveling at speed (lawful or not) will have little time to react to activity at the intersection of S. Linder and W. Harris. I know this to be factual, as at least two traffic accidents have occurred in recent years at our driveway, which is only +/- 100 feet from the proposed intersection of S. Linder and W. Harris. Traffic volume resulting from 387 new lots will exacerbate the problem (Exhibit B). 3. AESTHESTICS: ... and resulting implications to neighboring properties. The proposed residential density along S. Linder basically forms a "house wall" to residents on the west and south sides of S. Linder, non -compatible with existing use to the south and west - thus negatively impacting neighboring property values. SOLUTIONS: 1. Reduce the residential density, especially along S. Linder Road. 2. Move the W. Harris St. connector north - such that north -bound traffic has time to react to intersection activity. Signalize the intersection and add slow -down warnings. 3. Increase the building set -back distance from S. Linder Rd., and/or limit building height to 1 story along S. Linder Rd. 4. Ensure the requirements of the related Development Agreement for this development "stays with the land" — as the applicant is highly likely to sell it off to a high-volume builder/developer once it gets approved. Thank you for your consideration! We are available at your convenience if we may help you. .yJ Russ Fulcher��41 -4Kara Fulcher russ@russfulcher.com www.russfulcher.com P.O. Box 1375 Meridian, ID 83680 1 #aa 4®I>Os1Tbk� mDRPitrgK t».4i��iEml . t WLrt as b [ room a ¢^ten a PRELAeA'ARY PUT DATA _ 1 auz�cu�a ria IUfa su a u ermavY ¢M unmt,emv 1 xei ms's w a IN ME- � = WE al .�Iaxlma: mlf.lmImnsmAx;wL — % 1= -1 J ' ! CR esom , i , f \ e \ e d e � Gam• \ \ e w m ,s ai 1 - —__. armtt 1 % e �bg r.;a\ � N ^, I�a r'• e1 ,�., ..,.. __.-. aam s ' f 1 a v �� c� am, ♦. ! �, a pill $ io � e es �.6 , w Ate, ° n.t ♦ . `, ee— �. ` 9g P. L N.., � v ', b � �o � .tea-•—_ e \ �I 91 �wg x58 i. � g � 1 i -i � 4 ,f a � m. p.. ., a .'! .�.'•p , s a ®. � � n�I'^ (/��r 1:2 Q W DATA p ._� � •-- o � ,-. � _ c n - , ...a r .¢r'. � = Pmt � v c min snLft Q �i , 1 ik e 1 • �- .,: a � ` 9=e�_-. � � � e ¢ � pea � 1 � � { i� a a e �\ R• A h c e s ' s ,i if a e — i II L _ TYPfCJb e0tlEcrOR srREcr sECLrox (so' Ro.w.) TYPxx RESeDENIVt SIREEf sccnal BD' Row.) ,aL.la � , a , � �I�a rte. sz e�. � 1 a i PRE Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: June 21, 2016 ITEM NUMBER: $E PROJECT NUMBER: H-2016-0050 ITEM TITLE: Isola Creek No. 4 Final Plat Continued from 06/07/2016 for Isola Creek No. 4 (H-2016-0050) by Isola Creek, LLC Located North Side of W. Ustick Road and East Side of N. Ten Mile Road Request: Final Plat Approval Consisting of Forty -Five (45) Single Family Residential Building Lots and Four (4) Common Lots on Approximately 28.02 Acres in the R-4 Zoning District MEETING NOTES Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET Date: June 21, 2016 Item # Project Number: H-2016-0050 Project Name: Isola Creek No. 4 Pleaseour rint name For Against Neutral Do you wish p Y g to testify (Y/N) Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: June 21, 2016 ITEM NUMBER: $F PROJECT NUMBER: H-2016-0041 ITEM TITLE: Rainier Villas Public Hearing for Rainier Villas (H-2016-0041) by Aaron Elton Located West of N. Meridian Road and South of E. Franklin Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval of Twenty -Three (23) Residential Lots and Four (4) Common Lots on 5.354 in an Existing C -G Zoning District Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval for Ninety -Two (92) Multi -Family Dwelling Units on Approximately 5.354 Acres in an Existing C -G Zoning District MEETING NOTES 0!= Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS W. CORPORATE DR. W. PENNWOOD ST. A A A A B B B B A AA SITE DEVELOPMENT FEATURES ENGINEER OWNER SURVEYOR DEVELOPER W. CORPORATE DR. A A A A B B B B A AA BLDG. A BLDG. B BLDG. C CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET Date: June 21, 2016 Item # Project Number: H-2016-0041 Project Name: Rainier Villas Pleaseour rint name For Against Neutral Do you wish p Y 9 to testifv (YIN) Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: June 21. 2016 ITEM NUMBER: PROJECT NUMBER: H-2016-0047 ITEM TITLE: Verado Subdivision Public Hearing for Verado Subdivision (H-2016-0047) by DevCo, LLC Located Southeast Corner of N. Locust Grove Road and E. Ustick Road Request: Annexation of Approximately 20.28 Acres from RUT in Ada County to the R-8 (Medium Density Residential) (5.12 Acres) and R-15 (Medium High -Density Residential) (14.23 Acres) Zoning Districts Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of 122 Single Family Residential Lots, 8 Common Lots on Approximately 19.35 Acres in the Proposed R-8 and R-15 Zoning Districts MEETING NOTES �-Ar3vcd hf.cuc(� pyi oC 2�-o APPROVED Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Verado Co m m u n i t y Vi c i n i t y M a p Ve r a d o Co m m u n i t y Vi l l a g e Co l l e c t i o n Co t t a g e Co l l e c t i o n Ho m e s t e a d Co l l e c t i o n Ve r a d o C o m m u n i t y Ve r a d o N e i g h b o r h o o d Pa r k a n d P l a y g r o u n d “S p l i t P a r k ” C o n f u s i o n Verado Co m m u n i t y o Si t e S p e c i f i c C o n d i t i o n I t e m 1 . 1 . 2 . c . 3 . – . 8 a c r e ou t p a r c e l De l e t e C o n d i t i o n I t e m 1 . 1 . 2 . c . 3 . Th e a p p l i c a n t s h i f t e d N . S u m n e r P a r k A v e n u e a s re s u b m i t t e d o n t h e p r e l i m i n a r y p l a t d a t e d 5 / 1 7 / 1 6 wi t h a 2 0 ’ w i d e a c c e s s e a s e m e n t . o Si t e S p e c i f i c C o n d i t i o n s I t e m 1 . 1 . 3 2 – “ s p l i t p a r k ” De l e t e C o n d i t i o n I t e m 1 . 1 . 3 2 P & Z C o m m i s s i o n Re c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r A p p r o v a l Zo n i n g Pa c k a r d Es t a t e s Vi c i n i t y M a p Ve r a d o Co m m u n i t y o Si t e S p e c i f i c C o n d i t i o n I t e m 1 . 1 . 2 . c . 3 . – . 8 a c r e ou t p a r c e l De l e t e C o n d i t i o n I t e m 1 . 1 . 2 . c . 3 . Th e a p p l i c a n t s h i f t e d N . S u m n e r P a r k A v e n u e a s re s u b m i t t e d o n t h e p r e l i m i n a r y p l a t d a t e d 5 / 1 7 / 1 6 wi t h a 2 0 ’ w i d e a c c e s s e a s e m e n t . o Si t e S p e c i f i c C o n d i t i o n s I t e m 1 . 1 . 3 2 – “ s p l i t p a r k ” De l e t e C o n d i t i o n I t e m 1 . 1 . 3 2 P & Z C o m m i s s i o n Re c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r A p p r o v a l Ve r a d o N e i g h b o r h o o d Pl a y g r o u n d Ve r a d o N e i g h b o r h o o d Pa r k a n d P l a y g r o u n d Ve r a d o N e i g h b o r h o o d Pl a y g r o u n d Pa c k a r d E s t a t e s Pa c k a r d E s t a t e s Ri v e r V a l l e y E l e m e n t a r y River Valley Elementary Fi n c h L a t e r a l 0. 8 a c C o u n t y Ou t p a r c e l 0. 8 a c C o u n t y O u t p a r c e l CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET Date: June 21, 2016 Item # Project Number: Project Name: H-2016-0047 29 Verado Subdivision Please print your name For Against Neutral Do you wish to testify (Y/N) NK1N- �� (� ry n Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: June 21, 2016 ITEM NUMBER: 9A PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: City Council: Discussion Regarding the Use of Mobile Devices and Social Media During City Council Meetings and By City Councilmembers MEETING NOTES C®( -NA: �r\v ec), -�-o Co /a rs Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: June 21, 2016 ITEM NUMBER: 9B ITEM TITLE: Bellano Creek Parks and Recreation Department: Bellano Creek Neighborhood Park Design and Naming Request MEETING NOTES L' Dn J,A nUCA �0 (-Ot �g Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: June 21, 2016 ITEM NUMBER: 9C PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Bainbridge Neighborhood Parks and Recreation Department: Bainbridge Neighborhood Park Design MEETING NOTES Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: June 21, 2016 ITEM NUMBER: 9D PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Community Development: Transportation Projects Update - Discuss Transportation Related Studies, Plans and Projects Including: Ustick Road, Franklin Road and Idaho Avenue MEETING NOTES C-cf) r,.V, Y -1-(D --- lea Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: June 21, 2016 ITEM NUMBER: PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Police Department Police Department: Approval of Budget Amendment for Records Lead Position Elevated to Records Supervisor Position, Not to Exceed $20,894.00 MEETING NOTES Coi--� �ol o�; � n►� , ME= Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: June 21, 2016 ITEM NUMBER: 9F PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Legal Department Legal Department: Budget Amendment for Legal Services for A Not -to -Exceed amount $60,000. �o MEETING NOTES Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: June 21, 2016 ITEM NUMBER: 10B ITEM TITLE: of the Mayor and City Council of the City of Meridian for the Annexation and Rezone of a Parcel of Land being a Portion of the NE'/4 of the SW'/4 of Section 5, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as Described in Establishing and Determining the Land Use Classification of said .932 acres of Land from RUT to R-8 (Medium Density Residential) District in the Meridian City Code; and Providing for a Summary of the Ordinance; and Providing for a Waiver of the Reading Rules; and Providing an Effective Date. MEETING NOTES Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: &MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS ADA COUNTY RECORDER Christopher D. Rich 2016-055045 BOISE IDAHO Pgs=5 DAWN TRIVOLIS 06/23/2016 09:37 AM MERIDIAN CITY NO FEE IIIIII111111 II 11I'I'IIIIII III II III IIIIII IIIII 1111 00239739201600660460060060 CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. I �2 ' �� BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BIRD, BORTON, CAVENER, MILAM, PALMER, LITTLE ROBERTS AN ORDINANCE (H-2016-0018 — KENNERS SUBDIVISION) FOR ANNEXATION AND REZONE OF A PARCEL OF LAND BEING A PORTION OF THE NE 1/ OF THE SW'/a OF SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, AS DESCRIBED IN ATTACHMENT "A" AND ANNEXING CERTAIN LANDS AND TERRITORY, SITUATED IN ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, AND ADJACENT AND CONTIGUOUS TO THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN AS REQUESTED BY THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, ESTABLISHING AND DETERMINING THE LAND USE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF SAID LANDS FROM RUT TO R-8 (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT IN THE MERIDIAN CITY CODE; PROVIDING THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE FILED WITH THE ADA COUNTY ASSESSOR, THE ADA COUNTY RECORDER, AND THE IDAHO STATE TAX COMMISSION, AS REQUIRED BY LAW; AND PROVIDING FOR A SUMMARY OF THE ORDINANCE; AND PROVIDING FOR A WAIVER OF THE READING RULES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO: SECTION 1. That the following described land as evidenced by attached Legal Description herein incorporated by reference as Exhibit "A" are within the corporate limits of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and that the City of Meridian has received a written request for annexation and re -zoning by the owner of said property, to -wit: Kouba Homes, LLC. SECTION 2. That the above-described real property is hereby annexed and re -zoned from RUT to R-8 (Medium Density Residential) District, in the Meridian City Code. SECTION 3. That the City has authority pursuant to the laws of the State of Idaho, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian to annex and zone said property. SECTION 4. That the City has complied with all the noticing requirements pursuant to the laws of the State of Idaho, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian to annex and re -zone said property. SECTION 5. That the City Engineer is hereby directed to alter all use and area maps as well as the official zoning snaps, and all official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance. ANNEXATION — KENNERS SUBDIVISION (H-2016-0018) Page 1 of 3 SECTION 6. All ordinances, resolutions, orders or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed, rescinded and annulled. SECTION 7. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication, according to law. SECTION 8. The Clerk of the City of Meridian shall, within ten (10) days following the effective date of this ordinance, duly file a certified copy of this ordinance and a map prepared in a draftsman manner, including the lands herein rezoned, with the following officials of the County of Ada, State of Idaho, to -wit: the Recorder, Auditor, Treasurer and Assessor and shall also file simultaneously a certified copy of this ordinance and map with the State Tax Commission of the State of Idaho. SECTION 9. That pursuant to the affirmative vote of one-half (1/2) plus one (1) of the Members of the full Council, the rule requiring two (2) separate readings by title and one (1) reading in full be, and the same is hereby, dispensed with, and accordingly, this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage, approval and publication, PASSED B -Y -r -THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this %day of �_ / (i(./U , 2016. /APPROVED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this �t�day of cJ t tA-e, , 2016. MAYO MY de WEE"ATTEST: AUG ti JACY JON S,-C-IT-YLGL CityoC j El All SEAL .tr ye F,9 eI Ih, TREWS '0 ANNEXATION — KENNERS SUBDIVISION (H-2016-0018) Page 2 of 3 STATE OF IDAHO, ) ss: County of Ada ) S� f On this day of J� , 2016, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared TAMMY de WEERD and JACY JONES, 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. �•.••° (SEAL)40 • c.� • ` ►, ' l .�; Asx• it r . jij •• 009 KcLdllte� L— Pfiut NOTARY PUBLI "ORAHO RESIDING AT: MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:S ANNEXATION — KENNERS SUBDIVISION (H-2016-0018) Page 3 of 3 EXHIBIT A TEA LIEY'S LAND 12594 W. Explorer Drive, suite 150 - Boise, Idaho 83713 SURVEY I ING (208) 385-0636 Fax (208) 385-11696 Project, No.: 3947 Date: February 11, 2016 DESCRIPTION OF ANNEXATION PARCEL FOR kENNERS SUBDIVISION A parcel of land being a portion of the NE Y14 of the SW 1/4 of Sectio 5, T,3N, RAE, B,M,, Ada County, Idaho and more particularly described as,follow I s, COMMENCING at an iron pin marking the South V4 of said Section 5: thence along the South boun'dary' of sold Section 5 I North 89058'43" West 1326 30 feet to a point marking the, Southwest corner of the SE,1/4of said.,SWI/4 Of Section 6, thence along the West boundary of said SE %of the SW Y4'of Section 5 North 0072655" East 1316.59 feet to a point on the South boundary of Lot I of Block 6, of Wingate Place Subdivision No, 21, as filed for record In the office of the, Ada County Recorder; Bolsei Idaho in Book 72 of Plats at pages 7423 and NN,'thence along the South boundary of said Lot I South 89148'59" East 20.00 feet to an iron pin rriarkfno the Southeast corner of said Lot 1, said point marRing the POINT OF BEGINNING; boundary and extended East I boundary of said Lot I thence along the East North 00'26',55" East 146.00 feet to an iron pin on the South boundary of said Wingate Place Subdivision No, 2; thence along said South boundary South 89'48'59" Fast 286,00 feet to an iron pin marking the Northwest corner of Lot 5 of Block 5 of said Wingate Place Subdivision No, 2; thence along the West boundary of said Lot 5 South 00*26'55" West 145.00 feet to an iron pin marking the Southwest c6nier of said id Lot 5 on the North boundary of Dove Meadows Subdivision No. 2, as filed for record in the office of the Ada County Recorder, Boise, Idaho in Book 73 of Plats at pages 7577 and, 7578; thence along said North boundary North 89°48'59' West 280.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, Said Parcel of Land Contains 0,932 Acre, more or less. W-13947�DmM47-Annexakn-Desc.docx - chim Kenners Subdivision H-2016-0018 EXHIBIT B ANNEXATION EXHIBIT w FOR C KENNERS. SUBDIVISION a � A PORTION OP THE ME 1/4 SW 1/4. SECTION 5, B,X , a ADA COUNTY, MAW ! }C cx i _ � WINMh.Y� 'LACE SUME), �d p 26I NICATE }LA; SUM i}r 1 a a r, OAKOREST DRIVL cv V, a j' I a , ANNEXATICJAfARt a � I N �•y 0 j 5,:,89'4 5591' E 2000, P. C?: g:_ i a N 89 °48'59" W X80,04' a 1� J i—f iI.SfF } - m �n I e� a SW CGR, SE lis Sad 1,14 6 ? 1326-30' 7 8 N,89'58'43' W 26.52,60' a 8A,51S OF 86-ARINCS 3f?47- ,,zneatA,e..axg UZ—to--75 00:11;07 urnn,k4 Kenners Subdivision H-2016-0018 TEALEY`$ LAND SURVEYING i2 rF �. �SI�LtJRCF i (Vk, 56.IITE,190, bob, r, b 83713 _ 208-385—G636 — bz7tsa 2i Hllfi Dxn dnan Rwg# X947 Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: June 21, 2016 ITEM NUMBER: 11 ITEM TITLE: Future Meeting Topics PROJECT NUMBER: MEETING NOTES Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS To p i c s o r A r e a s o f C o n c e r n t o A d d r e s s i n t h e C I P Up d a t e : 1. I n d i v i d u a l A s s e s s m e n t s p r e a n d p o s t Co u n t y w i d e S e r v i c e A r e a 2. S e r v i c e A r e a s 3. L e v e l o f S e r v i c e S t a n d a r d s 4. E x i s t i n g D e f i c i e n c i e s 5. I m p a c t F e e E l i g i b i l i t y 6. T r a n s i t 7. C o m m e r c i a l / R e s i d e n t i a l a l l o c a t i o n o f i m p a c t DR A F T 2 0 1 6 C I P C o m p l e t e Up d a t e b a s e d o n C o m m u n i t i e s i n M o t i o n 2 0 4 0 Lo n g R a n g e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n Th e r o a d w a y a n d i n t e r s e c t i o n p r o j e c t s i n t h e DR A F T 2 0 1 6 C I P a r e t h e a r t e r i a l r o a d w a y im p r o v e m e n t s n e c e s s a r y f o r A d a C o u n t y t o g r o w an d d e v e l o p a s e n v i s i o n e d b y a l l o f t h e C O M P A S S me m b e r a g e n c i e s i n t h e i r a p p r o v a l o f C I M 2 0 4 0 23 1 p r o j e c t s 13 7 r o a d p r o j e c t s 94 i n t e r s e c t i o n p r o j e c t s To t a l p r o j e c t c o s t s = $ 8 6 6 , 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Im p a c t F e e E l i g i b l e C o s t s = $ 4 9 1 , 2 4 0 , 0 0 0 No n - I m p a c t F e e E l i g i b l e C o s t s = $ 3 7 5 , 2 6 0 , 0 0 0 Ou r M i s s i o n : W e d r i v e q u a l i t y t r a n s p o r t a t i o n f o r a l l A d a C o u n t y … A n y t i m e , Ou r M i s s i o n : W e d r i v e q u a l i t y t r a n s p o r t a t i o n f o r a l l A d a C o u n t y … A n y t i m e , Ou r M i s s i o n : W e d r i v e q u a l i t y t r a n s p o r t a t i o n f o r a l l A d a C o u n t y … A n y t i m e , Ou r M i s s i o n : W e d r i v e q u a l i t y t r a n s p o r t a t i o n f o r a l l A d a C o u n t y … A n y t i m e , An y w h e r e ! An y w h e r e ! An y w h e r e ! An y w h e r e ! C o m m e n t s o r q u e s t i o n s ? C o m m e n t s o r q u e s t i o n s ? C o m m e n t s o r q u e s t i o n s ? C o m m e n t s o r q u e s t i o n s ? C o m m e n t s o r q u e s t i o n s ? C o m m e n t s o r q u e s t i o n s ? C o m m e n t s o r q u e s t i o n s ? C o m m e n t s o r q u e s t i o n s ? Pu b l i c C o m m e n t P e r i o d – t h r o u g h J u l y 8 , 2 0 1 6 Pu b l i c H e a r i n g A u g u s t 2 4 , 2 0 1 6 No n - i m p a c t f e e e l i g i b l e c o s t s : $ 3 7 5 , 2 6 0 , 0 0 0 Av a i l a b l e r e v e n u e : $ 3 1 8 , 4 4 0 , 0 0 0 Fe d e r a l a i d : $ 2 0 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 Un f u n d e d : $ 3 6 , 8 2 0 , 0 0 0 DR A F T C I P B a l a n c e d To t a l p r o j e c t c o s t s : $ 8 6 6 , 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Im p a c t F e e E l i g i b l e C o s t s : $ 4 9 1 , 2 4 0 , 0 0 0 No n - I m p a c t F e e E l i g i b l e C o s t s : $ 3 3 8 , 4 4 0 , 0 0 0 Un f u n d e d P r o j e c t C o s t s : $ 3 6 , 8 2 0 , 0 0 0 TA B L E C - 7 : C O M P A S S T r a v e l M o d e l S o c i o - E c o n o m i c D at a I n p u t a n d Tr i p E s t i m a t e s i n A d a C o u n t y : 2 0 1 6 - 2 0 3 5 Ye a r P. M . P e a k Ho u r T r i p s (1 ) Po p u l a t i o n Ho u s e h o l d s Em p l o y m e n t Re t a i l Of f i c e In d u s t r i a l Go v e r n m e n t 20 1 6 10 3 , 4 0 0 42 5 , 5 8 3 16 0 , 3 2 7 56 , 6 9 5 96 , 0 7 5 28 , 9 1 2 16 , 5 0 3 20 3 5 15 0 , 1 0 9 60 6 , 0 8 9 23 8 , 1 2 6 86 , 7 0 2 14 5 , 9 0 1 43 , 9 2 6 20 , 4 6 9 SO U R C E : R e g i o n a l T r a v e l D e m a n d M o d e l , 2 0 1 5 . (1 ) E x c l u d i n g C a n y o n C o u n t y a n d “ e x t e r n a l - e x t e r n a l ” t r i p s ( e . g . O r e g o n t o T w i n F a l l s ) o n t h e A d a C o u n ty r o a d w a y s y s t e m . TA B L E C - 8 : A d a C o u n t y N e t N e w S y s t e m V M T : 2 0 1 6 - 2 0 35 Se r v i c e A r e a : A d a C o u n t y AC H D S y s t e m V e h i c l e M i l e s T r a v e l e d ( V M T ) – P M P e a k Hour To t a l 20 1 6 29 3 , 6 4 1 20 3 5 51 1 , 6 1 2 Ne t N e w S y s t e m V M T T o t a l : 21 7 , 9 7 1 SO U R C E : R e g i o n a l T r a v e l D e m a n d Mo d e l , 2 0 1 5 . E x c l u d i n g C a n y o n C o u n t y a n d “ e x t e r n a l - e x t e r n a l ” t r i ps ( e . g . O r e g o n to T w i n F a l l s ) o n t h e A d a C o u n t y r o a d w a y s y s t e m . Pr o j e c t e d c o n g e s t i o n i n c r e a s e s a t b u i l d o u t o f C I P in 2 0 3 5 : Co u n t y w i d e : 2 2 5 % AC H D s y s t e m o n l y : 2 9 0 % TA B L E C - 1 0 : S y s t e m - w i d e T r a v e l C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s D a ta – A d a C o u n t y St r e e t C l a s s e s Ve h i c l e M i l e s T r a v e l e d ( V M T ) La n e M i l e s o f C o n g e s t i o n 20 1 6 20 3 5 20 1 6 2035 Pr i n c i p a l A r t e r i a l 13 2 , 7 0 9 22 7 , 8 9 2 8. 0 8 22.35 Mi n o r A r t e r i a l 16 0 , 9 3 2 28 3 , 7 2 0 16 . 5 6 72.21 Co l l e c t o r 31 , 9 5 7 52 , 3 2 4 0. 6 1 4.19 IT D S t a t e R o a d s 26 0 , 4 1 6 33 9 , 3 1 6 24 . 1 1 61.40 To t a l 58 6 , 0 1 4 90 3 , 2 5 2 49 . 3 6 160.15 So u r c e : R e g i o n a l T r a v e l D e m a n d M o d e l a n d Co m m u n i t i e s I n M o t i o n 2 0 4 0 – R e g i o n a l Lo n g - R a n g e Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n St r e e t N a m e B e g i n n i n g L o c a t i o n E n d L o c a t i o n Fu n c Cl a s s Y e a r P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n Design & Construction Costs RD 2 0 1 6 - 3 5 Em e r a l d S t . F i v e M i l e R d . M a p l e G r o v e R d . M A 2 0 3 1 - 2 0 3 5 Re c o n s t r u c t / w i d e n f r o m 3 - l a n e s t o 5 - l a n e s . 4,160,000 $ RD 2 0 1 6 - 3 6 Em e r a l d S t . M a p l e G r o v e R d . C o l e R d . M A 2 0 3 1 - 2 0 3 5 Re c o n s t r u c t / w i d e n f r o m 3 - l a n e s t o 5 - l a n e s . 4,330,000 $ RD 2 0 1 6 - 4 8 Fi v e M i l e A m i t y R d . V i c t o r y R d . M A 2 0 2 6 - 2 0 3 0 Re c o n s t r u c t / w i d e n f r o m 2 - l a n e s t o 5 - l a n e s . 3,730,000 $ RD 2 0 1 6 - 5 0 Fi v e M i l e R d . U s t i c k R d . M c M i l l a n R d . M A 2 0 3 1 - 2 0 3 5 Re c o n s t r u c t / w i d e n f r o m 3 - l a n e s t o 5 - l a n e s . 6,080,000 $ RD 2 0 1 6 - 8 7 Ma p l e G r o v e R d . L a k e H a z e l R d . Am i t y R d . MA 2 0 2 1 - 2 0 2 5 Re c o n s t r u c t / w i d e n f r o m 2 - l a n e s t o 3 - l a n e s . 2,800,000 $ RD 2 0 1 6 - 9 0 Ma p l e G r o v e R d . F a i r v i e w A v e . U s t i c k R d . M A 2 0 3 1 - 2 0 3 5 Re c o n s t r u c t / w i d e n f r o m 3 - l a n e s t o 5 - l a n e s . 3,420,000 $ RD 2 0 1 6 - 9 1 Ma p l e G r o v e R d . U s t i c k R d . M c M i l l a n R d . M A 2 0 3 1 - 2 0 3 5 Re c o n s t r u c t / w i d e n f r o m 3 - l a n e s t o 5 - l a n e s . 3,290,000 $ RD 2 0 1 6 - 9 7 Mc M i l l a n R d . Me r i d i a n R d Lo c u s t G r o v e R d . M A 2 0 2 1 - 2 0 2 5 Re c o n s t r u c t / w i d e n f r o m 2 - l a n e s t o 3 - l a n e s . 2,540,000 $ RD 2 0 1 6 - 1 1 0 Ov e r l a n d R d . F i v e M i l e R d . M a p l e G r o v e R d . P A 2 0 3 1 - 2 0 3 5 Re c o n s t r u c t / w i d e n f r o m 5 - l a n e s t o 7 - l a n e s . 3,650,000 $ RD 2 0 1 6 - 1 3 6 Vi c t o r y R d . F i v e M i l e R d . M a p l e G r o v e R d . M A 2 0 2 1 - 2 0 2 5 Re c o n s t r u c t / w i d e n f r o m 3 - l a n e s t o 5 - l a n e s . 2,820,000 $ To t a l U n f u n d e d P r o j e c t D e s i g n & C o n s t r u c t i o n C o s t s : 36,820,000 $ CI P #