Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-07-05E IDIAN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Tuesday, July 05, 2016 at 6:00 PM 1. Roll -Call Attendance X Anne Little Roberts X Joe Borton X Ty Palmer X Keith Bird X Genesis Milam X Luke Cavener X Mayor Tammy de Weerd 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Community Invocation by Larry Woodard with Ten Mile Christian Church 4. Adoption of the Agenda Adopted 5. Proclamation A. Proclamation for Park and Recreation Month 6. Consent Agenda Approved A. Approve Minutes of June 21, 2016 City Council Meeting B. Professional Service Agreement for Artwork for Traffic Box Art Project - Moira Hugues C. Police Department: Idaho State University / West Ada School District School Resource Officer Agreement D. Reimbursement Agreement for Connection to Sewer Service at 816 NW 2nd Street with Joseph and Catherine Germundson for the Not -to -Exceed Amount of $8,495.00 E. Sanitary Sewer Easement between the City of Meridian and Dallas Hess, Inc. within Bainbridge Subdivision No. 3 Lot 15 F. Sanitary Sewer Easement between the City of Meridian and Dallas Hess, Inc. within Bainbridge Subdivision No. 3 Lot 27 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda Tuesday, July 05, 2016 — Page 1 of 4 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. G. Sanitary Sewer And Water Main Easement Between The City Of Meridian And Blue Marlin Investments, Inc. within Centrepointe 2 Business Park H. Water Main Easement between the City of Meridian and Dallas Hess, Inc. within Bainbridge Subdivision No. 3 Lot 20 Professional Services Agreement with CJ Rench For Fabrication And Installation Of Main Street And Fairview Avenue Public Art Project for an Amount -not- to -Exceed $40,000.00 J. Approval of Award of Bid and Agreement to Challenger Companies Inc. for the PRV's 1, 3, 7 SCADA Control Upgrades project for the Not -to -Exceed Amount of $82,857.00 K. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Rainier Villas (H-2016-0041) by Aaron Elton Located West of N. Meridian Road and South of E. Franklin Road L. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Verado Subdivision (H-2016-0047) by DevCo, LLC Located Southeast Corner of N. Locust Grove Road and E. Ustick Road M. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for CentrePoint Subdivsion (H-2016- 0057) By W.H. Moore Located at N Eagle Road and E Ustick Road N. Development Agreement for Howry Lane Subdivision (H-2016-0030) with SRS AZ Investors, LLC located at 5220 S. Howry Lane, in the NE 1/4 Section of 33, Township 3 North, Range 1 East. (Parcel No. S1133131200) O. Modified Development Agreement Volante Investments, LLLP (MDA H-2016-0056) Located at 2600 & 2700 E. Overland Road, in the SE 1/4 of Section 17, Township 3N, Range 1E (Parcel No.'s S1117438626 & S1117438451) P. Final Plat for Chesterfield Subdivision No 4 By Kent Brown Planning Generally Located at South of West Pine Avenue Between North Black Cat Road and N Ten Mile Road Request: For a Final Plat Consisting of 57 Residential Lots and four (4) Common Lots on 11.27 Acres of Land in the R-8 Zoning District Q. Final Plat for Trilogy Subdivision No 1 (H-2016-0062) By Conger Management Group Generally Located at the SE Corner of W Chinden Blvd and N Black Cat Road Request: For A Final Plat Consisting of 51 Residential Lots and Five (5) Common Lots on 28.16 Acres of Land in the R-8 Zoning District By Conger Management Group Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda Tuesday, July 05, 2016 — Page 2 of 4 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. 7. A 1 R. Moved from 8A: Final Plat Continued from June 28, 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 Items Moved From the Consent Agenda None 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 Staffs 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. Final Plat Continued from June 28, 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 Approved Moved to the Consent Agenda as Item 6R B. Final Plat Continued from June 28, 2016: Bainbridge Park Subdivision for (H-2016-0070) by Brighton Development Generally Located South of West Chinden Blvd and West of North Ten Mile Road Request: A Final Plat Consisting of 52 Building Lots, Seven (7) Common Lots and One (1) other Lot on 22.78 Acres of Land in the R-8 Zoning District by Brighton Development Approved with conditions C. PY2016 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Action Plan Public Comment Period (Open) D. PY2016 Community Development Block Grant Action Plan (CDBG) - Committee Allocation Recommendation Department Reports A. Parks and Recreation Department: Lakeview Golf Course Green #9 Improvements Update/Closeout Motion Approved to Accept the Reconstruction of Green #9 in Lieu of Rent Relief for FY2017 for The Not - To -Exceed Amount Of $6,000.00 B. Mayor's Office: Budget Amendment for Ball at the Hall and the Meridian Youth Farmer's Market for the Not -to -Exceed Amount of $1,921.00 Approved Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda Tuesday, July 05, 2016 — Page 3 of 4 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. C. Mayor's Office: Budget Amendment for the High Five Grant Project for the Not -to -Exceed Amount of $20,000.00 Approved D. Mayor's Office: Potential Use of Former Parks Maintenance Facility E. Human Resources: FY2017 Benefits Update 10. Ordinances A. Ordinance No. 16-1699: An Ordinance (H-2016-0030 — Howry Lane Subdivision) for Annexation and Rezone of a Parcel of Land Situated in the West Half of the Northeast Quarter of Section 33, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho Containing 41.07 acres of land, Establishing and Determining the Land Use Zoning Classification of R-8 (Medium Density Residential) in the Meridian City Code; and Providing an Effective Date Approved B. Ordinance No. 16-1700: An Ordinance of the City of Meridian (H-2016-0040) Granting re -zoning of a Parcel Located in the SE '/4 of the NE '/4 of Section 32, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian being part of Lot 2 and all of Lots 3 and 4 of Block 3 of NIDAY'S SUBDIVISION as shown in Book 2 of Plats at Page 75 in the Office of the Recorder, Ada County, Idaho. This parcel contains .271 acres more or less. This Parcel shall be re -zoned from the R-4 (Medium Low Density Residential) to the O -T (Old Town) zoning districts, in the Meridian City Code; and Providing for Waiver of the Reading; and Providing for an Effective Date Approved 11. Other Items A. Executive Session Per Idaho State Code 74-206A NEGOTIATIONS IN OPEN SESSION. (1) All negotiations between a governing body and a labor organization shall be in open session and shall be available for the public to attend. Provided, however, a governing body or its designated representatives may hold an executive session for the specific purpose of: (a) Considering a labor contract offer or to formulate a counteroffer Into Executive Session at 8:16 PM Out of Executive Session at 8:30 PM 12. Future Meeting Topics Discussion on the format of the July 20th budget hearing including opportunity for additional questions Adjourned at 8:34 PM Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda Tuesday, July 05, 2016 — Page 4 of 4 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 July 5, 2016 A meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:00 p.m., Tuesday, July 5, 2016, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd. Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, Keith Bird, Genesis Milam, Ty Palmer, Luke Cavener, Joe Borton and Anne Little Roberts Others Present: Bill Nary, Jacy Jones, Bruce Chatterton, Clint Dolsby, Berle Stokes, Mark Niemeyer, Steve Siiddoway, Christena Barney 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: Welcome to our City Council meeting. We appreciate you joining us. For the record it is Tuesday, July 5th, and it's 6:00 p.m. We will start with roll call attendance, Madam Clerk. Item 2: Pledge of Allegiance De Weerd: Item No. 2 is the Pledge of Allegiance. If you will all join us in the pledge to our flag. (Pledge of Allegiance recited.) Item 3: Community Invocation by Larry Woodard with Ten Mile Christian Church De Weerd: And now we will be led by Larry Woodard with our community invocation. I will invite you to, please, join us in the invocation or take this as an opportunity for a moment reflection. And maybe, Larry, you can kick us off with introducing your guests. Woodard: My guests with us tonight are Sydney Lovaza and his wife from Harare, Zimbabwe. He's the president of a small Bible college there in Zimbabwe and today he got to meet the ex-governor Phil Batt, now he's met the Mayor, and he says I would have never had this happen in Zimbabwe. De Weerd: Well, welcome. Meridian City Council July 5, 2016 Page 2 of 50 Woodard: So, we our glad to have him with us. I won't go through the directory of the city departments tonight in my prayer, but I will, instead, focus on -- on the Fourth of July. Our Dear Heavenly Father, we live in a land of the free and the home of the brave and we have just remembered how our forefathers signed the Declaration of Independence from Great Britain in 1776. The Liberty Quartet was in town this past Sunday night at Valley Shepherd and they certainly lifted our spirits with all of the songs about liberty. We often take for granted the freedoms that we enjoy as Americans and we sometimes think it came at no cost, but, in fact, it cost the lives of 14 of the original 56 signers and another two had their sons killed during that war. So, the freedoms we have enjoyed over the large part of the last two hundred years have been through the sacrifices made. In our family if we had an uncle who fought in Europe during World War II and we lucked out when no family members served in Korea or Vietnam War, but we sure made up for it in the battle in Iraq and Afghanistan when our grandson was wounded six times as a special forces sergeant. We are blessed that he returned and now lives and works with his family in Twin Falls. So, freedom is an easy word to say, but it's difficult to maintain and this evening before this Council takes up its regular city business, I want to ask a special blessing on the Mayor and this Council who strive monthly to keep Meridian as a place of peace and freedom. However, in reading the most recent police blotter our uniformed police are having an increasingly dangerous time trying to protect the citizens of Meridian from drugs and violence and criminal mischief . I pray tonight for their safety as they risk their lives to make ours safe. We are in the middle of our summer heat. People are out and about at late hours. Most of our citizens are enjoying the many parks and swimming pools , but there is a small minority that is up to mischief and endanger others. Help us to remain vigilant to the threats around us and may Meridian continue to be a place where it is great to raise our families. Tonight I ask for a blessing on city employees whose pictures never show up on the paper, whose jobs are so critical to the smooth working of our city and, yet, few people know them. Bless these employees who have no major title, but whose job is critical to keeping Meridian number one in the nation. As we stop to remember those who have given their very last breath for our freedoms, bless their families and may they know that in Meridian , Idaho, we have not forgotten them, in Jesus' name, amen. De Weerd: And thank for those important reminders. Woodard: You bet. Item 4: Adoption of the Agenda De Weerd: Item No. 4 is adoption of the agenda. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Meridian City Council July 5, 2016 Page 3 of 50 Bird: On the agenda under 8 -A staff requests this be moved to Consent item as Item 6-R, which is H-2016-0050. Under 10-A the ordinance number is 16-1699. And 10-B the ordinance number is 16-1700 and with that I move we approve the amended agenda. Borton: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve the agenda as read. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 5: Proclamation A. Proclamation for Park and Recreation Month De Weerd: Item 5 is a Proclamation. I will go down to the podium. Asked Steven to join me. So, the month of July is Parks and Recreation Month and so this Proclamation is for that purpose, to remind us of all the activities and blessings we have in our community on those open spaces and classes that make us a community that plays together and as well as working together. So, whereas on March 26th, 2009, the US House of Representatives designated July as Parks and Recreation Month to recognize the importance of park and recreation facilities and whereas the City of Meridian, Idaho, proudly provides 255 acres of developed park land, which hosts awesome events, such as CableOne Movie Night, Kleiner Park Live, the Meridian Barn Sour Run -- Fun Run, the Community Block Party, Unplug and Be Outside Week, Gene Kleiner Day and the Meridian Independence Day Festival, encouraging the use of our parks and outdoor activity and whereas children and adults of all ages enjoy soccer, basketball, football, baseball, golf, tennis, volleyball, softball, disk golf, and much more -- Pickleball should be in there -- and much more through the many classes, camps, and lessons offered in our parks and whereas the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department, also known as the Department of Fun, could not do it alone, we have wonderful partnerships with many youth sports organizations and others to offer additional park amenities that bring kids and families to our parks and create lasting memories and whereas in 2015 alone the Department of Fun celebrated the opening of a new tennis complex, an award-winning dog park, and also in 2015 the department had over 12,000 park shelter reservations and had 5,111 players who participated on 531 teams. Therefore, I, Mayor Tammy de Weerd, hereby proclaim the month of July to be Parks and Recreation Month in the City of Meridian and challenge all citizens to participate in Parks and Recreation Month by getting out and visiting one or more of our wonderful parks. So, I present this to Steve, our director, and, Steve, invite you to make any comments you would like to. Meridian City Council July 5, 2016 Page 4 of 50 Siddoway: Thank you, Madam Mayor. I just want to say thank you. We love Parks and Recreation in the City of Meridian and our mantra has three words, Quality, Community and Fun. We believe in quality facilities, building our community, and providing fun opportunities to create lasting memories for families here in the city and it's our goal and hope that we accomplish that as part of Parks and Recreation Month we hope to promote some fun activities that will bring people out to parks, so thank you very much. Item 6: Consent Agenda A. Approve Minutes of June 21, 2016 City Council Meeting B. Professional Service Agreement for Artwork for Traffic Box Art Project - Moira Hugues C. Police Department: Idaho State University / West Ada School District School Resource Officer Agreement D. Reimbursement Agreement for Connection to Sewer Service at 816 NW 2nd Street with Joseph and Catherine Germundson for the Not-to-Exceed Amount of $8,495.00 E. Sanitary Sewer Easement between the City of Meridian and Dallas Hess, Inc. within Bainbridge Subdivision No. 3 Lot 15 F. Sanitary Sewer Easement between the City of Meridian and Dallas Hess, Inc. within Bainbridge Subdivision No. 3 Lot 27 G. Sanitary Sewer And Water Main Easement Between The City Of Meridian And Blue Marlin Investments, Inc. within Centrepointe 2 Business Park H. Water Main Easement between the City of Meridian and Dallas Hess, Inc. within Bainbridge Subdivision No. 3 Lot 20 I. Professional Services Agreement with CJ Rench For Fabrication And Installation Of Main Street And Fairview Avenue Public Art Project for an Amount-not- to-Exceed $40,000.00 J. Approval of Award of Bid and Agreement to Challenger Companies Inc. for the PRV's 1, 3, 7 SCADA Control Meridian City Council July 5, 2016 Page 5 of 50 Upgrades project for the Not-to-Exceed Amount of $82,857.00 K. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Rainier Villas (H-2016-0041) by Aaron Elton Located West of N. Meridian Road and South of E. Franklin Road L. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Verado Subdivision (H-2016-0047) by DevCo, LLC Located Southeast Corner of N. Locust Grove Road and E. Ustick Road M. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for CentrePoint Subdivsion (H-2016- 0057) By W.H. Moore Located at N Eagle Road and E Ustick Road N. Development Agreement for Howry Lane Subdivision (H- 2016-0030) with SRS AZ Investors, LLC located at 5220 S. Howry Lane, in the NE 1/4 Section of 33, Township 3 North, Range 1 East. (Parcel No. S1133131200) O. Modified Development Agreement Volante Investments, LLLP (MDA H-2016-0056) Located at 2600 & 2700 E. Overland Road, in the SE 1/4 of Section 17, Township 3N, Range 1E (Parcel No.'s S1117438626 & S1117438451) P. Final Plat for Chesterfield Subdivision No 4 By Kent Brown Planning Generally Located at South of West Pine Avenue Between North Black Cat Road and N Ten Mile Road Request: For a Final Plat Consisting of 57 Residential Lots and four (4) Common Lots on 11.27 Acres of Land in the R-8 Zoning District Q. Final Plat for Trilogy Subdivision No 1 (H-2016-0062) By Conger Management Group Generally Located at the SE Corner of W Chinden Blvd and N Black Cat Road Request: For A Final Plat Consisting of 51 Residential Lots and Five (5) Common Lots on 28.16 Acres of Land in the R-8 Zoning District By Conger Management Group R. Moved from 8A: Final Plat Continued from June 28, 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 Meridian City Council July 5, 2016 Page 6 of 50 De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Item No. 6 is under our Consent Agenda. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: As stated earlier, Item 8-A has been made 6-R and that is H-2016-0050. And with that I move that we approve the Consent Agenda as amended and for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest. Borton: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda. Any discussion by Council? Okay. Madam Clerk. Roll Call: Bird, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener, yea; Palmer, yea; Little Robert, yea. De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 7: Items Moved From the Consent Agenda De Weerd: There were no items moved from the Consent Agenda. Item 8: Action Items B. Final Plat Continued from June 28, 2016: Bainbridge Park Subdivision for (H-2016-0070) by Brighton Development Generally Located South of West Chinden Blvd and West of North Ten Mile Road Request: A Final Plat Consisting of 52 Building Lots, Seven (7) Common Lots and One (1) other Lot on 22.78 Acres of Land in the R-8 Zoning District by Brighton Development De Weerd: So, we will move to Item 8-A, which is a final plat, continued from -- Bird: No. We got it on the Consent. De Weerd: -- June 28th -- this was moved to the Consent Agenda and so Item 8 - B is a final plat also continue from July 28th for H-2016-0070. Chatterton: Madam Mayor -- Meridian City Council July 5, 2016 Page 7 of 50 De Weerd: Are you doing this? Chatterton: Yes. De Weerd: Wow. Chatterton: Really scraping the bottom of the barrel tonight. So, Madam Mayor and Council Members, as you mentioned, the last time this was heard Becky McKay, the applicant's representative, requested a continuance of this item in order to obtain approval from her client on the acceptance of the conditions of approval in the staff report. This afternoon we got written documentation from Ms. McKay that the applicant is in agreement with the conditions of approval contained in the staff report. So, I'm happy to report there are no outstanding issues on this item. Bird: We are on the wrong one. De Weerd: We are on Item 8-B. Chatterton: Oh, I'm very sorry. De Weerd: But thank you for that -- Chatterton: A little more clarity on the previous item, which you have already dealt with. De Weerd: You just wanted to emphasize your first remark. Chatterton: That you're scraping the bottom of the barrel. Yes. Got it. So, for Bainbridge Park Subdivision final plat, there are no outstanding issues, except for one. The applicant is requesting modification of Condition 19 dealing with when water and sewer easements outside of public rights -of-way are to be provided. The current condition wording calls for the easement to be reviewed and approved before approval of the development plan . The applicant would like to modify this to allow easement approval before the signature of the final by the city engineer and I believe Mike Wardle wanted to say a few words about this. De Weerd: Thank you for joining us, Mike. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Wardle: Mike Wardle. Brighton Corporation. 12601 West Explorer Drive in Boise. And I do appreciate the opportunity for just a moment. I mentioned last week we were on the second development agreement modification for what proved to be standard conditions of approval that don't necessarily apply in that particular case. The last two items were commercial subdivisions and really had a condition that was applicable more to the residential. As we are getting into Meridian City Council July 5, 2016 Page 8 of 50 these conditions more and more we are finding there is some questions about interpretation and I spoke with staff this morning, concerned that there may be an interpretation issue with this plat on fulfillment of that Condition 19. That may or may not be the case as we have kind of worked through and discussed it during the course of the day. However, it's an issue that will come up again in the future, so our offer to the Council in this request was that we would like to work with staff and staff has indicated more than a willingness to do so, so that we can make sure that interpretation of these conditions don't create a problem either for us or for you in that sense. However, that being the case, I still think it would be appropriate and do ask for the modification that was requested simply to indicate that you have control over the platting process by affixing the city's engineer signature on the plat. Everything has to be done in order to accomplish that. Nothing really changes with the outcome, but it certainly increases the potential for speeding up the process at the beginning. So, I would be happy to answer questions, but I do ask for that one modification and, then, the privilege to work with staff on dealing with his long-term questions down the road. De Weerd: Okay. Wardle: Nothing more than that, Madam Mayor. De Weerd: Council, any questions? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Do you have anything? Chatterton: Clint wanted to say a few words about this. Dolsby: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this condition has been in the staff reports for quite some time. Some of the reasoning behind it -- one of the key reasons was -- Mike mentioned commercial developments. Well, commercial developments a lot of times don't require a plat. So, if we change the condition to say final plat, but the commercial development doesn't necessarily require a plat, it makes it tough to get those easements. So, it's requiring a development plan approval, especially with the commercial side of developments, is a really -- I believe is a really good thing, because, then, you can -- you have some -- a way to get the easements done before the development plan is approved. So, in this case we don't necessarily -- wouldn't want to recommend against what Mike is suggesting, but we would like the opportunity -- I see it suggested to discuss it with -- internally with the group with Bruce and Bruce Chatterton and the rest of the folks before we make an official change to the conditions. Chatterton: And, Madam Mayor and Council Members, as Clint said, we don't have an objection to making this change and we invite the conversation. We are Meridian City Council July 5, 2016 Page 9 of 50 going to be having a discussion with our development customers coming up fairly soon of process changes and this certainly -- we invite this to be one of those -- one of those issues to discuss. Wardle: Madam Mayor, just for one point of clarity. I had this same conversation with another staff member today -- appreciate Clint's comment, but it was noted that if a commercial subdivision doesn't require a plat, this condition never comes up. It's not applied to a plat. So, in this case it's applied to a -- a residential project and so we will work it out, but it's -- it's just something that interpretation of that condition has become an issue of concern. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. It looks like you will have a number of things on that list. So, thank you for being here. Council, anything further on this item? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we approve the final plat on H-2016-0070 and on Condition 19 we do the modification and while this isn't an official part of the motion, I would think staff would take a good hard look at this ordinance with the development group and with that I move we approve it. Milam: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 8-B. Any discussion? Madam Clerk, will you call roll. Roll Call: Bird, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener, yea; Palmer, yea; Little Robert, yea. De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. C. PY2016 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Action Plan Public Comment Period (Open) D. PY2016 Community Development Block Grant Action Plan (CDBG) - Committee Allocation Recommendation De Weerd: Item 8-C is under our Community Development Block Grant administrator, so I'm going to turn this over to Sean. Kelly: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, thank you for the opportunity to come to you tonight. The first thing that we need to do is -- this is the start of our Meridian City Council July 5, 2016 Page 10 of 50 draft action plan period and so on the agenda we do have an opening of the public comment period, which will close on August 9th with a public hearing. So, between now and then we can receive comments, the action plan can change in draft form until Council reviews it again on August 9th, which we have the actual hearing. So, that's what we need to do with that particular agenda item, Madam Mayor. De Weerd: Okay. With your comments I will of ficially open the public hearing for comments. Kelly: Thank you, Madam Mayor. So, are we going to move onto the next agenda item? De Weerd: Yes. Kelly: Okay. So, this is the -- this is, again, from the committee. We sat down with all of the applications that we had for CDBG for this year. The committee is putting forth these recommendations in this particular -- or through me for this particular presentation and, again, this is the draft action plan, so, please, comments or anything else we want to look at between now and August 9th, things we might need to change, questions that you will have for me to take back to the applicants, please, do so so I can run those down. I'd like to start this with just -- snapshot of our LMI -- you have all seen this picture before. I like this particular slide because it breaks down pretty clearly with the major roads where our low income area actually is in terms of where a 35.5 percent exception community is. So, anything -- anything above 35.5 percent of low income for that area is coded as. This one I like also, because it actually tells you what those percentages are, so you can see where the concentrations are. There are a few areas at the corners on the outside that you might suspect and they are, in deed, a low income area, but because those census blocks are so big and the data is aggregate, you're never going to see those display as a full percentage , but we can always do -- and it's something for Council to remember, too, we can always do an income survey in those areas that we know if there is an actual project that we really think needs to go there and we can get that information and we are allowed to do projects outside of the LMI doing it that way. And just a quick little picture of some of the past projects that we have done for CDBG. The first -- the two on the top there, they all use playground and the fitness path, those were at Meridian Elementary. The fitness path -- the fitness path with the equipment there is what was done last year and, then, also, of course, the Meridian Food Bank, who is always on the list for the applicants. It always does a pretty good job of turning pennies into dollars with their resources they have and the friendship in the community that they have with the different organizations. And, then, this was Idaho Avenue sidewalk -- this is just my picture when I got out there when they first started building it and it was my first infrastructure project with the city actually carrying it forward, so I thought that that was kind of neat. Meridian City Council July 5, 2016 Page 11 of 50 But just as an idea of some of the different things that we can do with CDBG and this is not the end-all-be-all, clearly, but these are things that we have done. De Weerd: Sean, I would say on the fitness path at Meridian Eleme ntary School, I went out and walked with them a couple of times and those kids are so ecstatic and so proud of it. I mean these kids really don't have too much and they have really taken ownership and pride in -- in this pathway and know that it's an investment in them, so thank you. Kelly: Thank you, Madam Mayor. So, for our 2016 action plan that -- we will start with the basics. Three hundred and fifty-six thousand dollars, roughly, that's an eight percent increase. So, once again I think this fou r years in a row our allotment continues to go up. Public services, 15 percent, that is the rule. We can't spend any more than 15 percent of any year's allocation. That turns out to be 53,000 and, then, administration is capped at 20. We are keeping th e administration the same as what we had for last year, which is about 19 percent and just understand, too, that's not all of my salary, that is the comprehensive plan, that is the consolidated plan, there is all sorts of things thrown in there, too. Any planning that we do, if we do income surveys, fair housing activities, all of that is also within that particular amount and, again, it's actually higher now than last year and next year, just so you're aware, because we are doing that consolidated plan and that is going to start right now. So, we are using this year's money to start it, this money to continue it, and, then, the third year is my agency would finish that out with them coming to Council with a new consolidated plan and finishing that with you. So, just so you know why that may seem inflated now and it's just not based on the fact that we have to procure and do that. This is our application process and, in summary, we did away with a couple of smaller -- I don't know what you would call them -- extra hoops to jump through, letters that they need to send for -- if you just -- if you were an applicant that you wanted to submit an application and we have worked with you before or we haven't and you had a project that you called me and you said I think this will qualify, if I told you it qualified, submit an application. I would rather just have applications and have to go through it back and forth with letters. So, I'm trying to simplify that process and because of that we have got more appli cations, asking for more money than we actually have, making it a little bit more of a competitive process. So, I thought that that was actually a good thing. The projects were ranked by the scoring committee. We don't actually score them by number anymore, it's just looking at the actual -- the action plan, the consolidated -- or the consolidated plan, what are these trying to do, what is their capacity to meet the need, what's the project. Do we need that? And, then, ranking that on top -- on top of each other. Our -- I want to make a quick note about our citizens that showed up. James Lucker and Gretchen Caserotti from the library, it is really really important that we have members of the community that show up that are not representatives of the city, that are not representatives -- that don't work in the Finance Department or on Council. They are -- the way that they look at things is vastly different from the way that I look at things on a daily basis, so I do Meridian City Council July 5, 2016 Page 12 of 50 want to thank them for com ing and, hopefully, we can continue to grow that -- that community interaction with actual citizens like we have now and James is a great guy, just because he is always throwing something else out there that we didn't think about from a citizen standpoint, so I do want to thank them publicly. De Weerd: I will attest to that as well. Kelly: So, one of the things I want to make everybody aware of -- so I'm a three- quarter employee, which means I have to look at these projects, too, and tell the committee I can't do all of that and we have a lot of really, really robust projects and so that's part of our dialogue and discussion within that committee. So, that is one of those factors that we have to look at and so can Sean do 12 proje cts? Probably not. So, we look at seven or eight or six and, then, look at the robustness of that individual project, that level or rigor and so that was part of that conversation. But, then, we looked at what the goals and the outcomes that are trying to be attained by the project itself, does it meet our consolidated plan and does the organization have the capacity to carry that out and do we know that or are they just saying that. So, we go to that process and we try to evaluate. And sometimes we walk away with questions, as you will see a little bit later tonight, that we need answered. Now public service projects, which is any infrastructure project that wasn't in the public service category, if they didn't meet and they were qualified, we rank them like we did last year as an alternate project, so that we will have extra projects in the action plan that we can go back without doing a substantial amendment and trigger if we have a community center façade project that doesn’t go forward and I t hink that that's worked well and hopefully that will work well in the future and we will always save ourselves a little extra time by moving through a project that Council's already approved, as opposed to coming back and let's rethink this again. So, this is just the overview of the national objectives of the CDBG program, so these goals don't change, these goals are part and parcel of what the CDBG program is, so we always have to strive to meet these goals with anything that we do. Every project has to fit these to a T. They are extremely ambiguous and they are very broad and they don't give very good breakdown or check blocks of what actually meets that, so we have to dip into regulations and see and look at other private -- or previously done projects to try to make those fit and we have HUD always to bounce those off of, but just so that you're aware that these are the things that we actually have to hit or it's not a qualifiable project. The slum and blight for Council, the -- the community center project actually informed us that we have an issue and we need to have a plan and assessment. We are currently right now about to -- for myself and purchasing secure a contract with a local engineering firm to do that for us. I will be soliciting -- I will be soliciting some Council help, if you -- if anyone would like to be a part of that steering committee of what we are going to look at, as well as inviting a new citizen and some other folks, I just wanted you to be aware that we are about to move forward with that. It's a good opportunity for me to let you guys know that that's what we want to do. I won't read through this and I don't ask you to, but later on this would be a really good idea if you Meridian City Council July 5, 2016 Page 13 of 50 could. These are our strategies that we currently h ave in our consolidated plan. These are going to change next year or they won't, depending on what we get included in our new consolidated plan. For this year I can tell you that affordable housing and the suitable living environment are what we are hitting. That's just based on the -- based on the applications that came in. It's also a good thing, because as long as we can't do slum and blight projects and we can't do things that are directly -- or directly impact tools for economic development, double tapping the housing, double tapping the infrastructure projects, looks a lot better than not doing something entirely, so -- so, for our public service applications, we had a total of four. We are currently recommending funding three. We had more ask than we had to give, which last year that was -- if you remember that was inverse and we were able to give a little bit more to the food bank, because we just had extra money in that pool. We didn't this time, so the scoring committee recommends funding the following ways, with the caveat that happened right before this -- this Council meeting. The Care Enough To Share, we all loved it in terms of the committee, everybody that was there, thought it was a great program. We decided not to push it forward for funding. However, parks just informed me just before that it's not 7,500 dollars that they are super interested in, it's a thousand dollars or 1,500 dollars if that was something that the committee would be -- and that Council would be willing to use, that they could use that amount of money to still carry forth that Care Enough To Share program. And so I told them that I would make that mention here as a correction. The issue there was we needed find about 10,000 dollars -- or 11,000 dollars to take away and we did that by that particular, as well as the Boys & Girls Club. The Boys & Girls Club is -- we have worked with them before. We were concerned about their capacity to meet 15,000 dollars, it's been about ten or 11. So, we moved them -- we moved the football just so that -- just so that they could actually commit to that. We know that they can, but that also freed up a little bit of extra money that we were going to say give to the food bank , like we did last year, but if Council so desired, we could move that Care Enough To Share in the amount of 1,448 dollars, whatever was the overage. So, just so the Council is aware. Jesse Tree homeless prevention, I want to talk about that, just because we have never done it, but Boise has. Nampa is in the same boat we are, that they are currently entertaining them. Jesse Tree is an organization that does a one-time benefit to individuals who are about to become homeless. So, it's homelessness prevention. So, if I'm -- I just got a new job and I'm about to miss my house payment, so I'm going to get kicked out, I'm going to miss my rent, that's what that's there for. It's one time for the rest of your life. So, it's one thing -- one time and the way that they have that divvied up for Meridian is I think about a thousand dollars for the first few months, trying to work with one individual or two and, then, they are going to trickle that off to about 500 dollars per -- per month for the rest of it. So, it's not the entire rent, sometimes it's just what they need for the rent. They may be 500 dollars short, they may be 200 dollars short, but it's one time. So, we recommended putting that forward as homeless specialties under public service. An issue with public service that we noted the last two years in a row, because we had to work with the CATCH and Meridian City Council July 5, 2016 Page 14 of 50 CATCH is a fantastic organization, but they have had a really troublesome time trying to draw down in Meridian because of some of the self -inflicted things that we've done with the program. We required them to house in Meridian from Meridian. That became really difficult, because they can't find quote, unquote, HUD qualified homeless people in Meridian because we tend to double up, family members take care of each other. You're living with your brother-in-law and your family for a time being, which we would consider maybe homeless if you don't have one of your own. HUD does not consider that homeless. In other places like Boise and Nampa they are able to operate a little bit di fferently, because they have a bigger pool to pull from. They have shelters, they have agencies that are providing them with very quick housing turnover, so they can actually use those as individuals in their program to quickly rehouse where ever they wou ld like to rehouse them. So, because of things like that -- and that's just something that -- that CATCH has noted and they are going to try to do this again in another year. CATCH wants to continue to work with Meridian, rethink that model a little bit about how it applies to a place like Meridian as opposed to a place like Boise. What that leaves us is two years that they are not going to spend. Last year they weren't able to expend as we know. This year I know that they are not going to be able to expend. They did not apply this year, because they know that. So, what I'd like to ask Council is within this next action plan I would like to trigger something in the action plan that says -- sometime around June, sometime during the action plan, if we know that we are going to have public service dollars that are not going to be expended up to 15 percent, instead of letting them go through public service and, then, using them somewhere else, why don't we use them for public service, what we earmark them for, but maybe one of the organizations that has the capacity to spend. As an example, the food bank that we know -- we could probably give them 100,000 dollars and they could probably spend all that money. So, as an idea for -- and this is just an idea for Council. As an idea for a way to keep that strong, that 15 percent public service strong, as opposed to going nine percent at the end of the year, because we didn't do it. So, I offer that up as an idea and I'd like to include it, so I'd like the Council to tell me if that's okay for me to put that in and, again, we can do that on the 9th. Nonpublic service applications. Five applications submitted for a total funding of 400,000 dollars. That's way more this year than what we had to use, again, inverse from last year. Funding -- or, rather, the scoring committee recommends funding four of the five. Obviously, we had to cut back on one or two of the projects, but we did change the -- change the paradigm here. We are actually asking for an alternate that they didn't ask for and I will explain here in a second. The first one here is low income mix -- it's a low income housing tax credit mixed income development. It's on 2 1/2 Street and I have a couple of slides here to go through towards the end. I'm not going to be joined by a representative of VCD, who was hopefully going to be here to talk a little bit more about it. But what this is -- and just so I can talk very little -- De Weerd: Sean. Meridian City Council July 5, 2016 Page 15 of 50 Kelly: Uh? Bird: We have somebody. De Weerd: Behind you. Kelly: Oh, you do. You were able to be here. Okay. So, we will have someone able to talk about VCD, so I can talk a little less about it, because they are the experts. So, this is a mixed income housing development, 2 1/2 Street over by the Christian church just down the road here , that's the area. It's zoned Old Town. It's something that they can do there. It's going to be about six -- it's going to be about 61 percent low income and the rest of it's market rate and there is some pictures that we have from other projects that they have done in Garden City that we will be able to go through. But they are asking for 50,000 dollars -- we have recommended 50,000 dollars. However, the committee did say there was lots of questions that we had about what that means and what kind of project this is. If it was any other -- if it was any other type of development it can put -- that can put apartments in that particular place, but because this is an interesting animal, low income housing tax credit, mixed income, partnered with a nonprofit organization, how does that work, we asked if they would show up and come and talk to you guys about what that would be and what questions you may have. Ada County Housing Authority and Neighbor Housing Services, we work with them frequently. We did that last year and the year before. They asked for 50,000 dollars apiece. However, both of them still have money from a previous year, so in an effort to try to lower what we have, we gave them 30,000 dollars as a recommendation to Council, which would still allow them to do what they are doing now, but also have to expend down the money they have from previous years, as opposed to letting them hang onto extra. Meridian Public Works, street lights, Austin Peterson, has developed in one of the low income sections of the LMI a growing map of places that he knows are deficient in lighting and so what he has done is he has two streets that he has picked out for -- if I were to do these -- if I were to prioritize, these would be the two streets I would do right now today and so he's actually -- he's actually going to go ahead and do the rest of the LMI for future projects, because we have lots of gaps in lighting as he's coming to know now. So, he asks for 150,000 dollars for Public Works. Again, we had to lower the cap and so 124 is what we are actually putting in there. The last project was Meridian Development Corporation asked for sidewalk improvements. We did this last year. They ask for a certain amount for sidewalk improvements. We put it as an alternate project. We are probably going to trigger that project this year. However, where they want to do this is on 2 1/2 Street also, the east side of 2 1/2 street, and after meeting with Justin Lucas from ACHD -- and I sat in on the scoping committee, the committee -- the grant committee here had to really take a look at when they cou ld get this done and 100,000 dollars is not a whole lot of money for what they might need to do on 2 1/2 Street, curb, gutter, sewer, all of those things. So, without knowing -- and Justin Lucas said that they won't know until the end of fall , mid winter, and once Meridian City Council July 5, 2016 Page 16 of 50 we know that, then, we will have a project that if they can afford it and that they can put in their budget, will be able to trigger that, too, should we have additional funds. If not they can come back to Council next year with a scoped projec t and say, hey, we would like to continue this project that we came up with and they would already have it done from ACHD. And so we put that in there and since we took some money away from Public Works to make the dollars make sense, we thought that putting Public Works projects for street lights, because we have plenty of areas we can do those as a fall back project, as an earmark for 50,000 dollars, which we don't have and we are not asking for. That's only if another project were to fall through, but the committee did feel that that was an appropriate project to leverage and end up as an infrastructure project to leverage those dollars for should they become available. And it's not Chance Hobbs. So, Doug Crowther of VCD is here and I would like to -- if that's okay I'd like to have him speak a few minutes. I have got some slides from them that they have given me about projects that they had done and what this project actually is, what a low income housing tax project would be here. De Weerd: Thank you, Sean. Crowther: Hi. My name is Doug Crowther. I am a member of VCD. We formed a few years ago and one of the main things that we do is for tax credit housing. We've all have experience in it for a long period of time. I've done it since about 2004. Mainly as a project manager and in construction and I still fill that role with VCD. What we try to do -- and where we have focused in on 2 1/2 Street specifically is because what we look for is mainly an in-fill project if we can, within an urban environment, and use the tax credit base as a vehicle to help other development within the area and lift it up and try to take some of that -- you know, areas that are a little more run down or blighted and revamp them and use something that people wouldn't even know, maybe quote, unquote, low income housing to actually bring the property values up and do infrastructure improvements within an area. We did this successfully down at Trailwinds project, which is in Garden City. I don't know if any of you are familiar with that. It was some, you know, mobile home parks that had been half abandoned and the trailers that were in it were run down. We identified the area because of the amenities that were right there. In that case we had the Boys & Girls Club right down the street. We had a school. We had the river and the Greenbelt right there. We had an easy commute to a downtown area and into a core and, plus, the revamping of Garden City, which is kind of -- you know, you have got all that great land that runs up and down the river and a lot of it is pretty heavy industrial, you know, that's switching over and getting abandoned. So, we thought that we could help spur this growth by placing something nice right there down in the middle of it and 2 1/2 Street we see kind of the same opportunity as it's close to your downtown core and there is a lot of walkable amenities within the City of Meridian nearby, so we kind of earmark that as a spot that said, yes, this is the type of area that we would like to come into, build a similar structure. It's not the same. Everything has to be adapted for the environment, but do a -- you know, a Meridian City Council July 5, 2016 Page 17 of 50 mixed income development there. We find that the mixed income is much better. Try to get some market rates in there. You want to have a good mix of demographic of people. You know, it's much more successful to see that type of thing. And in that with -- down at -- and you see a full rendering of what's happening across the street now from Trailwinds, which is the apartment complex and if you look up there on the slide you have the proposed development, which is now fully platted and actually on Monday it's -- you know, it's supposedly a slam dunk, but the plat will be approved for the townhouses and residential that are going in across the street. Sidewalks were expanded. We added new water lines, sewer lines. We did the street trees and the street scape in there and allowed for the area to now have a walkability standard, where before it didn't exist. And so that's -- you can kind of see the same type of concept that we are believing in here to use the CDBG funds to go in and -- and add that type of feel to the neighborhood. We are still kind flip-flopping the complex and trying to make sure we maximize the usability of the -- of the site and, of course, all that will be submitted. I think there was a -- did you get the rendering of -- that we had for this site? You didn't get that? Kelly: I did not. Crowther: Okay. Kelly: That doesn't mean the planners did not. Crowther: Okay. It would be a taller building here. We would be using, you know, under parking on this case to try to make sure that we meet the demands of the -- the parking infrastructure here. But it would be in similar style most likely. The units would be the same and I would invite anybody to come down and take a look at them. I mean they are pretty nice. And hopefully with that, you know, you would increase the ability for your downtown plan to get moved forward with, you know, some residents in a -- in a denser neighborhood that could actually utilize the city of downtown Meridian and so everything comes out to be a win-win, so that -- De Weerd: Doug, where is -- where is that? Crowther: For this year? De Weerd: Uh-huh. Crowther: This is the future. That's across the street from Trailwinds and those are townhouses. They are market rate and that's going to be put in through Parkway Station, which I had a lot to do with the planning of that and, you know, it was an investment that I felt that was, you know, very viable given -- put Trailwinds in and I'm a businessman, I want to take advantage of , you know, the infrastructure that's being put in and also work with Garden City to produce those Meridian City Council July 5, 2016 Page 18 of 50 townhouses there, you know, which will be -- they will probably be in about the 270,000 dollar range right there and that's kind of a nice improvement from what it is right now, which is a commercial zone, which -- you know, my office was in there for months. An abandoned building, but, you know, it -- so, it's trying to demonstrate the growth that can happen out of it and I don't know what other questions you guys have about this type of development, but willing to ask them -- or answer anything. De Weerd: Questions from Council? Mr. Palmer. Palmer: Madam Mayor. A question, actually, for police. How busy is your department with the 2 1/2 Street area? Stokes: Councilman Palmer, Mayor, it's no different than I guess some of our other apartments. It comes and goes. So, it's been busy at times and not so bad at others, if that helps. Palmer: Follow up, Madam Mayor. Would you anticipate it being busier than normal with low income housing, as opposed to any other apartment development? Stokes: Mayor, Councilman Palmer, it really depends on who occupies those residents. I don't know that I can say or predict how it would be. I know that probably doesn't help, but -- De Weerd: Just because they are high density doesn't mean -- or low income doesn't mean that makes crime more likely or not. Stokes: Yes. It's very difficult to predict crime. De Weerd: What is the percentage of low income housing that you have in the project in Garden City? Crowther: I believe he was correct, at about 60 percent -- oh, in Garden City? De Weerd: Uh-huh. Crowther: We only have four out of 64 units that are market rate. De Weerd: And what is your ratio per -- that you're proposing here? Crowther: I believe it is around 30 percent. I don't have the proforma in front of me at this moment and I don't want to misspeak. De Weerd: But similar to what you have in Garden City? Meridian City Council July 5, 2016 Page 19 of 50 Crowther: It's a little higher market rate here. It's a lower percentage of low- income housing. De Weerd: Oh. Okay. Crowther: And one of the things I want to qualify on this -- and when you talk about tax credits, the program itself is different than what they have in Section 8, which is where the -- the people get vouchers and they're paid the rent. One of the main things is, of course, it's much tougher to get into a low income housing complex than it is a market rate. You have to pass the background checks and verify the employment and the qualifications to do so in -- under those compliance departments are much more stringent and so they do vet and I can't tell you that somebody won't move in who is a problem, because you don't know, you know what I mean? Nobody can predict the future. But they go through and they look at things like a felony or something like that and they are disqualified. So, they have to be working families and what they do in lieu of getting the voucher is they physically lower the rent based on your income level between 40 and 60 percent of the area median income, which is one of the bigger demands in the Ada County area. It's gotten to be a pretty bad problem . The vacancy rates are getting pushed really hard. They are full. Trailwind is full. And what it is is that as the economy grows -- we have all talked about the middle class getting out run. Well, the bottom portion of that middle class now gets to be qualified as low income and either it's at that 60 percent range, which is pretty close to a market rate deal and, then, you have the 40 percent, which are the lower end of the bracket in there. So, they're working, they just don't have that one-third ratio that you set up for rent. You know, if you're going to pay a mortgage you're going to do something like that, you only want about a third of your income to go into that and that's getting more and more to be the case where it's 50 percent and that's what this program is for. It really is -- it's kind of a screwy thing that I kind of find out that Reagan is the one who came up with the program in the first place and his whole thing was to slice away a bunch of tax write-offs for corporations, but he wanted to put it in and privatize that whole thing, get rid of the projects run by the government, and put it into the hands of individuals like ourselves and make us own it, so we can't flip it, we can't, you know, build it and turn it over. You're required to hold onto it for a 15 year period minimum and some states they will put in a thing where it has to be operated for 99 years. I think Idaho is 40. So, it has to be under -- operated under those guidelines during that time period and with that private investment you can't play slum lord, you've got to keep it up and Boston Capital or whoever is the big investor out there, makes sure that you can't make enough money on that thing. You have to make -- you know, what you predict on your cash flow you have to keep your debt ratios down and you have to keep it at that parameter and that extra cash has got to go back into it. So, it's -- that's the reason I'm backing it when I looked into it and I said, you know, if I'm going to do this kind of stuff I want to do the right program. So, I do believe in it. So, I am an advocate. And our goal is to specifically do the program the right and that's to put it in where we Meridian City Council July 5, 2016 Page 20 of 50 feel -- doesn't mean -- it's my opinion, but where does it make sense -- where should this project go, rather than where -- where can it go and a lot of people will say, well, this scores a certain rate and it's great and everything else. I look at this location -- and in the City of Meridian I do see the need through the market studies and everything else that we try to generate and the other thing I see is if this goes in I'm helping the guy right over there down on Main Street and by improving the sidewalk all the way down I'm helping the walkability all the way from Cole Valley all the way up the block and I'm turning it into a neighborhood , rather than what exists at this present day. So, those are the things that we look at in that. You know, as far as like policing and things like that, I guess probably the best thing to say is what did we replace versus what's in there now. Garden City could probably answer some of your questions, you know. I mean they were -- they've had one that went bad. I haven't heard anything bad about what we put in. De Weerd: No. You definitely have given that -- that area a huge facelift. Crowther: Yeah. De Weerd: Clint, I have a question in terms of infrastructure with sewer and water. Are we prepared for the densities that they're suggesting? Dolsby: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, it appears that we are. We would have to see the actual development plan to really confirm that we have the capacity available there. If we didn't I'm sure we could probably work with them to get it there though, if we need to. De Weerd: Thank you. It was your best guess anyway. Any questions for Doug? Palmer: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Palmer. Palmer: A couple more. What's your anticipated rent cost for the low-income section? Crowther: I can't answer that right off the top of my head. Palmer: Ballpark it. Crowther: I would say right now a two bedroom at the 40 percent rate is 570 and, then, at the upper rate -- and don't quote me on this, but I believe it's about 750 right now. And that does vary. They come out with new AMIs and they adjust it throughout that time period and that's the max rent you can charge. You know, what they will do they will tell you what the maxes are and, then, you Meridian City Council July 5, 2016 Page 21 of 50 know, if you're having problems filling them, of course, you can reduce it down just as management, but -- so, you can get a two-bedroom unit -- you know, if you're only making 40 percent of the AMI, you can get a two-bedroom unit for 530 and a one bedroom for 400 and some. So, it's a pretty good deal, you know. Palmer: Madam Mayor, follow up. De Weerd: Uh-huh. Palmer: And you had mentioned tax credits. So, that's -- the tax credits go to the owner of the building to subsidize his profit and the owners of the buildings? Crowther: The easiest way I can explain it is probably that the federal government will issue a block of tax credits to the state and they will say -- and it's a competitive round. You have to apply for it and get the award and everything else and that's what we are doing right now is we are putting together the -- the basics of a project to do an application and based on that what they will do is they will award you a block of tax credits -- let's say it's 600,000 dollars of it is tax credits. It goes for ten years. So, that's, in essence, worth six million dollars. That's equity that the investor will put in for that dollar's worth of tax credits. So, it's a big down payment on your mortgage , which lowers your debt so you can operate it at these reduced rents. That's the way it works is so that your mortgage payment isn't very big you can actually reduce your rent load. So, that's how it -- does that answer the question? Palmer: Madam Mayor, if I may. That does answer my question and, frankly, it horrifies me. I have a tendency to be fairly blunt and so I would say, please, take your project elsewhere. I -- I could never vote for the subsidized housing in Meridian. I mean Meridian is what it is because -- I don't know if we have it, but we certainly couldn't have very much of it for us to maintain what we have. So, I love it at Boise, Garden City, Nampa, anywhere else that wants it can have it. I don't want to here. Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: Madam Mayor, I think maybe my question is more for staff now at this point. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. And, remember, you heard just one Council Member that said that. Crowther: That's okay. It's America, so -- De Weerd: Any other questions for Doug before he sits down? Meridian City Council July 5, 2016 Page 22 of 50 Cavener: Madam Mayor, maybe one. And this is either for Doug or for staff. Doug, if I understand correctly, in order for this project to move forward you would have to receive some funding from CDBG; is that accurate? De Weerd: No. Cavener: Madam Mayor. So, staff -- Crowther: You know, one is it -- the state looks like -- at it as support, you know, if you get this CDBG and it does help our application to say that, you know, we are applying for these funds and it -- in essence it's a -- it's a commitment by the -- the city itself to invest some in it and then -- you know, so that's -- it's, basically, a plus for us. It's not an absolute requirement. Cavener: Madam Mayor, follow up, then. So, Doug, if I understand correctly, if you weren't to be awarded any CDBG funds you would still be able to move forward with this project? Crowther: Where it would hurt more is in the infrastructure improvements that we would try to make. Cavener: Sure. Crowther: And the commitments that we would make with the city an d, you know, I believe we were going to come back to you about some TIF financing perhaps that we might work with, which is what we did in Garden City is we did replace, you know, the waterline through the street that helped -- it was on their five year replacement plan, we just moved that forward. We did the work and, then, they are going to pay us back through some TIF financing and their sewer line is the same and, then, you know, the sidewalks and, then, on Adam Street had some work done to it also. So, there was cooperation between both of us -- Cavener: Okay. Crowther: -- in that and that's, in essence, what this is about. Milam: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mrs. Milam. Milam: So, if you were awarded this money you still have another application to fill out, so that doesn't mean that you're even moving forward with your project at all, unless you are granted these tax credits? Meridian City Council July 5, 2016 Page 23 of 50 Crowther: Yes. At this time the way it's structured that's the way it would go. I mean we would try to restructure the thing if we can. I mean we -- you know, I believe in the project. This is a good vehicle, plus we are able to partner with a non-profit, which is the housing company that -- you know, they also manage the project at the same time, so they own and manage and so that type of partnership right now is, you know, basically, our operating structure is we locate these things and try to make sure it's the right type of project and, then, we walk it right through all the way and, then, you know, we got -- you know, we stay in an ownership capacity, so we get a little bit of cash flow from it, but it's -- it's pretty minimal. De Weerd: Anything further? Thank you. Crowther: Thank you. Kelly: Madam Mayor, a couple things in clarification. Yes, we do have several low income housing slash subsidized housing projects within the City of Meridian themselves. We also have hundreds of housing vouchers or other subsidized forms from the Housing Authority that are sight unseen, because we don't know where they are, because they live next door to you . So, just to be clear that we do have those types of programs that are operating here. They do exist. So, just to make that clarification. De Weerd: Well, Sean, I think it's also important to note that because of the requirements to get the vouchers and to rent in these areas, they do background checks and you have a little bit more scrubbing than you have in other rentals or apartments and single-family homes. Palmer: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Palmer. Palmer: And while background checks may help prevent some future crime being moved in, it does -- it says nothing about, you know, the people's ability to maintain what's provided to them. When they have very little ownership over it -- over what -- what surrounds them, it's not theirs, they typically don't care about it. Kelly: Madam Mayor? Madam Mayor, Councilman, I think that we can get some information from VCD, but the reason why they partner with the housing company is that they oversee that process and because they are able to reinvest, if I'm -- over a period of time to keep the broken window from not being broken, to keep the facades up, the roofs on, and to keep them looking -- it's also why they have the market rate on the other side of that to have the -- the larger and nicer apartment on the other side to not separate just simply low-income people into one building, but they have -- there is a little bit more of a mixture there. So, there is an incentive there. If nothing else, then, on the developer's part. Meridian City Council July 5, 2016 Page 24 of 50 Crowther: You know -- and I would like to, you know, comment on that to a certain extent just from personal experience. Okay? It's not studies or anything else. My personal experience before I moved into tax credit projects -- I was in landscape construction for a long time and , then, became a project manager and one of the larger projects I worked on was the conversion of 208 market-rate units up in the Boise foothills -- it's off of Brumbach and it used to be the Central Park Apartments and I made the joke that I used to party up there in college and it hadn't changed. The complex -- you know, one of the guys that asked me why did the guy buy it and I said I don't know and he's also in development and he said you don't have enough fingers for that dike. It -- it was full market rate, but the investors who owned it were back in Chicago and they didn't care what that property looked like, as long as they were getting the cap rate at the desirable level to sell it and the biggest change that we made -- luckily the guy who bought it was very invested in it. It was a large purchase for him, he paid millions and millions of dollars for this thing, and what we did was instantly put a red tag on every vehicle that was sitting up on blocks. We tore out all what I called the rapist bushes, you know, big overgrown things. Started cleaning it up and the people who wanted to live a bad life left. They hated it. And they bitched and they moaned and they complained and the people who wanted to be decent loved it and those people stayed, because they saw this positive enforcement going on and that's the culture of the neighborhood or it's a culture of a city or it's the culture of any place and now when you -- when you move a person into a decent environment and they are told -- and they see the grounds are kept up and it's clean, there is pressure -- there is peer pressure to keep it up. Now, I'm not going to tell you that somebody's not going to move in and trash a unit. I guarantee you're going to get a few of that. But the management company's responsibility is to upkeep that under the private sector and I take it very personally as an owner to go in there and if I don't see it kept up, do you think I'm going to sit back and say I don't care. Frankly, sir, that's -- it is insulting in that regard that, you know, just because a person can't make enough to pay anymore is a fine line in today's economy. These people don't make 10,000 dollars a year. We are talking about 35, 36 thousand dollars a year that fall into this type of income bracket. So, if the culture is not maintained you come after and you come after the housing company and you tell them to keep the decent people living there and you get the riff-raff out and that's like just -- I'm betting you have people in your neighborhood that you go I wish he would take care of his yard. There are a lot of people that are working pretty hard trying to get out of that stuff and some of them work for cities and a lot of your employees and even police officers fall under that category. So, you know, let's -- let's not say that they are just -- it's going to go downhill. These things look nicer than that stuff that I went and took care of. A lot nicer. You know, I've had these officers come by and help me clean up crack houses. De Weerd: Thank you, Doug. Meridian City Council July 5, 2016 Page 25 of 50 Kelly: Madam Mayor. So, since that's the last case we had to talk about and I just want to make sure that everyone understands, I'm not an advocate, I like some of these projects, but I'm here to make sure that the information flows and that you guys get the right information. If I don't have it I will run it down for you. So, just want to make sure the facts are known. Do we have any questions for me or any information from Council that I'd like to take away with to go find information? Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: A couple questions and, then, make some comments. Sean, the first one is related to -- to Care Enough To Share and, then, the 1,500. Can you articulate -- is there a tipping point for you with the amount of time that it takes for you to be involved in a project, the amount of money that we are choosing to allocate? Is there a -- and cost-benefit isn't maybe the right term, but the amount of your time, recognizing you're not a full-time that you're focused in on this -- where is that sweet spot at. Kelly: Madam Mayor, Councilman, I think that there is a bit of a tipping point, but it has nothing to do with the dollar, just so we are clear, that it doesn't matter if it's a hundred thousand or a thousand. I think we talked about this a little bit. It's the -- it's the amount that that thousand dollars makes me work on and how many hours I spend of my working hours trying to make sure that that project runs smoothly. I know that -- I know that I can say from -- from my boss' standpoint it is something that he is definitely cautious of to make sure that if I'm going to be spending that much time on a project are we getting the same amount of return from the -- from that actual project and so is a thousand dollars going to tip that? For a project like that I don't think it would, because it's -- it would be in the -- it would be in the cataloging that parks would do. It would be in how they maintained that information, so that it's acceptable. So, if I came up there at any given time and -- or whenever they submit a draw request, which is probably the better example, when they submit a draw request to get a reimbursement for 75 dollars or 125 dollars, whatever that might be for that month, how long that would take me to go through and I can't answer that. I can tell you that I've done it for the Boys & Girls Club before for SANE scholarship program and because they did it quarterly it was a little arduous going through each individual , you know, young person that was in that program and making sure that they were, yes, low income, that they did have this much money, this is how much they spent, but since that was one time, but we are also talking a larger dollar amount for that hour and a half I might have spent going through that. So, I don't know if that answers your question, but I'm just trying to give you an idea of what it would take for me to actually go through a process like that and that has nothing to do with setting up the project, making sure that it's in the system and, then, tracking Meridian City Council July 5, 2016 Page 26 of 50 that through the CAPER and all of the other resources that I would have to expend doing that. So, it would be a lot. Cavener: Okay. Madam Mayor, an additional question if I may. Maybe some clarification. In the scoring committee meetings there was some substantial discussion about that CDBG funding would really be required for the project that we have discussed so much tonight to move forward. It sounds like maybe that's not the case. Can you just provide some clarity for the Council on is it required or is it not required? Kelly: Madam Mayor, Council Cavener, can you -- Cavener: The low income -- in the scoring committee that was a -- a large subject of discussion amongst the scoring committee was that in order for this presented project, the low income housing, to move forward it would require CDBG funding at that 50,000 dollar level. It sounds like tonight from the applicant that that's not the case and I'm just trying to get -- I think it's important for Council to have some clarity on that issue tonight. Kelly: I understand. Madam Mayor, Councilman, I think that the -- from my point of view from my understanding with Chance Hobbs, the individual that was originally going to be here, it may not have stopped them from moving forward, it would have depreciated their chances and you can -- it would depreciate their chances going through IHFA, because if you're going to answer -- and, again, this is not my words, but answering every single check block on that application, if you are not answering check block number two, I'm moving on to another application that has all five check blocks and so as a method of let's go with the full packet, I think that that is correct and I think they would agree that they would -- that a full packet would be what they -- if they had no other -- no other applicants that met that same standard would they still move forward? I imagine they would. If that clarifies it. Cavener: Great. Thank you. De Weerd: And, remember, you're not making that decision tonight. It would be for the list for public comment to allow people to weigh in. Kelly: Thank you, Madam Mayor. De Weerd: Any other questions for Sean? Okay. Thanks for your time and also thank you for pulling together a good mix and looking at the different applications and bringing us back some projects that are a little bit different and giving us time to chew on it. Kelly: Madam Mayor, if nothing else, I will try to bring you as many out-of-the- box things, but qualifiable things, so that everybody gets a good idea of what we Meridian City Council July 5, 2016 Page 27 of 50 can actually do with the program, so that if we decide to do the same old same old and the one trick pony stuff, we can do that, but I want to make sure that we are bringing other things, so that people can look at what -- what we are able to do and if that fits Meridian, then, I would hope that Council would want to do that. Item 9: Department Reports A. Parks and Recreation Department: Lakeview Golf Course Green #9 Improvements Update/Closeout De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Under Department Reports we have 9-A under our Parks and Recreation Department. The Department of Fun. Siddoway: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Before you tonight to give a project update and close out the discussions about the improvements to the No. 9 green, I have a brief presentation that I think is on its way. There we go. Okay. So, I will give you the project update, let you know what's been done and close that out. Also I want to recognize that Eric Oaas is here in the audience and available for any questions. But as of the motion made by Council last fall, the onus was on the department, the administrative level, to do the review and come back and report. So, I'm here tonight. So, the Lakeview Golf Course No. 9 green project was approved by Council on October 13th of 2015. The form was submitted and this is just a copy of the front page, signed by the Mayor after the Council did approve the project for potential rent relief. The motion that was made, if you'll remember, was that if the cost of the improvements -- the capital improvements to the -- to the course were over 8,000 dollars it would be eligible for a hundred percent rent relief and if that project was under 8,000 dollars it would eligible for 50 percent rent relief. There was also a requirement to have staff go out and inspect the improvements and verify all of the expenses to the project. So, the project was completed and we conducted an on-site inspection just a couple of weeks ago on June 24th. A copy of that -- or some pictures of the new green are there in the photos taken on that day. Mike Barton and I from the Parks and Recreation Department went out and met with Erik Oaas on the site. You can even still see, if you look closely, some of the lines in the green where the sod is stitched back together, but it looks like it is coming together well. The next part of that was the verification of the -- the finances and the documentation. Finance has reviewed all of the items submitted by Mr. Oaas and has approved them on June 30th last week and copies of all of these -- the detailed copies of all these items are part of your packet. There should be a -- a copy of a check for every invoice that was part of -- of those expenses. There was also quite a discussion at the Council meeting back in October as to whether golf course staff time spent on the project should count and reviewing the minutes and having legal review them with me, they were determined that it -- it was approved to have them count, they just had to document all of the time with everything up to including timesheets and those are also included in your packets and have been reviewed by Finance . So, in Meridian City Council July 5, 2016 Page 28 of 50 summary, we have reviewed the costs and verified them with -- with Finance. The total is a little over 9,000, which meets the requirement of being over 8,000 to be eligible for up to a hundred percent rent relief, which is 6,000 dollars. They seem to have met all of the requirements placed on the project by Council last fall. Our recommendation to you is for approval of the project for the requested rent relief. There is a form that is part of your package that is available if approved for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest and with that I will stand for any questions. De Weerd: Thank you, Steve. Council, any questions? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I think I know the answer, but Timberstone, was that the general contractor? Siddoway: They were the general contractor for the -- the improvement of the green. Bird: And, plus, we had another 1,300 in staff payroll? Siddoway: Only about 200 dollars of that 1,300 would be necessary to meet the 8,000 dollar requirement, but he was -- Bird: I realize that. Siddoway: Yeah. Bird: And, then, what's a Jag tool? We used one on October 28th and, then, we come back and used one on May 27th? Siddoway: I believe that's the name of the -- have to look up the -- De Weerd: Erik is there to back you up if you need -- Siddoway: Erik, do you want to come up? Bird: Tell me what a jag tool is. Siddoway: I believe it's the name of a company. Bird: I have heard of a lot of tools, but -- Oaas: It's just a rental agency -- rental company. JAG. Meridian City Council July 5, 2016 Page 29 of 50 Bird: Oh. Okay. Oaas: We rented some equipment from them. Bird: Okay. De Weerd: And that's Erik Oaas for the record. Bird: Okay. Thank you. De Weerd: A new kind of funky thing called a company. Bird: JAG. Siddoway: JAG Tool was the name of the company. It looks like it was for a pipe puller and a walk behind trencher. Milam: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mrs. Milam. Milam: What was the completion date? Siddoway: Well, we were -- we received the letter on June 10th, but most of the work was done last fall and, then, it was -- everything was completed in May this year. De Weerd: Any other questions? Okay. Siddoway: Thank you. De Weerd: So, we do need Council action. Bird: Yes. Little Roberts: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Little Roberts: I move -- I move that we accept the reconstruction of the green as recommended. De Weerd: And also the rent -- Little Roberts: For the rent. Meridian City Council July 5, 2016 Page 30 of 50 De Weerd: -- waiver. Little Roberts: For the golf course rent. Bird: For a hundred percent. Siddoway: Yeah. In the amount of 6,000 dollars. So, that would be good to -- we need to fill that in in the form, the amount of the rent relief. Little Roberts: In lieu of the 6,000 dollar rent? Bird: No, not in lieu. Borton: Granting the relief. Bird: Yeah. In lieu of the rent. Siddoway: Yes. De Weerd: Okay. Borton: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: I just want to applaud Erik and his crew and Steve and Rita and the team with Finance. The intent of this was to -- to incentivize capital improvements in a city asset, have some notice to the city, get some tentative approval and guidelines and, then, have this verification process with Finance and your department. That has worke d extremely well and it's not done last minute. It's not done in September. It's just great timing and a great process. I have seen the green. I think it looks fantastic and if there is opportunities in future years to make new capital -- true capital improvements like that, that's exactly what the city intends you to do. So, to each piece of the puzzle that made it happen, greatly appreciated. Siddoway: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Any other comments from Council? Madam Clerk. Meridian City Council July 5, 2016 Page 31 of 50 Roll Call: Bird, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener, yea; Palmer, yea; Little Robert, yea. De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES De Weerd: Erik, did you want to make any comment? I saw you kind of rise up in your seat. Oaas: Madam Mayor, Erik Oaas of 4200 West Talamore Boulevard. Madam Mayor, Council, I just appreciate your comments, Councilman Borton, and thank you for your support and the green turned out just great. Thank you. B. Mayor's Office: Budget Amendment for Ball at the Hall and the Meridian Youth Farmer's Market for the Not-to- Exceed Amount of $1,921.00 De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Item 9-B is -- 9-B and C are both under the Mayor's office for a budget amendment. Many of our activities are conducted through sponsorships and money raised and this is no exception. Simison: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. The first amendment you have before you is for 1,921 dollars. These were funds -- they were both raised by MYAC at their annual Ball at the Hall events. Those funds were originally to be designated for their Youth Summit that they hold in the fall, but as they believe they secured the 5,000 dollar sponsorship from Idaho Power for that event, they would like to redirect those funds towards the participatory budgeting project to enhance that project by those additional funds. It's also repaying the monies that were used out of the Teen Activities Council budget. In addition, we received 600 dollars from the Ada County Farm Bureau to -- in appreciation of the efforts for the Youth Farmers Market and, again, those funds are being dedicated into the Parks Department to help make that a successful event for the remainder of the year. So, with that all these funds are received, but there was still 90 dollars outstanding that we expect to be collecting from participants, but other than that I would stand for any questions. De Weerd: Thank you, Robert. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Robert, on the application we got in our file two of the signatures are not there. Is yours complete? Is it complete? Meridian City Council July 5, 2016 Page 32 of 50 De Weerd: Yes. Bird: Okay. I was just clarifying it. De Weerd: Well, the important one is yours, Keith. Bird: No. That isn't the important one. Chief finance -- De Weerd: I signed it this morning after Todd did -- Bird: Okay. De Weerd: -- and I was gone Friday afternoon. Any other questions? Okay. Bird: No more questions, Mayor, I -- Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Bird: I move we approve the budget amendment for Ball at the Hall and the Meridian Youth Farmers Market not to exceed amount of 1,921 dollars. Milam: Second. Borton: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve the budget amendment under 9-B. If there is no discussion, Madam Clerk. Roll Call: Bird, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener, yea; Palmer, yea; Little Robert, yea. De Weerd: All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES C. Mayor's Office: Budget Amendment for the High Five Grant Project for the Not-to-Exceed Amount of $20,000.00 Simison: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. The second one before you is a 20,000 dollar budget amendment. This is the fun ds that we received from the Blue Cross of Idaho foundation as part of our High Five grant city recognition. We receive these -- well, the funds just came in this year. Blue Cross of Idaho had been holding them. We had originally thought that we might be carrying forward them until next year. However, with a couple of opportunities that have come up we would like to get spending authority for these funds as we Meridian City Council July 5, 2016 Page 33 of 50 work on opportunities for this budget year, which could include additional funds for the participatory budgeting project, as well as an item we are working with on the library -- Meridian Library District for a possible bike rental program. We would like to be able to move forward with either of those given the opportunity this year and ask for that spending authority of this time. I would be happy to answer any questions. De Weerd: Thank you, Robert. Council, any questions? Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: Question for legal or for Robert. For either of those potential options, would those come back as amendments, then, to us for review or if we are granting spending authority tonight will we see those at a later point in time? Simison: Madam Mayor. On the -- if we were to move forward with something with the Meridian Library District it would be an agreement of some fashion, that that would come back before Council if that was the case . If it was the participatory budgeting item I don't know where that stands in the dialogue , if that one would need to come back or not. De Weerd: I guess it would come back in -- in terms of an update. We have to get it authorized by Blue Cross, who the grant is from, that these would be expended per the intent of the grant, which was to -- to enhance the health and activity of school-age kids and both these projects would fall under that. We have had original conversations. We are trying to see what kind of funding gap there is to fill in terms of building the fitness feature that the teen -- the youth council chose for their participatory budgeting process . We also have further work to do in flushing out the bicycle program with the library and perhaps the -- the private partners to that and managing that. So, there is still some moving parts, but the deadline for our Finance Department is the end of June and so that's -- that's why you don't have specifics in terms of cost allocation. Cavener: Madam Mayor, follow up then? De Weerd: Uh-huh. Cavener: If I remember correctly, wasn't this grant designed for tents for the Youth Farmers Market? De Weerd: We received 30,000 dollars. Of that 30,000 dollars 10,000 was dedicated towards the Meridian Youth Farmers Market to buy tents and tables. That money has been expended and that is why we have a uniform look at the Youth Farmers Market and our youth vendors don't have to have their own. Meridian City Council July 5, 2016 Page 34 of 50 Cavener: Sure. Palmer: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Palmer. Palmer: Madam Mayor and Robert, a question. Sorry. Our fancy government system it's sideways, so -- difficult to read. On question two on the back, it says the request is anticipated to be at no cost to the city. Is there any circumstance that the -- that it would become at all a cost of the city? The word anticipated scares me just a little bit. De Weerd: No. Palmer: Works for me. De Weerd: Any other questions? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Hearing none, I move we approve the budget amendment for the High Five grant project for the not to exceed amount of 20,000 dollars. Milam: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Madam Clerk, will you call roll. Roll Call: Bird, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener, yea; Palmer, yea; Lit tle Robert, yea. De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Simison: Thank you. D. Mayor’s Office: Potential Use of Former Parks Maintenance Facility De Weerd: Thank you, Robert. Item 9 -D is also under the Mayor's Office. Council, we do have a piece of property that I spoke with our City Council President about in terms of its use and as you know from the survey that we Meridian City Council July 5, 2016 Page 35 of 50 recently participated in, there is a great interest in a permanent home for our History Center and the potential of a children's museum. We have a parks and maintenance facility that's owned by our Public Works Department across the street on Meridian Road and while we have talked with previous councils on several different ideas, it was recently discussed that this would be a good potential for the future permanent home of the History Center and a potential children's museum. So, I did want to put that out, get you thinking about it. It would be one of those destinations for downtown and also as we saw on the survey, certainly an interest of the community, as well as a working group that we have focused on a children's museum and to bring that to Meridian. So, I don't know if you have any discussion. I wanted to plant the seed as an opportunity and turn this over to our -- our work group that's considering the children's museum to see if this has great potential to -- as an ideal location for this kind of a feature in our community. I would be willing to entertain any questions. It's actually just planting an idea at this time. Palmer: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Palmer: I'm just a contrary person today. I see a lot of formerly used city property as going on to be other things that are not the proper role of government and so if we can't find something that would be more -- the proper role of government I would like to see us sell it -- if it's something worth doing or move on in some other way and stop just maintaining land that -- that wasn't -- isn't being used for its original purposing or by the city. De Weerd: Okay. Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: Does this idea have a potential price tag associated with it? I think that's -- a hard idea for me to wrap my head around not knowing if it costs X or X squared or X cubed. De Weerd: Certainly before we spent any time exploring I would like more of a direction from Council that -- I don't want to waste staff time in seeing what it would take to bring it up at least to even have something in it and, then, at that point I think our responsibility could be done. I think that our attorney's office has looked into -- you can't just gift or -- to a nonprofit, you can turn it over to MDC to -- for them to -- to look at the best use that would make a destination for downtown and, then, they -- it would be in their court. Otherwise, it would go up to auction as Councilman Palmer suggested. Meridian City Council July 5, 2016 Page 36 of 50 Milam: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Milam: I think it's a great idea. I think it would have a -- add a lot to our downtown, but as Councilman Cavener said, really depending on the price tag, but to me it sounds like an amazing community partnership idea. So, the route that I would want to go would be to -- you know, finding somebody that wants to work with us and consumes that initial funding, since we have the land. De Weerd: Again, you know, it was -- it was an idea that stemmed from the survey and putting into this city asset to be in something that was of value to our community, that answers one of those community desires. It also addresses a permanent home for the History Center that's in City Hall that we need that space in the near-term and that history center has become a very integral part to the city and celebrating the roots of -- of our community. So, it kind of was able to address several different things and -- and certainly help lend towards that long- term goal of our downtown being a destination, a place where people come to and so, again, it's just planting a seed to start the conversation. If Council has an interest in learning more we can come back with some numbers after we have the facility looked at to see what would need to be done minimally to bring it up to something that's not -- not Class A, but at least something that is tied to the city and -- and the roof doesn't leak and the toilets flush and there's no critters in there, so -- Little Roberts: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mrs. Little Roberts. Little Roberts: Because it was such an important part of the survey I would definitely like to see us at least get some numbers. The potential community partner I think is a great idea. We have a pretty full committee that is working on this type of center and things, so I think that definitely some numbers and at least the next step would be warranted. I also know that our planning department could use some extra room if the -- the history -- could be relocated at a convenient spot and still be utilized by our community. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I, too, have been complaining for the last couple of years, either do something with it or get it on the market. I don't like it just sitting over there. I think that the Mayor come up with a very very good idea to look into. Those are both very good uses we need and as far as giving away -- or using stuff properly, I think while I've been on the Council here we have -- we have donated in excess Meridian City Council July 5, 2016 Page 37 of 50 of -- I think it's been four fire engines that we paid five or six hundred thousand for, so -- and I don't know how many computers that we have bought and donated away. So, I don't -- I don't look at it as that being bad. I do think that the Mayor said right, we need to find somebody that is willing to get a 501(3)(c) and -- or -- De Weerd: (c)(3). Bird: -- and start looking at it -- I don't see this as any different than -- than the civic center that we've been looking at, other than I think this is a doable deal and if it isn't doable and we don't want to do it , then, I want it on the market. I want it off the market -- I mean on the market and off our tax -- on the tax rolls. I will get my tongue straight here in a minute. De Weerd: Well, I hear at least enough of you stating come back with some numbers and let's continue the conversation. Okay. Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: I guess I want to make sure that I'm fairly clear. To you r comment that you don't want to waste staff time and resources on something that if there is not an appetite from Council has me even more convinced that it sounds like it's a great project and a great idea, but maybe just not the right time and maybe it's because we are in -- we are in budget season and we are well aware of our needs of fire stations and police training resources and I start to negotiate where dollars should best be spent and, man, I love the idea of a children's museum and of a more permanent home for our historical society, but I almost have to agree with Councilman Palmer, if -- and Councilman Bird, if we don't have a use that can go in right now turn key and move on, then, maybe we should get it on the market. So, I would hate to waste staff resources and time where I feel probably in six months if they came back and say it's going to cost a million dollars, five million dollars, ten million dollars that I would be opposed to it. Milam: But we don't know what -- Cavener: But is it a million dollars, are you, then, okay with it? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: My -- my thought is I don't want to put any city money in it. I mean we are donating the property. I'm like the Mayor -- yeah, I'd like to go over there and make sure we are donating something that isn't over everybody's head. But my Meridian City Council July 5, 2016 Page 38 of 50 thought is it gets somebody excited. Given -- given a location that -- that is the city's donation in my opinion and, then, having -- I mean I can name you a dozen things in Meridian that's been done that way, only it wasn't city property, it was somebody's property. The speedway purchased property and somebody put it together. So, anyway, I -- but you have got to have some kind of an idea and at least -- at least she brought something forward to do something with it and if we are not going to do something with it I want it listed tomorrow and I have been harping that for two years. At least we got something to think about. De Weerd: Well, Public Works put together some numbers a couple years ago that can be polished up -- and we can set this back on an agenda s ometime. After perhaps our -- our work group on the children's museum can take a look at it and see if it's something that they would be interested in fund raising for and that sort of thing as well. Milam: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Milam: I agree with that and I -- I think it would be a lot easier to obtain community partners if we had some -- at least rough kind of numbers that they are looking at, as opposed to just saying, hey, build a museum, we will give you a building. So, I think that would be really helpful for the conversation. Palmer: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Palmer. Palmer: Madam Mayor, whatever the numbers are, some of us are crunching hard to find 781,000 to fund the things that we feel are important that were unfunded and not have to increase taxes on the taxpayers. I don't know when the last time we sold a significant piece of property was, I just see things like old city hall, other properties that the city owns all over downtown, that we just converted into other things that continue to be expenses to the taxpayers and I think, hey, let's take the opportunity, sell it, let somebody else find a private use for it, make some money on it, and pay taxes on it. That will help make up for some of the 781,000 we are looking to have everyone else pay. De Weerd: Any other comments? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: I'm listening first. I'm using my card. I am -- I am -- hearing all the comments from my perspective would be extremely cautious and initially Meridian City Council July 5, 2016 Page 39 of 50 reluctant and in all candor to staff that may be tasked with going forward on something like that, that that type of project would truly rise to the level of necessitating city funding in light of the other expenses that some of the other council members have brought up and we are particularly sensitive to it at the budget time, but that -- it would take a lot of analysis for me to get my head around how something like that would truly be viable and make sense fiscally for the city to do, so I struggle with that and the idea of some department within the city -- if there is space in City Hall that is lacking that comes as a surprise to me, too. So, that's maybe something else to explore. That would shock me if that were, in fact, the case, so -- that we would need space. So, those two things would -- they give me great pause. If there is additional data I would always love to see it, but I would struggle seeing how that would be a good project to bring forward right now. De Weerd: I appreciate your comments. I don't think I mentioned anything about asking for funds for it. It was really to look is this something that can be turned over and would they be interested in accepting that kind of thing to really start fundraising and have a place that people can, then, visualize it, which always makes fundraising easier. In terms of the History Center, it's -- that's always been a temporary quarters for it, that some day as community development grows that that is the area they grow into. We have, since one of our Historical Preservation Commission members have passed away, been talking about looking at that permanent place, so that they are not passed from the former old high school, to City Hall, to a closet somewhere, to give them a permanent home and a place where -- where people say, oh, yeah, there is the History Center and let's go check it out. So, it's -- it's in more in the spirit of finding a permanent home, an opportunity, and seeing what the appetite of City Council was to that. And if Council -- if Council would entertain looking at that as a potential site and doesn't want to bring it up to a standard that we would expect our buildings to be in, we can just -- if there is the appetite for the location itself, say for the workgroup to consider it as is and that they would need to bring it up to whatever standard they would like to see it in. So, those -- again, I was planting a seed. Didn't anticipate having a lengthy discussion on it, but seeing what the appetite was and so I feel like I'm at the same point I was when I started this conversation. Maybe a little bit less -- or more fuzzy. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: I thought there was great clarity in the comments and great candor that people are generally extremely cautious that something like that could be a viable project to entertain and that it could truly be done without cost to the city. I mean it's not a business model that allows one of those things to operate absent government subsidies, it's just whether or not the government entity believes it's necessary to subsidize that use. So, if it exists I think it truly does exist with Meridian City Council July 5, 2016 Page 40 of 50 government subsidy. The question is whether this city is willing to cross that line at this point in light of the growth demands that it has in its other more core services, that's what I'm uncertain of. I think Councilman Cavener captured it pretty -- pretty well when he spoke to us. It's a wonderful community asset and can be extremely valuable, but you have to balance those costs with some of the other costs that we are trying to cover that might be more core community functions, so I thought it was -- for me at least it was -- it was a good conversation and there is more data to gather to try and articulate what that -- not only the capital improvement costs, but the subsidy for its operations, that's great data to learn, but as long as we are all up front about any hesitation that it could actually work. De Weerd: I think that maybe Frank can correct me, but when they were in the old high school the Meridian Historical Society funded the -- the operations when they were over there. The city has a line item for the Historical Preservation Society, which has also funded a work study at particular times when they needed research, but other than that I don't recall subsidizing any operational costs from the city. The Meridian Historical Society does have a 501(c)(3). The Children's Museum work group has talked about the need to establish a 501(c)(3) so they could raise funds. They've had individuals like the Discovery Center representative on there that has brought perspective on that aspect of it. I don't believe that the Children's Museum or the History Center has had any expectation of any assistance from the city. So, I don't -- we haven't set a precedence on that and I don't anticipate that we would. Cavener: Madam Mayor, then -- if I may have a comment. Maybe some additional feedback that would be great is a demonstration of children's museums or museums in general that are self -sufficient, that don't really depend on local or state subsidies to cover their operations would be beneficial. I'm not aware of one of those that exists, but potentially they are out there. De Weerd: They have all kinds of models that they have brought to the discussion. This really wasn't a presentation from the Children's Museum group, it was just the appetite of giving them perhaps a location that they could create what they would like to bring to this community. As Councilman Bird said, that would be the city's contribution to bringing that asset into our downtown. I have no proposal for long-term subsidies or anything like that, when we -- and it would even be different from I think Mo Brooks Field in Storey Park, we wouldn't maintain it, we wouldn't do any of that. This would be -- this is for a community asset, it's the community's, not the city's, so -- so, I feel like I have a split on three are open for more information and three are -- one is not at all -- at least I never have to worry about what Ty thinks. At least he tells me. I'm not sure about Council Member Cavener or Council Member Borton. Meridian City Council July 5, 2016 Page 41 of 50 Cavener: Madam Mayor, if you're asking -- again, you planted a germ of an idea, but if you're asking me to make a decision today, my decision -- my recommendation would be to put it on the market. De Weerd: Okay. Cavener: In light of the discussion that we have had here, that would be my -- today -- De Weerd: Okay. So, just further context, this property cannot continue to look the way it is, so I have told our staff either we -- we have to make a decision. This can be an opportunity for a location for a permanent History Center slash Children's Museum or whatever. It can be put on the for sale list, but it has a dead piece of property -- or piece of grass in front of it. It's -- the shed next to it is looking really bad. That's a city piece of property and we either need to take care of it, get rid of it, or turn it over to someone who will. So, I -- we can delay it longer and it's going to look even worse and that doesn't look good on the city . So, that's the whole reason I came up with this idea is we have to do something with it. Cavener: Madam Mayor? That property has been in that state for three years? De Weerd: Not quite three years, but -- Cavener: Three years this summer? De Weerd: -- it's getting worse with less -- with no attention. Cavener: Then I guess I would -- that only motivates me more to say let's put out a viable plan presented before us, all the more reason to dispose of the property that we no longer need. De Weerd: I'm asking you to come back with a viable plan or -- you know, I don't care. Just -- I don't care. What would you like to do? Borton: Madam Mayor, I -- De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton. Borton: It's just describing reluctance, but you have also shared information that that, again -- for me I had not heard this before, so it's the first time to consider it. De Weerd: I didn’t really want to have a conversation about it either. Otherwise I would have been more prepared. Meridian City Council July 5, 2016 Page 42 of 50 Borton: But, Madam Mayor, it's helpful I think to hear even off -the-cuff comments. If there is more information like you've described about individuals in a work group who -- who maybe have already internally discussed how they may operate it and/or fundraise it and -- and the limits on any commitment of what the city may be asked in the future to provide, things like that, I would love to know all that. We don't have that today, it's not part of today's discussion, but that would be helpful to give you a more refined opinion on whether it should go forward. De Weerd: And I would agree with you, but before I offer that as an idea I wanted to make sure -- I didn't want to say, hey, this is an idea, Council -- that Council -- that Council could shoot down at the next meeting. So, if there is an open to the discussion, then, we would like to initiate the discussion with the appropriate parties. Borton: Madam Mayor, I don't know what part of the three I was on, but I -- I'm open to the discussion. De Weerd: Okay. Borton: Certainly. I mean I love digging into the data and the weeds of it. Maybe my reluctance would be overturned with information that's provided. There is certainly not a bright line in the sand on this one, but just very candid with the concern of what I might find. De Weerd: Or at least be very clear in your expectations that -- Borton: Yes. De Weerd: -- that if it would be turned over without a dollar spent. Borton: I would love to continue that discussion. De Weerd: Okay. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I would -- I agree with that. I absolutely don't want any partnerships, because the partnerships always wind up costing us -- it's -- we turn the property over to them, they get it built. Get it done. That's mine. But I think it's a great idea and let's see if somebody wants to pursue it. De Weerd: Just wanted to know if it's an idea you would be interested in exploring further and it seems short of one person that, yes, it is. Meridian City Council July 5, 2016 Page 43 of 50 Palmer: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Palmer. Palmer: I wasn’t exactly sure where it was, but now that I'm looking at it, that is a sweet piece of land. Let's sell that sucker, turn it into taxable property, and see what cool thing the private sector puts there, instead of us just kind of propping it up or letting somebody else prop it up. I mean like Councilman Borton pointed out, you know, unless we are closing down an art gallery and evicting a congressman, I don't see a big hurry to move it from right there where it brings people into the center of city government an opportunity to learn more about what it is that we do here, just because they came to look at some history they might learn something else about us here when they come. I think it's a great place to house them as long as we can keep them here and sell that and see what cool thing the private sector puts there. De Weerd: Okay. I was clear on that. Okay. I will put it back on another agenda after it's had conversation with other groups. Thank you for that interesting conversation. E. Human Resources: FY2017 Benefits Update De Weerd: Item 9-E, HR. Barney: Good evening, Mayor and Members of City Council. Thank you for having me. For those of you who don't know, my name is Christ ena Barney, I'm the HR generalist with the HR department. I handle benefits, leaves, and wellness as my general focus. So, tonight I'm going to go over and give you a benefits update. I will be presenting some information regarding the city's benefits and will touch briefly on the benefit plans as we discuss the 2017 renewals. But the majority of the information provided here tonight is in regards to the medical -- medical benefit. So, in April Crystal and Todd came before you and presented this information. This is just a brief summary of the presentations they presented, both in April and in June. The benefits committee has reconvened in January and has been discussing benefit options and plans for 2017. We have been working hard towards no plan design changes and a possible increase to the HSA contribution. We did go out to market for our medical benefits, our flexible spending and our COBRA services. We budgeted a nine percent placeholder for 2017 and that was based on our experience rating. Five percent of that nine we anticipated for a ACA surcharge. However, we have been informed that we have a reprieve for this year . The actual renewal rates weren't available until June and I will dig into that here in just a moment . And, then, bring a formal recommendation back to you , which is what I'm prepared to do this evening. So, for 2017 our renewal rates are -- are very nice looking. So, Blue Cross came back and they were very competitive . We did go Meridian City Council July 5, 2016 Page 44 of 50 out to market, as I said. We had five other vendors that provided us medical quotes. They were Blue Cross of Idaho, Regence, Pacific Source, Aetna and Select Health. Blue Cross was competitive in their bid and providing a rate pass, which is a zero percent increase for 2017 and that also allowed us no plan design changes. The pooling point we are still undetermined on whether that is going to move from 150,000 to 225,000 and that just means that any claims above that pooling point are not charged to our experience rating, so it doesn't drive our rates. Both dental providers, Delta Dental and Willamette, as well as BSP and United Heritage, offer -- also offered us a rate pass. For the flexible spending COBRA services we did go out to market on that. We had three vendors that provided us, quotes. However, Primepay was the most competitive. They did offer a two-year rate pass and they did waive the annual fee of 150 dollars for the FSA and 75 dollars for the COBRA services. The EAP services will increase by five percent or 812 dollars for 2017. So, planning for the future. We would like to recommend using that nine percent placeholder as a reserve. The benefits committee is exploring different options , different ways to help control costs. One of those being self funding. We as the benefits committee have discussed self funding for ma ny, many years now. It is a mechanism -- it's a long-term solution and it is a way for us to help control costs, buffer increases, have more flexibility in plan design and there really aren't a whole lot of other options available to us to help control those costs, but self funding is one of those. So, what I want to do this evening is give you a little context . Currently we are fully insured, which means that the medical premiums are determined by the carrier, which is Blue Cross in this case. We have a fixed annual premium. We have fixed costs every year, which include add-in fees, health insurer fee, premium tax. They are built into our premium. The insurer Blue Cross maintains the risk and pays the claims out of the premiums we pay them and any re serves, which means that any premium paid that is not paid out in claims is kept by the carrier. In the self-funded structure, the medical premiums are just simply suggested by the carrier and by our -- Mercer, our benefit broker. The ultimate cost of those benefits are determined by the benefits committee and , then, ultimately approved by City Council. The fixed costs are a little different in that it's admin fees, health insurer fees, and a stop loss premium, which are billed monthly. Premium tax is reduced. The employer maintains the risk and pays the claims out of a trust. Any reserves are held by the employer. So, again, those premiums that we collect are kept by us, if they are not paid out in claims, and this is a long-term solution that many other public agencies use to help stabilized impacts to the budget and the plan structure. So, Mercer provided us some data on self funding. Unfortunately, in the data that they collected -- this is national data. They didn't do the smaller organizations, which is the category that we fall in. So, I asked our benefit broker Mercer to provide data on the smaller companies that they service and of the one to 1,000 range that they cover, 50 percent of their clients are self funded, just to kind of give you an idea and the scope of things. So, I also want to give you an idea of what other agencies in Idaho are doing. City of Pocatello and city of Idaho Falls are fully funded -- fully insured. The same structure that we have today. Boise, Nampa, and Caldwell Meridian City Council July 5, 2016 Page 45 of 50 all have been self funded. Boise for 12 years, Nampa for 25 and Caldwell for 26. Boise does go -- and Caldwell goes out every few years and has -- Mercer doesn't do an analysis for them to see if they should remain self funded and have chosen to stay. City of Caldwell, for instance, last year their claims were running really high. They received a quote of 26 percent increase on the self-funded side. They also received a quote for fully insured and it was ten percent higher. So, it worked out to 135 dollars more per employee per month versus keeping the money in their own account. So, the carrier would have kept that additional 135 dollars rather than city of Caldwell. So, they stayed self funded. I wanted to give you some of the pros and cons. I'm not going to go through all of this, but some of the -- some of the high-level pros that there are are -- is the city maintains the reserves, as I have already said. Various cost savings, including up to an annual five percent on the ACA charges. So, with a self funded we don't incur that five percent ACA charge, because we're assuming the risk or the liability. We also have more control and better able to manage risk and the stabilization of our premiums with the reserve funds that we built. Some of the cons include fluctuation throughout the year, increased employer involvement and increased fiduciary responsibility. Right now the city is in a downward trend, which means that we don't have as much in claims as we have seen and so self funding -- it is a good time for us to look at self funding at this point. Some of the components of fully insured and self funding -- so, you can kind of at a glance get a high level overview of the differences between the two . With the fully insured the fixed costs include profit, risk ranges, taxes, retention and, then, with the self funded fixed costs are limited to ASO fees, stop premium, and ACAC. So, there are some differences high level between the two and how the plans are administered and, then, how they can work to benefit us. There are also requirements by the Department of Insurance for self-funded accounts. The process takes approximately a year to complete and consists of an application fee, Department of Insurance annual fees of approximately 540 dollars, additional broker fees -- they have to provide actuarial reports, which we submit to the Department of Insurance. A trust agreement and, then, the reserve amount that we have to keep on hand, which is approximately three months worth of premiums. So, this kind of gives you an idea if we were to go self funded, just a general cost. So, then, that leads us to the formal recommendation for this evening. We would like to, as the benefits committee, recommend using the -- or maintaining the placeholder in reserves for benefit management. This would allow us to begin the reserve needed for self funding if the city should choose to go that direction . If not, it at least allows us the ability to buffer any increases we may experience in the future. As I said, we had a five percent reprieve from the ACA this year. There is nothing saying that that won't come next year. So, if we do have that money in reserves we can effectively cover that five percent without affecting any of the plan design or the cost to the employee. It also allows us as a benefit committee to focus efforts on exploring options, rather than redefining the benefits to fit our current budget and structure. So, it allows a better use of the benefit committee's time to plan for the future. Fully insured plan place organizations in a position to be reactionary in response Meridian City Council July 5, 2016 Page 46 of 50 to uncontrollable market conditions. By considering other options we may be able to gain greater control of future costs and provide the ability to give our employees a wonderful benefit package at a reasonable cost to the city and its employees. So, tonight I'm not asking for any decisions. It's just to bring back a formal recommendation to be able to place that placeholder in reserves to help mitigate costs for the future and, then, allow the benefits committee to explore some other options. We have looked at the marketplace, as well as self-funding. So, no -- I'm not sold on self funding being the answer, but we need the ability to -- to look at that and, unfortunately, we're in a position now where we just kind of wait for Blue Cross to give us rates and, then, we scrambled to make it fit in the current budget that we have and, then, we move to the next plan year and it would be a better use of our time if we were able to just say, okay, this is what it is, we have the money to cover it, now what are we going to do for future costs. So, I will stand for any questions. De Weerd: So, Christena, what is the difference -- do you know -- we spend how much per employee for the fully insured versus the self funded by Nampa or Caldwell -- I think Boise has a much more robust program than -- than the others. They are more comparable to ours. Barney: So, I did look at some of that information. I wasn't able to get the cost per employee per month from Boise and Nampa , but I do have it for Caldwell. We are approximately 200 dollars less. However, there are lots of variables into why -- the employee count, how many families they have on their plan -- there are a lot of variables that skew that number. So, it's kind of hard to look just at that without doing a true comparison of FTEs to FTEs, families to families, so that we -- De Weerd: What's our cost? Barney: It's just above a thousand dollars. De Weerd: Okay. I think that's what Nampa's is. Barney: I have Mercer working on that information right now. De Weerd: And, then, the wellness program, is -- as that started to show a more positive impact on our experience rating, who benefits from that -- well, other than the health benefits, but does that help reduce our -- our premiums? So, I doubt we would ever see a decrease in what we pay -- Barney: Right. De Weerd: -- but it does help minimize the increase. Meridian City Council July 5, 2016 Page 47 of 50 Barney: It does. I have put some information together over the last five years, the data that I have been able to collect from the wellness program , in comparison to our experience rating and it is showing a trend. When the participation in the wellness program is lower, our experience rating tends to be higher. We get more participation in the wellness program and we have a lower experience rating or a lower premium. So, that is what the trend is showing at this point and right now we are on that downward trend. So, we have more participation, lower experience rating. And that benefits the city in lower premiums and the employees. They get to keep their benefits and we don't have to increase the premium that they pay for it. De Weerd: And if we move to the menu that the benefits committee has been talking about, by self funding would you be penalized with less people in the program or -- and I know that's been the hesitancy in being fully insured is by removing numbers increases your -- your insured's costs. Barney: So, it works similar in fully funded and self funded -- or fully insured, excuse me, and self funded in that the claims are spread over your total member count. So, if you remove members, then, you have less people to spread that cost over, so it ends up going up. So, they work the same regardless. De Weerd: Okay. Other questions? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Barney: Thank you. Item 10: Ordinances A. Ordinance No. 16-1699: An Ordinance (H-2016-0030 – Howry Lane Subdivision) for Annexation and Rezone of a Parcel of Land Situated in the West Half of the Northeast Quarter of Section 33, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho Containing 41.07 acres of land, Establishing and Determining the Land Use Zoning Classification of R-8 (Medium Density Residential) in the Meridian City Code; and Providing an Effective Date De Weerd: Okay. Item 10-A is Ordinance 16-1699. I will ask our City Clerk to read this by title. Jones: Thank you, Madam Mayor. An Ordinance H-2016-0030, Howry Lane Subdivision, for annexation and rezone of a parcel of land situated in the west Meridian City Council July 5, 2016 Page 48 of 50 half of the northeast quarter of Section 33, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as described in the 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 land 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. Bird: You have heard the ordinance read by title only. Is there anybody in the audience that would like to hear it read in its entirety? If not, Council, what's your pleasure? Milam: Mr. President? Bird: Madam Milam. Milam: I move that we approve Ordinance No. 16-1699 with suspension of rules. Cavener: Second. Bird: I have got a motion and a second to approve Ordinance No. 16 -1699. Madam Clerk, please. Roll Call: Bird, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener, yea; Palmer, yea; Little Robert, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. B. Ordinance No. 16-1700: An Ordinance of the City of Meridian (H-2016-0040) Granting re-zoning of a Parcel Located in the SE ¼ of the NE ¼ of Section 32, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian being part of Lot 2 and all of Lots 3 and 4 of Block 3 of NIDAY’S SUBDIVISION as shown in Book 2 of Plats at Page 75 in the Office of the Recorder, Ada County, Idaho. This parcel contains .271 acres more or less. This Parcel shall be re-zoned from the R-4 (Medium Low Density Residential) to the O-T (Old Town) zoning districts, in the Meridian City Code; and Providing for Waiver of the Reading; and Providing for an Effective Date Bird: Item 10-B, Ordinance No. 16-1700. Madam Clerk. Meridian City Council July 5, 2016 Page 49 of 50 Jones: Thank you, Mr. President. An Ordinance H-2016-0040, 907 Northwest 2nd Street, for the rezone of a parcel of land in the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 32, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise meridian, being part of Lot 2 and all of Lots 3 and 4 of Block 3 of NIDAY's Subdivision, as shown in Book 2 of Plats at page 75 in the Office of the Recorder, Ada County, Idaho, establishing and determining the land use zoning classification of R-4, Medium Low Density Residential, to O-T, Old Town 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. Bird: You have heard Ordinance 16-1700 read by title only. Is there anybody that would like to hear it in its entirety? If not, Council? Milam: Mr. President? Bird: Madam Milam. Milam: I move that we approve Ordinance No. 16-1700 with suspension of rules. Little Roberts: Second. Cavener: Second. Bird: We have got a motion and a second to approve Ordinance No. 16 -1700. Madam Clerk. Roll Call: Bird, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener, yea; Palmer, yea; Little Robert, yea. De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 11: Other Items A. Executive Session Per Idaho State Code 74-206A NEGOTIATIONS IN OPEN SESSION. (1) All negotiations between a governing body and a labor organization shall be in open session and shall be available for the public to attend. Provided, however, a governing body or its designated representatives may hold an executive session for the specific purpose of: (a) Considering a Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: July 5, 2016 ITEM NUMBER: 5A PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Proclamation Proclamation for Park and Recreation Month 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: July 5, 2016 ITEM NUMBER: 6A PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Approve Minutes of June 21, 2016 City Council Meeting MEETING NOTES 9 APPROIED 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 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 21st. 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 I-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, I 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 o f 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 tha t 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-B 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. De Angelis: 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 br ing 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. Bird: Second. 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 s tart 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 DUIs. 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 on e 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 peo ple 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. I 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 I 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 request s. 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 l ittle 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 a nd 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 Te rry 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, I 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 I-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 the re 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 und er 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 wo rk, 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 I-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 1 998, 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 develo pment 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. Is there anyone who would like to provide testimony on this item? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. 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 th is 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 ap plication 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 sinc e the beginning. I have done the annexation, the rezones, the multiple development agreements, the plats. I 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 t here -- 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 s aid 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 façade 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, afterthough t, 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 or der 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, I 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 yo u 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 propose d 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 unit s 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 se e 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 op en 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, l ap 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 fo r 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 o wned 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 De partment 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 ameni ties 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 u s 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 th e 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 t heir 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. I 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, j ust 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 I 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, I 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 I 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. Barton: Yeah. 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 -- I 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 jump s 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 pedes trians, 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 neighbo rhood 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. I 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. W e 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 w e 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 t here 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 whe re 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 fee l 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, I 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. I apologize. I think I drove 55 when I 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 p hase 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: W hatever 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? De Weerd: Mrs. Little Roberts. 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 I 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 thin k 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 comm itting 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 considerati on. 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 applic ant 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 des ire, 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 partic ular 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 t o 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 subdivisio n. 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 subd ivision 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 easem ent -- 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 th e 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 U DC 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 a n 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 stu b 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 propose s to provide a bridge over the drain for vehicular and pedestrian crossing. The applica nt 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 o ur 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 I 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 prop osing 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 backyard s 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 t hat 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. I 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 b een 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 tot ally 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, I will go to this area next. So, this is an interface directly wi th 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 9 3 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 ca lling 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, alls 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 th e 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 mo re 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 goin g 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. I 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 Nels on 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 i nto 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 1.1.3I. 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 t he 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 poss ible 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 hav e 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 th e 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 w ill 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? Bird: I have none. 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, I 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? Bird: I have none. 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 It em 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 n ext 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 tha t -- 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 educa tion, 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. I 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 exc eed 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 ¼ of the SW ¼ 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 b eing 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 r ead in its entirety. So, do I have a motion? Bird: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: July 5, 2016 ITEM NUMBER: 6B PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Professional Service Agreement Professional Service Agreement for Artwork for Traffic Box Art Project - Moira Hugues MEETING NOTES 9 APPIDIED 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 AGRE� NT FOR ARTWORK FOR TRAFFIC BOX ART PROJECT ("Agreement") is made this day of `� 2016 ("Effective Date"), by and between the City of Meridian, a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of Idaho ("City"), and Moira Hugues, an individual person ("Artist"). WHEREAS, the City desires that public art will be a component of our community and to that end, has undertaken the Traffic Box Community Art Project ("Project"), within which artwork created by community members will be transformed into vinyl wraps and used to cover traffic control boxes at various locations throughout Meridian, with permission from the property owner Ada County Highway District, as a benefit to the public; WHEREAS, representatives of the Meridian Arts Commission ("MAC") selected a piece of art created by Artist entitled Crossing, depicted in Exhibit A hereto, which was displayed at the 2016 West Ada School District Student Art Show, to win the "Community Art Award," MAC recommended to Meridian City Council that such artwork ("Artwork") become an installation as part of the Project, and on May 24, 2016, the Meridian City Council accepted MAC's recommendation; and WHEREAS, Artist wishes to participate in the Project by allowing the Artwork to become 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 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 or Artist's person, property, or interests. Insurance of 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 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, PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT—UTILITY BOX WRAP PAGE 1 of 4 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 published, produced, reproduced, or copied; that Artist is the sole creator of the Artwork; and that Artist, 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 At 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 At 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 fifty dollars ($50.00). 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 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. 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 any official, agent, or employee of City. 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 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT—TRAFFIC BOX WRAP PAGE 2 of 4 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. Compliance with law. Artist and Artist shall comply with any and all applicable federal, state, and local laws. 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. ARTIST: Moira Hugues CITY OF MERIDIAN: BY: Tammy de V41 Mayor Jacy J ;ILD 4&0 . T✓ City of mOOANO SEAL lrhe 7REAS�Q',�,� PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT—UTILITY Box WRAP PAGE 3 of 4 EXHIBIT A Moll" HUG UES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT—TRAFFIC BOX WRAP PAGE 4 of 4 Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: July 5, 2016 ITEM NUMBER: 6C PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Police Department Police Department: Idaho State University / West Ada School District School Resource Officer Agreement MEETING NOTES r✓ 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 Idaho State University / West Ada School District SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, entered into by the City of Meridian, a political subdivision of the State of Idaho, hereinafter referred to as "the City of Meridian", and West Ada School District Number 2, Meridian, Idaho hereinafter referred to as "the District", and Idaho State University, Meridian, Idaho, hereinafter referred to as "ISU". WHEREAS, the District and ISU desire increased law enforcement from the City, through the Meridian Police Department; and WHEREAS, the City of Meridian and the Meridian Police Department desire to provide increased law enforcement services to the District and ISU, through the Meridian Police Department; and WHEREAS, the parties recognize their mutual interest can be furthered through the use of the School Resource Officer (SRO) Program of the Meridian Police Department; NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises contained herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. This Agreement shall be for the sole benefit of the District, ISU, and the City and shall not be interpreted to benefit third parties. The relationship of the parties hereto is that of contractor and independent contractors, and it is expressly understood and agreed that each party and their officers, agents, and employees do not in any way, nor for any purpose, become a partner, agent, joint venturer, servant, or employee of the other. 6. The Meridian Police Chief and his officers shall have the right to exercise due discretion in the performance of this Agreement, including, but not limited to the type, nature, extent, and result of any response or activity undertaken by the Meridian Police Chief and his officers. 7. a. With the exception of paragraph 7(b) below, the conduct of the Meridian Police Chief and his officers will be governed by the Meridian Police Policy Manual (hereinafter "Manual"). In the event that the District's or ISU's procedures conflict with the procedures set forth in the Manual, the provisions of the Manual shall prevail. The Manual which will be maintained at the Meridian Police Department shall be an integral part of this Agreement and it is incorporated herein as if set forth fully. b. Parental Notifications for students of the District or a student under 18 years of age at ISU. Not withstanding any other provisions herein to the contrary, the following procedures shall be used in all instances with regard to notifying the District principal and/or a student's parents about the interaction of the SRO with students from the district or student under 18 from ISU: i. When an SRO interviews a student in the course of investigating a crime at the campus location, the SRO shall notify the school officials, or designee, of the fact that an interview with the student was conducted, no later than the end of the school day in which the interview was conducted. ii. In the event that a student is arrested by an SRO or if the SRO finds it otherwise necessary to remove the student from school, the SRO shall immediately notify the District / ISU officials, or designee. 9 9. Meridian police officers providing additional services and police protection under the terms of this Agreement will wear the authorized uniform of the Meridian Police Department. 10. The parties recognize that the District and ISU may from time to time adopt policies, procedures, rules, and regulations affecting the conduct of persons present on the campuses referenced in Paragraph 3. To the extent that violation of those policies, procedures, rules, and regulations constitutes a violation of law, including breach of the peace, or a threat to public health or safety, those policies, procedures, rules, and regulations will be enforced by the Meridian Police Chief and his officers. To the extent that violation of those policies, procedures, rules, and regulations does not constitute a violation of the law, the Meridian Police Department is not required to take law enforcement action and will leave the enforcement thereof to the District or ISU. The SRO shall inform the school officials, or their designees, of violations of school policies, procedures, rules or regulations of which he/she has personal knowledge. 11. This Agreement is for a period commencing on or about August 15, 2016, and ending on or about June 5, 2017 in accordance with the Meridian School District Calendar. It is agreed under the terms of this Agreement that the SROs shall commence the duties set forth herein one (1) week prior to the first day of classes in the fall of 2016, and will complete the obligations one (1) day after the last day of classes in June 2017. At the present time, the dates set forth in this section are the anticipated starting and ending R RECORD OF TIME AND REIMBURSEMENT C. SRO's who attend a special event at his/her designated school and/or officers who work at special events at the request of the District or ISU Officials shall complete a Meridian Police Department Time Slip for the event and the requesting officials or his/her designee may sign and approve the completed slip. The SRO and/or officers shall then submit the Meridian Police Department Time Slip to the SRO Sergeant. 791-V 1 N ra► 1 d. The SRO Sergeant of the Meridian Police Department shall prepare and submit an invoice to the Meridian City Finance Department. The Meridian City Finance Department will invoice the District or ISU hosting the special event(s) at which SRO(s) or other officers worked at the end of each month. The District or ISU shall pay one-half (1/2) of the overtime pay due and owing an SRO who worked at the request of his/her designated school at the SRO's hourly overtime salary. The District or ISU shall pay Meridian Police Department standard overtime for all other required Meridian Police Department Officers. 14. The parties recognize that a school within the District or ISU may desire to have the Meridian Police Department provide additional security the extent of the Idaho Tort Claims Act, defend and indemnify the District, ISU and their officers, agents, employees, insurers, and indemnitor, and hold them harmless in the premises. 20. It is acknowledged by the parties that District or ISU personnel acting pursuant to this Agreement are not the employees or agents of the City of Meridian, but rather, they remain the employees of the District or ISU. 21. This Agreement may be cancelled by any of the three parties for non- conformance or poor performance, on thirty (30) days written notice. If the performance defect is corrected during the thirty (30) day period, this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect. If the City of Meridian terminates this Agreement due to the District's or ISU's failure to timely correct the default in its performance, the District or ISU shall pay to the City of Meridian the consideration set out in Paragraph 11, prorated to reflect the number of school days in which services were actually performed by the City of Meridian. 22. The Assistant Superintendent has the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the District; The Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs have the authority to execute the agreement on behalf of Idaho State University; and she/he shall promptly bring this Agreement before said Board of Trustees (District) and Vice President of Finance and Administration (ISU) for its ratification. Idaho. 23. This Agreement shall be interpreted in accordance with the laws of VE Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: July 5, 2016 ITEM NUMBER: 6D PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Reimbursement Agreement D. Reimbursement Agreement for Connection to Sewer Service at 816 NW 2nd Street with Joseph and Catherine Germundson for the not to Exceed Amount of $8,495.00 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: July 5, 2016 ITEM NUMBER: 6E PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Sanitary Sewer Easement E. Sanitary Sewer Easement between the City of Meridian and Dallas Hess, Inc. within Bainbridge Subdivision No. 3 Lot 15 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: July 5, 2016 ITEM NUMBER: 6F PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Sanitary Sewer Easement F. Sanitary Sewer Easement between the City of Meridian and Dallas Hess, Inc. within Bainbridge Subdivision No. 3 Lot 27 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: July 5, 2016 ITEM NUMBER: 6G PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Sanitary Sewer Easement and Water Main Easement G. Sanitary Sewer And Water Main Easement Between The City Of Meridian And Blue Marlin Investments, Inc. within Centrepointe 2 Business Park 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: July 5, 2016 ITEM NUMBER: 6H PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Water Main Easement H. Water Main Easement between the City of Meridian and Dallas Hess, Inc. within Bainbridge Subdivision No. 3 Lot 20 IIT, 14AIVEel ► lei M` F1 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: July 5, 2016 ITEM NUMBER: PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Professional Services Agreement I. Professional Services Agreement with CJ Rench For Fabrication And Installation Of Main Street And Fairview Avenue Public Art Project for an Amount -not- to -Exceed $40,000.00 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 FABRICATION AND INSTALLATION OF MAIN STREET AND FAIRVIEW AVENUE PUBLIC ART PROJECT This PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR FABRICATION AND INSTALLATION OF MAIN STREET ADFAIRVIEW AVENUE PUBLIC ART PROJECT ("Agreement") is made this 28df day of , 2016 ("Effective Date"), by and between the City of Meridian, a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of Idaho ("City"), and C.J. Rench, on behalf of CJRDesign, an assumed business name registered with the State of Oregon ("Artist"). WHEREAS, the City, by and through the Meridian Arts Commission ("MAC"), seeks to establish a public art installation at the triangular parcel of land at the southeast corner of Main Street and Fairview Avenue, in Meridian, Idaho ("Site"), and Artist has designed an artwork installation entitled "Natives," consisting of five (5) sculptures, as set forth in Exhibit A hereto, of which, three (3) are suitable for placement at the Site; and WHEREAS, following consideration of public input and the recommendation of MAC, the City Council of the City of Meridian finds artistic and historical significance in the sculptures depicting "wheat," "bluebunch wheatgrass," and "fescue," as depicted in Exhibit A; NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged and agreed, and in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants herein contained, the Parties agree as follows: I. SCOPE OF SERVICES. Artist shall design and fabricate the pieces entitled "wheat," "fescue," and "bluebunch wheatgrass," as depicted in Exhibit A (collectively, "Artwork"); shall install such Artwork at the Site; and shall restore landscaping, pathway, and curbing to the same condition as prior to installation of the Artwork ("Site Restoration"). The Parties acknowledge and agree that the design of Artwork shall include, though shall not be limited to, the following: A. The Artwork shall consist of three (3) separate sculptures. B. Each sculpture shall be installed according to the respective designs therefor as set forth in Exhibit A. C. Each sculpture shall be mounted on a concrete plinth projecting six inches (6") above finished grade. D. The "stems" shall be fabricated out of mild steel. E. The "leaves" shall be fabricated out of glass and stainless steel. Artwork design, fabrication, and installation, and Site Restoration shall comply in all respects with established engineering standards, Idaho Standards for Public Works Construction, all established policies and ordinances of the City of Meridian and the Ada County Highway District, and the direction of the Meridian Parks & Recreation Department Director or his designee. Artist shall engage an independent testing agency to test and inspect construction PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT—MAIN & FAIRVIEW PUBLIC ART PROJECT PAGE I of 12 materials and methods of Artwork, and shall also submit a project installation Erosion Sediment Control Plan to City for review. H. COMPENSATION. A. Total amount. The total payment to Artist for the design, fabrication, and installation of the Artwork shall be forty thousand dollars ($40,000.00). This amount shall constitute full compensation for any and all services, travel, transportation, materials, shipping, equipment, contingency, commission, artist fee, and costs of work to be performed or furnished by Artist. B. Method of payment. Artist shall provide to City one (1) completed W-9 form, and invoices for services and/or materials provided pursuant to the payment schedule set forth herein, which City shall pay within thirty (30) days of receipt. City shall not withhold any federal or state income taxes or Social Security tax from any payment made by City to Artist under the terms and conditions of this Agreement. Payment of all taxes and other assessments on such sums shall be the sole responsibility of Artist. C. Payment schedule. Artist shall be paid pursuant to the following benchmarks: City Approval of Detailed Plan: $20,000.00 shall be paid to Artist within thirty (30) days of the City Project Manager's approval of Artist's detailed plan for fabrication of the Artwork and installation of the Artwork at the Site ("Detailed Plan"). The Detailed Plan shall include: a. Detailed project timeline; b. Detailed, to -scale site plan for the installation of the Artwork at Site, in coordination with the City of Meridian Park Superintendent; c. Plan for obtaining any and all necessary permits or approvals from the City of Meridian for the installation of the Artwork, which may include Certificate of Zoning Compliance from the Community Development Department/Planning Division; permitting and inspection by the Community Development Department/Building Services Division; and coordination with the Meridian Parks & Recreation Department regarding landscaping and utilities; d. Construction drawings and structural calculations for the Artwork, reviewed and stamped by an engineer certified in the state of Idaho; e. Erosion Sediment Control Plan for Artwork installation; f. Plan for engaging an independent testing agency to test and inspect construction materials and methods; and g. Plan for Site restoration following Artwork installation. 2. Fabrication of Artwork: $10,000.00 shall be paid to the Artist within thirty (30) days of completion of Fabrication of the Artwork, or all components thereof, as demonstrated to and approved in writing by the City Project Manager. 3. Final Completion: $10,000.00 shall be paid to the Artist within thirty (30) days of Final Completion, which shall be defined as: PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT— MAIN & FAIRVIEW PUBLIC ART PROJECT PAGE 2 of 12 a. Complete installation of the completed Artwork at the Site, as confirmed by the City Project Manager; b. Artist's submission to the City Project Manager of a recommended maintenance plan for the Artwork; c. Execution of a mutually agreed-upon acceptance agreement to include affirmation of Artist's indemnification of City and express waiver of Artist's right, title, or interest in the Artwork, which agreement shall be prepared by the City Attorney's Office; d. Waivers of lien from any and all sub -contractors and major materials suppliers, as approved by Meridian City Council; e. Report from an independent testing agency approving construction materials and methods; and f. Final inspection and approval of the installation of Artwork at the Site by the City Project Manager and by City of Meridian Community Development Services Department/Building Services Division, which may include, at the discretion of the Building Official, independent testing and/or inspections for structural soundness. III. TIME OF PERFORMANCE. A. Timeline. In addition to the benchmarks set forth in the timeline prepared by Artist as part of the Detailed Plan, the Parties shall meet the following deadlines: 1. By 5:00 p.m., July 15, 2016: Artist shall complete Submission of the Detailed Plan to the City Project Manager. The City Project Manager shall review, request modifications as necessary, and approve such Detailed Plan, either as submitted or as modified pursuant to mutual agreement, within fourteen (14) days of receipt thereof. 2. By 5:00 p.m., August 31, 2016: Artist shall complete Fabrication of the Artwork and obtain written approval of same by the City Project Manager. The City Project Manager shall approve, or approve as modified, such fabrication within fourteen (14) days of Artist's notice of such completion. Prior to issuing approval, the City Project Manager shall determine that the Artwork as fabricated is in keeping with Artist's representations as depicted in Exhibit A. Non -material design refinements and/or improvements shall be left to the discretion of the Artist. 3. By 5:00 p.m., September 15, 2016: With prior approval and all necessary permits from the City, Artist shall cause the installation of the Artwork at the Site, and shall schedule final inspection and approval of the installation thereof by the City of Meridian Community and Development Services Department/Building Services Division; the Ada County Highway Department; and the City Project Manager. Artist shall immediately notify the City Project Manager of any delay that occurs or is anticipated affecting the installation. 4. By 5:00 p.m., September 21,2016: Artist shall be responsible for Final Completion. The City Project Manager may extend the date of Final Completion for a reasonable PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT— MAIN & FAIRVIEW PUBLIC ART PROJECT PAGE 3 of 12 amount of time only if such delay is due to circumstances and events beyond the control of Artist or pursuant to a written agreement by the Parties. 5. By 11:59 p.m., September 27,2016: Provided that Artist has completed Final Completion, as provided herein, City shall execute Final Acceptance of the Artwork, which shall be signified by City's adoption of a resolution indicating that the City accepts the delivery of the Artwork as designed, fabricated, and installed. B. Time of the essence. The Parties acknowledge that services provided under this Agreement shall be performed in a timely manner. The Parties acknowledge and agree that time is strictly of the essence with respect to this Agreement, and that the failure to timely perform any of the obligations hereunder shall constitute a breach of, and a default under, this Agreement by the party so failing to perform. C. Inspection. The Artist shall provide the City Project Manager with reasonable opportunities to review the progress of the Artwork to ensure compliance with the timeline and the design as depicted in Exhibit A hereto or as mutually agreed by the Parties in writing, upon City Project Manager's request. If during such inspection, or in the course of the approval processes required herein, the City Project Manager concludes that the Artwork or any portion or component thereof does not conform to the timeline or to the proposal as described and depicted in Exhibit A hereto or as mutually agreed by the Parties in writing, notice of the specific non -conformity and request for Artist to address the specified non -conformity shall be given to Artist in writing as soon as practicable. Artist shall have fourteen (14) days to address and correct any non -conformity. If, upon City Project Manager's re -inspection, the City Project Manager concludes that the Artwork or the nonconforming portion or component thereof remain nonconforming, termination procedures may commence. City's failure to disapprove in writing shall constitute presumptive approval of the Artwork as inspected. IV. MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR. A. Irrigation system repair. City shall be responsible for incidental irrigation system repairs at the Site necessitated by installation of the Artwork. B. Two years following Final Acceptance. Artist shall be fully responsible for all parts and workmanship of the Artwork for a period of two (2) years after City's Final Acceptance of the Artwork, and during such time shall replace any defective parts and/or rework any defective craftsmanship in a timely fashion at no cost to City, except that during such period Artist shall not be required to replace or repair any damage to the Artwork caused by City's employees or by an act of God. C. Determination of need for repair. At all times, including the first two years following Final Acceptance, City shall make any and all determinations regarding whether the Artwork' parts and/or craftsmanship require maintenance, restoration, or repair. Artist may be asked to provide input regarding such matters, but all decisions regarding the need for maintenance, restoration, or repair shall be made by City. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT— MAIN & FAIRVIEW PUBLIC ART PROJECT PAGE 4 of 12 D. Maintenance, restoration, and repair. Following Final Acceptance, City shall provide basic maintenance, restoration, and repair of the Artwork at City's cost. In the event that the Artwork is damaged or destroyed, in whole or in part, City may, at its sole election, restore the Artwork, subject to receipt of any insurance proceeds and availability of sufficient funds. V. CREATION, INTEGRITY, AND OWNERSHIP OF ARTWORK. A. Waiver and relinquishment of rights. Upon Artist's submission of the Detailed Pan, Artist expressly waives any and all right, title, or interest in the Artwork. Artist understands that this waiver shall include waivers of the exclusive rights of reproduction, adaptation, publication, and display. Artist agrees to relinquish any and all rights, title, and interest to the Artwork developed in connection with this Agreement, and hereby expressly waives any rights Artist has to the Artwork, 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. B. Limited edition. The Artwork, and each sculpture comprising such Artwork, shall each be a limited edition of one (1). Artist warrants and represents that the Artwork designed, fabricated, and installed pursuant to this Agreement has never heretofore been designed, fabricated, installed, created, published, or copied and that Artist is the sole creator and owner of all rights in the Artwork and the design thereof. C. Ownership. Upon City's Final Acceptance, the Artwork shall be owned by City. Following Final Acceptance, City may remove the Artwork from the Site and/or move the Artwork to another location, at City's sole election and discretion. D. No copyright. Artist shall not make any claim to the copyright of the Artwork. E. Photographs of Artwork by City. Either party may photographically reproduce the image of the Artwork and all preliminary studies, models, plans, and maquettes thereof that have been delivered to and accepted, as it may desire for educational, marketing, and public information purposes. Where practicable and to the extent of the respective party's authority, the location and creator of the Artwork shall be acknowledged on each such photographic reproduction, provided that photographic reproductions of preliminary studies, models, plans and maquettes shall not be identified as or represented to be the finished Artwork. F. Models of Artwork. Neither party shall, at any time, create any model, maquette, replica, copy, or any other three-dimensional reproduction of Artwork or any component thereof PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT — MAIN & FAIRVIEW PUBLIC ART PROJECT PAGE 5 of 12 without first entering into a mutually agreed-upon written agreement with the other party governing the creation, use, and/or sale of such model, maquette, replica, copy, or reproduction. This provision shall not prevent Artist's creation of any model or mock-up for purposes of designing and/or engineering Artwork prior to Final Completion. G. Alteration of Artwork. If any alteration occurs to the Artwork after installation, whether intentional or accidental and whether caused by City or others, upon written request of Artist, such Artwork shall no longer be represented to be the work of Artist. Other than as specified herein, Artist specifically waives the right to claim any other remedy concerning the alteration of the Artwork as provided for under Idaho or federal law, whether by statute or otherwise. H. Removal from display. City shall have the right to remove the Artwork from public display. In the event that City determines that the Artwork or either component thereof shall be sold, Artist shall be provided the first right of refusal to purchase the Artwork or such component from City. Should Artist choose to purchase the Artwork pursuant to this provision, the price of the Artwork shall be the fair market value thereof. This provision shall expire upon the death of Artist and shall not be extended to Artist's estate. I. Subcontracting or assignment of obligations. Artist shall not subcontract or assign any of Artist's obligations under this Agreement that require or that may require Artist's artistic talent or expertise. Artist may subcontract or assign obligations that do not require Artist's artistic talent or expertise, including, but not limited to, such obligations as transport and installation of the Artwork. Any and all subcontractors or assignees shall be bound by all the terms and conditions of this Agreement. VI. INDEMNIFICATION, WAIVER, AND INSURANCE. A. Indemnification. Artist shall indemnify, save, and hold harmless the City and any and all of its employees, agents, volunteers, and/or elected officials from any and all losses, claims, and judgments for damages or injury to persons or property, and from any and all losses and expenses caused or incurred by Artist or Artist's servants, agents, employees, guests, and/or business invitees, occurring before City's Final Acceptance of the Artwork. B. Waiver. Artist waives any and all claims and recourse against City, including the right of contribution for loss and damage to persons or property arising from, growing out of, or in any way connected with or incident to Artist's performance of this Agreement, whether such loss or damage may be attributable to known or unknown conditions, except for liability arising out of concurrent or sole negligence of City or its officers, agents or employees. C. Insurance to be obtained by City. City shall obtain all necessary property and commercial general liability insurance as may be required in order to protect its insurable interests for its rights and obligations described within this Agreement. Upon City's Final Acceptance of the Artwork, City shall obtain property insurance for the Artwork. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT—MAIN & FAiRviEw PUBLIC ART PROJECT PAGE 6 of 12 D. Insurance to be obtained by Artist. Artist shall obtain and shall maintain, at Artist's own expense, from the Effective Date of this Agreement through City's Final Acceptance of the Artwork, each and all of the following: General liability insurance. General liability insurance with a limit of not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) per each occurrence, combined single limit bodily injury and property damage, covering the actions and omissions of Artist and her employees, agents, and/or workers in fabricating, transporting, and installing the Artwork and/or components or materials thereof, including coverage for owned, non - owned, and hired vehicles, as applicable. 2. Workers' compensation insurance. Artist shall obtain and shall maintain, at Artist's own expense, from the Effective Date of this Agreement through City's Final Acceptance of the Artwork, and throughout the course of this Agreement, workers' compensation insurance, in an amount required by Oregon or Idaho law, whichever is higher, to cover any and all persons employed by Artist. 3. Insurance of Artwork. Before commencing fabrication of the Artwork, Artist shall procure and maintain, at Artist's own expense, from the Effective Date of this Agreement through City's Final Acceptance of Artwork, insurance on the Artwork in an all-risk form with limits of not less than forty thousand dollars ($40,000), and any deductible not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500) each loss, with any loss payable to City. Artist agrees to bear all risks of loss of and/or damage to the Artwork until City's Final Acceptance of Artwork. E. Proof of insurance. Artist shall provide to City, within seven (7) days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, written proof that Artist has obtained all insurance required hereunder. If any change is made to any insurance policy or coverage required under and/or obtained pursuant to this Agreement, Artist or Artist's insurance agent shall notify City immediately. F. Insurance to be obtained by Artist's subcontractors. Artist shall require any and all subcontractors employed or utilized in the course and scope of the obligations described in this Agreement to obtain and maintain general liability insurance and workers' compensation insurance in the amounts described herein. Artist shall provide to City, within twenty-four (24) hours of hiring or engaging any subcontractor, written proof that her subcontractors have obtained all insurance required hereunder. G. No cancellation without notice. On all insurance policies required under this agreement, such policies shall provide that they may not be cancelled or reduced in coverage except upon thirty (30) days advance written notice to all Parties. Any cancellation of insurance without appropriate replacement in the amounts and terms set forth herein may constitute grounds for termination of the contract. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT - MAIN & FAIRVIEW PUBLIC ART PROJECT PAGE 7 Of 12 VII. TERMINATION. A. Termination for cause. If City determines that Artist has failed to comply with any term or condition of this Agreement, violated any of the covenants, agreements, and/or stipulations of this Agreement, falsified any record or document required to be prepared under this Agreement, engaged in fraud, dishonesty, or any other act of misconduct in the performance of this Agreement; or if either Party willfully or negligently defaults in, or fails to fulfill, its material obligations under this Agreement; the other Party shall have the right to terminate the Agreement by giving written notice to the defaulting party of its intent to terminate, and shall specify the grounds for termination. The defaulting party shall have thirty (30) days after receipt of such notice to cure the default. If the default is not cured within such period, this Agreement shall be terminated upon mailing of written notice of such termination by the terminating party. 1. Default by City. In the event of termination for non-performance or default by City, City shall compensate Artist for work actually completed by Artist prior to the date of written notice of termination and any additional services and materials actually performed or supplied prior to the date of written notice of termination, less payments of compensation previously made, not to exceed the total amount of compensation allowed hereunder. 2. Default by Artist. In the event of termination for non-performance or default by Artist, except that caused by the death or incapacity of Artist, all finished and unfinished drawings, photographs, plans, timelines, and/or any and all other work products prepared and submitted or prepared for submission under this Agreement, and all rights, title, and interest thereto, including those described in section V.A. of this Agreement, shall, at City's option, become City's property, and the right to fabricate and/or complete fabrication of the Artwork shall pass to City. Notwithstanding this provision, Artist shall not be relieved of any liability for damages sustained by City attributable to Artist's default or breach of this Agreement. City may reasonably withhold payments due until such time as the exact amount of damages due to City from Artist is determined. Artist shall not be relieved of liability to City for damages sustained by City by virtue of any breach or default of this Agreement by Artist. This provision shall survive the termination of this Agreement and shall not relieve Artist of liability to City for damages. B. Termination without cause. City may terminate this Agreement for any reason, at any time, by providing fourteen (14) days' notice to Artist. C. Termination upon death or incapacity of Artist. This Agreement shall automatically terminate upon the death or incapacity of Artist. In the event of termination caused by the death or incapacity of Artist, all finished and unfinished drawings, photographs, plans, timelines, and/or any and all other work products prepared and submitted or prepared for submission under this Agreement shall, at City's option, become its property, and the right to fabricate and/or complete fabrication of the Artwork shall pass to City. Notwithstanding this provision, neither Artist nor Artist's estate shall be relieved of any liability for PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT — MAIN & FAIRVIEw PUBLIC ART PROJECT PAGE 8 of 12 damages sustained by City attributable to Artist's default. City may reasonably withhold payments due to Artist or to Artist's estate until such time as the exact amount of damages due to City from Artist or Artist's estate is determined. Artist shall not be relieved of liability to City for damages sustained by City by virtue of any breach or default of this Agreement by Artist. This provision shall survive the termination of this Agreement and shall not relieve Artist or Artist's estate of liability to City for damages. D. Non -waiver of breach. A waiver of any breach or default of any provision of this Agreement shall not be construed as a waiver of a breach of the same or any other provision hereof. VIII. GENERAL PROVISIONS. A. Permitting and inspection. Artist shall obtain any and all necessary permits or approvals from the City of Meridian for the installation of the Artwork, which may include Certificate of Zoning Compliance from the Community Development Department/Planning Division; permitting and inspection by the Community Development Department/Building Services Division; landscape coordination with the Meridian Parks & Recreation Department; and/or Citizen's Use Permit from the City Clerk's Office. B. Relationship of Parties. It is the express intention of Parties that Artist is an independent contractor and neither Artist nor any officer, employee, subcontractor, assignee, or agent of Artist shall be deemed an employee, agent, joint venturer, or partner of City in any manner or for any purpose. 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. Both parties acknowledge that Artist is not an employee of City. Artist shall retain the right to perform services for others during the term of this Agreement. Specifically, without limitation, Artist understands, acknowledges, and agrees: 1. Artist is free from actual and potential control by City in the provision of services under this Agreement. 2. Artist is engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession, or business. 3. Artist has the authority to hire subordinates. 4. Artist owns and/or will provide all major items of equipment necessary to perform services under this Agreement. C. Compliance with law. Throughout the course of this Agreement, Artist shall comply with any and all applicable federal, state, and local laws. D. Non -Discrimination. Throughout the course of this Agreement, Artist shall not discriminate against any person as to race, creed, religion, sex, age, national origin, sexual orientation or any physical, mental, or sensory handicap. E. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding between the Parties. This Agreement supersedes any and all statements, promises, or inducements PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT — MAIN & FAiRvIEw PUBLIC ART PROJECT PAGE 9 of 12 made by either party, or agents of either party, whether oral or written, whether previous to the execution hereof or contemporaneous herewith. The terms of this Agreement may not be enlarged, modified or altered except upon written agreement signed by both parties hereto. F. Costs and attorneys' fees. If either party brings any action or proceedings to enforce, protect or establish any right or remedy under the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable costs and attorneys' fees, as determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, in addition to any other relief awarded. G. 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. H. Cumulative Rights and Remedies. All rights and remedies herein enumerated shall be cumulative and none shall exclude any other right or remedy allowed by law. Likewise, the exercise of any remedy provided for herein or allowed by law shall not be to the exclusion of any other remedy. I. Interpretation. Words of gender used in this Agreement shall be held and construed to include any other gender, and words in the singular shall be held to include the plural and vice versa unless the context otherwise requires. The Agreement and the captions of the various sections of this Agreement are for convenience and ease of reference only, and do not define, limit, augment or describe the scope, context or intent of this Agreement or any part or parts of this Agreement. J. 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. K. 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. L. Notice. Any and all notice required to be provided by either of the Parties hereto, unless otherwise stated in this Agreement, shall be in writing and shall be deemed communicated upon mailing by United States Mail, addressed as follows: Artist- City Project Manager: C.J. Rench CJRDesign 1457 Barker Road Hood River OR 97031 (541) 399-3830 cjrdesign@gorge.net Max Jensen Public Works Department Capital Projects and Facilities Division 33 E. Broadway Ave. Meridian ID 83642 (208) 489-0344 mjensen@meridiancity.org PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT— MAIN & FAIRVIEW PUBLIC ART PROJECT PAGE 10 of 12 Either party may change her/its address for the purpose of this provision by giving written notice of such change in the manner herein provided. M. 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. N. 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 Effective Date first written above. /ARTIST:„ C.J. Rench,�CJRDesign OFFICIAL STAMP I TAWNYA LYNN CHARLSON NOTARY PUBLIC -OREGON COMMISSION N0.949598 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES APRIL 12, 2020 STATE OF OREGON ) ) ss: Countyof V4np,4 7&* I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this -2 day of) 2016, before the undersigned, a Notary Public in the State of Oregon, personally appeared C.J. Rench, proven to me to be the person who executed the said instrument, and acknowledged to me that she 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. Notary Public for Oregon Residing at f 4ong-J OZL,c.% Oregon My Commission Expires: i4 ,ori L i -.�- , �20;2 Attest: Jacy Johes, ' y IDI A N,—,-. iDRHD f JAL 3 L. J; EXHIBIT A ARTWORK bluebunch wheatgra PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT — MAIN & FAIRVIEW PUBLIC ART PROJECT PAGE 13 of 12 Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: July 5, 2016 ITEM NUMBER: 6J PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Approval of Award of Bid J. Approval of Award of Bid and Agreement to Challenger Companies Inc. for the PRV's 1, 3, 7 SCADA Control Upgrades project for the Not -to -Exceed Amount of $82,857.00 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 Memo To: Jacy Jones, City Clerk, From: Keith Watts, Purchasing Manager CC: Kyle Radek Date: 06/30/16 Re: July 5t' City Council Meeting Agenda Item The Purchasing Department respectfully requests that the following item be placed on the July 5th City Council Consent Agenda for Council's consideration. Approval of Award of Bid and Agreement to Challenger Companies Inc. for the PRV's 1, 3, 7 SCADA Control Upgrades project for a Not -To -Exceed amount of $82,857.00. Recommended Council Action: Award of Bid and Approval of Agreement to Challenger Companies Inc. for the Not -To -Exceed amount of $82,857.00 Thank you for your consideration. • Page 1 state and city laws, ordinances, regulations and resolutions. The Contractor represents and warrants that it will perform its work in accordance with generally accepted industry standards and practices for the profession or professions that are used in performance of this Agreement and that are in effect at the time of performance of this Agreement. Except for that representation and any representations made or contained in any proposal submitted by the Contractor and any reports or opinions prepared or issued as part of the work performed by the Contractor under this Agreement, Contractor makes no other warranties, either express or implied, as part of this Agreement. 1.4 Services and work provided by the Contractor at the City's request under this Agreement will be performed in a timely manner in accordance with a Schedule of Work, which the parties hereto shall agree to. The Schedule of Work may be revised from time to time upon mutual written consent of the parties. 2. Consideration 2.1 The Contractor shall be compensated on a Not -To -Exceed basis as provided in Exhibit B "Payment Schedule" attached hereto and by reference made a part hereof for the Not -To -Exceed amount of $82,857.00. 2.2 The Contractor shall provide the City with a monthly statement and supporting invoices, as the work warrants, of fees earned and costs incurred for services provided during the billing period, which the City will pay within 30 days of receipt of a correct invoice and approval by the City. The City will not withhold any Federal or State income taxes or Social Security Tax from any payment made by City to Contractor under the terms and conditions of this Agreement. Payment of all taxes and other assessments on such sums is the sole responsibility of Contractor. 2.3 Except as expressly provided in this Agreement, Contractor shall not be entitled to receive from the City any additional consideration, compensation, salary, wages, or other type of remuneration for services rendered under this Agreement including, but not limited to, meals, lodging, transportation, drawings, renderings or mockups. Specifically, Contractor shall not be entitled by virtue of this Agreement to consideration in the form of overtime, health insurance benefits, retirement benefits, paid holidays or other paid leaves of absence of any type or kind whatsoever. 3. Term: 3.1 This agreement shall become effective upon execution by both parties, and shall expire upon (a) completion of the agreed upon work, (b) or unless sooner terminated as provided in Sections 3.2, 3.3, and Section 4 below or unless some other method or time of termination is listed in Exhibit A. PRV'S 1, 3,7 SCADA CONTROL UPGRADES page 2 of 14 Project 10615.c 3.2 Should Contractor default in the performance of this Agreement or materially breach any of its provisions, City, at City's option, may terminate this Agreement by giving written notification to Contractor. 3.3 Should City fail to pay Contractor all or any part of the compensation set forth in Exhibit B of this Agreement on the date due, Contractor, at the Contractor's option, may terminate this Agreement if the failure is not remedied by the City within thirty (30) days from the date payment is due. 4. Liquidated Damages: Substantial Completion shall be accomplished within 60 (sixty) calendar days from Notice to Proceed. This project shall be considered Substantially Complete when the Owner has full and unrestricted use and benefit of the facilities, both from an operational and safety standpoint, and only minor incidental work, corrections or repairs remain for the physical completion of the total contract. Contractor shall be liable to the City for any delay beyond this time period in the amount of $100.00 (one hundred dollars) per calendar day. Such payment shall be construed to be liquidated damages by the Contractor in lieu of any claim or damage because of such delay and not be construed as a penalty. Upon receipt of a Notice to Proceed, the Contractor shall have 75 (seventy-five) calendar days to complete the work as described herein. Contractor shall be liable to the City for any delay beyond this time period in the amount of $100.00 (one hundred dollars) per calendar day. Such payment shall be construed to be liquidated damages by the Contractor in lieu of any claim or damage because of such delay and not be construed as a penalty. See Milestones listed in the Payment Schedule for Substantial Completion. 5. Termination: 5.1 If, through any cause, CONTRACTOR, its officers, employees, or agents fails to fulfill in a timely and proper manner its obligations under this Agreement, violates any of the covenants, agreements, or stipulations of this Agreement, falsifies any record or document required to be prepared under this agreement, engages in fraud, dishonesty, or any other act of misconduct in the performance of this contract, or if the City Council determines that termination of this Agreement is in the best interest of CITY, the CITY shall thereupon have the right to terminate this Agreement by giving written notice to CONTRACTOR of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof at least fifteen (15) days before the effective date of such termination. CONTRACTOR may terminate this agreement at any time by giving at least sixty (60) days notice to CITY. In the event of any termination of this Agreement, all finished or unfinished documents, data, and reports prepared by CONTRACTOR under this Agreement shall, at the option of the CITY, become its property, and CONTRACTOR shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any work satisfactorily complete hereunder. PRV'S 1, 3,7 SCADA CONTROL UPGRADES page 3 of 14 Project 10615.c 5.2 Notwithstanding the above, CONTRACTOR shall not be relieved of liability to the CITY for damages sustained by the CITY by virtue of any breach of this Agreement by CONTRACTOR, and the CITY may withhold any payments to CONTRACTOR for the purposes of set-off until such time as the exact amount of damages due the CITY from CONTRACTOR is determined. This provision shall survive the termination of this agreement and shall not relieve CONTRACTOR of its liability to the CITY for damages. 6. Independent Contractor: 6.1 In all matters pertaining to this agreement, CONTRACTOR shall be acting as an independent contractor, and neither CONTRACTOR nor any officer, employee or agent of CONTRACTOR will be deemed an employee of CITY. Except as expressly provided in Exhibit A, Contractor has no authority or responsibility to exercise any rights or power vested in the City and therefore has no authority to bind or incur any obligation on behalf of the City. The selection and designation of the personnel of the CITY in the performance of this agreement shall be made by the CITY. 6.2 Contractor, its agents, officers, and employees are and at all times during the term of this Agreement shall represent and conduct themselves as independent contractors and not as employees of the City. 6.3 Contractor shall determine the method, details and means of performing the work and services to be provided by Contractor under this Agreement. Contractor shall be responsible to City only for the requirements and results specified in this Agreement and, except as expressly provided in this Agreement, shall not be subjected to City's control with respect to the physical action or activities of Contractor in fulfillment of this Agreement. If in the performance of this Agreement any third persons are employed by Contractor, such persons shall be entirely and exclusively under the direction and supervision and control of the Contractor. 7. Sub -Contractors: Contractor shall require that all of its sub -contractors be licensed per State of Idaho Statute # 54-1901 8. Removal of Unsatisfactory Employees: The Contractor shall only furnish employees who are competent and skilled for work under this contract. If, in the opinion of the City, an employee of the Contractor is incompetent or disorderly, refuses to perform in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract, threatens or uses abusive language while on City property, or is otherwise unsatisfactory, that employee shall be removed from all work under this contract. 9. Indemnification and Insurance: PRV'S 1, 3, 7 SCADA CONTROL UPGRADES page 4 of 14 Project 10615.c 9.1 CONTRACTOR shall indemnify and save and hold harmless CITY and it's elected officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers from and for any and all losses, claims, actions, judgments for damages, or injury to persons or property and losses and expenses and other costs including litigation costs and attorney's fees, arising out of, resulting from, or in connection with the performance of this Agreement by the CONTRACTOR, its servants, agents, officers, employees, guests, and business invitees, and not caused by or arising out of the tortious conduct of CITY or its employees. CONTRACTOR shall maintain, and specifically agrees that it will maintain, throughout the term of this Agreement, liability insurance, in which the CITY shall be named an additional insured in the minimum amounts as follow: General Liability One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per incident or occurrence, Automobile Liability Insurance One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per incident or occurrence and Workers' Compensation Insurance, in the statutory limits as required by law.. The limits of insurance shall not be deemed a limitation of the covenants to indemnify and save and hold harmless CITY; and if CITY becomes liable for an amount in excess of the insurance limits, herein provided, CONTRACTOR covenants and agrees to indemnify and save and hold harmless CITY from and for all such losses, claims, actions, or judgments for damages or injury to persons or property and other costs, including litigation costs and attorneys' fees, arising out of, resulting from , or in connection with the performance of this Agreement by the Contractor or Contractor's officers, employs, agents, representatives or subcontractors and resulting in or attributable to personal injury, death, or damage or destruction to tangible or intangible property, including use of. CONTRACTOR shall provide CITY with a Certificate of Insurance, or other proof of insurance evidencing CONTRACTOR'S compliance with the requirements of this paragraph and file such proof of insurance with the CITY at least ten (10) days prior to the date Contractor begins performance of it's obligations under this Agreement. In the event the insurance minimums are changed, CONTRACTOR shall immediately submit proof of compliance with the changed limits. Evidence of all insurance shall be submitted to the City Purchasing Agent with a copy to Meridian City Accounting, 33 East Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho 83642. 9.2 Insurance is to be placed with an Idaho admitted insurer with a Best's rating of no less than A-. 9.3 Any deductibles, self-insured retention, or named insureds must be declared in writing and approved by the City. At the option of the City, either: the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles, self-insured retentions or named insureds; or the Contractor shall provide a bond, cash or letter of credit guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses. 9.4 To the extent of the indemnity in this contract, Contractor's Insurance coverage shall be primary insurance regarding the City's elected officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City or the City's elected officers, officials, employees and volunteers shall be excess of PRV'S 1, 3, 7 SCADA CONTROL UPGRADES page 5 of 14 Project 10615.c the Contractor's insurance and shall not contribute with Contractor's insurance except as to the extent of City's negligence. 9.5 The Contractor's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability. 9.6 All insurance coverages for subcontractors shall be subject to all of the insurance and indemnity requirements stated herein. 9.7 The limits of insurance described herein shall not limit the liability of the Contractor and Contractor's agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors. 10. Time is of the Essence: The parties hereto acknowledge and agree that time is strictly of the essence with respect to each and every term, condition and provision hereof, and that the failure to timely perform any of the obligations hereunder shall constitute a breach of, and a default under, this Agreement by the party so failing to perform. 11. Bonds: Payment and Performance Bonds are required on all Public Works Improvement Projects per the ISPWC and the City of Meridian Supplemental Specifications & Drawings to the ISPWC, which by this reference are made a part hereof. Contractor is required to furnish faithful performance and payment bonds in the amount of 100% of the contract price issued by surety licensed to do business in the State of Idaho. In the event that the contract is subsequently terminated for failure to perform, the contractor and/or surety will be liable and assessed for any and all costs for the re -procurement of the contract services. 12. Warranty: All construction and equipment provided under this agreement shall be warranted for 2 years from the date of the City of Meridian acceptance per the ISPWC and the Meridian Supplemental Specifications & Drawings to the ISPWC and any modifications, which by this reference are made a part hereof. All items found to be defective during a warranty inspection and subsequently corrected will require an additional two (2) year warranty from the date of City's acceptance of the corrected work. 13. Changes: The CITY may, from time to time, request changes in the Scope of Work to be performed hereunder. Such changes, including any increase or decrease in the amount of CONTRACTOR'S compensation, which are mutually agreed upon by and between the CITY and CONTRACTOR, shall be incorporated in written PRV'S 1, 3, 7 SCADA CONTROL UPGRADES page 6 of 14 Project 10615.c amendments which shall be executed with the same formalities as this Agreement. 14. Taxes: The City of Meridian is exempt from Federal and State taxes and will execute the required exemption certificates for items purchased and used by the City. Items purchased by the City and used by a contractor are subject to Use Tax. All other taxes are the responsibility of the Contractor and are to be included in the Contractor's Bid pricing. 15. Meridian Stormwater Specifications: All construction projects require either a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) or an erosion sediment control plan (ESCP) as specified in the City of Meridian Construction Stormwater Management Program (CSWMP) manual. The CSWMP manual containing the procedures and guidelines can be found at this address: http://www.meridiancity.org/environmental.aspx?id=13618. Contractor shall retain all stormwater and erosion control documentation generated on site during construction including the SWPPP manual, field inspections and amendments. Prior to final acceptance of the job by the City the contractor shall return the field SWPPP manual and field inspection documents to the City for review. A completed Contractor Request to File Project N.O.T. with the EPA form shall be provided to the City with the documents. These documents shall be retained, reviewed and approved by the City prior to final acceptance of the project. 16. ACHD: Contractor shall be responsible for coordinating with the City to obtain appropriate ACHD permit(s) and will reimburse the City for fees, fines, or penalties City incurs due to Contractor's violation of any ACHD policy. City shall certify to ACHD that Contractor is authorized to obtain a Temporary Highway and Right -of -Way Use Permit from ACHD on City's behalf. The parties acknowledge and agree that the scope of the agency granted by such certification is limited to, and conterminous with, the term and scope of this Agreement. 17. Reports and Information: 17.1 At such times and in such forms as the CITY may require, there shall be furnished to the CITY such statements, records, reports, data and information as the CITY may request pertaining to matters covered by this Agreement. 17.2 Contractor shall maintain all writings, documents and records prepared or compiled in connection with the performance of this Agreement for a minimum of four (4) years from the termination or completion of this or Agreement. This includes any handwriting, typewriting, printing, photo static, photographic and every other means of recording upon any tangible thing, any form of communication or PRV'S 1, 3, 7 SCADA CONTROL UPGRADES page 7 of 14 Project 10615.c representation including letters, words, pictures, sounds or symbols or any combination thereof. 18. Audits and Inspections: At any time during normal business hours and as often as the CITY may deem necessary, there shall be made available to the CITY for examination all of CONTRACTOR'S records with respect to all matters covered by this Agreement. CONTRACTOR shall permit the CITY to audit, examine, and make excerpts or transcripts from such records, and to make audits of all contracts, invoices, materials, payrolls, records of personnel, conditions of employment and other data relating to all matters covered by this Agreement. 19. Publication, Reproduction and Use of Material: No material produced in whole or in part under this Agreement shall be subject to copyright in the United States or in any other country. The CITY shall have unrestricted authority to publish, disclose and otherwise use, in whole or in part, any reports, data or other materials prepared under this Agreement. 20. Equal Employment Opportunity: In performing the work herein, Contractor agrees to comply with the provisions of Title VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act, Revenue Sharing Act Title 31, U.S. Code Section 2176. Specifically, the Contractor agrees not to discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, political affiliation, marital status, or handicap. Contractor will take affirmative action during employment or training to insure that employees are treated without regard to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, political affiliation, marital status, or handicap. In performing the Work required herein, CONTRACTOR shall not unlawfully discriminate in violation of any federal, state or local law, rule or regulation against any person on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin or ancestry, age or disability. 21. Employment of Bona Fide Idaho Residents: Contractor must comply with Idaho State Statute 44-1002 which states that the Contractor employ ninety-five percent (95%) bona fide Idaho residents. 22. Advice of Attorney: Each party warrants and represents that in executing this Agreement. It has received independent legal advice from its attorney's or the opportunity to seek such advice. 23. Attorney Fees: Should any litigation be commenced between the parties hereto concerning this PRV'S 1, 3, 7 SCADA CONTROL UPGRADES page 8 of 14 Project 10615.c Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled, in addition to any other relief as may be granted, to court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees as determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction. This provision shall be deemed to be a separate contract between the parties and shall survive any default, termination or forfeiture of this Agreement. 24. Construction and Severability: If any part of this Agreement is held to be invalid or unenforceable, such holding will not affect the validity or enforceability of any other part of this Agreement so long as the remainder of the Agreement is reasonably capable of completion. 25. Waiver of Default: Waiver of default by either party to this Agreement shall not be deemed to be waiver of any subsequent default. Waiver or breach of any provision of this Agreement shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any other or subsequent breach, and shall not be construed to be a modification of the terms of this Agreement unless this Agreement is modified as provided above. 26. Entire Agreement: This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the parties and supersedes any and all other agreements or understandings, oral of written, whether previous to the execution hereof or contemporaneous herewith. 27. Assignment: It is expressly agreed and understood by the parties hereto, that CONTRACTOR shall not have the right to assign, transfer, hypothecate or sell any of its rights under this Agreement except upon the prior express written consent of CITY. 28. Payment Request: Payment requests shall be submitted to City of Meridian through the City's project management software. The Project Manager will compare the invoice against the Payment Schedule in the Agreement for compliance. Upon approval that the work has been done and is in compliance with the Agreement, the Project Manager will approve the pay request for processing. City of Meridian payment terms are Net 30 from the date City receives a correct invoice. Final payment will not be released until the City has received a tax release from the Tax Commission. 29. Cleanup: Contractor shall keep the worksite clean and free from debris. At completion of work and prior to requesting final inspection, the Contractor shall remove all traces of waste materials and debris resulting from the work. Final payment will not be made if cleanup has not been performed. PRV'S 1, 3, 7 SCADA CONTROL UPGRADES page 9 of 14 Project 10615.c 30. Order of Precedence: The order or precedence shall be the contract agreement, the Invitation for Bid document, then the winning bidders submitted bid document. 31. Compliance with Laws: In performing the scope of work required hereunder, CONTRACTOR shall comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, and codes of Federal, State, and local governments. 32. Applicable Law: This Agreement shall be governed by and construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Idaho, and the ordinances of the City of Meridian. 33. Notices: Any and all notices required to be given by either of the parties hereto, unless otherwise stated in this agreement, shall be in writing and be deemed communicated when mailed in the United States mail, certified, return receipt requested, addressed as follows: CITY CONTRACTOR City of Meridian Challenger Companies, Inc. Purchasing Manager Attn: Joe Gastelecutto 33 E Broadway Ave 1415 Madison Ave. Meridian, ID 83642 Nampa, ID 83687 208-489-0417 Phone: (208) 461-0608 Email: (208) 461-0650 Idaho Public Works License # PWC -C -12879 -AA - 1 -4 Either party may change their address for the purpose of this paragraph by giving written notice of such change to the other in the manner herein provided. 34. Approval Required: This Agreement shall not become effective or binding until approved by the City of Meridian. PRV'S 1, 3,7 SCADA CONTROL UPGRADES page 10 of 14 Project 10615.c NAME OF CONTRACTOR TAMMY de RD, MAYOR —74-S07✓ W Dated: q I �,� 41 C Approved by Council: U NES, CITY Dated: 6 — 2016 AUCUs7 �l 91" city of �E IDIA�� s� SEAL z 63 rER °� the TAE AS�PO Purchasing Approval Depament Approva BY: / BY: KEIT ATT ,Purchasing Manager W REN STEWAR ,Engineering Ma-ftagbr Dated:: /��42 Project Manager/ David Allison of ECM Consultants PRV'S 1, 3,7 SCADA CONTROL UPGRADES Project 10615.c Dated:: C page 11 of 14 EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF WORK REFER TO INVITATION TO BID PW -1640-10615.c ALL ADDENDUMS, ATTACHMENTS, AND EXHIBITS included in the Invitation to Bid Package # PW -1640-10615.c, are by this reference made a part hereof. SPECIFICATIONS / SCOPE OF WORK All construction work shall be done in accordance with the 2012 version of the Idaho Standards for Public Works Construction (ISPWC), the 2013 City of Meridian Supplemental Specifications to the ISPWC (and any Addendums). See separate attached documents: • SPECIAL PROVISIONS/TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS by Bowen Collins & Associates dated May 2016 (30 pages) PRV'S 1, 3,7 SCADA CONTROL UPGRADES page 12 of 14 Project 10615.c Exhibit B MILESTONE / PAYMENT SCHEDULE A. Total and complete compensation for this Agreement shall not exceed $82,857.00 MILESTONE DATES/SCHEDULE Milestone 1 Substantial Completion 60 Days from Notice to Proceed Milestone 2 Final Completion 75 Days from Notice to Proceed PRICING SCHEDULE Contract includes furnishing all labor, materials, equipment, and incidentals as required for the PRV'S 1, 3, 7 SCADA CONTROL UPGRADES per IFB PW -1640-10615.c Total Bid Schedule PRV 1 ...................$25,282.00 Total Bid Schedule PRV 3 ...................$32,375.00 Total Bid Schedule PRV 7 ...................$25,200.00 NOT TO EXCEED CONTRACT TOTAL ....................... $82,857.00 Contract is a not to exceed amount. Line item pricing below will be used for invoice verification and any additional increases or decreases in work requested by city. The City will pay the contractor based on actual quantities of each item of work in accordance with the contract documents. Contract Pricing Schedule Item No. Description Quantity Unit Unit Price PRV #1 1 Mobilization/Demobilization 1 LS 253.00 2 Instrumentation 1 LS 500.00 3 PLC Control Panel 1 Pnl 15,000.00 4 Testing 1 LS 1,.000.00 5 Other Misc 1 LS 8,529.00 PRV # 1 TOTAL 25,282.00 PRV # 3 1 Mobilization/Demobilization 1 LS 675.00 2 Instrumentation 1 LS 500.00 3 PLC Control Panel 1 Pnl 15,000.00 4 Testing 1 LS 1,.000.00 5 Other Misc 1 LS 15,200.00 PRV # 3 TOTAL 32,375.00 PRV'S 1, 3,7 SCADA CONTROL UPGRADES page 13 of 14 Project 10615.c PRV # 7 1 Mob iIization/Demobilization 1 LS 400.00 2 Instrumentation 1 LS 500.00 3 PLC Control Panel 1 Pnl 15,000.00 4 Testing 1 LS 1,.000.00 5 Other Misc 1 LS 8,300.00 PRV # 7 TOTAL 25,200.00 PRV'S 1, 3, 7 SCADA CONTROL UPGRADES page 14 of 14 Project 10615.c JQ Document A312 TM .2010 Performance Bond CONTRACTOR: (Name, legal status and address) Challenger Companies, Inc 1415 Madison Ave Nampa, Idaho 83687 OWNER: (Name, legal status and address) City of Meridian 33 E Broadway Ave Meridian. Idaho 83642 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT Date: JuneZ9, 2016 Amount: $82,857.00 SURETY: (Name, legal status and principal place of business) The Ohio Casualty Insurance Company 62 Maple Ave Keene, NH 03431 Description: (Name and location) PRV's 1,37 SCADA Control Upgrades Project #10615.c BOND Date: June Zg , 2016 (Not earlier than Construction Contract Date) Amount: $82,857.00 Modifications to this Bond: ® None ❑ See Section 16 CONTRACTOR AS PRINCIPAL SURETY Company: (Corporate Seal) Company: (Corporate Seal) Challenger Companies, Inc % The Ohio Casualty Insurance.Company Signature: Signature Signatu GY �c Name �Sor,/`�G✓G7� Gy, Name K I ichter, Attorney -In -Fact and,ritie: _�o�j - �«��, and Title: (Any additional signatures appear on the last page of this Performance Bond.) (FOR INFORMATION ONLY— Name, address and telephone) AGENT or BROKER: OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE: Allied Bonding (Architect, Engineer or other party) 5605 Overland Rd. Boise, ID 83705 Phone (208) 345-4177 Fax (208) 384-1677 Bond No. 023-034-009 This document has important legal consequences. Consultation with an attorney Is encouraged with respect to its completion or modification. Any singular reference to Contractor, Surety, Owner or other party shall be considered plural where applicable. AIA Document A312-2010 combines two separate bonds, a Performance Bond and a Payment Bond, into one form. This is not a single combined Performance and Payment Bond. Init. AIA Document A312TO — 2010. The American Inatltute of Architects. 061110 § 1 The Contractor and Surety, jointly and severally, bind themselves, their heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns to the Owner for the performance of the Construction Contract, which is incorporated herein by reference. § 2 If the Contractor performs the Construction Contract, the Surety and the Contractor shall have no obligation under this Bond, except when applicable to participate in a conference as provided in Section 3. § 3 If there is no Owner Default under the Construction Contract, the Surety's obligation under this Bond shall arise after .1 the Owner first provides notice to the Contractor and the Surety that the Owner is considering declaring a Contractor Default. Such notice shall indicate whether the Owner is requesting a conference among the Owner, Contractor and Surety to discuss the Contractor's performance. If the Owner does not request a conference, the Surety may, within five (5) business days after receipt of the Owner's notice, request such a conference. If the Surety timely requests a conference, the Owner shall attend. Unless the Owner agrees otherwise, any conference requested under this Section 3.1 shall be held within ten (10) business days of the Surety's receipt of the Owner's notice. If the Owner, the Contractor and the Surety agree, the Contractor shall be allowed a reasonable time to perform the Construction Contract, but such an agreement shall not waive the Owner's right, if any, subsequently to declare a Contractor Default; .2 the Owner declares a Contractor Default, terminates the Construction Contract and notifies the Surety; and .3 the Owner has agreed to pay the Balance of the Contract Price in accordance with the terms of the Construction Contract to the Surety or to a contractor selected to perform the Construction Contract. § 4 Failure on the part of the Owner to comply with the notice requirement in Section 3.1 shall not constitute a failure to comply with a condition precedent to the Surety's obligations, or release the Surety from its obligations, except to the extent the Surety demonstrates actual prejudice. § 5 When the Owner has satisfied the conditions of Section 3, the Surety shall promptly and at the Surety's expense take one of the following actions: § 5.1 Arrange for the Contractor, with the consent of the Owner, to perform and complete the Construction Contract; § 5.2 Undertake to perform and complete the Construction Contract itself, through its agents or independent contractors; § 5.3 Obtain bids or negotiated proposals from qualified contractors acceptable to the Owner for a contract for performance and completion of the Construction Contract, arrange for a contract to be prepared for execution by the Owner and a contractor selected with the Owner's concurrence, to be secured with performance and payment bonds executed by a qualified surety equivalent to the bonds issued on the Construction Contract, and pay to the Owner the amount of damages as described in Section 7 in excess of the Balance of the Contract Price incurred by the Owner as a result of the Contractor Default; or § 5.4 Waive its right to perform and complete, arrange for completion, or obtain a new contractor and with reasonable promptness under the circumstances: .1 After investigation, determine the amount for which it may be liable to the Owner and, as soon as practicable after the amount is determined, make payment to the Owner; or .2 Deny liability in whole or in part and notify the Owner, citing the reasons for denial. § 6 If the Surety does not proceed as provided in Section 5 with reasonable promptness, the Surety shall be deemed to be in default on this Bond seven days after receipt of an additional written notice from the Owner to the Surety demanding that the Surety perform its obligations under this Bond, and the Owner shall be entitled to enforce any remedy available to the Owner. If the Surety proceeds as provided in Section 5.4, and the Owner refuses the payment or the Surety has denied liability, in whole or in part, without further notice the Owner shall be entitled to enforce any remedy available to the Owner. Ink. AIA Document A312^ — 2010. The American Institute of Architects. 2 § 7 If the Surety elects to act under Section 5.1, 5.2 or 5.3, then the responsibilities of the Surety to the Owner shall not be greater than those of the Contractor under the Construction Contract, and the responsibilities of the Owner to the Surety shall not be greater than those of the Owner under the Construction Contract. Subject to the commitment by the Owner to pay the Balance of the Contract Price, the Surety is obligated, without duplication, for .1 the responsibilities of the Contractor for correction of defective work and completion of the Construction Contract; .2 additional legal, design professional and delay costs resulting from the Contractor's Default, and resulting from the actions or failure to act of the Surety under Section 5; and .3 liquidated damages, or if no liquidated damages are specified in the Construction Contract, actual damages caused by delayed performance or non-performance of the Contractor. § 8 If the Surety elects to act under Section 5.1, 5.3 or 5.4, the Surety's liability is limited to the amount of this Bond. § 9 The Surety shall not be liable to the Owner or others for obligations of the Contractor that are unrelated to the Construction Contract, and the Balance of the Contract Price shall not be reduced or set off on account of any such unrelated obligations. No right of action shall accrue on this Bond to any person or entity other than the Owner or its heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns. § 10 The Surety hereby waives notice of any change, including changes of time, to the Construction Contract or to related subcontracts, purchase orders and other obligations. § 11 Any proceeding, legal or equitable, under this Bond may be instituted in any court of competent jurisdiction in the location in which the work or part of the work is located and shall be instituted within two years after a declaration of Contractor Default or within two years after the Contractor ceased working or within two years after the Surety refuses or fails to perform its obligations under this Bond, whichever occurs first. If the provisions of this Paragraph are void or prohibited by law, the minimum period of limitation available to sureties as a defense in the jurisdiction of the suit shall be applicable. § 12 Notice to the Surety, the Owner or the Contractor shall be mailed or delivered to the address shown on the page on which their signature appears. § 13 When this Bond has been furnished to comply with a statutory or other legal requirement in the location where the construction was to be performed, any provision in this Bond conflicting with said statutory or legal requirement shall be deemed deleted herefrom and provisions conforming to such statutory or other legal requirement shall be deemed incorporated herein. When so furnished, the intent is that this Bond shall be construed as a statutory bond and not as a common law bond. § 14 Definitions § 14.1 Balance of the Contract Price. The total amount payable by the Owner to the Contractor under the Construction Contract after all proper adjustments have been made, including allowance to the Contractor of any amounts received or to be received by the Owner in settlement of insurance or other claims for damages to which the Contractor is entitled, reduced by all valid and proper payments made to or on behalf of the Contractor under the Construction Contract. § 14.2 Construction Contract. The agreement between the Owner and Contractor identified on the cover page, including all Contract Documents and changes made to the agreement and the Contract Documents. § 14.3 Contractor Default. Failure of the Contractor, which has not been remedied or waived, to perform or otherwise to comply with a material term of the Construction Contract. § 14.4 Owner Default. Failure of the Owner, which has not been remedied or waived, to pay the Contractor as required under the Construction Contract or to perform and complete or comply with the other material terms of the Construction Contract. § 14.5 Contract Documents. All the documents that comprise the agreement between the Owner and Contractor. § 15 If this Bond is issued for an agreement between a Contractor and subcontractor, the term Contractor in this Bond shall be deemed to be Subcontractor and the term Owner shall be deemed to be Contractor. Inh. AIA Document A312" — 2010. The American Institute of Architects. § 16 Modifications to this bond are as follows: None (Space is provided below for additional signatures of added parties, other than those appearing on the cover page.) CONTRACTOR AS PRINCIPAL SURETY Company: (Corporate Seal) Company: (Corporate Seal) Signature: Name and Title: Address Signature: Name and Title: Address CAUTION: You should sign an original AIA Contract Document, on which this text appears In RED. An original assures that changes will not be obscured. Init. AIA Document A312TM — 2010. The American Institute of Architects. AIA Document A312 TM .2010 Payment Bond CONTRACTOR: (Name, legal status and address) Challenger Companies, Inc 1415 Madison Ave Nampa, Idaho 83687 OWNER: (Name, legal status and address) City of Meridian 33 E Broadway Ave Meridian, Idaho 83642 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT Date: JuneZ—q, 2016 Amount: $82,857.00 SURETY: (Name, legal status and principal place of business) �( The Ohio Casualty Insurance Company r 1 62 Maple Ave Keene, NH 03431 Description: (Name and location) PRV's 1,3,7 SCADA Control Upgrades Project #10615.c BOND Date: June :ZcC, 2016 (Not earlier than Construction Contract Date) Amount: $82,857.00 Modifications to this Bond: ® None ❑ See Section 18 CONTRACTOR AS PRINCIPAL SURETY Company: (Corporate Seal) Company: (Corporate Seal) Challenger Companies, Inc The Ohio Casualty Insurance Company Signature, Signature• �Lf Nance �So /�✓GQ yG41` Name K I ichter, Att ney-In-Fact and Title:���and Title: (Any additional signatures appear on the Zst page of this Payment Bond) (FOR INFORMATION ONLY— Name, address and telephone) AGENT or BROKER: OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE: Allied Bonding (Architect, Engineer or other parry) 5605 Overland Rd. Boise, ID 83705 Phone (208) 345-4177 Fax (208) 384-1677 Bond No. 023-034-009 This document has important legal consequences. Consultation with an attorney Is encouraged with respect to its completion or modification. Any singular reference to Contractor, Surety, Owner or other party shall be considered plural where applicable. AIA Document A312-2010 combines two separate bonds, a Performance Bond and a Payment Bond, into one form. This is not a single combined Performance and Payment Bond. Init. AIA Document A312TM — 2010. The American Institute of Archkects. 061110 § 1 The Contractor and Surety, jointly and severally, bind themselves, their heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns to the Owner to pay for labor, materials and equipment furnished for use in the performance of the Construction Contract, which is incorporated herein by reference, subject to the following terms. § 2 If the Contractor promptly makes payment of all sums due to Claimants, and defends, indemnifies and holds harmless the Owner from claims, demands, liens or suits by any person or entity seeking payment for labor, materials or equipment furnished for use in the performance of the Construction Contract, then the Surety and the Contractor shall have no obligation under this Bond. § 3 If there is no Owner Default under the Construction Contract, the Surety's obligation to the Owner under this Bond shall arise after the Owner has promptly notified the Contractor and the Surety (at the address described in Section 13) of claims, demands, liens or suits against the Owner or the Owner's property by any person or entity seeking payment for labor, materials or equipment furnished for use in the performance of the Construction Contract and tendered defense of such claims, demands, liens or suits to the Contractor and the Surety. § 4 When the Owner has satisfied the conditions in Section 3, the Surety shall promptly and at the Surety's expense defend, indemnify and hold harmless the Owner against a duly tendered claim, demand, lien or suit. § 5 The Surety's obligations to a Claimant under this Bond shall arise after the following: § 5.1 Claimants, who do not have a direct contract with the Contractor, .1 have furnished a written notice of non-payment to the Contractor, stating with substantial accuracy the amount claimed and the name of the party to whom the materials were, or equipment was, furnished or supplied or for whom the labor was done or performed, within ninety (90) days after having last performed labor or last furnished materials or equipment included in the Claim; and .2 have sent a Claim to the Surety (at the address described in Section 13). § 5.2 Claimants, who are employed by or have a direct contract with the Contractor, have sent a Claim to the Surety (at the address described in Section 13). § 6 If a notice of non-payment required by Section 5. 1.1 is given by the Owner to the Contractor, that is sufficient to satisfy a Claimant's obligation to furnish a written notice of non-payment under Section 5.1.1. § 7 When a Claimant has satisfied the conditions of Sections 5.1 or 5.2, whichever is applicable, the Surety shall promptly and at the Surety's expense take the following actions: § 7.1 Send an answer to the Claimant, with a copy to the Owner, within sixty (60) days after receipt of the Claim, stating the amounts that are undisputed and the basis for challenging any amounts that are disputed; and § 7.2 Pay or arrange for payment of any undisputed amounts. § 7.3 The Surety's failure to discharge its obligations under Section 7.1 or Section 7.2 shall not be deemed to constitute a waiver of defenses the Surety or Contractor may have or acquire as to a Claim, except as to undisputed amounts for which the Surety and Claimant have reached agreement. If, however, the Surety fails to discharge its obligations under Section 7.1 or Section 7.2, the Surety shall indemnify the Claimant for the reasonable attorney's fees the Claimant incurs thereafter to recover any sums found to be due and owing to the Claimant. § 8 The Surety's total obligation shall not exceed the amount of this Bond, plus the amount of reasonable attorney's fees provided under Section 7.3, and the amount of this Bond shall be credited for any payments made in good faith by the Surety. § 9 Amounts owed by the Owner to the Contractor under the Construction Contract shall be used for the performance of the Construction Contract and to satisfy claims, if any, under any construction performance bond. By the Contractor furnishing and the Owner accepting this Bond, they agree that all funds earned by the Contractor in the performance of the Construction Contract are dedicated to satisfy obligations of the Contractor and Surety under this Bond, subject to the Owner's priority to use the funds for the completion of the work. Inst. AIA Document A312*m — 2010. The American Institute of Architects. § 10 The Surety shall not be liable to the Owner, Claimants or others for obligations of the Contractor that are unrelated to the Construction Contract. The Owner shall not be liable for the payment of any costs or expenses of any Claimant under this Bond, and shall have under this Bond no obligation to make payments to, or give notice on behalf of, Claimants or otherwise have any obligations to Claimants under this Bond. § I I The Surety hereby waives notice of any change, including changes of time, to the Construction Contract or to related subcontracts, purchase orders and other obligations. § 12 No suit or action shall be commenced by a Claimant under this Bond other than in a court of competent jurisdiction in the state in which the project that is the subject of the Construction Contract is located or after the expiration of one year from the date (1) on which the Claimant sent a Claim to the Surety pursuant to Section 5.1.2 or 5.2, or (2) on which the last labor or service was performed by anyone or the last materials or equipment were furnished by anyone under the Construction Contract, whichever of (1) or (2) first occurs. If the provisions of this Paragraph are void or prohibited by law, the minimum period of limitation available to sureties as a defense in the jurisdiction of the suit shall be applicable. § 13 Notice and Claims to the Surety, the Owner or the Contractor shall be mailed or delivered to the address shown on the page on which their signature appears. Actual receipt of notice or Claims, however accomplished, shall be sufficient compliance as of the date received. § 14 When this Bond has been furnished to comply with a statutory or other legal requirement in the location where the construction was to be performed, any provision in this Bond conflicting with said statutory or legal requirement shall be deemed deleted herefrom and provisions conforming to such statutory or other legal requirement shall be deemed incorporated herein. When so furnished, the intent is that this Bond shall be construed as a statutory bond and not as a common law bond. § 15 Upon request by any person or entity appearing to be a potential beneficiary of this Bond, the Contractor and Owner shall promptly furnish a copy of this Bond or shall permit a copy to be made. § 16 Definitions § 16.1 Claim. A written statement by the Claimant including at a minimum: .1 the name of the Claimant; .2 the name of the person for whom the labor was done, or materials or equipment furnished; .3 a copy of the agreement or purchase order pursuant to which labor, materials or equipment was furnished for use in the performance of the Construction Contract; .4 a brief description of the labor, materials or equipment furnished; .5 the date on which the Claimant last performed labor or last furnished materials or equipment for use in the performance of the Construction Contract; .6 the total amount earned by the Claimant for labor, materials or equipment furnished as of the date of the Claim; .7 the total amount of previous payments received by the Claimant; and .8 the total amount due and unpaid to the Claimant for labor, materials or equipment furnished as of the date of the Claim. § 16.2 Claimant. An individual or entity having a direct contract with the Contractor or with a subcontractor of the Contractor to furnish labor, materials or equipment for use in the performance of the Construction Contract. The term Claimant also includes any individual or entity that has rightfully asserted a claim under an applicable mechanic's lien or similar statute against the real property upon which the Project is located. The intent of this Bond shall be to include without limitation in the terms "labor, materials or equipment" that part of water, gas, power, light, heat, oil, gasoline, telephone service or rental equipment used in the Construction Contract, architectural and engineering services required for performance of the work of the Contractor and the Contractor's subcontractors, and all other items for which a mechanic's lien may be asserted in the jurisdiction where the labor, materials or equipment were furnished. § 16.3 Construction Contract. The agreement between the Owner and Contractor identified on the cover page, including all Contract Documents and all changes made to the agreement and the Contract Documents. Inst. AIA Document A312TM —2010. The American Institute of Architects. § 16.4 Owner Default Failure of the Owner, which has not been remedied or waived, to pay the Contractor as required under the Construction Contract or to perform and complete or comply with the other material terms of the Construction Contract. § 16.5 Contract Documents. All the documents that comprise the agreement between the Owner and Contractor. § 17 If this Bond is issued for an agreement between a Contractor and subcontractor, the term Contractor in this Bond shall be deemed to be Subcontractor and the term Owner shall be deemed to be Contractor. § 18 Modifications to this bond are as follows: None (Space is provided below for additional signatures of added parties, other than those appearing on the cover page) CONTRACTOR AS PRINCIPAL SURETY Company: (Corporate Seal) Company: (Corporate Seal) Signature: Name and Title: Address Signature: Name and Title: Address CAUTION: You should sign an original AIA Contract Document, on which this text appears In RED. An original assures that changes will not be obscured. Init. AIA Document A312*r —2010. The American Instltute of Architects. 8 .. THIS POWER OF ATTORNEY IS NOT VALID UNLESS IT IS PRINTED ON RED BACKGROUND. This Power of Attorney limits the acts of those named herein, and they have no authority to bind the Company except in the manner and to the extent herein stated. Certificate No. 7303939 American Fire and Casualty Company The Ohio Casualty Insurance Company Liberty Mutual Insurance Company West American Insurance Company POWER OF ATTORNEY KNOWN ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS: ThatAmerican Fire & Casualty Company and The Ohio Casualty Insurance Company are corporations duly organized under the laws of the State of New Hampshire, that Liberty Mutual Insurance Company is a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of Massachusetts, and West American Insurance Company is a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of Indiana (herein collectively called the "Companies"), pursuant to and by authority herein set forth, does hereby name, constitute and appoint, Janet K. Holthaus; Karyl A. Richter all of the city of Boise , state of ID each individually if there be more than one named, its true and lawful attorney-in-fact to make, execute, seal, acknowledge and deliver, for and on its behalf as surety and as its act and deed, any and all undertakings, bonds, recognizances and other surety obligations, in pursuance of these presents and shall be as binding upon the Companies as if they have been duly signed by the president and attested by the secretary of the Companies in their own proper persons. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Power of Attorney has been subscribed by an authorized officer or official of the Companies and the corporate seals of the Companies have been affixed thereto this 29th day of March , 2016 Pp1D CgSG tiJV INSU IS up, y,NSUq American Fire and Casualty Company 4�� ,o0.iOn,rF�y�L eJPLo2Fu2U�992(, J�JPoeso;t�,o�rF � The Ohio Casualty Insurance Company m z s Liberty Mutual Insurance Company a 1906 0 o 1919 n >. 1912 ° Q 1991 Z: West American Insurance Company AM �1G,f"6"yV>" -aa ��`'aHnrac4`�M1 a 6°'s y * t 1 * * BV: STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA ss COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY On this 29th day of March , 2016 , before me personally appeared David M. Carey, who acknowledged himself to be the Assistant Secretary of American Fire and Casualty Company, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, The Ohio Casualty Insurance Company, and West American Insurance Company, and that he, as such, being authorized so to do, execute the foregoing instrument for the purposes therein contained by signing on behalf of the corporations by himself as a duly authorized officer. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed my notarial seal at Plymouth Meeting, Pennsylvania, on the day and year first above written. 5p pgST COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA��%�� fie, o4F�,0 NwFq`Ftt Notarial Seal Teresa Pastella, Notary Public By: OF Plymouth Twp., Montgomery County Teresa Pastella, Notary Public My Commission Expires March 28, 2017 7r�L4�yMember, Pennsylvania Association of Notaries This Power of Attorney is made and executed pursuant to an by authority of the following By-laws and Authorizations ofAmerican Fire and Casualty Company, The Ohio Casualty Insurance Company, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, and West American Insurance Company which resolutions are now in full force and effect reading as follows: ARTICLE IV— OFFICERS —Section 12. Power of Attorney. Any officer or other official of the Corporation authorized for that purpose in writing by the Chairman or the President, and subject to such limitation as the Chairman or the President may prescribe, shall appoint such attorneys -in -fact, as may be necessary to act in behalf of the Corporation to make, execute, seal, acknowledge and deliver as surety any and all undertakings, bonds, recognizances and other surety obligations. Such attorneys -in -fact, subject to the limitations set forth in their respective powers of attorney, shall have full power to bind the Corporation by their signature and execution of any such instruments and to attach thereto the seal of the Corporation. When so executed, such instruments shall be as binding as if signed by the President and attested to by the Secretary. Any power or authority granted to any representative or attorney-in-fact under the provisions of this article may be revoked at any time by the Board, the Chairman, the President or by the officer or officers granting such power or authority. ARTICLE XIII — Execution of Contracts — SECTION 5. Surety Bonds and Undertakings. Any officer of the Company authorized for that purpose in writing by the chairman or the president, and subject to such limitations as the chairman or the president may prescribe, shall appoint such attorneys -in -fact, as may be necessary to act in behalf of the Company to make, execute, seal, acknowledge and deliver as surety any and all undertakings, bonds, recognizances and other surety obligations. Such attorneys -in -fact subject to the limitations set forth in their respective powers of attorney, shall have full power to bind the Company by their signature and execution of any such instruments and to attach thereto the seal of the Company. When so executed such instruments shall be as binding as if signed by the president and attested by the secretary. Certificate of Designation — The President of the Company, acting pursuant to the Bylaws of the Company, authorizes David M. Carey, Assistant Secretary to appoint such attorneys -in - fact as may be necessary to act on behalf of the Company to make, execute, seal, acknowledge and deliver as surety any and all undertakings, bonds, recognizances and other surety obligations. Authorization — By unanimous consent of the Company's Board of Directors, the Company consents that facsimile or mechanically reproduced signature of any assistant secretary of the Company, wherever appearing upon a certified copy of any power of attorney issued by the Company in connection with surety bonds, shall be valid and binding upon the Company with the same force and effect as though manually affixed. I, Gregory W. Davenport, the undersigned, Assistant Secretary, of American Fire and Casualty Company, The Ohio Casualty Insurance Company, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, and West American Insurance Company do hereby certify that the original power of attorney of which the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of the Power of Attorney executed by said Companies, is in full force and effect and has not been revoked. ll 11 -- ( n IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seals of said Companies this a4l day of Wnc 20 "� F,PND CAS�q Jp'41 n I N.SO JP\, INS , M P�Rg'i'n a 1906 6 o 1919 n r 1912 o Q 1991 By: y a o y as 3 Gregory W. Davenport, Assistant Secretary d��L���Nrr.:a4" r�aa a'Fy�K'reAr,rf ��'aa A�'`sAclnfi T? � �.SD;AN� T LMS_12873_122013 14 of 100 C. W m C 3 Fax: (208)887-4813 ACoR" CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE 16..� DATE (MMIDDIYYYY) 1 06/22/2016 THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(ies) must have ADDITIONAL INSURED provisions or be endorsed. If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s). PRODUCER Boise Capital Insurance CONTACT NAME: Dawna McGee a/..N Ext: (208)321-1400 aC No: (208)321-9400 ADDRESS: dawna@boisecapitalins.com 1556 S Timesquare Ln Ste 200 INSURERS AFFORDING COVERAGE NAIC # Boise, ID 83709 INSURER A: Auto -Owners Insurance Company 18988 01/15/2017 EACH OCCURRENCE $ 1,000,000 INSURED INSURER B: Liberty Mutual Insurance 19690 INSURERC: Challenger Companies, Inc. INSURER D: 1415 Madison Ave INSURER E: Nampa, ID 83687 INSURER F: COVERAGES CERTIFICATE NUMBER: 00000000-1596506 REVISION NUMBER: 111 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. INSR LTR TYPE OF INSURANCE ADDL SUBR O POLICY NUMBER POLICY EFF MM/DD/YYYY POLICY EXP MMIDD/YYYY LIMITS A X COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY Y 57008484 01/15/2016 01/15/2017 EACH OCCURRENCE $ 1,000,000 CLAIMS -MADE Ik OCCUR DAMAGE TO PREMISES (Ea occurrence) $ 300,000 MED EXP (Any one person) S _ 10,000 PERSONAL & ADV INJURY $ 1,000,000 GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER: GENERAL AGGREGATE $ 2,000,000 POLICY ECT LOC PRODUCTS-COMP/OP AGG $ 2,000,000 __ _ S OTHER: A AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY 4751471700 01/15/2016 1 01/15/2017 E° acccideDtSINGLELlMIT $ 1 000 000 BODILY INJURY(Per person) $ ANYAUTO ' BODILY INJURY (Per accident) S OWNED SCHEDULED AUTOS ONLY AUTOS IX PROPERTY DAMAGE S Per accident HIRED NON -OWNED X AUTOS ONLY AUTOS ONLY $ A X UMBRELLA LIA OCCUR 4751471701 01/15/2016 01/15/2017 EACH OCCURRENCE $ 4,000,000 AGGREGATE $ 4,000,000 EXCESS LIAB CLAIMS -MADE DED I X RETENTION$ 10,000 $ B WORKERS COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY YIN ANY PROPRIETOR/PARTNER/EXECUTIVE--- WC41NC-016559-016 01/01/2016 01/01/2017 X STATUTE OERH E.L. EACH ACCIDENT $ 1,000,000 OFFICER/MEMBER EXCLUDED? ❑ (Mandatory in NH) N / A E.L. DISEASE- EA EMPLOYEE $ 1,000,000 If yes, describe under DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS below E.L. DISEASE- POLICY LIMIT $ 1,000,000 B Installation Floater BMO 55378168 01/15/2016 01/15/2017 Limit 250,000 DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS / LOCATIONS / VEHICLES (ACORD 101, Additional Remarks Schedule, may be attached if more space is required) City of Meridian is listed as an Additional Insured. Project: #10615.c PRV'S 1, 3,7 SCADA CONTROL UPGRADES CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLATION @ 1988-2015 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved. ACORD 25 (2016/03) The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD Printed by DEM on June 22, 2016 at 10:29AM SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE City of Meridian THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN Purchasing Department ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS. 33 E Broadway Ave Ste 106 AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE Meridian, ID 83642 V'6'�'A— 1 DEM @ 1988-2015 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved. ACORD 25 (2016/03) The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD Printed by DEM on June 22, 2016 at 10:29AM IDSOS Viewing Business Entity Page 1 of 2 ,F,�,, IDAHO SECRETARY OF STATE � . 4 Viewing Business Entity Lawerence Denney, Secretary of State [ New Search ] [ Back to Summary ] [ Get a certificate of existence for CHALLENGER COMPANIES, INC. ] [ Monitor CHALLENGER COMPANIES INC. business filings ] CHALLENGER COMPANIES' INC. 1415 MADISON AVE NAMPA, ID 83687 Type of Business: CORPORATION, GENERAL BUSINESS Status: GOODSTANDING 12 Aug 1997 State of Origin: IDAHO Date of 12 Aug 1997 Origination/Authorization: Current Registered Agent: JASON WRIGHT 1415 MADISON AVE NAMPA, ID 83687 Organizational ID / Filing C120510 Number: Number of Authorized Stock 100000 Shares: Date of Last Annual Report: 30 Jul 2015 Annual Report Due: Aug 2016 Filed 12 Aug 1997 INCORPORATION Amendments: Amendment Filed 28 Oct NAME CHANGED 2003 TO CHALLENGER COMPANIES, INC. [ Help Me Print/View TIFF ] View Image (PDF format) View Image (TIFF format) [ Help Me Print/View TIFF ] View Image (PDF format) View Image (TIFF format) Amendment Filed 28 Oct NAME CHANGED View Image (PDF format) 2003 TO CHALLENGER View Image (TIFF format) COMPANIES, INC. Annual Reports: [ Help Me Print/View TIFF ] Report for year 2015 ANNUAL REPORT View Document Online Report for year 2014 ANNUAL REPORT View Document Online Report for year 2013 ANNUAL REPORT View Document Online Report for year 2012 ANNUAL REPORT View Document Online Report for year 2011 ANNUAL REPORT View Document Online Report for year 2010 ANNUAL REPORT View Document Online https://www.accessidaho.org/public/sos/corp/C 120510.html 6/16/2016 IDSOS Viewing Business Entity Page 2 of 2 Report for year 2009 ANNUAL REPORT View Document Online Report for year 2008 CHANGE View Image (PDF format) View ADDRESS Image (TIFF format) Report for year 2008 CHNG RA/ RO Report for year 2008 CHNG RA/ RO View Image (PDF format) View Image (TIFF format) View Image (PDF format) View Image (TIFF format) Report for year 2008 CHNG View Image (PDF format) View OFF/DIR Image (TIFF format) Report for year 2008 ANNUAL REPORT View Document Online Report for year 2007 ANNUAL REPORT Report for year 2006 CHNG OFF/DIR Report for year 2006 CHNG RA/ RO Report for year 2006 ANNUAL REPORT Report for year 2005 ANNUAL REPORT Report for year 2004 ANNUAL REPORT Report for year 2003 ANNUAL REPORT Report for year 2003 CHNG OFF/DIR Report for year 2002 ANNUAL REPORT Report for year 2001 ANNUAL REPORT Report for year 2000 ANNUAL REPORT Report for year 2000 CHNG RA/RO Report for year 1999 ANNUAL REPORT Report for year 1998 ANNUAL REPORT Idaho Secretary of State's Main Page View Image (PDF format) View Image (TIFF format) View Image (PDF format) View Image (TIFF format) View Image (PDF format) View Image (TIFF format) View Image (PDF format) View Image (TIFF format) View Image (PDF format) View Image (TIFF format) View Image (PDF format) View Image (TIFF format) View Image (PDF format) View Image (TIFF format) View Image (PDF format) View Image (TIFF format) View Image (PDF format) View Image (TIFF format) View Image (PDF format) View Image (TIFF format) View Image (PDF format) View Image (TIFF format) View Image (PDF format) View Image (TIFF format) View Image (PDF format) View Image (TIFF format) View Image (PDF format) View Image (TIFF format) State of Idaho Home Page Comments, questions or suggestions can be emailed to: sosinfoOsos.idaho.gov https://www.accessidaho.org/public/sos/corp/C 1205 10.html 6/16/2016 PublicWorks Search Al Print Page 1 of 1 Parent Company License Work License License Applicant Owner Company Comp ny Company Company Expiration p Status Phone License Name Number Category Type Class Name Name Address City State Zip Code Date Number 00001, 02310, 05090, 06200, ChallengerPWC-C- 07700, Challenger 1415 Companies, 12879 13800, 1,4 AA ACTIVE Companies, Madison Ave NAMPA ID 83686 461- 461- 3/31f2017 Inc. 15100, Inc. 0608 15400, 15510, 15700, 16000 https:Hweb.dbs.idaho.gov/eTRAKiT3/Custom/ldaho_PublicWorksPrint.aspx 6/16/2016 ri 10 T i i W F- 08 W F- LU W 0 W a Z 0 Fa 0 LO O T O cfl T V r:1 W m E M Z 0 Fa a O 0r -o LO00o V N In OO OO OO fA 69 b} u Z cL0 m N r a O O O 666 O N N d L( N N N 613 69� 61) O O O 0 Ui O [I- OD M 00 M N O M M M 61.� 60- bl� 0 0 0 0 0 0 LO N O LO N 0) U) r— N (N N EA Efl Ef3 X X X X X X X X X C C C X X X X X X U) O C: m Q U E O W rn a) q: W O N W � � 2 U U Q u Z cL0 m N r a Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: July 5, 2016 ITEM NUMBER: 6K PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Findings of Fact Rainier Villas Subdivision K. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Rainier Villas (H-2016-0041) by Aaron Elton Located West of N. Meridian Road and South of E. Franklin Road MEETING NOTES t 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 FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2016-0041 - 1 - CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER In the Matter of the Request for a Preliminary Plat Consisting of fifteen (15) multi-family residential building lots and five (5) common lots on 5.35 acres of land and a Conditional Use Permit to develop a multi-family development consisting of 90 dwelling units for Rainier Villas located west of N. Meridian Road between W. Corporate Drive and W. Penwood Street (parcel #S1213142120) in the NE ¼ of Section 13, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, B.M., by Aaron Elton Case No(s). H-2016-0041 For the City Council Hearing Date of: June 21, 2016 (Findings on July 5, 2016) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of June 21, 2016, incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of June 21, 2016, incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of June 21, 2016, incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of June 21, 2016, incorporated by reference) B. Conclusions of Law 1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the “Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975,” codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code (I.C. §67-6503). 2. The Meridian City Council takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has, by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, which was adopted April 19, 2011, Resolution No. 11-784 and Maps. 3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-5A. 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s) received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2016-0041 - 2 - 6. That the City has granted an order of approval of the annexation and zoning request in accordance with this Decision, which shall be signed by the Mayor and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk upon the applicant, the Planning Department, the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. 7. That this annexation approval is subject to a development agreement containing the provisions in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of June 21, 2016, incorporated by reference. C. Decision and Order Pursuant to the City Council’s authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 11-5A and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: 1. The applicant’s request for conditional use permit is hereby approved per the conditions of approval in the Staff Report for the hearing date of June 21, 2016, attached as Exhibit A. 2. The applicant’s request for a preliminary plat is hereby approved based on the findings in the Staff Report for the hearing date of June 21, 2016, attached as Exhibit A. D. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis 1. The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code 67-8003, denial of a development application entitles the Owner to request a regulatory taking analysis. Such request must be in writing, and must be filed with the City Clerk not more than twenty-eight (28) days after the final decision concerning the matter at issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for Judicial Review may be filed. 2. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian. When applicable and pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521, any affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the final action of the governing board may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code. E. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of June 21, 2016 Exhibit A Rainier Villas H-2016-0041 PAGE 1 STAFF REPORT HEARING DATE: June 21, 2016 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Josh Beach, Associate City Planner 208-884-5533 Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager 208-887-2211 SUBJECT: Rainier Villas – H-2016-0041 I. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT’S REQUEST The applicant, Aaron Elton, has submitted an application for the following: 1) a preliminary plat consisting of fifteen (15) multi-family residential lots and five (5) common lots on approximately 5.35 acres of land in the C-G zoning district; 2) a conditional use permit to develop a multi-family development consisting of ninety-two (92) dwelling units (eleven (11) four-plex structures and four (4) twelve-plex structures. See Section VII and Analysis, for more information. II. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the proposed PP and CUP applications based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in Exhibit C of the Staff Report. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission heard these items on May 19, 2016. At the public hearing, the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject PP and CUP requests. a. Summary of Commission Public Hearing: i. In favor: Shannon Robnett, Applicant’s Representative, Aaron Elton ii. In opposition: None iii. Commenting: Aaron Elton, Shannon Robnett iv. Written testimony: None v. Staff presenting application: Josh Beach vi. Other staff commenting on application: None b. Key Issue(s) of Discussion by Commission: i. The amount of open space for the development. ii. The number and type of amenities appropriate for a multi-family development of this size. iii. Access to the development and whether to require a cross-access, or provide two access points on Corporate Drive. c. 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 #1.1.3i (Commission did not require a clubhouse as an amenity for the development) Exhibit A Rainier Villas H-2016-0041 PAGE 2 iv. Remove condition #1.1.4c (Commission did not require that Lot 7, Block 1 be removed from the development ) d. Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: i. The applicant is requesting approval for an additional access to W. Corporate Drive. Condition 1.1.3g 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. The Meridian City Council heard this item on June 21, 2016. At the public hearings, the Council moved to approve the AZ and PP request. a. Summary of City Council Public Hearing: i. In favor: Aaron Elton, Shannon Robnett ii. In opposition: None iii. Commenting: Randy Gile iv. Written testimony: None v. Staff presenting application: Josh Beach vi. Other staff commenting on application: None b. Key Issues of Discussion by Council: i. None c. Key Council Changes to Staff/Commission Recommendation i. None III. PROPOSED MOTION Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval of File Number H-2016-0041 as presented during the hearing on May 19, 2016, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications.) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial of File Number H- 2016-0041 as presented during the hearing on May 19, 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 (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) IV. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS A. Site Address/Location: The site is located west of N. Meridian Road between W. Corporate Drive and W. Penwood Street (parcel #S1213142120) in the NE ¼ of Section 13, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, B.M. B. Applicant: Aaron Elton 2949 E. Copper Point Drive Meridian, Idaho 83642 C. Owner: Land Investors, LLC 12833 W. Ventana Ct. Boise, ID 83713 Exhibit A Rainier Villas H-2016-0041 PAGE 3 D. Representative: Shannon Robnett, Robnett Properties 3818 Newby Street, Suite 101 Nampa, ID 83687 E. Applicant's Statement/Justification: Please see applicant’s narrative for this information. V. PROCESS FACTS A. The subject applications are for a preliminary plat and conditional use permit. A public hearing is required before the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council on this matter, consistent with Meridian City Code Title 11, Chapter 5. B. Newspaper notifications published on: April 18 and May 2, 2016 (Commission); May 30 and June 13, 2016 (Council) C. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: April 14, 2016 (Commission); May 26, 2016 (Council) D. Applicant posted notice on site by: April 25, 2016 (Commission); June 10, 2016 (Council) VI. LAND USE A. Existing Land Use(s): The site is currently vacant commercial property, zoned C-G. B. Character of Surrounding Area and Adjacent Land Use and Zoning: North: Vacant commercial property, zoned C-G South: Self-storage facility, zoned C-G East: Trade Plaza Subdivision, zoned C-G West: Vacant and developed commercial property, zoned C-G C. History of Previous Actions: 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. D. Utilities: a) Location of sewer: A sewer main intended to provide service to this parcel currently exists in the SW 3rd Street stub on the north parcel boundary. b) Location of water: Water mains intended to provide service to this parcel currently exist in the SW 3rd Street stub on the north parcel boundary, and at the SW & SE corners of the parcel in W. Corporate Drive. c) Issues or concerns: None E. Physical Features: 1. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: No major facilities exist on this site. 2. Hazards: Staff is not aware of any hazards that exist on the property. 3. Flood Plain: This property does not lie within the Floodplain Overlay District. Exhibit A Rainier Villas H-2016-0041 PAGE 4 VII. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS This property is designated “Commercial” on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. The purpose of this designation is to provide a full range of commercial and retail to serve area residents and visitors. Uses may include retail, wholesale, service and office uses, multi-family residential, as well as appropriate public uses such as government offices. Within this land use category, specific zones may be created to focus commercial activities unique to their locations. These zones may include neighborhood commercial uses focusing on specialized service for residential areas adjacent to that zone. The proposed preliminary plat includes fifteen (15) multi-family lots and five (5) common lots on approximately 5.35 acres. The applicant has submitted a concurrent conditional use permit application to develop the proposed multi-family lots with ninety-two (92) dwelling units. The overall gross density of the project is 17.20 dwelling units to the acre. Staff finds that the proposed development is consistent with desired land use in the Commercial land use designated area. Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this property and apply to the proposed use (staff analysis in italics):  “Provide for a wide diversity of housing types (single-family, modular, mobile homes and multi-family arrangements) and choices between ownership and rental dwelling units for all income groups in a variety of locations suitable for residential development.” (3.07.03B) The proposed high density multi-family residential development will contribute to the variety of housing types available within this part of the City and offer rental options for 2 and 3 bedroom units.  “Provide housing options close to employment and shopping centers.” (3.07.02D) This site is located along a major retail/commercial/employment corridor (Meridian Road) within the City. High density residential development is desired in this area to support the employment and retail/restaurant/commercial uses.  “Permit new development only where urban services can be reasonably provided at the time of final approval and development is contiguous to the City.” (3.01.01F) City services are readily available to serve the proposed development in accord with UDC 11-3A-21.  “Require all new and reconstructed parking lots to provide landscaping in internal islands and along streets.” (2.01.04B) Perimeter landscaping and internal planter islands are proposed in the new parking areas however, they must comply with the landscape requirements in UDC 11-3B-8C.  “Locate high-density development, where possible, near open space corridors, or other permanent major open space and park facilities, Old Town, and near major access thoroughfares.” (3.07.02L) The proposed development is in close proximity to Story Park, a multi-use pathway along Main Street, commercial developments, Downtown and east access to Intyerstate I-84.  “Elevate quality of design for houses and apartments; evaluate the need for design review guidelines for single-family homes.” (3.07.02O) The multi-family structures within the proposed development will be subject to the design standards in UDC 11-3A-19 and the guidelines in the Architectural Standards Manual. The proposed 4-plex buildings appear to meet the requirements of the Architectural Standards manual, however staff has concerns with the proposed 12-plex structures. Further, refinement to the design of these structures is required in order for the project to meet the design review requirements.  “Require common area in all subdivisions.” (3.07.02E) Exhibit A Rainier Villas H-2016-0041 PAGE 5 The specific use standards for the multi-family development require common open space and site amenities based on the square footages and the number of units. As proposed, the landscape plan depicts 0.88 acres of common open space and four (4) amenities. Staff believes that the applicant should eliminate the 4-plex structure on Lot 7, Block 1, to add to the open space for the development. Staff also believes that the applicant should eliminate the sports court, and construct a clubhouse with a fitness facility in its place.  “Restrict private curb cuts and access points on collectors and arterial streets.” (3.06.02D) UDC 11-3A-3 restricts the access to collector and arterial roadways when local street access is available. The subject property fronts on SW 3rd Street which is designated as a local street. The site plan as submitted depicts two (2) access 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. Per the UDC, the applicant must obtain Council approval for the additional access to W. Corporate Drive. Based on the analysis above, staff finds the proposed development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. VIII. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE (UDC) A. Purpose Statement of Zones: Per UDC 11-2B-1, the purpose of the commercial districts is to provide for the retail and service needs of the community in accordance with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. Six (6) districts are designated which differ in the size and scale of commercial structures accommodated in the district, the scale and mix of allowed commercial uses, and the location of the district in proximity to streets and highways. Properties within the C-G district are typically in close proximity and/or have access to interstate or arterial intersections. Allowed uses are the largest scale and broadest mix of retail, office, service, and light industrial uses. B. Schedule of Use: Unified Development Code (UDC) Table 11-2B-2 lists the permitted, accessory, conditional, and prohibited uses in the C-G zoning district. The proposed multi-family development is listed as a conditional use. The specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-27 for multi-family developments apply to development of this property. C. Dimensional Standards: The dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2B-3 for the C-G zoning district apply to development of this site. D. Landscaping Standards (UDC 11-3B): The standards for landscaping contained in UDC 11-3B and 11-4- 3-27F apply to development of this site. E. Common Open Space and Site Amenity Requirements: Common open space and site amenities are required to be provided on the site in accord with the requirements listed in11-4-3-27C and11-4-3-27D. G. Structure and Site Design Standards: The proposed multi-family development must comply with the design standards in accord with UDC 11-3A-19 and the Architectural Standards Manual. IX. ANALYSIS A. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation: PRELIMINARY PLAT (PP): 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. Exhibit A Rainier Villas H-2016-0041 PAGE 6 Dimensional Standards: The proposed plat is required to comply with the dimensional standards of the C-G zoning district listed in UDC Tables 11-2B-3. Staff has reviewed the proposed plat and found the plat to comply with the requirements of the C-G district. 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 take 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 agreemen t 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. Landscaping: A 20-foot wide street buffer is required along W. Corporate Drive, per UDC Table 11- 2B-3. The landscape plan submitted with the application depicts the required landscape buffer required by the UDC. Sidewalks: 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. Pressure Irrigation: The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water. The applicant should be required to utilize any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. An underground, pressurized irrigation system should be installed to all landscape areas per the approved specifications and in accordance with UDC 11-3A-15 and MCC 9-1-28. Conditional Use Permit (CUP): 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 11-2B-2) requires CUP approval for a multi-family development in the C-G zoning district. 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. 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. Associated carport structures are also proposed (see site plan in Exhibit A.2). 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. Specific Use Standards: The specific use standards for multi-family developments listed in UDC 11-4- 3-27 apply to development of this site as follows: (Staff’s comments in italics)  A minimum of 80 square feet (s.f.) of private useable open space is required to be provided for each unit. Exhibit A Rainier Villas H-2016-0041 PAGE 7 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-plex 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 conceptual elevations for both the 4-plex structures and the 12-plex structures are included in Exhibit A.4. Staff is supportive of the proposed 4-plex structures as they appear to generally comply with the standards of the Architectural Standards Manual. The four-plex structures should provide variation in materials and colors as required by the ASM. Exhibit A Rainier Villas H-2016-0041 PAGE 8 The design of the 12-plex structures as proposed does not appear to meet several of the design standards of the Architectural Standards Manual. Specifically, goal R1.2A from the residential standards section reads “Ensure that no two buildings viewed from a public street or public space are alike, by varying at least two of the following for each building: roof pitch, material types, color packages, structure orientation, or incorporate other unique and identifiable architectural or landscape element...” Goal R4.4C, requires “Multi-family stairwells must be integrated with the building design and provide residents protection from inclement weather. Use materials, modulation, and architectural elements which relate to and support other standards. Staff recommends that the applicant submit revised twelve-plex elevations that comply with the Architectural Standards Manual prior to the Commission hearing.  Landscaping is required to comply with UDC 11-4-3-27-F. All street facing elevations shall have landscaping along their foundation as follows: the landscaped area shall be at least 3 -feet wide and have an evergreen shrub with a minimum mature height of 24 inches for every 3 linear feet of foundation. The remainder of the area shall be landscaped with ground cover plants. The landscape plan appears to comply with this requirement.  The development is required to record legally binding documents that state the maintenance and ownership responsibilities for the management of the development, including, but not limited to, structures, parking, common areas, and other development features. The applicant should submit documentation of compliance with this requirement with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. Parking: Off-street vehicle parking is required to be provided on the site in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-6. For multi-family developments, parking standards are based on the number of bedrooms per unit – 1-bedroom units require 1.5 spaces per unit with at least one of those in a covered carport or garage and 2-bedroom units require 2 spaces per unit with at least one of those in a covered carport or garage. For the recommended clubhouse, one space is required for every 500 s.f. of gross floor area. All of the units in the proposed development will have 2-3 bedrooms. A total of 184 parking spaces are required, with 92 in covered spaces. The applicant has provided 214 parking spaces total, with 92 covered spaces. The number of covered and uncovered parking stalls complies with UDC standards. A minimum of one bicycle parking space for every 25 proposed vehicle spaces or port ion thereof is required to be provided on the site per UDC 11-3C-6G in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11- 3C-5C. Based on 214 vehicle spaces proposed to be provided on the site, a minimum of 9 bicycle spaces are required. The site plan indicates that nine bicycle parking spaces are provided. Landscaping: Street buffer landscaping along W. Corporate Drive is required as set forth in UDC Table 11-2B-3. Landscaping is required to be installed within the street buffer in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. Parking lot landscaping is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11 -3B-8C. The landscaping appears to comply with these standards. Fencing: Any fencing proposed to be constructed on the site shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. A 4-foot tall wrought iron fence is proposed around the swimming pool; A 6-foot tall vinyl fence is proposed on the north, east and west sides of the development. Exhibit A Rainier Villas H-2016-0041 PAGE 9 Trash Enclosures: Trash enclosures (and other service functions) are required to be incorporated into the overall design of buildings and landscaping so that the visual and acoustic impacts of these functions are fully contained and out of view from adjacent properties and public streets. Safe access and adequate lighting should be provided in these areas in accord with UDC 11-3A-12B. Four (4) trash enclosures are depicted on the site. The enclosures and locations should be approved by Bob Olsen, Republic Services. A detail of the trash enclosures should be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application(s). Building Elevations: Building elevations were submitted for the multi-family structures (see Exhibit A.4). 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. Certificate of Zoning Compliance: 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. Design Review: 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. Staff recommends approval of the proposed PP and CUP applications with the recommended conditions of approval in Exhibit B. IX. EXHIBITS A. Drawings/Other 1. Vicinity Map 2. Proposed Preliminary Plat/Landscape Plan (dated: 05/13/2016) 3. Proposed Site Plan (dated: 05/13/2016) 4. Conceptual Building Elevations (dated: 05/13/2016) a. 12-plex (NOT APPROVED) b. 4-plex B. Agency and Department Comments/Conditions C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code Exhibit A Rainier Villas H-2016-0041 PAGE 10 Exhibit A.1: Vicinity Map Exhibit A Rainier Villas H-2016-0041 PAGE 11 Exhibit A.2: Proposed Preliminary Plat/ Landscape Plan (dated: 03/31/2016) Exhibit A Rainier Villas H-2016-0041 PAGE 12 Exhibit A.3: Proposed Site Plan (dated 03/31/2016) Exhibit A Rainier Villas H-2016-0041 PAGE 13 Exhibit A.4: Conceptual Building Elevations (dated: 05/13/2016) 12-plex (NOT APPROVED) Exhibit A Rainier Villas H-2016-0041 PAGE 14 4-plex Exhibit A Rainier Villas H-2016-0041 PAGE 15 B. Agency and Department Comments/Conditions 1. PLANNING DIVISION 1.1 Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1.1 Development of the site shall substantially comply with the preliminary plat, site plan, and landscape plan included in Exhibit A, the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19, the guidelines contained in the City of Meridian Architectural Standards Manual, and the conditions in this report. 1.1.2 The developer shall comply with the specific use standards for multi-family developments listed in UDC 11-4-3-27, including but not limited to the following: a. The applicant shall record legally binding documents that state the maintenance and ownership responsibilities for the management of the development, including, but not limited to, structures, parking, common areas, and other development features, per UDC 11-4-3-27G. b. All roof and wall-mounted mechanical, electrical, communications, and service equipment and trash enclosure shall be screened from public streets and properties by the use of parapets, walls, fences, enclosures, or by other suitable means. 1.1.3 The site plan/preliminary plat included in Exhibit A.2, dated May 13, 2016, shall include the following: a. A detail of the trash enclosures shall be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application(s). b. Cross-access and shared parking agreement shall be noted on the plat in accord with UDC 11 -3A- 3A.2. A separate cross-access easement and shared parking agreement may be recorded. The applicant shall 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. c. Provide a detail of the bike racks with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. d. The applicant shall construct a minimum of two hundred fourteen (214) parking stalls for the development as dimensioned on the site plan; a minimum of ninety-two (92) stalls shall be covered. e. The applicant shall construct a separate property management office and fitness facility in two of the units located on Lot 7, Block 1 on the site. The property manager’s office maybe incorporated into the required clubhouse. f. Direct lot access to W. Corporate Drive is prohibited. g. The applicant shall remove the eastern access and redesign the site so that it take access from the access developed with the Trade Plaza Subdivision No. 1 or obtain Council approval for the additional access to W. Corporate Drive. h. The applicant shall extend 5-foot wide sidewalks on both sides of the drive aisle from the entrance off of SW. 3rd Street. i. The site shall develop with the following amenities: a pool, a clubhouse a sports court, a fitness facility, and a 50’ X 100’ open grassy area. j. If this is a phased development, W. Corporate Drive shall be constructed with the first phase. 1.1.4 The landscape plan included in Exhibit A.2, dated May 13, 2016, shall include the following: a. Landscaping is required to be provided along the foundation of all street facing elevations in accord with the standards in UDC 11-4-3-27-F. b. All street buffers and common open space shall be maintained by an owner's association as set forth Exhibit A Rainier Villas H-2016-0041 PAGE 16 in UDC 11-3B-7C2b. c. Lot 7, Block 1, shall be converted to common lot for the purposes of combining it with Lots 8 and 9 to create another 50’ x 100’ open grassy area (open space amenity). d. The applicant shall separate the open space adjacent to W. Corporate Drive with a berm or barrier at least four feet (4’) in height, with breaks in the berm or barrier to allow for pedestrian access in accord with UDC 11-4-3-27C.4. 1.1.5 The four-plex elevations included in Exhibit A.4, dated May 12, 2016, are approved as proposed and shall meet the requirements of UDC 11-3A-19, as well as the standards set forth in the City of Meridian’s Architectural Standards Manual (ASM). Prior to the Commission hearing, the applicant shall submit revised elevations for the 12-plex structures in accord with the standards set forth in the ASM. The applicant shall submit elevations of the proposed carports with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. The required carports shall be painted and/or powder coated to complement the overall color scheme of the development. 1.1.6 The final plat shall be recorded prior to applying for a building permit. 1.1.7 The site shall develop with a maximum of 88 90 dwelling units. 1.2 General Conditions of Approval 1.2.1 Comply with all bulk, use, and development standards of the C-G zoning districts listed in UDC Chapter 2 District regulations. 1.2.2 Comply with the provisions for irrigation ditches, laterals, canals and/or drainage courses, as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6. 1.2.3 Install lighting consistent with the provisions as set forth in UDC 11-3A-11. 1.2.4 Provide a pressurized irrigation system consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-15, UDC 11-3B-6 and MCC 9-1-28. 1.2.5 Comply with the sidewalk standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-17. 1.2.6 Install all utilities consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-21 and 11-3B-5J. 1.2.7 Comply with the outdoor service and equipment area standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-12. All HVAC equipment shall be screened from the adjacent streets. 1.2.8 Comply with all provisions of UDC 11-3A-3 with regard to maintaining the clear vision triangle. 1.2.9 Low pressure sodium lighting shall be prohibited as an exterior lighting source on the site. 1.2.10 All fencing constructed on the site shall comply with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-7. 1.2.11 Staff’s failure to cite specific ordinance provisions does not relieve the applicant of responsibility for compliance. 1.2.12 Provide temporary fencing around the perimeter of the building site to contain debris during construction prior to release of building permits. 1.3 Ongoing Conditions of Approval 1.3.1 The conditional use may only be transferred or modified consistent with the provisions as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6G. The applicant shall contact Planning Division staff regarding any proposed modification and/or transfer of ownership. Exhibit A Rainier Villas H-2016-0041 PAGE 17 1.3.2 The applicant and/or property owner shall have an ongoing obligation to prune all trees to a minimum height of six feet above the ground or sidewalk surface to afford greater visibility of the area. 1.4 Process Conditions of Approval 1.4.1 No signs are approved with this application. Prior to installing any signs on the property, the applicant shall submit a sign permit application consistent with the standards in UDC Chapter 3 Article D and receive approval for such signs. 1.4.2 The conditional use approval shall be null and void if the applicant fails to 1) commence the use within two years as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6F1 or 2) gain approval of a time extension as set forth in UDC 11- 5B-6F4. 1.4.3 The applicant shall submit and obtain approval of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application from the Planning Division, prior to submittal of any building permit application. 1.4.4 The preliminary plat approval shall be null and void if the applicant fails to either 1) obtain the City Engineer signature on a final plat within two years, or 2) gain approval of a time extension as set forth in UDC 11-6B-7. 2. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 2.1 Site Specific Conditions of Approval 2.1.1 A street light plan will need to be included in the final plat application. The plan will need to include Type 2 lighting on Corporate Dr. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting. A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272 2.1.2 The dead-end water mains within this project shall terminate with fire hydrants. 2.2 General Conditions of Approval 2.2.1 Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub- grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2.2.2 Per Meridian City Code (MCC), the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5. 2.2.3 The applicant shall provide easement(s) for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way (include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat, but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian’s standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement (on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor, which must include the area of the easement (marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2” x 11” map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted, reviewed, and approved prior to development plan approval. 2.2.4 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water (MCC 9-1-28C1). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible Exhibit A Rainier Villas H-2016-0041 PAGE 18 for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 2.2.5 All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. 2.2.6 All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals, or drains, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be tiled per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work, the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. 2.2.7 Any existing domestic well system within this project shall be removed from domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8 contact the City of Meridian Engineering Department at (208)898- 5500 for inspections of disconnection of services. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation if approved by Idaho Department of Water Resources Contact Robert B. Whitney at (208)334-2190. 2.2.8 Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections (208)375-5211. 2.2.9 Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and activated, fencing installed, drainage lots constructed, road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded, prior to applying for building permits. 2.2.10 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities, etc., prior to signature on the final plat. 2.2.11 All development improvements, including but not limited to sewer and water, fencing, micro-paths, pressurized irrigation and landscaping shall be installed and approved prior to obtaining certificates of occupancy. 2.2.12 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process, prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 2.2.13 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 2.2.14 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.2.15 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 2.2.16 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-1-4B. 2.2.17 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material. 2.2.18 The engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. 2.2.19 The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. Exhibit A Rainier Villas H-2016-0041 PAGE 19 2.2.20 At the completion of the project, the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 2.2.21 100 Watt and 250 Watt, high-pressure sodium street lights shall be required on all public roadways per the City of Meridian Improvement Standards for Street Lighting. All street lights shall be installed at developer’s expense. Final design shall be submitted as part of the development plan set for approval, which must include the location of any existing street lights. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting. A copy of the standards can be found on the city of meridian Public Works Department’s website at http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272. The contractor’s work and materials shall conform to the ISPWC and the City of Meridian Supplemental Specifications to the ISPWC. 2.2.22 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a performance surety in the amount of 125% of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer, water and reuse infrastructure prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety, which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 2.2.23 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20% of the total construction cost for all completed sewer, water and reuse infrastructure for duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety, which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-221. 3. POLICE DEPARTMENT 3.1 The Police Department did not submit comments on this application. 4. FIRE DEPARTMENT 4.1 Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department in accordance with International Fire Code Section (IFC) 508.5.4 as follows: a. Fire hydrants shall have the 4 ½” outlet face the main street or parking lot drive aisle. b. Fire hydrants shall not face a street which does not have addresses on it. c. Fire hydrant markers shall be provided per Public Works specifications. d. Fire Hydrants shall be placed on corners when spacing permits. e. Fire hydrants shall not have any vertical obstructions to outlets within 10’. f. Fire hydrants shall be placed 18” above finished grade to the center of the 4 ½” outlets. g. Fire hydrants shall be provided to meet the requirements of IFC Section 509.5. h. Show all proposed or existing hydrants for all new construction or additions to existing buildings within 1,000 feet of the project. 4.2 All entrances, internal roads, drive aisles, and alleys shall have a turning radius of 28’ inside and 48’ outside, per International Fire Code Section 503.2.4. 4.3 In accordance with International Fire Code Section 503.2.5 and Appendix D, any roadway greater than 150 feet in length that is not provided with an outlet shall be required to have an approved turn around. Phasing of the project may require a temporary approved turn around on streets greater than 150' in length with no outlet. 4.4 Provide signage (“No Parking Fire Lane”) for all fire lanes in accordance with International Fire Code Sections 503.4 & D103.6. Exhibit A Rainier Villas H-2016-0041 PAGE 20 4.5 All common driveways shall be straight or have a turning radius of 28’ inside and 48’ outside and have a clear driving surface of 20’ in width capable of supporting an imposed weight of 75,000 GVW, per International Fire Code Section 503.2. 4.6 Private Alleys and Fire Lanes shall have a 20’ wide improved surface capable of supporting an imposed load of 75,000 lbs. All roadways shall be marked in accordance with Appendix D Section D103.6 Signs. 4.7 Fire lanes, streets, and structures (including the canopy height of mature trees) shall have a vertical clearance of 13’6 as set forth in International Fire Code Section 503.2.1. 4.8 Operational fire hydrants, temporary or permanent street signs, and access roads with an all-weather surface are required to be installed before combustible construction material is brought onto the site, as set forth in International Fire Code Section (IFC) 501.4 and Meridian amendment to IFC 10-4-2J. 4.9 The roadways shall be built to Ada County Highway District cross section standards and have a clear driving surface. Streets less than 26’ in width shall have no on-street parking; streets less than 32’ in width shall have parking only on one side. These measurements shall be based on the drivable surface dimension exclusive of shoulders. The overhead clearance shall be a minimum of 13’ 6”. The roadway shall be able to accommodate an imposed load of 75,000 GVW as set forth in International Fire Code Section 503.2.1. and D103.6.1 and D103.6.2. 4.10 Maintain a separation of 5’ from the building to the dumpster enclosure as set forth in International Fire Code Section 304.3.3. 4.11 Provide a Knox box entry system for the complex prior to occupancy as set forth in International Fire Code Section 506. 4.12 The first digit of the Apartment/Office Suite shall correspond to the floor level as set forth in International Fire Code Section 505.1. 4.13 The applicant shall work with Public Works and Planning Department staff to provide an address identification plan and a sign which meets the requirements of the City of Meridian sign ordinance and is placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property, as set forth in International Fire Code Section 505.1. 4.14 All portions of the buildings located on this project must be within 150’ of a paved surface as measured around the perimeter of the building as set forth in International Fire Code Section 503.1.1. 4.15 All R-2 occupancies with 3 or more units shall be required to be fire sprinkled as set forth in International Fire Code Section 903.2.8. 4.16 As set forth in International Fire Code Section 504.1, multi-family and commercial projects shall be required to provide an additional sixty inches (60”) wide access point to the building from the fire lane to allow for the movement of manual fire suppression equipment and gurney operations. The unobstructed breaks in the parking stalls shall be provided so that building access is provided in such a manner that the most remote part of a building can be reached with a length of 150' fire hose as measured around the perimeter of the building from the fire lane. Code compliant handicap parking stalls may be included to assist meeting this requirement. Contact the Meridian Fire Department for details. 5. REPUBLIC SERVICES 5.1 The applicant shall contact Bob Olson, Republic Services, at 208-345-1265 or rolson@republicservices.com to obtain approval of the dumpster design. 6. PARKS DEPARTMENT 6.1 The Parks Department did not submit comments on this application. Exhibit A Rainier Villas H-2016-0041 PAGE 21 7. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT 7.1 At the time that this staff report was written, comments had not been received by ACHD. Exhibit A Rainier Villas H-2016-0041 PAGE 22 C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code 1. PRELIMINARY PLAT FINDINGS: In consideration of a preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat, the decision-making body shall make the following findings: a. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; Council finds that the proposed plat is in substantial compliance with the adopted and proposed Comprehensive Plan in regard to land use, transportation, and circulation. Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals, Section VII, of the Staff Report for more information. b. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Council finds that public services will be provided to the subject property upon development. (See Exhibit B of the Staff Report for more details from public service providers.) c. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City’s capital improvement program; Because City water and sewer and any other utilities will be provided by the development at their own cost, Council finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. d. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Council relies upon comments from the public service providers (i.e., Police, Fire, ACHD, etc.) to determine this finding. (See Exhibit B for more detail.) e. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and Council is not aware of any health, safety, or environmental problems associated with the platting of this property. ACHD considers road safety issues in their analysis. Council considers all public testimony that was presented when determining whether or not the proposed subdivision may cause health, safety or environmental problems of which Council is unaware. f. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. Council is unaware of any natural, scenic or historic features on this site. Therefore, Council finds that the proposed development will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural, scenic or historic feature(s) of major importance. The Council should reference any public testimony that may be presented to determine whether or not the proposed development may destroy or damage a natural or scenic feature(s) of major importance of which Commission is unaware. 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: Council shall review the particular facts and circumstances of each proposed conditional use in terms of the following, and may approve a conditional use permit if they shall find evidence presented at the hearing(s) is adequate to establish: Exhibit A Rainier Villas H-2016-0041 PAGE 29 a. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. Council finds that if the site is designed in accord with the site plan in Exhibit A and the conditions of approval in Exhibit B, the site will be large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet the dimensional and development regulations of the C-G zoning district and the specific use standards for multi-family developments. b. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in accord with the requirements of this Title. Council finds that the proposed multi-family residential use in the C-G zone meets the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. c. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. Council finds that the general design, construction, operation and maintenance of the multi- family use will be compatible with existing residential and future commercial uses in the vicinity and with the existing and intended character of the vicinity so as to not adversely change the character of the area. Council considers any public testimony that may be presented to determine whether or not the proposal will adversely affect the other properties in the area. d. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. Council finds that the proposed development should not adversely affect other property in the vicinity if the applicant complies with all conditions of approval listed in Exhibit B of this staff report and constructs all improvements and operates the use in accordance with the UDC standards. e. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools, parks, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, and sewer. Council finds that sanitary sewer, domestic water and irrigation can be made available to the subject property. Please refer to comments prepared by the Public Works Department, Fire Department, Police Department and other agencies. f. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. Council finds that the applicant will pay to extend the sanitary sewer and water mains into the site. No additional capital facility costs are expected from the City. The applicant and/or future property owners will be required to pay impact fees. g. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. Council finds that the proposed development should not involve activities that will create nuisances that would be detrimental to the general welfare of the surrounding area. Exhibit A Rainier Villas H-2016-0041 PAGE 30 Council recognizes the fact that traffic and noise will increase with the approval of this development; however, whenever undeveloped property is developed, the amount of traffic generation does increase. h. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. Council finds that the proposed development will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural feature(s) of major importance. Council references any public testimony that may be presented to determine whether or not the proposed development may destroy or damage a natural or scenic feature(s) of major importance of which Council is unaware. Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: July 5, 2016 ITEM NUMBER: PROJECT NUMBER: H-2016-0047 ITEM TITLE: Findings of Fact Verado Subdivision L. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Verado Subdivision (H-2016-0047) by DevCo, LLC Located Southeast Corner of N. Locust Grove Road and E. Ustick Road MEETING NOTES '-W� 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 FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2016-0047 - 1 - CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER In the Matter of the Request for Annexation and Zoning of 20.28 Acres of Land with an R-8 Zoning District (11.46 acres) an R-8 zoning district (7.89 acres); and a Preliminary Plat Consisting of one hundred twenty two (122) single-family residential building lots and eighteen (18) common lots on 19.35 acres of land for Verado Subdivision located near the southeast corner of N. Locust Grove Road and E. Ustick Road in the NE ¼ of Section 5, Township 3N., Range 1E., by DevCo, LLC. Case No(s). H-2016-0047 For the City Council Hearing Date of: June 21, 2016 (Findings on July 5, 2016) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of June 21, 2016, incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of June 21, 2016, incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of June 21, 2016, incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of June 21, 2016, incorporated by reference) B. Conclusions of Law 1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the “Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975,” codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code (I.C. §67-6503). 2. The Meridian City Council takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has, by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, which was adopted April 19, 2011, Resolution No. 11-784 and Maps. 3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-5A. 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s) received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2016-0047 - 2 - 6. That the City has granted an order of approval of the annexation and zoning request in accordance with this Decision, which shall be signed by the Mayor and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk upon the applicant, the Planning Department, the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. 7. That this annexation approval is subject to a development agreement containing the provisions in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of June 21, 2016, incorporated by reference. C. Decision and Order Pursuant to the City Council’s authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 11-5A and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: 1. The applicant’s request for annexation and zoning was approved with R-8 and R-15 zoning districts with the requirement of a Development Agreement with the provisions noted in the Staff Report for the hearing date of June 21, 2016, attached as Exhibit A. 2. The applicant’s request for a preliminary plat is hereby approved based on the findings in the Staff Report for the hearing date of June 21, 2016, attached as Exhibit A. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits Notice of Six (6) Month Development Agreement Duration The development agreement shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the City within six (6) months of the City Council granting annexation and/or rezone (UDC 11-5B-3D). A modification to the development agreement may be initiated prior to signature of the agreement by all parties and/or may be requested to extend the time allowed for the agreement to be signed and returned to the City if filed prior to the end of the six (6) month approval period (UDC 11-5B-3F). E. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis 1. The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code 67-8003, denial of a development application entitles the Owner to request a regulatory taking analysis. Such request must be in writing, and must be filed with the City Clerk not more than twenty-eight (28) days after the final decision concerning the matter at issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for Judicial Review may be filed. 2. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian. When applicable and pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521, any affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the final action of the governing board may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code. F. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of June 21, 2016 Exhibit A Verado Subdivision – H-2016-0047 PAGE 1 STAFF REPORT Hearing Date: June 21, 2016 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Josh Beach, Associate City Planner 208-884-5533 Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager 208-887-2211 SUBJECT: Verado Subdivision – H-2016-0047 I. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT’S REQUEST The applicant, DevCo, LLC, has submitted an application for annexation and zoning (AZ) of 20.28 acres of land with both an R-8 zoning district (5.12 acres) an R-15 zoning district (14.23); and a preliminary plat (PP) consisting of 122 building lots and 18 common lots on 19.35 acres of land for Verado Subdivision. II. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the proposed AZ and PP applications in accord with the conditions of approval in Exhibit B and the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in Exhibit D. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission heard these items on May 19, 2016. At the public hearing, the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject annexation and zoning, and preliminary plat requests. 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 issue(s) 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 vi. Providing the vehicular connection over the South Slough. vii. The transition between the proposed R-15 district and the existing R-8 zoning district. viii. 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: Exhibit A Verado Subdivision – H-2016-0047 PAGE 2 i. Remove condition 1.1.2C(3) (See condition 1.1.1C). ii. Remove condition 1.1.3(2) (See condition 1.1.3(2). e. Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: i. None The Meridian City Council heard this item on June 21, 2016. At the public hearings, the Council moved to approve the AZ and PP request. a. Summary of City Council Public Hearing: i. In favor: Jim Conger ii. In opposition: Robert Jenkins, Randy Pipal iii. Commenting: Robert Jenkins, Randy Pipal, iv. Written testimony: Celina Innocent, Ben Innocent, Randy Pipal v. Staff presenting application: Josh Beach vi. Other staff commenting on application: Caleb Hood, Bill Nary b. Key Issues of Discussion by Council: i. Overall density of the plat. ii. Locations of both the R-8 and R-15 zoning districts within the development. iii. The transition from the R-8 lots on the north side opf the South Slough, to the R-4 lots on the south side. iv. Cross-access to the Ada County Parcel to the northwest of the subdivision, and the wording of he easement. c. Key Council Changes to Staff/Commission Recommendation i. None III. PROPOSED MOTION Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H-2016-0047, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of May 19, 2016, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications). Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number H-2016-0047, as presented during the hearing on May 19, 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 (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) IV. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS A. Site Address/Location: The site is located near the southeast corner of N. Locust Grove Road and E. Ustick Road in the NE ¼ of Section 5, Township 3N., Range 1E. B. Owners: The Vern R. and Angelina P. Alleman Trust 11440 W. Darkwood Street Star, ID 83669 Exhibit A Verado Subdivision – H-2016-0047 PAGE 3 C. Applicant: DevCo, LLC 4824 W. Fairview Ave. Boise, ID 83706 D. Representative: Conger Management Group 4824 W. Fairview Ave. Boise, ID 83706 E. Applicant's Statement/Justification: Please see applicant’s narrative for this information. V. PROCESS FACTS A. The subject application is for annexation and zoning and preliminary plat. A public hearing is required before the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council on this matter, consistent with Meridian City Code Title 11, Chapter 5. B. Newspaper notifications published on: May 2 and 16, 2016 (Commission) C. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: April 28, 2016 (Commission) D. Applicant posted notice on site(s) on: May 9, 2016 (Commission) VI. LAND USE A. Existing Land Use(s) and Zoning: The annexation area consists of agricultural property and three single-family homes, zoned RUT in Ada County. B. Character of Surrounding Area and Adjacent Land Use and Zoning: 1. North: E. Ustick Road; Single-family residential properties in Summerfield and Champion Park Subdivision, zoned R-4 and R-8. 2. East: Single-family residential properties in Packard Acres subdivision, zoned R-4 and county residences, zoned RUT in Ada County. 3. South: Single-family residential properties in Packard Acres Subdivision, zoned R-4, and Single-family residential properties in Chamberlain Estates Subdivision, zoned R-8. 4. West: Single-family residential properties in Chamberlain Estates Subdivision, zoned R-8 C. History of Previous Actions: None D. Utilities: 1. Location of sewer: Sanitary sewer mains intended to provide service to the proposed development currently exist in E. Kamay Drive near the southwest corner of this parcel. 2. Location of water: Water mains intended to provide service to the proposed development currently exist adjacent to the proposed development in N. E. Ustick Road as well as two stub streets coming into this parcel. 3. Issues or concerns: Applicant shall be required to loop the proposed water system to the existing water mains adjacent to the proposed development, and upsize the main connecting N. Devlin Way to E. Ustick Road to a 12-inch diameter main. Exhibit A Verado Subdivision – H-2016-0047 PAGE 4 E. Physical Features: 1. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: The South Slough traverses the property. This waterway will remain open as part of the subject development. 2. Hazards: Staff is not aware of any hazards that exist on this property. 3. Flood Plain: This site does not lie within the Meridian Floodplain Overlay District. VII. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designates this site as Medium Density Residential (MDR). MDR designated areas allow smaller lots for residential purposes within City limits. Uses may include single-family homes at gross densities of 3 to 8 dwelling units per acre (d.u./acre). The applicant proposes to develop this 19.35 acre site with 122 single-family residential structures. The structures will be a mix of attached and detached single-family residential homes. The project will have a gross density of 6.30 dwelling units per acre (d.u./acre) and a net density of 9.80 d.u./acre, which is consistent with the density desired in MDR designated areas. Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this property and apply to the proposed use (staff analysis in italics):  “Support a variety of residential categories (low-, medium-, medium-high and high-density single-family, multi-family, townhouses, duplexes, apartments, condominiums, etc.) for the purpose of providing the City with a range of affordable housing opportunities.” (3.07.01E) The proposed single-family attached and detached dwellings will contribute to the variety of housing types available within the City.  “Permit new development only where urban services can be reasonably provided at the time of final approval and development is contiguous to the City.” (3.01.01F) City services are available and will be extended by the developer to the proposed lots upon development of the site in accord with UDC 11-3A-21.  “Require common area in all subdivisions.” (3.07.02F) The proposed plat depicts a total of 2.03 acres (or 10.5%) of qualified open space in accord with the requirements listed in UDC11-3G-3.Additonal open space is being requested to enhance pedestrian connectivity and to accommodate the residences on the south side of the South Slough.  “Implement the City’s Pathways Master Plan.” (5.03.01A) A segment of the City’s multi-use pathway system is designated on the Master Pathways Plan on this site along the north side of the South Slough. This segment of the pathway must be 10 feet wide and will be required to be paved in accord with UDC 11-3A-8 and landscaped in accord with UDC 11-3B-12. All pathways shall be installed with the first phase of development.  “Review new development for appropriate opportunities to connect local roads and collectors to adjacent properties (stub streets). (3.03.020) The proposed plat depicts connections to existing stub streets from Chamberlain Estates Subdivision (E. Kamay Drive), and Packard Acres Subdivision (E. Kamay Drive and N. Devlin Way). The applicant also proposes to stub streets to the east and west for future Exhibit A Verado Subdivision – H-2016-0047 PAGE 5 development. Staff also requires that the applicant Reconfigure the northwest corner of the proposed subdivision to allow for redevelopment of parcel# S1105212981.  “Require pedestrian access connectors in all new development to link subdivisions together to promote neighborhood connectivity as part of a community pathway system.” (3.03.03B) The applicant will construct the 10-foot multi-use pathway along the north side of the South Slough. The applicant is also proposing 5-foot attached sidewalks that will connect to existing sidewalks to the south, east and west as well as to the proposed sidewalk along E. Ustick Road. Staff is requesting that the applicant realign the pedestrian pathway (Lot12, Block 4) so that it lines up with the proposed pedestrian pathway on Lot 8, Block 3. The preferred location is between Lot 16 and 17, Block 4, so that the pathway aligns with the proposed pathway going south from Lot 8, Block 3.  “Reduce the number of existing access points onto arterial streets by using methods such as cross access agreements, access management and frontage/backage roads.” (3.03.02N) The submitted plat depicts one access point to E. Ustick Road as well as connecting to three (3) existing stub streets (E. Kamay St. (two connections), and N. Devlin Way for interconnectivity). The applicant is proposing to stub a street on the west boundary and one stub street on the east boundary for future extension. To ensure the one acre parcel in the northwest corner of the development will have street frontage in the future, staff recommends that the applicant shift N. Summer Park Avenue to the west so that it abuts the parcel and provides public street frontage.  “Require new residential development to meet development standards regarding landscaping, signage, fences and walls, etc.” (3.05.02C) Street buffer landscaping is required adjacent to E. Ustick Road in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. Separate permits shall be obtained for signage and fencing in compliance with the standards listed in UDC 11-3D-5 and 11-3A-7 respectively.  “Coordinate with public works, police, and fire departments on proposed annexation and development requests, and the impacts on services.” (3.04.01H) Staff has coordinated with public works, police and fire and has incorporated their comments and conditions in this report.  “Improve and protect creeks (Five Mile, Eight Mile, Nine Mile, Ten Mile, South Slough, and Jackson and Evans Drainages) throughout commercial, industrial and residential areas.”(5.01.01E) The applicant is proposing to leave the South Slough open, to provide fencing as required by the UDC, to install landscaping, and construct the regional pathway.  “Elevate/enhance quality of residential site and subdivision planning.” (3.07.02) Staff has included the following recommended changes to the plat to enhance the quality of the design: 1. Provide an additional stub street from N. Delvin Way to the undeveloped Ada county parcels to the east. 2. Realign the pedestrian pathway (Lot12, Block 4) so that it lines up with the proposed pedestrian pathway on Lot 8, Block 3.Preferred location is between Lot 16 and 17, Block 4. Exhibit A Verado Subdivision – H-2016-0047 PAGE 6 3. Lots south of N. Devlin Way, should be zoned R-8 in order to offer a transition to the lots in Packard Acres Subdivision, zoned R-4. Lots along the east boundary between N. Devlin Way and E. Ringneck Street should have a minimum street frontage of 40 feet and a 4,000 square foot lot sizes. 4. 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. 5. Reconfigure the northwest corner of the proposed subdivision to allow for redevelopment of parcel# S1105212981 with public street frontage For the above stated reasons, staff finds the proposed project is generally consistent with the goals and objectives in the Comprehensive Plan. VIII. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE (UDC) A. Purpose Statement of Zone: Per UDC 11-2A-1, the purpose of the residential districts is to provide for a range of housing opportunities consistent with the Meridian comprehensive plan. Residential districts are distinguished by the allowable density of dwelling units per acre and corresponding housing types that can be accommodated within the density range. The medium density residential (R-8) district allows a maximum gross density of 8 dwelling units per acre. B. Schedule of Use: Unified Development Code (UDC) Table 11-2A-6 lists the principal permitted (P), accessory (A), conditional (C), and prohibited (-) uses in the R-8 zoning district. Any use not explicitly listed, or listed as a prohibited use is prohibited. The proposed uses of the site for single-family attached and detached dwellings are principally permitted uses in the R-8 and R-15 zoning districts. C. Dimensional Standards: Development of the site should be consistent with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Tables 11-2A-6 and 11-2A-7 for the R-8 and R-15 zoning districts. D. Landscaping:  Street buffer landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the standards listed in UDC Tables 11-2A-6, 11-2A-7 and UDC 11-3B-7C for the R-8 and R-15 zoning districts.  The proposed micropaths and pathways shall comply with the design standards in accord with UDC 11-3A-8 and UDC 11-3B-12.  Per UDC 11-3G-3, the plat is required to provide 10 percent open space and one amenity for every 20 acres of development area. E. Subdivision Design and Improvement Standards: The subdivision must comply with the subdivision design standards outlined in UDC 11-6C-3. F. Off-Street Parking: Off-street parking is required in accord with UDC Table 11-3C-6 for single- family and multi-family dwellings. IX. ANALYSIS A. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation: 1. Annexation & Zoning 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. Exhibit A Verado Subdivision – H-2016-0047 PAGE 7 The applicant proposes to develop 122 new single-family residential attached and detached homes as shown on the preliminary plat included in Exhibit A.2. The legal description submitted with the application, included in Exhibit C, shows the boundaries of the property proposed to be annexed. The property is contiguous to land that has been annexed into the City and is within the Area of City Impact boundary. As noted below, staff is recommending additional land area is zoned R-8. Therefore a revised legal description and exhibit map is required prior to the Council hearing that accurate reflects the correct zoning boundaries of the proposed R-8 zoning district. The City may require a development agreement (DA) in conjunction with an annexation pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-6511A. In order to ensure the site develops as proposed with this application, staff recommends a DA as a provision of annexation with the provisions included in Exhibit B. 2. Preliminary Plat The proposed plat consists of 122 building lots 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. 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. Provide an additional stub street from N. Delvin Way to the undeveloped Ada county parcels to the east. 2. Realign the pedestrian pathway (Lot12, Block 4) so that it lines up with the proposed pedestrian pathway on Lot 8, Block 3.Preferred location is between Lot 16 and 17, Block 4. 3. Lots south of N. Devlin Way, should be zoned R-8 in order to offer a transition to the lots in Packard Acres Subdivision, zoned R-4. Lots along the east boundary between N. Devlin Way and E. Ringneck Street should have a minimum street frontage of 40 feet and a 4,000 square foot lot sizes. 4. 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. 5. Reconfigure the northwest corner of the proposed subdivision to allow for redevelopment of parcel# S1105212981 with public street frontage. Dimensional Standards: Development of this site is required to comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC 11-2A-3 and Table 11-2A-6 for the R-8 zoning district and 11-2A-7 for the R-15 zoning district. Staff has reviewed the proposed plat and found it to be in compliance with those standards. Access: Access is proposed for this site via one access from E. Ustick Road and via the extension of existing stub streets from Chamberlain Estates (E. Kamay Drive) and Packard Acres (N. Devlin Way). As mentioned above, staff has concerns with the limited connectivity in the area. Therefore, staff recommends that an additional stub street be provided on the east boundary of the development for increased connectivity. Further, staff recommends that N. Summer Park Avenue be shifted to the west so that it is contiguous with the one acre parcel located in the northwest corner of the proposed development. Staff believes shifting the street will provide the required Exhibit A Verado Subdivision – H-2016-0047 PAGE 8 public street frontage for future redevelopment of said parcel and eliminate the need for a common driveway for Lots 7-10, Block 1. Common Driveways: The applicant is proposing two (2) common driveways in this project. All common driveways should comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3D. Staff has reviewed the dimensions of the common driveways depicted on the plat and they are consistent with these standards. Unless limited by a significant geographical feature, or separated by a minimum 5-foot wide landscaped common lot, all properties that abut a common driveway shall take access from the driveway. A perpetual ingress/egress easement is required to be filed with the Ada County Recorder, which shall include a requirement for maintenance of a paved surface capable of supporting fire vehicles and equipment. For any plats using a common driveway, the setbacks, building envelope, and orientation of the lots and structures are required to be shown on the preliminary plat and/or as an exhibit with the final plat application. As mentioned above, staff is not supportive of Lots 7-10, Block 1 from taking access from a common drive. If the roadway is aligned as recommended above, these lots would also have public street frontage. Parking: Off-street parking is required on each residential lot in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-6. Landscaping: A landscape plan was submitted with this application for the area proposed to be platted as shown in Exhibit A.3. A 25-foot wide street buffer is required along E. Ustick Road, an arterial street, per UDC Table 11-2A-6 and 11-2A-7, and is required to be landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. Staff recommends this buffer be constructed with the first phase of development. The gravel adjacent to E. Ustick road between the sidewalk and the curb needs to be removed and landscaped according to UDC 11-3B-7C. Landscaping within the common areas is required in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11- 3G-3E. The landscape plan complies with these standards. Landscaping is required along all pathways in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B- 12C. If the Irrigation District does not allow landscaping within their easement, provide an additional 5 feet outside of the easement for landscaping. Tree Mitigation: If there are existing trees on the site that are proposed to be removed; the applicant should contact Elroy Huff, City Arborist, at 888-3579 to schedule an appointment to confirm mitigation requirements prior to removal of any trees on the site. Open Space: A minimum of 10% qualified open space is required to be provided for this development in accord with UDC 11-3G-3A.1. Based on the area of the preliminary plat (19.35 acres), a minimum of 1.93 acres of qualified open space is required to be provided as set forth in UDC 11-3A-3B. A total of 10.5% of qualified open space is proposed consisting of ½ 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. Site Amenities: All developments consisting of five acres of more are required to provide a minimum of one site amenity; one additional site amenity is required for each additional 20 acres per UDC 11-3G-3A.2, in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3C. Based on the area of Exhibit A Verado Subdivision – H-2016-0047 PAGE 9 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. Pathways: 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 11-3B-12. Four-foot tall bollard lighting, or other appropriate lighting source, is required along all pathways through common areas that are not visible from a public street as set forth in UDC 11-3A-8H. The landscape plan should be revised to include lighting along pathways in accord with this requirement. A recreational pathway easement for the pathway is required to be submitted to the Park’s Department, approved by City Council and recorded. Sidewalks: Sidewalks are required along all public streets as set forth in UDC 11-3A-17. The applicant proposes to construct 5-foot wide attached sidewalks throughout the development. A 5- foot wide attached sidewalk exists along Ustick Road with the recent expansion of said street. Utilities: All development is required to connect to the City water and sewer system unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. Street lighting is required to be installed within the development in accord with the City’s adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. Pressurized Irrigation (PI): An underground PI system is required to be provided to each lot in the subdivision as proposed in accord with UDC 11-3A-15. Waterways: 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. Building Elevations: The applicant has submitted some conceptual sample building elevations for future homes in this development, included in Exhibit A.4. 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.) Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) and Design Review (DES): A CZC and DES application is required to be submitted prior to issuance of building permits for the single family Exhibit A Verado Subdivision – H-2016-0047 PAGE 10 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. Fencing: All fencing should comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-6B and 11-3A-7. 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. In summary, Staff recommends approval of the proposed annexation and preliminary plat request for this site with a development agreement and the recommended conditions listed in Exhibit B of this report in accord with the Findings contained in Exhibit D. X. EXHIBITS A. Drawings/Other 1. Vicinity Map 2. Proposed Preliminary Plat (dated: 04/07/16) (NOT APPROVED) 3. Proposed Landscape Plan (dated: 04/01/16) 4. Conceptual Building Elevations B. Agency & Department Comments/Conditions C. Legal Description & Exhibit Map for Zoning Designation Boundaries (NOT APPROVED) D. Required Findings from Unified Development Code Exhibit A Exhibit A Page 1 A. Drawings 1. Vicinity Map Exhibit A Exhibit A Page 2 2. Proposed Preliminary Plat (dated: 04/07/16) (NOT APPROVED) Exhibit A Exhibit A Page 3 3. Proposed Landscape Plan (dated; 04/01/16) Exhibit A - 2 - Exhibit A - 3 - 4. Conceptual Building Elevations Exhibit A - 4 - Exhibit A - 5 - Exhibit A - 6 - Exhibit A - 7 - Exhibit A - 8 - Exhibit A - 9 - Exhibit A - 10 - Exhibit A - 11 - B. EXHIBIT B - AGENCY & DEPARTMENT COMMENTS/CONDITIONS 1. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1.1 Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1.1 A Development Agreement (DA) is required as a provision of annexation of this property. Prior to the annexation ordinance approval, a DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian, the property owner(s) at the time of annexation ordinance adoption, and the developer. Currently, a fee of $303.00 shall be paid by the applicant to the Planning Division prior to commencement of the DA. The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the City within six (6) months of the City Council granting annexation. The DA shall, at minimum, incorporate the following provisions: a. Except the public street access to E. Ustick Road, direct lot access to E. Ustick Road, an arterial street, is prohibited in accord with UDC 11-3A-3. b. The applicant shall comply with the submitted home elevations attached in Exhibit A.4. Future homes adjacent to E. Ustick Road (Lots 2-10, Block 1, and Lots 2-10, Block 2) shall incorporate a mix of materials, windows and decorative trim, and two variations in the roof lines to provide articulation and modulation to the side and rear facades that face the arterial street. c. The applicant shall obtain a waiver from City Council to UDC 11-3A-6A in order for the South Slough to remain open and not be piped due to the large capacity of the facility. If a waiver is not obtained, the waterway is required to be piped. d. The landscape buffers along E. Ustick Road must be constructed with the first phase of development. e. The developer shall provide the amenities 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 as proposed on the landscape plan in Exhibit A.3, and in accord with the qualified site amenity requirements listed in UDC 11-3G-3C. 1.1.2 The preliminary plat included in Exhibit A.2, dated 2/10/16, shall be revised as follows: a. For all common driveways, a perpetual ingress/egress easement is required to be filed with the Ada County Recorder, which shall include a requirement for maintenance of a paved surface capable of supporting fire vehicles and equipment. b. With the final plat application, the applicant shall provide an exhibit that shows the setbacks, building envelope, and orientation of the lots and structures on all common lots. c. The applicant shall make the following changes to the plat prior to Commission hearing: 1. Provide an additional stub street from N. Delvin Way to the undeveloped Ada county parcels to the east. 2. Lots south of N. Devlin Way, should be zoned R-8 in order to offer a transition to the lots in Packard Acres Subdivision, zoned R-4. Lots along the east boundary between N. Devlin Way and E. Ringneck Street should have a minimum street frontage of 40 feet and a 4,000 square foot lot sizes. 3. The applicant shall shift N. Sumner Park Avenue to the west so that it is contiguous with the one acre parcel located in the northwest corner of the proposed development. Exhibit A - 12 - 1.1.3 The landscape plan included in Exhibit A.4, dated April 2016, shall be revised as follows: 1. Realign the pedestrian pathway (Lot12, Block 4) so that it lines up with the proposed pedestrian pathway on Lot 8, Block 3.Preferred location is between Lot 16 and 17, Block 4. 2. Lot 32, Block 4 shall be converted to an open space lot and developed with a qualifying amenity as set forth in UDC 11-3G-3C. 3. Include fencing adjacent to all micropath connections to distinguish common from private areas, per UDC 11-3A-7A.7. 4. 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 in accord with UDC 11-3A-6B. 5. If any of the existing trees on the site are proposed to be removed, the applicant should contact Elroy Huff, City Arborist, at 888-3579 to schedule an appointment to confirm mitigation requirements prior to removal of any trees on the site. Any existing trees proposed to be retained on-site should be noted on the plan. 6. Landscaping is required adjacent to the multi-use pathway along the north side of the South Slough in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C. If the Irrigation District will not allow landscaping within their easement, provide an additional 5 feet outside of the easement for landscaping. 7. Depict 4-foot tall bollard lighting, or other appropriate lighting source, along all pathways through common areas that are not visible from a public street as set forth in UDC 11- 3A-8H. 8. The gravel adjacent to E. Ustick road between the sidewalk and the curb needs to be removed and landscaped according to UDC 11-3B-7C. 1.1.4 A paved, 10-foot wide multi-use pathway and associated landscaping shall be constructed along the north side of the South Slough in accord with the Pathways Master Plan.A 14-foot wide recreational pathway easement is required to be provided along the north side of the South Slough for the multi-use pathway. The applicant shall coordinate with Jay Gibbons, Park’s Department (208-888-3579), on the location of the easement. The easement should be submitted to the Park’s Department for approval by the City Council and subsequent recordation, prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. 1.1.5 The applicant shall submit a detail of the playground equipment and seating area on Lot 8, Block 3 with the final plat application. 1.1.6 Submit revised legal descriptions for the R-8 and R-15 zoning districts as proposed by staff. 1.1.7 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 Architectural Standards Manual. 1.2 General Conditions of Approval 1.2.1 Comply with all bulk, use, and development standards of the R-8 and R-15 zoning district listed in UDC Table 11-2-A-5. 1.2.2 Comply with all provisions of 11-3A-3 with regard to access to streets. 1.2.3 Comply with the provisions for irrigation ditches, laterals, canals and/or drainage courses, as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6. Exhibit A - 13 - 1.2.4 Provide a pressurized irrigation system consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11 -3A- 15, UDC 11-3B-6 and MCC 9-1-28. 1.2.5 Comply with the sidewalk standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-17. 1.2.6 Install all utilities consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-21 and 11-3B-5J. 1.2.7 Construct the required landscape buffers consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3B- 7C. 1.2.8 Construct storm water integration facilities that meet the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3B- 11C. 1.2.9 Construct all parkways consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-17E, 11-3G-3B5 and 11-3B-7C. 1.2.10 Comply with all subdivision design and improvement standards as set forth in UDC 11-6C-3, including but not limited to cul-de-sacs, alleys, driveways, common driveways, easements, blocks, street buffers, and mailbox placement. 1.2.11 Protect any existing trees on the subject property that are greater than four-inch caliper and/or mitigate for the loss of such trees as set forth in UDC 11-3B-10. 1.2.12 Comply with all provisions of UDC 11-3A-3 with regard to maintaining the clear vision triangle. 1.3 Ongoing Conditions of Approval 1.3.1 The applicant and/or assigns shall have the continuing obligation to provide irrigation that meets the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3B-6 and to install and maintain all landscaping as set forth in UDC 11-3B-5, UDC 11-3B-13 and UDC 11-3B-14. 1.3.2 All common open space and site amenities shall be maintained by an owner's association as set forth in UDC 11-3G-3F1. 1.3.3 The project is subject to all current City of Meridian ordinances. 1.3.4 The applicant and/or property owner shall have an ongoing obligation to prune all trees to a minimum height of six feet above the ground or sidewalk surface to afford greater visibility of the area. 1.3.5 The applicant shall have an ongoing obligation to maintain all pathways. 1.3.6 The applicant has a continuing obligation to comply with the outdoor lighting provisions as set forth in UDC 11-3A-11. 1.3.7 The applicant and/or property owner shall have an ongoing obligation to maintain all landscaping and constructed features within the clear vision triangle consistent with the standards in UDC 11- 3A-3. 1.4 Process Conditions of Approval 1.4.1 No signs are approved with this application. Prior to installing any signs on the property, the applicant shall submit a sign permit application consistent with the standards in UDC Chapter 3 Article D and receive approval for such signs. 1.4.2 The applicant shall complete all improvements related to public life, safety, and health as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B. A surety agreement may be accepted for other improvements in accord with UDC 11-5C-3C. 1.4.3 The final plat, and any phase thereof, shall substantially comply with the approved preliminary plat as set forth in UDC 11-6B-3C2. Exhibit A - 14 - 1.4.4 The applicant shall obtain approval for all successive phases of the preliminary plat within two years of the signature of the City Engineer on the previous final plat as set forth in UDC 11 -6B- 7B (if applicable). 1.4.5 The preliminary plat approval shall be null and void if the applicant fails to either 1) obtain the City Engineer signature on a final plat within two years; or, 2) gain approval of a time extension as set forth in UDC 11-6B-7. 1.4.6 Upon installation of the landscaping and prior to inspection by Planning Division staff, the applicant shall provide a written certificate of completion as set forth in UDC 11-3B-14A. 2. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 2.1 SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 2.1.1 A street lighting plan will be required with the submittal of development plans. Plan requirements can be found in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting at http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272 2.1.2 Applicant shall be required to upsize the 10-inch diameter water main in N. Devlin Way, E. Redneck Street, and N. Verado Avenue from the connection point on the south boundary to E. Ustick Road to a 12-inch diameter in order to comply with the City of Meridian’s Water Master Plan requirements. 2.2 General Conditions of Approval 2.2.1 Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2.2.2 Per Meridian City Code (MCC), the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5. 2.2.3 The applicant shall provide easement(s) for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way (include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat, but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian’s standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement (on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor, which must include the area of the easement (marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2” x 11” map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted, reviewed, and approved prior to development plan approval. 2.2.4 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water (MCC 9-1-28C1). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single -point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. Exhibit A - 15 - 2.2.5 All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. 2.2.6 All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals, or drains, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be tiled per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work, the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. 2.2.7 Any existing domestic well system within this project shall be removed from domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8 contact the City of Meridian Engineering Department at (208)898-5500 for inspections of disconnection of services. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation if approved by Idaho Department of Water Resources Contact Robert B. Whitney at (208)334-2190. 2.2.8 Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections (208)375-5211. 2.2.9 Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and activated, fencing installed, drainage lots constructed, road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded, prior to applying for building permits. 2.2.10 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities, etc., prior to signature on the final plat. 2.2.11 All development improvements, including but not limited to sewer and water, fencing, micro- paths, pressurized irrigation and landscaping shall be installed and approved prior to obtaining certificates of occupancy. 2.2.12 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process, prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 2.2.13 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 2.2.14 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.2.15 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 2.2.16 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-1-4B. 2.2.17 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material. 2.2.18 The engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. 2.2.19 The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. Exhibit A - 16 - 2.2.20 At the completion of the project, the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 2.2.21 100 Watt and 250 Watt, high-pressure sodium street lights shall be required on all public roadways per the City of Meridian Improvement Standards for Street Lighting. All street lights shall be installed at developer’s expense. Final design shall be submitted as part of the development plan set for approval, which must include the location of any existing street lights. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting. A copy of the standards can be found on the city of meridian Public Works Department’s website at http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272. The contractor’s work and materials shall conform to the ISPWC and the City of Meridian Supplemental Specifications to the ISPWC. 2.2.22 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a performance surety in the amount of 125% of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer, water and reuse infrastructure prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety, which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 2.2.23 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20% of the total construction cost for all completed sewer, water and reuse infrastructure for duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety, which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-221. 3. POLICE DEPARTMENT 3.1 The Police Department has no comment on this application. 4. FIRE DEPARTMENT 4.1 Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department in accordance with International Fire Code Section (IFC) 508.5.4 as follows: a. Fire hydrants shall have the 4 ½” outlet face the main street or parking lot drive aisle. b. Fire hydrants shall not face a street which does not have addresses on it. c. Fire hydrant markers shall be provided per Public Works specifications. d. Fire Hydrants shall be placed on corners when spacing permits. e. Fire hydrants shall not have any vertical obstructions to outlets within 10’. f. Fire hydrants shall be placed 18” above finished grade to the center of the 4 ½” outlets. g. Fire hydrants shall be provided to meet the requirements of IFC Section 509.5. h. Show all proposed or existing hydrants for all new construction or additions to existing buildings within 1,000 feet of the project. 4.2 In accordance with International Fire Code Section 503.2.5 and Appendix D, any roadway greater than 150 feet in length that is not provided with an outlet shall be required to have an approved turn around. Phasing of the project may require a temporary approved turn around on streets greater than 150' in length with no outlet. 4.3 All entrances, internal roads, drive aisles, and alleys shall have a turning radius of 28’ inside and Exhibit A - 17 - 48’ outside, per International Fire Code Section 503.2.4. 4.4 All common driveways shall be straight or have a turning radius of 28’ inside and 48’ outside and have a clear driving surface of 20’ in width capable of supporting an imposed weight of 75,000 GVW, per International Fire Code Section 503.2. 4.5 Ensure that all yet undeveloped parcels are maintained free of combustible vegetation as set forth in International Fire Code Section 304.1.2. 4.6 Fire lanes, streets, and structures (including the canopy height of mature trees) shall have a vertical clearance of 13’6 as set forth in International Fire Code Section 503.2.1. 4.7 Operational fire hydrants, temporary or permanent street signs, and access roads with an all-weather surface are required to be installed before combustible construction material is brought onto the site, as set forth in International Fire Code Section (IFC) 501.4 and Meridian amendment to IFC 10-4-2J. 4.8 All portions of the buildings located on this project must be within 150’ of a paved surface as measured around the perimeter of the building as set forth in International Fire Code Section 503.1.1. 5. REPUBLIC SERVICES 5.1 All lots on common driveways need to get their carts to the street for trash pickup. 6. PARKS DEPARTMENT 6.1 The City's Pathways Master Plan identifies a 10' multi-use pathway along the north bank of the South Slough. The developer is required to provide a public pedestrian access easement for this pathway segment across the entire width of the development to the City and is required to construct the pathway per the City's pathway design standards. Contact Jay Gibbons, Parks & Pathways Project Manager to coordinate pathway and easement requirements. 6.2 Prior to City Engineer signature on the final plat, the applicant shall provide a pedestrian pathway easement covering the required multi-use pathway along the South Slough for signature and recordation by the City. 6.3 The applicant shall have an ongoing obligation to maintain all pathways. 7. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT 7.1 Site Specific Conditions of Approval 7.1.1 At the time that this staff report was written, comments had not been received by ACHD Exhibit A - 18 - C. Legal Description & Exhibit Map for Zoning Designation Boundaries (NOT APPROVED) Exhibit A - 19 - Exhibit A - 20 - Exhibit A - 21 - Exhibit A - 22 - Exhibit A - 23 - D. Required Findings from Unified Development Code 1. Annexation Findings: Upon recommendation from the Commission, the Council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing, review the application. In order to grant an annexation, the Council shall make the following findings: a. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; The Applicant is proposing to annex the subject 20.28 acre property with both an R-8 zoning district (5.12 acres) and R-15 zoning district (14.23) acres and develop 122 new single-family residential homes. Council finds that the proposed map amendment complies with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and should be compatible with adjacent residential uses if the plat is revised per the conditions of approval in Exhibit B (see section VII above for more information). b. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Council finds that the proposed map amendment to the R-8 and R-15 zoning district is consistent with the purpose statement for the residential districts as detailed in Section VIII above. c. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Council finds that the proposed zoning map amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. City utilities will be extended at the expense of the applicant. Council considered any oral or written testimony that was provided when determining this finding. d. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the City including, but not limited to, school districts; and, Council finds that the proposed zoning amendment will not result in any adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing services to this site. e. The annexation is in the best of interest of the City (UDC 11-5B-3.E). Council finds annexing this property with both an R-8 and R-15 zoning districts is in the best interest of the City if the applicant revises the plat per Council’s recommendation and enters into a development agreement. 2. Preliminary Plat Findings: In consideration of a preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat, the decision-making body shall make the following findings: a. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; Council finds that the proposed plat is in substantial compliance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan in regard to land use, transportation, and circulation. Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals, Section VII, of the Staff Report for more information. Exhibit A - 24 - b. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Council f finds that public services will be provided to the subject property upon development. (See Exhibit B of the Staff Report for more details from public service providers.) c. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City’s capital improvement program; Because City water and sewer and any other utilities will be provided by the development at their own cost, Council finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. d. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Council relied upon comments from the public service providers (i.e., Police, Fire, ACHD, etc.) to determine this finding. (See Exhibit B for more detail.) e. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and Council is not aware of any health, safety, or environmental problems associated with the platting of this property. ACHD considers road safety issues in their analysis. Council considered all public testimony that was presented when determining whether or not the proposed subdivision may cause health, safety or environmental problems of which Council is unaware. f. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. Council is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that exist on this site. Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: July 5, 2016 ITEM NUMBER: 6M PROJECT NUMBER: H-2016-0057 ITEM TITLE: Findings of Fact CentrPoint Subdivision M. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for CentrePoint Subdivsion (H-2016-0057) By W.H. Moore Located at N E Eagle Road and E Usfick Road MEETING NOTES uw"" APHOIED 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 FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2016-0057 - 1 - CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER In the Matter of the Request for a Modification to the Development Agreement for CentrePoint Subdivision, by W. H. Moore. Case No(s). H-2016-0057 For the City Council Hearing Date of: June 21, 2016 (Findings on June 28, 2016) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of June 21, 2016, incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of June 21, 2016, incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of June 21, 2016, incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of June 21, 2016, incorporated by reference) B. Conclusions of Law 1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the “Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975,” codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code (I.C. §67-6503). 2. The Meridian City Council takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has, by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, which was adopted April 19, 2011, Resolution No. 11-784 and Maps. 3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-5A. 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s) received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this Decision, which shall be signed by the Mayor and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk upon the applicant, the Community Development Department, the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. 7. That this approval is subject to the Conditions of Approval all in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of June 21, 2016, incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2016-0057 - 2 - reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application. C. Decision and Order Pursuant to the City Council’s authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 11-5A and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: 1. The applicant’s request for a modification to the development agreement is hereby approved per the provisions in the Staff Report for the hearing date of June 21, 2016, attached as Exhibit A. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits Notice of Development Agreement Duration The development agreement shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the City within six (6) months of the City Council granting annexation and/or rezone (UDC 11-5B-3D). A development agreement may be modified by the city or an affected party of the development agreement. Decision on the development agreement modification is made by the city council in accord with this chapter. When approved, said development agreement shall be signed by the property owner(s) and returned to the city within six (6) months of the city council granting the modification (UDC 11-5B-3F). A modification to the development agreement may be initiated prior to signature of the agreement by all parties and/or may be requested to extend the time allowed for the agreement to be signed and returned to the City if filed prior to the end of the six (6) month approval period (UDC 11-5B-3F). E. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis 1. The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code 67-8003, denial of a development application entitles the Owner to request a regulatory taking analysis. Such request must be in writing, and must be filed with the City Clerk not more than twenty-eight (28) days after the final decision concerning the matter at issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for Judicial Review may be filed. 2. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian. When applicable and pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521, any affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the final action of the governing board may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code. F. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of June 21, 2016 By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the ___________ day of ________________, 2016. EXHIBIT A CentrePoint – MDA H-2016-0057 1 STAFF REPORT HEARING DATE: June 21, 2016 TO: Mayor & City Council FROM: Sonya Watters, Associate City Planner 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: CentrePoint – MDA H-2016-0057 I. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT’S REQUEST The applicant, W. H. Moore, requests 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 Ln. 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. See Section IX Analysis for more information. II. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the proposed MDA as requested by the applicant. The Meridian City Council heard these items on June 21, 2016. At the public hearing, the Council approved the subject MDA request. a. Summary of City Council Public Hearing: i. In favor: Jonathan Seel ii. In opposition: None iii. Commenting: Joseph Cataloni iv. Written testimony: Jonathan Seel and Chad Olsen v. Staff presenting application: Sonya Watters vi. Other staff commenting on application: None b. Key issue(s) of Public Testimony: i. None c. Key Issues of Discussion by Council: i. The 10-foot wide buffer to the residences in Champion Park Subdivision along the west boundary of the site; preference for a gated entry at the north and south ends of the buffer area for maintenance purposes and reduced vegetative groundcover within the buffer. ii. The lighting at the rear of the storage structures adjacent to residential uses; preference for motion sensor lighting. ii. Key Council Changes to Staff Recommendation i. None III. PROPOSED MOTION 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, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications.) EXHIBIT A CentrePoint – MDA H-2016-0057 2 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 (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) IV. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS A. Site Address/Location: The site is generally near the northwest corner of N. Eagle Road and E. Ustick Road, in the SE ¼ of Section 32, Township 4N., Range 1E. B. Owner: Blue Marlin Investments, LLC 1940 Bonito Way, Ste. 160 Meridian, ID 83642 C. Applicant: W. H. Moore 1940 Bonito Way, Ste. 160 Meridian, ID 83642 D. Representative: Jonathan Seel 2906 Haven Drive Eagle, ID 83616 E. Applicant's Statement/Justification: Please see applicant’s narrative for this information. V. PROCESS FACTS A. The subject application is for a development agreement modification. A public hearing is required before the City Council on this matter, consistent with Meridian City Code Title 11, Chapter 5. B. Newspaper notifications published on: May 30 and June 13, 2016 C. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: May 26, 2016 D. Applicant posted notice on site by: June 2, 2016 VI. LAND USE A. Existing Land Use(s): This property consists of vacant/undeveloped land, zoned C-G. B. Character of Surrounding Area and Adjacent Land Use and Zoning: North: Rural residential property, zoned RUT in Ada County West: Single-family residential properties in Champion Park Subdivision, zoned R-8 South: Multi-family residential (Timbergrove) and commercial retail uses, zoned C-G East: Vacant/undeveloped property, zoned C-G EXHIBIT A CentrePoint – MDA H-2016-0057 3 C. History of Previous Actions:  This property was annexed (AZ-03-025, Blue Marlin) in 2003 and zoned C-G; a development agreement was required as a provision of annexation recorded as Instrument No. 105048793.  A modification to the development agreement (MI-05-017, Nesmith Annexation) was approved in 2005, recorded as Instrument No. 106060856, to add 1.5 acres of property to the provisions of the development agreement and reduce the landscape buffer along the west property boundary adjacent to the residential uses in Champion Park Subdivision to 10 feet.  A preliminary plat (PP-06-063) for CentrePoint North Subdivision was approved in 2007.  A final plat (FP-07-011) for Phase 2 of the development which includes the subject property was approved in 2007 but has not yet been signed by the City Engineer and recorded. Several time extensions (TE-08-028, TE-10-020, TEC-12-002, TEC-14-002; H-2016-0011) have been approved to extend the period of time in which to obtain the City Engineer’s signature on the final plat. The applicant states that they are moving forward with construction of CentrePoint Way and recording the final plat.  A new development agreement (MI-06-008) was approved in 2006, recorded as Instrument No. 106191305, which replaced the two earlier agreements (#105048793 and #106060856). This agreement removed the requirement for a conditional use permit/planned development to be submitted and included a conceptual development plan for the site. The Kohl’s parcel (#S0532449210) was excluded from this agreement and is still subject to the two aforementioned agreements.  A modification to the development agreement (Inst. #106191305) (MDA-12-007) was approved in 2012, recorded as Instrument No. 114002255, which amended the conceptual development plan and associated provisions of the agreement to allow the development of multi-family residential uses within CentrePoint Subdivision. VII. ANALYSIS The applicant requests a modification to the existing development agreements (#106191305 &114002255) for this site to allow the development of a self-service storage facility with outdoor storage through a conditional use permit; 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 following is Staff’s analysis on the proposed modifications:  The previous development plan for the northwest portion of this property was for a multi-family development (see Exhibit A.2); the proposed development plan is for a self-service storage facility (see Exhibit A.3). The development agreement (DA) currently prohibits outside storage facilities; the applicant proposes to remove outdoor storage as a prohibited use. The UDC (Table 11-2B-2) lists outside storage facilities as an accessory use to a principle use in the C-G district. The proposed self-service storage facility requires conditional use permit (CUP) approval in the C-G district; outside storage would be allowed as an accessory use provided that it complies with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-33, Outdoor Storage Facility. Self- service storage facilities are required to comply with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4- 3-34, Self-Service Storage Facility. Staff recommends the development plan for the northwest corner of the site is modified as requested by the applicant and that outside storage is removed as a prohibited use. Staff further recommends if future development is not consistent with the conceptual development plan for a EXHIBIT A CentrePoint – MDA H-2016-0057 4 storage facility that the DA is modified to include an updated plan rather than requiring a CUP as currently required in the DA.  The DA currently allows principal permitted uses to develop on the site without CUP approval provided that they meet certain design criteria specified therein. Because the City now has design standards that are applicable to new development, staff recommends a provision is included that replaces the specific design criteria and requires all future development on this site to comply with the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and the Architectural Standards Manual (ASM), as applicable, per UDC 11-5B-8B. Additionally, as a condition of approval of the last time extension for the final plat for phase 2 (H-2016-0011), future development in that phase was required to comply with the design standards in the ASM.  The applicant requests the removal of the requirement of a 25-foot wide buffer with a berm and 6- foot tall solid fence to be constructed along the northern boundary of the site adjacent to Jasmine Lane. Based on UDC 11-3B-9B, staff has determined that because the subject property does not share a contiguous lot line with the residential land use to the north (Jasmine Lane exists within a 50-foot wide easement along the north boundary of the site that separates the subject property from the residential use), a 25-foot wide buffer to residential uses is not required. However, a 10-foot wide street landscape buffer is required along local streets (i.e. Jasmine Lane) in the C-G district per UDC Table 11-2B-3. Therefore, staff recommends the DA provision (#5e) that requires a 25-foot wide buffer with a berm and fence adjacent to Jasmine Lane is modified to require a 10-foot wide street buffer instead landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. Note: Jasmine Lane is anticipated to be improved and dedicated as a public street in the future to serve future residential uses; the FLUM designation for the property to the north is medium density residential.  A conceptual building elevation was submitted that depicts the entry of the facility off of CentrePoint Way (see Exhibit A.3). The rear wall of the perimeter buildings that will surround the facility are proposed to be 12 feet in height with 14-foot tall tower elements constructed of a stucco material. Enclosed storage garages are proposed around the perimeter of the site and approximately half of the interior space; the rest is planned as open storage which will be screened by the perimeter structures. Note: Building designs are required to incorporate modulation in the façade plane as set forth in the Architectural Standards Manual; a continuous rear wall of the structure s in the same height and form will not be approved (see pgs. C-13-15 in the ASM).  Outside of this application, the applicant’s narrative states that they are moving forward with extending CentrePoint Way to the north property line and recording the final plat for CentrePoint Subdivision No. 2. They want to be allowed to commence construction prior to the final plat being recorded but understand that all improvements including the construction of CentrePoint Way need to be constructed and the final plat recorded prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. Staff recommends a provision is added in the DA that allows the applicant’s request. Staff recommends approval of a modification to the DA’s (#106191305 &114002255) per the provisions in Exhibit A.5. VIII. EXHIBITS A. Drawings/Other 1. Zoning/Aerial Map & Approved Final Plat EXHIBIT A CentrePoint – MDA H-2016-0057 5 2. Existing Conceptual Development Plan Included in the Development Agreement as Exhibit A-1.0 3. Proposed Conceptual Development Plan(s) to Replace Exhibit A-1.0 in the Existing Development Agreements (Includes Conceptual Development Plan Approved with MI-06-008) 4. Proposed Conceptual Building Elevation for Storage Facility Entrance 5. Proposed Modifications to Existing Development Agreement Provisions 6. Legal Description of Property Subject to Development Agreement EXHIBIT A CentrePoint – MDA H-2016-0057 6 Exhibit A.1: Zoning/Aerial Map & Approved Final Plat !( !(ÚÚd ÚÚd 3541 3245 3547 3305 3475 3210 3386 22 1 9 2464 22 2 0 22 5 6 22 6 5 23 2 4 23 0 1 23 1 2 2336 23 0 0 22 7 1 22 7 6 23 2 5 3381 2363 22 7 0 23 3 1 3496 23 1 5 22 9 5 2237 2242 22 7 8 23 7 0 3759 23 3 2 2470 3692 3734 3740 3802 22 6 4 236 2 2452 25 5 9 25 8 1 23 9 0 25 2 6 3669 2491 3824 3703 3679 23 8 1 23 9 5 38992385 3842 3963 2421 2445 3756 3635 3667 3636 249 3 3674 3740 3763 3705 248 2 3707 3251 2680 25 2 3 3490 25 3 7 3468 3693 25 6 1 3671 25 0 8 3659 3335 25 0 1 3285 3350 25 2 9 2596 25 5 6 25 3 6 27 0 0 2 7 1 8 2737 2 7 3 6 3357 3559 3311 2710 3319 3563 3394 3272 3228 3261 2333 23 4 3 3542 3375 3506 2252 23 4 9 3470 1598 3415 3421 22 5 7 3340 3553 2344 22 7 3 22 3 9 2227 2217 3723 2416 3239 22 7 7 3670 3794 23 0 6 23 7 8 23 4 7 24 5 5 3550 24 6 5 3514 23 2 9 25 1 5 24 9 3 25 1 7 38 5 8 3792 2389 3668 23 3 5 23 1 7 3586 2372 3530 2354 3424 3723 3705 3402 2412 3658 2351 3273 2443 25 0 9 25 9 7 3314 2457 3338 3831 336 2 25 9 3 2724 2326 2748 2722 3637 3578 3530 3494 2498 3223 3321 2484 3645 2381 3773 2654 3682 23 4 1 23 4 2 3626 23 9 6 2663 3586 3487 2689 3531 22 9 8 3297 22 7 3 2345 25 9 3 3669 25 7 8 23 9 8 25 7 0 3687 25 3 0 2286 25 0 2 27 1 3 2293 27 0 7 3640 3813 3602 3875 3458 2380 3410 24 2 1 3374 24 4 3 3200 24 8 7 3423 247 7 3467 246 4 3517 2512 3810 3263 2718 23 1 3 3738 3564 3512 25 4 9 22 6 4 3264 23 0 7 3286 3302 24 8 4 25 1 5 3575 25 6 7 2705 23 8 6 2735 2701 2708 3590 3554 3338 3320 3250 23 7 1 22 4 5 2100 3651 3752 2000 2185 236 8 234 6 2233 232 6 3919 2242 2015 2286 14120 25 9 9 24 6 9 3722 3624 3644 3715 36123629 3795 2024 3725 3270 3450 3696 3443 3559 3637 20 2 0 2134 24 7 9 336133 5 9 25 8 8 25 7 4 1993 25 6 0 3374 3378 25 4 8 3382 25 7 9 3500 3461 25 8 6 20422064 3406 2721 3385 3365 13 9 9 9 3539 4084 3585 40424037 2754 3626 4053 3482 4075 3446 4146 3422 2740 3356 21752305 4078 1855 24992475 2740 2065 3275 31 6 0 2545 2345 2101 2610 3676 3410 3590 3423 3366 3388 3486 2116 3487 2123 3496 2035 3230 1974 3420 13 9 6 7 4068 4026 3661 2601 3664 2453 4135 3615 3647 4081 33 7 5 325125452035 3510 33391599 19 6 3 33273349 19 6 6 3561 3362 3460 3308 22 5 5 2080 23 6 1 2100 3353 2248 22 6 0 23 1 4 23 5 0 2057 23 2 0 2093 22 6 3 3687 3741 3389 3377 3777 2301 1968 2331 24 1 5 1998 239 0 3390 2397 3394 3853 3535 3941 3534 25 4 1 25 6 5 2088 25 8 9 2156 25 9 7 24 9 8 3564 24 5 4 3454 24 3 2 1964 24 1 0 243 6 4019 40522779 24 7 0 3826 4113 3784 3733 4162 3751 2672 2706 4125 3724 4114 24 9 5 25 2 2 24 6 8 3775 334 7 24252315 4063 2753 25 4 1 2725 2719 2651 4130 3652 3566 3300 2255 23602170 3400 3380 3629 3560 3362 3370 3055 3380 2645 3411 3501 3533 2645 2112 3696 3542 3381 3632 3398 2060 2019 1956 3595 3340 40124001 2031 3503 3489 2627 2044 2105 3373 3369 4103 3494 4025 4047 27032677 2180 2800 3503 23 0 9 3327 23 2 8 22 9 4 23 2 6 23 6 0 3509 3520 2259 2434 3741 3772 23 0 6 2268 2271 2373 2344 2396 2434 25 3 7 25 9 8 25 9 2 25 7 0 25 4 8 24 7 3 3657 24 6 1 2523 3738 3690 3640 3627 3685 3 7 1 6 3648 3548 3446 25 7 5 25 8 3 25 8 9 3326 25 5 3 25 4 2 25 1 6 3349 3518 3434 3392 19452115 2090 2290 3740 3679 3570 3540 3386 3392 2191 3560 3520 3472 3428 2079 2000 4024 2431 4157 4086 30852125 30 9 0 C-N C-C R-8 L-O R-2R1R1RUT R-8 RUT RUT R-4R1 RUT R-4 C-G N E a g l e R d E Ustick Rd ESum merd a w n D r EParadiseLn N P a n k r a t z W a y E Wainwright Dr N D u a n e D r ELobeliaSt N C e n t r e p o i n t W a y E Nakano Dr N T r o x e l W a y E Van Oker St N C o n l e y Av e N R o g u e R i v e r A v e E Koett e r St E Bowman St EStar Ln N B r o o k s b u r g Pl N Hawkins Ave NCafferty Way ESummerridgeDr N Hawkins Ave N Neith Ave E Conner St E Summer Dawn St E Satterfield St N D a s h w o o d P l EG arber Dr E Satterfield St ELeighFieldDr N Summerpark Ave NS u m m e r f i e l d W a y N P e t t y W a y E Jasmine Ln E OMera St E W i g l e D r N R e c o r d s A v e N L e s l i e W a y N L e s l i e W a y N Dixon Ave N Dixon Ave N L i n w o o d Wa y N S u m m e r c r e s t W a y N Dixon Ave N G a v i o l a Av e N R o g u e Ri v e r W a y E M a h o n e y S t N J u s t i n A v e ESwindellDr EXHIBIT A CentrePoint – MDA H-2016-0057 7 EXHIBIT A CentrePoint – MDA H-2016-0057 8 Exhibit A.2: Existing Conceptual Development Plan Included in the Development Agreement as Exhibit A-1.0 EXHIBIT A CentrePoint – MDA H-2016-0057 9 Exhibit A.3: Proposed Conceptual Development Plan to Replace Exhibit A-1.0 in the Existing Development Agreement EXHIBIT A CentrePoint – MDA H-2016-0057 10 Exhibit A.4: Proposed Conceptual Building Elevation for the Storage Facility Entrance EXHIBIT A CentrePoint – MDA H-2016-0057 11 Exhibit A.5: Proposed Modifications to Existing Development Agreement Provisions (Applicant proposed and Staff recommended changes noted in strike-out/underline format) Current Consolidated Development Agreement Provisions [Instrument No.’s 106191305 (MI-06-008); and 114002255 (MDA-12-007)]: 4. USES PERMITTED BY THIS AGREEMENT: 4.1 The uses allowed pursuant to this Agreement are only those uses allowed under “City’s” Unified Development Code codified in Table 11-2B-2 and herein specified as follows: a) Principally permitted uses on the subject property shall be allowed without Conditional Use Permit approval, provided all future buildings have: All future development shall comply with the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and the Architectural Standards Manual, as applicable per UDC 11-5B-8B. 1) Front facades that incorporate windows, modulations in the façade, and roof line recesses and projections along a minimum of 20 percent of the length of the façade; 2) At least two changes in one or a combination of the following shall be incorporated into the building design: color, texture and materials. 3) Exterior building walls shall demonstrate the appearance of high-quality materials of stone, brick, wood or other native materials. Acceptable materials include tinted or textured masonry block, textured architectural coated concrete panels, or stucco or stucco-like synthetic materials. Smooth-faced concrete block, tilt-up concrete panels, or prefabricated steel panels are prohibited except as accent materials. 4) All ground level and roof top mechanical equipment shall be screened from view. If a future proposed building is not consistent with the above-mentioned provisions, then the building and use shall be required to obtain Conditional Use Permit approval prior to construction and operation. b) Future construction on the subject site shall be generally consistent with the Master Site Plan submitted with MI-06-008 (excluding the Kohl’s parcel, #S0532449210) and including the conceptual development plan submitted with H-2016-0057 for the northwest corner of the site, as determined by the Planning Community Development Director. All lots with frontage on Eagle Road, and all lots that border the western and northern property boundaries shall contain freestanding buildings. If a future proposed building is not generally consistent with the Mast er Site Plan or conceptual development plan for the northwest corner of the sit e (as applicable), then the building shall be required to obtain Conditional Use Permit approval development agreement shall be modified accordingly. With respect to multi-family development, attached hereto as Exhibit A-1.0, is an example of an acceptable site layout for the northwest section of the Property. c) The following uses shall not be allowed on any lot adjacent to the western or northern property boundary as shown on the Master Site Plan (pads 9-18, 21-24 and the Family Center) that borders a residential district, including the County RUT district:  Outdoor arts, entertainment or recreation facility  Outdoor stage, music venue, arts, entertainment or recreation facility  Cemetery  Church or place of religious worship EXHIBIT A CentrePoint – MDA H-2016-0057 12  Fuel sales facility, truck stop  Hotel and motel  Industry, information  Industry, light  Mortuary  Nursery or urban farm  Recreational vehicle park  Storage facility, outside  Temporary use  Vehicle sales or rental and service  Vehicle washing facility, unless as an accessory use on Lot 8, Block 1 Centrepointe Subdivision)  Wireless communication facility and/or tower  Wireless communication facility, amateur radio antenna d) That all future buildings on the subject property will be required to submit a Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) application prior to construction. And all future buildings adjacent to Eagle Road and Ustick Road will be required to obtain Design Review approval prior to construction. 5. CONDITONS GOVERNING DEVELOPMENT OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: Owner/Developer shall develop the Property in accordance with the following special conditions: a) All future uses on proposed lots or parcels within the annexation area shall be required to comply with the amended Section 4 of the Development Agreement and the City’s Unified Development Code. b) The Developer shall provide a public or private road located as generally shown on the concept plan. c) Five pedestrian walkways that connect the lots adjacent to Eagle Road and the main shopping area shall be included with this development. These walkways shall be generally located as shown in the submitted Master Site Plan and shall be distinguished from the vehicular driving surfaces through the use of pavers, colored or scored concrete, or bricks. The walkways shall be constructed prior to occupancy of any adjacent building. d) Three public/pedestrian gathering areas shall be generally located as shown in the submitted Master Site Plan. These gathering areas shall be constructed of steel, wood, brick, stucco or other similar materials and shall provide between 200-400 square feet of covered gathering space. The gazebos for the gathering areas shall be consistent with the elevations attached as Exhibit “C” and Exhibit “D”. The gathering areas shall be constructed prior to occupancy of any adjacent building. e) Exclusive of any public street or driveway stub, a 10-foot wide street landscape buffer designed in accordance with UDC 11-3B-97 shall be constructed adjacent to Jasmine Lane along the northern boundary of the subject property as follows. For commercial development, this landscape buffer shall be 25 feet wide and include a berm and six foot solid fence. For multi- EXHIBIT A CentrePoint – MDA H-2016-0057 13 family development, this landscape buffer shall be 20 feet wide; provided, however, that patios, balconies (including any supporting columns and their footings), roof overhangs, and ornamental architectural projections, may project not more than 10 feet into the landscape buffer. In addition to the landscape buffer, trash compactors or loading docks shall be prohibited along the north side of any future buildings located along the northern boundary of the subject property. f) The west elevation of buildings located on the east side of the proposed North Centre Point Way (buildings designated as A, C, F, G, H, K, L, M on the Master Site Plan) shall contain architectural elements and enhancements including but not limited to, variations in the materials, colors, and facades that help to soften the appea rance of these westerly elevations which are visible from, the proposed public street, North Centre Point Way. These variations shall account for a minimum of 20 percent of the façade. All trash compactors, docks, or loading areas along these elevations shall be fully screened. g) Buildings identified on the Master Site Plan as Retail A, C, H, K, M shall have architectural elements and landscaping features that break up any long façade or wall that faces a main drive aisle or parking area. These architectural elements shall include at least two changes in materials or colors, and some modulation in the façade, including but not limited to, columns, cornices, extrusions, glass or other architectural. h) Future buildings along the western and northern property boundaries (abutting Champion Park Subdivision or Jasmine Lane) shall, in the case of commercial development, not exceed 35 feet in height, and in the case of multi-family development, not exceed 40 feet in height. i) Issuance of a building permit shall be deemed approval of the related plans with respect to the design restrictions of this development agreement. j.) Developer agrees to grant a permanent easement to City for the construction and maintenance by City of a low-profile “Welcome to Meridian” monument sign fronting Eagle Road at a location selected by Developer within the northerly 380 feet of the Property frontage, based on sign design criteria mutually acceptable to City and Developer. The Developer has also agreed to enter into discussions with the City on a potential cost-share arrangement for the entryway sign after the City has established the cost and appearance of the sign. k.) The applicant shall fence off the Champion Park micropath from the future multi-family development unless it is the desire of the Champion Park neighborhood that the micropath connection remain open storage facility. l.) Construction of the storage facility may commence prior to the final plat being recorded; however, all improvements including the construction of CentrePoint Way shall be constructed and the final plat recorded prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. EXHIBIT A CentrePoint – MDA H-2016-0057 14 Exhibit A.6: Legal Description of Property Subject to Development Agreement EXHIBIT A CentrePoint – MDA H-2016-0057 15 Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: July 5, 2016 ITEM NUMBER: 6N PROJECT NUMBER: H-2016-0030 ITEM TITLE: Development Agreement Howry Lane Subdivision N. Development Agreement for Howry Lane Subdivision (H-2016-0030) with SRS AZ Investors, LLC located at 5220 S. Howry Lane, in the NE 1/4 Section of 33, Township 3 North, Range 1 East. (Parcel No. S1 1 331 31 200) MEETING NOTES u7 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 1.6 WHEREAS, the record of the proceedings for the requested preliminary plat on the Property held before the Planning & Zoning Commission, and subsequently before the City Council, includes responses of government subdivisions providing services within the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction, and includes further testimony and comment; and 1.7 WHEREAS, on the 10 day of June, 2016, the Meridian City Council approved certain Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order ("Findings"), which have been incorporated into this Agreement and attached as Exhibit "B"; and 1.8 WHEREAS, the Findings require the Owner/Developer to enter into a Development Agreement before the City Council takes final action on final plat; and 1.9 WHEREAS, Owner/Developer deems it to be in its best interest to be able to enter into this Agreement and acknowledges that this Agreement was entered into voluntarily and at its urging and request; and 1.10 WHEREAS, City requires the Owner/Developer to enter into a development agreement for the purpose of ensuring that the Property is developed and the subsequent use of the Property is in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, herein being established as a result of evidence received by the City in the proceedings for zoning designation from government subdivisions providing services within the planning jurisdiction and from affected property owners and to ensure zoning designation are in accordance with the amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian on April 19, 2011, Resolution No. 11-784, and the UDC, Title 11. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 2. INCORPORATION OF RECITALS: That the above recitals are contractual and binding and are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 3. DEFINITIONS: For all purposes of this Agreement the following words, terms, and phrases herein contained in this section shall be defined and interpreted as herein provided for, unless the clear context of the presentation of the same requires otherwise: 3.1 CITY: means and refers to the City of Meridian, a party to this Agreement, which is a municipal Corporation and government subdivision of the state of Idaho, organized and existing by virtue of law of the State of Idaho, whose address is 33 East Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho 83642. 3.2 OWNER/DEVELOPER: means and refers to SRS AZ Investors, LLC, whose address is 4222 E. Camelback Road, Ste. H100, Phoenix, Arizona DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - HowRv LANE SUBDIVISION (H 2016-0030) PAGE 2 OF 8 85018, the parry that is developing said Property and shall include any subsequent developer(s) of the Property. 3.3 PROPERTY: means and refers to that certain parcel(s) of Property located in the County of Ada, City of Meridian as described in Exhibit "A" describing the parcels to be re -zoned Medium Density Residential (R-8) and attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein as if set forth at length. 4. USES PERMITTED BY THIS AGREEMENT: This Agreement shall vest the right to develop the Property in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. 4.1 The uses allowed pursuant to this Agreement are only those uses allowed under the UDC. 4.2 No change in the uses specified in this Agreement shall be allowed without modification of this Agreement. 5. CONDITIONS GOVERNINGDEVELOPMENT OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: 5.1. Owner/Developer shall develop the Property in accordance with the following special conditions: 5.1.1 Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the preliminaryplat, phasing plan and building elevations depicted in Exhibit A ofthe attached Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law with attached Staff Report (Exhibit B). 5.1.2 The applicant shall pipe all irrigation ditches, laterals, canals and drains on the site unless otherwise waived by City Council in accord with UDC 11 -3A -6A. The drainage ditch located south of S. Hillsdale Park Drive was approved to remain open as a linear open space water amenity as allowed by UDC 11 -3A -6A; as such, it' s required to comply with the standards for water amenities listed in UDC 11-1A-1, Water Amenity. 5.1.3 The developer shall provide a minimum of 7.03 acres of qualified open space within the development as proposed per the standards listed in UDC 11 -3G -3B. 5.1.4 The developer shall provide a swimming pool, dressing rooms, a tot lot, and an additional 5% open space as amenities for this development as proposed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11 -3G -3C. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application is required to be submitted for the swimming pool and dressing rooms. 5.1.5 The property owner shall relinquish their interest in Howry Lane and dedicate right- of-way for a public street in accord with ACHD standards. 6. COMPLIANCE PERIOD This Agreement must be fully executed within six (6) months after the date of the Findings for the annexation and zoning or it is null and void. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - HOwRY LANE SUBDIVISION (H 2016-0030) PAGE 3 OF 8 7. DEFAULT/CONSENT TO DE -ANNEXATION AND REVERSAL OF ZONING DESIGNATION: 7.1 Acts of Default. Either party's failure to faithfully comply with all of the terms and conditions included in this Agreement shall constitute default under this Agreement. 7.2 Notice and Cure Period. In the event of Owner/Developer's default of this Agreement, Owner/Developer shall have thirty (30) days from receipt of written notice from City to initiate commencement of action to correct the breach and cure the default, which action must be prosecuted with diligence and completed within one hundred eighty (180) days; provided, however, that in the case of any such default that cannot with diligence be cured within such one hundred eighty (180) day period, then the time allowed to cure such failure may be extended for such period as may be necessary to complete the curing of the same with diligence and continuity. 7.3 Remedies. In the event of default by Owner/Developer that is not cured after notice as described in Section 7.2, Owner/Developer shall be deemed to have consented to modification of this Agreement and de -annexation and reversal of the zoning designations described herein, solely against the offending portion of Property and upon City's compliance with all applicable laws, ordinances and rules, including any applicable provisions of Idaho Code §§ 67-6509 and 67-6511. Owner/Developer reserves all rights to contest whether a default has occurred. This Agreement shall be enforceable in the Fourth Judicial District Court in Ada County by either City or Owner/Developer, or by any successor or successors in title or by the assigns of the parties hereto. Enforcement maybe sought by an appropriate action at law or in equity to secure the specific performance of the covenants, agreements, conditions, and obligations contained herein. 7.4 Delay. In the event the performance of any covenant to be performed hereunder by either Owner/Developer or City is delayed for causes that are beyond the reasonable control of the party responsible for such performance, which shall include, without limitation, acts of civil disobedience, strikes or similar causes, the time for such performance shall be extended by the amount of time of such delay. 7.5 Waiver. A waiver by City of any default by Owner/Developer of any one or more of the covenants or conditions hereof shall apply solely to the default and defaults waived and shall neither bar any other rights or remedies of City nor apply to any subsequent default of any such or other covenants and conditions. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT-HowRY LANE SUBDIVISION (H2016-0030) PAGE 4 OF 8 8. INSPECTION: Owner/Developer shall, immediately upon completion of any portion or the entirety of said development of the Property as required by this Agreement or by City ordinance or policy, notify the City Engineer and request the City Engineer's inspections and written approval of such completed improvements or portion thereof in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement and all other ordinances of the City that apply to said Property. 9. REQUIREMENT FOR RECORDATION: City shall record this Agreement, including all of the Exhibits, and submit proof of such recording to Owner/Developer, prior to the third reading of the Meridian Zoning Ordinance in connection with the re -zoning of the Property by the City Council. If for any reason after such recordation, the City Council fails to adopt the ordinance in connection with the annexation and zoning of the Property contemplated hereby, the City shall execute and record an appropriate instrument of release of this Agreement. 10. ZONING: City shall, following recordation of the duly approved Agreement, enact a valid and binding ordinance zoning the Property as specified herein. 11. SURETY OF PERFORMANCE: The City may also require surety bonds, irrevocable letters of credit, cash deposits, certified check or negotiable bonds, as allowed under the UDC, to insure the installation of required improvements, which the Owner/Developer agree to provide, if required by the City. 12. CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY: No Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued in any phase in which the improvements have not been installed, completed, and accepted by the City, or sufficient surety of performance is provided by Owner/Developer to the City in accordance with Paragraph 11 above. 13. ABIDE BY ALL CITY ORDINANCES: That Owner/Developer agrees to abide by all ordinances of the City of Meridian unless otherwise provided by this Agreement. 14. NOTICES: Any notice desired by the parties and/or required by this Agreement shall be deemed delivered if and when personally delivered or three (3) days after deposit in the United States Mail, registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed as follows: CITY: City Clerk City of Meridian 33 E. Broadway Ave. Meridian, Idaho 83642 OWNER/DEVELOPER: SRS AZ Investors, LLC 4222 E. Camelback Road, Ste. H100 Phoenix, AZ 85018 with copy to: City Attorney City of Meridian 33 E. Broadway Avenue Meridian, ID 83642 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT-HOWRY LANE SUBDIVISION (H 2016-0030) PAGE 5 OF 8 14.1 A parry shall have the right to change its address by delivering to the other party a written notification thereof in accordance with the requirements of this section. 15. ATTORNEY FEES: Should any litigation becommenced between the parties hereto concerning this Agreement, the prevailing parry shall be entitled, in addition to any other relief as may be granted, to court costs and reasonable attorney's fees as determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction. This provision shall be deemed to be a separate contract between the parties and shall survive any default, termination or forfeiture of this Agreement. 16. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE: The parties hereto acknowledge and agree that time is strictly of the essence with respect to each and every term, condition and provision hereof, and that the failure to timely perform any of the obligations hereunder shall constitute a breach of and a default under this Agreement by the other party so failing to perform. 17. BINDING UPON SUCCESSORS: This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties' respective heirs; successors, assigns and personal representatives, including City's corporate authorities and their successors in office. This Agreement shall be binding on the Owner/Developer, each subsequent owner and any other person acquiring an interest in the Property. Nothing herein shall in any way prevent sale or alienation of the Property, or portions thereof, except that any sale or alienation shall be subject to the provisions hereof and any successor owner or owners shall be both benefited and bound by the conditions and restrictions herein expressed. City agrees, upon written request of Owner/Developer, to execute appropriate and recordable evidence of termination of this Agreement if City, in its sole and reasonable discretion, had determined that Owner/Developer have fullyperformed their obligations under this Agreement. 18. INVALID PROVISION: If any provision of this Agreement is held not valid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such provision shall be deemed to be excised from this Agreement and the invalidity thereof shall not affect any of the other provisions contained herein. 19. DUTY TO ACT REASONABLY: Unless otherwise expresslyprovided, eachparty shall act reasonably in giving any consent, approval, or taking any other action under this Agreement. 20. COOPERATION OF THE PARTIES: In the event of any legal or equitable action or other proceeding instituted by any third party (including a governmental entity or official) challenging the validity of any provision in this Agreement, the parties agree to cooperate in defending such action or proceeding.. 21. FINAL AGREEMENT: This Agreement sets forth all promises, inducements, agreements, condition and understandings between Owner/Developer and City relative to the subject matter hereof, and there are no promises, agreements, conditions or understanding, either oral or written, express or implied, between Owner/Developer and City, other than as are stated herein. Except as herein otherwise provided, no subsequent alteration, amendment, change or addition to this Agreement shall be binding upon the parties hereto unless reduced to writing and signed by them DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT-HOwRY LANE SUBDIVISION (H2016-0030) PAGE 6 OF 8 EXHIBIT A Howry Lane Subdivision – H 2016-0030 EXHIBIT A Howry Lane Subdivision – H 2016-0030 CITY OF MERIDIAN wl IDIAI�T �, FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1 1 AND DECISION & ORDER In the Matter of the Request for Annexation & Zoning of 41.07 Acres of Land with an R-8 Zoning District; and a Preliminary Plat Consisting of 136 Building Lots and 13 Common Lots on 40.46 Acres of Land for Howry Subdivision, by M3 Acquisition, LLC. Case No(s). H-2016-0030 For the City Council Hearing Date of: June 7, 2016 (Findings on June 14, 2016) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of June 7, 2016, incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of June 7, 2016, incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of June 7, 2016, incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of June 7, 2016, incorporated by reference) B. Conclusions of Law 1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the "Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975," codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code (LC. §67-6503). 2. The Meridian City Council takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has, by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, which was adopted April 19, 2011, Resolution No. 11-784 and Maps. 3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-5A. 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s) received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this Decision, which shall be signed by the Mayor and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk upon the applicant, the Community Development Department, the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2016-0030 - 1 - 7. That this approval is subject to the Conditions of Approval all in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of June 7, 2016, incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application. C. Decision and Order Pursuant to the City Council's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 11-5A and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: 1. The applicant's request for annexation and zoning is hereby approved with the requirement of a development agreement containing the provisions in the Staff Report for the hearing date of June 7, 2016, attached as Exhibit A. 2. The applicant's request for a preliminary plat is hereby approved per the conditions in the Staff Report for the hearing date of June 7, 2016, attached as Exhibit A. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits Notice of Preliminary Plat Duration Please take notice that approval of a preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat shall become null and void if the applicant fails to obtain the city engineer's signature on the final plat within two (2) years of the approval of the preliminary plat or the combined preliminary and final plat or short plat (UDC 11-613-7A). In the event that the development of the preliminary plat is made in successive phases in an orderly and reasonable manner, and conforms substantially to the approved preliminary plat, such segments, if submitted within successive intervals of two (2) years, may be considered for final approval without resubmission for preliminary plat approval (UDC 11-613-713). Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11 -6B -7.A, the Director may authorize a single extension of time to obtain the City Engineer's signature on the final plat not to exceed two (2) years. Additional time extensions up to two (2) years as determined and approved by the City Council may be granted. With all extensions, the Director or City Council may require the preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat or short plat to comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code Title 11. If the above timetable is not met and the applicant does not receive a time extension, the property shall be required to go through the platting procedure again (UDC 1I - 6B -7C). Notice of Two (2) Year Development Agreement Duration The development agreement shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the City within two (2) years of the City Council granting annexation and/or rezone (UDC 11 -5B -3D). A modification to the development agreement may be initiated prior to signature of the agreement by all parties and/or may be requested to extend the time allowed for the agreement to be signed and returned to the City if filed prior to the end of the two (2) year approval period (UDC 11-513-317). CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2016-0030 - 2 - E. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis 1. The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code 67-8003, denial of a development application entitles the Owner to request a regulatory taking analysis. Such request must be in writing, and must be filed with the City Clerk not more than twenty-eight (28) days after the final decision concerning the matter at issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for Judicial Review may be filed. 2. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian. When applicable and pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521, any affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the final action of the governing board may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code. F. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of June 7, 2016 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2016-0030 -3 - By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the 2016. COUNCIL PRESIDENT KEITH BIRD COUNCIL VICE PRESIDENT JOE BORTON COUNCIL MEMBER ANNE LITTLE ROBERTS COUNCIL MEMBER TY PALMER COUNCIL MEMBER LUKE CAVENER COUNCIL MEMBER GENESIS MILAM MAYOR TAMMY de WEERD (TIE BREAKER) I tj i -'A day of �j i'& in P , Mayor Tamm Weerd Attest: �0 City of E1[jity T 3 i IDAHG ¢ Jacy Jon �Fy SEAL City Cleric VOTED 1 'e -S VOTED AbSe A {- VOTED es VOTED 1eS VOTED'�C VOTED PSty,, — VOTEDk`--- Copy served upon Applicant, Community Development Department, Public Works Department and City Attorney. By: Dated: City Clerk'j Office CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2016-0030 - 4 - STAFF REPORT Hearing Date: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: EXHIBIT A June 7, 2016 Mayor & City Council Sonya Watters, Associate City Planner 208-884-5533 Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager 208-887-2211 Howry Lane Subdivision — AZ, PP (H-2016-0030) I. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST EN DIAN:--- The applicant, M3 Acquisition, LLC, has submitted an application for annexation and zoning (AZ) of 41.07 acres of land with an R-8 zoning district; and a preliminary plat (PP) consisting of 136 building lots and 13 common lots on 40.46 acres of land for Howry Lane Subdivision. II. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the proposed AZ and PP applications in accord with the conditions of approval in Exhibit B and the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in Exhibit D. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission heard these items on April 21 and May 5, 2016. At the public hearing on May 5`", the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject AZ and PP requests. a. Summary of Commission Public Hearing: L In favor: Mark Tate, Applicant; Gordon Croft ii. In opposition: None W. Commenting: Jananne Keating; Herb Naugle; Dennis Nicholls; Timothy Brown iv. Written testimony: Mark Tate, Applicant v. Staff presenting application: Bill Parsons, Sonya Watters vi. Other staff commenting on application: None b. Key issue(s) of Public Testimony: L In favor of the traffic calming (narrowing of the street) proposed in W. Auckland Street where the proposed development joins Rockhampton subdivision at the east boundary and the "V" where Auckland stubs into S. Hillsdale Park Drive; ii. Concern that water rights and irrigation are sufficient to serve proposed lots and continue to adequately serve existing properties; and W. Concern regarding drainage from the development. c. Key Issues of Discussion by Commission: Li Traffic calming measures within the development for the north and south blocks; and, ii. The UDC requirement for bollard lighting to be provided along the pathway within the common area. d. Commission Changes) to Staff Recommendation: L Requirement for additional traffic calming to be provided in W. Aukland St. at the east boundary of the site between Rockhampton Subdivision and the proposed development as required by ACHD (see condition #1.1.2h). e. Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: L Staff requests a sentence is added to condition #1.1.1d as follows: "If the irrigation district will not allow a pathway to be constructed within their easement, an alternate Howry Lane Subdivision — AZ, PP H-2016-0030 PAGE 1 EXHIBIT A qualified amenity shall be provided." Also, modify conditions #1.1.32 and 1.1.3h which reference the pathway along the Cunningham lateral. ii. Block 3 exceeds the maximum block length allowed of 1,000 feet with provision of a pathway. Council may approve block lengths up to 1,200 feet when block design is constrained by site conditions such as steep slopes in excess of 10% or a large waterway and/or irrigation facility (i.e. Cunningham Lateral) (see condition #1.1.2b). Council may decide to approve the proposed block length; or, require the applicant to revise the plan to comply with the maximum block length standards listed in UDC 11 -6C -3F. iii. The applicant requests Council approval of a "step" up in density from LDR (3 units or less/acre) to MDR (3-8 units/acre) as allowed in the Comprehensive Plan. The Meridian City Council heard these items on June 7, 2016. At the public hearing. the Council approved the subject AZ and PP requests. a, Summary of City Council Public Hearing: L In favor: Mark Tate ii. In opposition: None iii. Commenting: None iv. Written testimony: None v. Staff presenting application: Sonya Watters vi. Other staff commenting on application: None b,. Key issue(s) of Public Testimony: b None c, Key Issues of Discussion by Council: L None d� Key Council Changes to Commission Recommendation L Delete conditions #1.1.38 and #1.1.3h that pertain to the pathway along the north side of the Cunningham Lateral as the irrigation district won't allow the pathway within their easement. III. PROPOSED MOTION Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2016- 0030, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 7, 2016, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications). Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2016-0030, as presented during the hearing on June 7, 2016, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2016-0030 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) IV. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS A. Site Address/Location: The site is located at 5220 S. Howry Lane, in the NE 1/4 of Section 33, Township 3 North, Range 1 East. (Parcel No. 51133131200) Howry Lane Subdivision — AZ, PP H-2016-0030 PAGE 2 EXHIBIT A B. Owner: Gordon & Ann Croft Living Trust 5220 S. Howry Lane Meridian, Idaho 83642 C. Applicant: M3 Acquisition, LLC 4222 E. Cambleback Road, Ste. H100 Phoenix, AZ 85018 D. Representative: Scott Wonders, J -U -B Engineers, Inc. 250 S. Beechwood, Ste. 201 Boise, ID 83709 E. Applicant's Statement/Justification: Please see applicant's narrative for this information. V. PROCESS FACTS A. The subject application is for annexation and zoning and preliminary plat. A public hearing is required before the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council on this matter, consistent with Meridian City Code Title 11, Chapter 5. B. Newspaper notifications published on: April 4 and 18, 2016 (Commission); May 16 and 30, 2016 (City Council) C. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: March 31, 2016 (Commission); Maw 2016 (City Council) D. Applicant posted notice on site(s) on: April 11, 2016 (Commission); May 24, 2016 (City Council) VI. LAND USE A. Existing Land Use(s) and Zoning: The subject property consists of rural residential/agricultural property zoned RUT in Ada County. B. Character of Surrounding Area and Adjacent Land Use and Zoning: 1. North: Rural residential/agricultural property, zoned RUT in Ada County 2. East: Single-family residential properties in Rockhampton Subdivision, zoned R4 in Ada County 3. South: Single-family residential properties in Rockhampton Subdivision, zoned R4 in Ada County; future single-family residential properties in Hill's Century Farm Subdivision, zoned R-8. 4. West: Future single-family residential properties in Hill's Century Farm Subdivision, zoned R-8; and an elementary school, zoned C -N. C. History of Previous Actions: None D. Utilities: 1. Location of sewer: A sanitary sewer main intended to provide service to the proposed development currently exist in S. Howry Lane. Howry Lane Subdivision — AZ, PP H-2016-0030 PAGE 3 EXHIBIT A 2. Location of water: A water main intended to provide service to the proposed development currently exist in S. Howry Lane. 3. Issues or concerns: None E. Physical Features: 1. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: The Cunningham Lateral and a drain ditch cross this site. 2. Hazards: Staff is unaware of any hazards that may exist on this site. 3. Flood Plain: This site does not lie within the Meridian Floodplain Overlay District. 011kw" Kiel 010 [4 I oly\eI 101171 cl The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designates this site as Low Density Residential (LDR). The LDR designation allows for the development of single-family homes on large lots where urban services are provided. Uses may include single-family homes at gross densities of three dwelling units or less per acre. The applicant proposes to develop this 40.46 acre site with 136 single-family detached homes at a gross density of 3.36 dwelling units per acre (d.u./acre) and a net density of 5.46 d.u./acre, which is slightly above the density desired in LDR designated areas of 3 units or less/acre. The applicant requests Council consideration of a "step up" in density from low to medium without requirement of an amendment to the FLUM as allowed in the Comprehensive Plan (pg. 21). The Medium Density Residential (MDR) designation allows smaller lots for residential purposes within City limits. Uses may include single-family homes at gross densities of 3 to 8 dwelling units per acre (d.u./acre). Since the FLUM was last updated in 2011, some changes in land use have occurred in this area. In 2015, a map amendment was approved to the northwest of this site which changed the FLUM designation on 87 acres of land from LDR to MU -N (Mixed Use — Neighborhood) with R-8 and C -N zoning for the development of an elementary school, library, YMCA, City Park and health complex. Southwest of this site at the southern end of the Hill's Century Farm development, Council approved a "step down" in density from MHDR (Medium -High Density Residential) to MDR with R-8 zoning. With these changes, staff feels a higher density that originally anticipated with the LDR designation is appropriate for this site. Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this property and apply to the proposed use (staff analysis in italics): "Support a variety of residential categories (low-, medium-, medium-high and high-density single-family, multi -family, townhouses, duplexes, apartments, condominiums, etc.) for the purpose of providing the City with a range of affordable housing opportunities." (3.07.01 E) There are existing and approved, but not yet developed, medium density residential developments surrounding this site to the west, south and east and low density residential uses designated to the north. Although additional medium density residential uses will not provide a variety in the immediate area, Stafffeels the proposed medium density (as opposed to low density) would aid in supporting the YMCA, library, elementary school and future commercial uses northwest of this site. Staff is unaware of how "affordable" the homes will be in this development. "Permit new development only where urban services can be reasonably provided at the time of final approval and development is contiguous to the City." (3.01.01F) Howry Lane Subdivision — AZ, PP H-2016-0030 PAGE 4 EXHIBIT A City services are available to be extended by the developer to the proposed lots upon development of the site in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. "Require new residential development to meet development standards regarding landscaping, signage, fences and walls, etc." (3.05.02C) Landscaping is required to be provided in common area lots within the subdivision in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11 -3G -3E. "Protect existing residential properties from incompatible land use development on adjacent parcels." (3.06.01F) The proposed residential development should be compatible with existing and future adjacent low -medium density single-family residential and agricultural uses. "Require common area in all subdivisions." (3.07.02F) The proposed plat depicts a total of 7.03 acres (or 17.4916) of qualified open space in excess of the requirements listed in UDC 11-3G-3. "Require pedestrian access connectors in all new development to link subdivisions together to promote neighborhood connectivity as part of a community pathway system." (3.03.03B) There are no pathway connections to this site other than sidewalks along the streets that stub to this site. These sidewalks will provide for pedestrian connectivity between subdivisions. "Require new urban density subdivisions which abut or are proximal to existing low density residential land uses to provide landscaped screening or transitional densities with larger, more comparable lot sizes to buffer interface between urban level densities and rural residential densities." (3.05.02F) The proposed plat provides comparable lot sizes to adjacent existing and future lots in Rockhampton and Hill's Century Farm subdivisions. "Review new development for appropriate opportunities to connect local roads and collectors to adjacent properties (stub streets). (3.03.020) There are 2 existing stub streets to this property from Rockhampton subdivision at the east boundary of the site and 2 approved but not yet constructed stub streets from Hill's Century Farm subdivision at the west and south boundaries of the site. A stub street is proposed to the north for future extension and interconnectivity. In accord with the above analysis, staff finds the proposed development with approval of a "step up " in density is consistent with other existing and approved land uses in this area and the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. VIII. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE (UDC) A. Purpose Statement of Zone: Per UDC 11-2A-1, the purpose of the residential districts is to provide for a range of housing opportunities consistent with the Meridian comprehensive plan. Residential districts are distinguished by the allowable density of dwelling units per acre and corresponding housing types that can be accommodated within the density range. The proposed medium density (R-8) residential district allows a maximum gross density of 8 dwelling units per acre. Howry Lane Subdivision — AZ, PP H-2016-0030 PAGE 5 EXHIBIT A B. Schedule of Use: Unified Development Code (UDC) Table 11-2A-2 lists the principal permitted (P), accessory (A), conditional (C), and prohibited (-) uses in the residential districts. Any use not explicitly listed, or listed as a prohibited use is prohibited. C. Dimensional Standards: Development of the site should be consistent with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Tables 11-2A-6 for the R-8 zoning district. D. Landscaping: Landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the standards listed in UDC 11- 3G -3E. E. Off -Street Parking: Off-street parking is required in accord with UDC Table 11-3C-6 for single- family dwellings. IX. ANALYSIS A. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation: 1. Annexation & Zoning The applicant has applied for annexation and zoning of 41.07 acres of land from the RUT district in Ada County to the R-8 zoning district in the City for the development of 136 new single-family residential detached homes on the site. The proposed R-8 zoning is consistent with the applicant's request for a "step up" in density from LDR to MDR as discussed above in Section VII. If Council approves the Applicant's request, R-8 zoning would be appropriate. If not, the R-4 zoning district may be more appropriate with the LDR designation. The legal description submitted with the application, included in Exhibit C, shows the boundaries of the property proposed to be annexed and rezoned. The property is contiguous to land that has been annexed into the City and is within the Area of City Impact boundary. The City may require a development agreement (DA) in conjunction with an annexation pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-6511A. In order to ensure the site develops as proposed with this application, staff recommends a DA as a provision of annexation with the conditions included in Exhibit B. 2. Preliminary Plat The proposed plat consists of 136 building lots and 13 common lots on 40.46 acres of land in a proposed R-8 zoning district (see Exhibit A.2). The property includes a 20' x 1300'+/- strip of land (Howry Lane) that fronts on E. Amity Road. Lots range in size from 6,000 to 14,076 square feet (s.f.) with an average lot size of 7,978 s.f. The gross density for the subdivision is 3.36 units/acre which is consistent with the MDR designation if Council approves a "step up" in density. If Council does not approve a "step up" in density, the plat should be revised consistent with the density desired in the LDR designation which is 3 units or less/acre resulting in a maximum of 121 building lots. The property is proposed to develop in 3 phases beginning at the middle of the site along the Cunningham Lateral with the 2nd phase to the north and the 3rd phase to the south as shown on the phasing plan in Exhibit A.2. Existing Structures: There is an existing home and accessory structures on this site that are proposed to be removed; removal should take place prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. Howry Lane: Howry Lane currently provides access to the subject property and the Hill property to the north via E. Amity Road. As a provision of annexation, the owner should relinquish Howry Lane Subdivision — AZ, PP H-2016-0030 PAGE 6 EXHIBIT A their interest in the private lane and dedicate right-of-way (ROW) in accord with ACHD requirements. ACHD staff has stated that a road trust will be required to be provided to ACHD for 8 feet of pavement and curb and gutter. It is anticipated that the Hill/YMCA property on the west side of Howry Lane will dedicate ROW and construct a portion C12 + 12 ) of Howry as a public street with construction of the YMCA. The ROWfor the remainder of the street is required to be dedicated with this project. A 5 foot wide detached sidewalk and a 20 foot wide landscaped street buffer are required along the east side of the public street. Because this property is only 20 feet wide, the sidewalk and street buffer will need to be provided with development of the Hill property on the east side of Howry. Dimensional Standards: Development of this site is required to comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC 11-2A-3 and Table 11-2A-6 for the R-8 district unless Council does not approve the "step up" in density and subsequent R-8 zoning requested by the applicant, in which case compliance with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-5 for the R-4 district may be required. Block Length: The plat is required to comply with the block length standards listed in UDC 11- 6C -3F. Staff has reviewed the proposed plat and found that Block 3 exceeds the maximum block length allowed of 750 feet. The block is allowed to extend up to 1,000 feet when a pathway connection is proposed as is the case. When slopes in excess of 10% exist, Council can approve a block length up to 1,200 feet. The applicant states there is a slope within the common area on Lot 1, Block 3 that exceeds 10%. However, the proposed block length is approximately 1,290 feet, which does not include the additional existing block length to the east to the next cross street in Rockhampton Subdivision. Therefore, the configuration of the block should be revised to comply with the aforementioned requirement prior to the Commission meeting. Access: Access to streets should comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-3. Access is proposed for this site via two existing stub streets at the east boundary of the site from Rockhampton subdivision; from future stub streets at the west and south boundary via Hill's Century Farm subdivision; and eventually via S. Howry Lane, a future collector street, from E. Amity Road. A Traffic Impact Study (TIS) was required by ACHD and is currently in the review process. A staff report has not yet been received from ACHD. Streets: All of the proposed streets depicted on the plat are public. Existing stub streets are proposed to be extended into the site from Rockhampton Subdivision. The plat depicts stub streets in alignment with those approved with the Hill's Century Farm subdivision at the south and west boundaries of the site. South Taradale Avenue which stubs to the north property boundary is required to have an emergency turnaround that complies with Fire Department standards. The plat should be revised accordingly. A temporary turnaround easement may be provided rather than a permanent cul-de- sac until such time as the street is extended in the future. Common Driveways: Common driveways are required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3D.There are 3 common driveways proposed on the site for access to residential lots. Staff has reviewed the lots for compliance with dimensional standards and found Lot 7, Block 2 exceeds the maximum 150 foot length requirement; the Fire Department has reviewed this lot and because it's a straight driveway, has approved the driveway as proposed. Unless limited by a significant geographical feature, or separated by a minimum 5 -foot wide landscaped common lot, all properties that abut a common driveway shall take access from the Howry Lane Subdivision — AZ, PP H-2016-0030 PAGE 7 EXHIBIT A driveway. A note should be placed on the plat stating which lots are required to take access via the common driveways. The setbacks, building envelope, and orientation of the lots and structures are required to be shown on the preliminary plat and/or as an exhibit with the final plat application. A perpetual ingress -egress easement shall be filed with the Ada County recorder, which shall include a requirement for maintenance of a paved surface capable of supporting fire vehicles and equipment. Cul-de-sac: Cul-de-sacs are allowed to be a maximum of 450 feet in length per UDC 11 -6C - 3B.4. All of the proposed cul-de-sacs comply with this standard. Parking: Off-street parking is required on each residential lot in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-6. Landscaping: A landscape plan was submitted with this application for the area proposed to be platted as shown in Exhibit A.3. Landscaping within the common areas is required in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11- 3G -3E. A calculations table should be included on the landscape plan that depicts the total square footage of common area in relation to the proposed number of trees that demonstrates compliance with UDC standards. Landscaping is required along all pathways in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11 -3B - 12C. Tree Mitigation: The City Arborist, Elroy Huff, visited the site on February 24, 2016 and confirmed mitigation requirements for the site. There are a total of 11 existing trees totaling 165 caliper inches that are proposed to be removed with development that require mitigation. The landscape plan includes a calculations table that lists the total caliper inches of trees to be replaced vs. the total number of trees being installed which complies with UDC standards. Parkways: Parkways are not proposed within this development. Open Space: A minimum of 10% qualified open space is required to be provided for this development in accord with UDC 11 -3G -3A.1. Based on the area of the preliminary plat (40.46 acres), a minimum of 4.05 acres of qualified open space is required to be provided as set forth in UDC 11 -3A -3B as proposed. The applicant proposes 7.03 acres (or 17.4%) qualified open space consisting of open grassy areas over 50' x 100' in area and linear open space along the drain ditch. Detailed calculations should be depicted on the landscape plan that demonstrates compliance with the qualified open space requirements listed in UDC 11 -3G -3B. The proposed common area in Block 6 at the east boundary of the site will adjoin common area in Rockhampton Subdivision to the east. Site Amenities: All developments consisting of five acres of more are required to provide a minimum of one site amenity; one additional site amenity is required for each additional 20 acres per UDC 11 -3G -3A.2, in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11 -3G -3C. Based on the area of the preliminary plat (40.46 acres), a minimum of 2 qualified site amenities are required to be provided. The applicant proposes to provide a tot lot, swimming pool and changing rooms on Lot 1, Block 3 and a pathway along the Cunningham Lateral as recreation amenities for the development. A detail of the play equipment for the tot lot should be submitted with the final plat application. Pathways: Pathways should comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-8 and 11 -3B -12C. The Pathways Master Plan does not designate a pathway on this site. An 8 -foot wide pathway is proposed within the common area on Lot 1, Block 3 and Lot 1, Block 1 along the north side of the Cunningham Lateral. Staff recommends the pathway is extended Howry Lane Subdivision — AZ, PP H-2016-0030 PAGE 8 EXHIBIT A south to the sidewalk along W. Aukland Street at the east boundary of the site along Lot 16, Block 3; the landscape plan should be revised accordingly. Since a pathway does not exist to the east in Rockhampton Subdivision (this area is actually fenced off), this will direct pedestrians to the common area in Block 6 which matches up with common area in Rockhampton Subdivision. Five-foot wide pedestrian pathways should also be included between Lots 23 & 24 and 7 & 8, Block 3 connecting to the pathway along the Cunningham Lateral. Four -foot tall bollard lighting, or other appropriate lighting source, is required along all pathways through common areas that are not visible from a public street as set forth in UDC 11 -3A -8H, unless otherwise waived by the Director. The landscape plan should be revised to include lighting along pathways in accord with this requirement. Landscaping is required along pathways as set forth in UDC 11-313-12C. Sidewalks: Sidewalks are required along all public streets as set forth in UDC 11-3A-17. The applicant proposes to construct 5 -foot wide attached sidewalks along internal local streets. Utilities: All development is required to connect to the City water and sewer system unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer in accord with UDC I1 -3A-21. Sewer and water services will be extended into the site from existing main lines in Howry Lane located near the northwest corner of the site. Street lighting is required to be installed within the development in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. Pressurized Irrigation (PI): An underground PI system is proposed to be provided to each lot in the subdivision in accord with UDC 11 -3A-1 5. The system will be operated and maintained by the Homeowner's Association. Storm Drainage: A storm drainage system is required for the development in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. Design and construction shall follow best management practice as adopted by the City in accord with UDC 11-3A-18. Stormwater is proposed to be retained onsite in seepage beds in accord with ACHD requirements. Waterways: The Cunningham Lateral and a drainage ditch bisect this site. 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 applicant proposes to leave the drain ditch open as a linear open space water amenity as allowed by UDC 11 -3A -6A. As such, it's required to be improved as follows: WATER AMENITY: Any body of water either natural or manmade, which either exists or is proposed to be improved as apart of the development, in which its banks in all places adjacent to and located on said development are no steeper than one foot (1) vertical per every four feet (4 ) horizontally and which has a depth and velocity in all places adjacent to and located on said development such that the product of the maximum depth (feet) multiplied by the peak velocity (feetper second) does not exceed four (4). Construction drawings and relevant calculations prepared by a qualified licensed professional registered in the state of Idaho are required to be submitted to both the Director and the authorized representative of the water facility for approval. Note: The drain was left open to the east of this site in Rockhampton Subdivision as a water amenity. Floodplain: This property does not lie within the Meridian Floodplain Overlay District. Building Elevations: The applicant has submitted 10 conceptual sample building elevations for future homes in this development, included in Exhibit A.4. Building materials appear to consist of Howry Lane Subdivision — AZ, PP H-2016-0030 PAGE 9 EXHIBIT A a mix of horizontal and vertical lap and shake siding with stoneibrick accents and asphalt shingles. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application is required to be submitted for approval of the changing rooms and swimming pool prior to issuance of building permits. Compliance with the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and the Architectural Standards Manual is required. Fencing: All fencing should comply with the standards listed in UDC 11 -3A -6B and 11-3A-7. The landscape plan does not depict fencing. Fencing is required adjacent to all micropath connections to distinguish common from private areas, per UDC 11 -3A -7A.7. Fencing details should be included on a revised landscape plan. In summary, Staff recommends approval of the proposed annexation and preliminary plat request for this site with a development agreement and the recommended conditions listed in Exhibit B of this report in accord with the findings contained in Exhibit D. X. EXHIBITS A. Drawings/Other 1. Vicinity/Zoning Map 2. Proposed Preliminary Plat (dated: 4/1/16) & Phasing Plan 3. Proposed Landscape Plan (dated: 3/7/16) 4. Conceptual Building Elevations B. Agency & Department Comments/Conditions C. Legal Description & Exhibit Map for Annexation Boundary D. Required Findings from Unified Development Code Howry Lane Subdivision — AZ, PP H-2016-0030 PAGE 10 EXHIBIT A A. Drawings 1. Vicinity/Zoning Map C RS W J AN CRE K \ DIAMOND RUT �1 Exhibit A Page 1 EXHIBIT A 2. Proposed Preliminary Plat (dated: 4/1/16) & Phasing Plan T • �4 HOWRY LAME SUBDIVISION .�� t k . -.,a,,.. tl. � i:. • ` m D SITUATED IN TK S4.ITI IWF.STIUARTER OMIE NORTHEAZT QUARTER 0FSECTICN33. TOWNSHIP 31NNQNTH. PAN [E t EA$T, OOISE MEHIENAN �. ` -`"-` I ;�, 2 - ¢ CIFFY OF MERMAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO. 2016 ........... ..... I _ s PHASE •. Itl' � I 1 5 =wF-1 • gnu X.. VCMYWB SHEETWDEX 10683 PHASE 3 i ,� – • �..-1'f� to s t39.[(gip .x a w , L—ITw„t ii ei d" 11E r ti -- - e- xnr y'bjE� 6 'S 9 a A" t J nwl•ru �etx a –eac '1 �° � 4I TILT..r!.L -r.-r[... LNld 119E 8lMAMY l -.-. F LEl3BHl � J� t Nb -k r c. n r a >�r+cam f=dJ b V'i � r T3 xs 2! 34 14 1d 1T 16 Il ' tlkSk. tl e rz u �L." _ e m .2 me wo�p C.Ec-uN IE F— r] x} IE is V ;_r k9B�d'tati IT1 ser+d 4� •' Yer K+ +ar 19333. r K Exhibit A Page 2 i PHASE<2 - s PHASE l,gs�s Itl' � PHASE 3 i Exhibit A Page 2 EXHIBIT A 3. Proposed Landscape Plan (dated: 3/7/16) PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR HQWRY LANE SUBDIVISION CITY OF MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO 2016 {OVERALL PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN OWNER wi3 OMPANIE$ 333 E. Ahrdd Wlw. SAN 110 u9k Nft 936+6 120M OHM F. 2MH-6752 r nrn cur_iueeec 2w $. &�wnce are. edea, Ica37a3csaa {2C8j 3?6.7333 4�; 2t&323&336 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT G -VI% larv8sWr.e A161M .10I Cwlwit Ded�n 7184 E. SM— Odie, SIN M5 smwak' AAmu 65251 14801 MO.= Fw: (M 6093066 Exhibit A Page 3 cnxvaanmPrm ■ ■ 1-0.0 Of lnlNTEEGENI .+T"RS,EE • i r .�,,m�, aw a .awes r,u o um�euus mi �`g rm is lue d.rEh . o s_ o EXHIBIT A PLANTING GENEP.AL NOTES: - I I I l _ o,x5 rpxov.srarm owrcn i PPFE,IxEsua.uluMumar +//AIY11 Wnul.t nn. ow --- - .1. w 1xn.. h, r,vr LI.nmNFYJMCb ]b PR°u °l9hwN° , t .t^peurco��m awui.r.0 11 —EEII. n nic�IrorwuN x°r wm°Sa sloewu:a N is c,xt,nxox.wE.,>�h.c5,ra,wnhovuwlra ro sn[�so, I l mx xenxu w,alu. uoMpjxE*hdoESKKh. Yl mx�� GRADING GENERAL NOTES: >k uwxeue �acnnEcr. II II I� - ,xcux®raxxarrf suooix. HARDSCAPE GENERAL NOTES. emu uw5ww55, sem, mrtrEr: TI.., do SIH rcaval GII , snpin. hx Mitl , � x.i w.e M,ex,uw e• �.sa unM m nxRw. pl ,.,I:K,m.,pns� LwICaGper[Ldetim h Ai,u bene laud on hr wh nwlrenr ��,I ,� O�aPfl�9pen -2- GENERAL NOTES: '- � I.. rsrtt 5rntiwt °°s)HtM��°rvntswo�m,sA rtaarn°e° e°Crv.wwi ww.V,toar. w.5°x 5M1wrtlo Illi: r a ld°lII+]RLP .maaGYAS. pNOLi,e C,MNGE4 FE.S/S.R95.Wim , AC4 OP tlSdNANtp5.rE9vuLL°MtCt'ItM[ wuSCuh.xVihS'h rORNEVIS �rYs! s ,�MSm,smw,u.� x°n.v SxuanP rorr uw wm.nce5w xn m:5"�`."S�rew 1P A.. Review Set SHEET INDEX Cover L0.0 General Notes I Sheet Index -11 Overall Preliminary LcndscapePlan/Overall Sheet Layout L3.0 Planting Plans L3.1 -L3.5 Planting Details L7.1 Planting Specifications L8.1 Ins max. A M0s`s Rem rrinM p3A7,1AC6 ewrtw GElIBI']i Noks LQ. I I of ■■ �.4m , EXHIBIT A 4. Conceptual Building Elevations You creates tnis rur trom an appucation that is not ucenseo to punt to novaruF printer (nupv)www.novapar.comj EXHIBIT A -4- EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT B - AGENCY & DEPARTMENT COMMENTS/CONDITIONS 1. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1.1 Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1.1 A Development Agreement (DA) is required as a provision of annexation of this property. Prior to the annexation ordinance approval, a DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian, the property owner(s) at the time of annexation ordinance adoption, and the developer. Currently, a fee of $303.00 shall be paid by the applicant to the Planning Division prior to commencement of the DA. The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six (6) months of the City Council granting annexation. The DA shall, at minimum, incorporate the following provisions: a. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the preliminary plat, phasing plan and building elevations depicted in Exhibit A and the conditions noted in the staff report. b. The applicant shall pipe all irrigation ditches, laterals, canals and drains on the site unless otherwise waived by City Council in accord with UDC 11 -3A -6A. The drainage ditch located south ofS. Hillsdale Park Drive was approved to remain open as a linear open space water amenity as allowed by UDC 11 -3A -6A, as such. it's required to comply with the standards for water amenities listed in UDC 11 -IA -1: Water Amenity. c. The developer shall provide a minimum of 7.03 acres of qualified open space within the development as proposed per the standards listed in UDC 11 -3G -3B. d. The developer shall provide a swimming pool, dressing rooms, a tot lot, and pa4hwa-ys an additional 5% open space as amenities for this development as proposed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11 -3G -3C. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application is required to be submitted for the swimming pool and dressing rooms. e. The property owner shall relinquish their interest in Howry Lane and dedicate right-of-way for a public street in accord with ACHD standards. 1.1.2 The preliminary plat included in Exhibit A.2, dated 4/1/16, shall be revised as follows: a. Note #3: "All lots are residential building lots except Lots 1 & 12, Block 1, Lots 1 & 8, Block 2, Lots 1&50, Block 3, Lots 1, 15, & 27, afml-Block 6, which are common area/drainage storage lots. Lot -57, Block 2, Lot 13 ..." b. Bloek 3 shall be r-eeonfigur-ed to eomply with the No& length standards listed in UDC 11 6C 3F prior- to the Commission hearing. Thep n jvas revised and timp rej�ts a the provision of apathjva up 0 or —ff . Council approved the proposed block length of 1,150+1 -feet because of the slope in excess of 10% that exists in Block 3. c. Common driveways are required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11 -6C -3D. Lot 7, Block 2 exceeds the maximum 150 foot length requirement but has been approved by the Fire Department. d. Provide an emergency turnaround at the north end of S. Taradale Avenue in accord with Fire Department requirements. A temporary turnaround easement may be provided until such time as this street is extended in the future. -5- EXHIBIT A e. Properties that abut a common driveway shall take access from the driveway unless a significant geographical feature exists or is separated by a minimum 5 -foot wide landscaped common lot. A note should be placed on the plat stating which lots are required to take access via the common driveways. f. The setbacks, building envelope, and orientation of the lots and structures accessed by a common driveway are required to be shown on the preliminary plat and/or as an exhibit with the final plat application. g. Staff anticipates the fall 20 -foot wide strip of land to Amity Road will be dedicated to ACHD for right-of-way (ROW) to convert Howry to a public street; however, if there is area outside of the ROW, a portion of the required 20 -foot wide street buffer should be provided with the remainder of the buffer provided when the property to the east develops. h. Provide traffic calming in W. Aukland St. at the east boundary of the site between Rockhampton Subdivision and the proposed development as required by ACHD. 1.1.3 The landscape plan included in Exhibit A.3, dated 3/7/16, shall be revised as follows: a. Include fencing adjacent to all micropath connections to distinguish common from private areas as set forth in UDC 11 -3A -7A.7. b. If the drainage ditch is left open as a water amenity as proposed, it shall be improved per the requirements listed in UDC 11-1A-1 for water amenities. Construction drawings and relevant calculations prepared by a qualified licensed professional registered in the state of Idaho shall be submitted to both the Director and the authorized representative of the water facility for approval. c. Include detailed calculations that demonstrate compliance with the qualified open space requirements listed in UDC 11 -3G -3B. d. Depict 4 -foot tall bollard lighting, or other appropriate lighting source, along all pathways through common areas that are not visible from a public street as set forth in UDC 11 -3A -8H, unless otherwise waived by the Director. Such lighting shall be shielded from adjacent residences. e. Mitigation information shall be included for the 165 caliper inches (as determined by the City Arborist) of trees proposed to be removed from the site in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-313-1OC.5. f. Revise the configuration of the site based on the revisions required to the preliminary plat. Lots 17 and 27, Block 6 do no not match the configuration shown on the preliminary plat. g. Inelude a 5 feat wide pedestr4an path ay between Lots 23 & 24 a*d 7 & 8, Bleek 3 eenneeting to the pathway along the Cunningham Later -al. h. The pathway along tke nefth side of the Gumifighmn Lateful shall extead south to the sidewa4k along W. A+*Ia-nd Stfeet at the east boundafy of the site along Lot 16, WE)& . 1.1.4 Include a detail of the play equipment proposed for the tot lot with the submittal of a final plat application. 1.1.5 The developer shall construct all proposed fencing and/or any fencing required by the UDC, consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-7 and 11 -3A -6B. 1.1.6 The existing structures on the site shall be removed prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. -6- EXHIBIT A 1.1.7 A perpetual ingress -egress easement for the common driveways proposed on the site shall be filed with the Ada County recorder, which shall include a requirement for maintenance of a paved surface capable of supporting fire vehicles and equipment. 1.2 General Conditions of Approval 1.2.1 Comply with all bulk, use, and development standards of the R-8 zoning district listed in UDC Table 11-2A-6. 1.2.2 Comply with all provisions of 11-3A-3 with regard to access to streets. 1.2.3 Construct on -street bikeways on all collector streets as set forth in UDC 11-3A-5. 1.2.4 Comply with the provisions for irrigation ditches, laterals, canals and/or drainage courses, as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6. 1.2.5 Provide a pressurized irrigation system consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A- 15, UDC 11-313-6 and MCC 9-1-28. 1.2.6 Comply with the sidewalk standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-17. 1.2.7 Install all utilities consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-21 and 11-313-5J. 1.2.8 Construct all off-street parking areas consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3C-6 for single-family dwellings. 1.2.9 Construct the required landscape buffers consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11 -3B - 7C. 1.2.10 Construct storm water integration facilities that meet the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3B- 11 C. 1.2.11 Construct all parkways consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11 -3A -17E, 11-3G-3135 and 11-313-7C. 1.2.12 Comply with all subdivision design and improvement standards asset forth in UDC 11-6C-3, including but not limited to cul-de-sacs, alleys, driveways, common driveways, easements, blocks, street buffers, and mailbox placement. 1.2.13 Protect any existing trees on the subject property that are greater than four -inch caliper and/or mitigate for the loss of such trees asset forth in UDC 11-313-10. 1.2.14 Comply with all provisions of UDC 11-3A-3 with regard to maintaining the clear vision triangle. 1.3 Ongoing Conditions of Approval 1.3.1 The applicant and/or assigns shall have the continuing obligation to provide irrigation that meets the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3B-6 and to install and maintain all landscaping as set forth in UDC 11-313-5, UDC 11-313-13 and UDC 11-313-14. 1.3.2 All common open space and site amenities shall be maintained by an owner's association as set forth in UDC 11 -3G -3F1. l .3.3 The project is subject to all current City of Meridian ordinances and previous conditions of approval associated with this site. 1.3.4 The applicant and/or property owner shall have an ongoing obligation to prune all trees to a minimum height of six feet above the ground or sidewalk surface to afford greater visibility of the area. 1.3.5 The applicant shall have an ongoing obligation to maintain all pathways. EXHIBIT A 1.3.6 The applicant has a continuing obligation to comply with the outdoor lighting provisions as set forth in UDC 11-3A-11. 1.3.7 The applicant and/or property owner shall have an ongoing obligation to maintain all landscaping and constructed features within the clear vision triangle consistent with the standards in UDC 1I - 3A -3. 1.4 Process Conditions of Approval 1.4.1 No signs are approved with this application. Prior to installing any signs on the property, the applicant shall submit a sign permit application consistent with the standards in UDC Chapter 3 Article D and receive approval for such signs. 1.4.2 The applicant shall complete all improvements related to public life, safety, and health as set forth in UDC 11 -5C -3B. A surety agreement may be accepted for other improvements in accord with UDC 11 -5C -3C. 1.4.3 The final plat, and any phase thereof, shall substantially comply with the approved preliminary plat as set forth in UDC 11 -6B -3C2. 1.4.4 The applicant shall obtain approval for all successive phases of the preliminary plat within two years of the signature of the City Engineer on the previous final plat as set forth in UDC 11 -6B - 7B (if applicable). 1.4.5 The preliminary plat approval shall be null and void if the applicant fails to either 1) obtain the City Engineer signature on a final plat within two years; or, 2) gain approval of a time extension as set forth in UDC 11-613-7. 1.4.6 Upon installation of the landscaping and prior to inspection by Planning Division staff, the applicant shall provide a written certificate of completion as set forth in UDC 11 -3B -14A. 2. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 2.1 SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 2.2.1 Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub -grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2.2.2 Per Meridian City Code (MCC), the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5. 2.2.3 The applicant shall provide easement(s) for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way (include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20 -feet wide for a single utility, or 30 -feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat, but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian's standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement (on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor, which must include the area of the easement (marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2" x I F map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted, reviewed, and approved prior to development plan approval. -8- EXHIBIT A 2.2.4 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water (MCC 9-2-28C1). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single -point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single -point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 2.2.5 All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. 2.2.6 All irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or lying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be tiled per UDC 11-3A-6. Plans shall be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association (ditch owners), with written approval or non -approval submitted to the Public Works Department. If lateral users association approval can't be obtained, alternate plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Meridian City Engineer prior to final plat signature. 2.2.7 Any existing domestic well system within this project shall be removed from domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8 contact the City of Meridian Engineering Department at (208)898-5500 for inspections of disconnection of services. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation if approved by Idaho Department of Water Resources Contact Robert B. Whitney at (208)334-2190. 2.2.8 Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections (208)375-5211. 2.2.9 Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and activated, fencing installed, drainage lots constructed, road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded, prior to applying for building permits. 2.2.10 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities, etc., prior to signature on the final plat. 2.2.11 All development improvements, including but not limited to sewer and water, fencing, micro - paths, pressurized irrigation and landscaping shall be installed and approved prior to obtaining certificates of occupancy. 2.2.12 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process, prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 2.2.13 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 2.2.14 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.2.15 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 2.2.16 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-1-4B. 2.2.17 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material. -9- EXHIBIT A 2.2.18 The engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3 -feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1 -foot above. 2.2.19 The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 2.2.20 At the completion of the project, the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 2.2.21 100 Watt and 250 Watt, high-pressure sodium street lights shall be required on all public roadways per the City of Meridian Improvement Standards for Street Lighting. All street lights shall be installed at developer's expense. Final design shall be submitted as part of the development plan set for approval, which must include the location of any existing street lights. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting. A copy of the standards can be found on the city of meridian Public Works Department's website at http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272. The contractor's work and materials shall conform to the ISPWC and the City of Meridian Supplemental Specifications to the ISPWC. 2.2.22 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a performance surety in the amount of 125% of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer, water and reuse infrastructure prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety, which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 2.2.23 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20% of the total construction cost for all completed sewer, water and reuse infrastructure for duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety, which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-221. 3. POLICE DEPARTMENT 3.1 The Police Department has no comment on this application. 4. FIRE DEPARTMENT 4.1 One and two family dwellings not exceeding 3,600 square feet require a fire -flow of 1,000 gallons per minute for a duration of 2 hours to service the entire project. One and two family dwellings in excess of 3,600 square feet require a minimum fire flow as specified in Appendix B of the International Fire Code. Fire Hydrant spacing shall be provided as required by Appendix C of the International Fire Code. 4.2 Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department in accordance with International Fire Code Section (IFC) 508.5.4 as follows: -10- EXHIBIT A a. Fire hydrants shall have the 4 '/2" outlet face the main street or parking lot drive aisle. b. Fire hydrants shall not face a street which does not have addresses on it. c. Fire hydrant markers shall be provided per Public Works specifications. d. Fire Hydrants shall be placed on corners when spacing permits. e. Fire hydrants shall not have any vertical obstructions to outlets within 10'. f. Fire hydrants shall be placed 18" above finished grade to the center of the 4 %2" outlets. g. Fire hydrants shall be provided to meet the requirements of IFC Section 509.5. h. Show all proposed or existing hydrants for all new construction or additions to existing buildings within 1,000 feet of the project. 4.3 In accordance with International Fire Code Section 503.2.5 and Appendix D, any roadway greater than 150 feet in length that is not provided with an outlet shall be required to have an approved turn around. Phasing of the project may require a temporary approved turn around on streets greater than 150' in length with no outlet. 4.4 All entrances, internal roads, drive aisles, and alleys shall have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48' outside, per International Fire Code Section 503.2.4. 4.5 All common driveways shall be straight or have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48' outside and have a clear driving surface of 20' in width capable of supporting an imposed weight of 75,000 GVW, per International Fire Code Section 503.2. 4.6 Private Alleys and Fire Lanes shall have a 20' wide improved surface capable of supporting an imposed load of 75,000 lbs. All roadways shall be marked in accordance with Appendix D Section D103.6 Signs. 4.7 Requirements for dead-end fire apparatus access roads that are between 500'-750' in length are as follows: 1) Roadways shall be built to Ada County Highway District cross section standards and have a clear driving surface of 26 -feet in width available at all times and shall have no parking; 2) Streets less than 32 -feet in width shall have no parking on one side; and 3) Streets more than 39 - feet in width shall be allowed to have parking on both sides. These measurements shall be based on the drivable surface dimension. Special approval is required for access roads over 750' in length per International Fire Code Table D 103.6.1. and D 103.6.2. The roadway shall be able to accommodate an imposed load of 75,000 GVW. 4.8 Fire lanes, streets, and structures (including the canopy height of mature trees) shall have a vertical clearance of 13'6 as set forth in International Fire Code Section 503.2.1. 4.9 Operational fire hydrants, temporary or permanent street signs, and access roads with an all weather surface are required to be installed before combustible construction material is brought onto the site, as set forth in International Fire Code Section (IFC) 501.4 and Meridian amendment to IFC 10-4-2J. 4.10 The roadways shall be built to Ada County Highway District cross section standards and have a clear driving surface. Streets less than 26' in width shall have no on -street parking; streets less than 32' in width shall have parking only on one side. These measurements shall be based on the drivable surface dimension exclusive of shoulders. The overhead clearance shall be a minimum of 13' 6". The roadway shall be able to accommodate an imposed load of 75,000 GVW as set forth in International Fire Code Section 503.2.1. and D 103.6.1 and D 103.6.2. 4.11 All portions of the buildings located on this project must be within 150' of a paved surface as measured around the perimeter of the building as set forth in International Fire Code Section 503.1.1. 5. REPUBLIC SERVICES 5.1 Trash from the homes located on common driveways shall be brought to the curb for pick-up. -11- EXHIBIT A 6. PARKS DEPARTMENT 6.1 Mitigation is required for all existing trees 4 -inch caliper or greater that are removed from the site in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-1OC.5. 7. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT 7.1 Site Specific Conditions of Approval 7.1.1 Prior to ACHD's signature on the first final plat, dedicate a 20 -feet wide stripe of right-of-way for the future Howry Lane (public), from Amity Road south to the site. The right-of-way dedication shall encompass the existing private road, Howry Lane. 7.1.2 Prior to ACHD's signature on the first final plat, provide a road trust deposit in the amount of $88,800 ($30,000 for roundabout and $58,800 for Howry Lane improvements). 7.1.3 Construct Stockenham Way with pavement widening, vertical curb, gutter, and a 7 -foot wide attached (or 5 -foot wide detached) concrete sidewalk abutting the site. 7.1.4 Construct Rockhampton Street, onto Stockenham Way at the site's north property line, as proposed. 7.1.5 Construct the internal local streets as 33 to 36 -foot street sections with curb, gutter, and 5 -foot wide attached concrete sidewalks within 50 -feet of right-of-way, as proposed. 7.1.6 Construct a bulb -out with a minimum pavement width of 20 -feet from back of curb to back of curb at the east end of Auckland Street, where the roadway extends from Rock Hampton Subdivision. 7.1.7 Construct 3 cul-de-sac turnarounds with a minimum turning radius of 45 -feet, as proposed. 7.1.8 Construct 2 knuckles, as proposed. 7.1.9 Construct one stub street to the north, Taradale Avenue, located 155 -feet west of the east property line, as proposed. Construct a temporary turnaround at the terminus of Taradale Avenue. The temporary turnaround shall be the dimensional requirements of a standard cul-de-sac and be placed within a temporary turnaround easement. If the temporary easement extends onto a buildable lot, the entire lot shall be encumbered by the easement and identified on the plat as a non -buildable lot until the street is extended. 7.1.10 Submit the bridge plans for the crossing of the Cunningham Lateral and drain ditch (Croft Street, Ashcroft Way, and Hillsdale Park Drive) for review and approval prior to the pre -construction meeting and final plat approval. 7.1.11 Payment of impacts fees are due prior to issuance of a building permit. 7.1.12 Comply with all Standard Conditions of Approval. 7.2 Standard Conditions of Approval 7.2.1 All proposed irrigation facilities shall be located outside of the ACHD right-of-way (including all easements). Any existing irrigation facilities shall be relocated outside of the ACHD right-of-way (including all easements). 7.2.2 Private Utilities including sewer or water systems are prohibited from being located within the ACHD right-of-way. 7.2.3 In accordance with District policy, 7203.3, the applicant may be required to update any existing non-compliant pedestrian improvements abutting the site to meet current Americans with -12- EXHIBIT A Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. The applicant's engineer should provide documentation of ADA compliance to District Development Review staff for review. 7.2.4 Replace any existing damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk and any that may be damaged during the construction of the proposed development. Contact Construction Services at 387-6280 (with file number) for details. 7.2.5 A license agreement and compliance with the District's Tree Planter policy is required for all landscaping proposed within ACRD right-of-way or easement areas. 7.2.6 All utility relocation costs associated with improving street frontages abutting the site shall be borne by the developer. 7.2.7 It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify all existing utilities within the right-of-way. The applicant at no cost to ACHD shall repair existing utilities damaged by the applicant. The applicant shall be required to call DIGLINE (1-811-342-1585) at least two full business days prior to breaking ground within ACHD right-of-way. The applicant shall contact ACHD Traffic Operations 387-6190 in the event any ACHD conduits (spare or filled) are compromised during any phase of construction. 7.2.8 Utility street cuts in pavement less than five years old are not allowed unless approved in writing by the District. Contact the District's Utility Coordinator at 387-6258 (with file numbers) for details. 7.2.9 All design and construction shall be in accordance with the ACHD Policy Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Construction Services procedures and all applicable ACHD Standards unless specifically waived herein. An engineer registered in the State of Idaho shall prepare and certify all improvement plans. 7.2.10 Construction, use and property development shall be in conformance with all applicable requirements of ACRD prior to District approval for occupancy. 7.2.11 No change in the terms and conditions of this approval shall be valid unless they are in writing and signed by the applicant or the applicant's authorized representative and an authorized representative of ACHD. The burden shall be upon the applicant to obtain written confirmation of any change from ACHD. 7.2.12 If the site plan or use should change in the future, ACHD Planning Review will review the site plan and may require additional improvements to the transportation system at that time. Any change in the planned use of the property which is the subject of this application, shall require the applicant to comply with ACHD Policy and Standard Conditions of Approval in place at that time unless a waiver/variance of the requirements or other legal relief is granted by the ACHD Commission. -13- 14 EXHIBIT A Legal Description & Exhibit Map for Annexation Boundary J -U J -U -B ENGINEERS, INC. J -U -B COMPANIES Howry Lane Subdivision Annexation Boundary Description Project Number 10-16-009 March 14, 2016 +�' I LAW £PMAP PINGSGuFoEua I'M- A parcel of land situated in the west half of the northeast quarter of Section 33, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, being more particularly described as follows; BEGINNING at the north quarter -section corner of Section 33, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, which hears N89°14'44"W, 2660.45 feet from the northeast corner of Section 33, Thence S89"14'44"E, 20.00 feet along the north line of the northwest quarter of the northeast quarter; Thence S00"19'12"W, 1329.02 feet parallel with and 20.00 feet from the west line of the northwest quarter of the northeast quarter to the north line of the southwest quarter of the northeast quarter; Thence S89°27'31"E, 1309.05 feet along the north line of the southwest quarter of the northeast quarter to the northeast comer of the southwest quarter of the northeast quarter; Thence 500°22'10�'W,1324.15 feet along the east line of the southwest quarter of the northeast quarter to the southeast corner of the southwest quarter of the northeast quarter, Thence N89°40'19"W, 1327.90 feet along the south line of the southwest quarter of the northeast quarter to the southwest corner of the southwest quarter of the northeast quarter; Thence N00°19'12"E, 1329,10 feet along the west line of the southwest quarter of the northeast quarter to the southwest corner of the northwest quarter of the northeast quarter; Thence NOID'1.9'12"E, 1329.10 feet along the west line of the northwest quarter of the northeast quarter to the POINT OF BEGINNING - The above-described parcel contains 41.07 acres, more or less, Page 1 of 1 a 250 S. Beechwood Avenue, 50te 201, Beise, ID 83709 p 208-376-7350 /` 208.373-9336 w www.jubxcw -14- EXHIBIT A -15- N-1/4 Poe Ll N89'1 4'44'W 2660.45' 28 27 33 34 —20' APN: 51133120800 Line Table No. Direction Length 0 L1 583'14'44"E 220.00'NW4 rn N a NE4 C'2 €4 9 3di6 r � e`I GAL15P $E IN FEET 67 C7 z 589'27'31"E 1309.05' �n o� APN: 51133131200 b ry SW4 NE4 LAOf�+d 3,: W S. N8940'19"4Y 1327.90' lNT, lNQTI PLC i11fE909IDM4dG f7C1�T !W d]pPQNaiEQ I: AEN � -i8 PRO1mi0.c�adl Fltruary Lane Subdivision sHFFr na •fi lP>Qi '� lO1tfJFY GING Psrrt oC 1pOP[a�L5Ep4CE,CTilE PR6PERTY.00 PROiELT MliQU�TNE EkTREB9 riRTlEP P� Meridian Idaho rurnoew a+ia viowEve�xr LwNrP Tea 3114018 Annexation Boundary Section 33, T. 3N., R. 1 E., R.M, — p -15- -15- EXHIBIT A D. Required Findings from Unified Development Code 1. Annexation Findings: Upon recommendation from the Commission, the Council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing, review the application. In order to grant an annexation, the Council shall make the following findings: a. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; The Applicant is proposing to annex the subject 40.46 acre property with an R-8 zoning district and develop 136 new single-family residential homes. The City Council finds that the proposed development and map amendment complies with the Comprehensive Plan with approval of a "step up" in density. (See section VII above for more information.) b. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; The City Council finds that the proposed map amendment to the R-8 zoning district is consistent with the purpose statement for the residential districts as detailed in Section VIII above. c. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; The City Council finds that the proposed map amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. City utilities will be extended at the expense of the applicant. d. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the City including, but not limited to, school districts; and, The City Council finds that the proposed zoning amendment will not result in any adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing services to this site. e. The annexation is in the best of interest of the City (UDC 11 -5B -3.E). The City Council finds annexing this property with an R-8 zoning district as requested is in the best interest of the City. 2. Preliminary Plat Findings: In consideration of a preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat, the decision-making body shall make the following findings: a. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; The City Council finds that the proposed single-family residential development will be in conformance with the Comprehensive plan with approval of a "step up" in density as requested by the applicant. City Council finds the proposed transportation plan is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals, Section VII, of the Staff Report for more information. -16- EXHIBIT A b. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; The City Council finds that public services are available and are adequate to serve the proposed development. (See Exhibit B of the Staff Report for more details from public service providers.) c. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's capital improvement program; Because City water and sewer and any other utilities will be provided by the development at their own cost, the City Council finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. d. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Based on comments provided from the public service providers (i.e., Police, Fire, ACHD, etc.), the City Council dings there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development. (See Exhibit B for more detail.) e. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and The City Council is not aware of any health, safety, or environmental problems associated with the platting of this property. ACHD considers road safety issues in their analysis. f. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. The City Council is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that exist on this site. -17- Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: July 5, 2016 ITEM NUMBER: 60 PROJECT NUMBER: H-2016-0056 ITEM TITLE: Modified Development Agreement Volante Investments O. Modified Development Agreement Volanfe Investments, LLLP (MDA H-2016- 0056) Located at 2600 & 2700 E. Overland Road, in the SE 1/4 of Section 17, Township 3N, Range 1 E (Parcel No.'s Sl 117438626 & S 1 1 1 7438451) 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 subdivisions providing services within the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction, and includes further testimony and comment; and 1.7 WHEREAS, on the 28h day of June, 2016, the Meridian City Council approved certain Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order ("Findings"), which have been incorporated into this Agreement and attached as Exhibit `B"; and 1.8 WHEREAS, the Findings require the Owner/Developer to enter into a Development Agreement before the City Council takes final action on final plat; and 1.9 WHEREAS, Owner/Developer deems it to be in its best interest to be able to enter into this Agreement and acknowledges that this Agreement was entered into voluntarily and at its urging and request; and 1.10 WHEREAS, City requires the Owner/Developer to enter into a development agreement for the purpose of ensuring that the Property is developed and the subsequent use of the Property is in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, herein being established as a result of evidence received by the City in the proceedings for zoning designation from government subdivisions providing services within the planning jurisdiction and from affected property owners and to ensure zoning designation are in accordance with the amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian on April 19, 2011, Resolution No. 11-784, and the UDC, Title 11. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 2. INCORPORATION OF RECITALS: That the above recitals are contractual and binding and are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 3. DEFINITIONS: For all purposes of this Agreement the following words, terms, and phrases herein contained in this section shall be defined and interpreted as herein provided for, unless the clear context of the presentation of the same requires otherwise: 3.1 CITY: means and refers to the City of Meridian, a party to this Agreement, which is a municipal Corporation and government subdivision of the state of Idaho, organized and existing by virtue of law of the State of Idaho, whose address is 33 East Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho 83642. 3.2 OWNER/DEVELOPER: means and refers to Volante Investments, LLLP, whose address is 3804 E. Lanark Street, Meridian, Idaho 83642, the party that is developing said Property and shall include any subsequent owner/developer(s) of the Property. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - VOLANTE INVESTMENTS MDA H-2016-0056 PAGE 2 OF 8 3.3 PROPERTY: means and refers to that certain parcel(s) of Property located in the County of Ada, City of Meridian as described in Exhibit "A" and attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein as if set forth at length. 4. USES PERMITTED BY THIS AGREEMENT: This Agreement shall vest the right to develop the Property in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. 4.1 The uses allowed pursuant to this Agreement are only those uses allowed under the UDC. 4.2 No change in the uses specified in this Agreement shall be allowed without modification of this Agreement. 5. CONDITIONS GOVERNING DEVELOPMENT OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: 5.1. Owner/Developer shall develop the Property in accordance with the following special conditions: 1. All development shall comply with City of Meridian ordinances and the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Development of the west parcel located at 2600 E. Overland Road property shall be generally consistent with the conceptual development plan and building elevations included in Exhibits A.4 and A.5. 3. Prior to development of the east parcel located at 2700 E. Overland Road, the Development Agreement shall be modified to include a conceptual development plan that is consistent with the MU -R FLUM designation contained in the Comprehensive Plan. 4. With development of the subject property, the developer is required to extend sewer & water mains to and through the property. 5. Future development shall comply with the design standards contained in UDC I I - 3A-19 and the Architectural Standards Manual and/or any updated versions thereof. 6. COMPLIANCE PERIOD This Agreement must be fully executed within two (2) years after the date of the Findings for the annexation and zoning or it is null and void. DEFAULT/CONSENT TO DE -ANNEXATION AND REVERSAL OF ZONING DESIGNATION: 7.1 Acts of Default. Either party's failure to faithfully comply with all of the terms and conditions included in this Agreement shall constitute default under this Agreement. 7.2 Notice and Cure Period. In the event of Owner/Developer's default of this Agreement, Owner/Developer shall have thirty (30) days from receipt of DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT- VOLANTE INVESTMENTS MDA H-2016-0056 PAGE 3 OF 8 written notice from City to initiate commencement of action to correct the breach and cure the default, which action must be prosecuted with diligence and completed within one hundred eighty (180) days; provided„ however, that in the case of any such default that cannot with diligence be cured within such one hundred eighty (180) day period, then the time allowed to cure such failure may be extended for such period as may be necessary to complete the curing of the same with diligence and continuity. 7.3 Remedies. In the event of default by Owner/Developer that is not cured after notice as described in Section 7.2, Owner/Developer shall be deemed to have consented to modification of this Agreement and de -annexation and reversal of the zoning designations described herein, solely against the offending portion of Property and upon City's compliance with all applicable laws, ordinances and rules, including any applicable provisions of Idaho Code § § 67-6509 and 67-6511. Owner/Developer reserves all rights to contest whether a default has occurred. This Agreement shall be enforceable in the Fourth Judicial District Court in Ada County by either City or Owner/Developer, or by any successor or successors in title or by the assigns of the parties hereto. Enforcement maybe sought by an appropriate action at law or in equity to secure the specific performance of the covenants, agreements, conditions, and obligations contained herein. 7.4 Delay. In the event the performance of any covenant to be performed hereunder by either Owner/Developer or City is delayed for causes that are beyond the reasonable control of the party responsible for such performance, which shall include, without limitation, acts of civil disobedience, strikes or similar causes, the time for such performance shall be extended by the amount of time of such delay. 7.5 Waiver. A waiver by City of any default by Owner/Developer of any one or more of the covenants or conditions hereof shall apply solely to the default and defaults waived and shall neither bar any other rights or remedies of City nor apply to any subsequent default of any such or other covenants and conditions. 8. INSPECTION: Owner/Developer shall, immediately upon completion of any portion or the entirety of said development of the Property as required by this Agreement or by City ordinance or policy, notify the City Engineer and request the City Engineer's inspections and written approval of such completed improvements or portion thereof in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement and all other ordinances of the City that apply to said Property. 9. REQUIREMENT FOR RECORDATION: City shall record this Agreement, including all of the Exhibits, and submit proof of such recording to Owner/Developer, prior to the third reading of the Meridian Zoning Ordinance in connection with the re -zoning of the Property by the City Council. If for any reason after such recordation, the City Council fails to adopt the ordinance in connection with the annexation and zoning of the Property contemplated hereby, the City shall execute and record an appropriate instrument of release of this Agreement. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT- VOLANTE INVESTMENTS MDA H-2016-0056 PAGE 4 OF 10. ZONING: City shall, following recordation of the duly approved Agreement, enact a valid and binding ordinance zoning the Property as specified herein. 11. SURETY OF PERFORMANCE: The City may also require surety bonds, irrevocable letters of credit, cash deposits, certified check or negotiable bonds, as allowed under the UDC, to insure the installation of required improvements, which the Owner/Developer agrees to provide, if required by the City. 12. CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY: No Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued in any phase in which the improvements have not been installed, completed, and accepted by the City, or sufficient surety of performance is provided by Owner/Developer to the City in accordance with Paragraph 11 above. 13. ABIDE BY ALL CITY ORDINANCES: That Owner/Developer agrees to abide by all ordinances of the City of Meridian unless otherwise provided by this Agreement. 14. NOTICES: Any notice desired by the parties and/or required by this Agreement shall be deemed delivered if and when personally delivered or three (3) days after deposit in the United States Mail, registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed as follows: CITY: City Clerk City of Meridian 33 E. Broadway Ave. Meridian, Idaho 83642 Volante Investment, LLLP 3804 E. Lanark Street Meridian, Idaho 83642 with copy to: City Attorney City of Meridian 33 E. Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho 83642 14.1 A party shall have the right to change its address by delivering to the other party a written notification thereof in accordance with the requirements of this section. 15. ATTORNEY FEES: Should any litigation be commenced between the parties hereto concerning this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled, in addition to any other relief as may be granted, to court costs and reasonable attorney's fees as determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction. This provision shall be deemed to be a separate contract between the parties and shall survive any default, termination or forfeiture of this Agreement. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT- VOLANTE INVESTMENTS MDA H-2016-0056 PAGE 5 OF 8 16. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE: The parties hereto acknowledge and agree that time is strictly of the essence with respect to each and every term, condition and provision hereof, and that the failure to timely perform any of the obligations hereunder shall constitute a breach of and a default under this Agreement by the other party so failing to perform. 17. BINDING UPON SUCCESSORS: This Agreement shall be bindingupon and inure to the benefit of the parties' respective heirs, successors, assigns and personal representatives, including City's corporate authorities and their successors in office. This Agreement shall be binding on the Owner/Developer, each subsequent owner and any other person acquiring an interest in the Property. Nothing herein shall in any way prevent sale or alienation of the Property, or portions thereof, except that any sale or alienation shall be subject to the provisions hereof and any successor owner or owners shall be both benefited and bound by the conditions and restrictions herein expressed. City agrees, upon written request of Owner/Developer, to execute appropriate and recordable evidence of termination of this Agreement if City, in its sole and reasonable discretion, had determined that Owner/Developer has fully performed its obligations under this Agreement. 18. INVALID PROVISION: If any provision of this Agreement is held not valid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such provision shall be deemed to be excised from this Agreement and the invalidity thereof shall not affect any of the other provisions contained herein. 14. DUTY TO ACT REASONABLY: Unless otherwise expressly provided, each party shall act reasonably in giving any consent, approval, or taking any other action under this Agreement. 20. COOPERATION OF THE PARTIES: In the event of any legal or equitable action or other proceeding instituted by any third party (including a governmental entity or official) challenging the validity of any provision in this Agreement, the parties agree to cooperate in defending such action or proceeding. 21. FINAL AGREEMENT: This Agreement sets forth all promises, inducements; agreements, condition and understandings between Owner/Developer and City relative to the subject matter hereof, and there are no promises, agreements, conditions or understanding, either oral or written, express or implied, between Owner/Developer and City, other than as are stated herein. Except as herein otherwise provided, no subsequent alteration, amendment, change or addition to this Agreement shall be binding upon the parties hereto unless reduced to writing and signed by them or their successors in interest or their assigns, and pursuant, with respect to City, to a duly adopted ordinance or resolution of City. 21.1 No condition governing the uses and/or conditions governing re -zoning of the subject Property herein provided for can be modified or amended without the approval of the City Council after the City has conducted public hearing(s) in accordance with the notice provisions provided for a zoning designation and/or amendment in force at the time of the proposed amendment. 22. EFFECTIVE DATE OF AGREEMENT: This Agreement shall be effective on the date the Meridian City Council shall adopt the amendment to the Meridian Zoning Ordinance in DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT- VOLANTE INVESTMENTS MDA H-2016-0056 PAGE 6 OF 8 EXHIBIT A Legal Description of Property Subject to Development Agreement 2600 & 2700 Overland Road Property Description A parcel of land located in the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 Section 17, Township 3 North, Range 2 East, Boise Meridian, Meridian, Ada County, Idaho being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the S1/4 corner of said Section 17 from which the SE comer of said Section 17 bears North 89°46'00" East, 2656.88 feet; thence North 00`24'05" East, 45.00 feet to the SE corner of Destination Place Subdivision filed in Book 93 of Plats at Pages 11190 through 11192, records of Ada County, Idaho, said point being the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING; thence along the East boundary line of said Destination Place Subdivision North 00024'05" East, 1,181.25 feet to a point on the southerly right-of-way line of Interstate 84; thence along said southerly right-of-way line the following 4 courses and distances: thence North 81 °35'27" East, 158.13 feet; thence South 86018'23" East, 471.33 feet; thence 696.48 feet along the arc of a non -tangent curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 1,809.86 feet, a central angle of 22°02'56" and a long chord of 692.19 feet which bears South 75°09'15" East; thence South 64°07'46" East, 23.82 feet to a point on the West boundary line of Overland Way Subdivision filed in Book 46 of Plats at Pages 3798 and 3799, records of Ada County, Idaho; thence along said West boundary line South 00°08'32" East, 980.83 feet to a point on the North right-of-way line of E. Overland Road; Thence along said North right-of-way line the following 7 courses and distances: thence South 89°46'00" West, 600.41 feet; thence North 41'3926" West, 29.30 feet; thence North 00°24'05" East, 9.19 feet; thence South 89°59'52" West, 90.00 feet; thence South 00°24'05" West, 11.56 feet; thence South 45"33'34" West, 28.68 feet, thence South 89°46'00" West, 597.70 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 34 62 acres, more or less. Volanto Investments — MDA H-2016-0056 EXHIBIT B CITY OF FINDINGS OF FACT ON LUSIONS OF LAW CfER,1DIANq,- AND DECISION & ORDER In the Matter of the Request for a New Development Agreement and Modification to the Terms of the Agreement, by Volante Investments, LLLP. Case No(s), H-2016-0056 For the City Council Hearing Date of: June 21, 2016 (Findings on June 28, 2016) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of June 21, 2016, incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of June 21, 2016, incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of June 21, 2016, incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of June 21, 2016, incorporated by reference) B. Conclusions of Law 1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the "Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975," codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code (I.C. §67-6503). 2. The Meridian City Council takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof, The City of Meridian has, by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, which was adopted April 19, 2011, Resolution No. 11 -784 and Maps. 3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-5A. 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s) received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this Decision, which shall be signed by the Mayor and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk upon the applicant, the Community Development Department, the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. 7. That this approval is subject to the Conditions of Approval all in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of June 21, 2016, incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2016-0056 - I - reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application. C. Decision and Order Pursuant to the City Council's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 11-5A and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: 1. The applicant's request for a new development agreement and modification to the terms of the agreement is hereby approved per the conditions of approval in the Staff Report for the hearing date of June 21, 2016, attached as Exhibit A. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits Notice of Development Agreement Duration The development agreement shall be signed by the property owner and retuned to the City within six (6) months of the City Council granting annexation and/or rezone (UDC 11-5E-31)), A development agreement may be modified by the city or an affected party of the development agreement. Decision on the development agreement modification is made by the city council in accord with this chapter. When approved, said development agreement shall be signed by the property owner(s) and returned to the city within six (6) months of the city council granting the modification (UDC 11-513-317). A modification to the development agreement may be initiated prior to signature of the agreement by all parties and/or may be requested to extend the time allowed for the agreement to be signed and returned to the City if filed prior to the end of the six (6) month approval period (UDC 11-513-3F), E. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis 1. The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code 67-8003, denial of a development application entitles the Owner to request a regulatory taking analysis. Such request must be in writing, and must be filed with the City Clerk not more than twenty-eight (28) days after the final decision concerning the matter at issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for Judicial Review may be filed. 2. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian, When applicable and pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521, any affected person being a person who has an interest iii real property which may be adversely affected by the final action of the governing board may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code. F. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of June 21, 2016 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2016-0056 -2- By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the QQZ-_ day of V t kYje 2016. COUNCIL PRESIDENT KEITH BIRD VOTED � 2a COUNCIL VICE PRESIDENT JOE BORTON VOTED AbS r COUNCIL MEMBER ANNE LITTLE ROBERTS VOTED 0 ink COUNCIL MEMBER TY PALMER VOTFD_j ern COUNCIL MEMBER LUKE CAVENER VOTED \I, CrA COUNCIL MEMBER GENESIS MILAM VOTED 2A MAYOR TAMMY de WEERD VOTED (TIE BREAKER) Mayor Ta y d eerd Attest: City of ® EIDTAN'- onHo Jacy Jone City Clerk `°F, SERI Vp6q °� n1e !4,EFSJ0. Copy served upon Applicant, Community Development Department, Public Works Department and City Attorney. By: Dated: (-Q City Clerk's Office CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2016-0056 - 3 - STAFF REPORT HEARING DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: EXHIBIT A June 21, 2016 Mayor and City Council Sonya Watters, Associate City Planner 208-884-5533 Volante Investments — MDA H-2016-0056 I. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST fERIDIAN, 11-� The applicant, Volante Investments, LLLP, requests a new development agreement and modification (MDA) to the conditions of approval referenced in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order approved with the annexation and zoning request. See Section IXAnalpsis for more information. II. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the proposed MDA as requested by the applicant. The Meridian City Council heard these items on June 21. 2016. At the public hearing. the Council approved the subject MDA reouest p. Summary of City Council Public Hearin¢: I. In favor: Brad Miller Applicant's Representative ii. In opposition: None III. Cnmmenfin2 None iyApplicant's Representative (in agreement with staff renortl Y. Staff presenting application: Sonya Watters yI. Other staff commenting on apnlicadon: None b. Ka issuetsl of Public Testimony: L None is Kty Issues of Discussion by Council: L NDM d. Kev Council Changes to Staff/Commission Recommendation 1. None III. PROPOSED MOTION 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, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications.) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny 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 (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) Volmte Investments — MDA H-2016-0056 EXHIBIT A IV. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS A. Site Address/Location: The site is generally located at 2600 & 2700 E. Overland Road, in the SE'/4 of Section 17, Township 3N., Range 1E. — Parcel No.'s: Sl 117438626 & S1117438451 B. Owner: Volume Investments, LLLP 3804 E. Lanark Street Meridian, ID 83642 C. Applicant: Same as Owner D. Representative: Brad Miller, Van Auker Companies 3084 E. Lanark Street Meridian, ID 83642 E. Applicant's Statement/Justification: Please see applicant's narrative for this information. V. PROCESS FACTS A. The subject application is for a development agreement modification. A public hearing is required before the City Council on this matter, consistent with Meridian City Code Title 11, Chapter 5. B. Newspaper notifications published on: May 30 and June 13, 2016 C. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: May 26, 2016 D. Applicant posted notice on site by: June 10, 2016 VI. LAND USE A. Existing Land Use(s): This property consists of vacant/undeveloped agricultural land, zoned C -G. B. Character of Surrounding Area and Adjacent Land Use and Zoning: North: Interstate 84, zoned I -L; and offices and a hotel, zoned L -O and C -G respectively West: Vacant/undeveloped land, various restaurant and commercial uses and an animal care facility, zoned C -G South: E. Overland Road and office uses, zoned C -G East: Rural residential properties, zoned Rt in Ada County C. History of Previous Actions: The subject 34.62 acre property, formerly known as the Thomas and Worst properties, was annexed in 1994 and zoned C -G (Ordinance No's: 661 & 665). It was part of a larger 167 acre area which included the 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 medical center and hospital. A development agreement was required as a provision of annexation; only the St. Luke's property has entered into a DA (Inst. #10002183, Amended as Inst. #101048098), the subject property has not. VII. ANALYSIS Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation: The applicant requests a new development Volame Investments — MDA 14-2016-0056 EXHIBIT A agreement (DA) per requirement of the annexation. The provisions contained in the annexation Findings under the Conclusions section (pg. 10-13) (see Exhibit A.2) are as follows: All development must comply with City of Meridian ordinances and the Comprehensive Plan. The property is required to connect to Meridian water and sewer and resolve how the water and sewer mains will serve the land. Approval of a conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned development (PD) is required. The applicant proposes to modify the provisions as follows: (Staffs comments in italics) Remove the requirement for a CUP/PD and not require a CUP for principal permitted uses in the C- G zoning district. The Citypreviously required a PD application to be submitted with a conceptual development plan, followed up with a CUP application with a detailed developmentplan with annexation applications that did not include a conceptplan,for the site to ensure development consistent with the Mixed Use —Regional (MU --R) Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designation. The applicant has submitted a concept plan for the west parcel but not the east with this application. Staff is amenable to removing this condition but recommends the DA is modified prior to development of the east parcel to include a concept plan that is consistent with the MU -R FLUM designation. Remove the requirement for connection to Meridian water and sewer and to resolve how the water and sewer mains will serve the land. Since the annexation of the property, sewer and water mains have been stubbed to both of the subject parcels. Because services are still required to be extended to the structure(s) and through the property, staff recommends leaving a variation of this condition in as follows: "With development of the subject property, the developer is required to extend sewer & water mains to and through the property. " Add a provision that allows 24 hour business operation on the property located at 2600 E. Overland Road. Because the property at 2600 E. Overland Road is not adjacent to a residential use( s) or resident zoning, hours of operation are not restricted and 24 hour operation is allowed. Therefore, adding this provision is not necessary. Since this property was annexed in 1994, the City has adopted design standards for site layout and structures. Staff recommends a provision is added in the DA that requires future development to comply with the design standards contained in UDC 11-3A-19 and the Architectural Standards Manual. Site plan: The conceptual development plan submitted with this application depicts an 85,000 square foot single -story retail building at the rear of the site with associated parking and "vacant land" in the front adjacent to Overland Road. Two public streets are also depicted, Cinema Drive, which will extend cast/west from the existing stub at the west boundary to S. Wells Avenue proposed north/south along the east boundary of the site. Building Elevations: Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the future building on this site shown on the concept plan. Materials consist of split face and smooth face CMU, metal wall panel accents and standing seam metal canopies. The future structure is required to comply with the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual. Comprehensive Plan: The purpose of MU -R designated areas, is to provide a mix of employment, retail, and residential dwellings and public uses near major arterial intersections. The intent is to integrate a variety of uses together, including residential, and to avoid predominantly single use Volume Investments — MDA H-2016-0056 EXHIBIT A developments such as a regional retail center with only restaurants and other commercial uses. Developments should be anchored by uses that have a regional draw with the appropriate supporting uses. The proposed retail store should provide a regional draw and also provide employment opportunities for area residents. Retail commercial uses should comprise a maximum of 50% of the development area; the developer may be eligible for additional area under certain provisions described on page 31 of the Comprehensive Plan. Apartments exist approximately'/. mile to the west (Sagecrest) and to the south (Gramercy) which will assist in supporting the commercial uses. Staff recommends approval of the appheant's requested modifications to the DA provisions as modified by staff in Exhibits A.3 with inclusion of the conceptual site plan and building elevations in Exhibits A.4 and A.S. VIII. EXHIBITS A. Drawings/Other 1. Vicinity/Zoning Map 2. Development Agreement Provisions from Findings 3. Applicant Proposed & Staff Recommended Development Agreement Provisions 4. Proposed Conceptual Development Plan (dated: April 12, 2016) 5. Proposed Conceptual Building Elevations (dated: April 11, 2016) 6. Legal Description of Property Subject to Development Agreement VoI me Investments — MDA H-2016-0056 Exhibit A.1: Vicinity/Zoning Map Volmte Investments — MDA H-2016-0056 EXHIBIT A Exhibit A.2: Development Agreement Provisions from Findings CONCLUSIONS 1../ That all the procedural requirements of the Local. Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met, including the mailing of notice to owners of property within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's property., 2.Z That the City of Meridian has authority to annex land pursuant to 50-222, Idaho Code, and Section 11-2-917 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian; that exercise of the City' pnnexation-authority is a Legislative function. 3. ✓/That the Planning and Zoning Comanission has judged this annexation and zoning application under Section 90-222, Idaho ode, Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, the Meridian City Ordinances, the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the record submitted to it and things of which it can take judicial notice. 4. /That all notice and hearing requirements set forth in Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been complied with. 5.� That the Commission may take judicial notice of government ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions Volante Investments — MDA H-2016-0056 6 EXHIBIT A existing within the City and State. 6.P' That the land within the annexation is contiguous to the present City limits of the city of Meridian, and the annexation would not e a shoestring annexation. 7. That the annexation 'application has been initiated by the Applicant with the consent of the titled owners and the annexation is not upon the initiation of the City of Meridian. B." That since the annexation and zoning of land is a legislative function, the City has authority to place conditions upon the annexation of land. Hurt vs. The City of Idaho Falls, 105 Idaho 65, 665 P.D 1035 (19$3). 9." That the development of annexed land must meet and comply with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and in particular Section 11-9-616, which pertains to development time schedules and requirements, 11-9-605 M. which pertains to the tiling of ditches and waterways, and 11-6-606 B 19, which pertains to pressurized irrigation.;- 10." /That the proposed uses of the St. Lukes' and the State properties, determined from the requested zoning, are in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, and therefore those annexations and zonings are in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; that the use of the Peck property for a R-4 Residential use is not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, but the use of General Retail and Service commercial, as requested on the date of the hearing, would be; that whether or not the requests by the Thomas' and the Wursts for an R-15 Residential use are in compliance with Volante investments — MDA H-2016-0056 7 EXHIBIT A the Meridian Comprehensive plan depends on whether they are conducted under a planned unit development procedures and as conditional uses, as suggested in the Comprehensive Plan. 1�> It is concluded as stated above in paragraph 19 of the Findings, that development in these areas should be based on functional plans and proposals in order to ensure that the proposed uses conform to the Comprehensive Plan policies and are compatible with the surroundings neighborhoods; no plans were submitted with the annexation application showing the development of the Wurst and Thomas properties and thus it is difficult to zone the property without knowing the type of proposed development; that it is, however, concluded that the lack of plans for the property should not be an impediment to its annexation, but the development of the property must be controlled as a condition of annexation 12. 41, That the requirements of the Meridian City Engineer, the requirements of 11-9-605 G I., planting strips, 11-9-605 9, park or open spacer 11-9-605 K, linear open space, 11-9-605 L, pedestrian pathways, 11-9-605 M, and 11-9-606 S 14., pressurized irrigation shall be met and addressed in�a development Agreement. That all ditches, canals, and waterways shall be tiled and pressurized irrigation installed as a condition of annexation and if not so done the property shall be subject to de -annexation. 14Y That the Applicant will he required to connect to Meridian water and sewer and resolve how the water and sewer mains will serve the land; that the development of the property shall he subject to and controlled by the Subdivision and Development Volante Investments — MDA 1-I-2016-0056 8 EXHIBIT A Ordinance; that, as a condition of annexation, the Applicant shall be required to enter into a development agreement as authorized by 11-2-416 L and 11-2-417 D; that the development agreement shall address the inclusion of these conclusions, and other matters, as a condition of annexation, require that the Applicant, or if required, any assigns, heirs, executors or personal representatives, pay, when required, any impact, development, or transfer fee, adopted by the City; that there shall be no annexation until the requirements of this paragraph are net or, if necessary, the property shall be subject to de -annexation and loss Of City services, if the requirements of this paragraph are not met. 15.E That these conditions shall run with the land and bind the applicant, the titled owners, and their assigns. 16. with compliance of the conditions contained herein, the annexation and zoning; as requested, would be in the best interest of the City of Meridian; provided, however, that the annexation and zoning of the Thomas and Wurst properties shall he conditioned on development being conducted under Planned Unit Develo n procedures and as conditional uses; it is specifically concluded that in this area a commercial use would be more appropriate than the R-15 proposed use; that the Commission, believes however, that the use of the property is more the decision of the land owner as long as it is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. 17. That if these conditions of approval are met the Apt property shall be subject to de -annexation. Volmte Investments — MDA H-2016-0056 9 EXH BIT A Exhibit A.3: Proposed Development Agreement Provisions 1. All development shall comply with City of Meridian ordinances and the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Development of the west parcel located at 2600 E. Overland Road property shall be generally consistent with the conceptual development plan and building elevations included in Exhibits A.4 and A.S. 3. Prior to development of the east parcel located at 2700 E. Overland Road, the Development Agreement shall be modified to include a conceptual development plan that is consistent with the MU -R FLUM designation contained in the Comprehensive Plan. 4. With development of the subject property, the developer is required to extend sewer & water mains to and through the property. 5. Future development shall comply with the design standards contained in UDC 11-3A-19 and the Architectural Standards Manual and/or any updatedversions thereof. Volmte Investments — MDA H-2016-0056 10 PAR( OES¶NATIOA PL BLOT 6.Exhibit A.4: Proposed Conceptual Development Plan (dated: April 12, 2016) E OVERLAND RD °i Volante Investments – MDA H-2016-0056 I1 AIAWS111708628 FAR:30% MAX. BIIILOING HEIGHT'. 334' ZONING: C G - GENERAL RETNL AND SERVICE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT TOTAL S RE MEAT 816,313 S,F:11 B T6 ACRES TOTALPARKINGAREA: 1iMSS.F. TOTAL PARKING LANOSCAPE AREA: 35,617 SF, PARKING LOT LANDSCAPE PROVIDED: V% TOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA: SB,58B S.F. PARKING STALLS REQUIRED', 170 PARKING STALLS PROVIDED 485 PARKING STALL SIZE I 9,SM0' ADA STALLS RFQUIRED:9 ADA STALLS PROVIDED', 10 BICYCLE SPACES REGUIRED: 30 BICYCLESPACM PROVIDED: 32 .P—.PA. ACRES 85,0011 SF MAJORA 4Bi STALLS 67WIM �.11.11P rt ..hl tA„ 7�n.A„a .�. 1 .� .AULG wA,SnN LEGEND NUMBER OF STANDARD PARNNGSPACES ® CMT CORRAL PARSPACES NUMBER KING T T PER - PROPERTYIPARCELLINE BUILDING LINE ------ EASEMENT CONCRETE SIDEWALK FrMT �j BICYCLE PARKING AIAWS111708628 FAR:30% MAX. BIIILOING HEIGHT'. 334' ZONING: C G - GENERAL RETNL AND SERVICE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT TOTAL S RE MEAT 816,313 S,F:11 B T6 ACRES TOTALPARKINGAREA: 1iMSS.F. TOTAL PARKING LANOSCAPE AREA: 35,617 SF, PARKING LOT LANDSCAPE PROVIDED: V% TOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA: SB,58B S.F. PARKING STALLS REQUIRED', 170 PARKING STALLS PROVIDED 485 PARKING STALL SIZE I 9,SM0' ADA STALLS RFQUIRED:9 ADA STALLS PROVIDED', 10 BICYCLE SPACES REGUIRED: 30 BICYCLESPACM PROVIDED: 32 .P—.PA. .1. nim m �.11.11P rt ..hl tA„ 7�n.A„a .�. 1 .� .AULG wA,SnN PI.. 3WµJPof 1.11 MtlwpY:kluAOlg— LEGALOESCRPTION'. BEING APORTION OF PARCEL 1. LOCATED IN THE SW i OF THESE $ OF SECTION 17, TAN., RIE, B M. BOISE. ADA COUNTY, IDAHO NCH SITE PLAN SCALE! i= 40'-W ° •'' •. .® w dW—=161s vo �o FXHTTRtf PR B,3TEIMN.IMINMY G1 EXHIBIT A Exhibit A.5: Proposed Conceptual Building Elevations (dated: April 11, 2016) wince lir = r.w MGI E AnoN LEFT ELEVATION Volante Investments — NIDA H-2016-0056 12 EXHIBIT A Exhibit A.6: Legal Description of Property Subject to Development Agreement 2600 & 2700 Overland Road Property Description A parcel of land located in the SW 114 of the SE 114 Section 17, Township 3 North, Range 2 East, Boise Meridian, Meridian, Ada County, Idaho being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the 5114 corner of said Section 17 from which the SE comer of said Section 17 bears North 89°46'00" East, 2656.88 feet; thence North 00'24'05" East, 45.00 feet to the SE. corner of Destination Place Subdivision filed in Book 93 of Plats at Pages 11190 through 11192, records of Ada County, Idaho, said point being the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING; thence along the East boundary line of said Destination Place Subdivision North 0002405" East, 1,181.25 feet to a point on the southerly right-of-way line of Interstate 84; thence along said southerly right-of-way line the following 4 courses and distances: thence North 8103627" East, 158.13 feet; thence South 86'18'23" East, 471.33 feet, thence 695.48 feet along the arc of a non -tangent curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 1,609.86 feet, a central angle of 22°02'56" and a long chord of 692.19 feet which bears South 75°09'15" East; thence South 64°OT46" East, 23.82 feet to a point on the West boundary line of Overland Way Subdivision filed in Book 46 of Plats at Pages 3798 and 3799, records of Ada County, Idaho; thence along said West boundary line South 00°08'32" East, 980.83 feet to a point on the North right-of-way line of E. Overland Road; Thence along said North right-of-way line the following 7 courses and distances: thence South 89'46'00" West, 600.41 feet; thence North 41'31Y26" West, 29.30 feet; thence North 00"24'05" East, 9.19 feet; thence South 89059'52" West, 90.00 feet; thence South 00024'05" West, 11.56 feet; thence South 45'33'34" West, 28.68 feet; thence South 89°46'00" West. 597.70 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 34.62 acres, more or less. V olante Investments — MDA H-2016-0056 13 EXHIBIT A Volante Investments – MDA H-2016-0056 Legal Description of Property Subject to Development Agreement CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER 0 ' In the Matter of the Request for a New Development Agreement and Modification to the Terms of the Agreement, by Volante Investments, LLLP. Case No(s). H-2016-0056 For the City Council Hearing Date of: June 21, 2016 (Findings on June 28, 2016) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of June 21, 2016, incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of June 21, 2016, incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of June 21, 2016, incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of June 21, 2016, incorporated by reference) B. Conclusions of Law 1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the "Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975," codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code (I.C. §67-6503). 2. The Meridian City Council takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has, by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, which was adopted April 19, 2011, Resolution No. 11 -7 84 and Maps. 3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-5A. 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s) received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this Decision, which shall be signed by the Mayor and City Cleric and then a copy served by the Clerk upon the applicant, the Community Development Department, the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. 7. That this approval is subject to the Conditions of Approval all in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of June 21, 2016, incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2016-0056 - 1 - reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application. C. Decision and Order Pursuant to the City Council's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 11-5A and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: 1. The applicant's request for a new development agreement and modification to the terms of the agreement is hereby approved per the conditions of approval in the Staff Report for the hearing date of June 21, 2016, attached as Exhibit A. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits Notice of Development Agreement Duration The development agreement shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the City within six (6) months of the City Council granting annexation and/or rezone (UDC 11-513-31)). A development agreement may be modified by the city or an affected party of the development agreement. Decision on the development agreement modification is made by the city council in accord with this chapter. When approved, said development agreement shall be signed by the property owner(s) and returned to the city within six (6) months of the city council granting the modification (UDC 11-513-3F). A modification to the development agreement may be initiated prior to signature of the agreement by all parties and/or may be requested to extend the time allowed for the agreement to be signed and returned to the City if filed prior to the end of the six (6) month approval period (UDC 11-513-317). E. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis 1. The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code 67-8003, denial of a development application entitles the Owner to request a regulatory taking analysis. Such request must be in writing, and must be filed with the City Clerk not more than twenty-eight (28) days after the final decision concerning the matter at issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for Judicial Review may be filed. 2. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian. When applicable and pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521, any affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the final action of the governing board may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code. F. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of June 21, 2016 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2016-0056 - 2 - -k h By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the day of 2016. COUNCIL PRESIDENT KEITH BIRD VOTED - � COUNCIL VICE PRESIDENT JOE BORTON VOTED a bSc r-,- - COUNCIL MEMBER ANNE LITTLE ROBERTS VOTED a'1bScn 4 - COUNCIL MEMBER TY PALMER VOTED 2c, COUNCIL MEMBER LUKE CAVENER VOTED \1 to, COUNCIL MEMBER GENESIS MILAM VOTED f G MAYOR TAMMY de WEERD VOTED (TIE BREAKER) Mayor Ta y d eerd Attest:c0.+4o�P-tVn Aucvsrr'9� 2 City of FrRIpIA H u Jacy Jone w City Clerk y� SEP Vp�� °/ IYr tP,445UQ0 Copy served upon Applicant, Community Development Department, Public Works Department and City Attorney. By: Dated: City C erk's ffice CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2016-0056 - 3 - EXHIBIT A STAFF REPORT E TIMI /j N HEARING DATE: June 21, 2016 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Sonya Watters, Associate City Planner 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: Volante Investments — MDA H-2016-0056 I. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST The applicant, Volante Investments, LLLP, requests a new development agreement and modification (MDA) to the conditions of approval referenced in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order approved with the annexation and zoning request. See Section IXAnalysis for more information. II. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the proposed MDA as requested by the applicant. The Meridian City Council heard these items on June 21, 2016, At the public hearing. the Council approved the subject MDA request. III. PROPOSED MOTION 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, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications.) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny 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 (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) Volante Investments — MDA H-2016-0056 Summary of City Council Public Hearin: L In favor: Brad Miller, Applicant's Representative ii In opposition: None UL Commenting: None Ly: Written testimony: Brad Miller, Applicant's Representative (in agreement with staff reportl y. Staff presenting application: Sonya Watters A Other staff commenting on application: None 1, Key issue(s) of Public Testimony: L None -c� Key Issues of Discussion by Council: L None d� Key Council Changes to Staff/Commission Recommendation L None III. PROPOSED MOTION 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, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications.) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny 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 (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) Volante Investments — MDA H-2016-0056 EXHIBIT A IV. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS A. Site Address/Location: The site is generally located at 2600 & 2700 E. Overland Road, in the SE 1/4 of Section 17, Township 3N., Range IE. — Parcel No.'s: S1117438626 & S1117438451 B. Owner: Volante Investments, LLLP 3804 E. Lanark Street Meridian, ID 83642 C. Applicant: Same as Owner D. Representative: Brad Miller, Van Auker Companies 3084 E. Lanark Street Meridian, ID 83642 E. Applicant's Statement/Justification: Please see applicant's narrative for this information. V. PROCESS FACTS A. The subject application is for a development agreement modification. A public hearing is required before the City Council on this matter, consistent with Meridian City Code Title 11, Chapter 5. B. Newspaper notifications published on: May 30 and June 13, 2016 C. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: May 26, 2016 D. Applicant posted notice on site by: June 10, 2016 VI. LAND USE A. Existing Land Use(s): This property consists of vacant/undeveloped agricultural land, zoned C -G. B. Character of Surrounding Area and Adjacent Land Use and Zoning: North: Interstate 84, zoned I -L; and offices and a hotel, zoned L -O and C -G respectively West: Vacant/undeveloped land, various restaurant and commercial uses and an animal care facility, zoned C -G South: E. Overland Road and office uses, zoned C -G East: Rural residential properties, zoned R1 in Ada County C. History of Previous Actions: The subject 34.62 acre property, formerly known as the Thomas and Wurst properties, was annexed in 1994 and zoned C -G (Ordinance No's: 661 & 665). It was part of a larger 167 acre area which included the 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 medical center and hospital. A development agreement was required as a provision of annexation; only the St. Luke's property has entered into a DA (Inst. #10002183, Amended as Inst. #101048098), the subject property has not. VIL ANALYSIS Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation: The applicant requests a new development Volante Investments — MDA H-2016-0056 EXHIBIT A agreement (DA) per requirement of the annexation. The provisions contained in the annexation Findings under the Conclusions section (pg. 10-13) (see Exhibit A.2) are as follows: All development must comply with City of Meridian ordinances and the Comprehensive Plan. The property is required to connect to Meridian water and sewer and resolve how the water and sewer mains will serve the land. Approval of a conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned development (PD) is required. The applicant proposes to modify the provisions as follows: (Staff's comments in italics) Remove the requirement for a CUP/PD and not require a CUP for principal permitted uses in the C- G zoning district. The City previously required a PD application to be submitted with a conceptual development plan, followed up with a CUP application with a detailed development plan with annexation applications that did not include a concept plan for the site to ensure development consistent with the Mixed Use — Regional (MU -R) Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designation. The applicant has submitted a concept plan for the west parcel but not the east with this application. Staff is amenable to removing this condition but recommends the DA is modified prior to development of the east parcel to include a concept plan that is consistent with the MU -R FLUM designation. Remove the requirement for connection to Meridian water and sewer and to resolve how the water and sewer mains will serve the land. Since the annexation of the property, sewer and water mains have been stubbed to both of the subject parcels. Because services are still required to be extended to the structure(s) and through the property, staff recommends leaving a variation of this condition in as follows: "With development of the subject property, the developer is required to extend sewer & water mains to and through the property. " Add a provision that allows 24 hour business operation on the property located at 2600 E. Overland Road. Because the property at 2600 E. Overland Road is not adjacent to a residential use(s) or resident zoning, hours of operation are not restricted and 24 hour operation is allowed. Therefore, adding this provision is not necessary. Since this property was annexed in 1994, the City has adopted design standards for site layout and structures. Staff recommends a provision is added in the DA that requires future development to comply with the design standards contained in UDC 11-3A-19 and the Architectural Standards Manual. Site plan: The conceptual development plan submitted with this application depicts an 85,000 square foot single -story retail building at the rear of the site with associated parking and "vacant land" in the front adjacent to Overland Road. Two public streets are also depicted; Cinema Drive, which will extend east/west from the existing stub at the west boundary to S. Wells Avenue proposed north/south along the east boundary of the site. Building Elevations: Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the future building on this site shown on the concept plan. Materials consist of split face and smooth face CMU, metal wall panel accents and standing seam metal canopies. The future structure is required to comply with the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual. Comprehensive Plan: The purpose of MU -R designated areas, is to provide a mix of employment, retail, and residential dwellings and public uses near major arterial intersections. The intent is to integrate a variety of uses together, including residential, and to avoid predominantly single use Volante Investments — MDA H-2016-0056 EXHIBIT A developments such as a regional retail center with only restaurants and other commercial uses. Developments should be anchored by uses that have a regional draw with the appropriate supporting uses. The proposed retail store should provide a regional draw and also provide employment opportunities for area residents. Retail commercial uses should comprise a maximum of 50% of the development area; the developer may be eligible for additional area under certain provisions described on page 31 of the Comprehensive Plan. Apartments exist approximately 1/4 mile to the west (Sagecrest) and to the south (Gramercy) which will assist in supporting the commercial uses. Staff recommends approval of the applicant's requested modifications to the DA provisions as modified by staff in Exhibits A.3 with inclusion of the conceptual site plan and building elevations in Exhibits A.4 and A.S. VIII. EXHIBITS A. Drawings/Other 1. Vicinity/Zoning Map 2. Development Agreement Provisions from Findings 3. Applicant Proposed & Staff Recommended Development Agreement Provisions 4. Proposed Conceptual Development Plan (dated: April 12, 2016) 5. Proposed Conceptual Building Elevations (dated: April 11, 2016) 6. Legal Description of Property Subject to Development Agreement Volante Investments — MDA H-2016-0056 IC -C Exhibit A.1: Vicinity/Zoning Map EXHIBIT A L IDf E Mdgac V1 ew D r cn e C -G E Gent ry a E Griffon 5t Volante Investments — MDA H-2016-0056 5 E Promer Sl E Blume He rac�" � r Ti - R X R-40 m E Btue - X Tick Stl I a E Griffon 5t Volante Investments — MDA H-2016-0056 5 E Promer Sl EXHIBIT A Exhibit A.2: Development Agreement Provisions from Findings CCl'biCL71SI03�1� r 1. Z That all the procedural requirements of the Local planning Act and of the ordinances of the City Of Meridian have been met, including the mailing of notice to owners sof property within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's ,property. r 2. X That the City of Meridian has authority to annex land pursuant to 50-222, Idaho Code, and Section 11--2-417 of the Revised and Compiled ordinance r. of the City of Meridian; that exercise of the City's vexation -authority is a Legislative function. 3. That the Planningand zoning Commission has judged this annexation and zoning application under Section 50-222, Idaho ode, 71tle 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, the Meridian City Ordinances, the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the record submitted to it and things of which it can take judicial notice. 4. 'That all notice and hearing requirements set forth in Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, and the ordinances of the City of Meridian h ve been computed with. 5. That the Co fission may take judicial notice of government ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions Volante Investments — MDA H-2016-0056 6 EXHIBIT A existing within the City and State. 6. V That the land within the annexation is contiguous to the present City Limits of the City of Meridian, and the annexation would not he a shoestring annexation. 7. That the annexation application has been initiated by the Applicant with the consent of the titled owners and the annexation is not upon . the initiation oaf the City of Meridian. 8 .J That since the annexation and zoning of laud is a legislative function, the City has authority to place conditions upon the annexation of land. Burt vs. Th itv of Idaho Falls. 105 Idaho 65, 6.65 P.D 1475 (1983). 9. That the development of annexed land must meet and comply with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and in particular Section 11-9-616, which pertains to development time schedules and requirements, 11-9-605 K. which pertains to the tiling of ditches and waterways, and 11-6-606 B 14, which pertains to pressurized irrigation." 10. That the proposed uses of the St. Lukes' and the State properties, determined fro>n the requested zoning, are in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, and therefore those annexations and zonings are in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; that the use of the peck property for a R-4 Residential use is not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plant, but the ua+e of General Detail. and Service Commerciale as requested on the dame of the hearing, would be; that whether or not the requsats by the Thomas, and the Wurets for an R-15 Residential use are in compliance with Volante Investments — MDA H-2016-0056 7 EXHIBIT A the Meridian Comprehensive plan depends on whether they are conducted under a planned unit development procedures and as conditional uses, as suggested ire the Comprehensive Plan. (E -)It is concluded as stated above in paragraph 19 of the Findings, that development in theseareas should be based on functional plans and proposals in order to ensure that the proposed uses conform to the Comprehensive Plan policies and are compatible with the surroundings neighborhoods; no plans were submitted with the annexation application shoring the development of the Wurs . and Thomas properties and thus it is difficult to zone the property without knowing the type of proposed development; that it is, however, concluded that the lack of plans for the property should not be an impediment to its annexation, but the development of the property must be controlled as a condition of annexation._ 12. " That the requiremexits of the )~Meridian City Engineer, the requirements of 11-9-605 G i . , planting strips, 11-9-605 8, park or open space, 11-9-605 K, linea.f open space, 11-9-605 L, pedestrian pathways, 11-9-605 N. and 11-9-606 B 14., pressurized irrigation shall be met and addressed ire --a development Agreement. 1'3 That all ditches, canals, and waterways shall be tiled and pressurized irrigation installed as a condition of annexation and if not o done the property shall. be subject to de -annexation. 1�4:.�` That the Applicant will be required to connect to P'P 9 Meridian water and sewer and resolve how the water and sewer mains will serve the land; that the development of the property shall be subject to and controlled by the Subdivision and Development Volante Investments — MDA H-2016-0056 8 EXHIBIT A Ordinance; that, as s condition of annexation, the -Applicant shall be required to enter into a development t agreement as authorized by 11-2-416 L and 11-2-417 D; that the developmerit agreement shall address this inclusion of these conclusions, and other matters, as a condition of annexation, require that the Applicant,, or if required, any assigns, heirs, executers or psersonal. representatives, Pay, when required, any impact, development, or transfer fee, adopted by the City; that there shall be no annexation until the requirements of this paragraph are stet or, if necessary, the property shall be subject to de -annexation and loss Of City Services, if the requirements of this paragraph are not met. �y 15.--- That these conditions shall run, with the land and bind the applicant, the titled owners, and their assigns. 16. with compliance of the conditions contained herein, the annexation and zoning; as requested, would be in the best interest of the City of Meridian; provided, however, that the annexation and zoning of the Thomas and Wslsl,rst properties shall be conditioned on development being conducted under Planned Unit Development— procedures and as conditional uses; it in ipecifically concluded that in this area a commercial use would be more appropriate than the R-15 proposed use that the Commission, believes however, that the use of the property is more the decision of the lard owner as long as it is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. 17.That if these conditions of approval are met the not property shall be subject to de-annexatioa. Volante Investments — MDA H-2016-0056 9 EXHIBIT A Exhibit A.3: Proposed Development Agreement Provisions 1. All development shall comply with City of Meridian ordinances and the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Development of the west parcel located at 2600 E. Overland Road property shall be generally consistent with the conceptual development plan and building elevations included in Exhibits A.4 and A.S. 3. Prior to development of the east parcel located at 2700 E. Overland Road, the Development Agreement shall be modified to include a conceptual development plan that is consistent with the MU -R FLUM designation contained in the Comprehensive Plan. 4. With development of the subject property, the developer is required to extend sewer & water mains to and through the property. Future development shall comply with the design standards contained in UDC 11-3A-19 and the Architectural Standards Manual and/or any updated versions thereof. Volante Investments — MDA H-2016-0056 10 PARC DESTINATION PL BLOC EXHIBIT A 6. Exhibit AA: Proposed Conceptual Development Plan (dated: April 12, 2016) E OVERLAND RD 2- a M` O Volante Investments — MDA H-2016-0056 1 I ACRES 85,000 S.F. MAJORA 485 STALLS 57011000 �y NUMBER OF STANDARD PARKING SPACES CART CORRAL # TOTAL NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES PER PARCEL - - PROPERTYlPARCEL LINE BUILDING LINE EASEMENT CONCRETE SIDEWALK I BICYCLE PARKING APN: 51117438828 FAR: 24% MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT, 32'A" ZONING: C-6- GENERAL RETAIL AND SERVICE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT TOTAL SITE AREA: 918.213 S, F.1 18.75 ACRES TOTAL PARKING AREA: 129,388 S.F. TOTAL PARKING LANDSCAPE AREA, 35,517 S,F, PARKING LOT LANDSCAPE PROVIDED. 27% TOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA: 58,588 S.F. PERCENTAGE OF LANDSCAPE', 12% PARKING STALLS REOUI RED', 170 PARKING STALLS PROVIDED, 485 PARKING STALL SIZE! 9.5'x20` ADA STALLS REQUIRED:9 ADA STALLS PROVIDED, 1D BICYCLE SPACES REQUIRED: 20 BICYCLE SPACES PROVIDED: 32 OWNER AYYLICANTIwkCHITE T: T—A TT7 _S9e.LC S 650N.AMT6GP7NNORASOGIiAITS83 EE T �JSZ W103T92 ?AONE2-31+PHONE[293W112 AA}tl1. CONTACT'. DAN ][MMF.ftM.4N CONTACT: P— 1- EMAIL: Jsimrmen,un(�Wil.vnm E-MAIL ymeggoiu�gwivcafwda.c� ECJ ALLIANCE OLYT a W LN..NE. 51E 1P0 ?BON A. WA 98502 2-116 SHONE 3d0.354N- E-MMET: HRA.Nll©N JOHNSON, PE EMAIl: bnM,m.TaNumr®ecjalliunce.cam LEGAL DESCRIPTION', BEING A PORTION OF PARCEL 1, LOCATED IN THE sW'/4 OF THE SE', OF SECTION 11, T.3%, R,1E„ B . BOISE, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO SITE PLAN SCALE: 1 "= 40'-C" ©ATE 04/1212016 w O o0 b-owp z 0In�y- sn¢ oa�o "02 ?w 3 a q to Ch O SKEET TITLE PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN NOR,N sKEEr EC. C-1 EXHIBIT A Exhibit A.5: Proposed Conceptual Building Elevations (dated: April 11, 2016) wince — - - - — FOODS V FNI ARGFn FNTRY/FMT �s E. FNI 0.RCFn FRnNT F TT 1`mn c RIGHT ELEVATION LEFT ELEVATION Volante Investments — MDA H-2016-0056 12 EXHIBIT A Exhibit A.6: Legal Description of Property Subject to Development Agreement 2600 & 2700 Overland Road Property Description A, parcel of land located in the SW 114 of the SE 114 Section 17, Township 3 North, Range 2 East, Boise Meridian, Meridian, Ada County, Idaho being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the 5114 corner of said Section 17 from which the SE corner of said Section 17 bears North 89°46'410" East, 2656.88 feet; thence North 041°24'05" East, 45.00 feet to the SE. corner of Destination Place Subdivision filed in Book 93 of Plats at Pages 111901 through 11192, records of Ada County, Idaho, said point being the REAL. POINT OF BEGINNING; thence along the East boundary line of said Destination Place Subdivision North 00°24'05" East, 1,181.25 feet to a point on the southerly right-cf-way lire of Interstate 84; thence along said southerly right-of-way line the following 4 courses and distances: thence North 81'35!27" East, 158.13 feet; thence South 86°1923" East, 471.33 feet; thence 696.48 feet along the arc of a non -tangent curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 1,809.86 feet; a central angle of 22902"56" and a long chord of 692.19 feet which bears 'South 7509'15" East; thence South 64°07'46" East, 23.82 feet to a point on the West boundary line of (Overland Way Subdivision filed in Book 46 of Plats at Pages 3798 and 3799, records of .Ada County, Idaho; thence along said West boundary line South 00°08'32" East, 980.83 feet to a paint an the North right-cf-way line of E. Overland Road; Them along said North right-of-way line the following 7 courses and distances: thence South 89°46'00" West, 6001.41 feet; thence North 41°30'26" West, 29,30 feet; thence North 00°24'05" East, 9.19 feet; thence South 89°59'52" West, 90.00 feet; thence South 00'24'05" West, 11.58 feet; thence South 45'33'34" West, 28.68 feet; thence South 89°46'00" West, 597.70 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 34.62 acres, more or less. Volante Investments — MDA H-2016-0056 13 Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: July 5, 2016 ITEM NUMBER: 6P PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Final Plat for Chesterfield Subdivison P. Final Plat for Chesterfield Subdivision No 4 By Kent Brown Planning Generally Located at South of West Pine Avenue Between North Black Cat Road and N Ten Mile Road Request: For a Final Plat Consisting of 57 Residential Lots and four (4) Common Lots on 11.27 Acres of Land in the R-8 Zoning District MEETING NOTES j Vj r , 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: July 5, 2016 ITEM NUMBER: 6Q PROJECT NUMBER: H-2016-0062 ITEM TITLE: Final Plat Trilogy Subdivision Q. Final Plat for Trilogy Subdivision No 1 (H-2016-0062) By Conger Management Group Generally Located at the SE Corner of W Chinden Blvd and N Black Cat Road Request: For A Final Plat Consisting of 51 Residential Lots and Five (5) Common Lots on 28.16 Acres of Land in the R-8 Zoning District By Conger Management Group 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 U P, DATE: July 5, 2016 ITEM NUMBER: e PROJECT NUMBER: H-2016-0050 ITEM TITLE: Final Plat Isola Creek A. Final Plat Continued from June 28, 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 MEETING NOTES OWED 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: July 5, 2016 ITEM NUMBER: PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Items Moved from Consent Agenda MEETING NOTES /I b YVe Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Ci t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g Ju l y 5 , 2 0 1 6 Sl i d e 1 h2 Ag e n d a I t e m N u m b e r s / O r d e r : ho o d c , 1 2 / 1 9 / 2 0 0 6 It e m # 8 B : B a i n b r i d g e P a r k S u b d i v i s i o n Vi c i n i t y M a p Pr e l i m i n a r y P l a t Fi n a l P l a t Ba i n b r i d g e P a r k S u b d i v i s i o n Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: July 5, 2016 ITEM NUMBER: $B PROJECT NUMBER: H-2016-0070 ITEM TITLE: Bainbridqe Park Subdivision B. Final Plat Continued from June 28, 2016: Bainbridge Park Subdivision for (H-2016- 0070) by Brighton Development Generally Located South of West Chinden Blvd and West of North Ten Mile Road Request: A Final Plat Consisting of 52 Building Lots, Seven (7) Common Lots and One (1) other Lot on 22.78 Acres of Land in the R-8 Zoning District by Brighton Development MEETING NOTES ..t in 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: July 5, 2016 ITEM NUMBER: $C PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Community Development Block Grant C. PY2016 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Action Plan Public Comment Period (Open) 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: July 5, 2016 ITEM NUMBER: $D PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Community Development Block Grant D. PY2016 Community Development Block Grant Action Plan (CDBG) - Committee Allocation Recommendation 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: July 5, 2016 ITEM NUMBER: 9A PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Parks and Recreation Department A. Parks and Recreation Department: Lakeview Golf Course Green #9 Improvements Update/Closeout MEETING NOTES 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 /� Submit to City Clerk's Office .�+,iT Lakeview Golf Course 11;9 � III �. ��j� 'ital Improvement: Project �njg Proposal Submittal Form �[T r `�1•WYl �NY4 CITY CLERKS OFFICE Proposal scbmit;ed by: Date: ATTACH NARRATIVE, DESCR)MING THS I+OLLOWINGPROJ'I, INFORMATION! 1. HOW DOES THE )?ROJVCT ENHANCE OR IMPROVP, THE CITY'S CAPITAL ASSE'i'? 2. WHAT IS 77TS EXPECTED USEFUT.. ):'IPE OF THE IMPROVI3Iv1I wr? 3 • IS THE PROJECT AN IMPROVE+MLN'i" ro THE, CITY'S REAL PROMMY? 4, XIS THE PROJ'EC T IS I OT AN IMPROVEMENT TO THE CITY'S REAL PROPF'RTY, HOW WILL. OWNERSHIP BE VI38THD IN THE CITY? S, LIST PROJECT CONSTRUCTION TEAM OR VE3NDOR G, PROVIDE TASK AND COST BREAKDOWN 7, PROVIDE PROJECT TIMELINE, Date of Golf Courn Focus Moup Presentation: 3r¢ i3 Recommendation From GC Focus Grotlp: '+y. «.'.� :•S, .i•: •5:1:1:,�..f •I", - ;1.•i S+is !':, ' "� F.�1��:YN�.4.11�(L�! :'f-. •;Si IS:• 1 y::''r'4:: .•�. 3•:,n'. �i ',oti �I,In -:.t �.::I; is a:,::;.lti: •t•f :t :�. •.:1 .}'_:' __ C'r::•: �:!••=': `l esc #a.iao bi ;'Ca 9�CtAi JOY"-:.: .....:pak of > tl; �I.ir. :•lr�:i. ": I',St.E _�:i',"ilr. :ie J'r. 1,4 ...ry ..1. ''i= �=ii Ty;: :"l--:. .L: "i.J:.:r r•}`: e+l., _ :Yf': "t1._ '•G �jr �i l•,•:ry '.4 :it',::,i✓o "cij;irittoii o: ' ro: ;g_.,1,. `i` ..,+„ .�y _ :•S�f�;:."�i.. i:?r:; :n- '�'�y` �.J.:, .. �r.,:., 5+:.: :•:;',.3� 5 }: r,un. :p...',i?jjoiasre>?_creditigi:�: a:_ +'i,: R•c Plii: r •..S;w •.ij'.. . 1�:. SA ,•. :,�• i�.5rr. .•.l+ •f 1 !`d•5:' : ,. •7..' 'i i........ - - "r' :< r�...; y,=,•. � ,srr�'�p'. :•:!:,,-.ii !:�' _'.:io::.. y:::,, `:.'..... - , g'�' _ � T. ..0 • Cly: 'U � :•;e • - I1. i • - �!, :s7K;� ..A�..:�-_ �PTy��X. Yi�d.��s;:t nt,�r��x��>r���ib�:�up4��,�;'.3Ix •, ><o�'aii� : :��°Ia:If 1a'ss;tijai3'�@:t?9A;b'il„'•. �$:, . -.r ; ,.+,�gT;L'ni: .;,.: 4:s':=il�Gr'»4: iyj ,r:ri,:."(::41 '.r "J” ,}7•` •t,. ,i`• '•ti?�,lX�z•r_.1'�I. is ;t.. :c•;,5;t;a-; s „;,: _ l�il' ; l:at °i i •,,.t-,;,:'ttyy,� {{!}}tt H�1.. �j•, �•.7 �. l•...;.� :� i_ ,,;, .$ >4C10.If'iorelth�rS$;030; �. ..l .,�i!i .3=.` ::i ." ',1'..:il`i:-� ILS C�t�.Y��45�i8:.' ._ . .1• ..t �.; `:, •,y', :C :::;.; J :,Qr.S +�'~VW1,l d�'.1:�3 ��t:�'' `� ,�,+. L'�t7Jl ..�.. . 9•i .F+. ��S YY• 1. ��< ..t?I���,s�.��.. ,. R . _ . �1.., . �,, .�I'r•(�a$ � '�;� s �"�:f`�: tr•G��. �?11<Il.... ..t;•� ,QJ;1,•.' ;5v"5;;:1- '.+' i y :. .",is•�:;; . •t•'i:- :I.' .J•. } .I,..,i.:- 't.�"ii•... .: �+is'Yt �. ;.i1"^:..1•. -t' '•;},: 'r:`s `- .,li .......ii ..:ai: .;l,t.:i .1n - ,y qy, •' I: ddnn-�,17 �,' 1.,$�iil�i'•si1'-Ci.�H 4t ..I.: j:.t:.:,:.:5 •. .,y I`i'.:`y,s r; �::- �r•�iA��'{�i _ i, _:i%'•�f' .:,y �;.:51.ti;��•t:; C'�. �) y� 'i, :1.__y"r.n...i..l:i� ��pr ::�� }1,,{ (.�i•� 7�/�{mac ,�i i•�I's'4"..5.'':.'•:I '"�•f:dr�t GVsiVi^� ..'!D�^0'�• �I i'�UP`tl:l1• �r r.;:�,.i�xT1:J�.'�1'J.��.V7••:'Ls. y-'`,0 I3::,-a20I• '11" _;`1V. 4�ppr4, $?i eah,; • :�!t?, • _��.LlY''t i`r: 41.: 1:;,";e•I is'.;.FY". >,)ti.'.�' '.:7' _ '•S•y_ ] _ .{� ''.j'i:1;�y jj j :C. :' "D �•,�:i. Q� ^:r.,� - ':5: �:+'::: ' '!1'; , ••`i:y •`+.�•.�:•r �i:'."i t:•:,.i:i.:'t ';i _ ':.3'' 'I:I', rl,F.• I., _ .�i�r.•:4Q t:`-:LIV.�:•�; . , i :.5�' vY ,f.:,J'rs�, :11. `i'r. '�, ,,i.:i�: x .},. - !}�s :!j, 1r3 _: !,: •4: ^!,�:: it r:,, .,fr ':1''_:Fear 14h•': �sa�J.�r'��:'.{�+��:EIV�.''..�.�V�S'}`. - ''i'!3',„5::!;•�': ;;"_' �sp:���'i ;':';::,'::_: :1•.•,, .�_•_'[''; •�.z'.Ci�I`1s�S.`i"-ai=ui•e� �•f'�''';• :,: .�,:.':i' 'bate•°�f�.i ;Cat�r`�1(,�. _moi:. %..i i:s.'.[; tj,;'ICi,.�!1l. •'k:. •i4 •. '; ;.. t, r :rie ,.i�.s i 1-: ;ti. .'1'"•f: k. ,i.. .y �:.j^�r�;. ,,':'•F i. ,�t.,, .ir:�' 'I ', �t��YAr;��'mrtt�;dt3;�i�Qrd:4s '. i,::;,:.;''.;;•:�:� y lo` -L: _ .,': =;r.:, _., :ti:.•:,._:' : i,_ reA Lakeview Golf Course Capita[ Improvement: Project Proposal Submittal Form Version 1.0 01108115 June 10, 2016 City Council City of Meridian City Hall Broadway St. Meridian, ID 83546 Dear Council President, As you have certainly heard by now, we have completed all construction and irrigation installation for the #9 Green Reconstruction Project at Lakeview Golf Course. I have compiled all of the respective cost information with appropriate backup for the project (as per attached). As you will note, the total project cost $9,102.82 which is an absolutely incredible low price for all the work that was completed. All of the information attached is available for the public record with the exception of the detail on the wage rates for the individual Lakeview Golf Course employees. We consider that confidential information and request that it only be released in the aggregate without the employee detail. There has been nothing but positive comments from the golfers on the new green and the many more pin placements now available. This has been a sore spot on the course from the day it was originally constructed many years ago. I respectfully, request a formal waiver of the golf course lease payment for the coming year of 2017. Please let me know if you have any questions or need further information. Very truly rs� - as , e 'dent Oaas nke�y,, nc.-aAaer Lakeview Merid ai n estors, LLC (Lessee) Cc: Ted Baird #9 GREEN RECONSTRUCTION COST SUMMARY Timberstone Landscaping $6,000.00 Design, Construction, Labor, Equipment Clements Concrete 1,116.98 Sand for Construction and Top Dressing SiteOne 250.93 Irrigation Supplies SiteOne 19.71 Irrigation Supplies John Deere Landscapes 29.25 Irrigation Supplies JAG Tool and Equipment Rental 234.25 Equipment Rental JAG Tool and Equipment Rental 131„25 Equipment Rental Lakeview Employee Labor Summary 1,320.50 Lakeview Labor Detail on Project (C0NFIDENTIAL) PROJECT TOTAL $9,102.82 ,WRu Bateh,3 Bre-Bate . ,,3_ uen ClD � . 0 0 1 5 0 12230 1 D 013840 123103732 0 ti � :�rioutl� � t;>l;ate 6,000.00 2 11/19/2015 LAKEVIEW GOLF CLUB 4200 W. TALAMORE 208-B88-4080 MERIDIAN, ID 83542 IDAHO WDrPENDENi BANK MER VIAN bFFK;E MERIDIAN. IW* 83642 02-37311231 05 13840 11/13/2015 PAY TO THE Timberstone Landscaping `+6,000.00 OMER OF $ Six thousand and 001100.....+• ++..#+slt#T+.......#+.+##++++#++#• DOLLARS Timberstorie Landscaping -T Ea e, ID 83 t1 Gt. Eagle, ICI 83616 181:11 j r ED m f i > , — —j z TimberStone Landscapill'a, LLC 808 E Cloverhill Ct Eagle, ID 83616 timberstonels@hotmail.com SM To Lakeview Golf Course 4204 W. Tslamorc Blvd Meridian, LD 83646 P.O. No. Terms due now ttet 10th Quandty Description #9 Green Renovation Project I Total Project Salvage existing benttpoa surface Reshaping existing putting surface to accept contours, approved by Superintendent, Rich Rush Reshape surrounds to accommodate surface drainage Sod putting surface with salvaged bcnt Sod disturbed surrounds with( Kentucky Blue Grass/Rye turf (2000 square feet) Payment due by November 10, 2015, 18% inrcresr on overdue balance Soles Tax Pleast; remit to above address. InvoicE Date Invoice # 14,12512015 2015, 51 Project Pate I Amount 6,000.001 6,000.01 6.00% 1 0,0t Total $61000.0( CiBR CYBJL� Rica#c1: Srr 8kc&QUQn� -a ;aTr�ns� .fir ,. r Acc6i� 0 0 1 10 4 2581D 1 D 013927 123103732 i,tif3.19 0 1211$12015 LAKEVIEW GOLF CLUB 4200 W. TALAMOAE 208-888.4080 MMIUAN, ID a38•i2 mwxo PIDEnEND"Y ®xarx MEHIMM OFFICE MERIZ40AHO WW2 anis 1,231 05 13927 12/15/2015 i PAY TO ORDER OFE Clements Concrete Company One thousand one hundred sixteen and 1911 OQi*��*k�Vkk*wxwi{*y*fMwtswtr}f wkNxwwwrM**w*M*v Rw{kIMV{itRlYRk**Www}a{� Clements Concrete Company DOLLARS P.O. Box 1955 Orem, UT 84089-1958 . MEMO " �U ROC GROMOA y3� �iYp2 GUxr IIQ (435) 634-2200 1 (307) 362-2362 LAKEV7EI I GOLF CLUB 4200 W TALAMORE MERIDIAN ID 836642 (208) 343.6965 INVOICE Invoice No, Date Customer No. 50002443 it 11/08/15 LANEV%0000 Job Address:LAKEVTEW GOLF COURSE Wt -:TA PO: Job No; Project No: Order No:DM572004 Page No:1 Snnroc %orporalion it; an Equal 0ppur1ulQylAlrir1MIive Action Employer Date Ticket oto. item Code Description UOM Quantity Unit Price Amount L0128/15 57250078 SANDG SAIND GOLF to 30.56 13.65 417.14 0/29/15 57250078 DELAL Minimum Cartage ea 1.00 105.00 105.00 10/28/15 57250101 SANDG SAND GOLF to 32.07 13.65 437.76 10/26/15 57250101 DELAL Minimum Cartage ea ?.00 105.00 105.04 1 I I I TO'T'AL QUANTITY: I Payment in full k due 30 days from data of invo}ca. A rinance charge of I 1!2% per month (annus) rate of 78.00%) or m�rlrnum of S5,00 w chorl�od on el[ past due ti"ourlls, If colluoliun 4 trade by suit or odtemise, interest, wllection cods, and allotney fae,; vAl be charged. Pot Billing Inquiries Conlact AIR Toll -Free 1-866-484-6743 or sunroccorpbiiling c@, sunroc.net. Remit Payment To: Sunroc Corporation Attn: Accounts Receivable I•�O Box 778 Utah 84059-0778 62.63 Sub Total Sales Tax X51.25 Amount Due PLEASE PAY FROM THIS INVOICE CL CLEMENTS CONCRETE COtIPA Y READY -MIX CONCREY£ sA fl 8� C3i Aili:L CONCRETE [208}343.6966 SAND GRAM" i�g61e39.2ocra TICKETS SUN ROC.GOM AR t666f 4840743 ..:.. 81LLiI� i# LE TO: �,� �; , „ -'pu R, ORDERn Dale i ime (Lac$ Girl, C[ts€orrier Cade Psyteeni MethodPurchase Order No `` Jgh: tto,IParnti Na.. — Truck No` HatFier Code giver l �°' i'rojm No. � LotfBlock Zona Code- Job atle-Sob Address i = a`3 DET Obanlity Ordered Ouantity Received 77 F arE REMAR iCS/DI RECTIONS. a SUBTOTAL TAX it is iwrel,y aoreeo that CLEMENTS W°ORETE COC AsIVWIY vml fumlen" rriatarial'produ i �S'iierein get forth 29d �subje to"tlw TICKET TER��S ANB.G4A7f3fT1CN5 UFa iN i 'dERSE i �y s%nino balo�r [he undor (gs ,repr�sestst at he's ea as.autharitY 1 -.., TitTAL sign on behalf of the Custom a o' er and :d t tavai Brea and aOrdes ors bahalf of Cust*p tl t it iii bound Uyfhd TEWS Atop TOTAL -- COfdpiTt©td5 ON TFtE IFIVERSE Sii3E. (li1E � ��� RY F"✓ r ' oplif Y m N m ' Signature of C stomer or AgentCustomerai Ageni CLEIVIENTS CONCRETE WAVANY.' READY MIK OONCRETE • : SA N0 & QRAYgLCONCR. SUNROX (209) 343.5905 547vp & GRAVEL (268) 939-7.054 TICKET- 9 a ; { SIJNROC.COM? `"�'; AR (866) 484-6743 'ORDER #:"r ate � 7�e Location Custvmt:r Code P4 mentMetiiadur�hse Ortlel�6. ioG1Vo./�errniCNa. —_` Signa tQp�s cmerorAgont �_ =7 CListoMer or Agent --- e. uqnc sa' 0 0 "i'i'� g ggg' g 0 1 3 22 L—rw 2270 1 D 013901 123103732 0 260,93 0 12/091201.5 LAKEVIEW GOLF CLUB 10AHO MMMOU DMIK 4200 W. TALAMORE mERKX*Jm oprCE jowo &-&g . 13901 MERIDIAN, 10 83642 9713?311Y3loa I 'I 12/04/2015 PAY TO THE ORDER Of "260-93 Two hundred fifty and ....... DOLLARS Siteune siteon& 2755 E Lanark St Meridian, 10 83642 MEMO H A M Sales Invoice LN 1 r Item 200PGA 150PVC2005E SoItl To: ally Ortlerad } 160 Qty Sltlppod } 160 LakaviewGnlF Cluh {kt710d7) ! ND S 1 APE S P P t Y Ext, Price 70.052 59.520 W U46 i 1 112 Cap Soc PVC Fitting 1 114 PVC Can Sac SCA 40 Sprs 2 2 Feddim,10 84200 9099 6 0 0.7701 EA 0.7051 EA %'Y; (208)838-4080 5 1406-015 'F (208)898-4022 Meridian 10 #119 2 a 2755 E Lanark St 2.306 c A125PVC200BE Meridian, tD 83642-5901 1-1/41Sdr21 2200# Be PVC PiPo 40 Vii- (206)288.2102 0 st,lp To: . -a--•-- Ordered _. _. rQrdor', ._ _ P(}#1 10r28r1015 _ ��.31n+rol�d - W%4vlew Gclt Club ;4111047) r — -� _. _ _ — , xlnyoicra8 ;`4200�r�1i'alarnotU F31vd k1ecidian, ID 838d$-9059 85443965 r=9 Green 10/2812015 173847123 �W, `- -rsnl. 0,6591 EA i (20&)868-4080 Pdnteri iiia_. 4 ^-„ , p - � E � u©studror y ~'1Customcr ^ar: ucl _ _._. ._.__�...._. u � (20is>eaa-aozz Salts....tltr3 j _ __. fCussO nor Pick up 51c _ ?Antonio Racalas Jr. LN 1 r Item 200PGA 150PVC2005E Description 2 Plastic Globe Angle Valva RaEnbird 1.112' Sdr21 20011 PVC Pips Be ally Ortlerad } 160 Qty Sltlppod } 160 Qty open 0 0 Net Price 70,0521 EA 0,3721 FT Ext, Price 70.052 59.520 3 4 47.0 t5 4 447.0:2 1 112 Cap Soc PVC Fitting 1 114 PVC Can Sac SCA 40 Sprs 2 2 2 z 6 0 0.7701 EA 0.7051 EA 1.54(} 1.416 5 1406-015 1 112 90 Degree Ell $oc PVC Filling z 2 a 1.1531 EA 2.306 c A125PVC200BE 1-1/41Sdr21 2200# Be PVC PiPo 40 40 0 0.2841 FT 11,360 7 429-.012 1 114 PVC Coupling Sac Sch 40 Sprs 2 2 0 0,6591 EA 1.318 8 417.015 1 112 45 Degree Ell Soe PVC Fitting 2 a 0 1.621 1 EA 3.242 9 429.015 1 1,'2 Coupling Sac PVC— Fitting 10 10 0 0,708 1 EA 7,080 11180 10 Round Box Qvedep Covor ICV 8fack Green NDS 1 1 0 10.0541 EA 10,054 t l 806804P 6 X 2 Saddle i Sarco 1 1 0 57.768 1 EA 57.76$ 12 -137.337 3 X 1 1(2 Red 8ushinu $pig X Soc PVC Filling 2 2 4 3.1891 EA 6.378 ,3 401.015 1 112 Tee Sac PVC Fitting 2 2 0 1.527 1 EA 3.054 14 437-21Z i 112 X 1 114 Red Sushing Spig X &c PVC Fitting2 2 0 0,815 1 EA 1.630 Planso r©mit namont t na apa supply, LLC Subtotal: SalesTax; $236,72 514,21 24 114 Mcmork rlac+r �. r'wlpht: $0.00 Chicago, T 00673-1241 15TH PROX � r f �f TorHf; $250.93 � t/✓,,.. Payment: Pay try 11/1 Pay 5y 1 t1t520t5 _Total _$0,00 AMOUht DUO: $250.93 For Chemical Emergency Spill, Leak, Fire, EXpasuru, or Accident Emergency RosponsoAssimnnce, tail CHEWREC Day or Night ? 1 (S00) d24-4?A0 CUSTOMER SIGNATURE: S7rr,N7ne Wascape Supply warrants that alt products conform to the dosCripaca an Lit 1340L Bectrese conditions of use, -,,,ht:a s -e or crit're,:l impOnancO aro beyond tint carar0l, serer .maKos na wananly, expressed or imp`.ietl, conaomlr j tho uto of Ihasa to make any vrarranty or rupresanr:stwn, expre5 j ae imp:icd, conCarr,�r,,� GIX pinciucl5: Always fpliOW aireCEinnG and xretully cbpma Gil praceviions on the laflal Qr:TuryS;ltty tHare 1n5Lu.4:tns. PrpdUCIS usad contrary W ellections may x73,50 yer;pus plant persowl injury, Buyer a55umts ail rlSk ct'ya pnd Accept° the plodu.1G 5dd to hirci ty Nis tampon; on ,irc5e Carxlition5. -""g z ' "'J" ""z"" i6d","g d 0� , -, ";"-, A Ei �, �� F�i 0 0 1 a 0 19070 1 D 014297 123103732 0 2 19.71 0 09/06/2016 LAKEVIEW GOLF CLUB FDAH0iHDr=PffiW-W"W LERIDIANOPR 4200 W. TALAMORE 208.888-AOW WERtOCAU. MAHO 8833M 14297 MERIDIAN, ID 83842 92-3M 11231 0 04/2912O16 PAY TO ORDER OFTHE Site0ne **1971 a • NIneteen an'7d ik* DOLLARS Site0ne SIte0ne 2765 E Lanark St Meridian, ID 83642 MEMO 2 z m r_ANOSCAPE 5upp1LV '�;rnncs�,�Ta�mmfdtv�e 6 Sales Invoice 03!2212016 Invoice# Sold To: Lakeview Goff Club (#111047) 4200 W Talamore Blvd IMeridian, Id 83646-9099 W. (208)888-4080 F: (208)888-ri022 __j Ship To: Lakeview Golf Club (#111047) i 4200 W Talsmore Blvd Meridian, 1D 83646.9099 W: (208)888.4080F: (208)888-4022 LN item 00scription Qry Orderod Qty Qty Shipped Open Nat Pdca Ext Price 1 429-020 2 Coupling Sao PVC Fisting 5 2 429-030 3 Coupling Soc PVC Fitting 5 0 1.= f EA 5.405 3 435-010 1 Female AdapterSOC X Fipt PVC Fitting 2 2 0 3.821 1 EA 7,642 10 10 0 0.554 ! EA 5.540 Pleat;B remit 9gympnt to: Subtotal: $18.59 , 'Qne Landscape Supply, LLC Sales Tax: $1.12 24110 Network Race Chicago, IL 60673-1241 Freig Freight: ht: $0.00 Terms: NET 15TH PROX $19 .71 19.70 Pay by 0411512016 Total Payment Amount Due: S-19.71 For Chemical Emergency Spill, Leak, Fire, Exposure, or Accident Emergency Response Assistance, call: CHENITREC Day or Night -1 (800) 424.9300 CUSTOMER SIGNATURE: &,—, makes a S..�induape Supply worranU that all products conForm to tho dascx4plfon ost the 141W. Becuuse rnndbdons of use, whioh are of aiticai trrT,< &ttC are beyond cur tar;vol. sMer makes no wan-anty, axpft -sod or Imp3Esa, wrscerning rhe use of these procfuc+s. No amployee or the company is outlf del to maku bay warranty wlepresunCY n , expressed or impEied, coneomino our produpis. Alwrayg loiow d; Von& and csrofi!#y ebwrva sir pracauoons on the label or manufacturet's Inatructlons. ProdvcLe used carltrary . expressedrecilons or taus© sorfotts plant a parsonmr Irytny, iiuyor nssumos eN risk of use of handling whaiiter in uccortlonce with oireNon or not and accepts tho products gad to him byIhIs compnny on those conditions. ..0 .. M,R]R., :.r{Au _ � ,�1CCOitR „-.�rii17COL�~ 0 0 1 9 0_,,, 22830 1 D 13653 123103732 s Yy 0 563.65 0 09/22/2015 LAKEVIEW GOLF CLUB 4200 W.TALAMORE 208-888-4080 MERIDIAN, ID 83642 HMO MOVEMENT BANK MEi13DLOA.IDAHO 53NZ azar311231 13653 09/17/2015 PAYER THE Jahn Deere Landscapes **563.65 Five hundred sixty-three and DOLLARS John Deere Landscapes 24110 Network Place Chicago, IL 60673-1241 No MAT MEMO 6/912016 Sill Payment Jahn peers Landsc •:pss Idaho Independent B ank:ll$ Ct . ; Balance 537,002.35 $563.65 Mailing address Paymont dale Rof no. John !Deere Landscapes 09117/2015 24110 Network Place- 0hic3go. IL 605573-1241 Print later Amount 563.135 Outstanding Transactions Find fnvoice N6 F141,, w All 00 [)[SCHIPTf0€d ❑11E 0ATE ORIGINAL Ai401PIT GPEN BALANCE PAYMLhl7 49/0612015 29.25 29.25 29.25 Sill 1185011256 (06131121115) 0911012015 534.40 534.40 .. _.. - ... .. ..'. ,. ,First Pr@vieuj 1-2 of 2 Next Le51 > Amount to Apply $563.65 Amount to Credit $0.00 Clear Paymant Memo Attachments t4ari:nemsiza:?..ril [i ActivHrez f To Choose 3 recipient 4 FliY.:FflGFt)!J 1rf:a5 {igre or click the ic, n - . .. - .. .. .. vYnfe n rnessage about this bM' payn:er.= . 5ltovr existing PrivaW 14 1!1 t rui rvnlanrJhllrutvrneni?Ucnld=25260 srorzoie John ❑eam Landscape~ Bili Wiling iddre5r, Terme Bill date Duo date John Qeere Landscapes Net 10 46/27/2015 09lO612015 24110 ldetworic Voce Chicago, IL 60673-1241 Y Account details o ACCOUNT pGSCRIPTION 1 Repairs end Mairttenance:lrrign irrigation repair parts 2 A�Jis1a�' CLgf Ali ilroLa A Item details Attachments 1M"XM1un1 •312Q:2fraa Activit ea TO Choose a recipient G 7,7g$7raj7 r165 flare orr.?ick rho roan - .. ......'..' .. :..,. . wrife a rtta.sdggo about this hi", Sho,v exiting �:AYMZNT g1',S,TUS PI D 7 payment mndu On R3dt712015 Bill no. Al,,J ]UNT CLASS 29.25 Maintenance Total r7525.25 Sales Invoice JOHN ErRE1� -Sold To: 3 1 N SCr,-S)P- E �-+ {� }� "{ pe•�+{ Iii )Lake�'iM Goll Gfub gt,111&j)­ 200 lvd 'Median, ""!°, S / ! tt..••rr I 83645-nare 'Meridian, !D 83n45-90ri9 ,J (208)888.4o80 7vleridian 1 4112, g( F:12C8)868-.022 2755 E Lanark 5t !7 Meridian, ID 83642-5901_..._.._..- W: (208)28$-2,02 Ship To, Ordcrecl POH r Lokc1'i07V Goif Cluh { 111047) ,_..____ �. I� flmcicoo i �4200'e1Talam teBiud Ordr i Into',4 d ` p9t©9170 S 35717641 '0 �Mcridian• irrfga:ivn repair — n P@ 90 912 01 5 73255045 ID 83646.909 Iw' Prinled ;(��qua for --- i8hip ar_ ia — _ __ iGUstorner Cpntact— --t 5 � {208)83$-AU80 �'" tzosyaal3-aeza Ylad 0�t45r20s5 €Guslorner Pick uP ,s A55aciasa i �ic17 tvl �s Dau to � n d iiOEcrlpt�ron Qty Qty Ordored Shipped Qty Open Unit Price Ext. Price -141 314 X 112 Red SO Dag. Eli Soc X Fip; PVC F ttinJ 4 4 ,131 1 X 112 Red 9017apree Ell Soc X Fipt PVC Fiting 33 f 0 64421 EA7768 -007 314 Tee Soc PVC F-taing 01.231 i EA 3,693 .010 t Tce Soc PVC Fitting 4 a 0 0.429f EA 1.716 5 4a8.010 1 Cap Scc Fipt PVC F6rtg 4 9 4 0.801 i EA 3.204 G 430-016 1 Coupling 7 -pi PVC Flttin0 9 S 0 6,991 ! EA 8.819 9 0 0,9211 EA 8.289 Piaa, e r mit as meet t(- Subtoze): $27.59 JOHN DEERE LANDSCAPES. i.LC Sales Tax: $1.66 24110 Nwvvcrk Place Cnicag0, IL 60673-1241 Fraight: $0.0G ierms; Nt r 1 sr 1i P,*�ox TOtaE $29.25 r Pay�sy 1Ci15r20 15 Total Payment: �m r Amount Durr: $29,25 For Chomicai Emergency Spill, Lta4, Fire. Expos, or Accddent Emergency response, Assistance, call: CFIEMTREC Day or Night? 1 (800) 424-9300 CUSTOMER SIGNATURE - '=n CeCrc LObdsaipuswd'rantt that nki prodsFCt& COP furm to the rovrlpCan an the label. t§7C9use [Anditians of ou. v hich iso olcritivnl iMpoNncef er¢bcyond our con>mr, snacr nickCS rw Warranty, expressed Cr orp;l", conNnfng the uta tet AteSe pro6ucLs, t4z anj;go/aa c! Lha camp:3l 19 81idinn.do tp make uny'aanOnty Cr fepl4.enta!+an, expr6s,0 or impbra, cancemEnti Our preovos. Always folaaw Crecions and tarefulay©I;st,rve ad precau:iaris nn Lhe label or naaafacturar's ansu3cticrs. F-mducis used Cammgj to d"W-ers nzy :aVW S06MQs plantar Per;pnal injury. Euler aaeunwo a:t dik at y5e cf nandi:ng erhether bt 3Ccor.=MCC vnlh C,1tChon or not ane atCLnjS the praaucts $ad [hiG Na, Cy !hes cur=tGzny pry [he -so condifirAs LAKEVIEW GOLF CLUB •'i0AML11H�EPEHOEHTadHK s 4200W, TALAI�4C3RE 208-888-4080 1AFAIDIAN oFFrCE ��� MERIDIAN. ID 83642 MERIMAU. IOAW 53iL42 '2.373 / laa, 65 0611012016 oRdeR THE JAG 'Cool & Equipment Rental **234.25 Two hundred thirty-four and JAG "Cool & Equipment Rental DOLLAF 418 E. Karcher Road Nampa, ID 83687 AEMO -AKEVIEW GOLF CLUB 0611012016 JAG Tool & Equipment Rental 14425 Date Type Reference Original Amount Balance Due 05/27/2016 Bill 25564 234.25 234.25 Payment Check Amount 234,25 234.25 Idaho Independent B; 234.25 ..AKEVIEW GOLF CLUB 0611012016 JAG Tool & Equipment Rental 14425 Date Type Reference Orlglnal Amount Balance Due 05/27/2016 Bill 25564 Payment 234.25 234.25 234.25 Check Amount 234.25 Idaho independent B; 234.25 '# IO C. RdlUllUf hU Nampa, ID 83687 Toot and Equipment R'on at ` Fax 208-463-8780 jagtcralandeguipmentrenta{.cam 208-463-19! LA KEVIE"W GOLF CLUB us em 248.898.9895 Phone Status: Closed Invoice #. 25564 Invoice Date: Fri 512712016 Date Out, Thu 5/26/2016 8:00AM Operator: FREDDIE RIDEAU 4200 W. TALAMORE MEROIAN, ID. 83642 Salesman: CHAD POINTS 208-989-8531 cfladp,jegrentalsQagfnaii.com Qty Key Items 1 /85.0005#03 Price Each status Roturrlod Date PIPE PULLER Meter Out; Si85.40 Returned Fri 5/27/2016 7:44AN+, Motor In: 928,8 Total hours on meter: 1,0 5165.00 RETURN CLLEAEA N TO AVOID FURTHER CHARGES111!I SW700 LET ENGINE COOL BEFORE FUELING. REG.. UNLEADED FUEL. EQUIPMENT MUST RETURN FULL OF FUEL.CHARGES MAY APPLYli! CALL DIG LINE BEFORE TRENCHING OR DRILLING,WEAR EYE AND HEARING PROTECTION, KEEP ALLBOC7Y PARTS FROM MOVING OBJECTS, CHECK AIR FILTER, RADIATOR, SCREEN, ETC, PERIODICALLY!!II SW100 DO NOT WEAR LOOSE CLOTHING OR JEINLERY 1 11 DELIVERY, ZONE 1 EQUIPMENT MUST RETURN FULL OF FUEL -CHARGES ARGES'MAYAPPL1'111. .: $40.00 sold $40.00 Delivery and Pickup Delivery, Thu 5126/2016 8:0OAM Contact: Pickup Date: Fri 5/27/2015 7:14AM Phone: Delivery Notes: Thank you for your Business Rental Contract This is n contract. The back i this contract eantains imPOrtent r all and conditions fnduding lessor`s disclaimer from all liability far injury or damag®and details of customers Obligations, Them tarms.and conditions are a Part of this contract • REAR TI-IEM! I have b0011 fully instructed on the Operations of the rental items) and understand I am responsihla for for any equipment thatis returned damaged or not returned roll of fuel (if items are requ€red to be fueled upon return). If cquiPirlent does not function properly, notify lesser within 30 minutes of occurrence orno refund or 00WInce Will be made. It this is a reservation, a reservation cancelialion fee LIP to 112 of the talal amount may be charged if reservation is cancelled within 24 hours Of the scheduled "time and dale our, l certify that I hart, rear: and agr" W all 10rms of this eonrrsoj, Signature:. �� > Vii F CLUB Rental: damage Waiver: Delivery Charge: $185 00 $9.25 $40.40 Subtotal: $234.25 Salus Fax: 54.40 Total: 5234.25 Paid: $0.00 Amount Due: 5234.25 E c 2 a 0 rintea Or. 7ve.13r17o1S 1::37PM Saf:.vare Cy?c;ntmf•R¢rt;at ..'cirarere ww.vpoast•af-rental eon Modification 4 Canitacl-i &rams.rpe{fy nA i{Aura F -r ar•rr.ra, nsr n.-... ,...� �.... .......... ..,..s ......._ .,.. ...._.__... 611=016 history - Idaho Independent Bank LAKEVIEW GOLF CLUB iaaNpltDEpcnaeHtUMK83� `.; 4200 W -rALAMORE 208.86&4090 wncwracr¢E MEMLA01, M*40 WU2 MERIDIAN, @ 83642 - s3•at3 r is» 1111312015 PAYJAG Tool & Equipment Rental ORDER EA ORF .. ••131.25 One hundred thirty-one and 251100 ........ ......... ................... ............................ ..................... DOLLARS JAG Toot & Equipment Rentai . 418 E. Karcher Road l Nampa. ID 63887 MEMO hitps:!lrbank,pcs-sd.neUonl inebanki nglaccli mg,r?t-dd=123103732&t-lrngid=OxO00000000a 13b4988d-sido=R3&asdtkn=em5C7cW RfVc%3D 1N / -4 I o t, rocner Ma, Status: Closed Invoice #: 22066 Invoice Date: Wed 1012812015 Date Out: Wed 10/2812015 8:58AI Operator: CHAD POINTS LAKEVIEW GOLF CLUB 208-89B-9895 Phone 4200 W. TALAMORE MERIDIAN, 10. 83642 Salesrnart: CHAD POINTS 208-989-8531 OtY Key items Each Status Returned Date i 165-0010#13P WALK BEHIND TRENCHER -TOR( 3125.00 Retumod Wed 10(2&12015 1:23PM 512 Meter Out: 258,5 Meter In: 257,9 Total hours oa meta,: 1,4 RETURN CLEAN TO AVOID FURTHER CHARGES!!!?! 5W700 LET ENGINE COOL BEFORE FUELING. REG. UNLEADED FUEL. SW100 DO NOT WEAR LOOSE CLOTHING OR JEWLERY WEAR EYE AND HEARING PROTECTION, KEEP ALL BODY PARTS FRCIA MOVING OBJECTS. CALL DIG LINE BEFORE TRENCHING OR DRILLING, 4 DOUBLE CHECK YOUR TRAILER HOOK-UP,LIGHTS, AND SAFTEY.CHAINS. Thank you for your Business Rental Contract This is a contract. The Seek of this contract contains important terms and conditicns including lossor's disclaimer from all tlabiliry Rental; $125•C For injury or damage and delmis of customees obligations These terms and conditions are a part of this contract -READ THEMI Damage Waiver: S6•2 1 rtave been fully instructed an the operatsans of the rental itam(s) and understand I am responsible for for any equipment that is relumod damaged or not returned full of fuel (if items are required to be fueled upon return). U equipment does not function property, naVf9 lessor within 30 minutes of occurrence or no refund orallowance will be made. )f this is a reservation, a reservation Canee4attan fee up :0 112 of the total amount may be charged if reservation is cancelled Within 24 hours of the scheduled "lime and date Oil". 1 4!ezlily that I have read and agree to all terms of ttt:s contract. Subtotat: Sales Tax: $6.0 Total: $131.2 (` r !` $01Signature: >'y:..r �.Paid: go L 14E IEW GOLF CLUB Amount Due: $131.2 fJ ociitcation a Prn;aC Co V.htl ir7/99f20r5 1'.3Pri4 Scfrxare by Pant•Of.npriat Sariuetp wmv,�o�nr�cGfa tal.scrn Confroc!•uar3nis j AMOUNT PAID ,SAG Tool & Equipment R Idaho Independent Bank 4 Balance $37,002.35 $131-25 Mailing address Payment date JAG Tool & Equipment 11113/2015 riot no. Rental _ _ _ 13832 418 E. Karcher Road Nampa, 0 83687 print later Amount 131,25 Outstanding Transactions Fina' Invoice No. Filter � All MscRiPTION DUE W8 ORIGINAL AMOUNT OPEN SALANCS PAYMENT 1 111 0/20 1 5 131.25 131.25 131.25 e First Previous 1-1 of 1 Next Last> Amount to Apply $131.25 Amount to Credit SO 00 Clear Payment Memo Attachments MaxinlUrn size: 25Mi3 Activities To Choose a recipient 0 ZJraca/Drc�,o fila'Sltere Or dick the icon Write a message about this bN payrrtent Show existing Priva;.y Payroll for the redo on # 9 Green 10 hours @� Total $1320.50 TOTAL TOTAL SIGNATURE Office D OT, www.ofiicodcpot.com GO -12T596 1-3166-795-6481 Item 740-316 Office v5pioir: Www.officade.pot,com iii. If the City Council and Lakeview do not agree on the amount of credit to be allowed for future years' rent, there shall be no obligation for Lakeview to initiate such Project or any future project. However, the City Council and Lakeview may agree to modify such Project to reach a mutually satisfactory agreement on the amount of future years' rent credit. C. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE FOR PROJECT COMPLETION VERIFICATION AND RENT CREDIT: 1. To receive credit against annual rent due for constructing an approved Project, Lakeview shall comply with the procedure set forth in the 2013 Addendum titled "Payment of Rent" which requires that documentation be submitted to the City at least one month prior to the beginning of the fiscal year in which the rent credit is to be applied. 2. If Lakeview constructs the Project as proposed, proof of payment shall be presented to the City on the Project Verification and Rent Credit Approval form (see sample form, Exhibit B, which may be updated from time to time in a manner not inconsistent with the provisions of this MOU). a) Proof of Payment may include, but is not limited to contractor invoices, cancelled checks, and the like. b) The Project Verification and Rent Credit Approval form and any supporting documentation shall be presented to the Director of Parks and Recreation. C) The Director of Parks and Recreation shall direct Parks Department Staff to conduct a site visit to verify that the portions of the Project listed on the proof of payment have been constructed as represented. d) If the documentation is deemed satisfactory by the Director of Parks and Recreation, the Project Verification and Rent Credit Approval Form shall be forwarded to the City Finance Department so that the appropriate credit against annual rent can be applied. If the Director of Parks and Recreation has questions about the documentation submitted, he shall first work directly with Lakeview to resolve any dispute. If the Director of Parks and Recreation is unable to resolve a documentation dispute with Lakeview, the matter shall then be placed on the agenda of the next regularly scheduled MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING - 4 of 5 Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: July 5, 2016 ITEM NUMBER: 9B PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Budge Amendment Ball at the Hall and Youth Farmers Market B. Mayor's Office: Budget Amendment for Ball at the Hall and the Meridian Youth Farmer's Market for the Not -to -Exceed Amount of $1,921.00 MEETING NOTES uy 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: July 5, 2016 ITEM NUMBER: 9C PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Budget Amendment High Five Grant Project C. Mayor's Office: Budget Amendment for the High Five Grant Project for the Not -to - Exceed Amount of $20,000.00 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: July 5, 2016 ITEM NUMBER: 9D PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Parks Maintenance Facility D. Mayor's Office: Potential Use of Former Parks Maintenance facility 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: July 5, 2016 ITEM NUMBER: 9E PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Human Resources E. Human Resources: FY2017 Benefits Update 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: July 5, 2016 ITEM NUMBER: 10A PROJECT NUMBER: H-2016-0030 ITEM TITLE: Howry Land Subdivision Ordinance A. Ordinance No. ( �o - An Ordinance (H-2016-0030 - Howry Lane Subdivision) for Annexation and Rezone of a Parcel of Land Situated in the West Half of the Northeast Quarter of Section 33, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho Containing 41.07 acres of land, Establishing and Determining the Land Use Zoning Classification of R-8 (Medium Density Residential) in the Meridian City Code; and Providing an Effective Date. 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 NOTICE AND PUBLISHED SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE PURSUANT TO I.C. § 50-901(A) CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 16 - PROVIDING FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING ORDINANCE An Ordinance of the City of Meridian granting annexation and zoning for a parcel of land situated in the west half of the northeast quarter of Section 33, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise, Ada County, Idaho. This parcel contains 41.07 acres more or less. Also, this parcel is SUBJECT TO all easements and rights-of-way of record or implied. As surveyed in attached exhibit `B" and is not based on an actual field survey. A full text of this ordinance is available for inspection at City Hall, City of Meridian, 33 East Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho. This ordinance shall become effective on the day of , 2016. City of Meridian Mayor and City Council By: Jacy Jones, City Cleric First Reading: Adopted after first reading by suspension of the Rule as allowed pursuant to Idaho Code §50-902: YES NO Second Reading: Third Reading: 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 , 2016. William. L.M. Nary City Attorney ORDINANCE SUMMARY - HOWRY LANE SUBDIVISION H-2016-0030 EXHIBIT A •,B J -U -B COMPANIES J•UI.8 ENOINEEnS, INC. Howry Lane Subdivision Annexation Boundary Description Project Number 10-16-009 March 14, 2016 51 ROAD N �; I MAPPING A parcel of land situated in the west half of the northeast quarter of Section 33, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, being more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at the north quarter -section corner of Section 33, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, which bears N89°14'44"W, 2660.45 feet from the northeast corner of Section 33: Thence S89°14'44"E, 20,00 feet along the north line of the northwest quarter of the northeast quarter, Thence S00'19'12"W, 1329.02 feet parallel with and 20.00 feet from the west line of the northwest quarter of the northeast quarter to the north line of the southwest quarter of the northeast quarter; Thence S89°27'3."E, 1309.05 feet along the north line of the southwest quarter of the northeast quarter to the northeast comer of the southwest quarter of the northeast quarter, Thence S00°22'10"W, 1324.15 feet along the east line of the southwest quarter of the northeast quarter to the southeast corner of the southwest quarter of the northeast quarter; Thence N89"40'19"W, 1327.90 feet along the south line of the southwest quarter of the northeast quarter to the southwest corner of the southwest quarter of the northeast quarter; Thence N00'19'12"E, 1329.10 feet along the west line of the southwest quarter of the northeast quarter to the southwest corner of the northwest quarter of the northeast quarter; Thence N00"19'12"E, 1329.10 feet along the west line of the northwest quarter of the northeast quarter to the POINT OF BEGINNING. The above-described parcel contains 41.07 acres, more or less. 11334 Page 1 of 1 lfCy�O 5 10�` a 250 S. Beechwood Avenue, Suite 201, Boise, ID 83709 U 208-376-7330 r 208-323-9336 w www.iub.com Howry Lane Subdivision — H 2016-0030 EXHIBIT B Howry Lane Subdivision — H 2016-0030 Line Table N-1/4 Direction Length Li POB L1 N89'14'44'W 2660.45' 28 27 33 34 20' APN: 51133120800 r ai N o NW4 NE4 N M N r 0 154 300 W N O SCALE IN FEET (A m d Z S89'27'31"E 1309.05' C) of ip N N W N2 r337 Ch APN: 51133131200 0 SW4 NE4 0 rn a L LANA g N89'40'19"W 1327.90' FIG fo-iitao is{Unn �. ;1G9tPOHAlE91ct".Et! bltFir �---- Howry Lane Subdivision SHFFT P °uix rn �xr ee o°c€ �rui rAYLe,e1NEOMCE11FPcr Meridian Idaho fC°l7'/CIHE9PMlFCfY.RilAITT�E ENAE&31Y1kTfetf FEa fl!°f d:_! lU9 ENGIfl£ERS, RiC. Annexa8on Boundary Section 33, T. 3N., R. 1E., B.M. a 8 o ae ,oe - o wruvcarca:�,c»tP Howry Lane Subdivision — H 2016-0030 Line Table No. Direction Length Li 589'14'44°E 20.00' NOTICE AND PUBLISHED SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE PURSUANT TO I.C. § 50-901(A) CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 16- ( (P 701 PROVIDING FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING ORDINANCE An Ordinance of the City of Meridian granting annexation and zoning for a parcel of land situated in the west half of the northeast quarter of Section 33, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise, Ada County, Idaho. This parcel contains 41.07 acres more or less. Also, this parcel is SUBJECT TO all easements and rights-of-way of record or implied. As surveyed in attached exhibit "B" and is not based on an actual field survey. A full text of this ordinance is available for inspection at City Hall, City of Meridian, 33 East Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho. This ordinance shall become effective on the 1 day of , 2016. 'IV AUG%r City of Meridian- Mayor eridian Mayor and City Councily By: Jacy Jones, City Clerk C O' S �y6�Pyr£4 o�e First Reading: Adopted after first reading by suspension of the Rule as allowed pursuant to Idaho Code §50-902: YES)_ NO Second Reading: Third Reading: 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-(O Ct O� 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 , 2016. William. L.M. Nary City Attorney ORDINANCE SUMMARY - HOWRY LANE SUBDIVISION H-2016-0030 Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: July 5, 2016 ITEM NUMBER: 10B PROJECT NUMBER: H-2016-0040 ITEM TITLE: Ordinance Granting Re -Zoning B. Ordinance No � : An Ordinance of the City of Meridian (H-2016- 0040) Granting re -zoning of a Parcel Located in the SE'/4 of the NE'/4 of Section 32, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian being part of Lot 2 and all of Lots 3 and 4 of Block 3 of NIDAY'S SUBDIVISION as shown in Book 2 of Plats at Page 75 in the Office of the Recorder, Ada County, Idaho. This parcel contains .271 acres more or less. This Parcel shall be re -zoned from the R-4 (Medium Low Density Residential) to the O -T (Old Town) zoning districts, in the Meridian City Code; and Providing for Waiver of the Reading; and Providing for an Effective Date. ►hili �h101!10111=F� 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 NOTICE AND PUBLISHED SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE PURSUANT TO I.C. § 50-901(A) CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 16- l j -j PROVIDING FOR RE ZONING ORDINANCE An Ordinance of the City of Meridian granting re -zoning of a parcel located in the SE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 32, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian being part of Lot 2 and all of Lots 3 and 4 of Block 3 of NIDAY'S SUBDIVISION as shown in Book 2 of Plats at Page 75 in the Office of the Recorder, Ada County, Idaho. This parcel contains .271 acres more or less. Also, this parcel is SUBJECT TO all easements and rights-of-way of record or implied. As in attached exhibit `B" and is not based on an actual field survey. A full text of this ordinance is available for inspection at City Hall, City of Meridian, 33 East Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho. This ordinance shall become effective on the I k a day of �� u j , 2016. A ��OpUGUSTI ' City of Meridian Mayor and City Council By: Jacy Jones, City ClerkJ4a 96.c�NrBR of ibc'(PE�O First Reading: 'Ad S / �, Adopted after first reading by suspension of the Rule as allowed pursuant to Idaho Code 50-902: YES NO Second Reading: Third Reading: STATEMENT OF MERIDIAN CITY ATTORNEY AS TO ADEQUACY OF SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 16- 1 --�00 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 2016. William. L.M. Nary City Attorney RE ZoNE ORDINANCE SummARY- 907 N.W. 2ND STREET - H-2016-0040 PAGE I Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: July 5, 2016 ITEM NUMBER: PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Executive Session 11A A. Executive Session Per Idaho State Code 74-206A NEGOTIATIONS IN OPEN SESSION. (1) All negotiations between a governing body and a labor organization shall be in open session and shall be available for the public to attend. Provided, however, a governing body or its designated representatives may hold an executive session for the specific purpose of: (a) Considering a labor contract offer or to formulate a counteroffer 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: July 5, 2016 ITEM NUMBER: PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Future Meeting Topics 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