Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-06-03CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, .lune 3, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers 1. Holl -call Attendance. Tammy de WeerdC_ Bill Nary Cherie McCandless Keith Bird Mayor Robert Corrie 2. Adoption of the Agenda:/vier 3. Consent Agenda: e�t�k_e, A. Approve minutes of May 13, 2003 City Council Special Emergency Meeting:, -B. Approve minutes of May 20, 2003 Pre -Council Meeting:��- L: Approve minutes of May 20, 2003 City Council Regular Meeting:oU-e_ D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 03-004 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a childcare facility in an R-4 zone for Building Bridoes Child Development Center by April Reynolds — 3289 North Towerbridge Way: E. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: VAC 03-001 Request for Vacation of existing easements on the recorded plat for sewer and water facilities to be replaced with easements recorded by separate instrument for Presidential Subdivision by Quadrant Consulting, Inc. — northeast corner of North Eagle Road and East Pine Avenue: app& �,� F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: MI 03- 006 Request for use of Lot 1 Block 2 in Sundance Subdivision for a model 1 sales office for Corey Barton Homes by Corey Barton Homes — 3590 North Ettay Way: ve Meridian City Council Agenda —June 3, 2003 Page I 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: Development Agreement: AZ 03-005 Request for annexation and zoning of 61.33 acres from RUT and C -G zones to an R-8 zone for proposed Verona Subdivision by Primeland Development, LLP - northeast corner of West McMillan Road and North Ten Mile Road: e rDrnc- H. 2003 Creek -Crossing Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation Project, ' Change Order No. 1 - Insituform: kp)i9Yw v - ,I: Agreement for Services by HDR Engineering, Inc., for Vulnerability Assessment Study of the City Water System: J. Meridian School Resource Officer Agreement --- May 2003:x' K. Meridian School Resource Officer Agreement - Addendum A for Mountain View High School: qlrrvvt-- L. COPS in Schools 2003 Grant Application: 4,49wvv--,� M. Contract for Xerox Color Copier: N Approve Bills: o 4. Department Reports: dz� 5. (items Moved from Consent Agenda).* A-ohe-- 6". Tabled from May 27, 2003: Resolution No. _ Q L 40 5 - Accepting Accepting Communit Plannin Association of Southwest Idaho Report Number 1-2002: rvv- -7. Ordinance No. e�?C? —/02- 7 AZ 03-007 Request for annexation and zoning of 2.223 acres from RUT to C -G zones for Comfort Suites by Kanti Patel - west of South Eagle Road, south of East Magic View Drive on South Wells Street: ep,~wE- S. Ordinance No. 0S —1199 AZ 03-005 Request for annexation and zoning of 61.33 acres from RUT and C -G zones to an R-8 zone for proposed Verona Subdivision by Primeland Development, LLP -- northeast corner of West McMillan Road and North Ten Mile Road: 4 ►wpyr TE 03-004 Request for a one year Time Extension on the Conditional Use Permit for Queenland Acres (fka Meridian Storage) by Queenland Acres, Inc. - south of West Overland Road and west of South Meridian Road: ��v fim� � tc �1 /-V .% L, Meridian City Council Agenda -- June 3, 2003 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 49 hours prior to the public meeting. 10. FP 03-029 Request for Final Plat approval of 59 building lots on 14.92 acres in an R-4 zone for Sutherland Farm Subdivision No. 2 by JUB Engineers — north of East Victory Road and east of South Eagle Road: 11. FP 03-030 Request for Final Plat approval of 4 building lots on 1.98 acres (_�-- - Pio. 3 by man R-8(PD) zone for uenzer Commons Subdivision,,,,,,,,,,,,.,_ Brighton Development Company, LLC — west of North Locust Grove Road and north of East Ustick Road: 12. Continued Public Hearing from May 20, 2003: AZ 03-006 Request for annexation and zoning of 397.11 acres from RUT and R-1 zones to R-8, R-40, L-0, and C -G zones for proposed Paramount Subdivision by Paramount, LLC — west of North Meridian Road and north of West McMillan Road: .yCv tae1/l'#, C/.e Ay- 4�p/?w va-L 13. Continued Public Hearing from May 20, 2003: PP 03-004 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 764 building lots and 37 other lots on 392.17 acres in proposed R-8, R-40, L-0 and C -G zones for proposed Paramount Subdivision by Paramount, LLC — west of North Meridian Road and north of West McMillan Road: 14. Continued Pub✓✓lic Hearing from May 20, 2003: CUP 03-008 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for 764 single- family residences, 73 townhomes, 270 apartments, community center, schools and churches in proposed R-8, R-40, L-0 and C -G zones for proposed Paramount Subdivision by Paramount, LLC — west of North Meridian Road and north of West McMillan Road. - 15. Public Hearing: PFP 03-001 Request for Preliminary / Final Plat approval of 2 building lots on 2.46 acres in an L-0 zone for Gala Park Subdivision by Paul Aigner — 1620 Celebration Avenue: 16. Public Hearing: CUP 03-011 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for two 9,500 square foot retail buildings with associated site improvements in an L-0 zone for Resolution Subdivision by G.L. Voigt Development — 1611 South Millennium Way and 2045 West Overland Road: 17. Public Hearing: RZ 03-005 Request for a Rezone of 4.738 acres from R-4 to L-0 zones for Christ Lutheran Church by Christ Lutheran Church — 1406 West Cherry Lane.- 18. ane:18. Public Hearing: CUP 03-012 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a church f preschool in a proposed L-0 zone for Christ Lutheran Church by Christ Lutheran Church —1406 West Cherry Lane: Meridian City Council Agenda— June 3, 2003 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. 19. Public Hearing: RZ 03-006 Request for a Rezone of 3.41 acres from R-4 to R-8 zones for Bear Creek No. 6 by Westpark Company - west of South Meridian Road and south of West Overland Road: ea,oi�lwu-p, 411z- VV 20. Public Hearing: PP 03-005 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 31 building lots and 2 other lots on 10.49 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Bear Creek No. 6 by Bear Creek, LLC - west of South Meridian Road and south of West Overland Road: c�h� �/lam fv 6 �0-03 21. Public Hearing: CUP 03-017 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a new Carl's Jr, restaurant with drive-thru service by Clayton Jones - north of Intersection of South Meridian Road, East Central Drive and South Main Street: 4"" Lf C // An 22. Public Hearing: Amending the Fence Variance Ordinance: Meridian City Council Agenda — June 3, 2003 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. fteo_S(L ?C)S+- u, CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, June 3, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers 1. Roll -call Attendance: Tammy de Weerd Bill Nary Cherie McCandless Keith Bird Mayor Robert Corrie 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve minutes of May 13, 2003 City Council Special Emergency Meeting: B. Approve minutes of May 20, 2003 Pre -Council Meeting: C. Approve minutes of May 20, 2003 City Council Regular Meeting: D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 03-004 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a childcare facility in an R-4 zone for Building Bridges Child Development Center by April Reynolds — 3289 North Towerbridge Way: E. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: VAC 03-001 Request for Vacation of existing easements on the recorded plat for sewer and water facilities to be replaced with easements recorded by separate instrument for Presidential Subdivision by Quadrant Consulting, Inc. — northeast corner of North Eagle Road and East Pine Avenue: F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: MI 03-006 Request for use of Lot 1 Block 2 in Sundance Subdivision for a model 1 sales office for Corey Barton Homes by Corey Barton Homes — 3590 North Ettay Way: G. Development Agreement: AZ 03-005 Request for annexation and zoning of 61.33 acres from RUT and C -G zones to an R-8 zone for proposed Verona Subdivision by Primeland Development, LLP — northeast corner of West McMillan Road and North Ten Mile Road: Meridian City Council Agenda —June 3, 2003 Page 1 of 3 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property orthe City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. H. 2003 Creek -Crossing Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation Project, Change Order No. 1 — Insituform: I. Agreement for Services by HDR Engineering, Inc., for Vulnerability Assessment Study of the City Water System: J. Meridian School Resource Officer Agreement — May 2003: K. Meridian School Resource Officer Agreement — Addendum A for Mountain View High School: L. COPS in Schools 2003 Grant Application: M. Contract for Xerox Color Copier: N. Approve Bills: 4. Department Reports: 5. (Items Moved from Consent Agenda) 6. Tabled from May 27, 2003: Resolution No. Accepting Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho Report Number 1-2002: 7. Ordinance No. AZ 03-007 Request for annexation and zoning of 2.223 acres from RUT to C -G zones for Comfort Suites by Kanti Patel — west of South Eagle Road, south of East Magic View Drive on South Wells Street: 8. Ordinance No. AZ 03-005 Request for annexation and zoning of 61.33 acres from RUT and C -G zones to an R-8 zone for proposed Verona Subdivision by Primeland Development, LLP — northeast corner of West McMillan Road and North Ten Mile Road: 9. TE 03-004 Request for a one year Time Extension on the Conditional Use Permit for Queenland Acres (fka Meridian Storage) by Queenland Acres, Inc. — south of West Overland Road and west of South Meridian Road: 10. FP 03-029 Request for Final Plat approval of 59 building lots on 14.92 acres in an R-4 zone for Sutherland Farm Subdivision No. 2 by JUB Engineers — north of East Victory Road and east of South Eagle Road: 11. FP 03-030 Request for Final Plat approval of 4 building lots on 1.98 acres in an R-8(PD) zone for Quenzer Commons Subdivision No. 3 by Brighton Development Company, LLC — west of North Locust Grove Road and north of East Ustick Road: 12. Continued Public Hearing from May 20, 2003: AZ 03-006 Request for annexation and zoning of 397.11 acres from RUT and R-1 zones to R-8, R-40, L - Meridian City Council Agenda — June 3, 2003 Page 2 of 3 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 888-9433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. O, and C -G zones for proposed Paramount Subdivision by Paramount, LLC — west of North Meridian Road and north of West McMillan Road: 13. Continued Public Hearing from May 20, 2003: PP 03-004 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 764 building lots and 37 other lots on 392.17 acres in proposed R-8, R-40, L -O and C -G zones for proposed Paramount Subdivision by Paramount, LLC — west of North Meridian Road and north of West McMillan Road: 14. Continued Public Hearing from May 20, 2003: CUP 03-008 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for 764 single-family residences, 73 townhomes, 270 apartments, community center, schools and churches in proposed R-8, R-40, L -O and C -G zones for proposed Paramount Subdivision by P aramount, L LC — west o f N orth M eridian R oad a nd n orth of West McMillan Road: 15. Public Hearing: PFP 03-001 Request for Preliminary 1 Final Plat approval of 2 building lots on 2.46 acres in an L -O zone for Gala Park Subdivision by Paul Aigner — 1620 Celebration Avenue: 16. Public Hearing: CUP 03-011 Request for a C onditional U se P ermit f or two 9,500 square foot retail buildings with associated site improvements in an L -O zone for Resolution Subdivision by G.L. Voigt Development — 1611 South Millennium Way and 2045 West Overland Road: 17. Public Hearing: RZ 03-005 Request for a Rezone of 4.738 acres from R-4 to L- O zones for Christ Lutheran Church by Christ Lutheran Church — 1406 West Cherry Lane: 18. Public Hearing: CUP 03-012 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a church 1 preschool in a proposed L -O zone for Christ Lutheran Church by Christ Lutheran Church —1406 West Cherry Lane: 19. Public Hearing: RZ 03-006 Request for a Rezone of 3.41 acres from R-4 to R-8 zones for Bear Creek No. 6 by Westpark Company — west of South Meridian Road and south of West Overland Road: 20. Public Hearing: PP 03-005 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 31 building lots and 2 other lots on 10.49 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Bear Creek No. 6 by Bear Creek, LLC — west of South Meridian Road and south of West Overland Road: 21. Public Hearing: CUP 03-017 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a new Carl's Jr. restaurant with drive-thru service by Clayton Jones — north of Intersection of South Meridian Road, East Central Drive and South Main Street: 22. Public Hearing: Amending the Fence Variance Ordinance: Meridian City Council Agenda — June 3, 2003 Page 3 of 3 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. TX CONE, .4TION REPORT *m AS OF MAY 30 '03 :47 PAGE. 01 CITY OF MERIDIAN No-se.lost -& R,_. )tzc fto�;CL;- 1ho pI CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, June 3, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers 1. Roll -call Attendance: Tammy de Weerd Bill Nary Cherie McCandless Keith Bird Mayor Robert Corrie 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent /Agenda: A. Approve minutes of May 13, 2003 City Council Special Emergency Meeting; B. Approve minutes of May 20, 2003 Pre -Council Meeting: C. Approve minutes of May 20, 2003 City Council Regular Meeting: D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 03.004 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a childcare facility in an R-4 Reynolds Building Bridges Child Development Center by April y h Towerbddge Way: E. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: YAC 03.001 Request for Vacation of existing easements on the recorded plat for sewer and water facilities to be replaced with easements recorded by separate instrument for Presidential Subdivision by Quadrant Consulting, Inc. — northeast corner of North Eagle Road and East Pine Avenue: F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: Ml 03-006 Request for use of Lot 1 Block 2 in Sundance Subdivision for a model 1 sales office for Corey Barton Homes by Corey Barton Homes — 3590 North Ettay Way: G. Development Agreement: Az 03-005 Request for annexation and zoning of 61.33 acres from RUT and C -G zones to an R-8 zone for proposed Verona Subdivision by Primeland Development, LLP — northeast corner of West McMillan Road and North Ten Mile Road: Meridian CiryCuunulAbcnda-7unc3.2003 pagelnf3 All materialspresented at public [nxdm ngs shall beeac proptrty of she Cily of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documptts andlor hearing Please sanest the City Cleric's Wee at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting, DATE TIME TO/FROM MODE MIN/SEC PHS CMD4 STATUS 20 05/30 15127 3810160 EC --S 01'42" 003 093 CK 22 05/30 15:30 PUBLIC WORKS OF --S 00'50" 003 093 OK 23 05/30 15:32 2084664405 EC --S 01'01" 003 093 OK 24 05/30 15:34 2086840744 EC --S 01'02" 003 093 OK 25 05/30 15t3S 2068467366 EC ---S 01'02" 003 093 OK 26 05/30 15:37 6985501 EC --S 01'01" 003 (393 OK 27 05/30 15136 LIBRARY EC --S 01'20" 003 093 OK 28 05/30 15:40 92083776449 EC --S 01'01" 003 093 OK 29 05/30 15:42 208 386 6924 EC --S 01'19" 003 093 OK 30 05/30 15:44 2088866854 EC --S 01'01" 003 093 OK 31 05/30 15:45 12084674538 EC --5 01'00" 003 093 OK 32 05/30 15:46 8950390 EC --S 01'00" 003 093 OK No-se.lost -& R,_. )tzc fto�;CL;- 1ho pI CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, June 3, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers 1. Roll -call Attendance: Tammy de Weerd Bill Nary Cherie McCandless Keith Bird Mayor Robert Corrie 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent /Agenda: A. Approve minutes of May 13, 2003 City Council Special Emergency Meeting; B. Approve minutes of May 20, 2003 Pre -Council Meeting: C. Approve minutes of May 20, 2003 City Council Regular Meeting: D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 03.004 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a childcare facility in an R-4 Reynolds Building Bridges Child Development Center by April y h Towerbddge Way: E. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: YAC 03.001 Request for Vacation of existing easements on the recorded plat for sewer and water facilities to be replaced with easements recorded by separate instrument for Presidential Subdivision by Quadrant Consulting, Inc. — northeast corner of North Eagle Road and East Pine Avenue: F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: Ml 03-006 Request for use of Lot 1 Block 2 in Sundance Subdivision for a model 1 sales office for Corey Barton Homes by Corey Barton Homes — 3590 North Ettay Way: G. Development Agreement: Az 03-005 Request for annexation and zoning of 61.33 acres from RUT and C -G zones to an R-8 zone for proposed Verona Subdivision by Primeland Development, LLP — northeast corner of West McMillan Road and North Ten Mile Road: Meridian CiryCuunulAbcnda-7unc3.2003 pagelnf3 All materialspresented at public [nxdm ngs shall beeac proptrty of she Cily of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documptts andlor hearing Please sanest the City Cleric's Wee at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting, ** TSC CONFIT. PION REPORT ** AS OF MAY 30 '03--`08 PAGE.01 CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, June 3, 2003 at 7:00 p.m - City Council Chambers 1. Roll -call Attendance: Tammy de Weerd Bill Nary Cherie McCandless Keith Bird Mayor Robert Corrie 2. Adoptlon of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve minutes of May 13, 20D3 City Council Special Emergency Meeting: B. Approve minutes of May 20, 2003 Pre -Council Meeting: C. Approve minutes of May 20, 2003 City Council Regular Meeting: D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 03-004 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a childcare facility in an R-4 zone for Building Bridges Child Development Center by April Reynolds — 3289 North Towerbridge Way: E. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: VAC 03-001 Request for Vacation of existing easements on the recorded plat for sewer and water facilities to be replaced with easements recorded by separate instrument for Presidential Subdivision by Quadrant Consulting, Inc. — northeast corner of North Eagle Road and East Pine Avenue: F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: M1 03-006 Request for use of Lot 1 Block 2 in Sundance Subdivision for a model / sales office for Corey Barton Homes by Corey Barton Homes -- 3590 North Ettay Way: G. Development Agreement: AZ 03-005 Request for annexation and zoning of 61.33 acres from RUT and C -G zones to an R-8 zone for proposed Verona Subdivision by Primeland Development, LLP — northeast corner of West McMillan Road and North Ten Mile Road: Mcridi= Ciry Coundl Agc p a —June 3, 2003 Pagc t ar3 All materials presented at public mccrings shall become properly of the City of lvit6dian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related ro doeumcnis andfor hewing please conhact die City Clerk's Office at 883.4433 at Icash 48 hours prior to the public meeting. DATE TIME TO/FROM MODE MIN/SEC PGS CMD14 STATUS 01 05/30 15:48 Laurel EC --S 01'03" 003 093 OK 02 05/30 15:50 20B 387 6393 EC --S 01'02" 003 093 OK 03 05/30 15=51 ADA CTY DEVELMT G3 --S 01148" 003 093 OK 04 05/30 15:53 CHERIE MCCANDLES EC ---S 01'17" 083 093 OK 05 05/30 15:55 CHERRY LANE EC --S 01120" 003 093 OK 06 05/30 15:57 POST OFFICE EC --S 01'43" 003 093 OK 07 05/30 16.00 IDAHO ATHLETIC C EC --S 01'02" 003 093 OK 08 05/30 16=01 ID PRESS TRIBUNE EC --S 01'02" 003 093 OK 09 05/30 16:03 208 888 6700 EC --S 01'01" 003 093 OK 10 05/30 16:07 8841159 EC --S 01103" 003 093 OK CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, June 3, 2003 at 7:00 p.m - City Council Chambers 1. Roll -call Attendance: Tammy de Weerd Bill Nary Cherie McCandless Keith Bird Mayor Robert Corrie 2. Adoptlon of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve minutes of May 13, 20D3 City Council Special Emergency Meeting: B. Approve minutes of May 20, 2003 Pre -Council Meeting: C. Approve minutes of May 20, 2003 City Council Regular Meeting: D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 03-004 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a childcare facility in an R-4 zone for Building Bridges Child Development Center by April Reynolds — 3289 North Towerbridge Way: E. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: VAC 03-001 Request for Vacation of existing easements on the recorded plat for sewer and water facilities to be replaced with easements recorded by separate instrument for Presidential Subdivision by Quadrant Consulting, Inc. — northeast corner of North Eagle Road and East Pine Avenue: F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: M1 03-006 Request for use of Lot 1 Block 2 in Sundance Subdivision for a model / sales office for Corey Barton Homes by Corey Barton Homes -- 3590 North Ettay Way: G. Development Agreement: AZ 03-005 Request for annexation and zoning of 61.33 acres from RUT and C -G zones to an R-8 zone for proposed Verona Subdivision by Primeland Development, LLP — northeast corner of West McMillan Road and North Ten Mile Road: Mcridi= Ciry Coundl Agc p a —June 3, 2003 Pagc t ar3 All materials presented at public mccrings shall become properly of the City of lvit6dian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related ro doeumcnis andfor hewing please conhact die City Clerk's Office at 883.4433 at Icash 48 hours prior to the public meeting. TX CON, ;TION REPORT AS OF JUN 04 '03 01. PAGE -01 CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, June 3, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers Roll -call Attendance: Tammy de Weerd �C� Bill Nary Cherie McCandless _ }� Keith Bird Mayor Robert Corrie 2. Adoption of the Agenda.- 3. genda: 3. Consent Agenda: ate, iyt�e� A. Approve minutes of May 13, 2003 City Council Special Emergency Meeting: G.pjaygv� B. Approve minutes of May 20, 2003 Pre -Council Meeting: a70,V7---*— C. Approve minutes of May 20, 2003 City Council Regular Meeting: D. Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law for Approval: CUP 03-004 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a childcare facility in an RA zone for BuildingLBridges Child Development Center by April Reynolds --3289 North Towerbridge Way: c`PI�'"°""` E Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: VAC 03-001 Request for Vacation of existing easements on the recorded plat for sewer and water facilities to be replaced with easements recorded by separate instrument for Presidential Subdivision by Quadrant Consulting, Inc. — northeast tamer of North Eagle Road and East Pine Avenue: a v e.c_ F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: NII 03- 006 Request for use of Lot 1 Block 2 in Sundance Subdivision for a model 1 sales office for Corey Barton Homes by Corey Barton Homes — 3590 North Eltay Way: eve hluidien City Cavucil Agcnda -Jvac 3, 2003 Vagc 144 All me161MSS pn:umcdat pul4cmcmngs¢haft bw me propffW oftlle Ciq ofMddiem Anyone L1016ng eecommodarial fa &Rbilides alued to documvtas mrdlor hearing P14-. cord t6c City C1c&'e Officc At 888-1433 04 }+aet48 hours priarlo the public molting. DATE TIME TO/FROM MODE MIN/SEC PGS CMDN STATUS 03 06/04 08:39 PUBLIC WORKS EC --S 01119" 004 151 OK 04 06/04 08:41 12084EG4405 EC --S 01'20" 004 151 OK 05 06/04 08:43 8841159 EC --S 01'19" 004 151 OK 06 06/04 08:45 2088840744 EC --S 01'18" 004 151 OK 07 06/04 08:47 2086467356 EC --S 01'19" 004 151 OK 08 06/04 0849 8985501 EC --S 0111811 004 151 OK Z9 06/04 08:50 LIBRARY EC --S 01'44" 004 151 OK 10 06/04 08:S3 92083776449 EC --S 01'17" 004 151 OK 11 06/04 06:54 208 388 6924 EC ---S 01'44" 004 151 OK 12 06/04 02:57 2088886854 EC --S 01'18" 004 151 OK 13 06/04 08:58 8950390 EC --S 01'18" 004 151 OK 14 06/04 09:00 208 367 6393 EC --S 01'18" 004 151 OK 15 06/04 09:02 ADA CTY DEVELMT G3 --S 02'22" 004 151 OK 16 06/04 09:05 208—B88-5052 EC --S 01'1B" 004 151 OK 17 06/04 09:07 CHERRY LANE EC --S 01'43" 204 151 OK 18 06/04 09:i39 IDAHO ATHLETIC C EC --S 01120" 004 151 OK 19 06/04 09:11 ID PRESS TRIBUNE EC --S 01'19" 004 151 OK 20 06/04 09:13 208 888 6700 EC --S 01'18" 004 151 OK 23 06/04 09:24 3610160 EC --S 02'13" 004 151 OK CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, June 3, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers Roll -call Attendance: Tammy de Weerd �C� Bill Nary Cherie McCandless _ }� Keith Bird Mayor Robert Corrie 2. Adoption of the Agenda.- 3. genda: 3. Consent Agenda: ate, iyt�e� A. Approve minutes of May 13, 2003 City Council Special Emergency Meeting: G.pjaygv� B. Approve minutes of May 20, 2003 Pre -Council Meeting: a70,V7---*— C. Approve minutes of May 20, 2003 City Council Regular Meeting: D. Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law for Approval: CUP 03-004 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a childcare facility in an RA zone for BuildingLBridges Child Development Center by April Reynolds --3289 North Towerbridge Way: c`PI�'"°""` E Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: VAC 03-001 Request for Vacation of existing easements on the recorded plat for sewer and water facilities to be replaced with easements recorded by separate instrument for Presidential Subdivision by Quadrant Consulting, Inc. — northeast tamer of North Eagle Road and East Pine Avenue: a v e.c_ F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: NII 03- 006 Request for use of Lot 1 Block 2 in Sundance Subdivision for a model 1 sales office for Corey Barton Homes by Corey Barton Homes — 3590 North Eltay Way: eve hluidien City Cavucil Agcnda -Jvac 3, 2003 Vagc 144 All me161MSS pn:umcdat pul4cmcmngs¢haft bw me propffW oftlle Ciq ofMddiem Anyone L1016ng eecommodarial fa &Rbilides alued to documvtas mrdlor hearing P14-. cord t6c City C1c&'e Officc At 888-1433 04 }+aet48 hours priarlo the public molting. June 20, 2003 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 24, 2003 APPLICANT ITEM NO. r REQUEST Approve minutes of June 3, 2003 City Council Regular Meeting: AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: Contacted: COMMENTS Date: Phone: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, June 3, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers 1. Roll -call Attendance: X Tammy de Weerd X Bill Nary X Cherie McCandless X Keith Bird X Mayor Robert Corrie 2. Adoption of the Agenda: Approve 3. Consent Agenda: Approve A. Approve minutes of May 13, 2003 City Council Special Emergency Meeting: Approve B. Approve minutes of May 20, 2003 Pre -Council Meeting: Approve C. Approve minutes of May 20, 2003 City Council Regular Meeting: Approve D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 03-004 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a childcare facility in an R-4 zone for Building Bridges Child Development Center by April Reynolds -- 3289 North Towerbridge Way: Approve E. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: VAC 03-001 Request for Vacation of existing easements on the recorded plat for sewer and water facilities to be replaced with easements recorded by separate instrument for Presidential Subdivision by Quadrant Consulting, Inc. — northeast corner of North Eagle Road and East Pine Avenue: Approve F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: MI 03- 006 Request for use of Lot 1 Block 2 in Sundance Subdivision for a model 1 sales office for Corey Barton Homes by Corey Barton Homes — 3590 North Ettay Way: Approve Meridian City Council Agenda — June 3, 2003 Page 1 of 4 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City or 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. Development Agreement: AZ 03-005 Request for annexation and zoning of 61.33 acres from RUT and C -G zones to an R-8 zone for proposed Verona Subdivision by Primeland Development, LLP — northeast corner of West McMillan Road and North Ten Mile Road: Approve H. 2003_Creek-Crossing Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation Project, .,,. Change Order No. 1 — lnsituform: Approve I. Agreement for Services by HDR Engineering, Inc., for Vulnerability Assessment Stud of the City Water System: Approve J. Meridian School Resource Officer Agreement — May 2003: Approve K. Meridian School Resource Officer Agreement -- Addendum A for Mountain View High School: Approve L. COPS in Schools 2003 Grant Application: Approve M. Contract for Xerox Color Copier: Approve N. Approve Bills: Approve 4. Department Reports: None 5. (Items Moved from Consent Agenda): None 6. Tabled from May 27, 2003: Resolution No. 03-405 Accepting Community_ Planning „Association of Southwest Idaho Report Number 1-2002: Approve 7. Ordinance No. 03-1028 : AZ 03-007 Request for annexation and zoning of 2.223 acres from RUT to C -G zones for Comfort Suites by Kanti Patel — west of South Eagle Road, south of East Magic View Drive on South Wells Street: Approve 8. Ordinance No. 03-1029 : AZ 03-005 Request for annexation and zoning of 61.33 acres from RUT and C -G zones to an R-8 zone for proposed Verona Subdivision by Primeland Development, LLP — northeast corner of West McMillan Road and North Ten Mile Road: Approve 9. TE 03-004 Request for a one year Time Extension on the Conditional Use Permit for Queenland Acres (fka Meridian Storage) by Queenland Meridian City Council Agenda —June 3, 2003 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. Acres, Inc. — south of West Overland Road and west of South Meridian Road: Approve Time Extension to June 4, 2004 10. FP 03-029 Request for Final Plat approval of 59 building lots on 14.92 acres in an R-4 zone for Sutherland Farm Subdivision No. 2 by JUB Engineers — north of East Victory Road and east of South Eagle Road: Approve 11. FP 03-030 Request for Final Plat approval of 4 building lots on 1.98 acres in an R-8(PD) zone for Quenzer Commons Subdivision No. 3 by Brighton Development Company, LLC — west of North Locust Grove Road and north of East Ustick Road: Approve 12. Continued Public Hearing from May 20, 2003: AZ 03-006 Request for annexation and zoning of 397.11 acres from RUT and R-1 zones to R-8, R-40, L -O, and C -G zones for proposed Paramount Subdivision by Paramount, LLC — west of North Meridian Road and north of West McMillan Road: Attorney to prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval 13. Continued Public Hearing from May 20, 2003: PP 03-004 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 764 building lots and 37 other lots on 392.17 acres in proposed R-8, R-40, L -O and C -G zones for proposed Paramount Subdivision by Paramount, LLC — west of North Meridian Road and north of West McMillan Road: Attorney to prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval 14. Continued Public Hearing from May 20, 2003: CUP 03-008 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for 764 single- family residences, 73 townhomes, 270 apartments, community center, schools and churches in proposed R-8, R-40, L -O and C -G zones for proposed Paramount Subdivision by Paramount, LLC — west of North Meridian Road and north of West McMillan Road: Attorney to prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval 15. Public Hearing: PFP 03-001 Request for Preliminary 1 Final Plat approval of 2 building lots on 2.46 acres in an L -O zone for Gala Park Subdivision by Paul Aigner — 1620 Celebration Avenue: Attorney to prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval 16. Public Hearing: CUP 03-011 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for two 9,500 square foot retail buildings with associated site improvements in an L -O zone for Resolution Subdivision by G.L. Voigt Development — 1611 South Millennium Way and 2045 West Overland Road: Continue Public Hearing to June 10, 2003 Meeting Meridian City Council Agenda -- June 3, 2003 Page 3 oi'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 i 17. Public Hearing: RZ 03-005 Request for a Rezone of 4.738 acres from R-4 to L -O zones for Christ Lutheran Church by Christ Lutheran Church — 1406 West Cherry Lane: Attorney to prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval 18. Public Hearing: CUP 03-012 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a church 1 preschool in a proposed L -O zone for Christ Lutheran Church by Christ Lutheran Church — 1406 West Cherry Lane: Attorney to prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval 19. Public Hearing: RZ 03-006 Request for a Rezone of 3.41 acres from R-4 to R-8 zones for Bear Creek No. 6 by Westpark Company — west of South Meridian Road and south of West Overland Road: Continue Public Hearing to June 10, 2003 Meeting 20. Public Hearing: PP 03-005 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 31 building lots and 2 other lots on 10.49 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Bear Creek No. 6 by Bear Creek, LLC — west of South Meridian Road and south of West Overland Road: Continue Public Hearing to June 10, 2003 Meeting 21. Public Hearing: CUP 03-017 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a new Carl's Jr. restaurant with drive-thru service by Clayton Jones — north of Intersection of South Meridian Road, East Central Drive and South Main Street: Attorney to prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial 22. Public Hearing: Amending the Fence Variance Ordinance: Attorney to Prepare Ordinance Meridian City Council Agenda — June 3, 2003 Page 4 of4 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 Meeting June 3, 2003 The Regular Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:20 P.M., on Tuesday, June 3, 2003, by Mayor Robert Corrie. Members Present: Mayor Robert Corrie, William Nary, Tammy de Weerd, Cherie McCandless, and Keith Bird. Others Present: William Nichols, Brad Watson, Brad Hawkins -Clark, Anna Powell, Jim Musser, Dean Willis, and Will Berg. Item 'I. Roll tail Attendance: X Tammy de Weerd X Bill Nary X Cherie McCandless X Keith Bird X Mayor Robert Corrie Corrie: I will open the City Council Regular Meeting, Tuesday, June 3, 2003, at 7:20 P.M. Mr. Clerk, I'd like to have roll call attendance, please. Item 2. Adoption of the Agenda: Corrie: Okay. Thank you. Item Number 2 is the adoption of the agenda. Council, we have had a request from the developer on Item 15, if they would be able to move it -- 15 up to Item -- right after Item 11. The subdivision developer has to catch a plane tonight and so I -- with your permission, I'd like to move that one up. Let's see, I believe that's the only one that I have at this time. I believe, Anna, you said that they were going to have a continuation of Item 19 and 20 of Bear Creek, so we will have that continued later. Okay, any other agenda changes? Okay. Hearing none, I will entertain a motion for the adoption of the change in the agenda. Bird: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: 1 move we adopt the amended agenda at noted. Nary: Second. Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to adopt the amended agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed no? Motion is carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 3. Consent Agenda: Meridian City Council Meeting June 3, 2003 Page 2 of 67 A. Approve minutes of May 13, 2003 City Council Special Emergency Meeting: B. Approve minutes of May 20, 2003 Pre -Council Meeting: C. Approve minutes of May 20, 2003 City Council Regular Meeting: D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 03-004 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a childcare facility in an R-4 zone for Building Bridges Child Development Center by April Reynolds — 3289 North Towerbridge Way: E. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: VAC 03-001 Request for Vacation of existing easements on the recorded plat for sewer and water facilities to be replaced with easements recorded by separate instrument for Presidential Subdivision by Quadrant Consulting, Inc. — northeast corner of North Eagle Road and East Pine Avenue: F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: Ml 03- 006 Request for use of Lot 1 Block 2 in Sundance Subdivision for a model 1 sales office for Corey Barton Homes by Corey Barton Homes — 3590 North Ettay Way: G. Development Agreement: AZ 03-005 Request for annexation and zoning of 61.33 acres from RUT and C -G zones to an R-8 zone for proposed Verona Subdivision by Primeland Development, LLP — northeast corner of West McMillan Road and North Ten Mile Road: H. 2003 Creek -Crossing Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation Project, Change Order No. 1 --- Insituform: Agreement for Services by HDR Engineering, Inc., for Vulnerability Assessment Study of the City Water System: J. Meridian School Resource Officer Agreement — May 2003: K. Meridian School Resource Officer Agreement -- Addendum A for Mountain View High School: L. COPS in Schools 2003 Grant Application: M. Contract for Xerox Color Copier: N. Approve Bills: Meridian City Council Meeting June 3, 2003 Page 3 of 67 Corrie: Item Number 3 is the Consent Agenda. Bird: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we approve the Consent Agenda as published and for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest on all proper papers. Nary: Second. Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda, any other discussion? All those in favor of the motion -- oh, no roll call vote, Mr. Berg. Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye. Corrie: Okay. All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 4. Department Reports: Corrie: Item Number 4, Department Reports, any Department Reports? Item 5. (Items Moved from Consent Agenda) Corrie: All right. Item Number 5, is there any items to be removed from the Consent Agenda, which we have none. Item 6. Tabled from May 27, 2003: Resolution No. Accepting Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho Report Number 1-2002: Corrie: Now, we will go into Item Number 6, is tabled from May 27, 2003, resolution -- do we have a number Mr. Berg? Berg: Yes, Mr. Mayor, if it passes. I think you had a memo from the Planning and Zoning director. It would be 03-405. Corrie: Okay. I'll read the resolution number and, then, if -- we will use it for the next one, Resolution Number 03-405, accepting Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho Report Number 1-2002. If you will read by title only the resolution and, then, we will have discussion. Meridian City Council Meeting June 3, 2003 Page 4 of 67 Berg: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Member of the Council. Resolution Number 03-405, a resolution of the Mayor and City Council of the City of Meridian to provide for Findings and to establish the acceptance of the Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho Report Number 1-2002 by Washington Infrastructure Services, Inc., as a planning document for the City of Meridian and providing for an effective date. Corrie: All right. Anna -- Anna, excuse me, you had a city memorandum. Would you like to discuss that with Council? Powell: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I did go through the document and cross- referenced it with our Comprehensive Plan to give you an idea of how those two documents were consistent and, by and large, they are very consistent. I think I pointed out the items in particular that we would like to see moved forward, I think, are the Locust Grove overpass and the Ten Mile Interchange, which were, really, very key components of that report. I did point out that there was one issue regarding the extension of the Emmett Highway, that if you do have -- that issue was left open in this report, that there was four possible locations to bring that extension, whether it was Garrity Boulevard, Robinson Road, Ten Mile Road, or Meridian Road. If the Council had strong feelings about that, where that eventual connection should be of that Emmett Highway extension, then, you should work at getting that in with the Comprehensive Plan. We can certainly fold that in with the North Meridian Area Plan update, because we are going to be looking at those arterials roads as part of that update for the Comprehensive Plan as well. That would be a good time if you can schedule a work session to talk about that North Meridian Area Plan, if you'd like, and, then, address this issue there, unless there is strong feelings now that you want to talk about it and get on the record immediately to COMPASS. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I believe that that was pretty much brought forward over the last 24 months with the North Meridian planning efforts, I think it was very well summarized into a nice document that Mr. Wardle presented and I really like what he presented in that document as far as the moving of traffic in that north Meridian area. As well as, I believe that Senator Bunderson has been working at the state level in effecting some designation of that being designated as a north -south -- north -south route. There has been some movement in that direction in using Black Cat and, then, having it veer off to the different interchanges, Ten Mile or McDermott. Corrie: Yes. I was going to say Black Cat Road was pretty well designated as the thoroughfare 16 or 44. Powell: So, it's not an interchange at Black Cat, just to have it come back over to Ten Mile. Meridian City Council Meeting June 3, 2003 Page 5 of 67 Corrie: Come back over to Ten Mile and Ten Mile would be the interchange. Powell: Okay. Corrie: Okay, any other discussion? Then, I will entertain a motion on the Resolution Number 03-405, if it meets with your approval. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I move we approve Resolution 03-405, accepting Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho Report Number 1-2002 and ask the Mayor to sign and Clerk attest, with suspension of rules. Bird: Second. Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to approve Resolution Number 03-405, any further discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote, Mr. Berg. Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye. Corrie: Okay. All ayes. Motion approved. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 7. Ordinance No. AZ 03-007 Request for annexation and zoning of 2,223 acres from RUT to C -G zones for Comfort Suites by Kanti Patel — west of South Eagle Road, south of East Magic View Drive on South Wells Street: Corrie: Let me entertain an injection here. I forgot to welcome everybody here tonight and also our scout representative back there. Thank you for coming. Appreciate it. I'm sure the Council does, too. item Number 7 is an Ordinance Number 03-1027. Okay. This is a request for annexation and zoning of 2.223 acres from RUT to C -G zone for Comfort Suites, west of South Eagle Road and south of East Magic View Drive on South Wells Street. At this time we would like to have, the City Clerk read Ordinance Number 03-1027 by title only. Berg: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. Ordinance Number 03-1027, an Ordinance finding that James and Diane Fuhrman, the owners of certain real property generally located on the northeast corner of South Wells Street and Freeway Drive, Meridian, to be known as Comfort Suites and which lies contiguous or adjacent to the city limits of the City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of Idaho, have made a request for annexation in writing to the Council that said land be annexed to the City of Meridian and zoning designated General Retail and Service Commercial District (L -O) and Meridian City Council Meeting June 3, 2003 Page 6 of 67 declaring that said land, by proper legal description as described below, be a part of the City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of Idaho, repealing all ordinances, resolutions, orders, or parts thereof, in conflict herewith, and directing the city engineer to add said property to the official maps of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and directing the Clerk of the City of Meridian to file a certified copy of the ordinance and map of the areas to be annexed with the Ada county recorder, auditor, treasurer, and assessor and the State Tax Commission of the State of Idaho, pursuant to Idaho Code Section 50-223 and Section 63-2215, Corrie: Thank you. You have heard the reading of Ordinance Number 03-1027 by title only. Is there anyone from the public that would like to have the Ordinance read in its entirety? Hearing none, Council? McCandless: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. McCandless. McCandless: I move that we approve Ordinance Number 03-1027, a request for annexation and zoning of 2.223 acres from RUT to C -G zones Comfort Suites, west of South Eagle Road, south of East Magic View Drive on South Wells Street, with suspension of rules. Nary: Second. Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to approve Ordinance Number 03-1027 with suspension of rules. Nichols: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nichols. Nichols: Mr. Mayor, I notice an error in the ordinance. In the title, as well as the body, it correctly refers to the General Retail Service Commercial District, but, then, indirectly designates it as I_ -O afterward. It should say C -G. The summary is correct, but somehow we messed up on the title and the body and so I ask that the title be amended and, then, also at Section 3, that that designation in the parenthesis should be designated C -G. Corrie: Okay. With that being said, to have that -- the motion -- McCandless: To include that in the motion, yes, sir. Corrie: All right. Nary: Second agrees. Meridian City Council Meeting June 3, 2003 Page 7 of 67 Corrie: Second agrees? Okay, Any further discussion? Roll call vote, Mr. Berg. Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye. Corrie: All ayes. Motion is approved. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 8. Ordinance No. AZ 03-005 Request for annexation and zoning of 61.33 acres from RUT and C -G zones to an R-8 zone for proposed Verona Subdivision by Primeland Development, LLP — northeast corner of West McMillan Road and North Ten Mile Road: Corrie: Number 8 is an Ordinance Number 03-1028. This is AZ 03-005, request for annexation a nd zoning o f 61.33 a cres from R UT a nd C -G z ones to a n R-8 z one for proposed Verona Subdivision by Primeland Development, LLP, northeast corner of West McMillan Road and North Ten Mile Road. At this time I'd like ask the City Clerk to read the ordinance by title only. Berg: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. Ordinance Number 03-1028, an Ordinance finding that E.L. Bews and Shirley Bews, husband and wife, the owners of certain real property generally located on the northeast corner of West McMillan Road and North Ten Mile Road, Meridian, to be known as Verona Subdivision and which lies contiguous or adjacent to the city limits of the City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of Idaho, have made a request for annexation in writing to the Council and that said land be annexed to the City of Meridian and zoning designated Medium Density Residential District (R-8) and declaring that said land, by proper legal description as described below, be a part of the City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of Idaho, repealing all ordinances, resolutions, orders, or parts thereof, in conflict herewith, and directing the city engineer to add said property to the official maps of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and directing the Clerk of the City of Meridian to file a certified copy of the ordinance and map of the areas to be annexed with the Ada county recorder, auditor, treasurer, and assessor and the State Tax Commission of the State of Idaho, pursuant to Idaho Code Section 50-223 and Section 63-2215. Corrie: Thank you. Is there anyone from the audience that would like to have Ordinance Number 03-1028 read in its entirety? Nearing none, Council, recommendation? Bird: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: I would move that we approve Ordinance Number 03-1028, request for annexation and zoning 61.33 acres from RUT and C -G zones to an R-8 zone for Meridian City Council Meeting June 3, 2003 Page 8 of 67 proposed Verona Subdivision by Primeland Development, LLP, northeast corner of West McMillan Road and North Ten Mile Road with suspension of rules. McCandless: Second. Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to approve, with suspension of rules, any further discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote, Mr. Berg. Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye. Corrie: All ayes. Motion is approved for Ordinance Number AZ 03-1028. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 9. TE 03-004 Request for a one year Time Extension on the Conditional Use Permit for Queenland Acres (fka Meridian Storage) by Queenland Acres, Inc. — south of West Overland Road and west of South Meridian Road: Corrie: Item Number 9 is TE 03-004, request for a one-year Time Extension for the Conditional Use Permit for Queenland Acres, fka Meridian Storage, by Queenland Acres, Incorporated, south of West Overland Road and west of South Meridian Road. At this time we will have staff comments first. Powell: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, this is a pretty straightforward Time Extension for a storage use. The original developer has backed out, so the owner is looking for another developer for the project, so they have requested a one-year Time Extension. Corrie: Okay. Thank you. Council do you have any questions? Okay. Just in case, is the requester of the time here tonight? Okay, Council, pleasure? Bird: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: I would move that we approve the request for a one-year Time Extension, which would be until June 1, 2004, on the Conditional Use Permit for Queenland Acres, formerly known as the Meridian Storage by Queenland Acres, south of West Overland Road and west of South Meridian Road. De Weerd: Second. Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded, any further discussion? Roll call vote, Mr. Berg. Meridian City Council Meeting June 3, 2003 Page 9 of 67 Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye. Corrie: All ayes. Approved. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 10. FP 03-029 Request for Final Plat approval of 59 building lots on 14.92 acres in an R-4 zone for Sutherland Farm Subdivision No. 2 by JUB Engineers — north of East Victory Road and east of South Eagle Road: Corrie: Item Number 10 is FP 03-029. This is a request for Final Plat approval of 59 building lots on 14.92 acres in an R-4 zone for Sutherland Farms Subdivision No. 2 by JUB Engineers north of East Victory Road and east of South Eagle Road. At this time I'd like to have staffs comments first. Hawkins -Clark: Thank you, Mayor, Members of the Council. This Final Plat is the second phase in Sutherland Farms. The project is here on the north side of Victory Road, on the east of Eagle. Phase one was located immediately off of Victory. This phase is completely internal to the boundaries. It does not have any frontage on either Victory or Eagle. Here is a copy of the final plat that was submitted. There are actually no common lots in the plat to point out. They are all buildable lots. Probably the one item to point out in the staff report is that the Preliminary Plat had a 101 cap on the number of houses that could be developed here without a secondary access for fire. This phase of Sutherland actually pushes them over the 101 limit, so rather than the city Building Department tracking all those Building Permits and saying we need to stop, we are recommending that they go ahead and construct that secondary road immediately, so it will be in long before the 1015 Building Permit is issued. It will generally follow off of Eagle Road and come in along this southern portion of this Preliminary Plat and, again, we are talking about this section here. We are making that one slight tweak that is a change from the Preliminary Plat. Other than that, we recommend approval. Corrie: Okay, any questions of staff? Is the developer here tonight any changes? Okay. Let the -- the applicant noted he shook his head no. Okay, Council, pleasure? De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I move we approve the request for Final Plat of 59 building lots on 14.92 acres in an R-4 zone for Sutherland Farms Subdivision No. 2, with all staff comments, and ask the attorney to draw up Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order. Bird: Second. Meridian City Council Meeting June 3, 2003 Page 10 of 67 Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded for approval with staff comments included, any further discussion? Roll call vote, Mr. Berg. Roll call: McCandless, naye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye. Corrie: Okay. Three ayes, one naye, passage. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE NAYS Item 11. FP 03-030 Request for Final Plat approval of 4 building lots on 1.98 acres in an R-8(PD) zone for Quenzer Commons Subdivision No. 3 by Brighton Development Company, LLC — west of North Locust Grove Road and north of East Ustick Road: Corrie: Item No. 11 is FP 03-030, request for final plat approval of four building lots on 1.98 acres in an R-8 PD zone for Quenzer Commons Subdivision No. 3 by Brighton Corporation Company, LLC, west of North Locust Grove Road and north of East Ustick Road. Staff comments first. Powell: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, there are only a couple of minor issues related to this Final Plat. One is that the applicant in the first phase of the development did request a Street Light Agreement for ornamental streetlights. It would seem appropriate to extend that agreement to include all phases of the development, really, as appropriate throughout, so that they have a common street light throughout. The other issue is that the Preliminary Plat did show -- oh, I'm sorry this is four lots of the six commercial lots in the front of the development along Locust Grove Road and the south boundary being Heritage Park Street, the entrance to the property. That's the proposed Landscape Plan. This is from the Preliminary Plat application. It does show a pull out -- a bus pull out in this area right here and those were shown on several alternatives for this development, so it was fairly clear that it was part of the Preliminary Plat application. The applicant has asked that that be in an easement at this time, so that it's there when it's available, but that they not construct it at this time. We have talked to Valley Ride a little bit about it. They are, obviously, not ready to send a bus line down the road, but they do want to keep that option open and an easement may be an appropriate thing to do. In that event, they would need to modify their Landscape Plan to remove trees from that location where that easement would be, so that we are not having to take any mature trees and they would relocate those elsewhere. Those changes -- if the Council desires to make those changes, it would be to Condition Number 9, and Condition Number 10 and it would -- any reference to a bus turn out would need to be made as a bus turn out easement. That should accommodate that change. Then, it's an additional staff -- or an additional recommendation to have them - - sorry. Additional condition of approval to have them update their Street Light Agreement with us. Corrie: Okay, any questions of staff? Meridian City Council Meeting June 3, 2003 Page 11 of 67 De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Carrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: So, Anna how is that going to be monitored when there is a bus system in there what happens? Powell. Well, it leaves the issue of construction open, Council Member de Weerd. They are providing an easement it will be a platted note. It will be on private property, not on public -- dedicated public right of way, but it will be an easement for the purpose of a bus turn out, but the question of who constructs that turn out would be pushed off to a further future time. It would probably fall to ACHD or to Valley Ride, if they had funding to do such a thing. That's why we bring the issue before you tonight. I didn't feel comfortable making that call, that it was completely consistent with the approved preliminary, because they did show it in several alternatives as being constructed, not as an easement. De Weerd: Well, maybe the applicant can address that. Thank you. Corrie: Is the applicant here this evening? Dave one question I have is that Quenzer? Turnbull: Quenzer. Corrie: Quenzer. Thank you. Turnbull: David Turnbull, 12426 West Explorer Drive. I think the summary of the application that Anna gave is appropriate. With reference to historic or decorative streetlights, we haven't -- I think that's an option that we had in the first phase of the subdivision. We did it on some of the main entries, but we didn't do it in all locations, we did it prominent -- kind of the landscaped area locations. We may do some in this, but I think it was left to us as an option in all phases. They really aren't appropriate for parking lot lighting, so we would probably not do them at least in the parking lot locations. I wanted to clarify that point. On the bus -- the other issue is the bus stop turn out. Our proposal was to provide for that in the event that -- you know, that ACHD commuter ride or Via Trans began to service in this North Meridian Area with bus service. We are proposing to provide that easement. It would -- there would be future program improvements by ACHD to widen Locust Grove and. At that time, they would be able to use the easement that we provide to them to provide that bus stop, so I hope that clarifies that as well. It's not appropriate to build it at this time, because there is no service out there and we are -- hate to think what, you know, would happen with an area that was paved and left as -- left in that kind of condition, it might be more confusing and more of a nuisance if it's -- if there is no bus service available for that area right now. Corrie: Okay. Questions? Okay. Thank you, Dave. Turnbull: Thank you. Meridian City Council Meeting June 3, 2003 Page 12 of 67 Corrie: Okay, Council, request for Final Plat approval. Mr. Nary. Nary: I guess I had another question for Mrs. Powell. In looking at the condition, I guess I'm not sure that nine really needs to be modified, because it's sort of -- it's kind of broad. I mean it just says that the landscaping has to be in compliance with the landscaping plan and that modification of the bus turn out, but it doesn't give a timing issue, but 10, probably, is the one that does. It seems to me in looking at it that probably all that needs to be amended is it says the plat shall be revised to reflect an easement for a bus turn out adjacent. The applicant shall work with ACHD and Valley Ride or -- and you might -- I guess it could say appropriate entity, because it may not only be Valley Ride. 1 don't know if it's going to be Valley Ride that would be the proper party. Does everyone -- Treasure Valley Transit and all of them that -- and that to determine size, location, and timing of construction of the bus turn out or something like that. Would that be adequate, do you think? Powell: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilman Nary, yes, that would appear adequate and there was one other issue, I'm sorry, that I had thought had been addressed just with the plat note, but that does need to be a modified condition of approval and that would Condition Number 17. The applicant has some modified language, if you'd like for me to hand that out or -- sorry. This one caught me a little bit off guard. There was an issue of whether a Conditional Use Permit would be required for every use that went on this lot and we went back and did the research on the original approval in that there was a list of approved uses that were allowed without conditional use. We have -- we have worked out the wording on the plat note, but we need to discuss condition number 17. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: I guess before Mr. Turnbull gets back up or Mr. Wardle, was the intent, Mrs. Powell, for 17, then, that there would be some allowed uses with some -- some identified allowed uses, almost sort of like a Development Agreement, and, then, other uses beyond that would, then, be a conditional use? Powell: Yes. Nary: Okay. Thank you. Powell: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilman Nary, there was a list in the conditional use approval of the allowed uses, so we do -- we have already worked out -- you have already worked out that list. Nary: Great. Meridian City Council Meeting June 3, 2003 Page 13 of 67 Wardle: Mr. Mayor, for the record, Mike Wardle, 4940 East Mill Station Drive in Boise. This, actually, is an item that we have worked with staff and I do commend them. I think we have accommodated all of their concerns and corrected some of the information that was not included and this specific time, the first one addressed here, was the fact that there were specific uses identified in the original Conditional Use Permit as outright allowed. We are simply suggesting in the first proposed action that any of the lots included be required to obtain a Conditional Use Permit if the proposed use does not conform to the approved list about allowed uses. Then, the second question is on Condition 17, if you look at that carefully, I didn't repeat it here directly, that condition, frankly, could be deleted based on, you know, the wording in that first item of the staff report or by changing the language as we have provided it here. It's very similar, but it just basically restates that if it's an outright allowed use, a Conditional Use Permit is not required. Anything that is not permitted outright must go through that process, so -- but I want to thank the staff -- and I guess signal the fact that it's -- we hate to see Mr. McKinnon leave, because he's worked with us very ably to address these issues. I guess that's not a surprise, is it that he's leaving? Powell: No. Wardle: All right. I would be happy to answer questions, but that's really all that we have, Mr. Mayor. Bird: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: Anna, I think that Mike is probably right, that's -- Condition 17 could completely be stricken from the conditions, couldn't it? Powell: Mr. Mayor, Council member Bird, I believe it can be, because there is a specific note on the plat that requires conditional use approval, unless it's a listed use with a Conditional Use Permit. Corrie: Any questions? Okay. Then, I'll entertain a motion on the request for Final Plat approval. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: I would move the approval of FP 03-030, the request for Final Plat approval of four building lots on 1.98 acres in an R-8 PD zone for Quenzer Commons Subdivision No. 3 by Brighton Development Corporation, LLC. West of North Locust Grove Road and north of East Ustick Road, with the following amendments to -- or include all staff comments, with the following amendment. First Condition Number 10, that the condition be modified to read that the language now will indicate that the plat shall be Meridian City Council Meeting June 3, 2003 Page 94 of 67 revised -- this is according to the document provided by the applicant, Mr. Wardle, dated June 2, 2003, that now the condition will have added the word easement after the words turn out. That also that the -- to include that on the sentence it says the applicant shall work with ACHD and Valley Ride to determine the size and exact location and timing of construction of the bus turn out that the Condition Number 17 be deleted. After the discussion that Condition Number 9 1 think is adequate and does not need to be modified as requested by the applicant, I think it leaves enough the way it's drafted and that condition -- excuse me. Oh, I'm sorry. We were going to delete -- so, it would only be the one comment from the applicant, as well as all the staff comments and that for counsel to prepare Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order. Bird: I'll second and I have one question. Corrie: Motion. Motion has been made and seconded. Further discussion? Bird: Mr. Mayor. Mr. Nary, wouldn't 12, the streetlights, we need to clarify that, too, that the parking lights and stuff in the commercial zone, isn't exactly like they wanted -- like staff had recommended that it be throughout the development. Nary: Well, I guess maybe some clarification. It appears to me that this -- that this condition doesn't contemplate decorative lighting. Bird: No, it doesn't, but the staff had recommended that and you had included the staff comments. Nary: Oh, I see. I'm sorry. Yes. That for Condition Number 12, that as written it does not require the decorative lighting and that was what we wanted it to be, so not that particular staff comment, extending the agreement regarding that, so we don't want that included. Bird: Second agrees. Corrie: Any further discussion then, roll call vote, Mr. Berg. Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye. Corrie: All ayes. Motion is approved. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 15. Public Hearing: PFP 03-001 Request for Preliminary 1 Final Plat approval of 2 building lots on 2.46 acres in an L -O zone for Gala Park Subdivision by Paul Aigner— 1620 Celebration Avenue: Corrie: We will go to Item Number 15, stated Public Hearing PFP 03-001, request for Preliminary/Final Plat approval of two building lots on 2.46 acres in an L -O zone for Meridian City Council Meeting June 3, 2003 Page 15 of 67 Gala Park Subdivision at 1620 Celebration Avenue. At this time I will open the Public Hearing on Item Number 15 and invite staffs comments first. Hawkins -Clark: Okay. Thank you, Mayor, Members of the Council. This application is for a Preliminary/Final Plat. It's a two -lot subdivision. It's a 2.46 -acre lot that is in Resolution Business Park. Overland Road is to the north and the lot lines as shown on the screen reflect Resolution plat as it has been recorded at the Ada County Assessor's Office. This application is seeking this lot that is at the northeast corner of Gala and Millennium, Millennium is not labeled there, but that is also a public street, and they are just basically seeking to do a one-time split to divide this into two commercial lots. Lot 1 that is shown here on their plat, if you have been out there, has Treasure Valley Pediatrics well under construction today that was approved by the Council earlier this year. At that point they did anticipate re -subdividing that lot, so that's how they were able to get their site plan approved. Their Conditional Use Permit in January did show just the western portion of that lot for Treasure Valley Pediatrics. In order for them to get another building on the property, they have to go through this Preliminary/Final Plat process. As a condition of the Resolution Park, the -- Lot 2, the one on the east, would also require a Conditional Use Permit, unless that's modified by Council. The landscaping along Overland Road is installed, as are all services, irrigation, sanitary sewer, water services, et cetera. The Planning and Zoning Commission did review this, since it had a Preliminary Plat associated with it. They did recommend approval. I don't think there are any outstanding conditions to point out. They are being asked to add -- graphically show a 10 -foot wide landscape easement on the Gala frontage and the Millennium frontage. I do see that 5-7 under site-specific comments has a typing error, it should be exterior subdivision at the very end of that line, the third line, underlined down there, you have six and seven. Other than that, I think you can -- not have any other modifications or grammatical changes to this one so, we recommend approval. Corrie: Okay. Thank you, Brad. Is the developer here this evening? Do you have anything to say nothing okay? The applicant has nothing to say on the record. Okay. Council -- or, excuse me. I'm sorry. is there anyone else from the public that would like to issue public testimony? Okay. Thank you. Council, any other questions in the Public Hearing? If not, I'll entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing. Bird: So moved. De Weerd: Second. Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the Public Hearing on Item Number 15, PFP 03-001. All in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Carrie: Discussion? Okay. Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion for the request for preliminary/final plat of Gala Park Subdivision. Meridian City Council Meeting June 3, 2003 Page 16 of 67 De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I move we approve request for Preliminary/Final Plat approval of two building lots on 2.4E acres in an L -O zone by Gala Park Subdivision and to include all staff comments, including the changing of the number -- of the numbers in Item 5, A-5, and to ask the attorney to draw up Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order. Bird: Second. Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to approve the request for Preliminary/Final Plat approval of Gala Park Subdivision, any further discussion? Roll call vote, please, Mr. Berg. Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye. Corrie: All ayes. Motion is approved. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 12. Continued Public Hearing from May 20, 2003: AZ 03-006 Request for annexation and zoning of 397.11 acres from RUT and R-1 zones to R-8, R-40, L -O, and C -G zones for proposed Paramount Subdivision by Paramount, LLC — west of North Meridian Road and north of West McMillan Road: Item 13. Continued Public Hearing from May 20, 2003: PP 03-004 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 764 building lots and 37 other lots on 392.17 acres in proposed R-8, R-40, L -O and C -G zones for proposed Paramount Subdivision by Paramount, LLC — west of North Meridian Road and north of West McMillan Road: Item 14. Continued Public Hearing from May 20, 2003: CUP 03-008 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for 764 single- family residences, 73 townhomes, 270 apartments, community center, schools and churches in proposed R-8, R-40, L -O and C -G zones for proposed Paramount Subdivision by Paramount, LLC -- west of North Meridian Road and north of West McMillan Road: Corrie: Now, we will go back up to Item Number 12, 13, and 14. This is a Continued Public Hearing from May the 20th on the request for annexation and zoning of 397.11 acres from RUT and R-1 zones to R-8, R-40, L -O, and C -G zones for proposed Paramount Subdivision. Item Number 13 is a request for a -- Public Hearing, request for a Preliminary Plat approval of 764 building lots and 37 other lots on 392.17 acres. Meridian City Council Meeting June 3, 2003 Page 17 of 67 Item Number 14 is a Continued Public Hearing on the request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development of 764 single-family residents, 73 townhouses, and 270 apartments, community center, schools and churches in Paramount Subdivision. At this time, with Council's approval, I will open all three Continued Public Hearings on Items 12, 13 and 14 and we will take testimony on all three of these tonight. At this time I would like to have staff comments first. Brad. Watson: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. I think the one big issue left over from the initial part of the Public Hearings had to do with the sewer easement that the Public Works Department had requested or required be part of the annexation application for approval. Since that time several things have happened. The first is we have had several other interested parties upstream of this development come and talk to us about lift stations and sewer service in general. Secondly, we have met with Mr. Turnbull, Mr. Wardle, and Mr. Johnson, along with their engineer, last week and discussed this issue. Again, I don't know the legalities of all this, it still makes sense to me to have a sewer easement all the way through there, but that aside. If Council does approve this annexation without the sewer easement as a condition, the Public Works Department would request that this be a Public Works project for fiscal year '04, as far as securing the easements and initiating design. We would anticipate construction in fiscal year'05. The initial cost estimate, which I admit is very rough, ranges from about $900,000 to 1.2 million to bring it all the way from roughly their fourth phase to Locust Grove Road. That will be about a mile and a half, roughly, of sewer line. In the process we would abandon the Vienna Woods lift station and turn that whole area into a gravity system and we would certainly take up Mr. Turnbull's offer on easement negotiation this fall. That's all I have right now. If you have any questions I would that happy to answer those. Corrie: Council, any questions of Brad? Do you have any comments? Powell: Yes, Mr. Mayor and Members of the Council. I wanted to remind you that the applicant handed out this folder last time. I don't know if you still have it in your packets. Included in that was a list of changes that they'd like to see on the conditions of approval. They are primarily related to the sewer easement that you will be deciding upon tonight. There was one other issue remaining at the close of the hearing last time, it was regarding the irrigation facilities, and we did talk to the engineer and it will be appropriate to discuss those issues as it comes forward as a Final Plat. Staff's concerns regarding that issue are no longer -- they don't have any concerns regarding that issue at this time right now. I did want to point out that one of the Planning and Zoning recommendations was to delete the parcel down -- zoned C -G in this area, to delete that from the development, because they felt that the commercial development was not appropriate at this time, because it wasn't related -- physically related to the residential development. That was still an issue. I believe two Council Members expressed their opinion on it, that it wasn't a concern to them, but it was still an item out there. That's all I wanted to refresh your memory on. Carrie: Any questions? Mr. Nichols, any comments? Meridian City Council Meeting June 3, 2003 Page 98 of 67 Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, Council wanted us to examine the issue of whether requiring the easements through the annexation process would be a taking and I -- you have my memo, which copies were also furnished to the attorney for the applicant and the attorney for Mr. Goldsmith and the world, I think. There was a long list it was sent to. To cut to the chase, cities do have wide latitude with regard to conditions that they can impose as a condition of annexation, because annexation is, essentially, a legislative decision, at least at this point. No court and the legislature has not said otherwise. I'm not sure this is the case where you want to pick a -- this is the one where you want that to be a test case. The development of your Public Works Department from the community that Meridian was 90 years ago to where the community is today, is such that the Public Works Department has begun to consider the use of eminent domain as a necessary tool to achieve public purposes. If that, ultimately, is what is required to sewer the north end, then, that will be the process that will have to be followed. Typically, all of those things get worked out in the negotiation stage. The implications that it has as a whole for the city is that there will likely be a different structure with regard to sewer connections. Where the developer builds the trunk line as part of his cost, there aren't any additional sewer connection fees that are charged to that development beyond the typical connections and that may have to change. But that's an issue to be addressed another day. So, whether or not this constitutes a taking, there weren't any real clear cases that talked about this issue in an annexation context, but I think the issue is fuzzy enough that I believe that you're left with two options, which are, one, go ahead and annexation this property as proposed, leaving the sewer easements to be acquired either through the final stages as they are brought forward by the development or through negotiation and acquisition and possibly eminent domain if you wish to build that sewer trunk ahead of the developer's schedule. If you choose that route, 1 think there needs to be some pretty strong language in the Preliminary Plat findings that the street layouts are pretty well fixed, because that's where those sewer lines would go. Your other option is to not annex this property and for the reason I think I set out in my memo, which is that you're not yet prepared to construct a sewer east of its current terminus in Lochsa Falls, I believe those are your options on that issue Corrie: Thank you. Any questions? Okay. This is a continued Public Hearing. Is the developer -- Wardle: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, Mike Wardle, 4940 East Mill Station Drive in Boise. Corrie: Just second, Mike. Is the testimony you're about to give to the Council the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Wardle: Yes. Corrie: Thank you. Meridian City Council Meeting June 3, 2403 Page 19 of 67 Wardle: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. We think that the issues were well addressed previously. We appreciate the time that staff gave to us to further the discussions and I think their solution is certainly an appropriate solution as one of the two options that will be effected in the future. The other one is the private party negotiation process that actually brought the sewer to a point where Paramount can be served today and that was done through private party negotiation. If that type of activity does not occur prior to the city's need to extend for other purposes, Mr. Turnbull and Mr. Johnson are on record as indicating that they will negotiate in good faith and accommodate the city's need. Staff has indicated the second of the issues. The irrigation has been addressed. The third, the Lot 57, Block 3, just, again, for the record, that site and any other commercial or multi -family sites must come back to the Council or Planning Commission and Council in the future as detailed Conditional Use Permits. There is no outright approval that has been granted to the proposed conditions on that that will not be addressed in the future. With that in mind, we had, as staff has noted -- and I -- if you didn't keep copies of what we have proposed, I do have additional copies, but, essentially, we'd ask for a couple of deletions that pertain to the sewer easement in the annexation portion, that would be Condition A-4. We, obviously, in Condition A-5 of the annexation requested that that condition be deleted and that Lot 57, Block 3, be retained. Again, in the Preliminary Plat Condition B-1, had requested deletion of a second paragraph that related specifically to the question of imposing that easement requirement. Mr. Mayor, I believe that's all that we really want to put on the record tonight and would answer any questions, if you have them. Corrie: Okay. Council, any questions? De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I guess I have a couple. In the ACHD report it -- or in their findings, they give an A, B, or C. I don't know if it's necessary in our findings that those are chosen, instead of leaving them open-ended. Where are you at with that? Are you choosing A, B, or C or door one, two, or three or -- Wardle: Mr. Mayor, Council member de Weerd, can you take me to the specific -- have the staff report, but give me a specific on where those choices are offered and -- can make a general statement. De Weerd: They are on Page 3 and it's Numbers 1, 2, and 3 and each of them have A, B or C and it's under the ACHD findings. Wardle: Is this the Conditional Use, the Preliminary Plat, or the annexation? De Weerd: All of them. Wardle: All of them? Meridian City Council Meeting June 3, 2003 Page 20 of 67 De Weerd: I believe so. I'm sorry. It was a note from last -- two weeks ago. Let me pull it up. I believe it's in the annexation and zoning. Wardle: If you will give me a moment to -- yes, Mr. Mayor. Actually, I don't -- I don't think that the Council needs to take any action. This is a choice of solutions, any of which they say will satisfy their requirements. It, really, will get down to an issue at the time that we go into the Final Plat and construction design on precisely which means. It does relate largely to the issue of how much they acquire for right of way and the location of the sidewalk and so forth, whether they be in easements or within the right of way. I don't know that Council needs to, actually, take any particular action it's an issue that we will work out with them. I did note in talking with staff, however, that I do have a concern about putting all of ACHD's conditions in as conditions by the city, because since that's a separate entity. Some of these can change down the line, my question of your director was does this, then, necessitate a return to change language or a part of a condition that everybody is in agreement with, but happens to be part of the approved conditions by specific wording, rather than just a reference to comply with the requirements of ACHD. 1 hope that doesn't come back to bite any of us and it's certainly not just us, it's apparently anybody that would have such a requirement. Long statement for a short answer, perhaps, but I think these are issues that we work out with ACHD that the city does not have to make a decision on. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I know we have had issues in particular with private lanes on those kinds of conditions and when they change at ACHD. Personally, I like them in our conditions, because it's, then, brought to our attention that something has changed. Although we don't have road authority, we do have a responsibility for safety in our community and some of the decisions that ACHD makes, I don't believe because of our responsibilities of public safety, really conform to what we believe works best for our community. I kind of like to have these recommendations in there and I guess out of curiosity, I am interested in the A, B, or C, because as we moved forward -- and one of the whole reasons we went into the North Meridian planning process was because of the road issues and how we were going to accommodate traffic. This is something that we have asked in joint meetings with ACHD on how the city can also be part of the solution, in addition to ACHD and the development community. Frankly, I have an interest, I don't know if the rest of the Council does, but I'm kind of curious as to what the feeling is right now on the A, B, or C. Wardle: Mr. Mayor, Council member de Weerd, l assume that you're asking that question of your Council Members, rather than us, or what? De Weerd: Well, I'm asking the question of you. if they want to listen to the answer, they are sure free to. Meridian City Council Meeting June 3, 2003 Page 29 of 67 Wardle: Well, quite frankly, I think what ACHD is proposing to do is to reduce the cost of -- both in terms of acquisition of right of way -- it doesn't change, frankly, the improvements that will be done. It really could change the cost for right of way acquisition on all of their arterial systems, not just North Meridian, but literally, everywhere and I think this has probably become a fairly standard situation for them. Just, for instance, it's suggesting on any of these roads that you can donate the additional right of way and construct the five-foot sidewalk with -- and talks about the 41 -foot minimum improvement of the street or don't dedicate the right of way. Construct the sidewalk in an easement or don't dedicate the right of way, but construct the sidewalk located at the back of the existing right of way. Now, in all cases I think that puts the sidewalk away from the physical roadway, but it just -- it helps them in one regard to possibly reduce the cost when they improve those roadways in the future by either their own action or in concert, in a partnership with any of the development community. De Weerd: Well, I understand what the choices mean. I just wanted to know what choice you were leaning towards. Wardle: I don't know that we have even discussed which choice. Mr. Turnbull may have his feelings and I would certainly defer to let him make that statement, but 1 have not had any discussions on which of these would be implemented in the design, so I don't know. De Weerd: Okay. I guess we have an application in the North Meridian area that, you know, just came right out. I know they had those choices, too, and they just said we are donating the right of way and so we just knew where we were going with that application and since this is annexation and zoning, you know, I think that we can't help in looking at this and I just wanted to know where things were coming -- what the idea was in this regard. Wardle: Mr. Mayor, Council Member de Weerd, let me see if Mr. Turnbull can enlighten on what he plans to do, because I have not had any involvement in that discussion. De Weerd: Okay, while you're still here, though. Wardle: Yes. De Weerd: I also know that you have some really nice open areas as well and I just wanted to ask, before Councilman Nary did, what your specific plans were for those open areas. Wardle: Can you -- which open areas, are you referring to, Council Member de Weerd? De Weerd: I know you have the community center out here. If you will just go through what the amenities are. Meridian City Council Meeting June 3, 2003 Page 22 of 67 Wardle: Yes. Let me actually go to a graph that I brought that will illustrate that in color. De Weerd: Okay. Thanks. Wardle: Mr. Mayor and Council Members, this was, actually, in your packet last week, I believe, as Exhibit A and just to reference -- it doesn't really show up there. Of course, the high school site, the elementary site, and, then, the community center is located in this circular -- half circle area as you come into the project. Among the amenities there will be a -- the location is provided for the regional trail connection through the project, essentially, on the site where there is no lot frontage of that particular roadway system. There are park areas and the plat actually defines the acreage, but I think this one is in the range of three acres and they go down into one and a half to two acre sites. In the future, as acquisition occurs of some of these parcels, there will be another such green space or two in this particular area when that's laid out and brought back in a future Preliminary Plat proposal. In terms of the amenities, they are scattered in a location or a way that it provides immediate enjoyment and use right within the subsets of that neighborhood. Obviously, there are the mixed-use components on the half -mile lines on either side, so if you have other questions I would be happy to try to answer them, but that's pretty much the intent. De Weerd: And the one to two acre open areas, in particular by the higher densities, do you have a tot lot in there or is it, you know, picnic areas, or it is just a plain open green area? Wardle: Council Member de Weerd, I don't know that we have actually done any specific layouts on those. I would assume that that's the type of thing that we would have to bring back to staff as we detail those. I -- based on what has happened before, you get the landscaping and there would be, you know, certainly the open space, but what types of physical amenities or hard scape, I don't have -- I can't tell you today, because I have not -- we haven't talked about a specific layout in those. Obviously, the community center element will involve a building, a pool, and other amenities, but, obviously, are also going to have to be looked at in detail in the future. Mr. Turnbull may be able to enlarge on what his intent is. De Weerd: Well, after seeing what he put in the Heritage Commons, I don't doubt that it's going to be nice, I just wondered, you know, in those other areas if there were any specific plans. Wardle: I'm certain that there will be, but I don't know. De Weerd: Okay. Carrie: Any further questions? Bird: I have none. Meridian City Council Meeting June 3, 2003 Page 23 of 67 Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: Mr. Wardle, I heard you say that I guess your preference is for us to look at A-4, A-5 of the annexation one and you said B of the -- and 1 missed the number of the Preliminary Plat conditions that -- Wardle: Yes. Nary: -- you had an issue with and I missed -- Wardle: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Nary, B -- and, of course, I'm -- the B that I'm referring to there in each of these sections is the -- let me be certain. This is the Preliminary Plat and if you go to the conditions -- and that begins on page -- Page 2 of the recommendation and it starts, you know, A is the adopt the special recommendations. Then, B, the recommendations of Planning and Zoning and engineer staff. B-1 on Page 2 of the Preliminary Plat staff report, the second paragraph of that condition states the applicant shall be required to dedicate and it's that four line statement that we are asking for -- to be deleted. Nary: Thank you. That's all I have. Corrie: Any other questions any other comments from the developer at this time? This is a continued Public Hearing. Is there anyone from the audience who would like to have testimony at this time? Okay. Raise your right hand, please. Is the testimony you're about to give the Council the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? McColl: It is. Corrie: I'm sorry. McColl: Brian McColl, 420 West Washington Street. I appreciate able counsel's opinion. Although, I have not had a chance to review it, I'm not sure where my copy went. That having been said, I think this is a very interesting legal question and it occurred to me when I heard Council discussing the various options, of course, there is a third option. That is to accept the staffs recommendation that there be a condition that easements be granted to and through the entire project, which is sort of consistent with the City Council's policy in the past, it's just a question of timing. You have always said to and through the phases currently being developed and now you may choose to say to and through the project that the applicant is asking for annexation, Preliminary Plat approval. Council has, I think, accurately said you can do just about anything you want on annexation, but, nonetheless, let's be conservative and not get ourselves into a lawsuit. I want you to think about the logical conclusion of not requiring these Meridian City Council Meeting June 3, 2003 Page 24 of 67 easements, with the understanding that the applicant says, oh, you know, when you need it, come to us and we will work with you and with the idea that it goes into the city's overall plan to have it built in '04 or '05. Then, you will go in and acquire easements. This is not requiring easements over property that has not already been taken in as part of the city and entitlements acted on. If you think of going to the applicant and saying, okay, now we want the easements, what's your asking price? Well, it's five million dollars. Well, that's silly, that's way too much money. We don't want to pay you that, we'd like to pay the real value of that easement. Well, what is the value of the easement? The value of the easement is the loss to the property owner. The loss to the property owner of a strip of land across streets that the property owner, the applicant, has already indicated that he's going to develop into streets and dedicate to ACHD for the streets and the utilities that go under them. In other words, this property in that eminent domain lawsuit that you might have if he says I want a little bit more money than you're willing to pay. The value of that really ought to be zero, because he's already said give me an annexation and a Preliminary Plat approval for this entire property, and now its highest and best use is me, the developer, building streets and giving them away. I just think that that potential lawsuit is more likely than this up front sort of veiled argument that this is an illegal exaction. It is not an illegal exaction at all. I mean your -- the project's need for sewer is given the minute the developer comes in and says we are going to develop this property. The project needs sewer and the city provides sewer, the city needs the easements. Thank you. If you have any questions I would be happy to respond. Corrie: Any questions? Nary: Mr. Mayor? Carrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: Mr. McColl, but the developer has already told us that, but -- that he will and he has a history of working very positive with the city. Although, if we agree with you that the need exists and the city engineer and public works is saying we are going to move this project onto our priority list to get it done and the developer has agreed to work with us to get that accomplished, why do we need to do it. Because of his concerns that other property owners would, then, have the ability to use that easement at no cost or expense to them. I guess that's really the whole issue here. I guess I'm not totally hearing your answer to that question. McColl: I think my answer to that question is when the developer says to you, you know, if you need this, come to us, work with us, we will work with you. Well, the staff has already come to them and said we would like to have those easements. Their answer is -- not that we will work with you, it's a promise that we will work with you in the future. If they were really sincere about working with you now, they would give up the easement. It's an easement over one landowner's piece of property who we all know practically would do anything to make sure that property is taken down. I don't, with all due respect to the developer, I think it's code when he says we will work with you when Meridian City Council Meeting June 3, 2003 Page 25 of 67 you ask us, when the city has already asked through this request, and they said, well, working with you means you pay me money. How much? Doesn't have any value to him, because it's not loss to him. Nary: Thank you. Corrie: Any other questions? Thank you. Again, anyone else like to issue testimony? Okay. Hearing none, David? The developer. Turnbull: Mr. Mayor -- Corrie: Is the testimony you are about to give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Turnbull: I do. Corrie: Thank you. Turnbull: David Turnbull, 12426 West Explorer Drive in Boise. I will try to answer some of the questions that have come up here. Council Member de Weerd had a specific question about the ACHD Conditions 1, 2, or 3, which -- or Options 1, 2, and 3, which one we would choose. As Mr. Wardle said, we really haven't reviewed that. I guess the point that I -- what I would say is that we are in this situation because ACHD has run out of funds in its right-of-way purchase fund and so they are not acquiring right of ways out in the future like they had to for the last 10 years. If ACHD were to modify their impact fees where they took right-of-way accusation out of those impact fees, then, we could consider one alternative over another. The fact of the matter is right now they are charging -- they would be charging impact fees for right-of-way acquisition and we really don't want to double pay, by -- you know, by making a donation then, being charged on the back end for right-of-way acquisitions that are now building the impact fee schedule. It's kind of one of those depend kind of situations. What we will do is put the sidewalk where the sidewalk should be in the future and, then, we will work with ACHD about whether we put that in an easement that they can acquire in the future when they do get the funds built back up again or something to that effect. it's not an easy answer, but you know, we do intend to make sure the public safety needs are met. I really don't care to answer Mr. McColl's aspersions directly. I think that this Council knows and has been well briefed on this matter, to say that this is consistent with city policy, it's just a matter of timing, is incorrect. It's never been a condition of a previous annexation or Preliminary Plat or Conditional Use Permit. To say that you can do anything -- the city can do anything it wants on an annexation is incorrect. You know, an annexation, whether you call it a quasi-judicial or legislative, it can't be arbitrary, it can't be -- you can't just ask for anything you want or do anything you want. I think that you guys -- the Mayor and the Council knows us well enough to know that we will work with the city when the city has a need. Otherwise, I don't appreciate the aspersions that have been cast here and I hope you can appreciate that as well. Mr. Wardle did summarize the request that we are making as far as a few minor deletions -- minor modifications of the !`f Meridian City Council Meeting June 3, 2003 Page 26 of 67 conditions regarding the deletion of the sewer easement. I think Anna already addressed the irrigation easement that will be -- irrigation easements will be addressed at the Final Plat stage as she said and the other it would be to include Lot 57, Block 3, in the application as we requested before. If you have any questions for me, I would entertain them at this time. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: Do our conditions adequately address the sales trailer? Turnbull: I believe that -- De Weerd: On the Preliminary Plat. Turnbull: I believe they do. Yes, they do. De Weerd: Okay. You know, I guess I didn't understand -- I thought because those roads were not on the five year plan that they could not collect impact fees for them and that's why this is an issue. Are they still collecting impact fees for those roads? Turnbull: Well, you have a representative from ACHD that might be able to answer that question better. It's my understanding that they are. De Weerd: Okay. We can him -- Turnbull: You can ask him separately. It is a confusing issue. You know, obviously, we all want to do what's right. We have suggested ways that through the North Meridian planning process that private development can work with ACRD. In fact, I was just reading -- I sit on the commercial developers advisory committee of ACHD and I wasn't able to attend the last meeting. 1 read the minutes just this morning and Winston Moore brought up the subject of ACRD improvement costs versus private development improvement cost and why is there such a disparity and how can we work together to bring that gap closer together, which would save ACHD millions of dollars. I don't know -- you know, that's a subject that we can't air out tonight, but there are -- there are ways that we are exploring to provide mutual benefit to each other. De Weerd: Well -- and I know you will do what's right. I think that you have shown that. I guess our concern is this is an extremely large subdivision and in the history of Meridian, this is the largest application we have had. Certainly, the roads are going to be a big issue and I know you're not going to load them in one year it will be built out over time. It is something that I think is the whole reason why we went into the north Meridian planning process to begin with and so that is why I'm more than curious as to what the answer is on these choices. Meridian City Council Meeting June 3, 2003 Page 27 of 67 Turnbull: Well, my answer is we intend to put the public sidewalk in the location where it would be outside of future right of way, so it wouldn't have to be relocated at additional expense to the public and that thereby -- that, thereby, sets aside the area for future right of way for future expansion of those roadways. The only question is at what point is ACHD prepared to come in and acquire that right of way and/or, you know, alter their impact fee assessments, so the right-of-way acquisition is taken out. I mean it's just a matter of not wanting to pay twice for the same thing. De Weerd: 1 can understand that. Turnbull: I would like to -- excuse me. I would like to address a question Council member de Weerd asked about some of the green areas that we have scattered around. Mr. Wardle is correct, we have not sat down -- you know, I imagine that some of those details will come in the future as the project develops, but we haven't sat down and decided exactly which one might have a volleyball net and which one might have playground equipment. If you will notice out in Heritage Commons we have the community center with the swimming pool and we added onto that a very nice playground, tot lot playground. That wasn't part of the requirements of Heritage Commons it's something that we just added to the plan after we had our approvals from the city. We often do those things as we go through the development and see a need, then, we put those in, whether it's required or not. The intent is, basically, to provide a range of experiences. We don't want playground equipment in every one of those parks, we may want, you know, a volleyball net in one and playground equipment in another and who knows what else, just there is a variety of recreational opportunities. De Weerd: Thank you. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: Mr. Turnbull, I think the problem -- the one thing you said a little bit the last time, too, that it is unfortunate that we didn't focus a lot of the attention on the benefits of this subdivision. What you're trying to do here and I think it's tremendous, I really do, and being a movie fan, I even like it more, I really -- I like all the street names and the like. The concern I have is -- I do believe what you're saying, your history with the City of Meridian has been very positive and it has been a very good working relationship. It appears to me that what the staff is asking for is some assurance, because things change. This is a long-term development and the five of us up here, we can trust you until the cows come home, but if you're not there, what do we put in this document to make sure that we aren't going to get held up by somebody else. I think that's really all the staff was really asking for is it's not you and it's not an aspersion on you, it's more of a concern of making sure that the city is protected, because this is a long-term project that's not going to be done in the next two years, but might take 10 or 15 or more to get all the way built out completely. I think that's really the concern they are trying to address and, obviously, there is a difference of opinion on whether or not the method Meridian City Council Meeting June 3, 2003 Page 28 of 67 they are trying to address is appropriate and, obviously, some might disagree about that, but I think that's all we are trying to get to is not getting held up. You know, I'm sure you're well aware, as well as everyone else, on the other sewer project and how long -- the White Truck, how long extra it took just to get it done. Help me out here. I mean what can we do? You have said you will work with us. I trust you when you say that, but, like Mr. McColl said, I'm not sure what that means and we can make sure, we can put that in writing, when the five us aren't up here and you're not -- maybe not the person there. You know, what would be better or what would be something to achieve what we are trying get to that you have a comfort with and that the city has a comfort with, so five years from now somebody else doesn't say what were you guys thinking, you just left this hanging and nothing's getting done now and nobody wants to work with anybody. Turnbull. Okay. Mr. Mayor, Council member Nary, some -- you know, I guess you can have people come up here and give you some horror scenario that might concern you enough that you think you have to start hooking conditions back in. You know, the idea that -- first of all, let me go back. We don't own all this property and, therefore, I -- as I indicated two weeks ago, I cannot agree to a condition which I do not have any control over. Okay? I can't grant you an easement, even if I wanted to right now, 1 could not grant you an easement over that entire property, because I don't own the entire property yet and I think if anybody has any questions about that, please, let me know, but I think we explained that pretty thoroughly last time. The second item is the city always has -- you know, first, obviously, is just the ability to come in and negotiate some alignment and whatever, you know, whether there is compensation involved or not, they can negotiate that. The final option the city has is the power of eminent domain and the power of eminent domain gives you the ability to condemn an easement for the value of what that property is. You know, if I said it was worth five million dollars and, you know, it was a point of ridiculousness, a judge is going to say, no, get an appraisal and that's what the values were. You're not out there. You know, there is -- you have got that ability to go in and acquire the easement, even through property that we don't own, at the market value or, you know, the appraised value of that property. That huge downside risk scenario that somebody is painting is not reality. All we want to do is be treated the same as everybody else. This has never been a condition of any other annexation, Conditional Use Permit, or Preliminary Plat. You can -- you know, I think your own Council has been in contact with Boise City, you know, everybody wants to look for other precedence, but they don't believe they have the ability to impose that kind of condition. I guess it's when somebody starts trying to ram a condition down my throat that I think is unreasonable that I get -- I start to get my back up and we have spent too much money on attorney's fees right now trying to address an issue because it's a condition that we don't have any, you know, total control over. We don't think it's appropriate and fair. McCandless: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. McCandless. f f'c Meridian City Council Meeting June 3, 2003 Page 29 of 67 McCandless: David, when you do acquire the next piece of property and you own it, what comes first, the easement or the street layout? l mean are you going to layout the streets and, then, say, okay, you can have easements, but does that mean taking easements that you have to tear up the streets in order to get the sewer in or -- Turnbull: You know, obviously, the concern is that you put the sewer in place where it's going to be needed in the future. You know, the more study and the more engineering, you know, the more you -- because Preliminary Plats are just that, they are preliminary, they are not exact locations of everything. You try to get it as close as you can without - - without going into the final engineering. Obviously, the closer you can get to that final street layout or you put easements in place and before you actually construct the sewer, it would be better for everybody, because the worst thing to do is come back later and find out you have to relocate things. I think you have had a few instances of that in the recent past, but -- so, obviously, the street layouts are the appropriate place to start. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: You know, I guess no one is questioning -- well, everyone is questioning this process, because this is the first application we have had where we have needed a one mile easement. We -- the precedence that we have set before it seems -- and maybe this will lead me to a question, too, is as we get these smaller pieces, they just naturally do connect up through the street alignments. That, so that -- I know that is exactly how some of these other areas are you get one, three months later, you get another application, and somehow -- it doesn't get worked out in front of us, it gets worked out at staff level. Somehow those easements are all granted and the one thing that changes here is as we look at easements even now, we can say this will add value to your property and so the people that we are working with will say, well, I'll donate that easement, because it does add value to my property. It makes my property worth more money, and so we are a little bit more in the hostage area that has nothing to do with you, but we don't know it up front. You know, you're saying you will work with us, whereas in the past we have worked with people and it's been donated. Now, we have this big gray area out there as, okay, you're basically saying it won't be donated, but you will be reasonable. I think that makes it a little bit harder to say we can give you value to your property when we have already annexed you and approved the Preliminary Plat that has shown where those things go, 1 can see it from two different angles here and I -- before you comment, I guess my question to staff is did we not kind of have an issue like this with Bridgetower Subdivision, because they were the first leg of our White Trunk? Did we go in and pay them for their easements as they pushed the development of that trunk line east? It seems like it did delay it, because they had to work with the road alignments, but -- and did we pay them for those easements? Watson: Council Member de Weerd, Mayor, and Council Members, I'll go in reverse order. No, we did not pay them for the easement. Second, I don't remember it as a condition of the annexation. One of the conditions of that project was that the whole Meridian City Council Meeting June 3, 2003 Page 30 of 67 project be annexed at once. Most of the delay with the easement in that project, from what I understand, had to do with realigning streets. That was the information we were given, realignment of streets and the ongoing negotiation with ACHD and Settler's Irrigation District. That was finally resolved. I think we paid for one easement out of about ten on that project. Mr. Turnbull donated the easement on his portion of that as well, the Quenzer Commons. Turnbull: Mr. Mayor, Council Member de Weerd, I never said I was going to charge you for any easement. I never said 1 -- 1 never made a statement one way or the other. I did say that I don't own all that property and, therefore, I can't grant you an easement on all that property that's been conditioned in this property. It's just a condition that's not in my control. I said we would be happy to work with the staff. As Brad mentioned, the delay -- well, for instance, in Bridgetower, it was not a condition of their annexation. The delay was a matter of working things out between ACHD and Settler's Irrigation District to make sure things were put in the proper place and this condition it's the same -- you know, before you do your first plat, you will grant an easement through your whole entire property. Well, you know, it's impossible for us to do and, really, not -- it doesn't make a lot of sense. You know, that would be counterproductive. That would be -- run a higher risk of getting the easements where they don't belong, instead of where they do belong. You have a process that you can go through. You know, it's a -- and I'm happy to work with the city if they have a Public Works project that they want to pursue and, you know, if I die tomorrow, you still have a process that you can rely on to get that same thing done. You may not be doing it with me, but you can still get it done, even if you had to go through the condemnation process, that can be accomplished well before any public need can conceivably be there. De Weerd: I guess this just underscores the importance of staff, because most of this is the unknown, we never see it, and so it's a lot easier for us. Turnbull: Well, you know -- and 1 -- excuse me, Mr. Mayor, Council member de Weerd. You know, that is the best way for you guys to have it done is with staff, so that you never see it. I'm sure that you don't want to get in the middle of these kinds of issues. That's maybe not your -- maybe it is, maybe not your level of expertise and, you know, if those things can be worked with staff, so much the better for your time. Again, like I said two weeks ago, it pains me to sit up here talking about a silly sewer easement when, you know, I think we have presented to this city a really fine project. We hope that you will approve the annexation, the Preliminary Plat, and the Conditional Use Permit and we hope that you will agree to the conditions that we have asked to be modified and give us your favorable vote. Unless you have any further questions, I'll take a seat. Corrie: Okay, any further questions? Do you want Bruce to testify? De Weerd: Yes. Corrie: Is the testimony you're about to give to the Council the truth, so help you God? t Meridian City Council Meeting June 3, 2003 Page 31 of 67 Mills: Yes. Corrie: Thank you name and address, please. Mills: Bruce Mills, Ada County Highway District, Garden City. Just dive in or -- De Weerd: Please. Mills: Okay. I hope I don't put anybody in a coma when I start talking about impact fees, but I will try to be brief. In the north Meridian area -- first of all, for a project to receive -- let me back up. Yes, they will be charged impact fees. Every development is charged impact fees, regardless of whether the road that they are fronting is in our 20 year capital improvements plan or not. However, we can only spend money, for instance, purchasing right of way from an applicant, if, in fact, that roadway that we are buying right of way along is in our 20 year program, capital program. That means that for this development we cannot spend impact fee monies to purchase the right of way from the developer. We either have to use general fund money or we have to work out some other arrangement where, you know, hopefully, when COMPASS redoes their model. Just some of these projects will, then, fall into this rapidly growing area and into the new 20 year program, that we can, then, make it eligible and have purchase money down the -- purchase easements down the road with money we have. We don't have all the answers right now, to be honest with you, because this is something new, with the new Capital Improvement Plan that we have in place and the way our impact fees are now tied to that, again, we can't buy right of way on those roads that aren't in the CIP. Corrie: Can they not dedicate that right of way and, then, you pay them back later? Mills: Anything's possible. We don't have any formal agreement for that type of -- Corrie: Because I notice that's happening on another couple of things right now, so -- well, I didn't want to put you on the spot. Mills: No. That's fine. The answers aren't clear. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: Now, as I understand it, the roads in the north Meridian area really are not in the 20 -year plan. Mills: That's correct. I believe Ustick is from Meridian East to Eagle. De Weerd: And you're collecting an awful lot of impact fees, so those impact fees can't go in those areas? Meridian City Council Meeting June 3, 2003 Page 32 of 67 Mills: Those impact fees can be used anywhere within the service area that we have. Presently, we are in the interim basis and we actual have a countywide zone. When we -- later this summer are going to have a new revised ordinance and at the present time they are learning towards four service areas. Regardless of that, the fees that we collect can be used in the service area that they are collected in, which means they need to be used on projects that have high priority right now. Franklin Road or some of the other things in this area that have higher volumes of traffic, and future impact fees that are collected would probably wind up paying for projects like, you know, up in the area of Paramount. Does that mean that we are -- see, we are never -- well, I shouldn't say it, but it's true, we are probably never going to catch up. We are just going to keep trying to define the worst roads and improve those. De Weerd: Well, Ustick is one of them. I guess I remember a comment that -- in another application that the intersection improvements will at least be done, because -- is that still being discussed? Mills: Yes. We are looking right now at the intersections and trying to put those in the C1P and the highest priority intersections will get done, but this is -- right, we can improve intersections and move more traffic, even though we are not widening the road in certain areas. De Weerd: And that's why you're requiring the detached sidewalks, so that at least sidewalks can be developed without, then, depending on the road improvements? Mills: Well, it's interesting. Our policy requires sidewalks all along any new developments. However, if we don't have the right of way, then, we have to rely on some sort of interim agreement where they -- as Mr. Turnbull indicated, perhaps they put it in an easement, which we can purchase later down the road, or we have got some other deal or as one of the other applicants did, they just went ahead and donated, but - (Mayor Corrie stepped out of room.) De Weerd: Okay. Well, Council, any other questions for -- okay. Thank you. Okay. Is there anyone else who would like to testify? Okay. Council, what is your pleasure? Do you want to ask any further questions of staff? Would you like to close the Public Hearing at this time? Would you like to have discussion prior to closing the Public Hearing in case a question comes out? Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: I guess I would be in favor of some discussion in case there are issues that -- since is such a significant project, I guess there may be issues in discussion, but -- so i Meridian City Council Meeting June 3, 2003 Page 33 of 67 rather than closing the Public Hearing, I guess I -- I guess my comment is, again, it's very unfortunate to have to spend all this time on a sewer easement when, overall, this project is a tremendous asset and addition to the city. I think it's a great project and I appreciate Mr. Turnbull and Brighton Corporation bringing this to the City of Meridian. The issue of sewer, we passed a policy last week that Mr. Watson and Mr. Smith had proposed from the Public Works Department that basically was to get the city on a more -- I guess more modern footing dealing with these easement issues and the intent of that policy. As I understood it when we approved it, was we will go to the landowners, we will attempt to get these easements negotiated, but if we can't, we can't, we will buy it and we will move on. That's -- we weren't going to spend two years trying to negotiate free easements, to take two extra years to get a project done. I agree with that policy and I think that was a wise decision from the Public Works Department, as well as the Council to say we are not going to spend and waste a lot of time trying to get this accomplished. Although we spent two different hearings talking about this, I just cannot see why this is any different. Mr. Turnbull is correct. If he isn't here, we have a process to acquire these easements. We can deal with it just like our policy says, we can negotiate with it, if that doesn't work, we can condemn it and buy it and move on, and I don't see this as a major -- as major a concern as it seems to have become. I appreciate the Public Works Department and the memo that we received, that they'd like to move this project up. There are some other areas in the north that need this North Trunk or north sewer line and move it up on the agenda to be able to get this accomplished within the next, I guess, two and a half years, but I guess I'm not sure what's the need to have this condition. We can do everything that we'd like to do through the policy we are already approved and there is not a necessity to impose this condition -- you know, this just doesn't appear to me to be a dog worth fighting over, we already passed a policy to address it, and we can move forward on this project, we can delete those conditions regarding it, it's not going to change anything in regards to how we do business. It is larger, it is significant, I understand the staffs rationale and reasoning for wanting to kind of cover this base, because it is such a large project and such a long-term project, but in the interim we have passed a policy that addresses it and we can take care of it. We can go forward and delete A-4, we can delete A-5, because I don't think it's a big concern to me to include that commercial piece. We can delete the condition out of the second paragraph of the -- of the Preliminary Plat conditions and our policy we adopted covers this and we have spent a lot of time, again, talking about a sewer easement when we really should be talking about what a great addition this is to the city. Certainly, we have always said in any project there is a level of trust and Mr. Turnbull has earned the trust of the city. When he says he's going to work with the city, he has, he always has, and I don't see a reason that it's going to change. Even if he doesn't or even if he isn't there and someone else is in that seat, we have a policy and a means from which to get what we want to accomplish anyway. Whether or not whoever is in that chair, we can get this done. I think we can just move forward. 1 don't know if that -- if anybody else wants to make a comment or whether anybody on staff does, but I don't think we need to spend a lot more time on it. Bird: I agree 100 percent. C,. Meridian City Council Meeting June 3, 2003 Page 34 of 67 Corrie: Any other comments? Okay. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I think you summed that up very nicely. I guess 1 do have a question for the attorney. In all of these applications that we have seen in front of us, we have put a condition on there that -- I don't know if it's obsolete now or not and it has reference to any policies that come out of the North Meridian planning area be adopted and applied. If you could address that, Mr. Attorney, I would appreciate that. Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, the condition that Councilwoman de Weerd was referring to, for those in the audience that may not be familiar with it, was a condition that we inserted into most of the approvals which required that the developer cooperate with ACHD with regard to any road and infrastructure agreements that might be entered into as part of the north Meridian plan process. What was originally contemplated was there was some issues that were being kicked around, as the private development community building the roads, because of the cost issues that were discussed in terms of a private developer building a road in a less expensive way than what ACHD is able to do and some of those things. With the status of the north Meridian plan, I don't think it removes the issue of trying to work toward an agreement with ACHD. I -- it wasn't really a condition of approval before that you could say, well, we can deny the Building Permits, because there was one that was going to -- basically telling people, well, agree to it or -- so it was a different condition to enforce to begin with. i don't know that we lose anything by taking it out and under the current circumstances it could be that the Council may, within its power, adopt some sort of ordinance issue that pertains to these things in the future that applications will have to comply with. I don't think that's set yet and I know ACHD is continuing to examine the issue of what's a permissible exaction and what isn't and also to try to explore some of these issues about having these roads built more quickly and less expensively. As a practical matter, the more -- the more traffic these roads carry, the better for the development community, so that people can get to and from their lots more quickly. Long answer to your short question. De Weerd: So -- Mr. Mayor? I'm sorry. Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: So, can I -- some -- your answer that we can place that same condition here and in the event that something -- a policy for the North Meridian area does come to fruition, that it can be applied? Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I think you can include what we have done before for a standard condition, which references potential future agreements f.. Meridian City Council Meeting June 3, 2003 Page 35 of 67 between the development community and ACRD. Again, it's more of an encouragement thing. De Weerd: Right. Okay. (Mayor Corrie returned.) Corrie: Any other questions? You haven't closed the Public Hearing? Nary: We have not. Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: I guess I will I guess amend one thing I said is I think -- in condition number four and this is an opportunity for the applicant if he has a problem with it. I think in Number 4, because, again, it's a large project, it's a long-term project, and we have had issues, I think, as Mr. Turnbull raised, in other developments, like Bridgetower where there was some time in getting the easements straightened out in relationship to the roads and such, that I guess I would probably in making this motion. Probably amend condition four to say something more to the effect that the applicant shall negotiate with the City of Meridian to locate a permanent easement and a temporary construction easement through the project to Meridian Road for the North Slough Sewer Trunk after Preliminary Plat approval, not prior to submittal of Final Plat and all of those things. Just to make it clear in our findings that the intent is that we are going to work together to get the easements done, to get it aligned properly, to get all of that taken care of and I don't know if the applicant has an objection to that, but I think it's just to make it clear. Other than that amendment, I don't really have any other suggested changes. Basically, Condition Number 4 would say the applicant shall negotiate with the City of Meridian to locate a permanent easement and a temporary construction easement through the project to Meridian Road for the North Slough Sewer Trunk, after Preliminary Plat approval. Corrie: Do you have any problem with that, Dave any other discussion? Okay. Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion to close the continued Public Hearing on Item 12, 13, and 14. Nary: So moved. McCandless: Second. Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the continued Public Hearing on the request for annexation and zoning, request for Preliminary Plat, and the request for a Conditional Use Permit. Nary: Mr. Mayor, I think before we close the Public Hearing -- Meridian City Council Meeting June 3, 2003 Page 36 of 67 Corrie: Okay. Discussion? Go ahead, Mr. Turnbull. Turnbull: I guess I'll just have to reiterate that -- what I have said before. We do not own all of the property subject to a future easement, so we can help, we can assist, but we can't actually do something that we don't have any control over there. I don't know how you would word that. Nary: Right and I think that I guess -- I'm sorry. I think the intent is just to make it clear that the intent is just as you spoke of, is simply to work together with the city and it's just to help located the -- Turnbull: To locate where they should be? Nary: Right. Were they should be. That's all. Corrie: Any further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor of the motion say aye. Opposed no? All ayes. Continued Public Hearing is closed. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Corrie: Any further comments or discussion? Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: I would move the approval of AZ 03-006, the request for annexation and zoning of 397.11 acres from RUT and R-1 zones to R-8, R-40, L -O, and C -G zones for the proposed Paramount Subdivision by Paramount, LLC. West of North Meridian Road and north of West McMillan Road, pursuant to the recommendations of Planning and Zoning, all staff comments. To amend Condition Number 4 of the staff -- or the Planning and Zoning recommendations to now read that the applicant shall negotiate with the City of Meridian to -- negotiate -- the City of Meridian to locate a permanent easement and temporary construction easement through the project to Meridian Road for the North Slough Sewer Trunk after Preliminary Plat approval. To delete condition five, and the remainder of staff comments and for counsel to prepare Findings of Facts and Conclusion of Law and Decision and Order. Bird: Second. Corrie: Okay. We have a motion to approve AZ 03-006, request for annexation and zoning of Paramount Subdivision, any further discussion? Okay, roll call vote, Mr. Berg. Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Meridian City Council Meeting June 3, 2003 Page 37 of 67 Corrie: Now, we have Item 13, Preliminary Plat 03-004, request for Preliminary Plat approval. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: I would move the approval of PP 03-004, the request for Preliminary Plat approval of 764 building lots, 37 other lots, on 392.17 acres in a proposed R-8, R-40, L- O, and C -G zones for the proposed Paramount Subdivision by Paramount, LLC. West of North Meridian Road, north of West McMillan Road, to include all staff comments and recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission. With the amendment of Condition B-1, second paragraph, shall now read consistent with the annexation condition, that the applicant shall negotiate with the City of Meridian to locate a permanent easement and a temporary construction easement through the project to Meridian Road for the North Slough Sewer Trunk after the Preliminary Plat approval. To include all other recommendations and for counsel to prepare Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, Decision and Order. Bird: Second. Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to approve the request for Preliminary Plat for Paramount Subdivision, any further discussion? Roll call vote, Mr. Berg. Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye. Corrie: All ayes. Motion is approved. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Corrie: Number 14 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit for Paramount Subdivision. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: I would move the approval of CUP 03-008, the request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development for 754 single family residences, 73 townhomes, 270 apartments, community center, schools, and churches in a proposed R-8, R-40, L -O and C -G zones for the proposed Paramount Subdivision by Paramount, LLC. West of North Meridian Road, North of West McMillan Road, to include all staff comments, recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission and for counsel to prepare Meridian City Council Meeting June 3, 2003 Page 38 of 67 Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, Decision and Order. I do not believe there are any amendments to the request. Bird: Second. Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to approve the request for a Conditional Use Permit on Paramount Subdivision, any further discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote, Mr. Berg. Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye. Corrie: Okay. The request for Conditional Use Permit is approved. David, I wish you a long life. You can do well. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 16. Public Hearing: CUP 03-011 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for two 9,500 square foot retail buildings with associated site improvements in an L -O zone for Resolution Subdivision by G.L. Voigt Development — 1611 South Millennium Way and 2045 West Overland Road: Corrie: Okay. We had Item 15 already, so we go to Item 16, which is a Public Hearing, request for a Conditional Use Permit for two 9,500 square foot retail buildings with associated site improvements on an L -O zone by Resolution Subdivision by G.L. Voigt Development, 1611 South Millennium Way and 2045 West Overland Road. At this time I will open the Public Hearing on CUP 03-011 and request staff comments first. Hawkins -Clark: Thank you, Mayor, Members of the Council. You will be pleased to know there are no sewer easements associated with this application. De Weerd: Why, thank you. Hawkins -Clark: The project is the same subdivision that you have already approved one item on tonight, the Resolution -- Resolution Park Subdivision there on Overland Road. The original approval for this subdivision, since it was conceptual, did require detailed Conditional Uses. That is one of the reasons why they have a conditional use on this project. The other is that they are proposing to put two buildings on a single lot. They have submitted a Site Plan and that's shown here. They have shown two different phases to their project. The phase line is, essentially, about three quarters of the way through the project. I believe they are proposing the more easterly building first. There is a private drive that was approved on the west side here coming off of Overland Road and Millennium Way is a public collector, that, as you know, goes and serves the Mountain View High School to the south. The original concept did show about 63,500 square feet of retail and 22,000 square feet of that total retail was on this lot. That has been reduced pretty substantially, so even though they have two separate buildings, the approved concept for the square footage of retail is, actually, less than what you Meridian City Council Meeting June 3, 2003 Page 39 of 67 originally approved. The Planning and Zoning Commission did recommend approval of the project. As you may have noticed on the recommendation on Number 6 on Page 1 that there was a slight conflict, I guess, on -- between the Comprehensive Plan land use map that we approved in August of last year that showed this property actually as high density residential. We feel that it still complies with the Comprehensive Plan, because of the approved resolution concept and it was basically just an error when we did the mapping. In terms of compliance with the Comp Plan, we think that takes care of that. I guess the only other thing to point out is as a Planned Development, they are having sort of a central plaza that is in the center of the project that will have benches for employees, et cetera, to utilize during lunch hours and things like that. We think that the scope of that is -- fits the total scale of the project. Those -- that's the amenity that they have proposed. Otherwise, they have shown parking that meets the city's ratios and other landscaping. The Overland Road landscaping, of course, is in, along with the sidewalk, so the only landscaping that you would be approving with this would be the internal, more shaded landscaping shown here on the Site Plan. I think with that I will take any questions. Carrie: Thank you, Brad. Questions? Okay. This is a Public Hearing. is the applicant here this evening or representative? Okay. Council, any further questions? You want to continue the Public Hearing or close it? De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I guess traditionally we have continued them, so that the applicant can respond to the staff conditions or to the recommendation and I prefer it that way, so -- Corrie: I'll entertain a motion, then, for a Continued Public Hearing to next week. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we continue the request for a Conditional Use Permit for two 9,500 square foot retail buildings with associated site improvements in an L -O zone for Resolution Subdivision and that would be continued to June 10th. McCandless: Second. Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to continue the Public Hearing on the request for a Conditional Use Permit on Resolution Subdivision. Is there any further comment? Okay. All in favor of the motion say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 17. Public Hearing: RZ 03-005 Request for a Rezone of 4.738 acres from R-4 to L -O zones for Christ Lutheran Church by Christ Lutheran Church — 1406 West Cherry Lane: Meridian City Council Meeting June 3, 2003 Page 40 of 67 Item 18. Public Hearing: CUP 03-012 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a church / preschool in a proposed L -O zone for Christ Lutheran Church by Christ Lutheran Church — 1406 West Cherry Lane: Corrie: Item Number 17 and 18 are Public Hearings involving Christ Lutheran Church RZ 03-005, request for rezone of 4.73 acres from an R-4 to an L -O zone for the Christ Lutheran Church and also a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a church/preschool in a proposed L -O zone for Christ Lutheran Church. At this time I will open the Public Hearing and, Brad, I believe you're going to handle this one. Hawkins -Clark: Thank you, Mayor, Members of the Council. The two applications, the rezone and the Conditional Use Permit, are related. You have seen several of these over the last couple of years where churches have wanted to either do additions or add other uses to their property. Most of the churches have had the R-4 or some residential zoning, because of the previous Zoning Code and so that has made them necessary when they want to make amendments to do this rezone. That's what we see here tonight. They do have an R-4 currently. A piece of their property is -- it's more or less a flag shaped parcel. It does have frontage on North Linder Road. Excuse me. The majority of the site plan conditions related to the next item is here on the eastern larger portion of the parcel that fronts on Cherry Lane. The site is bounded by the Meridian Assembly of God Church on the north and the Vineyards and Duncan Place Subdivision are on the east and the west. As you can see, the majority of Linder to the east is currently vacant. The church sits on the western -- or eastern portion. The Site Plan as shown here, they really are not proposing any modifications to this plan as you see it, with the exception that the City Planning and Zoning Commission did ask for the frontage on Cherry Lane here to be planted with 35 -- or trees 35 foot spacing, which is our Landscape Ordinance. The buffer width is, by ordinance, required to be 25 feet wide from the right of way into the property and my understanding is the applicant has agreed to do that and we do have a Landscape Plan here that shows the required eight trees along Cherry Lane. Since they have not improved the other portion of the property here, the Planning and Zoning Commission and staff recommend that they could just maintain that property as is and, then, upon any future redevelopment, then, that would have to be brought up to code, as well as the interior portion of the parking lot. The landscape ordinance says if they replace 50 percent or more of the parking lot, then, they have to bring it all up and at this point they are not replacing any of the parking lot, so -- there aren't any new structures being proposed, it's primarily using their existing church and the Sunday school classes for their preschool and the preschool is the Conditional Use Permit. That would all be within those buildings. I don't believe there are any modifications to the recommendation as submitted to you for either item. I think that's it. Carrie: Okay. Thank you, Brad, any questions from Council? Okay. Is the applicant or representative here this evening? I need to have -- just so I can hear you. Spackman: No comment. Meridian City Council Meeting June 3, 2003 Page 49 of 67 Corrie: Raise your right hand. We need to swear you in Just to say no comment. Is the testimony you're about to give the Council the truth, so help you God? Spackman: Yes, it is. Dirk Spackman, 5040 Westview Drive, Meridian, Corrie: You still stand by your no comment? Spackman: Yes. No comment. Corrie: All right. Thank you. Is there anyone else from the public that would like to issue testimony in this Public Hearing? Okay. Council, any other questions on the Public Hearing? Hearing none, I will entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing on Item Numbers 17 and 18. Bird: So moved. De Weerd: Second. Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to close the Public Hearing on the RZ 03-005 and CUP 03-012. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Opposed no. All ayes. Motion carried. Public Hearing closed. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Corrie: Comments? Hearing none, I will entertain a motion for the Public Hearing -- or the request for rezone. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I move we approve the request for a rezone of 4.738 acres from R-4 to L-0 zones for Christ Lutheran Church and to ask the attorney to draw up Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order and accept all staff comments. Bird: Second. Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to approve the request for a rezone for the Christ Lutheran Church, any further comments? Hearing none, roll call vote, Mr. Berg. Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye. Corrie: All ayes. Request approved. Meridian City Council Meeting June 3, 2003 Page 42 of 67 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Corrie: Now, the request for a Conditional Use Permit. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I move that we approve the request for a Conditional Use Permit for a church/preschool in a proposed L -O zone for Christ Lutheran Church and to instruct the attorney to draw up Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order and to include all staff comments. Bird: Second. Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to approve the request for a Conditional Use Permit of the Christ Lutheran Church, any further comments? Roll call vote, Mr. Berg. Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye. Corrie: Okay. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 19. Public Hearing: RZ 03-006 Request for a Rezone of 3.41 acres from R-4 to R-8 zones for Bear Creek No. 6 by Westpark Company — west of South Meridian Road and south of West Overland Road: Item 20. Public Hearing: PP 03-005 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 31 building lots and 2 other lots on 10.49 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Bear Creek No. 6 by Bear Creek, LLC — west of South Meridian Road and south of West Overland Road: Corrie: Item Numbers 19 and 20 are Public Hearing, a request for a rezone of 3.41 acres from R-4 to R-8 zones for Bear Creek No. 6 by Westpark Company. A Public Hearing on Item 20, request for a Preliminary Plat approval of 31 building lots and two other lots on 10.49 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Bear Creek No. 6 by Bear Creek, LLC. At this time I will open the Public Hearing on both items and invite, Anna, comments. Powell: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, there was a Variance request associated with these applications for a block length variance and that did not make it onto tonight's agenda, so we ask that you continue this to .lune 10th, so that it catches up with the Variance -- or so that the Variance catches up with this. Meridian City Council Meeting June 3, 2003 Page 43 of 67 Carrie: Okay. Since this is a Public Hearing, is there anyone that wants to testify at this time, since we will continue the Public Hearing. Okay. Thank you. You want to continue that, Anna, until next week, the 1 Otho Powell: Yes, sir. Corrie: Okay. Bird: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: I would move that we continue Public Hearing RZ 03-006, the request for a rezone of 3.41 acres from R-4 to R-8 zones for Bear Creek No. 6 by Westpark Company to June 10, 2003. Corrie: Okay. Do I hear a second? Nary: Second. Corrie: Second -- motion has been made and seconded to continue the Public Hearing on Item Numbers 19 and 20, the request for Rezone and request for Preliminary Plat to be continued to June 6th -- or 10, 2003, any further discussion? All those in favor say aye. Opposed no. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 21. Public Hearing: CUP 03-017 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a new Carl's Jr. restaurant with drive-thru service by Clayton Jones — north of Intersection of South Meridian Road, East Central Drive and South Main Street: Corrie: Now, Item Number 21. This is a Public Hearing, CUP Number 03-017, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a new Carl's Junior restaurant with a drive-thru service by Clayton Jones, north of intersection of South Meridian Road, East Central Drive, and South Main Street. At this time I will open Item Number 21, Public Hearing, and invite staff comments first. Powell: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, this is a familiar site, I know. It's the triangular parcel between Main Street and Meridian Road. The Kentucky Fried Chicken was approved -- relocated to its present site. At that time there was -- well, the applicant is now proposing to remove the existing structure that -- the second existing structure, which is shown right there, that -- Kentucky Fried Chicken is down here. He's proposing to remove this one and construct a new Carl's Junior with a drive-thru. The Carl's Junior building would be 2,124 square feet, where to start with the Planning Commission. They had a very long, long hearing on the item. Most of it centered is t` Meridian City Council Meeting June 3, 2003 Page 44 of 67 around what was approved and/or denies[ through previous applications through the city. Regarding the new layout, there was a lot of discussion -- I think I should go through the layout. This is the existing Kentucky Fried Chicken. The traffic would move in this direction. The drive-thru was here and, then, it would loop around there. This would be an escape from there and it would also allow traffic to move from here and out onto the street. Some of the previous issues concerned with development of the site and, in particular, a drive-thru development on the site is that it would slow down this traffic coming through this way to the Kentucky Fried Chicken drive-thru and coming out. The applicant proposes this location as not interfering with that traffic pattern on the south end of the site. As the Planning Commission reviewed the project, they -- the staff concerns were that the parking was on the other side of the drive aisle. The Planning Commission considered those in relationship to the other issues that I have mentioned and they felt that the -- that the issue of pedestrians crossing the drive aisle or the queue aisle for the Carl's Junior was addressed in that there was a sidewalk here, which would have a raised pattern on it. There would be fencing in that landscape buffer here to direct people to that specific location. That they would have one designated area to cross the street. This is a Planned Development to -- because there are two structures on the same lot, so the applicant is required to provide amenities and the two -- the amenities that he's providing are -- I'm sorry -- flags and entry sign, two -- three flags, an entry sign to the city, and a landscape island at the east end of the south parking lot. I believe that was it. They did discuss also relocating this to move it three spaces further south, so it would be kind of more in the middle of this location, which is where his amenities were, so I think the applicant will probably have some comment on how he's redesigning that small portion. What I haven't discussed, perhaps, is what the controversy was with the last application. I do have all those applications here. We can look up the old conditions of approval and the comments that were made regarding the Kentucky Fried Chicken approvals and also the prior decision on the second drive-thru after Kentucky Fried Chicken at this site. I will leave that for the question period, rather than anticipate what your questions may be on all those applications. Corrie: Okay. Thank you, Anna, any questions of staff? Okay. Is the applicant here this evening? Is the testimony you're about to give the Council the truth, so help you God? Strite: It is. Corrie: Thank you. Name and address, please. Strite: Mr. Mayor, Council, my name is Billy Ray Strite, 1010 Ailante, Boise, Idaho. I'm here, along with Joann Butler, the applicant, and Mr. Gibbs, who is the property owner. We have come before you tonight with a positive recommendation from Planning and Zoning Commission. This is, in fact, a very difficult site. I think everybody's agreed to that. I think that what I'd like to start off, if I might, is to do a handout, because the particular plan that is before you does not delineate those issues and conditions that were placed upon our approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission. I think that you probably all recall in your testimony in the original submittal that there was a couple Meridian City Council Meeting June 3, 2403 Page 45 of 67 of major concerns, not only by the Planning and Zoning Commission, but this Council, one of which was the access off of Meridian Road, the second one was site congestion in general. First, let me address the access off of Meridian Road. We have negotiated a raised median, which is a directional raised median with Ada County Highway District. They, in fact, have approved the site that you see in front of you, the access with the raised bubble there, the directional left -right and raised median, so that you're not crossing traffic. That has been, in fact, approved by Ada County Highway District. The second issue and probably the one that was of more concern by this Council, was site congestion and I think one of the first things I'd like to point out to the Council here is that if, in fact, Mr. Gibbs, the owner, decided that he would like to keep the exiting KFC without the drive-thru, as deemed removed by this Council, he, in fact, could take that particular building and place approximately 85 to 90 seats in it. That would be a sit- down restaurant, that restaurant, in fact, would require more parking, it would require longer parking stays, so we feel the alternative to that would be to remove that building and provide the Carl's Junior as you see before you. Now, secondly, in terms of what the applicant has done in terms of concession, he has reduced his original square footage, as you recall, was 3,900 square feet, he's reduced that to 2,100 square feet. He's reduced his original seating from 84 seats to 44 seats, both of which are nearly a 50 percent reduction in the original proposal that you had denied previously. Thirdly -- and I think importantly -- this particular alternative site plan increases the parking by 22 percent. We were able to go from the existing 42 spaces that you see out there today to 55. We were also able to go from the one that you saw before you in November of '02 from 43 spaces to 55 spaces. I think, thirdly, the drive-thru as it is presently configured allows a lesser intense use in terms of parking. We are anticipating a greater use of the drive-thru with this particular prototype. Incidentally, if, in fact, there is a question relative to operations, Carl's is here to answer those in my stead. The site, then, as presently posed, provided for this drive-thru required pedestrians to cross the drive-thru lane. This is not unusual in urban settings. We have done it in a number of spots, but it is unusual here. However, I think that we have been able to provide enough safety measures to make this a nonentity. We have asked and Carl's has agreed to provide decorative wrought iron railings on both sides of the drive-thru, not only a raised delineated walk, but a raised delineated walk with flashers and adequate signage prior to entering the drive-thru, which would make you aware that there is a pedestrian crossing. I think that the staffs concerns have been mitigated and I think, more importantly, the alternative -- and I don't want to be repetitive, but the alternative would be to take the existing building as it is without the drive-thru and make it into a sit- down restaurant, plus or minus 85 to 90 seats. That's totally conceivable. We also have come before the Planning and Zoning Commission with three amenities. The first amenity is a raised pedestrian -- delineated pedestrian walk that takes you out to East Vt Street from the backside of the drive-thru. The second and probably more appropriate at this particular time in our country, is a memorial bench with a three -flag setup. We are anticipating having the United State flag, the Idaho flag, and if, in fact, the City of Meridian has a flag, we would be happy to fly it. The third amenity -- and I think you have that in your packet and I will propose that to you tonight, is a welcome to Meridian sign. Now, we do not have a location for this sign. We were hoping that Mr. Gibbs and/or the lessee on the parcel to the south of us is agreed to -- or would agree Meridian City Council Meeting June 3, 2003 Page 46 of 67 to. If not, we are prepared to go to the Ada County Highway District, requesting, if you will, a License Agreement to provide signage to the city that would be more appropriately shown in that that's before you tonight. I think, in summary, I think the important thing to note here is although there is site congestion there. I don't think anybody would argue that, I think the mitigating factors by revising the access entry in and out, as well as redesigning the site to enhance the parking, enhance the circulation, and provide the type of amenities Planning and Zoning Commission wished, we would ask for your support and approval. 1'd like to ask that if I can, in rebuttal, if there is any questions relative to operations, we have Carl's here, if there is any questions relative to previous applications and minutes and decisions made by this Council or the Planning and Zoning Commission relative to the drive-thru, Joann Butler is here to address those. I will open it up for questions, if you will, please. Corrie: Council, any new questions? Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: Mr. Strite, it looks a little congested. 1 mean in this structure right here, but it appears that your -- this is an entrance, right? Strite: That's correct. Nary: Okay. So, you're going to have traffic drive down here and, then, make this pretty hard left turn into this drive-thru from here? It just seems fairly tight. Strite: Mr. Mayor, Councilman, that particular radius can be increased. We didn't feel that if it were a 15 -foot radius, it would inhibit any automobile turning, but if, in fact, it needed to be greater, and there is room to do so. Nary: But if you increase the radius there and you're not going to change this portion of the Site Plan, then, aren't you, then, going to push these -- wasn't the whole idea was to maintain this free drive-thru here for this drive-thru. Strite: That's correct. Nary: And the only way to push this radius out, then, would be to be back to the driveway. Strite: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Nary, no, that's speaking of the radius that would, actually, be on the east side, the east side radius. You're referring specifically to traffic that I would consider coming westbound, if you will, turning and going southbound. That radius by the handicap space could be increased if, in fact, you think that's a problem. We felt that a 15 radius would easily accommodate the turn lanes. You have to understand that the existing Taco Time you have opposing traffic, if you will, coming Meridian City Council Meeting June 3, 2003 Page 47 of 67 eastbound -- it's tough, because this thing is going cockeyed. Heading eastbound. This traffic would be going westbound and making a left turn, if you will. Other traffic coming in off of East 1St would be coming eastbound and making a right turn. Nary: And, then, this is just a sidewalk, it's not a wall, correct? Strite: I'm sorry? Nary: This is just a drive walk right -- it's a walkway out to the sidewalk, so the traffic can drive through here from this portion of the property? Strite: I think your light's out, sir. The east side and the west side, if you will, of the drive-thru, both have raised wrought iron railing, but the walkway -- the raised walkway that I made reference to that would be part of the amenities is a continuation of the walk around the drive-thru and straight easterly, if you will, out to East 1st. Nary: So, there is a fence here? Strite: No. Nary: The fence is just right around the drive-thru next to the building? Strite: Yes. We pick the fence up here and we bring it around to here, we pick up here, we bring it there, we pick it up this side and bring it around to here. Nary: So, it doesn't divide the property? Strite: No, it does not. No. There is total accessibility, greater than 25 feet to give you north and southbound traffic from KFC or back into KFC, however you wish, coming off of East 1St. We were also able, under this design, to split and, actually, provide a raised planter area here that would delineate the drive-thru from the bypass lane and/or accessibility to and from the KFC or people that are leaving this facility from this direction, heading south, if you will, heading back to the east and turning and coming back out here to East 1 St Nary: Now, the drive-thru window is here? Strite: Yes, sir. Nary: So, how many cars will this stack through here? Strite: Eleven cars. Actually, if you got all the way back to here, you could have as many as 12, but we -- normally the pickup time here -- Carl's requires five cars from the order station to the drive-thru and that would put you about right there. Nary: The order station is approximately over here? Meridian City Council Meeting June 3, 2403 Page 48 of 67 Strite: Yes, sir. Nary: Okay. Strite: Yes, sir. Nary: And there is no escape? I heard somebody -- Strite: Yes, there is an escape. If you come around like this and if you decide by this point that you decided not to have a hamburger, you go straight out this way. Nary: Okay. Strite: And I think that that's what Anna was referring to. Nary: I got you. Thank you. Corrie: Where are the employees going to park? Strite: Mr. Mayor, that's been a bone of contention, as you probably well know, and I think testimony with prove me correct. Mr. Gibbs has offered to provide off-site parking, 24 spaces, I believe that was the number that was discussed throughout the minutes that 1 could find. That has not been accomplished yet, but I understand Mr. Gibbs is still prepared to do that. It's also my understanding that both the adjacent users are not in favor of that and have stated publicly that they would not use it. However, I think that the applicant has stated publicly that he would use it if, in fact, it was offered to him. Presently, the way I see it happening, is this line of parking over here is going to be primarily for employee parking. Keeping in mind your ordinance requires only one space for 200 square feet. Obviously, this particular Site Plan would be considered over -parked, but I think a good point at hand is one that all you have to do is drive out there and you can see that one for 200 is probably not realistic. However, if, in fact, it's the wishes of this Council and if Mr. Gibbs is willing to proceed with his endeavor to provide those parking spaces, this applicant is prepared to use those and would certainly welcome those, just so it would alleviate any on-site congestion in and above what is out there today. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Carrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: Mr. Strite, I guess I'm a little curious, too, on your comment about, basically, if we weren't to approve this drive-thru that this would be created into a sit-down restaurant. Is there adequate parking to have a sit-down restaurant there? Meridian City Council Meeting June 3, 2003 Page 49 of 67 Strite: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Nary, there is more than adequate parking, as a matter of fact. Again, you have to look at the square footage. Your ordinance requires one space for every 200 square feet. It has no relationship to reality where you're actually sitting people based on the number of seats you have. My comment and my position is if Mr. Gibbs wants to use his existing building, he can put probably 80 seats in there. Well, in fact, I think easily 80 seats. Well, you know, if we want to say that it takes you, what, two people per car -- three people per car, if you like, well, you know, you have already doubled the amount of parking that's required for this particular application alone, set aside KFC and Taco Time. Nary: But the -- Strite: And he -- excuse me. One more comment. Nary: I'm sorry. Strite: He does not have to come back before this Council, nor the Commission, because he goes directly to a Certificate of Zoning Compliance and a Building Permit so, I think the alternative in my mind is fairly clear. Nary: But isn't the current building 4,000 square feet? Strite: The current building, I believe, is only 3,000 square feet. Nary: Well, I thought the building you were building was 2,100 square feet and the existing building was 3,900 square feet. That's what they were tearing down. Strite: Mr. Mayor, I'm sorry, I probably confused you. Councilman Nary, the building that we brought before you the last time, November 12, 2002, Carl's Junior, was 3,900 square feet. That was, again, assuming they were going to demolish the KFC. Nary: Okay. Strite: Tonight we are coming before you with 2,100 square feet or a 46 percent reduction in size and seating. Nary: So, the current building there, if we retain this restaurant scenario you're talking about, the current building that's on that site is about 3,000 square feet. Strite: That's correct. Nary: And so that would require how many parking spaces and how many -- is there adequate parking even for that? Strite: There would be adequate parking for that, as far as your ordinance is concerned, that's true. Meridian City Council Meeting June 3, 2003 Page 50 of 67 Nary: Right. But if Mr. Gibb wants to put 80 seats in it and he only has eight parking places, because that's all the ordinance requires, that's not very good business, is it? Strite: That's absolutely correct. It could, in fact, be done. The thing is -- and I think you, as I read the minutes, made an astute comment relative to cross -parking agreements. We could find no evidence that there are any cross -parking agreements. As it exists now -- and I'm sure you're going to have further testimony from KFC and Taco Time, when Bolo's is operating -- and I'm probably the biggest abuser, I park there, I may sit there three hours to watch a ball game. Well, what does that do to the parking? That's exactly what would happen in terms of a sit-down restaurant, whereas, the drive-thru restaurant, at least at this particular point in time -- and 1 think KFC would -- excuse me -- Carl's would testify to the fact that we are looking at more like 70 percent of the business through the drive-thru. You're better than reducing at better than half the long-term parking and I think that's the key. Nary: Thank you. Corrie: Any other questions? Okay. Thank you. Strite: Thank you. Corrie: We have got two people here signed up. Is there anyone here that wishes to testify in favor of the -- okay? Is the testimony you're about to give the truth -- to the Council, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Nelson: Yes. Corrie: You have three minutes. Nelson: My name is John Nelson, 496 Calestoga Circle, Fremont, California. I just wanted to tell you I know you denied this project last year, but this is a new project with a building that is about half the size, half the parking, and half the seating, with way more parking. We, actually, have 25 or 26 spaces over code. What I want to say is that we listened to your minutes, your discussion, the reasons why you denied it. We went back to the drawing board and took all those comments into play, your comments, along with the Planning Commission. I think what we have is a solution that showed that we listened to what you had to say. We brought back something that the city could approve that uses the space properly, allows -- we have the better stacking for the drive-thru. We also had a lot of comments on the safety of crossing over the drive-thru for the pedestrians, so we came back and added those blinking flashers that would be in the asphalt, so that the cars would notice that there is a crosswalk from the parking. I also want to say that a lot of comments were made on the crossing over the drive-thru for the pedestrians. Well, if you go throughout this whole city or any city, go to the Crossroads shopping center or the Winco I was at today, everybody crosses over drive aisles to get to the entrances. The entrances are always in front of the building and there is always i Meridian City Council Meeting June 3, 2003 Page 51 of 67 about a 25 to 30 foot drive aisle with cars going in both directions and everybody parks on the either side of that and crosses over and there are not fences directing everybody to one space and not blinking lights to protect the pedestrians. I think we have done everything possible to alleviate that problem. Also, 1 think the amenities are a nice touch. The city requires two by code, we are offering three, and, again, that would be 60 percent. We are adding parking to a space that's already congested, so we are adding 26 spaces and we are basically using a lot of drive-thru business, so we will be helping the KFC and the Taco Bell with their parking situation and cleaning up an abandoned building right now or a building that's just in use for storage. I just want you to keep in mind that we have done everything, listened to all your comments, and made what 1 believe is an excellent compromise. I just want you to keep in mind that our competitors may have issues, but their main could be that it's competition and I don't think that's a place for the Council to be involved in, so thank you. Any question? Corrie: Any questions? Thank you, anyone else to testify for? Is the testimony you're about to give the Council the truth, so help you God? Gibbs: Yes. Corrie: Okay name and address, please. Gibbs. Jonathan Gibbs. I'm general partner of G&H Enterprises 11, which is the property owner. I live at 9502 Scorpio, Boise, Idaho. I just want to say that I have put a lot of time and effort in the consideration of a restaurant in that site. I think we have got the best setup that we could have with the least amount of congestion, with the least amount of parking and there is, I believe, plenty of parking for most -- most all the times of service there. There is always going to be times when there isn't enough parking and that's always the case in every good restaurant site around. There has been a lot of talk about Bolo's taking the parking at night they do bring a lot of people that stay a long time. Brad Bolicek, the owner -operator of Bolicek's, would like to have some off-street parking. I think we will arrange some for him and his employees in the near vicinity, it would be across the street, and he has no problem with that and so if this site is approved, we will be working on obtaining some site for at least his staff there. That's about all I have got to say. Corrie: Any questions? Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else to testify for the project? Okay. We have two against. Phil Atteberry. Is the testimony you're about to give the truth, so help you God? Atteberry: It is. Corrie: Okay. Name, please. Atteberry: My name is Phil Atteberry and my address is 1756 Stonybrook Court, Eagle. I represent KFC and we have a few issues, like we did last time, for this new design. I brought the -- a picture of the first design that was presented last year that was denied Meridian City Council Meeting June 3, 2003 Page 52 of 67 by the City Council and the drive-thru lane was here and he had blocked this lane up here and that was our concern, along with the added traffic of having a drive-thru in already a congested area here. The new design that I have here, I have drawn a few cars in here. This is the drive-thru speaker here and these shows cars. When you have four cars backed up through here, it actually blocks this crosswalk, number one, and having a crosswalk through a drive-thru lane is not a very common thing to have. They use the example of the front of the grocery stores, but that is not a designated lane that's curbed on both sides that most drive -thus have. In fact, most cities do not allow a crosswalk across a drive-thru lane. I'm not sure that having a fence across here directing all these people through here would -- could possibly impede the vision of the people of a young child coming across here and a car being able to see them, you know, walking across here into the restaurant. The congestion if the drive-thru is backed up through here would completely start to block this area. Provided that this wouldn't happen all the time, but the times it does happen is when Taco Bell is backed up through here, we have cars coming in here, and both streets are full of traffic. Those are the times it's going to happen and that's going to be the most critical time when you're busy. This pulling out of the drive-thru here this way and cars wanting to go this way, it seems -- and you got Taco Bell coming out this way, it just seems like it's just too much, in our opinion. I think the restaurant design, I think the amenities that were, -- and the restaurant is fine. Adding a drive-thru to this area is just -- you got three drive- thrus and then -- I don't know what the distance is from here to here, but that is just -- I don't know if I have ever seen that many drive-thrus in that short of distance. Corrie: Okay. Atteberry: Thank you. Corrie: Any questions of Phil? Thank you. Don Skinner. Excuse me. Dan. I'm sorry. Is the testimony you're about to give the Council the truth, so help you God? Skinner: It is. Corrie: Thank you. Skinner: I'm Dan Skinner at 3475 East Franklin Road, Meridian, as I spoke last November -- and, by the way, I'm with Taco Bell. As you can see, that's the property I guess north of where the proposed Carl's Junior is going in. My concerns are much the same as Phil Atteberry's with KFC. I agree with the size of the building being downsized. That was something that I totally agreed with. However, the issue that I have with the downsize is it doesn't really make any difference with the amount of traffic that we are going to be dealing with, with another drive-thru going into that area. Our concern is, yes, we understand that the size of the building has been dropped down almost 50 percent, but we still believe that the amount of traffic that's going to be generated isn't going to be much different than what the full size proposed building was in November. The other issue is, certainly, the increased congestion that's going to be there with the other drive-thru is our concern. As we mentioned last time, it is already Meridian City Council Meeting June 3, 2003 Page 53 of 67 very congested with just the businesses that are in that area alone and we do deal with issues today with people trying to get in and out of the property onto the main streets. The other is the increased traffic is certainly going to lead to a -- what I believe is a safety issue with patrons moving in and out of those areas, not only at our location at Taco Bell, but also the other four locations that are in that general vicinity. The other is I guess when we look at the way the traffic flows are going and it does look pretty nice there, however, the issue is the traffic that is going to be moving in two directions, but it could potentially be moving two sets of traffic or two sets of cars moving in one direction at one time. With our drive-thru -- I apologize. I'm shaking -- being right here, it could cause an issue with people being able to get in and out of the area. That's all I have. Bird: Mr. Mayor? Carrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: I want to ask questions of each one of the testimonies. Taco Bell, what is your -- what do you guys market drive -- trips through your drive-thru per day? Skinner: The number of transactions, sir? Bird: Yes. Skinner: We -- around three to five hundred a day. Bird: Three to 500, if I could, Mayor. Corrie: Yes. Bird: I'd like to ask Kentucky Fried and Carl's Junior both what theirs would be. De Weerd: What does mean in -- Skinner: Oh, well, let me clarify that. That's transactions that occur at the facility, if we took 70 percent of that, we run about 60 to 70 percent, the same as Carl's Junior, on drive-thru. Most of our business is through drive-thru. Bird: What kind of -- if it's 300 transactions, would that be about 200 cars? Skinner: Yes. Roughly. Bird: How about Kentucky Fried? Corrie: Name, please. Atteberry: At this location we have about 500 transactions per day. Meridian City Council Meeting June 3, 2003 Page 54 of 67 Bird: And cars? Atteberry: We are about 55 to 60 percent drive-thru. We are around 250 to 300 cars. Corrie: Anyone else against the proposal? Okay. Now, we have a rebuttal here, so which one of you wants to do it? Oh, I'm sorry, just a minute. Councilman Bird has a question about the number of trips. Nelson: We have about 500 -- well, this store is going to be less. About 400 transactions and we do about 65 percent drive-thru business. Corrie: About 260 cars. Thank you. Okay. Joann. Is the testimony you're about to give the Council the truth, so help you God? Butler: Yes. Corrie: Okay. Thank you. Name and address, please. Butler: Joann Butler, 251 East Front Street, representing the applicant. You have all read the staff report and you know that ACHD has approved the application and has reviewed it extensively for circulation given all of the uses in this area and showing that the traffic system does accommodate this with the new redesign. Just answering -- a little bit disjointed here, but answering some of the issues that came up, people said that it just seems like it's too much, but we don't have any evidence of that it seems like too much and it has been designed for proper circulation on site. The idea of that it's unusual to cross a drive aisle, I think everybody that when they go to their Albertson's and they walk across in the front at their Albertson's, every Albertson's has a striped sidewalk for people to walk from the parking area into the front of the store and here there may be stop signs there and stripes, but here the -- because of the issues raised by this Council and the Commission at the last go around, Mr. Nelson is right, they did very much go back to the drawing board and say, okay, how can we do more than just stripes, more than just channel people to a particular area and when -- and with Billy Ray Strite's help went above and beyond in terms of providing those safety features. Staff has given you a recommendation, the Commission has given you a recommendation for approval, finding that the criteria for conditional use are met and the issues that were raised on traffic issues, again, were met by ACRD. All the facts here point to the conditional use criteria being met. If you do choose to deny this application, not unlike the last time, we ask you to be very, very clear about the reasons why and why that our request is outweighed by any of the testimony that's been presented to you here and, then, if you do decide to deny the project as well, as required by state code, we'd ask you to tell us what it will take to gain approval on this site. We hope that you don't and we respectfully request that you approve this application as a very good faith attempt by this applicant to respond to the Council's concerns a couple years ago. Thank you. Corrie: Thank you. Any questions? Meridian City Council Meeting June 3, 2003 Page 55 of 67 Nichols: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nichols. Nichols: Ms. Butler, you seem to imply by ACHD's approval of the project that their approval addresses the interior traffic situation on that parcel? Butler: But for the fact that they did approve -- I mean they did disapprove some driveways and we are abiding by those approvals of ACHD. They do take into consideration movement as you come in off of the site -- into the site. I'm not saying that they necessarily looked at all of the circulation in the site, but by looking at the driveways and the surrounding transportation system, they definitely took that into consideration, but I don't mean they extended it all the way through. Corrie: Thank you. Council, any questions? I guess I had one, counselor. You stated in the letter of Jonathan Gibbs our Legal Counsel has indicated to us that as far as they can determine, we can still use the building number one for a restaurant, including the approved drive-thru. If you have a legal document that states otherwise, please, send a copy. They raise the question that they didn't have to come through us. How do you interpret that? Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: That Mr. Gibbs is wrong. That's how I interpret it. We transferred the drive-thru specifically to the other building and Mr. Gibbs was made well aware of that at the time he requested that KFC -A&W be moved to that other portion of the lot. He may be correct that a restaurant may be allowed there, but it has to still meet parking requirements and as 1 asked Mr. Strite, he could put 80 seats in there, but if you have got ten spaces, it's not very smart business to not have sufficient parking space for your customers. The issue of the drive-thru still requires a conditional use. If they thought they didn't need it and it was already approved, we wouldn't be here. I don't think that's right. We did intentionally transfer it, that was the whole intent of the previous discussion of Planning and Zoning, but if I'm wrong I'm sure Mr. Nichols will let me know. Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I don't think the attorney referred to in the letter was Ms. Butler and I just wanted to point that out. Corrie: No. I didn't imply that. I just -- questions? Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, clearly, the drive-thru was abandoned as part of that previous one and any new drive-thru would have to come through for your approval. Meridian City Council Meeting June 3, 2003 Page 56 of 67 Corrie: Thank you. Powell: Mr. Mayor, before you close the Public Hearing, 1 did want to address an issue that Mr. Nary raised and that was the turn radius from this drive aisle onto that drive aisle. There is about 26 feet here and turning onto 12 feet, which is -- well, a parking stall is nine feet wide in the City of Meridian, so it's about 30 percent larger than that. You don't -- i think you were correct in noticing that there is not a lot of turn radius there for doing a -- coming back on it, so particularly for large cars, which are prevalent in this area. It might be difficult to get a Suburban around there. There is 12 feet between the sidewalk. This is a handicapped stall and the ramp unloading area and this is a sidewalk. There is 12 feet from this point out to there, so there would appear to be a little room to increase that turn radius, so that it might facilitate the movement of cars a little better. Corrie: Thank you, Anna. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: Mrs. Powell, I don't know if you know this answer or not, but we have had a lot of testimony about the drive aisles and crossing over the drive aisles at the front of Winco and Albertson's now. They appear to be about 30 feet wide and this one appears to be about 12, but do you have any idea how large those drive aisles are? Powell: I suspect they are right at code, which would put them -- well, the minimum is 25, 1 believe -- I could grab my zoning ordinance, so they probably are considerably wider, but they do allow for two-way traffic. This is one-way directional traffic. Nary: And they are normally fire lanes, in my experience, so they don't have any parked cars and they don't have any stopped cars that they allow. I recognize that occasionally happens, but they don't allow that, is that right? Powell: Yes. That would be right and it's a commentary, but I would like to say that there is also the general perception that there will be people crossing that, whereas, I'm sure that that perception is there on a drive-thru aisle for a restaurant. Corrie: Any other questions? De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I guess I don't have any questions, but I'd rather have the discussion before -- or at least comment before we close the Public Hearing. You know, I appreciate the Meridian City Council Meeting June 3, 2003 Page 57 of 67 fact that this is a smaller building, you know, and I also appreciate the effort that has been spent on making this a viable application. What it doesn't do is take -- it does not take away the concern about a third drive-thru and I know Carl's Junior needs a drive- thru. You have to the north of their building a possibility of three different flows of traffic, the flow from Taco Bell's drive-thru. Then, two-way traffic in front of Carl's Junior -- I just think it's a disaster waiting to happen. I guess I -- if they wanted to turn the existing building into at sit-down restaurant there isn't much we can do, but I don't know how many people would invest in that building because of the congestion that is already existing. All of us have been there. I have. It's when it's busy and, then, all of that parking from Bolo's and Taco Bell spill over into it, I just can't imagine another high traffic generating business being there and not causing some serious safety risks for that whole area and even though I like what I see that they have done, they will add to the parking that already exists, I just cannot see another drive-thru in that area. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: Ms. Butler had asked that -- almost anticipating that the public would ask what would we recommend differently and I do agree with Council Member de Weerd that I think Carl's Junior has done an admirable job to change the Site Plan. I think this is a significant improvement over what was previously proposed, but this traffic -- and we told Mr. Gibbs this when we transferred this drive-thru from this building, the original KFC to the new one, that this one would be abandoned when this drive-thru from KFC opened, that this was not a very practical site to have a drive-thru any longer with the drive-thru being placed here for KFC and A&W. Now, I am no traffic engineer, but it only makes sense to me that this entryway -- and, again, I know that you need the property owner's approval, but this entryway has pretty much evolved itself into a right in, right out entry and trying to get traffic to turn left off of Main Street into here causes part of the bottle neck. This building in size, at least to me, again, not as an engineer, should be turned the other way, so that drive-thru traffic can all come this same direction for Taco Bell and KFC. Most of the drive-thru traffic comes off of Meridian Road. This one should come off of Meridian Road. The drive-thru can snake around this building, but the building should be going the other direction, so that the drive-thru comes around it this way going towards Meridian Road and, then, they need to figure out a way to get the traffic back right out here and not have the cars backing themselves in here. I can't see anybody getting a Suburban around this curve. I see traffic back up into this drive aisle, which was the problem when KFC went westbound here as a drive- thru. I see this lane being congested all -- quite often during the busy time. This is just not -- this just needs another look through. The other thing l guess I'd say while the hearing is still open and if they want to comment. I absolutely Date somebody coming up here and saying approve this or we are going to make it worse and I hate that and really respect Mr. Strite and respect the work that he's done, this is a tremendously improved project. I absolutely hate somebody telling me you better approve it or it will be worse than what we have asked for. Secondarily, I have said, since Arby's was approved -- and I was on the Commission at the time and did not notice that the Meridian City Council Meeting June 3, 2403 Page 58 of 57 walkway crossed into the drive-thru, that I would never vote to put a crosswalk through a drive-thru again and nothing has convinced me different. I won't vote for something that kids and families have got to cross into a drive lane. This is not the front of the store it's not comparable to the front of Albertson's and Winco. That's an unfair characterization. This is a narrow pathway with vehicles. They have improved it some, but it's still dangerous, I don't think it makes sense to have a crosswalk there and they haven't said anything to convince me that it's compatible, it complies with this ordinance for conditional uses, and I haven't heard any evidence about that. I think they have done some good things, but I think it needs more work before we would even reconsider it. Corrie: I'm only going to allow one rebuttal on that, so, Billy, you have got it name and address, please. Strite: Mr. Mayor, Billy Ray Strite, 1010 Allante. First of all, if necessary, I will apologize. There certainly was no intent to threaten one for the other. The pure fact was that it is available and I was just trying to point out the fact. I agree with you wholeheartedly from a business standpoint that would be potentially disastrous, so I -- if, in fact, 1 made that mistake, I apologize, and that's all I have to say. Corrie: Any other comments on the Public Hearing? IT take the silence as being no. Then, I will entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing. De Weerd: So moved. Nary: Second. Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to close the Public Hearing on the CUP request, any further discussion? All those in favor say aye. Opposed no? All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Corrie: Public Hearing on the Conditional Use Permit 03-017 is closed. Further discussion? Okay. Hearing none, Council, I will entertain a motion to either approve or deny the Conditional Use Permit for Carl's Junior restaurant with drive-thru service by Clayton Jones. De Weerd: I don't know. You're so good at it. Who better to make the motion and state clearly the reason why? Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Meridian City Council Meeting June 3, 2003 Page 59 of 67 Nary: I would move the denial of CUP 03-017, the request for Conditional Use Permit for a new Carl's Junior restaurant with drive-thru service by Clayton Jones, north of intersection of South Meridian Road, East Central Drive and South Main Street. To include comments on the record tonight. Specifically, in regards to the ordinance for Conditional Use Permit, Meridian City Code 11-17-3, that there has not been adequate -- there has not been adequate evidence presented that this site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use. That there has been testimony about the level of traffic congestion and the difficulty of the design and providing an adequate safety for patrons of this particular site. There hasn't been adequate evidence showing there isn't -- that the site is large enough, which is 11-17-3A, that there has not been adequate evidence for 11-17-3C, that this design, construction, operation, and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood. The specific testimony is that it will change the existing and intended character of the general vicinity, the impact on the other businesses in this particular area will be severely compromised by this particular design, construction, and operation, and that it will adversely change the essential character of the same area by having a third drive-thru on this particular site in that location as presented by the site plan and that there also has been adverse testimony under 11-17-3D that the proposed use, if it complies with all the conditions of approval, would adversely affect, again, other properties in the vicinity for the same reason the operation, maintenance, and such, because of the traffic congestion and traffic safety concerns for pedestrians crossing the drive-thru, as well as the traffic on the site. I think that's all of the conditions. Those conditions haven't been met and for Council to prepare Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order pursuant to those. Bird: Second. Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded for the denial of the request for the Conditional Use Permit CUP 03-017, any further discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote, Mr. Berg. Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Corrie: Okay. All ayes. Request for Conditional Use Permit is hereby -- Nichols: Mr. Mayor? Carrie: Mr. Nichols. Nichols: Mr. Mayor, with the Council's permission, I would ask that you indicate what, if possible, the applicant could do to obtain approval of this. I think one of the things that would be appropriate would be whether you would approve any drive-thru or what would you need to see in a drive-thru in order for the applicant to convince you that a third Meridian City Council Meeting June 3, 2003 Page 60 of 67 drive-thru would be acceptable, so that those things are part of the record and we can make them part of the Findings as well. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: I guess 1 would conclude, pursuant to whatever else the Council's comment is, as I have stated, I think the building -- I think the building needs to be oriented -- basically it's now oriented that the drive-thru faces Meridian Road. I believe the drive-thru should be in the same configuration so that the traffic flows from west to east as it does for the Taco Bell, as it does for the Kentucky Fried Chicken, that they can really seriously consider a right in, right out, so there is no cross -traffic across that parking lot coming from east to west to cross into those drive-thru lanes so that all of the traffic flows through those drive -thus from west to east and, then, back out again onto Main Street. Again, it is a right in, right out, and there are other traffic considerations, I don't know if whether north of this site can be done. I wouldn't say, at least from my perspective, that a drive-thru cannot be accomplished there, I think it has to be accomplished with a traffic pattern that's the same for all of the drive-thrus, rather than having one cross traffic the opposite direction. Bird: I would agree with that. Second would. You got congestion and there is cross traffic, everything that comes through. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I know we have already had a vote on it. I don't know if I could support a third drive-thru. The two choices that I have seen -- and I'm sure the architect has spent considerable amount of time in trying to figure out those flows. I just don't know if it's a possible -- if it's possible to not compromise the existing ones that are already there and still assuring the safety of the motoring and the pedestrian traffic. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: And just one other comment in the same vein. Again, my concern is always in having crosswalks crossing a drive-thru. I still haven't seen that there is adequate visibility -- they have improved on it, but I'm very -- still very committed on having any type of traffic. The design and orientation of the building, at least from my perspective, has to eliminate pedestrians crossing directly into the drive-thru path to get to the front of the building. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Meridian City Council Meeting June 3, 2003 Page 61 of 67 Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I guess one other thing is the handicapped parking would be entering into a potential three-way traffic area that just -- I'm not going to stereotype a handicapped driver, but, you know, that just seems like a real problem waiting to happen. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: Mr. Nichols is that adequate for you to include for the comments that you requested? Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I believe so. Nary: Thank you. Item 22. Public Hearing: Amending the Fence Variance Ordinance: Corrie: The last item on the agenda tonight is a Public Hearing amending the Fence Variance Ordinance. I will open the Public Hearing on the amending of the fence ordinance and have staff comments first. Powell: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, did you receive anything on this item? Corrie: Yes, we have. Powell: Okay. It wasn't -- I wasn't sure if you had. The intent of the ordinance is to disband with the special committee that currently considers fence waivers and to grant your zoning administrator that authority to look at those waivers and decide whether they are warranted. There are also provisions at his or her discretion, the administrator may schedule a hearing on an application. It became evident today that we didn't decide who would conduct that hearing, so I suppose as a first issue I just want to raise that tonight and if we could -- if you could give me some direction on who you would like to see conduct that hearing, we will come back to you with an edited version of this. There is some other little wordsmithing that I'd like to do that I just can't keep from doing, so -- but the only real substantive issue would be do you want me to have the discretion to require a second hearing. The other thing that we could do is that if they were disappointed with my decision, presumably to deny a waiver, that they could just immediately appeal it up to you and those provisions are in there, that they could appeal it directly to City Council. If you don't want to see those appeals, then, we can set up procedures whereby the Planning and Zoning Commission would conduct a hearing and have findings and all those good things that the Planning Commission can do. But it's just a question of how you want to handle that. Meridian City Council Meeting June 3, 2003 Page 62 of 67 Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: Although I would, actually, prefer Council member McCandless hear all of these appeals, just because I didn't want her getting out of it, but I think -_ I mean I think you have captured the intent that we have discussed on it, is the idea of really having this done at the administrative level, at least to me it makes no sense that if they want to appeal or based upon something that I think you would need to articulate, so we can avoid an arbitrary type of situation and you feel a hearing is necessary, I still think the Planning and Zoning Commission is probably the first step they should go to, but I think -- like I said, I think because it's sort of open-ended in here where it just says you have the discretion, I don't mind you having discretion, I was just thinking you articulate that, because I don't want someone saying Mrs. Powell hates me and that's why she made me go to this hearing, which takes longer and I have to go hire an attorney or whatever to deal with something, you know, as long as we can articulate our reasons, where it's because there has been, you know, signature objection, whether there is -- they haven't stated adequately what their reasons are after we requested clarification, but whatever. mean something to that effect, so it's not an arbitrary or merely a subjective decision, but based upon something that's objective and reasonable. I think that's fine. I think it makes the most sense for the Planning and Zoning Commission, that there are findings and it is heard and if they really feel like -- I can't even fathom somebody wanting to appeal that, but if they can certainly go to Council, but I think the Planning and Zoning Commission is the first step. Powell: Okay. Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I do -- I'm having a little trouble imagining under what circumstances I would want to schedule a Public Hearing versus recommend denial. To my mind, that would be the only condition under which I would, so -- and I'm just looking for ideas and apparently Mr. Nichols has one. Nichols: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nichols. Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, when Anna first talked to me about this late this afternoon, I couldn't remember and didn't have it in front of me, but looking at the text, I think what was intended was it was going to be an administrative process. She gets the application, she looks it over and the notice goes out to people, if anybody objects, then, she looks at the objections, she can either make her decision based upon what's in the record or she could ask that they come in front of her and talk to her about it. I think that's what we intended by a hearing was that you could say, okay, I'm going to hold a hearing, because a neighbor has this objection and I can't figure it out or, you know, it raises enough issue, I'm just going to have a hearing. The applicant and the objecting party comes in front of you, states their case and, then, you make your decision and, then, that gets appealed. I think that's what we intended was rather than get it to the P&Z level or you just have to look at it and go, gee, I have got to either, you Meridian City Council Meeting June 3, 2003 Page 63 of 67 know, grant it or deny it, basically schedule a conference, in a sense, that they come in and, you know, if you say, okay, I'm going to do it at such and such a time and nobody shows up, then, you're back in the same spot, but if the objecting party doesn't show up or submit something additional, then, I think you go forward. I think that's what we intended when we were looking at it was trying to -- it was trying to streamline the process and I didn't remember that today when we talked on the phone. McCandless: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. McCandless. McCandless: In the two and a half or so years that I served on that committee, we had questions about two applications. That's all. And both of them a neighbor didn't like what they were going to do and they came and talked and, then, we made a decision. Nobody said anything about it later, so -- De Weerd: Then, why don't you like it? McCandless: I never said I didn't like it, I just said I wanted off. And it was a little bit silly, because 90 percent of them are no brainers. It can be done on a staff level. It doesn't need a committee. Bird: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: I think that Mrs. McCandless just hit it right on the head, I think that it can be -- 1 have sat on a committee, which all of us have, and I think it can be done on a staff level very, very good. I'm like Mr. Nichols, we just want to streamline the process and there is no sense of having a committee they have -- and by state code anybody that has a -- can always go before the City Council if they don't agree with it, so -- but I think we ought to go to the Planning and Zoning, if they want to hear it, if they can't get along with staff and -- but I can't imagine -- I can't imagine it ever going above staff. I have never seen one that's even been -- you know. Powell: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, particularly, Mr. Bird, are you saying you don't -- that you still -- if the intent was to the give the administrator the authority to conduct that hearing, are you saying you'd rather see it go to Planning and Zoning. You mentioned Planning and Zoning again. Bird: No. No. What I'm saying is if they don't agree with you and want us to -- you can conduct that hearing, but if you want to send it forward for something, I would go to them first. Powell: So, you would want the appeal to go to them, rather than to you? Meridian City Council Meeting June 3, 2003 Page 64 of 67 Bird: Yes. Powell: Okay. I'll work with Mr. Nichols. I -- Corrie: Okay. Is there anyone else that would like to issue testimony tonight? Hearing none, I will recommend a motion to close the Public Hearing. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: Should we continue it, so we can get the changed document? Corrie: If you want to do it that way. I don't know, as we need to. We can continue the Public Hearing. Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, as you can see, there is a great deal of public interest in this process. Corrie: Yes. Everybody was -- Nichols: And the Council has the privilege of looking at whatever draft Anna and I come back with and saying we want this changed. We can certainly bring it back and highlight whatever changes have been made from this draft, so that you can see those changes and go forward. De Weerd: And if we want to comment on those changes, we would have to open the Public Hearing. De Weerd: Oh. Okay. Okay. Corrie: But you have the right to comment yourself. De Weerd: Okay. Bird: So we want to close the Public Hearing? Corrie: Yes. Bird: So moved. Nary: Second. Meridian City Council Meeting June 3, 2003 Page 65 of 67 Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to close the Public Hearing. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Corrie: I think, Anna, you have your marching orders now. Powell: Thank you, sir. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I just have two questions. One is on the Wilkins Ranch, if we could get an update under Department Reports next week on if they were going to -- what solutions they were looking at. I know the water is flowing and -- and summer -- school is out on Wednesday, so I just wondered kind of where we are at with that. Then, a couple of months ago we met with the golf course and at that time the golf course committee and its mission was going to come back to Council to either confirm or discuss what their mission is and I understand there is a committee meeting, but I wondered what the process was on that. It's not a recognized committee yet, so -- Corrie: You want to answer that, Keith, or -- Bird: Go ahead. Corrie: Okay. They are having a meeting tomorrow night. They had to cancel the last one they had and they will be giving us a recommendation probably next week and it would just be a -- on what they come up with. We will have to make the decision, based upon legal terminology and everything else, so that's where it stands right now. We should have it about either next week right after the meeting on the 4 l and you will see it in written form. Bird: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: Tammy just said that it wasn't a recognized committee and seeing how I was not in -- I was in the hospital when they set this thing up, but up I didn't realize it was not a recognized committee, I thought it was appointed and approved by you on the -- Corrie: It was an ad hoc committee. Bird: Ad hoc. Okay. Meridian City Council Meeting June 3, 2003 Page 66 of 67 De Weerd: And 1 thought when we had left that meeting and stated in the minutes that it would come back for confirmation and to state the mission, so I just went on the minutes. Bird: I did not have -- Corrie: Okay. They weren't -- I don't believe they were a committee that was formed by the council. It was an ad hoc committee to give Council information that they found out. De Weerd: Okay so, they are not recommending any course of action? Corrie: They will just bring back what they find. De Weerd: And just one more thing is I understand that we were going to do some equipment sharing and I think they were -- had asked to use a sprayer. Corrie: That's right and I refused. I'm not going to allow public money and equipment to go to a private party that's leasing -- that makes money off it and, besides that, I understand that the equipment is very expensive and should be handled by the parks crew. So -- and I made that decision myself, that I don't feel it's right to use city funds and money and equipment on a private organization. Bird: And I concur with him. Corrie: They can go out and rent some -- Bird: If they want to help purchase some, I think that, or if it was Ward or somebody like that, but it's another public entity that is bought through taxes, then, I think that that is proper, but I think in something like this, unless we get a policy stated of the city, that our hands are tied right now on something like that. De Weerd: Well, 1 just thought that was the conversation. Bird: And I definitely question whether we need one of those things in our city either, you know, because it is a very expensive item and -- De Weerd: We already have it. Bird: Yeah. We already have it. I know. Corrie: I hope that answers your question. I just kind of made the decision, an administrative decision that we wouldn't use public funds and equipment to -- Bird: I think on the golf course, that's the first time they have ever asked for it, and I don't have a problem with it. I think we need to make a policy on some of this, because I think we ought to look at some -- I think it's policy that we need to make as a Council Meridian City Council Meeting June 3, 2003 Page 67 of 67 on what we would share and do stuff like that, because you are talking about tax dollars and money and you're talking about somebody out there that, hopefully, is making a profit. I think they are, but, you know, they are a private enterprise that is -- that would be like a farmer coming in and asking to use our sprayer for his five acre field out there, you know. De Weerd: If he's spraying our park land? Bird: He's not -- Carrie: He's not spraying our -- Bird: That's leased parkland. That's leased. Corrie: We don't -- De Weerd: Well, I don't know. I didn't know any decisions had been made, all I -- 1 talked with Doug Strong and he wanted to train someone on it and that's the last I heard. I didn't know any decisions had been made. Corrie: Well, all you had to do was ask. I made the decision and -- but Doug came into my office and he said I would rather not, because of the expense of the equipment, and we have to have somebody who really knows how to use it and I said I agree with that and, besides that, they are charging maintenance and the city is not. Now, that's the way I read this lease, so -- but if you have any questions like that, ask me and I'll tell you. That's fine, but -- anything else? Okay. I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. Nary: So moved. McCandless: Second. Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to adjourn at 10:45. All in favor say aye. Opposed no. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:41 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) ROBERT D. CORRIE, M `5�55111f1r11f1171// 'O A f -E D. ~tet = ft-LIAM G �����l;llti ti@51114` 2- j 43 DATE BERG, JRU, CYTY CLERK BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN IN THE MATTER OF THE REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CHILD CARE FACILITY IN AN R-4 ZONE FOR BUILDING BRIDGES CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER, LOCATED AT 3289 NORTH TOWERBRIDGE WAY, MERIDIAN, IDAHO APRIL REYNOLDS, APPLICANT CIC 05/13/03 CIC 05/20/03 Case No. CUP -03-004 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT The above entitled conditional use permit application having come before the City Council on May 13, 2003 and continued until May 20, 2003, at the hour of 7:00 p.m., at Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, and Anna Powell Director for the Planning and Zoning Department, and Tyler Reynolds, appeared and testified, and the City Council having duly considered the evidence and the record in this matter and the Recommendations to City Council issued by the Planning and Zoning Commission who conducted a public hearing and the Council having heard and taken oral and written testimony, and having duly considered the matter, the City Council hereby makes the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order to -wit: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PAGE I OF 23 FINDINGS OF FACT 1. A notice of a public hearing on the conditional use permit was published for two (2) consecutive weeps prior to the said public hearing scheduled for May 13, 2003 and continued until May 20, 2003, before the City Council, the first publication appearing and written notice having been mailed to property owners or purchasers of record within three hundred feet (300') of the external boundaries of the property under consideration more than fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing and with the notice of public hearing having been posted upon the property under consideration more than one week before said hearing and the copies of all notices were made available to newspaper, radio and television stations as public service announcements; and the matter having been duly considered by the City Council at the May 13, 2003, and continued until May 20, 2003, public hearings; and the applicant, affected property owners, and government subdivisions providing services within the planning jurisdiction of the City of Meridian, having been given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence. 2. There has been compliance with all notice and hearing requirements set forth in Idaho Code §67-6509, 6512, and Meridian City Code §§ 11-15-5 and 11-17-5 as evidenced by the Affidavit of Mailing, and the Affidavit of Publication and Proof of Posting filed with the staff report. 3. This proposed development request is in an R-4 zone and by reason of the provisions of the Meridian City Code § 11-17-4, a public hearing was required before the City Council on this application. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PAGE 2 OF 23 4. The property is located at 3289 North Towerbridge Way, Meridian, Idaho. The owner of record of the subject property is Primeland Development Company, 660 E. Franklin Road, Suite 110, Meridian, Idaho. 6. Applicant is April Reynolds, 2650 N. Chancery Way, Meridian, Idaho. 7. The subject property is currently zoned R-4 (Low Density Residential). The zoning district of R-4 is defined within the City of Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance, Section 11-7-2. 8. The proposed application requests a conditional use permit for a child care facility in an R-4 zone (Planned Development). The R-4 zoning designation has been modified by an approved Planned Development permit approved by the City of Meridian to allow uses other than those typically allowed in an R-4 zone as long as a Conditional Use Permit is obtained for all uses allowable in the L --O zone, including those requested by the applicant. 9. The proposed application is in compliance with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, which designates the subject property as "Residential". 10. The use proposed within the subject application will in fact, constitute a conditional use as determined by City Ordinance. 11. The Meridian City Council takes judicial notice of its Zoning, Subdivision and Development Ordinances codified at Titles 11 and 12, Meridian City Code and all current zoning maps thereof and the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, and Maps and the Ordinance establishing the Impact Area Boundary. 12. Giving due consideration to the comment received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction public facilities and FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PAGE 3 OF 23 services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the following conditions of development are imposed and the following is also found to be required to mitigate the effects of the proposed use and development upon services delivered by political subdivisions providing services to the subject real property within the planning jurisdiction of the City of Meridian, subject to the following: A. Adopt the Special Recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission as follows: 1. The maximum number of children allowed at this facility shall be dictated by the Fire Department and the State approval authority (Health and Welfare). B. Adopt the Recommendations of the Planning and Zoning and Engineering staff as follows: SITE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS Sanitary sewer and water service shall be from existing service lines on the property. 2. The applicant shall correct the site plan to show the drive aisle at 25 feet wide and shall align with the driveway on the east side of Towerbridge. The four parking spaces south of the loading area shall be approved as "compact"; measuring 9'x16'. (Per action of the Council at their May 20, 2003 meeting.) 3. The structure shall be located a minimum of 5 feet beyond the existing 25 -foot street buffer. This will require a 6 -inch shift from the current location depicted on the site plan. The required 30 -foot front setback will be measured from the front of the street buffer common lot. 4. The minimum width of all parking lot "island" planters is 5 feet wide, measured inside curbs. One tree is required in each planter. All parking lot planters shall be designed in accordance with MCC 12-13-11-3. 5. The trash enclosure shall be designed and located so that no part of the structure encroaches into a required drive aisle. Coordinate the enclosure location, size, and materials with the Sanitary Services Company (SSC). Design must be in accordance with Ordinance 11-12-1C. 6. All exterior lighting, whether attached to the building or located within the parking lot, shall be down -shielded or otherwise altered so that the light does not spill over onto FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PAGE 4 OF 23 r adjacent properties or right-of-way. All parking lot lighting shall be in accordance with Ordinance 11-134C. 7. All signage shall be in accordance with the standards set forth in Section 11-14 o [the City Zoning and Development Ordinance. All signage is subject to design review and shall require separate permits. 8. All construction and site improvements shall conform to the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 9. All parking shall be striped and improved in accordance with the Meridian City Code. 10. A drainage plan designed by a State of Idaho licensed architect or engineer is required and shall be submitted to the City Engineer (Ord. 557, 10-1-91) for all off-street parking areas. Storm water treatment and disposal must be designed in accordance with Department of Environmental Quality 1997 publication Catalog of Storm Water Best Management Practices for Idaho Cities and Counties and City of Meridian standards and policies. Off-site disposal into a surface water is prohibited unless the jurisdiction which has authority over the receiving stream provides written authorization prior to development plan approval. The applicant is responsible for filing all necessary applications with the Idaho Department of Water Resources regarding Shallow Injection Wells. 11. Certificate of Occupancy: All required improvements must be complete prior to obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy for the proposed development. A temporary Certificate of Occupancy may be obtained by providing surety to the City in the form of a letter of credit or cash in the amount of 110% of the cost of the required improvements (including paving, striping, landscaping, and irrigation). A bid must accompany any request for temporary occupancy. 12. Applicant shall be required to submit revised plans a minimum of ten days prior to the next public hearing. C. Adopt the Recommendations of ACHD as follows- CoMply with Brid etower Subdivision Site Specific Requirements: 1. Dedicate 48 -feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Ustick Road abutting the parcel by means of recordation of a final subdivision plat or execution of a warranty deed prior to issuance of a building permit (or other required permits), whichever occurs first. Allow up to 30 business days to process the right-of-way dedication after receipt of all requested material. The owner will be compensated for all right-of-way dedicated as an addition to existing right-of-way from available impact fee revenues in this benefit zone, if the owner submits a letter of application to the impact fee administrator prior to breaking ground, in accordance with Section 15 of ACHD Ordinance ##193. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PAGE 5 OF 23 2. Utility street cuts in pavement less than five years old are not allowed unless approved in writing by the District. Contact Construction Services at 387-6280 (with file numbers) for details. 3. Construct the main entrance, Towerbridge Way, with a 29 -foot street section and a 36 -foot street section, with a 30 -foot wide center median and located approximately 400 - feet east of Quarrystone Way on the south side of Ustick Road, as proposed. Dedicate sufficient right-of-way for the entire width of the entrance. 4. Construct a center turn lane on Ustick Road for the Ustick Road/Towerbridge Way intersection. The turn lane should be constructed to provide a minimum of 100 -feet of storage with shadow tapers for both the approach and departure directions. Coordinate the design of the turn lane with District staff. 5. Construct the main entrances to Pride Crossing Drive with 29 -foot street sections and a 20 -foot wide center median. Dedicate sufficient right-of-way for the entire width of the entrances. 6. Towerbridge Way and Pride Crossing Drive shall be designated as residential collector streets with no front -on housing, because the anticipated traffic volumes exceed 1,000 vehicle trips per day. The access restrictions for these streets shall be stated on the final plat. Construct these streets segments as 36 -foot street sections with curb, gutter and 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalks. Unless otherwise noted, parking should be prohibited on these street segments. Coordinate the signage plan with District staff. 7. Construct a bridge on N. Towerbridge Way where the roadway crosses Fivemile Creek. The bridge shall be constructed as a 29 -foot street section with curb, gutter and 5 - foot wide concrete sidewalks. Coordinate the design of the bridge with District staff. 8. Construct a 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalk on Ustick Road abutting the parcel. The sidewalk should be located 2 -feet within the new right-of-way. Coordinate the location and elevation with District staff. 9. If relocation is required, utility poles shall be relocated out of the new right-of- way on Ustick Road, and are the responsibility of the developer. 10. Construct all public roads within the subdivision as 36 -foot street sections with curb, gutter, and 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalks within 50 -feet of right-of-way. 11. Construct the main entrance to Trestle Drive with 21 -foot street sections and a 10 - foot wide center median as proposed. Dedicate sufficient right-of-way for the entire width of the entrance. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PAGE 6 OF 23 i C7 12. Stub Pride Crossing Drive, a residential collector, to the east property line between Lot 3, Block 2 and Lot 2, Block 7. Install a sign at the terminus of the roadway stating that, "THIS ROAD WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE". Coordinate the sign plan for the stub street with District staff. 13. Stub Towerbridge Way, a residential collector, to the north property line between Lot 14, Block 5 and Lot 30, Block 3, and construct over the Creason Lateral. Install a sign at the terminus of the roadway stating that, "THIS ROAD WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE". Coordinate the sign plan for the stub street with District staff. 14. Any proposed landscape islands/medians within the public right-of-way dedicated by this plat shall be owned and maintained by a homeowners association. Notes of this should be required on the final plat. 15. Construct the turnarounds to provide a minimum turning radius of 45 -feet, as proposed. 16. Construct a 24 to 30 -foot wide driveway at the east property line of Lot 2, Block 2 to access the proposed recreation center. Pave the driveway its full width and at least 30 - feet into the site beyond the edge of pavement of Pride Crossing Drive, 17. Construct a 24 to 30 -foot wide driveway on Towerbridge Drive, approximately 140 -feet north of Ustick Road to access Lots 2, and 3, Block 1, future office/commercial sites. Pave the driveway its full width and at least 30 -feet into the site beyond the edge of pavement of Towerbridge Drive. IS. Construct a 24 to 30 -foot wide driveway on Towerbridge Drive, approximately 140 -feet north of Ustick Road to access Lot 6, Block 1, a future office/commercial site. Pave the driveway its full width and at least 30 -feet into the site beyond the edge of pavement of Towerbridge Drive. 19. Direct lot or parcel access to Ustick Road is prohibited. Lot access restrictions, as required with this application, shall be stated on the final plat. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PAGE 7 OF 23 Standard Requirements: 1. A request for modification, variance or waiver of any requirement or policy outlined herein shall be made in writing to the ACHD Planning and Development Supervisor. The request shall specifically identify each requirement to be reconsidered and include a written explanation of wh such a requirement would result in. a substantial hardship or inequity. The written request shall be submitted to the District no later than 9:00 a.m. on the day scheduled for ACHD Commission action. Those items shall be rescheduled for discussion with the Commission on the next available meeting agenda. Requests submitted to the District after 9:00 a.m. on the day scheduled for Commission action do not provide sufficient time for District staff to remove the item from the consent agenda and report to the Commission regarding the requested modification, variance or waiver. Those items will be acted on by the Commission unless removed from the agenda by the Commission. 2. After ACRD Commission action, any request for reconsideration of the Commission's action shall be made in writing to the Planning and Development Supervisor within six days of the action and shall include a minimum fee of $110.00. The request for reconsideration shall pecifically identify each requirement to be reconsidered and include written documentation of data that was not available to the Commission at the time of its original decision. The request for reconsideration will be heard by the District Commission at the next regular meeting of the Commission. If the Commission agrees to reconsider the action, the applicant will be notified of the date and time of the Commission meeting at which the reconsideration will be heard. 3. Payment of applicable road impact fees are required prior to building construction in accordance with Ordinance #193, also known as Ada County Highway District Road Impact Fee Ordinance. 4. All design and construction shall be in accordance with the Ada County Highway District Policy Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Construction Services procedures and all applicable ACHD Ordinances unless specifically waived herein. An engineer registered in the State of Idaho shall prepare and certify all improvement plans. 5. The applicant shall submit revised plans for staff approval, prior to issuance of building permit (or other required permits), which incorporates any required design changes. 6. Construction, use and property development shall be in conformance with all applicable requirements of the Ada County Highway District prior to District approval for occupancy. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PAGE 8 OF 23 fes. 1. 7. It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify all existing utilities within the right-of-way. Existing utilities damaged by the applicant shall be repaired by the applicant at no cost to ACRD. The applicant shall be required to call DIGLINE (1-800- 342-1585) at least two full business days prior to breaking ground within. ACHD night -of - way. The applicant shall contact ACRD Traffic Operations 387-6190 in the event any ACHD conduits (spare or filled) are compromised during any phase of construction. 8. 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 the Ada County Highway District. The burden shall be upon the applicant to obtain written confirmation of any change from the Ada County Highway District. 9. Any change by the applicant in the planned use of the property which is the subject of this application, shall require the applicant to comply with all rules, regulations, ordinances, plans, or other regulatory and legal restrictions in force at the time the applicant or its successors in interest advises the Highway District of its intent to change the planned use of the subject property unless a waiver/variance of said requirements or other legal relief is granted pursuant to the law in effect at the time the change in use is sought. D. Adopt the Recommendations of the Meridian Fire Department as follows: 1. Provide a fire -flow of 2000 GPM per the Uniform Fire Code Appendix III -A to service the project. Fire hydrants shall be placed an average of 400' apart. 1997 UFC Appendix III -A 2. Acceptance of the water supply for fire protection will be by the Meridian Water Department. 3. All roads shall have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48' outside. 4. All access roads within the project shall have a clear driving surface with a minimum width of 20' available at all times. UFC 902.2.2.1 5, A Daycare Center will be required to meet the requirements of the International Building & Uniform Fire Codes. 6. A Daycare Center will be required to pass an inspection based the requirements of the Idaho State Fire Marshal's Office. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PAGE 9 OF 23 E. Adopt the Recommendations of Central District Health Department as follows: 1. Plans will be required to be submitted for review for any child care center. 2. Applicant must contact Susan Simmons at CDHD 327-8530. F. Adopt the Recommendations of Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District as follows: 1. The Five Mile Drain courses along the north boundary of the proposed project. The Five Mile Drain is a Federal Drain and any encroachments within the easement without approved plans and a signed license agreement are unacceptable. All storm drainage must be retained on site. G. Adopt the Recommendations of Sanitary Service as follows: No enclosure dimensions are provided for and will need to be. H. Adopt the action of the City Council taken at their May 27, 2003 meeting as follows: The applicant presently is allowed up to 135 students, but shall be allowed to have up to a total of 160 students maximum. If the applicant increases the number of students beyond 135 students, then the applicant shall be required to submit proof to the Planning and Zoning Department that the facility has the additional parking that would be required for the number of additional students and employees. Additionally, the applicant shall be required to be in compliance with all applicable codes at the time of increase. 2. A parking variance is not needed as the present parking is adequate and meets the present needs of the facility for students and employees. 13. It is found that the subject property is presently large enough to accommodate the required parking for the present 135 students, which includes parking spaces for employees. The property is large enough to accommodate the open space, landscaping and other features required for the proposed childcare facility. Additionally, if the applicant increases the number of students and employees proof of the required additionally parking will have to submitted to the Planning and Zoning Department, and also the applicant will have to be in compliance with all the applicable codes. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PAGE 10 OF 23 14. The current Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designates the property as "Residential" and is currently zoned "R-4". It is found that the requested use is a "Conditional Use" according to MCC 11-8-1. It is found that the proposed use and plan to be in compliance with the Meridian Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan, as long as the conditions of the staff report are met. 15. It is found that the proposed development will not adversely change the existing or intended character of the general vicinity. The subject lot is intended for non-residential development per the approved Bridgetower planned development. The proposed childcare use is a service that may be of benefit to the general neighborhood. 16. It is not anticipated that the proposed use will adversely affect adjacent properties. The site is over 140 feet from the nearest residential lot to the north in Bridgetower Subdivision. The other adjacent lots in Primeland Subdivision have been approved for similar office use. Cox Dental office building is currently under construction to the east. 17. It is found that the proposed development will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, street, police, and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, and sewer. 18. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. 19. It is found that the proposed use would not create significant interference with any traffic on the surrounding public streets. 20. It is not anticipated that the proposed use will be detrimental to the general FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PAGE 11 OF 23 welfare of the community by means of increased traffic, noise, smoke fumes, glare or odors generated by the use. 21. It is found 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 by the issuance of this conditional use. Five Mile Creek is immediately north of the subject property, but the creek is on a separate parcel. Landscaping on the subject property is outside of the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District easement, and will serve to enhance this existing natural feature. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the "Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975" hereinafter referred to for convenience as the "Act" codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code (I.C. §67-6503). 2. The Meridian City Council. may exercise all the powers required and authorized under the "Act" except the power to adopt ordinances by the establishment of a Planning and Zoning Commission by ordinance pursuant to Idaho Code Section 67-6504 which the City Council of the City of Meridian has established by the passage of the "City of Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance" at Titles XI and XII, Chapter 1, Meridian City Code. As part of a zoning ordinance the City Council can, subject to hearing and notice provision required, provide for the process of special and/or conditional use permits which a proposed use is otherwise prohibited by the terms of the ordinance but allowed with conditions under the specific provisions of the ordinance which the City of Meridian has done in the adoption of its zoning ordinances. 4. The City Council has the duty and responsibility to review the facts and FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PAGE 12 OF 23 circumstances of each application for special use permit to determine prior to granting the same that the evidential showing supports the finding that the following standards are met and that the proposed development: (Meridian City Code § 11-17-3) a. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and all yards, open spaces, parking, landscaping and other features as may be required by this Ordinance; b. That the proposed use and development plan will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in accordance with the requirements of this Ordinance; 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; d. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity; 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, sewer; or that the person responsible for the establishment of the proposed conditional use shall be able to provide adequately any such services; f. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional cost for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community; 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; h. That the proposed use will have vehicular approaches to the property which shall be so designed as not to create interference with traffic on surrounding public streets; and i. 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. Prior to granting a conditional use permit in the Low Density Residential District (R-4), a public hearing shall be conducted with notice to be published and provided to property owners or purchasers of record within three hundred feet (300') of the external boundaries of the land under consideration for the conditional use permit all in accordance with the provisions of FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PAGE 13 OF 23 Meridian City Code § 11-17-5 City of Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance, which provides as follows: "Prior to approving a Conditional Use Permit, the applicant and the Commission and Council shall follow notice and hearing procedures provided in Chapter 15 of this Title. Provided, however, that conditional use applications for land in Old Town and in industrial and commercial districts shall only be required to have one public hearing which shall be held before the Planning and Zoning Commission; and after the recommendation of the Commission is made, the application shall go before the City Council without a public hearing and the Council may approve, deny, or modify the recommendation of the Commission." 6. Following the public hearing and within 45 days after the conclusion of the public hearing the Commission shall, transmit its recommendations to the Meridian City Council with supportive reasons. The Commission shall recommend that the application be approved, approved with conditions or denied. The Commission shall ensure that any approval or approval with conditions of an application shall be in accordance with Meridian Comprehensive Plan, City of Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance, and Idaho State law. (Meridian City Code § 11-17-6) 7. When the City Council approves a conditional use permit it may impose conditions of that approval that reasonably: A. Minimize adverse impact on other development; B. Control the sequence and timing of development; C. Control the duration of development; D. Assure that the development is maintained property; E. Designate the exact location and nature of the development; F. Require the provision for on-site public facilities or services; and FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PAGE 14 OF 23 G. Require more restrictive standards than those generally required, in this Ordinance. 8. The City of Meridian has, by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, which was adopted August 6, 2002, Resolution No. 02-382 and Maps. DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS NOW, THEREFORE, BASED UPON THE ABOVE AND FOREGOING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, the City Council does hereby ORDER and this does Order that: That the above named applicant is granted a conditional use permit for a child care facility in an R-4 zone (Planned Development) located at 3289 N. Towerbridge Way, Meridian, Idaho, subject to the following conditions of use and development, subject to the following: A. Adopt the Special Recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission as follows: 1. The maximum number of children allowed at this facility shall be dictated by the Fire Department and the State approval authority (Health and Welfare). B. Adopt the Recommendations of the Planning and Zoning and Engineering staff as follows: SITE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS Sanitary sewer and water service shall be from existing service lines on the property. 2. The applicant shall correct the site plan to show the drive aisle at 25 feet wide and shall align with the driveway on the east side of Towerbridge. The four parking spaces south of the loading area shall be approved as "compact"; measuring 9'x16'. (Per action of the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PAGE 15 OF 23 Council at their May 20, 2003 meeting.) 3. The structure shall be located a minimum of 5 feet beyond the existing 25 -foot street buffer. This will require a 6 -inch shift from the current location depicted on the site plan. The required 30 -foot front setback will be measured from the front of the street buffer common lot. 4. The minimum width of all parking lot "island" planters is 5 feet wide, measured inside curbs. One tree is required in each planter. All parking lot planters shall be designed in accordance with MCC 12-13-11-3. 5. The trash enclosure shall be designed and located so that no part of the structure encroaches into a required drive aisle. Coordinate the enclosure location, size, and materials with the Sanitary Services Company {SSC). Design must be in accordance with Ordinance 11-124C. 6. All exterior lighting, whether attached to the building or located within the parking lot, shall be down -shielded or otherwise altered so that the light does not spill over onto adjacent properties orright-of-way, All parking lot lighting shall be in accordance with Ordinance 11-134C. 7. All signage shall be in accordance with the standards set forth in Section 11-14 of the City Zoning and Development Ordinance. All signage is subject to design review and shall require separate permits. S. All construction and site improvements shall conform to the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 9. All parking shall be striped and improved in accordance with the Meridian City Code. 10. A drainage plan designed by a State of Idaho licensed architect or engineer is required and shall be submitted to the City Engineer (Ord. 557, 10-1-91) for all off-street parking areas. Storm water treatment and disposal must be designed in accordance with Department of E nvironmental Q uality 1997 p ublication C atalog o f S torm Water Best Management Practices for Idaho Cities and Counties and City of Meridian standards and policies. Off-site disposal into a surface water is prohibited unless the jurisdiction which has authority over the receiving stream provides written authorization prior to development plan approval. The applicant is responsible for filing all necessary applications with the Idaho Department of Water Resources regarding Shallow Injection Wells. 11. Certificate of Occupancy: All required improvements must be complete prior to obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy for the proposed development. A temporary Certificate of Occupancy may be obtained by providing surety to the City in the form of a letter of credit FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PAGE 16 OF 23 or cash in the amount of 110% of the cost of the required improvements (including paving, striping, landscaping, and irrigation). A bid must accompany any request for temporary occupancy. 12. Applicant shall be required to submit revised plans a minimum of ten days prior to the next public hearing. C. Adopt the Recommendations of ACRD as follows: Comply with Bridgetower Subdivision, ,Site Specific Requirements: Dedicate 48 -feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Ustick Road abutting the parcel by means of recordation of a final subdivision plat or execution of a warranty deed prior to issuance of a building permit (or other required permits), whichever occurs first. Allow up to 30 business days to process the right-of-way dedication after receipt of all requested material. The owner will be compensated for all right- of-way ight- ofway dedicated as an addition to existing right-of-way from available impact fee revenues in this benefit zone, if the owner submits a letter of application to the impact fee administrator prior to breaking ground, in accordance with Section 15 of ACRD Ordinance #193. 2. Utility street cuts in pavement less than five years old are not allowed unless approved in writing by the District. Contact Construction Services at 387-6280 (with file numbers) for details. 3. Construct the main entrance, Towerbridge Way, with a 29 -foot street section and a 36 -foot street section, with a 30 -foot wide center median and located approximately 400 -feet east of Quarrystone Way on the south side of Ustick Road, as proposed. Dedicate sufficient right-of-way for the entire width of the entrance. 4. Construct a center turn lane on Ustick Road for the Ustick Road/Towerbridge Way intersection. The turn lane should be constructed to provide a minimum of 100 -feet of storage with shadow tapers for both the approach and departure directions. Coordinate the design of the turn lane with District staff. S. Construct the main entrances to Pride Crossing Drive with 29 -foot street sections and a 20 -foot wide center median. Dedicate sufficient right-of-way for the entire width of the entrances. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PAGE 17 OF 23 6. Towerbridge Way and Pride Crossing Drive shall be designated as residential collector streets with no front -on housing, because the anticipated traffic volumes exceed 1,000 vehicle trips per day. The access restrictions for these streets shall be stated on the final plat. Construct these streets segments as 36 -foot street sections with curb, gutter and 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalks. Unless otherwise noted, parking should be prohibited on these street segments. Coordinate the signage plan with District staff. Construct a bridge on N. Towerbridge Way where the roadway crosses Fivemile Creek. The bridge shall be constructed as a 29 -foot street section with curb, gutter and 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalks. Coordinate the design of the bridge with District staff. 8. Construct a 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalk on Ustick Road abutting the parcel. The sidewalk should be located 2 -feet within the new right-of-way. Coordinate the location and elevation with District staff. 9. If relocation is required, utility poles shall be relocated out of the new right-of-way on Ustick Road, and are the responsibility of the developer. 10. Construct all public roads within the subdivision as 36 -foot street sections with curb, gutter, and 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalks within 50 -feet of right-of-way. 11. Construct the main entrance to Trestle Drive with 21 -foot street sections and a 10 - foot wide center median as proposed. Dedicate sufficient night -of -way for the entire width of the entrance. 12. Stub Pride Crossing Drive, a residential collector, to the east property line between Lot 3, Block 2 and Lot 2, Block 7. Install a sign at the terminus of the roadway stating that, "THIS ROAD WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE" Coordinate the sign plan for the stub street with District staff. 13. Stub Towerbridge Way, a residential collector, to the north property line between Lot 14, Block 5 and Lot 30, Block 3, and construct over the Creason Lateral. Install a sign at the terminus of the roadway stating that, "THIS ROAD WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE". Coordinate the sign plan for the stub street with District staff. 14. Any proposed landscape islands/medians within the public right-of-way dedicated by this plat shall be owned and maintained by a homeowners association. Notes of this should be required on the final plat. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PAGE 18 OF 23 15. Construct the turnarounds to provide a minimum turning radius of 45 -feet, as proposed. 16. Construct a 24 to 30 -foot wide driveway at the east property line of Lot 2, Block 2 to access the proposed recreation center. Pave the driveway its full width and at least 30 -feet into the site beyond the edge of pavement of Pride Crossing Drive. 17. Construct a 24 to 30 -foot wide driveway on Towerbridge Drive, approximately 140 -feet north of Ustick Road to access Lots 2, and 3, Block 1, future office/commercial sites. Pave the driveway its full width and at least 30 -feet into the site beyond the edge of pavement of Towerbridge Drive. 18. Construct a 24 to 30 -foot wide driveway on Towerbridge Drive, approximately 140 -feet north of Ustick Road to access Lot 6, Block 1, a future office/commercial site. Pave the driveway its full width and at least 30 -feet into the site beyond the edge of pavement of Towerbridge Drive. 19. Direct lot or parcel access to Ustick Road is prohibited. Lot access restrictions, as required with this application, shall be stated on the final plat. Standard Requirements: A request for modification, variance or waiver of any requirement or policy outlined herein shall be made in writing to the ACHD Planning and Development Supervisor. The request shall specifically identify each requirement to be reconsidered and include a written explanation of why such a requirement would result in a substantial hardship or inequily. The written request shall be submitted to the District no later than 9:00 a.m. on the da scheduled for ACHD Commission action. Those items shall be rescheduled for discussion with the Commission on the next available meeting agenda. Requests submitted to the District after 9:00 a.m. on the day scheduled for Commission action do not provide sufficient time for District staff to remove the item from the consent agenda and report to the Commission regarding the requested modification, variance or waiver. Those items will be acted on by the Commission unless removed from the agenda by the Commission. 2. After ACHD Commission action, any request for reconsideration of the Commission's action shall be made in writing to the Planning and Development Supervisor within six days of the action and shall include a minimum fee of $110.00. The reQuest for reconsideration shall specifically identify each requirement to be reconsidered and include written documentation of data that was not available to the Commission at the time of its original decision. The request for FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PAGE 19 OF 23 reconsideration will be heard by the District Commission at the next regular meeting of the Commission. If the Commission agrees to reconsider the action, the applicant will be notified of the date and time of the Commission meeting at which the reconsideration will be heard. 3. Payment of applicable road impact fees are required prior to building construction in accordance with Ordinance #193, also known as Ada County Highway District Road Impact Fee Ordinance. 4. All design and construction shall be in accordance with the Ada County Highway District Policy Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Construction Services procedures and all applicable ACHD Ordinances unless specifically waived herein. An engineer registered in the State of Idaho shall prepare and certify all improvement plans. 5. The applicant shall submit revised plans for staff approval, prior to issuance of building permit (or other required permits), which incorporates any required design changes. 6. Construction, use and property development shall be in conformance with all applicable requirements of the Ada County Highway District prior to District approval for occupancy. 7. It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify all existing utilities within the right- of-way. Existing utilities damaged by the applicant shall be repaired by the applicant at no cost to ACRD. The applicant shall be required to call DIGLINE (1- 800-342.1585) 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. 8. 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 the Ada County Highway District. The burden shall be upon the applicant to obtain written confirmation of any change from the Ada County Highway District. 9. Any change by the applicant in the planned use of the property which is the subject of this application, shall require the applicant to comply with all rules, regulations, ordinances, plans, or other regulatory and legal restrictions in force at the time the applicant or its successors in interest advises the Highway District of its intent to change the planned use of the subject property unless a waiver/variance of said FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PAGE 20 OF 23 requirements or other legal relief is granted pursuant to the law in effect at the time the change in use is sought. D. Adopt the Recommendations of the Meridian Fire Department as follows: Provide a fire -flow of 2000 GPM per the Uniform Fire Code Appendix III -A to service the project. Fire hydrants shall be placed an average of 400' apart. 1997 UFC Appendix IIT -A 2. Acceptance of the water supply for fire protection will be by the Meridian Water Department. 3. All roads shall have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48' outside. 4. All access roads within the project shall have a clear driving surface with a minimum width of 20' available at all times. UFC 902.2.2.1 A Daycare Center will be required to meet the requirements of the International Building & Uniform Fixe Codes. 6. A Daycare Center will be required to pass an inspection based the requirements of the Idaho State Fire Marshal's Office. E. Adopt the Recommendations of Central District Health Department as follows: 1. Plans will be required to be submitted for review for any child care center. 2. Applicant must contact Susan Simmons at CDHD 327-8530. F. Adopt the Recommendations of Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District as follows: 1. The Five Mile Drain courses along the north boundary of the proposed project. The Five Mile Drain is a Federal Drain and any encroachments within the easement without approved plans and a signed license agreement are unacceptable. All storm drainage must be retained on site. G. Adopt the Recommendations of Sanitary Service as follows: No enclosure dimensions are provided for and will need to be. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PAGE 21 OF 23 H. Adopt the action of the City Council taken at their May 27, 2003 meeting as follows: 1. The applicant presently is allowed up to 135 students, but shall be allowed to have up to a total of 160 students maximum. If the applicant increases the number of students beyond 135 students, then the applicant shall be required to submit proof to the Planning and Zoning Department that the facility has the additional parking that would be required for the number of additional students and employees. Additionally, the applicant shall be required to be in compliance with all applicable codes at the time of increase. 2. A parking variance is not needed as the present parking is adequate and meets the present needs of the facility for students and employees. 3. The above conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application for a conditional use permit. 4. That the City Attorney draft an Order Granting Conditional Use Permit 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 and Zoning Department, the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. NOTICE OF FINAL ACTION Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian, pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521 an affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the issuance or denial of the conditional use permit approval 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. By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the Yda of 2003. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PAGE 22 OF 23 ROLL CALL: COUNCILMAN KEITH BIRD VOTED�� COUNCILWOMAN TAMMY deWEERD VOTED– COUNCILWOMAN CHERIE Mc CANDLESS VOTED 41&c- 01 COUNCILMAN WILLIAM L.M. NARY VOTED� MAYOR ROBERT D. CORRIE (TIE BREAKER) VOTED __- DATED: ALO MOTION: APPROVED:—. DISAPPROVED: Attest: illiam G. Berg, Jr., Ci Corrie EAL N15 0 Copy served upon Applicant, Planning and'6ni?gent, Public Works Department and the City Attorney. By,�4 City Clerk ZAWork\M\Meridian\Meridian 15360M\Building Bridges Child Development Center CUP-03-0041FfClsCUP03-004.doc FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PAGE 23 OF 23 BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF ) APRIL REYNOLDS FOR A CONDITIONAL USE ) PERMIT FOR A CHILD CARE FACILITY IN AN ) R-4 ZONE FOR BUILDING BRIDGES CHILD ) DEVELOPMENT CENTER, LOCATED AT 3289 ) NORTH TOWERBRIDGE WAY, MERIDIAN, IDAHO) CIC 05-20-03 CASE NO. CUP -03-004 ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT This matter coming before the City Council on May 6, 2003 and continued until May 20, 2003, for final action on conditional use permit application and the Council having received and approving the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission the Council takes the following action: 1. That the Applicant, April Reynolds, is granted a conditional use permit for a child care facility in an R-4 zone (Planned Development) located at 3289 N. Towerbridge Way, Meridian, Idaho. The requested conditional use is described in the legal and vicinity map which are on file in the Clerk's office located at Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho, Meridian, Idaho. 2. That the above named applicant is granted a conditional use permit for a child care facility in an R-4 zone (Planned Development) located at 3289 N. Towerbridge Way, Meridian, Idaho, subject to the following conditions of use and development: A. Adopt the Special Recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission as follows: ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT — APRIL REYNOLDS FOR BUILDING BRIDGES CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER (CUP -03-004) PAGE 1 OF 9 f 1. The maximum number of children allowed at this facility shall be dictated by the Fire Department and the State approval authority (Health and Welfare). B. Adopt the Recommendations of the Planning and Zoning and Engineering staff as follows: SITE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS Sanitary sewer and water service shall be from existing service lines on the property. 2. The applicant shall correct the site plan to show the drive aisle at 25 feet wide and shall align with the driveway on the east side of Towerbridge. The four parking spaces south of the loading area shall be approved as "compact"; measuring 9'x16'. (Per action of the Council at their May 20, 2003 meeting.) 3. The structure shall be located a minimum. of 5 feet beyond the existing 25 -foot street buffer. This will require a 6 -inch shift from the current location depicted on the site pian. The required 30 -foot front setback will be measured from the front of the street buffer common lot. 4. The minimum width of all parking lot "island" planters is 5 feet wide, measured inside curbs. One tree is required in each planter. All parking lot planters shall be designed in accordance with MCC 12-13-11-3. 5. The trash enclosure shall be designed and located so that no part of the structure encroaches into a required drive aisle. Coordinate the enclosure location, size, and materials with the Sanitary Services Company (SSC). Design must be in accordance with Ordinance 11-12-1C. 6. All exterior lighting, whether attached to the building or located within the parking lot, shall be down -shielded or otherwise altered so that the light does not spill over onto adjacent properties or right-of-way. All parking lot lighting shall he in accordance with Ordinance 11-13-4C. 7. All signage shall be in accordance with the standards set forth in Section 11-14 of the City Zoning and Development Ordinance. All signage is subject to design review and shall require separate permits. S. All construction and site improvements shall conform to the requirements of the ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT — APRIL REYNOLDS FOR BUILDING BRIDGES CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER (CUP -03-004) PAGE 2 OF 9 Americans with Disabilities Act. 9. All parking shall be striped and improved in accordance with the Meridian City Code. 10. A drainage plan designed by a State of Idaho licensed architect or engineer is required and shall be submitted to the City Engineer (Ord. 557, 10-1-91) for all off-street parking areas. Storm water treatment and disposal must be designed in accordance with Department of E nvironmental Q uality 1997 p ublication C atalog o f S torm Water Best Management Practices for Idaho Cities and Counties and City of Meridian standards and policies. Off-site disposal into a surface water is prohibited unless the jurisdiction which has authority over the receiving stream provides written authorization prior to development plan approval. The applicant is responsible for filing all necessary applications with the ldaho Department of Water Resources regarding Shallow Injection Wells. 11. Certificate of Occupancy: All required improvements must be complete prior to obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy for the proposed development. A temporary Certificate of Occupancy may be obtained by providing surety to the City in the form of a letter of credit or cash in the amount of 110% of the cost of the required improvements (including paving, striping, landscaping, and irrigation). A bid must accompany any request for temporary occupancy. 12. Applicant shall be required to submit revised plans a minimum of ten days prior to the next public hearing. C. Adopt the Recommendations of ACHD as follows: Comply with Brid etower Subdivision Site Specific Requirements: I . Dedicate 48 -feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Ustick Road abutting the parcel by means of recordation of a final subdivision plat or execution of a warranty deed prior to issuance of a building permit (or other required permits), whichever occurs first. Allow up to 30 business days to process the right-of-way dedication after receipt of all requested material. The owner will be compensated for all right-of-way dedicated as an addition to existing right-of-way from available impact fee revenues in this benefit zone, if the owner submits a letter of application to the impact fee administrator prior to breaking ground, in accordance with Section 15 of ACHD Ordinance #193. 2. Utility street cuts in pavement less than five years old are not allowed unless approved in writing by the District. Contact Construction Services at 387-6280 (with file numbers) for details. ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT -- APRIL REYNOLDS FOR BUILDING BRIDGES CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER (CUP -03-004) PAGE 3 OF 9 3. Construct the main entrance, Towerbridge Way, with a 29 -foot street section and a 36 -foot street section, with a 30 -foot wide center median and located approximately 400 - feet east of Quarrystone Way on the south side of Ustick Road, as proposed. Dedicate sufficient right-of-way for the entire width of the entrance. 4. Construct a center turn lane on Ustick Road for the Ustick Road/Towerbridge Way intersection. The turn lane should be constructed to provide a minimum of 100 -feet of storage with shadow tapers for both the approach and departure directions. Coordinate the design of the turn lane with District staff. 5. Construct the main entrances to Pride Crossing Drive with 29 -foot street sections and a 20 -foot wide center median. Dedicate sufficient right-of-way for the entire width of the entrances. 6. Towerbridge Way and Pride Crossing Drive shall be designated as residential collector streets with no front -on housing, because the anticipated traffic volumes exceed 1,000 vehicle trips per day. The access restrictions for these streets shall be stated on the final plat. Construct these streets segments as 36 -foot street sections with curb, gutter and 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalks. Unless otherwise noted, parking should be prohibited on these street segments. Coordinate the signage plan with District staff. 7. Construct a bridge on N. Towerbridge Way where the roadway crosses Fivemile Creek. The bridge shall be constructed as a 29 -foot street section with curb, gutter and 5 - foot wide concrete sidewalks. Coordinate the design of the bridge with District staff. 8. Construct a 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalk on Ustick Road abutting the parcel. The sidewalk should be located 2 -feet within the new right-of-way. Coordinate the location and elevation with District staff. 9. If relocation is required, utility poles shall be relocated out of the new right-of- way on Ustick Road, and are the responsibility of the developer. 10. Construct all public roads within the subdivision as 36 -foot street sections with curb, gutter, and 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalks within 50 -feet of right-of-way. 11. Construct the main entrance to Trestle Drive with 21 -foot street sections and a 10 - foot wide center median as proposed. Dedicate sufficient right-of-way for the entire width of the entrance. ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT — APRIL REYNOLDS FOR BUILDING BRIDGES CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER (CUP -03004) PAGE 4 OF 9 12. Stub Pride Crossing Drive, a residential collector, to the east property line between Lot 3, Block 2 and Lot 2, Block 7. Install a sign at the terminus of the roadway stating that, "THIS ROAD WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE". Coordinate the sign plan for the stub street with District staff. 13. Stub Towerbridge Way, a residential collector, to the north property line between Lot 14, Block 5 and Lot 30, Block 3, and construct over the Creason Lateral. Install a sign at the terminus of the roadway stating that, "THIS ROAD WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE". Coordinate the sign plan for the stub street with District staff. 14. Any proposed landscape islands/medians within the public right-of-way dedicated by this plat shall be owned and maintained by a homeowners association. Notes of this should be required on the final plat. 15. Construct the turnarounds to provide a minimum turning radius of 45 -feet, as proposed. 16. Construct a 24 to 30 -foot wide driveway at the east property line of Lot 2, Block 2 to access the proposed recreation center. Pave the driveway its full width and at least 30 - feet into the site beyond the edge of pavement of Pride Crossing Drive. 17. Construct a 24 to 30 -foot wide driveway on Towerbridge Drive, approximately 140 -feet north of Ustick Road to access Lots 2, and 3, Block 1, future office/commercial sites. Pave the driveway its full width and at least 30 -feet into the site beyond the edge of pavement of Towerbridge Drive. 18. Construct a 24 to 30 -foot wide driveway on Towerbridge Drive, approximately 140 -feet north of Ustick Road to access Lot 6, Block 1, a future off ce/commercial site. Pave the driveway its full width and at least 30 -feet into the site beyond the edge of pavement of Towerbridge Drive. 19. Direct lot or parcel access to Ustick Road is prohibited. Lot access restrictions, as required with this application, shall be stated on the final plat. ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT — APRIL REYNOLDS FOR BUILDING BRIDGES CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER (CUP -03-004) PAGE 5 OF 9 Standard Requirements: 1. A request for modification, variance or waiver of any requirement or policy outlined herein shall be made in writing to the ACRD Planning and Development Supervisor. The request shall specifically identify each requirement to be reconsidered and include a written explanation of why such a requirement would result in a substantial hardship or inequity. The written request shall be submitted to„the „District no later than 9:00 a.m. on the day scheduled for ACRD Commission action. Those items shall be rescheduled for discussion with the Commission on the next available meeting agenda. Requests submitted to the District after 9:00 a.m. on the day scheduled for Commission action do not provide sufficient time for District staff to remove the item from the consent agenda and report to the Commission regarding the requested modification, variance or waiver. Those items will be acted on by the Commission unless removed from the agenda by the Commission. 2. After ACHD Commission action, any request for reconsideration of the Commission's action shall be made in writing to the Planning and Development Supervisor within six days of the action and shall include a minimum fee of $110.00. The request for reconsideration shall specifically identifeach requirement to be reconsidered and include written documentation of data that was not available to the Commission at the time of its original decision. The request for reconsideration will be heard by the District Commission at the next regular meeting of the Commission. If the Commission agrees to reconsider the action, the applicant will be notified of the date and time of the Commission meeting at which the reconsideration will be heard. 3. Payment of applicable road impact fees are required prior to building construction in accordance with Ordinance #193, also known as Ada County Highway District Road Impact Fee Ordinance. 4. All design and construction shall be in accordance with the Ada County Highway District Policy Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Construction Services procedures and all applicable ACRD Ordinances unless specifically waived herein. An engineer registered in the State of Idaho shall prepare and certify all improvement plans. 5. The applicant shall submit revised plans for staff approval, prior to issuance of building permit (or other required permits), which incorporates any required design changes. ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT -- APRIL REYNOLDS FOR BUILDING BRIDGES CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER (CUP -03-004) PAGE 6 OF 9 6. Construction, use and property development shall be in conformance with all applicable requirements of the Ada County Highway District prior to District approval for occupancy. 7. It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify all existing utilities within the right-of-way. Existing utilities damaged by the applicant shall be repaired by the applicant at no cost to ACRD. The applicant shall be required to call DIGLINE (1-800- 342-1585) at least two full business days prior to breaking ground within ACRD 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. 8. 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 the Ada County Highway District. The burden shall be upon the applicant to obtain written confirmation of any change from the Ada County Highway District. 9. Any change by the applicant in the planned use of the property which is the subject of this application, shall require the applicant to comply with all rules, regulations, ordinances, plans, or other regulatory and legal restrictions in force at the time the applicant or its successors in interest advises the Highway District of its intent to change the planned use of the subject property unless a waiver/variance of said requirements or other legal relief is granted pursuant to the law in effect at the time the change in use is sought. D. Adopt the Recommendations of the Meridian Fire Department as follows: 1. Provide a fire -flow of 2000 GPM per the Uniform Fire Code Appendix Ill -A to service the prof ect. Fire hydrants shall be placed an average of 400' apart. 1997 UFC Appendix M -A 2. Acceptance of the water supply for fire protection will be by the Meridian Water Department. 3. All roads shall have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48' outside. 4. All access roads within the project shall have a clear driving surface with a minimum width of 20' available at all times. UFC 902.2.2.1 ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT — APRIL REYNOLDS FOR BUILDING BRIDGES CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER (CUP -03-004) PAGE 7 OF 9 5. A Daycare Center will be required to meet the requirements of the I ntemational Building & Uniform Fire Codes. 6. A Daycare Center will be required to pass an inspection based the requirements of the Idaho State Fire Marshal's Office. E. Adopt the Recommendations of Central District Health Department as follows: 1. Plans will be required to be submitted for review for any child care center. 2. Applicant must contact Susan Simmons at CDHD 327-8530. F. Adopt the Recommendations of Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District as follows: 1. The Five Mile Drain courses along the north boundary of the proposed project. The Five Mile Drain is a Federal Drain and any encroachments within the easement without approved plans and a signed license agreement are unacceptable. All storm drainage must be retained on site. G. Adopt the Recommendations of Sanitary Service as follows: No enclosure dimensions are provided for and will need to be. H. Adopt the action of the City Council taken at their May 27, 2003 meeting as follows: The applicant presently is allowed up to 135 students, but shall be allowed to have up to a total of 160 students maximum. If the applicant increases the number of students beyond 135 students, then the applicant shall be required to submit proof to the Planning and Zoning Department that the facility has the additional parking that would be required for the number of additional students and employees. Additionally, the applicant shall be required to be in compliance with all applicable codes at the time of increase. 2. A parking variance is not needed as the present parking is adequate and meets the present needs of the facility for students and employees. ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF CONDI'T'IONAL USE PERMIT — APRIL REYNOLDS FOR BUILDING BRIDGES CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER (CUP -03-004) PAGE 8 OF 9 3. The above conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application for a conditional use permit. 4. Notice to Permit Holder, this conditional use permit is not transferable without complying with the provisions of Meridian City Code § 11-17.8, a copy of which is attached to the permit. By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the day of 2003. Robert D. Corrie, \0*P1 ��t 4Meridian Attest:21. ti ~ ® YSEAL William G. Berg, Jr., Cify C erk �.f � r iso • �,�• V,� Copy served upon Applicant, the Planning and`Zoriing Department, Public Works Department and City Attorney. �,\��}��sitEir rfJr"r/ By Dated: V ra City Clerk = _ ZAWork1M\MeridianlMeridian 15360WBuilding Bridges Child bevelopmentCenter CUP-03-0041CUPOrdefY C ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT — APRIL REYNOLDS FOR BUILDING BRIDGES CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER (CUP -03-004) PAGE 9 OF 9 f ADA COUNTY RECORDER J. DAVM NAVARRO 16 BOISE IDAHO 06/13/03 02:23 PM DEPUTY Bonnie Oberbillig ff!! ff ii ffII ff II``II II MertlanCl,REOUESTOF AMOUNT .00 103097611 BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL IN THE MATTER OF THE REQUEST FOR VACATION OF EXISTING EASEMENTS ON THE RECORDED PLAT FOR SEWER AND WATER FACILITIES TO BE REPLACED WITH EASEMENTS RECORDED BY SEPARATE INSTRUMENT FOR PRESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION, LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF NORTH EAGLE ROAD AND EAST PINE AVENUE, MERIDIAN, IDAHO QUADRANT CONSULTING, INC. APPLICANT. CIC 05/20/03 CASE NO. VAC -03-001 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER OF VACATION OF EXISTING EASEMENTS This matter coming on regularly before the City Council at its regular meeting on the 20th day of May, 2003, at the hour of 7:00 p.m., and Brad Watson, City Engineer, and Andy Simons, appeared and testified at the hearing, and the Council having received the record from the Planning and Zoning Commission and its recommendations to the City Council, and no objection having been received makes the following Findings of Fact and Decision and Order. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order of Vacation for Presidential Subdivision - VAC -03-001 PAGE 1 OF 16 STATEMENT OF LEGAL AUTHORITY AND JURISDICTION CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Easements shall be vacated in the same manner as streets. {I.C. § 50-13251. 2. The vacation of easements were accepted as part of a platted subdivision shall be vacated pursuant to the provision of Chapter 13, Title 50 Idaho Code {LC. § 40- 203(6)1. 3. Any person, firm, association, corporation or other legally recognized form of business desiring to vacate a part of a plat which is inside the boundaries of any City must petition the City Council to vacate. Any person, persons, firm, association, corporation or other legally recognized form of business desiring to vacate a plat or any part thereof which is inside or within one (1) mile of the boundaries of any city must petition the city council to vacate. Such petition shall set forth particular circumstances of the requests to vacate; contain a legal description of the platted area or property to be vacated; the names of the persons affected thereby, and said petition shall be filed with the city clerk. Written notice of public hearing on said petition shall be given, by certified mail with return receipt, at least ten (10) days prior to the date of public hearing to all property owners within three hundred feet (300') of the boundaries of the area described in the petition. Such notice of public hearing shall also be published once a week for two (2) successive weeks in the official newspaper of the city, the last of which shall be not less than seven (7) days prior to the date of said hearing; provided, however, that in a proceeding as to the vacation of all or a portion of a cemetery plat where there has been no interment, or in the case of a cemetery being within three hundred feet (300') of another plat for which a vacation is sought, publication of the notice of hearing shall be the only required notice as to the property owners in the cemetery. When the procedures set forth herein have been fulfilled, the city council may grant the request to vacate with such restrictions as they deem necessary in the public interest. In the case of easements granted for gas, sewer, water, telephone, cable television, power, drainage, and slope purposes, public notice of intent to vacate is not required. Vacation of these easements shall occur upon the recording of the new or amended plat, provided that all affected easement holders have been notified by certified mail, return receipt requested, of the proposed vacation and have agreed to the same in writing. {I.C. § 50-1306A (1), (2), (3) and (5)) 4. Pursuant to Meridian City Code §§ 12-10-1 A and B and 12-10-2 A and B it provides as follows: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order of Vacation for Presidential Subdivision - VAC -03-001 PAGE 2 OF 16 12-10-1 APPLICATION PROCEDURE: 1. Application: Any property owner desiring to vacate an existing subdivision, public right of way or easement shall complete and file an application with the Administrator. These provisions shall not apply to the widening of any street which is shown on this Comprehensive Development Plan, or the dedication of streets, rights of way or casements to be shown on a recorded subdivision. 2. Administrator Action: Upon receipt of the completed application, the Administrator shall affix the date of application acceptance thereon. The Administrator shall place the application on the agenda for consideration at the next regular meeting of the Commission which is held not less than fifteen (15) days after said date of acceptance. 12-10-2 COMMISSION AND COUNCIL ACTION: A. Commission Recommendation. The Commission shall review the request and all agency responses and make a recommendation to the Council for either an approval, conditional approval, or denial. 2. Council Action: 1. Hearing; Notice: When considering an application for vacation procedures, the Council shall establish a date for a public hearing and give such public notice as required by law. The Council may approve, deny or modify the application. Whenever public rights-of-way or lands are vacated, the Council shall provide adjacent property owners with a quit -claim deed for the vacated rights of way in such proportions as are prescribed by law. 2. Street Improvements; Bond: When considering an application for dedication procedures, the Council may approve, deny or modify the application. When a dedication is approved, the required street improvements shall be constructed or a bond furnished assuring the construction, prior to acceptance of the dedication. To complete the acceptance of any dedication of land, the owner shall furnish to the Council a deed describing and conveying such lands to be recorded with the County Recorder. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Quadrant Consulting, Inc., on behalf of Rocky Mountain Management LLC, filed a petition for the vacation of existing easements recorded on the plat for sewer and water facilities to be replaced with easements recorded by separate instrument in Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order of Vacation for Presidential Subdivision - VAC -03-001 PAGE 3 OF 16 the proposed Presidential Subdivision, as dedicated in the Corporation Warranty Deed from Gemtone, Inc., a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Idaho, to Hermes Associates, Ltd., a Utah limited partnership, recorded May 19, 1998, as Instrument No. 98048195. Additionally, Hermes Associates, Ltd., as owner of the subject property, provided their consent to Rocky Mountain Management LLC's submission of the Vacation Application; the lot line adjustment, (pursuant to the Lot Line Adjustment Survey to the City of Meridian); and providing that the granting of any approvals shall not be effective until such time as the subject property is transferred to Rocky Mountain Management LLC, and which was executed on April 16, 2003. Copies of all pertinent information in this vacation application are on file in the City Clerk's office located at 33 E. Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho. 2. The legal descriptions of the existing sewer and water main easements, which are the subject of this petition, are: Presidential Subdivision City of Meridian Sewer Main Easement No. 1 A 20.00 foot wide easement for the maintenance and operation of an underground sanitary sewer main across a portion of Lot 1, Block 1, Presidential Subdivision, Book 84 of Plats at Page 9401 and 9402, Instrument No. 102105784, Ada County Records, situated in the Southwest % of the Northwest %4 of Section 9, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, said easement being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest corner of said Section 9; thence along the west line of said Section 9, South 01008'42" West 2649.45 feet to the West %4 comer of said Section 9; thence leaving said west line along the east -west center Section line of said Section 9, also being the centerline of East Pine Avenue South 89°20'42" East 460.62 feet; thence leaving said centerline North 00'39'18" East 48.00 feet to the north right-of-way line of said East Pine Avenue being the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence along said north right-of-way North 89020'42" West 20.00 feet; thence leaving said north right-of-way North 01 008'42" East 74.75 feet; thence North 88°51' 18" West 20.20 feet to the east line of Lot 4, Block 1 of said Presidential Subdivision; thence along said east line North 01°08'42" East 20.00 feet; thence leaving said east line Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order of Vacation for Presidential Subdivision - VAC -03-001 PAGE 4 OF 16 South 88°51' 18" East 20.20 feet; thence North 01°08'42" East 135.02 feet; thence North 88°51' 18" West 195.20 feet to the east line of Lot 3, Block 1 of said Presidential Subdivision; thence along said east line North 01'08'42" East 20.00 feet; thence leaving said cast line South 88°51' 18" East 195.20 feet; thence North 01"08'42" East 244.98 feet; thence South 88°51' 18" East 20.00 feet; thence South 01°08'42" West 494.58 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Presidential Subdivision City of Meridian Water Main Easement No. 1 A 20.00 foot wide easement for the maintenance and operation of an underground domestic water main across a portion of Lot 4, Block 1, Presidential Subdivision, Book 84 of Plats at Pages 9401 and 9402, Instrument No. 102105784, Ada County Records, situated in the Southwest'/4 of the Northwest'/4 of Section 9, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, said easement being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest corner of said Section 9; thence along the west line of said Section 9, South 01°08'42" West 2649.45 feet to the West 1/4 corner of said Section 9; thence leaving said west line along the cast -west center section line of said Section 9, also being the centerline of East Pine Avenue South 89°20'42" East 107.29 feet; thence leaving said centerline North 00°39'18" East 50.00 feet to the north right-of-way line of said East Pine Avenue being the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence along said north right-of-way North 89°20'42" West 20.00 feet; thence leaving said right-of-way North 00'39'18" East 25.00 feet; thence South 89°20'42" East 20.00 feet; thence Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order of Vacation for Presidential Subdivision - VAC -03-001 PAGE 5 OF 16 South 00'39'18" West 25.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Presidential Subdivision City of Meridian Sewer Main Easement No. 2 A 20.00 foot wide easement for the maintenance and operation of an underground sanitary sewer main across a portion of Lot 1, Block 1, Presidential Subdivision, Book 84 of Plats at Page 9401 and 9402, Instrument No. 102105784, Ada County Records, situated in the Southwest %4 of the Northwest %4 of Section 9, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, said easement being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest corner of said Section 9; thence along the west line of said Section 9, South 01°08'42" West 1855.21 feet; thence leaving said west line along the extension of the northern boundary line of said Presidential Subdivision South 88°51'50" East 327.90 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence continuing along said northern boundary line South 88°51'50" East 20.00 feet; thence leaving said northern boundary line South 00°41'35" West 137.18 feet; thence North 89°18'25" West 80.57 feet to the east line of Lot 1, Block 1 of said Presidential Subdivision; thence along said east line North 01°08'42" East 20.00 feet; thence leaving said east line South 89°18'25" East 60.41 feet; thence North 00°41'35" East 117.34 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Presidential Subdivision City of Meridian Water Main Easement No, 2 A 20.00 foot wide easement for the maintenance and operation of an underground domestic water main across portions of Lots 1 through 4, Block 1, Presidential Subdivision, Book 84 of Plats at Pages 9401 and 9402, instrument No. 102105784, Ada County Records, situated in the Southwest'/4 of the Northwest %4 of Section 9, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, said easement being more particularly described as follows: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order of Vacation for Presidential Subdivision - VAC -03-001 PAGE 6 OF 16 Commencing at the Northwest corner of said Section 9; thence along the west line of said Section 9, South 01°08'42" West 2649.45 feet to the West 1/4 corner of said Section 9; thence leaving said west line along the east -west center Section line of said Section 9, also being the centerline of East Pine Avenue South 89°20'42" East 410.49 feet; thence leaving said centerline North. 00°39'l 8" East 48.00 feet to the north right-of-way line of said East Pine Avenue being the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence along said north night -of -way North 89°20'42" West 20.00 feet; thence leaving said right-of-way North 00"39'18" East 35.00 feet; thence South 89°20'42" East 20.22 feet; thence North 01'08'42" East 125.00 feet; thence North 89°20'42" West 152.39 feet; thence North 01'08'42" East 132.87 feet; thence North 89°20'42" West 22.61 feet; thence North 01°08'42" East 20.00 feet; thence South 89°20'42" East 22.61 feet; thence North 01°08'42" East 175.76 feet to the south line of said Lot 1, Block 1; thence along said south line North 88°51'50" West 37.50 feet; thence leaving said south line North 01'08'10" East 20.00 feet; thence South 88°51'50" East 37.50 feet; thence North 01°08'42" East 215.44 feet; thence North 88°51'50" West 43.28 feet; thence North 01 °08' 10" East 20.00 feet to the north boundary line of said Presidential Subdivision; thence along said north line South 88°51'50" East 63.28 feet; thence leaving said north line South 01°08'42" West 563.90 feet; thence South 89°20'42" East 152.39 feet; thence South 01'08'42" West 165.00 feet; thence North 89°20'42" West 20.05 feet; thence South 00'39'18" West 15.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Presidential Subdivision City of Meridian Water Main Easement No. 3 A 20.00 foot wide easement for the maintenance and operation of an underground domestic water main across a portion of Lot 2, Block 1, Presidential Subdivision, Book 84 of Plats at Pages 9401 and 9402, Instrument No. 102105784, Ada County Records, situated in the Southwest %4 of the Northwest %4 of Section 9, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, said Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order of Vacation for Presidential Subdivision - VAC -03-001 PAGE 7 OF 16 easement being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest corner of said Section 9; thence along the west line of said Section 9, South 01'08'42" West 2649.45 feet to the West %4 comer of said Section 9; thence leaving said west line along the east -west center Section line of said Section 9, also being the centerlinc of East Pine Avenue South 89°20'42" East 710.83 feet; thence leaving said centerline North 00'39'18" East 48.00 feet to the north right-of-way line of said East Pine Avenue being the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence along said north right-of-way North 89020'42" West 20.00 feet; thence leaving said north right-of-way North 01 '08'13" East 63 8.66 feet; thence North 55°06'47" West 158.67 feet; thence North 01'08'13" East 13.30 feet to the northerly boundary of said Presidential Subdivision; thence along said northerly boundary Along a curve to the right 18.64 feet, said curve having a radius of 245.57 feet, a delta angle of 4°20'53", and a chord bearing and distance of South 83046'49" East 18.63 feet; thence leaving said northeasterly boundary line South 55°06'47" East 160.40 feet; thence South 01°08'13" West 649.18 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. The particular circumstances of the requested vacation is: Easements were created when the plat was recorded and are for domestic water and sewer mains only. No other public utility easements are being vacated. These easements need to be vacated because the owner of the property may want to relocate the water and/or sewer mains at some point in the future to meet the needs of a potential buyer of one of the lots. 4. The applicant has obtained notarized approval of the easement vacations from affected entities. Written notice of the public hearing of this petition was given by certified mail with return receipt at least ten (10) days prior to the date of the public hearing to all property owners within three hundred feet (300') of the boundaries of the area described in the petition, and such notice was also published once a week for two (2) successive weeks in. the Idaho Statesman with the last publication which was Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order of Vacation for Presidential Subdivision - VAC -03-001 PAGE 8 OF 16 not less than seven (7) days prior to the hearing. 7. All publication costs have been paid by the petitioner. 8. The applicant desires to change the form of the existing easements only, and would like to change the easements which were approved and created by the City Council to easements which are approved and created. by the city staff. In the future, if applicant needs to relocate the water and/or sewer mains, they can modify the affected easements with just city staff's consent and avoid a City Council review and hearing. 9. The Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District has a waste way and pressure irrigation line around the parcel of ground. These easements must be protected. DECISION AND ORDER OF VACATION OF UTILITY EASEMENTS NOW, THEREFORE, BASED UPON THE ABOVE AND FOREGOING STATEMENT OF LEGAL AUTHORITY AND JURISDICTION AND STATEMENT OF FACTS RELATIVE TO LEGAL AUTHORITY AND JURISDICTION, the City Council does hereby ORDER and this does ORDER that: The following legal descriptions of the existing sewer and water main easements, as depicted in the Corporation Warranty Deed of the proposed Presidential Subdivision, are hereby vacated: Presidential Subdivision City of Meridian Sewer Main Easement No. 1 A 20.00 foot wide easement for the maintenance and operation of an underground sanitary sewer main across a portion of Lot 1, Block 1, Presidential Subdivision, Book 84 of Plats at Page 9401 and 9402, Instrument No. 102105784, Ada County Records, situated in the Southwest '/4 of the Northwest '/4 of Section 9, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, said easement being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest corner of said Section 9; thence along the west line of said Section 9, South 01°08'42" West 2649.45 feet to the West %4 corner of said Section 9; thence leaving said west line along the east -west center Section Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order of Vacation for Presidential Subdivision - VAC -03-001 PAGE 9 OF 16 line of said Section 9, also being the centerline of East Pine Avenue South 89°20'42" East 460.62 feet; thence leaving said centerline North 00'39'18" East 48.00 feet to the north right-of-way line of said East Pine Avenue being the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence along said north right-of-way North 89°20'42" West 20.00 feet; thence leaving said north right-of-way North 01°08'42" East 74.75 feet; thence North 88°51' 18" West 20.20 feet to the east line of Lot 4, Block 1 of said Presidential Subdivision; thence along said east line North 01'08'42" East 20.00 feet; thence leaving said cast line South 88'51'18" East 20.20 feet; thence North 01008'42" East 135.02 feet; thence North 88°51' 18" West 195.20 feet to the east line of Lot 3, Block 1 of said Presidential Subdivision; thence along said east line North 01°08'42" East 20.00 feet; thence leaving said east line South 88°51'18 " East 195.20 feet; thence North 01°08'42" East 244.98 feet; thence South 88'51'18" East 20.00 feet; thence South 01°08'42" West 494.58 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Presidential Subdivision City of Meridian Water Main Easement No. 1 A 20.00 foot wide easement for the maintenance and operation of an underground domestic water main across a portion of Lot 4, Block 1, Presidential Subdivision, Book 84 of Plats at Pages 9401 and 9402, Instrument No. 102105784, Ada County Records, situated in the Southwest %4 of the Northwest %4 of Section 9, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, said easement being more particularly described as follows: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order of Vacation for Presidential Subdivision - VAC -03-001 PAGE 10 OF 16 Commencing at the Northwest corner of said Section 9; thence along the west line of said Section 9, South 01°08'42" West 2649.45 feet to the West '/4 Comer of said Section 9; thence leaving said west line along the east -west center section line of said Section 9, also being the centerline of East Pine Avenue South 89°20'42" East 107.29 feet; thence leaving said centerline North 00'39'18" East 50.00 feet to the north right-of-way line of said East Pine Avenue being the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence along said north right-of-way North 89°20'42" West 20.00 feet; thence leaving said right-of-way North 00039'18" East 25.00 feet; thence South 89°20'42" East 20.00 feet; thence South 00°39' 18" West 25.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Presidential Subdivision City of Meridian Sewer Main Easement No. 2 A 20.00 foot wide easement for the maintenance and operation of an underground sanitary sewer main across a portion of Lot 1, Block 1, Presidential Subdivision, Book 84 of Plats at Page 9401 and 9402, Instrument No. 102105784, Ada County Records, situated in the Southwest'/4 of the Northwest %4 of Section 9, Township 3 North, Range I East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, said easement being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest corner of said Section 9; thence along the west line of said Section 9, South 01°08'42" West 1855.21 feet; thence leaving said west line along the extension of the northern boundary line of said Presidential Subdivision South 88°51'50" East 327.90 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence continuing along said northern boundary line South 88°51'50" East 20.00 feet; thence leaving said northern boundary line South 00041'35" West 137.18 feet; thence North 89°18'25" West 80.57 feet to the east line of Lot 1, Block 1 of said Presidential Subdivision; thence along said east line North 01°08'42" East 20.00 feet; thence leaving said east line Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order of Vacation for Presidential Subdivision - VAC -03-001 PAGE 11 OF 16 South 89°18'25" East 60.41 feet; thence North 00°41'35" East 117.34 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Presidential Subdivision City of Meridian Water Main Easement No. 2 A 20.00 foot wide easement for the maintenance and operation of an underground domestic water main across portions of Lots 1 through 4, Block 1, Presidential Subdivision, Book 84 of Plats at Pages 9401 and 9402, Instrument No. 102105784, Ada County Records, situated in the Southwest %4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 9, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, said easement being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest corner of said Section 9; thence along the west line of said Section 9, South 01°08'42" West 2649.45 feet to the West %4 Comer of said Section 9; thence leaving said west line along the east -west center Section line of said Section 9, also being the centerline of East Pine Avenue South 89°20'42" East 410.49 feet; thence leaving said centerline North 00'39'18" East 48.00 feet to the north right-of-way line of said East Pine Avenue being the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence along said north right-of-way North 89°20'42" West 20.00 feet; thence leaving said right-of-way North 00'39'18" East 35.00 feet; thence South 89°20'42" East 20.22 feet; thence North 01'08'42" East 125.00 feet; thence North 89°20'42" West 152.39 feet; thence North 01°08'42" East 132.87 feet; thence North 89°20'42" West 22.61 feet; thence North 01°08'42" East 20.00 feet; thence South 89°20'42" East 22.61 feet; thence North 01°08'42" East 175.76 feet to the south line of said Lot 1, Block 1; thence along said south line North 88°51'50" West 37.50 feet; thence leaving said south line North 01°08'10" East 20.00 feet; thence South 88°51'50" East 37.50 feet; thence North 01'08'42" East 215.44 feet; thence North 88°51'50" West 43.28 feet; thence North 01°08'10" East 20.00 feet to the north boundary line of said Presidential Subdivision; thence along said north Iine South 88°51'50" East 63.28 feet; thence leaving said north line Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order of Vacation for Presidential Subdivision - VAC -03-001 PAGE 12 OF 16 South 01°08'42" West 563.90 feet; thence South 89°20'42" East 152.39 feet; thence South 01°08'42" West 165.00 feet; thence North 89°20'42" West 20.05 feet; thence South 00'39'18" West 15.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Presidential Subdivision City of Meridian Water Main Easement No. 3 A 20.00 foot wide easement for the maintenance and operation of an underground domestic water main across a portion of Lot 2, Block 1, Presidential Subdivision, Book 84 of Plats at Pages 9401 and 9402, Instrument No. 102105784, Ada County Records, situated in the Southwest'/4 of the Northwest %4 of Section 9, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, said easement being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest corner of said Section 9; thence along the west line of said Section 9, South 01°08'42" West 2649.45 feet to the West %4 comer of said Section 9; thence leaving said west line along the east -west center Section line of said Section 9, also being the centerline of East Pine Avenue South 89°20'42" East 710.83 feet; thence leaving said centerline North 00039'18" East 48.00 feet to the north right-of-way line of said East Pine Avenue being the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence along said north right-of-way North 89°20'42" West 20.00 feet; thence leaving said north right-of-way North 01'08'13" East 638.66 feet; thence North 55006'47" West 158.67 feet; thence North 01'08'13" East 13.30 feet to the northerly boundary of said Presidential Subdivision; thence along said northerly boundary Along a curve to the right 18.64 feet, said curve having a radius of 245.57 feet, a delta angle of 4°20'53", and a chord bearing and distance of South 83°46'49" East 18.63 feet; thence leaving said northeasterly boundary line South 55°06'47" East 160.40 feet; thence South 01'08'13" West 649.18 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order of Vacation for Presidential Subdivision - VAC -03-001 PAGE 13 OF 16 2. The petition for the vacation of existing easements, are hereby granted, as recorded on the plat for sewer and water facilities to be replaced with easements recorded by separate instrument in the proposed Presidential Subdivision, as dedicated in the Corporation Warranty Deed from Gemtone, Inc., a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Idaho, to Hermes Associates, Ltd., a Utah limited partnership, recorded May 19, 1998, as Instrument No. 98048195. Additionally, Hermes Associates, Ltd., as owner of the subject property, provided their consent to Rocky Mountain Management LLC's submission of the Vacation Application; the lot line adjustment, (pursuant to the Lot Line Adjustment Survey to the City of Meridian); and providing that the granting of any approvals shall not be effective until such time as the subject property is transferred to Rocky Mountain Management LLC, and which was executed on April 16, 2003. Copies of all pertinent information in this vacation application are on file in the City Clerk's office located at 33 E. Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho. The Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District has a waste way and pressure irrigation line around the parcel of ground. These easements must be protected. 4. The existing sewer and water main easement vacations shall be approved subject to the Public Works Department's approval. The City Clerk shall cause a copy of this order to be served upon the affected utility holders, and the petitioner, Public Works, Planning and Zoning Departments, and the City Attorney's office. 6. The City Clerk shall cause a certified copy of this order to be recorded with the Ada County Recorders office. NOTICE OF FINAL ACTION Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian, pursuant to .Idaho Code § 67-6521 an affected person being a person who has an interest in. real property which may be adversely affected by the issuance or denial of the vacation may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order of Vacation for Presidential Subdivision - VAC -03-001 PAGE 14 OF 16 by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code. By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the �day of 2003. ROLL CALL COUNCILMAN BIRD VOTED �✓ COUNCILWOMAN deWEERD VOTED COUNCILWOMAN Mc CANDLESS VOTED COUNCILMAN NARY VOTED MAYOR ROBERT D. CORRIE (TIE BREAKER) VOTED DATED:p .'NO11""""Mayor Robert D. Corrie of Attest: K\�IS, -4 ��/�J''',. 00"o A /J W w K c ' MEAL - William G. Berg, Jr., City Cler , Copy served upon Applicant, the Plannin' aanirigTep``artment, Public Works Department and City Attorney. BY• r%4�. DATED: EAL City Clerk - Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order of Vacation for Presidential Subdivision - VAC -03-001 PAGE 15 OF 16 STATE OF IDAHO, ) ss. County of Ada. ) On this _ day of , 2003, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared ROBERT D. CORRIE and WILLIAM G. BERG, 3R., known to me to be the Mayor and City Cleric, respectively, of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and who executed the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that the City of Meridian executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. ®®®�A, (SEAL) n , °m Or an OIL Notary Public for Idaho Commission Expires:_ ZAWork\M\MeridianWeridian 15360M\Presidential Sub VAC 03 0011FfC10rdVacSewerEasemt.doc Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order of Vacation for Presidential Subdivision - VAC -03-001 PAGE 16 OF 16 4 -ZS -Q5 - THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN IN THE MATTER OF THE REQUEST FOR APPROVAL FOR THE USE OF LOT I BLOCK 2 IN SUNDANCE SUBDIVIVISION FOR A MODEL/TEMPORARY SALES OFFICE FOR COREY BARTON HOMES, LOCATED AT 3590 NORTH ETTAY WAY, MERIDIAN, IDAHO BY. COREY BARTON HOMES, INC. APPLICANT CASE NO. MI -03-006 CIC 05/20/03 FINDINGS OF FACT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR APPROVAL TO ALLOW A TEMPORARY SALES OFFICE The above entitled matter coming on regularly for public bearing before the City Council on May 6, 2003 and continued until May 20, 2003, at 7:00 o'clock p.m. at the Meridian City Hall located at 33 East Idaho, and Anna Powell Planning Director for the Planning and Zoning Department, and Corey Barton, appeared and testified, and the City Council having received a report froze Sonya Allen Planner I for the Planning and Zoning Department, and the City Council having received testimony as part of the record of this matter, and the applicant having submitted his application for a request for approval for use of Lot 1 Block 2 in Sundance Subdivision for a model/temporazy sales office for Corey Barton Homes, located at 3590 North Ettay Way, FINDINGS OF FACT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR USE OF LOT 1 BLOCK 2 IN SUNDANCE SUBDIVISION FOR A MODEL SALES OFFICE FOR COREY BARTON HOMES BY: COREY BARTON HOMES, INC. (M.I-03-006) PAGE I OF 6 Meridian, , and which application is herein received and adjudged by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 8-2-5, and being fully advised in the premises does hereby make the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order of Decision, as follows. FINDINGS OF FACT l . The property is generally located at 3590 North Ettay Way, Meridian, Idaho. 2. The applicant of the subject property is Corey Barton Homes, lnc. whose address is 30 E. Franklin, Meridian, Idaho 83642. The owner of the subject property is same as the applicant. 4. The location of the subject property is presently located in an R-8 zone, and which subject model/temporary sales office will be located on Lot 1 Block 2 of Sundance Subdivision. The applicant has submitted a vicinity map and/or site plan showing the location of the proposed model/temporary sales office, which is on file in the City Clerk's office located at 33 E. Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho. 5. The legal description of the property is on file in the City Clerk's office which is located at 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho. 6. The applicant, Corey Barton Homes, Inc., has requested approval to convert one bay of an existing, attached, three car garage into a temporary sales office use in Sundance Subdivision No. 1. The office will have one to two staff members on site for seven days a week, 10:00 am to 5:00 pm. No specific time period was proposed with the application. A copy of the building elevation and floor plan was included in the application. All three bays in the garage FINDINGS OF FACT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR USE OF LOT i BLOCK 2 IN SUNDANCE SUBDIVISION FOR A MODEL SALES OFFICE FOR COREY BARTON HOMES BY: COREY BARTON HOMES, INC. (MI -03-006) PAGE 2 OF 6 will be utilized as the sales office and will be fronted with two sets of French doors. The remainder of the dwelling unit floor plan is shown to be a standards single family layout. The lot (Lot 1, Block 2) is zoned R-8 and is located at the end of E. Ashby Drive, on the cast side of N. Meridian Road. 7. This miscellaneous application is only for approval to allow a model/temporary sales office on Lot 1 Block 2 of Sundance Subdivision No. 1. 8. Title 11, Chapter 8 of the Meridian City Code (Schedule of Use Control) prohibits Professional and Sales Office uses in the R-8 district. Unless a Planned Development specifically proposes a sales office as part of the application, the MCC does not permit these uses outright. The City has allowed sales office uses that are restricted to the sale of residential .Lots and/or dwelling units within the subdivision for which the sales are intended. Sundance Subdivision No. 1 was submitted as a Planned Development for the four office lots included in the subdivision in the R-8 zone, but a sales office was not approved at that time. Therefore, staff required a Miscellaneous application (MI) to be submitted for the otherwise prohibited or conditional use. 9. Giving due consideration to the comment received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction, public facilities and services required by the proposed application for approval to allow a model/temporary sales office on Lot 1 Block 2 of Sundance Subdivision No. 1 will not impose expense upon the public if the following conditions of approval are imposed: Adopt the Recommendations of the Planning and Zoning staff as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR USE OF LOT I BLOCK 2 IN SUNDANCE SUBDIVISION FOR A MODEL SALES OFFICE FOR COREY BARTON HOMES BY: COREY BARTON HOMES, INC. (MI -03-006) PAGE 3 OF 6 1. The subdivision is permitted to have no more than one temporary use. 2. The front yard shall be landscaped and irrigated prior to occupancy. 3. The applicant shall be responsible for providing adequate off street parking for the employees. 4. One wall sign is allowed for the temporary sales office. The sign shall be limited in size to 18% of the wall area. No other signs shall be permitted. A separate sign permit is required if signage is proposed. 5. Sanitary sewer service and domestic water service shall be hooked -up for the proposed use. An assessment for sewer and water service will be determined during the building permit application process. 6. The time frame for the sales and information use is for a period of 24 months. If the Applicant requires an extension of this permitted period, it is recommended that they submit a status of their plans to the Planning and Zoning Department after 24 months of operation (starting from the date of occupancy). The City Council must approve of any time extension beyond 30 months. Adopt the Recommendations of the Meridian Fire Department as follows: 1. Provide a fire flow per the Uniform. Fire Code Appendix III -A to service the project. Fire hydrants shall be placed an average of 400' apart. 1997 UFC Appendix III -A 2. Acceptance of the water supply for fire protection will be by the Meridian Water Department. 3. All entrance roads shall have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48' outside. 4. All access roads within the project shall have a clear driving surface with a minimum width of 20' available at all times. UFC 902.2.2.1, 5. Operational fire hydrants and temporary or permanent street signs are required before combustible construction begins. UFC 901.4.2 & 901.3 Adopt the Comments of Sanitary Service as follows: Sanitary Service will provide waste services during and after construction. Adopt the Comments of the Ada County Highway District as follows: 1. If the site plan or use should change in the future, ACHD shall review the site plan and may require improvements to the transportation system at that time. 2. Prior to the construction or installation of any roadway improvements (curb, gutter, sidewalk, pavement widening, driveways, culverts, etc.), a permit or FINDINGS OF FACT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR USE OF LOT 1 BLOCK 2 IN SUNDANCE SUBDIVISION FOR A MODEL SALES OFFICE FOR COREY BARTON HOMES BY: COREY BARTON HOMES, INC. (MI -03-006) PAGE 4 OF 6 license agreement must be obtained from ACRD. In addition to any costs associated with a permit or license agreement, a roadway impact fee will be assessed by ACHD and will be due prior to the issuance of a building permit. In accordance with ACHD's standard requirements, the applicant shall: a) Meet District drainage requirements, b) Replace or repair any damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk (as determined by Construction Services), c) Bear all costs for the relocation of utilities associated with improving street frontages, and d) Contact the District's Utility Coordinator or Construction Services Department in regard to all utility street cuts to determine if the pavement is less than five years old. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Approval of this request to use Lot l Block 2 in Sundance Subdivision No. 1 for a model/temporary sales office, is based upon the information provided by the applicant on (lie model/temporary sales office, and which the model/temporary sales office is to be located on Lot 1 Block 2 of Sundance Subdivision No. 1 at 3590 N. Ettay Way, Meridian, Idaho. The applicant is required to comply with the conditions as stated in Findings of Fact No. 9 above. DECISION AND ORDER Pursuant to the City Council's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 12- 3-5 and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND THIS DOES ORDER That the applicant is granted approval to use Lot 1 Block 2 in Sundance Subdivision No. 1 for a model/temporary sales office at 3590 N. Ettay Way, Meridian, Idaho; and that the applicant shall be required to comply with all the above conditions and requirements of staff and/or governmental entities. FINDINGS OF FACT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR USE OF LOT I BLOCK 2 IN SUNDANCE SUBDIVISION FOR A MODEL SALES OFFICE FOR COREY BARTON HOMES BY: COREY BARTON HOMES, INC. (MI -03-006) PAGE 5 OF 6 rel By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the day of , 2003. 0 ROLL CALL COUNCILMAN BIRD VOTED COUNCILWOMAN deWEERD VOTED COUNCILWOMAN McCANDLESS VOTED COUNCILMAN NARY VOTED MAYOR ROBERT D. CORRIE VOTED (TIE BREAKER) C g4 _ `f rt D. Corrie Attest: Al� - SEAL William G. Berg, Jr., City le _ �G �`�zz Copy served upon Applicant, the PI -a , ..oin}\artment, Public Works Department and City Attorney. '� '`�� �ltisjrrrrrrrrr By: .GGLx---- Dated: City Clerk �-- �7'— e? ZAWork\M\Meridian\Meridian 15360MICory Barton Homes MI-0M061FIC1s0rdMI-03-006.dnc FINDINGS OF FACT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR USE OF LOT l BLOCK 2 IN SUNDANCE SUBDIVISION FOR A MODEL SALES OFFICE FOR COREY BARTON HOMES BY: COREY BARTON HOMES, INC. (MI -03-006) PAGE 6 OF 6 BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 61.69 ACRES TO R-8 ZONE FOR VERONA SUBDIVISION, LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF W. McMILLAN ROAD AND N. TEN MILE ROAD, MERIDIAN, IDAHO PRIMELAND DEVELOPMENT, LLP APPLICANT CIC 05/13/03 Case No. AZ -03-005 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING The above entitled annexation and zoning application having come on for public hearing on May 13, 2003, at the hour of 7:00 p.m., and Brad Hawkins -Clark Planner IIT for the Planning and Zoning Department; Brad Watson City Engineer; and Becky McKay, appeared and testified, and the City Council having duly considered the evidence and the record in this matter therefore makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and Decision and Order: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. There has been compliance with all notice and hearing requirements set forth in Idaho Code §§ 67-6509 and 67-6511, and Meridian City Code §§ 11-15-5 and 11-16-1. 2. The City Council takes judicial notice of its zoning, subdivision and development ordinances codified at Titles I 1 and 12, Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof, and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian adopted August 6, 2002, FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING VERONA SUBDIVISION (AZ -03-005) PAGE 1 OF 24 Resolution No. 02-382, and maps and the ordinance Establishing the Impact Area Boundary. 3. The property which is the subject of the application for annexation and zoning as described in the application, is approximately 61.69 acres in size and is located on the northeast corner of W. McMillan Road and N. Ten Mile Road, Meridian, all within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian and the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area as defined in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. 4. The owner of record of the subject property are E.L. and Shirley Bews, 5204 N. Sorrento Circle, Boise, Idaho 83704. Applicant is Primeland Development, LLP, 660 E. Franklin Road, Suite 110, Meridian, Idaho 83642. 5. The property is presently zoned RUT (Ada County) and C -G (General Retail and Service Commercial) and consists of vacant land. 6. The Applicant requests the property be zoned as R-8 (Medium Density Residential). 7, The subject property is bordered to the north by a fixture City park (Lochsa Falls Subdivision, zoned R-4), to the south by Bridgetower Subdivision (zoned R-4 and C -G), to the east by Lochsa Falls Subdivision (zoned R-4), and to the west by rural residential properties (zoned RUT, Ada County), 8. The Applicant proposes to develop the subject property in the following manner: Planned Development consisting of 146 detached single-family homes, 20 townhomes, 6 office lots, and 16 open space lots, including addition to Community Park. 9. The Applicant requests zoning of the subject real property as R-8 (PD) which is FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING VERONA SUBDIVISION (AZ -03-005) PAGE 2 OF 24 consistent with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan Generalized Land Use Map which designates the subject property as Medium Density Residential. 10. There are no significant or scenic features of major importance that affect the consideration of this application. 11. Giving due consideration to the comments received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction, public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the following conditions of development are imposed: A. Adopt the Recommendations of the Meridian Planning & Zoning Department as follows: ANNEXATION AND ZONING CONDTIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Remove any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project per City Ordinance 9-1-4, when services are available from the City of Meridian. Wells maybe used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation. 2. All irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural. waterways, intersecting, crossing or lying adjacent and contiguous to the parcel shall be tiled per City Ordinance 12-4- 13. Plans will need to 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, plans will be reviewed and approved by the Meridian City Engineer prior to final plat signature. 3. A Development Agreement shall be entered into between the Developer and the City of Meridian that will require, among other conditions, that all future office/church uses obtain conditional use permit approval prior to development and the timing of p Its ueh as !a-ndse , lers,-parlot -c-ensetien pathway construction. (See letter D. hereinbelow pursuant to Council action taken at their May 13, 2003 meeting.) FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING VERONA SUBDIVISION (AZ -03-005) PAGE 3 OF 24 B. Adopt the Recommendations of the ACRD as follows: Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1. Dedicate 38 -feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Ten Mile Road (an additional 13 -feet of right-of-way) and place the sidewalk within an easement on the proposed common lot (a minimum of 41 -feet from centerline, as proposed. If the applicant wishes to consider other options for the right-of-way and construction of sidewalk on Ten Mile Road, the applicant may select one of the options found in Finding for Consideration #2. (See letter D. herein below pursuant to Council action taken at their May 13, 2003 meeting.) 2. The applicant shall do one of the following: a. Dedicate by donation an additional 10 -feet of right-of-way along McMillan Road, and construct a minimum 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalk along McMillan Road, located a minimum of 28-fect from the centerline of the right-of- way. b. Do not dedicate additional right-of-way, but construct a minimum 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalk along McMillan Road, located a minimum of 28 -feet from the centerline of the right-of-way, in an easement provided to the District. C. Do not dedicate additional right-of-way, but construct a minimum 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalk along McMillan Road, located at the back edge of the existing right-of-way. Accomplish all necessary adjustments to properly accommodate existing drainage and utilities. 3. Construct a main entrance, Desert Breeze Avenue (identified on the site plan as West Carrara Drive), to intersect with McMillan Road approximately 970 -feet -east of Ten Mile Road, as proposed. 4. Construct a main entrance, Carrara Drive, to intersect Ten Mile Road approximately 850 -feet north of McMillan Road, as proposed. 5. Construct a main entrance, West Bellagio Drive, to intersect Ten Mile Road approximately 140 -feet south of the north property line, as proposed. 6. Construct Bellagio Drive as a 36 -foot street section with curb, gutter and 5 -foot concrete sidewalk on the south side of the roadway and a 10 -foot detached asphalt pathway on the north side of the roadway within 50 -feet of right-of-way with no front on housing, as proposed. Provide the District with an easement for the sidewalk that will FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING VERONA SUBDIVISION (AZ -03-005) PAGE 4 OF 24 extend outside of the right-of-way. Direct access and parking is prohibited on West Bellagio Drive, 7. Construct West Carrara Drive as a 40 -foot street section with vertical curb, gutter and 5 -foot concrete sidewalk within 54 -feet of right-of-way. 8. Construct the internal roadways as 33 -foot street sections with curb, gutter and 5 - foot -attached sidewalks within 50 -feet of right-of-way, as proposed. Provide the District with documentation showing that the appropriate fire department has reviewed and approved this street section unless otherwise approved by the District. 9. Extend San Marino Street from the east property line approximately 1,260 -feet north of McMillan Road, as proposed. 10. Extend West Cosenza Street from the east property line approximately 710-fect south of the north property line, as proposed 11. Extend West Malta Drive from the east property line approximately 125 -feet south of the north property line, as proposed. 12. Construct one cul-de-sac turnaround within the subdivision, as proposed. Provide a minimum turning radius of 45 -feet. 13. Construct islands within West Carrara Drive and Bellagio Drive, as proposed. Provide a minimum 21 -foot street section (measured back -of -curb to back -of -curb). Any proposed landscape islands/medians within the public right-of-way dedicated by this plat shall be owned and maintained by a homeowners association. Notes of this shall be required on the final plat. 14. Construct a driveway on the west side of East Carrara Drive approximately 230 - feet north of McMillan Road, as proposed 15. Construct a driveway on the east side of East Carrara Drive approximately 350 - feet north of McMillan Road, as proposed 16. Construct a driveway on the east side of East Carrara Drive approximately 750 - feet north of McMillan Road, as proposed. 17. Construct a driveway on the north side of East Carrara Drive approximately 180 - feet east of Ten Mile Road, as proposed. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING VERONA SUBDIVISION (AZ -03-005) PAGE 5 OF 24 18. Construct a driveway on the north side of East Carrara Drive approximately 340 - feet east of Ten Mile Road, as proposed. 19. Construct a driveway on the north side of East Carrara Drive approximately 500 - feet east of Ten Mile Road, as proposed. 20. Pave the driveways their full width and at least 30 -feet into the site beyond the edge of pavement of the roadway and install pavement tapers with 15 -foot radii abutting the existing roadway edge. 21. Construct a southbound turn lane at the intersection of Bellagio Drive and Ten Mile Road. Coordinate the design of the turn lane with District staff. 22. Construct a southbound turn lane at the intersection of Carrara Drive and Ten Mile Road. Coordinate the design of the turn lane with District staff. 23. Construct an eastbound left -turn lane at the intersection of Carrara Drive and McMillan Road. Coordinate the design of the turn lane with District staff. 24. Construct a westbound right -turn lane at the intersection of Carrara Drive and McMillan Road. Coordinate the design of the turn lane with District staff. 25. Enter into a development agreement with ACHD that outlines right-of-way acquisition, costs, timing and payment; and shall also include an agreement that this development shall be subject to any extraordinary impact fee, LID or other funding source established by the District to improve the surrounding roadways; or shall be subject to the development's proportionate share of surrounding roadway improvements as established by the applicant's traffic impact study. 26. The applicant is donating 13 feet of additional right-of-way subject to receiving a credit against extraordinary impact fees, if such extraordinary impact fees are imposed on this development. (See letter D. hereinbelow pursuant to Council action taken at their May 13, 2003 meeting.) 27. Other than the access points specifically approved with this application, direct lot access to West Bellagio Drive, Ten Mile Road and West McMillan Road is prohibited. Notes of this shall be noted on the final plat. 28. Comply with all Standard Conditions of Approval. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING VERONA SUBDIVISION (AZ -03-005) PAGE 6 OF 24 Standard Conditions of Approval Any existing irrigation facilities shall be relocated outside of the right-of-way. 2. All utility relocation costs associated with improving street frontages abutting the site shall be borne by the developer. 3. 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. 4. Utility street cuts in pavement less than five years old are not allowed unless approved in writing by the District. Contact Construction Services at 387-6280 (with file numbers) for details. 5. All design and construction shall be in accordance with the Ada County Highway District Policy Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Construction Services procedures and all applicable ACRD Ordinances unless specifically waived herein. An engineer registered in the State of Idaho shall prepare and certify all improvement plans. 6. The applicant shall submit revised plans for staff approval, prior to issuance of building permit (or other required permits), which incorporates any required design changes. 7. Construction, use and property development shall be in conformance with all applicable requirements of the Ada County Highway District prior to District approval for occupancy. 8. Payment of applicable road impact fees are required prior to building construction in accordance with Ordinance #197, also known as Ada County Highway District Road Impact Fee Ordinance. 9. It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify all existing utilities within the right-of-way. Existing utilities damaged by the applicant shall be repaired by the applicant at no cost to ACHD. The applicant shall be required to call DIGLINE (1-800- 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. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING VERONA SUBDIVISION (AZ -03-005) PAGE 7 OF 24 f 10. 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 the Ada County Highway District. The burden shall be upon the applicant to obtain written confirmation of any change from the Ada County Highway District. 11. Any change by the applicant in the planned use of the property which is the subject of this application, shall require the applicant to comply with all rules, regulations, ordinances, plans, or other regulatory and legal restrictions in force at the time the applicant or its successors in interest advises the Highway District of its intent to change the planned use of the subject property unless a waiver/variance of said requirements or other legal relief is granted pursuant to the law in effect at the time the change in use is sought. C. Adopt the Recommendations of the Meridian Fire Department as follows: 1. One and two family dwellings will require a fire -flow of 1,000 gallons per minute available for duration of 2 hours to service the entire project. Fire hydrants shall be placed an average of 400' apart. 1997 UFC Appendix III -A 2. Commercial and office occupancies will require a fire -flow consistent with the Uniform Fire Code to service the proposed project. Fire hydrants shall be placed an average of 400' apart. 1997 UFC Appendix M -A 3. The fire department requests that any future signalization installed as the result of the development of this project be equipped with Opticom Sensors to ensure a safe and efficient response by fire and emergency medical service vehicles. T4:. s eest eftMs iiist ,lata ,r is to be borne b the dev e,,,,,en (See letter D.2. hereinbelow pursuant to Council taken at their May 13, 2003 meeting.) 4. Acceptance of the water supply for fire protection will be by the Meridian Water Department. 5. Final approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian. Fire Department through the City Engineering Department. 6. All roads shall have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48' outside. 7. All access roads within the project shall have a clear driving surface with a minimum width of 20' available at all times. Typical street width of 34' will be allowed to have parking on both sides. The typical collector street with a width of 29' will be required to have restricted FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING VERONA SUBDIVISION (AZ -03-005) PAGE 8 OF 24 parking to only one side. UFC 902.2.2.1 (See letter D. herein below pursuant to Council action taken at their May 13, 2003 meeting.) 8. Operational fire hydrants and temporary or permanent street signs are required before combustible construction begins. UFC 901.4.2 & 901.3 9. The phasing plan may require that any roadway greater than 150' in length that is not provided with an outlet shall be required to have a turnaround. 10. A minimum of two points of access will be required for any portion of the project, which serves more than 50 homes. This may be a concern during the phasing of the project. UFC 902.2.1 11. The proposed 174 -lot subdivision with an estimated 2.9 residents per household would have a total estimated population of 504 residents at build out. The 6 office lots and I school lot will have an unknown transient population and will have an unknown impact on Meridian Fire Department call volume. D. Adopt the action of the Council taken at their May 13, 2003 meeting as follows: 1. Under the Annexation and Zoning Conditions of Approval item A-3, the applicant shall construct the ten -foot -wide asphalt pathway, collector roadway, sewer and water service, and 20 -foot collector landscaping. No park improvements are proposed such as a parking lot or additional Iandscaping. The applicant will donate the park area without requesting park impact fee credits. 2. The applicant's project does not warrant a signal; however, future development of the community park may require signalization. The funding of any Opticom improvements should be borne by the heavy traffic generator. 3. The applicant shall be required to provide common driveway access for Lots 9, 10, 25 and 26 of Block 3, and for Lots 27 and 28 of Block 10. 4. Pertaining to the small waste ditch located on the northern edge of the property, the applicant shall provide a bid from their contractor for the costs to pipe the ditch. The applicant shall set up a trust fund with the Public Works Department to place money aside for the future piping of the waste ditch. This trust fund would help eliminate having to redo any improvements that might be destroyed when the park is designed and built in the future. 5. In the northwest corner of the property shall be located a storm drainage retention area. The applicant shall landscape and buffer the area and the area shall either be given to the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING VERONA SUBDIVISION (AZ -03-005) PAGE 9 OF 24 Parks Department or shall be split off and be retained as a private ownership. 6. The applicant has donated right-of-way for the project on the arterial for Ten Mile, and shall not request an impact fee credit, except if extraordinary impact fees are ever imposed on the project, then the applicant shall be allowed credit for the value of the donation. 7. Since the applicant donated the easement area for construction of the water main, latecomer fees for water shall not be assessed, provided that applicant submits to the City of Meridian a written release, or a copy of an agreement, in which Farwest Development and Ed Bews agreed to release the applicant/developer from, the latecomer fees. 8. The applicant shall not be required to fence the northerly boundary or fence adjacent to the phase lines. 9. The applicant will donate 13 additional feet of right-of-way on Ten Mile and McMillan Roads. 10. All internal roads will be 36' back of curb to back of curb. 11. The preliminary plat dated 4/30103 is approved. 12. No playground equipment is proposed with this development. 13. It is found that the requested zoning designation, R-8, is in general compliance with the effective Comprehensive Plan (`02) and Future Land Use Map, which designates the land to be "Medium Density Residential." The proposed office uses within the subdivision are permissible under the excepted land use provisions of the MCC (12-6-3). T he Comprehensive P Ian a [so designates a community park and a pathway within the proposed subdivision boundaries and they have been included within the subdivision by the applicant. future. 14. It is not anticipated that the applicant intends to rezone the subject property in the 15. It is found that the proposed single-family residential subdivision with office uses FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING VERONA SUBDIVISION (AZ -03-005) PAGE 10 OF 24 would be allowed within the requested zoning designations, if accompanied with a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development. 16. It is found that the land to the east (Lochsa Falls) and south (Bridgetower) of the property has recently been approved for development similar to the proposed subdivision. It is found that the requested zoning designations are harmonious with recently approved developments in the general area and should be rezoned in the requested manner. 17. It is found that the proposed uses (single-family residential and office) will inevitably change the existing rural character of the subject property; however they do fit in with the intended character of the general vicinity Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map. The proposed uses are compatible with the 18. It is not anticipated that the proposed residential and office uses will be hazardous; however the traffic and noise they generate may be disruptive to future or exi.sting neighbors. 19. It is found that the property to be annexed will or can be served adequately by all essential public facilities and services if all conditions of approval are met by the applicant. The applicant shall be required to extend water and sanitary sewer mains to and through the proposed development, thereby making them available to the adjacent properties. The applicant must meet all requirements of ACHD in order to provide adequate facilities for the proposed and existing street system. It cannot be recommended for approval for the proposed subdivision if the applicant does not meet ACHD requirements. Review of the ACHD and Fire Department's comments concerning this subdivision will provide further information regarding public services and facilities. 20. It is found that there will not be excessive additional requirements at public cost for FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING VERONA SUBDIVISION (AZ -03-005) PAGE l l OF 24 public services and facilities, if the applicant complies with the conditions of approval for the accompanying conditional use permit and preliminary plat applications. 21. It is found that the fact that traffic and noise will increase significantly upon build -out of the proposed subdivision; however it is not felt that the amount generated will be detrimental to the public welfare of the City if all conditions of approval are met. It is also found that the proposed subdivision will not involve uses that would create other nuisances that would be detrimental to the general welfare of the surrounding area. 22. It is found that if the proposed roadways are improved to be in compliance with ACRD requirements they will not create interference with the existing and proposed public streets. Review of ACHD comments will show their concern of the vehicular approaches and traffic generation 23. It is found that no natural or scenic features of major importance will be lost or damaged by approving the annexation and re -zone. Any existing trees larger than 4" caliper that are removed shall be mitigated for, per the Landscape Ordinance. 24. It is found that services are available to the proposed subdivision, that the proposed development is in agreement with the City's Comprehensive Plan and that the project provides good interconnectivity with both of the adjacent projects. Furthermore, it is found that the addition of 4.57 acres of City Park land will create a more user-friendly community park when combined with the park land being developed within the Lochsa Falls Subdivision. It is also found that annexation of the subject property would be in the best interest of the City. 25. It is found that if the developer pays for the requested improvements FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING VERONA SUBDIVISION (AZ -03-005) PAGE 12 OF 24 and complies with the conditions set forth in these Findings of Fact No. 11, and all sub -parts, the economic welfare of the City and its residents and tax and rate payers will be protected, a condition of annexation and zoning designation. 26. It is also found that the development considerations as referenced in Finding No. 11 are reasonable to require and must be taken into account, in order to assure the proposed development is designed, constructed, operated and maintained in a manner which is harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing, or intended character of the general vicinity, in order to assure that the proposed use will not change the essential character of the affected vicinity and will insure that the proposed uses will not be hazardous or disturbing to the existing or future neighboring uses, particularly considering the impact of proposed development on potential to produce excessive traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare and odors. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The City of Meridian has authority to annex real property upon written request for annexation and the real property being contiguous or adjacent to city boundaries and that said property lies within the area of city impact as provided by Idaho Code Section 50-222. The Meridian City Code § 11-16 provides the City may annex real property that is within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area as set forth in the City's Comprehensive Plan. 2. The Council may take judicial notice of government ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions existing within the City and State. 3, The City of Meridian has exercised its authority and responsibility as provided by "Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975", codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code by the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING VERONA SUBDIVISION (AZ -03-005) PAGE 13 OF 24 adoption of the Amended Comprehensive Plan City of Meridian adopted August 6, 2002, Resolution No. 02-382. 4. The following are found to be pertinent provisions of the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan and are applicable to this Application: Goals 1 through 10, inclusive. 5. The zoning of Medium. Density Residential (R-8) is defined in the Zoning Ordinance at § 11-7-2 D as follows: (R-8) Medium Density Residential District: The purpose of the R-8 District is to permit the establishment of single- and two-family dwellings at a density not exceeding eight (8) dwelling units per acre. This District delineates those areas where such development has or is likely to occur in accord with the Comprehensive Plan of the City and is also designed to permit the conversion of large homes into two-family dwellings in well-established neighborhoods of comparable land use. Connection to the municipal water and sewer systems of the City is required. 6. Since the annexation and zoning of land is a legislative function, the City has authority to place conditions upon the annexation of land. See Burt vs. The City of Idaho Falls, 105 Idaho 65, 665 Ptd 1075 (1983). 7. The development of the annexed land, if annexed, shall meet and comply with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian including, but not limited to: Section 12-2-4 which pertains to development time schedules and requirements; Section 12-4-13, which pertains to the piping of ditches; and Section 12-5-2 N, which pertains to pressurized irrigation systems, and Zoning and Subdivision and Development Ordinance of the City of Meridian. 8. Pursuant to Section 11-16-4 A of the Zoning and Development Ordinance, the owner and/or developer shall enter into a Development Agreement, if such is required by the City. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING VERONA SUBDIVISION (AZ -03-005) PAGE 14 OF 24 DECISION AND ORDER NOW, THEREFORE, BASED UPON THE ABOVE AND FOREGOING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, the City Council does hereby Order and this does Order: I. The applicant's request for annexation and zoning of approximately 61.69 acres to Medium Density Residential (R-8) is granted subject to the terms and conditions of this Order hereinafter stated. 2. The application is for annexation and zoning of 61.69 acres. The legal description shall be prepared by a Registered Land Surveyor, Licensed by the State of Idaho, and shall conform to all the provisions of the City of Meridian Resolution No. 158. The legal description for annexation must place this parcel contiguous to the Corporate City Limits per Ordinance No. 686. Developer shall be required to meet the conditions set forth and, in the event the conditions herein are not met by the Developer, that the property shall be subject to de -annexation, with the City of Meridian, which provides for the following conditions of development, to -wit: A. Adopt the Recommendations of the Meridian Planning & Zoning Department as follows: ANNEXATION AND ZONING CONDTIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Remove any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project per City Ordinance 9-1-4, when services are available from the City of Meridian. Wells maybe used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation. 2. All irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or lying adjacent and contiguous to the parcel shall be tiled per City Ordinance 12-4- 13. Plans will need to 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, plans will FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING VERONA SUBDIVISION (AZ -03-005) PAGE 15 OF 24 be reviewed and approved by the Meridian City Engineer prior to final plat signature. 3. A Development Agreement shall be entered into between the Developer and the City of Meridian that will require, among other conditions, that all future office/church uses obtain conditional use permit approval prior to development and the 1tiffiiixg-ePark, pathway construction. (See letter D. hereinbelow pursuant to Council action taken at their May 13, 2003 meeting.) B. Adopt the Recommendations of the ACRD as follows: Site Specific Conditions of Approval Dedicate 38 -feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Ten Mile Road (an additional 13 -feet of right-of-way) and place the sidewalk within an easement on the proposed common lot (a minimum of 41 feet from centerline, as proposed. If the applicant wishes to consider other options for the right-of-way and construction of sidewalk on Ten Mile Road, the applicant may select one of the options found in Finding for Consideration #2. (See letter D. hereinbelow pursuant to Council action taken at their May 13, 2003 meeting.) 2. The applicant shall do one of the following: a. Dedicate by donation an additional 10 -feet of right-of-way along McMillan Road, and construct a minimum 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalk along McMillan Road, located a minimum of 28 -feet from the centerline of the right-of- way. ight-ofway. b. Do not dedicate additional right-of-way, but construct a minimum 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalk along McMillan Road, located a minimum of 28 -feet from the centerline of the right-of-way, in an easement provided to the District. C. Do not dedicate additional right-of-way, but construct a minimum 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalk along McMillan Road, located at the back edge of the existing right-of-way. Accomplish all necessary adjustments to properly accommodate existing drainage and utilities. 3. Construct a main entrance, Desert Breeze Avenue (identified on the site plan as West Carrara Drive), to intersect with McMillan Road approximately 970 -feet -east of Ten Mile Road, as proposed. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING VERONA SUBDIVISION (AZ -03-005) PAGE 16 OF 24 4. Construct a main entrance, Carrara Drive, to intersect Ten Mile Road approximately 850 -feet north of McMillan Road, as proposed. 5. Construct a main entrance, West Bellagio Drive, to intersect Ten Mile Road approximately 140 -feet south of the north property line, as proposed. 6. Construct Bellagio Drive as a 36 -foot street section with curb, gutter and 5 -foot concrete sidewalk on the south side of the roadway and a 10 -foot detached asphalt pathway on the north side of the roadway within 50 -feet of right-of-way with no front on housing, as proposed. Provide the District with an easement for the sidewalk that will extend outside of the right-of-way. Direct access and parking is prohibited on West Bellagio Drive. 7. Construct West Carrara Drive as a 40 -foot street section with vertical curb, gutter and 5 -foot concrete sidewalk within 54 -feet of right-of-way. 8. Construct the internal roadways as 33 -foot street sections with curb, gutter and 5 - foot -attached sidewalks within 50 -feet of right-of-way, as proposed. Provide the District with documentation showing that the appropriate fire department has reviewed and approved this street section unless otherwise approved by the District. 9. Extend San Marino Street from the east property line approximately 1,260 -feet north of McMillan Road, as proposed. 10. Extend West Cosenza Street from the east property Iine approximately 710 -feet south of the north property line, as proposed 11. Extend West Malta Drive from the east property line approximately 125 -feet south of the north property line, as proposed. 12. Construct one cul-de-sac turnaround within the subdivision, as proposed. Provide a minimum turning radius of 45 -feet. 13. Construct islands within West Carrara Drive and Bellagio Drive, as proposed. Provide a minimum 21 -foot street section (measured back -of -curb to back -of -curb). Any proposed landscape islands/medians within the public right-of-way dedicated by this plat shall be owned and maintained by a homeowners association. Notes of this shall be required on the final plat. 14. Construct a driveway on the west side of East Carrara Drive approximately 230 - feet north of McMillan Road, as proposed. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING VERONA SUBDMSION (AZ -03-005) PAGE 17 OF 24 15. Construct a driveway on the cast side of East Carrara Drive approximately 350 - feet north of McMillan Road, as proposed. 16. Construct a driveway on the east side of East Carrara Drive approximately 750 - feet north of McMillan Road, as proposed. 17. Construct a driveway on the north side of East Carrara Drive approximately 180 - feet east of Ten Mile Road, as proposed. 18. Construct a driveway on the north side of East Carrara Drive approximately 340 - feet east of Ten Mile Road, as proposed. 19. Construct a driveway on the north side of East Carrara Drive approximately 500 - feet east of Ten Mile Road, as proposed. 20. Pave the driveways their full width and at least 30 -feet into the site beyond the edge of pavement of the roadway and install pavement tapers with 15 -foot radii abutting the existing roadway edge. 21. Construct a southbound turn lane at the intersection ofBellagio Drive and Ten Mile Road. Coordinate the design of the turn lane with District staff. 22. Construct a southbound tura. lane at the intersection of Carrara Drive and Ten Mile Road. Coordinate the design of the turn lane with District staff. 23. Construct an eastbound left -turn lane at the intersection of Carrara Drive and McMillan Road. Coordinate the design of the turn lane with District staff. 24. Construct a westbound right -turn lane at the intersection of Carrara Drive and McMillan Road. Coordinate the design of the turn lane with District staff. 25. Enter into a development agreement with ACRD that outlines right-of-way acquisition, costs, timing and payment; and shall also include an agreement that this development shall be subject to any extraordinary impact fee, LID or other funding source established by the District to improve the surrounding roadways; or shall be subject to the development's proportionate share of surrounding roadway improvements as established by the applicant's traffic impact study. 26. The applicant is donating 13 additional feet of right-of-way subject to receiving a credit against extraordinary impact fees, if such extraordinary impact fees are imposed on this development. (See letter D. hereinbelow pursuant to Council action taken at their May 13, 2003 meeting.) FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING VERONA SUBDIVISION (AZ -03-005) PAGE 18 OF 24 27. Other than the access points specifically approved with this application, direct lot access to West Bellagio Drive, Ten Mile Road and West McMillan Road is prohibited. Notes of this shall be noted on the final plat. 28. Comply with all Standard Conditions of Approval. Standard Conditions of Approval Any existing irrigation facilities shall be relocated outside of the right-of=way. 2. All utility relocation costs associated with improving street frontages abutting the site shall be borne by the developer. 3. 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. 4. Utility street cuts in pavement less than five years old are not allowed unless approved in writing by the District. Contact Construction Services at 387-6280 (with file numbers) for details. 5. All design and construction shall be in accordance with the Ada County Highway District Policy Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Construction Services procedures and all applicable ACHD Ordinances unless specifically waived herein. An engineer registered in the State of Idaho shall prepare and certify all improvement plans. 6. The applicant shall submit revised plans for staff approval, prior to issuance of building permit (or other required permits), which incorporates any required design changes. 7. Construction, use and property development shall be in conformance with all applicable requirements of the Ada County Highway District prior to District approval for occupancy. 8. Payment of applicable road impact fees are required prior to building construction in accordance with Ordinance #197, also known as Ada County Highway District Road Impact Fee Ordinance. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING VERONA SUBDIVISION (AZ -03-005) PAGE 19 OF 24 9. It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify all existing utilities within the right-of-way. Existing utilities damaged by the applicant shall be repaired by the applicant at no cost to ACHD. The applicant shall be required to call DIGLINE (1-800-342-1585) 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. 10. 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 the Ada County Highway District. The burden shall be upon the applicant to obtain written confirmation of any change from the Ada County Highway District. 11. Any change by the applicant in the planned use of the property which is the subject of this application, shall require the applicant to comply with all rules, regulations, ordinances, plans, or other regulatory and legal restrictions in force at the time the applicant or its successors in interest advises the Highway District of its intent to change the planned use of the subject property unless a waiver/variance of said requirements or other legal relief is granted pursuant to the law in effect at the time the change in use is sought. C. Adopt the Recommendations of the Meridian Fire Department as follows: 1. One and two family dwellings will require a fire -flow of 1,000 gallons per minute available for duration of 2 hours to service the entire project. Fire hydrants shall be placed an average of 400' apart. 1997 UFC Appendix M -A 2. Commercial and office occupancies will require a fire -flow consistent with the Uniform Fire Code to service the proposed project. Fire hydrants shall be placed an average of 400' apart. 1997 UFC Appendix III -A 3. The fire department requests that any future signalization installed as the result of the development of this project be equipped with Opticorn Sensors to ensure a safe and efficient response by fire and emergency medical service vehicles. be b,.Rie by the a,,..,,', per- (See letter D.2. hereinbelow pursuant to Council taken at their May 13, 2003 meeting.) 4. Acceptance of the water supply for fire protection will be by the Meridian Water Department. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING VERONA SUBDIVISION (AZ -03-005) PAGE 20 OF 24 5. Final approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department through the City Engineering Department. 6. All roads shall have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48' outside. 7. All access roads within the project shall have a clear driving surface with a minimum width of 20' available at all times. Typical street width of 34' will be allowed to have parking on both sides. The typical collector street with a width of 29' will be required to have restricted parking to only one side. UFC 902.2.2.1 (See letter D. hereinbelow pursuant to Council action taken at their May 13, 2003 meeting.) 8. Operational fire hydrants and temporary or permanent street signs are required before combustible construction begins. UFC 901.4.2 & 901.3 9. The phasing plan may require that any roadway greater than 150' in length that is not provided with an outlet shall be required to have a turn around. 10. A minimum of two points of access will be required for any portion of the project, which serves more than 50 homes. This maybe a concern during the phasing of the project. UFC 902.2.1 11. The proposed 174 -lot subdivision with an estimated 2.9 residents per household would have a total estimated population of 504 residents at build out. The 6 office lots will have an unknown transient population and will have an unknown impact on Meridian Fire Department call volume. D. Adopt the action of the Council taken at their May 13, 2003 meeting as follows: Under the Annexation and Zoning Conditions of Approval item A-3, the applicant shall construct the ten -foot -wide asphalt pathway, collector roadway, sewer and water service, and 20 -foot collector landscaping. No park improvements are proposed such as a parking lot or additional landscaping. The applicant will donate the park area without requesting park impact fee credits. 2. The applicant's project does not warrant a signal; however, future development of the community park may require signalization. The funding of any Opticom improvements should be borne by the heavy traffic generator. 3. The applicant shall be required to provide common driveway access for Lots 9, 10, 25 and 26 of Block 3, and for Lots 27 and 28 of Block 10. 4. Pertaining to the small waste ditch located on the northern edge of the property, the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING VERONA SUBDIVISION (AZ -03-005) PAGE 21 OF 24 applicant shall provide a bid from their contractor for the costs to pipe the ditch. The applicant shall set up a trust fund with the Public Works Department to place money aside for the future piping of the waste ditch. This trust fund would help eliminate having to redo any improvements that might be destroyed when the park is designed and built in the future. 5. In the northwest corner of the property shall be located a storm drainage retention. area. The applicant shall landscape and buffer the area and the area shall either be given to the Parks Department or shall be split off and be retained as a private ownership. 6. The applicant has donated right-of-way for the project on the arterial for Ten Mile, and shall not request an impact fee c redit, e xcept i f e xtraordinary i mpact f ees are e ver imposed on the project, then the applicant shall be allowed credit for the value of the donation. 7. Since the applicant donated the easement area for construction of the water main, latecomer fees for water shall not be assessed, provided that applicant submits to the City of Meridian a written release, or a copy of an agreement, in which Farwest Development and Ed Bews agreed to release the applicant/developer from the latecomer fees. S. The applicant shall not be required to fence the northerly boundary or fence adjacent to the phase lines. 9. The applicant will donate 13 additional feet of right-of-way on Ten Mile and McMillan Roads. 10. All internal roads will be 36' back of curb to back of curb. 11. The preliminary plat dated 4130/03 is approved. 12. No playground equipment is proposed with this development. 4. The City Attorney shall prepare for consideration by the City Council the appropriate ordinance for the annexation and zoning designation of the real property which is the subject of the application to (R -S) Medium Density Residential District, and Meridian City Code § 11-7-2. Subsequent to the passage of the Ordinance provided for in section 4 of this Order the engineering staff of the Public Works Department shall prepare the appropriate mapping changes of FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING VERONA SUBDIVISION (AZ -03-005) PAGE 22 OF 24 the official boundaries and zoning maps as provided in Meridian City Code § 11-21-1 in accordance with the provisions of the annexation and zoning ordinance. NOTICE OF FINAL ACTION Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian. Pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521, an affected person is a person who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the issuance or denial of the aza:n.exation and zoning and who may, within twenty-eight (2 8) days after the date of this decision and order, seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code. By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the ;�? 7 r day of !V2 , 2003. ROLL CALL COUNCILMAN KEITH BIRD VOTED_,O�� COUNCILWOMAN TAMMY deWEERD VOTED J' COUNCILWOMAN CHERIE Mc CANDLESS VOTED6 COUNCILMAN WILLIAM L.M. NARY VOTED -'L MAYOR ROBERT D. CORRIE (TIE BREAKER) VOTED DATED: 5--2-7—�� FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING VERONA SUBDIVISION (AZ -03-005) PAGE 23 OF 24 MOTION: APPROVED: DISAPPROVED:r"�N Mayor Attest: �d AL w William G. Berg, Jr., Cit Cle T- 111° �C> -� Copy served upon. Applicant, the Planning and'Zoning )epartment, the City Attorney. By: ' Alit Qj;�ated: City Clerk V 6/- -�--zs— U Robert D. Corrie Public Works Department and WkIliStttiir111,,/r 4<> SEAL - V" C 1 �=1lj-ri7-.;:11111 Z:1Work\M\MeridianWeridian 15360M\Verona Subdivision AZ -03-005 PP -03-003 CUP-03-0071AZFfC1&0rder.doc FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING VERONA SUBDIVISION (AZ -03-005) PAGE 24 OF 24 May 30, 2003 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING APPLICANT Public Works Department ITEM NO. — REQUEST 2003 Creek -Crossing Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation Project, Change Order No. l — Insituforrn: June 3, 2003 AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: Contacted: COMMENTS See Attached Memo Date: Phone: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. To: Brad Watson From: Lenard Grady /10, SAY 2 9 2003 Cit ,tY Of Meridian. CC: Gary Smith City Clerk Office Date: 5/29/2003 Re: Proposed Agenda Items for June 3, 2003 City Council Meeting The Public Works Department respectfully requests the following items be placed on the June 3 City Council consent agenda: 2003 Creek -Crossing Sewer Pie Rehabilitation Proiect — Chane Order #1 This contract was awarded to Insituform for $298,485.00. One of the crossings was reported 100 feet short. This results in an increase to the contract of $68,119.00. Recommended Council Action: The Public Works Department recommends that City Council approves the $58,119.00 Change Order #1 with Inskuform for the 2003 Creek -Crossing Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation Project and authorize the Mayor to sign !L Vulnerability Assessment Attached is a contract for $12,000 with HDR to start the Vulnerability Assessment of the water system, which is required by the EPA. Three consultants were interviewed before selecting HDR. This will only get us started, with the remaining work being budgeted next year. Recommended Council Action: The Public Works Department recommends that City Council approves the $12,000.00 contract with HDR Engineering, INC. for the Vulnerability Assessment and authorize the Mayor to sign it From dre desk o£.. Thank you for your consideration. Please contact me if you have any 1enmd Grady questions regarding any of these items. Staf'Enox= Meridian Public works De ft 660 E. watertower, Suite 200 Meridian, Idaho 83642 (208) 898-5500 Page Fax (208) 887-1297 gradyl&.maidian.id.rrs May 30, 2003 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING .lune 3, 2003 APPLICANT Public Works Department ITEM NO. REQUEST Agreement for Services by HDR Engineering, Inc., for Vulnerability Assessment Study of the City Water System: AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: See Attached Memo CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: Ffe ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. To: Brad Watson From: Lenard Grady /0, CC: Gary Smith RECEIVED MAY z s 2003 Date: 5/29/2003 Re: Proposed Agenda Items for June 3, 2003 City Council Meeting City Of Meridia-n Cir Clerk office The Public Works Department respectfully requests the following items be placed on the June 3 City Council consent agenda. 2003 Creek-Crossinq Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation Project —Change Order #1 This contract was awarded to Insituform for $298,485.00. One of the crossings was reported 100 feet short. This results in an increase to the contract of $68,119.00. Recommended Council Action: The Public Works Department recommends that City Council approves the $68,119.00 Change Order #1 with Insituform for the 2003 Creek -Crossing Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation Project and authorize the Mayor to sign it Vulnerabilh Assessment Attached is a contract for $12,000 with HDR to start the Vulnerability Assessment of the water system, which is required by the EPA. Three consultants were interviewed before selecting HDR. This will only get us started, with the remaining work being budgeted next year. Recommended Council Action: The Public Works Department recommends that City Council approves the $12,000.00 contract with HDR Engineering, INC. for the Vulnerability Assessment and authorize the Mayor to sign it From the desk of.. Thank you for your consideration. Please contact me if you have any I.enardGrady questions regarding any of these items. StaffEngu w Meridian Public Works Deprhnenl 660 E. Watertown, Suite 200 Meridian, Idaho 83642 (208) 898-5500 Fax: (208) 887-1297 0 Page 1 grady!{r 6 meridian.idus SHORT FORM AGREEMENT BETWEEN OWNER AND HDR ENGINEERING, INC. FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT is made as of this 19'` day of May, 2003, between the City of Meridian {"OWNER") a municipal corporation through its Public Works Department, with principal offices at 660E Water Tower Lane- Si.liLe 200, Meridi Idaho 83642- 2300, and HDR ENGINEERING, INC_, (`ENGINEER") a Nebraska corporation, with offices at 413 South 9h Street, Suite 301, Boise, Idaho 83702, for services in connection with the project known as Vulnerability Assessment Ovei•si_ght ("Project"); WHEREAS, OWNER desires to engage ENGINEER to provide professional engineering, consulting and related services ("Services") in connection with the Project; and WHEREAS, ENGINEER desires to render these Ser -rices as described in SECTION I, Scope of Services. NOW, THEREFORE, OWNER and ENGINEER in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, agree as follows: SECTION L SCOPE OF SERVICES ENGINEER will provide Services for the Project, which consist of the Scope of Services as outlined on the attached Exhibit A. SECTION II. TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ENGINEERING SERVICES The "HDR Engineering, Inc. Terms and Conditions for Professional Services," which are attached hereto in Exhibit B, are incorporated into this Agreement by this reference as if z:wlly set forth herein.. � I - SECTION III. RESPONSIBILITIES OF OWNER The OWNER shall provide the information set forth in paragraph 6 of the attached "HDR Engineering, Inc. Terms and Conditions for Professional Services." SECTION IV. COMPENSATION Compensation for ENGINEER'S services under this Agreement shall be on the basis of lu np sum_ The amount of the lump sum is Twelve Thousand Dollars ($12,000). Lump Sum shall mean a fixed amount which shall be the total compensation agreed upon in advance for Scope of Services. SECTION V. PERIOD OF SERVICE Upon receipt of written authorization to proceed, ENGINEER shall perform the services described in Exhibit A within a reasonable period of time. Unless otherwise stated in this Agreement, the rates of compensation for ENGINEER' S. services have been agreed to in anticipation of the orderly and continuous progress of the project through completion. If any. specified, dates for the completion of ENGINEER'S services are exceeded through no fault of the ENGINEER, the time for performance of those services shall be autoxnatically extended for a period which may be reasonably required for their completion and all rates, measures and amounts of ENGINEER'S compensation shall be equitably adjusted. SECTION VI. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE OWNER Owner shall provide documents for review by HDR as detailed in Exhibit A, Scope of Work. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties. hereto have executed this Aggreement as of the day and year first written above. "OWNER" BY.- TITLE: Y: 'i ITLE: ADDRESS: Robert D. Corrie Mayor ATTEST: BY: NAME William G. Berg, Jr. TITLE: City Clerk HDR ENGINEERING, INC. "ENGINEER" G By_ N AME: Mara Foley TITLE: Vice President ADDRESS: 418 S. 9"' St., Suite 301 Boise, ID 83702 E XHIBIT A. .SCOPE OF SERVICES Far Vulnerability Assessment Oversight Project For. THE CITY OF MERIDIAN 1.0- BACKGROUND Recent Federal legislation requires the Cityto conduct a security vulnerability assessment of the potable water systema. The City has personnel trained in vuinerability assessment methodology, but lacks the experience in performing vulnerability assessments., H DR has vulnerability assessment experience, and the City has asked 'HDR to provide technical oversight of the City's vulnerability assessment effort. 2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES Task 1.0. Definition of Water System Security Objectives, Background Data Collection, and Prioritization of Adverse Events The purpose of this task is to define water system security objectives, establish the security planning team and gather background information on Meridian's water infrastr'acture systems. The City will then prioritize facilities based on criticality. The following subtasks detail these activities. Subtask 1.1. Establish Security Planning Team City staff to develop project team consisting of City staff members. Subtask 1.2. Collect and Review Background Information The City will collect background information to be used in the vulnerability assessment analysis. HDR will use this information as a reference. This information includes: Facility site plans. System and design capacities. System performance reports. Regulatory permits. Sources and quantities of normal water supply. Interconnects for alternative or emergency water supply. Operational procedures and policies. Security policies and procedures. Visitors policies and procedures. Contractor policies and procedures. Existing emergency response plan. Location map of water distribution system. E)dsting security contracts. System design performance. Reports or records of previous security- Applicable zoning codes and ordinances. related incidents. CIP for security enhancements. Crime demographics. SCADA servers and workstations. Staff organization and employee job descriptions. SCADA PLCS and RTUs. '- Communications system description or Network hubs, routers, switches, etc. general specifications. Network and host -based firewalls. Public accessconstraints or public relations requirements. - Network and host -based Intrusion Detection systems (N -IDS and H -IDS). Public information protocols. Virtual Private Network (VPN) Servers. Facility long- and short-term expansion plans. Authentication, Authorization and Audit (AAA) servers. Neighboring area landscaping or architectural requirements, Network Management/Monitoring Servers (NMS). Types, quantities and characteristics of all hazardous substances stored at each site or Zoning codes and ordinances as applicable. facility. - Interdepartmental agreements with emergency services (fire, emergency response, public health, fire, and law enforcement). Inter -agency agreements with other municipalities or owners of alternative water supply. Subtask 1.3. Define:Mission Objective Criteria and Critical Facilities City staff will review facilities and threat analysis goals, establish and refine the mission objective criteria, and establish goals for the prevention of a potential loss, Cr,ticality can be measured in terms such as duration of service outage, cost of service outage, and character of service zones. Using the RAM -W ranking worksheets, City staff will rant mi sion objectives and facilities using the pairwise comparison technique. SusTASK 1.4. PRIORITIZATION OF ADVERSE EVENTS,APFECTING THE WATER SYSTEM,AND END USERS :Using the RAM -W ranking worksheets, City staff will rank facilities using weighted evaluation criteria and pairwise comparison. Task 9.0 Products Meridian: Contact information for Security Planning Team Background information One copy of all ranking worksheets to HDR. HDR: Review comments on ranking worksheets TASK 2.0. EVALUATE POSS113LE METHODOLOGIES OF MALEVOLENT ACTS AND ASSESSMENT OF THE LIKELIHOOD OF MALEVOLENT ACTS _ City staff to contact local law enforcement, FBI, as well as operations superintendents, at each facility and review reported crime data. , City staff.to develop the design basis threat(s) (insider, outside and cyber) appropriate for each facility. City to develop a list of the most likely threat potentials. These threats may include vandalism, theft, disgruntled customer (outsider), disgruntled empioyee (insider), and terrorism. City to generally evaluate threats that could be system -wide or occur at random locations (such as verbal 'threats and/or contamination at random access points to system). Risk analysis of these will be limited -to general observations/recommendations-for response. City will summarize Design Basis Threat assessment for review and cohiment by,HDR, Tasks 2.0 Products Meridian: Copy of crime data findings to HDR RAM W threat analysis worksheets HDR: Written comments on threat analysis worksheets City of Meridian - -3- Vulnerability Assessment Oversight HDR Engineering, Inc. Consulting Services 5/1812003 Scope of Services TASK 3.U. CHARACTERIZATION OF THE WATER SYSTEM BY SITE, ASSESSMENT OF CONTROL_ SYSTEM, AND ASSESSMENT OF SECURITY POLICIES AND PROCEDURES By reviewing background information and the site assessment, City staff will determine the interdependence on the critical infrastructure, such as electrical power, SCADA, piping systems, as well as the operating functions of the water system. In addition•a vulnerability assessment of the control systems,. -and an -assessment of Security Policies and Procedures will be performed to support the. Risk Evaluation task. 5ubtask 3.1. Site Characterization Based on background information previously collected by the City, City staff will develop a system block diagram for all critical facilities including interdependencies of other facilities and supply points.; The diagrams will include barriers, major components (including large pieces of equipment, buildings, and storage units), and SCADA and communications system components. Subtask 3.2. Onsite Physical Assessment City staff will conduct the physical site assessment and will tour each critical facility as.weli as 'representative sub -critical facilities and review its operating components. Observations, discussions, and interviews will be recorded in written notes and digital photographs. The site assessment will include observation of the fallowing items: Condition and serviceability. Communication system Environmental conditions (light, humidity, noise, vibration, temperature, etc_) Suitability for intended use (deterrence, detection, delay, response, mitigation.) Hardware connectivity Software platform transparency Contractor security policies Motor pool policies Hazardous materials handling NAR (nuisance alarm rate) PAR (false alarm rate). Personnel entry and parking policies Chemical and equipment delivery policies In addition to the above, other operations for the water department offices will also be reviewed. These operations will include: Handling of cash. Screening and movement of customers throughout the building City of Meridian -4- VulnerabiRy Assessment Oversight HDR Engineering, Inc. Consulting Services 5/1 W2003 Scope of Services Protection of employees with direct customer contact Building evacuation routes and emergency plans. Public parking location, access, controls Existing security system effectiveness will be assessed in the field by the team. Any protection system judged to be lower than medium or high performance will be identified as vulnerability. This assessment will result in a ranking of which water facilities are most likely to be successfully attacked. Subcritical facilities will be assessed in the field for major vulnerabilities. Facilities such as small to mid- sized distribution pipelines, storage reservoirs and pumping stations, if considered noncritical, may be analyzed as typical systems. General recommendations will be made regarding the physical protection systems and operational systems associated with non-critical facilities. HDR will provide general comment . on Site investigations as part of Task 4.0 efforts. SUBTASK 3.2. ASSESSMENT OF VULNERABILITY OF CONTROL_ SYSTEM City staff will assess the vulnerability of both SCADA'and Cyber security for Meridian's facilities. HDRNVestin will be available for a two-hour phone call prior to the control system vulnerability assessment to provide guidance on how to conduct this assessment. HDR/Westin will provide limited comment of the control system vulnerability assessment as part of the Task 4.0 efforts. SUBTASK 3.3. ASSESSMENT of SECURITY POLICIES AND PROCEDURES City staff will review written security policies to evaluate policies and procedures. Items to be included are: Entry control procedures. Access to keys. Reporting Arrangements with police and private security companies_ Responding to alarms. Policies regarding distribution of sensitive information. City staff will study case histories of responses to vandalism, intrusion, ortheft to assess current practices and include threats to City staff. HDR will provide general comment of Policies and Procedures assessment as part of the Task 4.0 effort. Task 3.0 Products Meridian: System block diagram Schedule for onsite physical assessment Operator interviews. City of Meridian -5- Vulnerability Assessment Oversight HDR Engineering, Inc_ - Consultinc Services 511 EV2003 ' Scope of Services Field notes and digital photographs. Ranking of which water facilities are most likely to be successfully attacked. Documents describing present control system architecture. Security policies and Procedures. Case Histories of security threat responses, including threats to City staff. TASK 4.0. PERFORMANCE-BASED RISK EVALUATION City staff will produce.fault trees for use in conducting the Risk Analysis and Consequence Assessments. City staff will conduct a risk analysis for the existing security system as a baseline,compadson for security system enhancement recommendations. The risk analysis will be conducted using the RAM -W"' risk equations and the values for probability of security system effectiveness and consequence of the loss from attack. City staff will perform a consequence assessment for each critical facility. Consequence assessments will estimate consequences including economic loss, business disruption, repair and/or cleanup, and public confidence. The consequence assessments will be based upon the design basis threat.. The Consequence Assessments will include: Developed measures of consequence. Developed consequences for each facility. Ranking of critical assets. Evaluation of existing protection systems at each critical system Assessment of system's ability to detect; delay _and respond. Assessment of operational protection measures. A facilities upgrade analysis will be undertaken to identify security upgrades required to, achieve the amount of risk reduction desired: City staff must decide upon the desired level of protection and corresponding risk reduction prior to the upgrade analysis. The goal will be the application of countermeasures to the risk equation until the desired level of risk is attained. The upgrade analysis will include: A calculation of system effectiveness for each critical facility Consideration of adversary paths. Evaluation of physical protection or operations systems for delay, detection, and response Identification of vulnerabilities, City of Meridian -fi- vulnerability Assessment Oversight HDR Engineering, Inc. Consulting Services 511 &2003 Scope of Services Calculation of Tisk- associated with each critical facility based on the design basis threat, the consequences analysis and the security system effectiveness. Task 4.0 Deliverables Meridian: Fault Trees for Critical Systems Draft Consequence Assessments. Upgrade analysis HDR: Written comment on Fault trees,.Consequence Assessments, and upgrades analysis. General comments on products, developed in.Task,3.0 TASK 5,0, ..PRIORITIZED PLAN FOR SECURITY IMPROVEMENTS AND FINAL SECURITY PLAN Subtask 5.1 Implementation Plan. City staff will develop a list of the most feasible: cost-effective fixes, upgrades, and capital projects to reduce identified water system vulnerabilities. City staff Mill prepare a detailed plan for implementation based on a prioritization of potential improvements. The implementation pian will Recommend security enhancements, if appropriate, for critical facilities that may include a combination of physical and electronic security as well as operation's procedures Apply the risk analysis to each recommended security enhancement to determine if the desired reduction in risk is achieved. Provide piann.ing, level budgetary level estimates forthe anticipated implementation cost for each enhancement. SUBTASK 5.2, SECURITY PLAN City staff will prepare the draft of the Security Plan. The draft Plan will include a summary of all analyses performed and direction.received from.HDR dudng.this phase of the project. The draft Plan will identify potential security enhancement attematiyes-for each vulnerability as well as estimated capital costs. In addition, an implementation plan will also be part of the Security Plan, and be based on the.CIP for the City. The content of this draft Plan is highly confidential. Each copy of the draft Plan will be numbered, and City staff will producea tracking log for each copy of the draft Plan. All reviewers must make all comments on. the draft version and return the original to the City's project manager. City staff will incorporate recommendations into a revised Final Security Plan. The final security plan will identify all upgrades, enhancements, or procedural modifications. City of Meridian -7- Vulnerability Assessment Oversight HDR Engineering, Inc_ Consulting Services &1812003 Scope of Services Task 5.0 Products Meridian: Draft and Final Implementation Plan Draft and Final Security Plan 3.0 SCHEDULE HDR will review and comment on products developed in Tasks 1,2, and 4 when transmitted by the City. 4.0 PAYMENTS TO HDR Payment for Basic Services: For the scope of services described in Section 2, Scope of Services, total compensation will be a lump sum of $12,000.00. Payment: for Additional Services: Compensation for additional services will be'on the basis of a Lump Sum. or Per Diem as agreed upon before the -initiation of any such services. HDR will not perform any__.. Additional Services. activities without written authorization from the Public Works Department. HDR may recommend immediate security enhancements for vulnerable assets that may be at risk. At Meridian's request, HDR will provide a cost estimate for design/build services for these specific high priority enhancements. Design/build activities are not included in this scope of services. HDR will proceed with design/build services only upon authorization from the City. carry or Meridian -8- Vulnerability Assessment Oversight HDR Engineering, Inc. Consulting. Services 5/18/2003 Scope of Services LWAO.-Ft-bi V ai' TERMS AND CONDITIONS HDR ENGINEERING, INC. General Terms and Conditions for Vulnerability Assessments 1. STANDARD OF PERFORMANCE The standard of care for all professional engineering, consulting and related services performed or furnished by ENGINEER and its employees under this Agreement will be the care and skill ordinarily used by members of ENGINEER's profession practicing under the same or similar circumstances at the same time and in the same locality. ENGINEER makes no warranties. express or implied, under this Agreement or otherwise, in connection with ENGINEER's services. CLIENT acknowledges that it is not practical and in many cases possible to identify and prevent all possible means of vulnerability breaches. CLIENT hereby agrees to bring no claims and to hold ENGINEER harmless from any claim arising out of the intentional, willful, malicious, criminal, or negligent acts of third -parties including, but not limited to, terrorist attacks. INSURANCE ENGINEER agrees to procure and maintain, at its expense, Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability insurance as required by statute; Automobile Liability insurance for bodily injury and property damage covering all vehicles, including hired vehicles, owned and non -owned vehicles; Commercial Generai Liability insurance for personal injury and property damage; and Professional Liability insurance for protection against claims caused by negligent acts, errors, or omissions for which ENGINEER is legally liable. ENGINEER agrees to indemnify CLIENT to the extent claims are covered by ENGiNEER's insurance up to the limitations of liability contained in this agreement. CONTROLLING LAW This Agreement is to be governed by the law of the state where ENGiNEER's services are performed. 4. CLIENT -PROVIDED SERVICES AND INFORMATION CLIENT will provide all criteria and information pertaining to the Project in CLIENT's possession, and any requirements or budgetary limitations. The CLIENT agrees to bear full responsibility for the technical accuracy and content of CLIENT - furnished documents, information and services. In performing services hereunder, it is understood by CLIENT that ENGINEER is not engaged in rendering any type of legal, insurance or accounting services, opinions or advica. Further, it is the CLIENT's sole responsibility to obtain the advice of an attorney, insurance counselor or accountant to protect the CLiENT's legal and financial interests. To that end, the CLIENT agrees that CLIENT or the CLiENT's representative will examine all studies, reports, sketches, drawings, specifications, proposals and other documents, opinions or advice prepared or provided by ENGINEER, and will obtain the advice of an attorney, insurance counselor or other consultant as the CLIENT deems necessary to protect the CLIENT's interests before CLIENT takes action or forebears to take action based upon or relying upon the services provided by ENGINEER. 5. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS CLIENT and ENGINEER, respectively, bind themselves, their partners, successors, assigns, and legal representatives to the covenants of this Agreement. Neither CLIENT nbr ENGINEER will assign, sublet, or transfer any interest in this Agreement without the written consent of the other. CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT OF DOCUMENTS ENGINEER shall keep and maintain all documents, including all reports, drawings, specifications, computer software or other items furnished by CLIENT and/or prepared by ENGINEER pursuant to this Agreement confidential in accordance with ENGINEER's Confidential Document Retention Policy. ENGINEER shall be entitled to retain one copy of all such documentation on a confidential basis to enable ENGINEER to continue serving the CLIENT's future needs or to respond to any inquiries associated with ENGINEER's services. 7. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT CLIENT or ENGINEER may terminate the Agreement, in whole or in part, by giving seven (7) days written notice, if the other party substantially fails to fulfill its obligations under the Agreement through no fault of the terminating party. Where the method of payment is "lump sum," or cost reimbursement, the final invoice will include all services and expenses associated with the project up to the effective date of termination. An equitable adjustment shall also be made to provide for termination settlement costs ENGINEER incurs as a result of commitments that had become firm before termination, and for a reasonable profit for services performed. S. SEVERABILITY If any provision of this agreement is held invalid or unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall be valid and binding upon the parties. One or more waivers by either party of any provision, term or condition shall not be construed by the other party as a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same provision, term or condition. 9. INVOICES ENGINEER will submit monthly invoices for services rendered and CLIENT will make prompt payments in response to ENGINEER's invoices. ENGINEER will retain receipts for reimbursable expenses in general accordance with Internal Revenue Service rules pertaining to the support of expenditures for income tax purposes. Receipts will be available for inspection by CLIENTS auditors upon request. If CLIENT disputes any items in ENGINEER's invoice for any reason, including the lack of supporting documentation, CLIENT may temporarily delete the disputed item and pay the remaining amount of the invoice. CLIENT will promptly notify ENGINEER of the dispute and request clarification and/or correction. After any dispute has been settled, ENGINEER will include the disputed item on a subsequent, regularly scheduled invoice, or on a special invoice for the disputed item only. CLIENT recognizes that late payment of invoices results in extra expenses for ENGINEER. ENGINEER retains the right to assess CLIENT interest at the rate of one percent (I%) per month, but not to exceed the maximum rate allowed by law, on invoices which are not paid within forty-five (45) days from the date of the invoice. In the event undisputed portions of ENGINEER's invoices are not paid -when due, ENGINEER also reserves the right, after severr(7j days'prior written notice, to suspend the performance of its -services under this Agreement until all past due amounts have been paid in full. 14. CHANGES The parties agree that no change or modification to this Agreement, orany attachments hereto, shall have any force or effect unless the change is reduced to writing, dated, and made part of this Agreement. The execution of the change shall be authorized and signed in the same manner as this Agreement_ Adjustments in the period of services and in compensation shall be in accordance with applicable paragraphs and sections of this Agreement. Any proposed fees by ENGINEER are estimates to perform the services required to complete the project as ENGINEER understands it to be defined. For those projects involving conceptual or process development services, activities often are not fully definable in the initial planning. In any event, as the project progresses, the facts developed may dictate a change in the services to be performed, which may alter the scope. ENGINEER will inform CLIENT of such situations so that changes in scope and adjustments to the time of performance and compensation can be made as required. If such change, additional services, or suspension of services results in an increase or decrease in the cost of or time required for performance of the services, an equitable adjustment shall be made, and the Agreement modified accordingly. 11. CONTROLLING AGREEMENT These Terms and Conditions shall take precedence over any inconsistent or contradictory provisions contained in any proposal, purchase order, requisition, notice -to -proceed, or like document. In resolving inconsistent or contradictory provisions between this Agreement and the Task Order pertaining to a specific project, the terms of the Task Order shall control. 12. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT AND NONDISCRIMINATION In connection with the services under this Agreement, ENGINEER agrees to comply with the applicable provisions of federal and state Equal Employment Opportunity, and other employment, statutes and regulations. 13. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS CLIENT represents that, to the best of its knowledge and belief, it has disclosed to ENGINEER the existence of known hazardous materia€s, including but not limited to asbestos, PCB's, petroleum, hazardous waste, hazardous biological matter or radioactive material located at.or near the project site, including type, quantity and location of such hazardous materials. CLIENT acknowledges that ENGINEER is not and shall not be considered (i) the owner of material, substances, or wastes noted in the Scope of Work; (ii) the operator of a waste management facility; (iii) the generator, starer, or disposer of hazardous or solid waste; (iv) to have arranged for the transportation or disposal of any wastes, pollutants, or contaminants by virtue of the performance of ENGINEER's services under this Agreement or anything contained herein, as those terms are used in the Resource Conservation and RecoveryAct ("RCRA"), as amended, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA"), as amended, or any other federal, state stature or regulation governing the treatment, transportation, storage, or disposal of substances, materials or wastes. MDR Engineering, Inc. General Terms & Conditions for 14. EXECUTION This Agreement, including the exhibits and schedules made part hereof, constitute the entire Agreement between ENGINEER and CLIENT, supersedes and controls over all prior written or oral understandings. This Agreement may be amended, supplemented or modified. only by a written instrument duly executed by the parties. 15. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY CLIENT recognizes that ENGiNEER's fee for performing services hereunder is not commensurate with the risks associated with potential damages, losses or claims arising therefrom. As a result, CLIENT agrees to limit HDR's and its employees' total liability to CLIENT for any loss or damage, including third party losses, damages or claims, arising out of or in connection with the performance of services or any other cause, including ENG INEER's and its employees' professional negligent acts, errors, or omissions, shall not exceed the, lesser of $50,000 or the total compensation received by ENGINEER hereunder, and CLIENT shall indemnify, release and hold ENGINEER and its employees harmless from any liability above such amount. 16. LITIGATION SUPPORT In the event ENGINEER is required to respond to a subpoena, government inquiry or other legal process related to the services in connection with a legal or dispute resolution proceeding to which ENGINEER is not a party, CLIENT shall reimburse ENGINEER for reasonable costs in responding and compensate ENGINEER at its then standard rates for engineering services when gathering information and documents and shall pay ENGINEER its standard rates for providing expert witness services when attending depositions, hearings, and trial. 17. NO THIRD -PARTY BENEFICIARIES Except as expressly contained in this agreement, no party other than CLIENT shall have the right to rely upon the finds and recommendations of ENGINEER and that there shall be no express or intended third -party beneficiaries to this agreement. (812002) May 30, 2003 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING APPLICANT .lune 3, 2003 ITEM NO. 3-2 REQUEST COPS in Schools 2003 Grant Application: AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. COMMENTS See Attached Memo Message Will Berg From: Bob Corrie [corrieb@meddiancity.org] Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 12:32 PM To: Will Berg (E-mail) Subject: FW: Memo Mayor COPS Schools Grant Mtn Yew HS SRO position 05 28 Will: Make copies for the Council, and place on Consent Agenda for Next Tuesday. Thanks Mayor ----Original Message ----- From: Bill Nichols [mailto:wfn@whitepeterson.COM] Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 11:37 AM To: 'Robert Corrie Subject: Memo Mayor COPS Schools Grant Mtn View HS SRO position 05 28 2003 Mayor Page 1 of 1 Attached is the memo that is coming over today. Please note that I indicate the three agreements should be on the consent agenda next geek. The deadline for the grant application is June 13. Thank you. 5/28/2003 WHITE PETERSON WHITE, PETERSON, MORROW, GIGRAY, RossmAN, NYE & ROssMAN, P.A. MEMORANDUM May 28, 2003 From: William. F. Nichols /0) To: Mayor Robert Corrie Cc: Council members Police Chief Mike Worley Stacy Kilcherunann Will Berg, Jr. Subj: COPS in Schools 2003 Grant I have reviewed the materials that were delivered to ine at the begiruling, of the Council meeting held on May 27, 2003. Those materials consisted of. (1) Meridian School Resource Officer Agreement dated May 21, 2003, (2) Meridian School Resource Officer Agreement "Addendum `A"' relating to an SRO position for Mountain View High School, and (3) the COPS in Schools 2003 Grant Application and related materials. The three documents have budgetary implications for the City of Meridian and should be placed on next weeks consent agenda for review and approval of the City Council. The first agreement is essentially the same agreement as before (although I did not check the reimbursement amount that the School District is paying to the City and compare it to previous years). The second agreement, although designated as an addendum, is essentially the same agreement as the first except where necessary to reflect that it only applies to the SRO for Mountain View High School. The second agreement should be modified to make it contingent upon the City receiving the COPS in Schools grant, As currently worded, the City must provide the additional officer even if the grant is not awarded. l believe the school district and the police department intended that the agreement would be subject to a successful grant award, but the document does not say so. Specifically, Paragraph 3 on page 3 should be amended by adding the following phrase at the end of the sentence: "if such grant is awarded as requested in the grant application." The second agreement also sets the School District reimbursement at zero. While this may be true for the first year, is it true for the next two years covered by the grant? If not, the agreement should be amended to indicate urhat the school match will be in the future. The grant application requires that the City commit funds for four years. On Page 29 of the MEMO application, the match required from the City is $7,701 in the first year, $15,244 in the second year, and $19,701 in the third year. In the fourth year, the City is required to "retain" this position and fully fund it from the City's general fund. I did not have sufficient time to research what can happen if the City fails to retain this position. Presumably the funds obtained through the grant would have to be paid back in full, or in part. Since the funding for the match will be subject to budgetary appropriation each budget year, the grant and related agreements appear to be within the statutory and constitutional requirements for city expenditures. If you have any questions, I would be glad to address them. I am returning all of the above referenced documents to you with this memo. End of Memo. MEMO WHITE PETERSON WHITE, PETERSON, MORROw, GIGRAY, ROssMAN, NYE & ROSSMAN, P.A. MEMORANDUM May 28, 2003 From: William F. Nichols To: Mayor Robert Corrie Cc: Council members Police Chief Mike Worley Stacy Kilchenmann Will Berg, Jr. Subj: COPS in Schools 2003 Grant R I lnrt d( } '+n.£. 03 I have reviewed the materials that were delivered to me at the beginning of the Council meeting held on May 27, 2003. Those materials consisted of: (1) Meridian School Resource Officer Agreement dated May 21, 2003, (2) Meridian School Resource Officer Agreement "Addendum `A"' relating to an SRO position for Mountain View High School, and (3) the COPS in Schools 2003 Grant Application and related materials. The three documents have budgetary implications for the City of Meridian and should be placed on next weeks consent agenda for review and approval of the City Council. The first agreement is essentially the same agreement as before (although I did not check the reimbursement amount that the School District is paying to the City and compare it to previous years). The second agreement, although designated as an addendum, is essentially the same agreement as the first except where necessary to reflect that it only applies to the SRO for Mountain View High School. The second agreement should be modified to make it contingent upon the City receiving the COPS in Schools grant. As currently worded, the City must provide the additional officer even if the grant is not awarded. I believe the school district and the police department intended that the agreement would be subject to a successful grant award, but the document does not say so. Specifically, Paragraph 3 on page 3 should be amended by adding the following phrase at the end of the sentence: "if such grant is awarded as requested in the grant application." The second agreement also sets the School District reimbursement at zero. While this may be true for the first year, is it true for the next two years covered by the grant? If not, the agreement should be amended to indicate what the school match will be in the future. The grant application requires that the City commit funds for four years. On Page 29 of the MEMO application, the match required from the City is $7,701 in the first year, $15,244 in the second year, and $19,701 in the third year. In the fourth year, the City is required to "retain" this position and fully fund it from the City's general fund. I did not have sufficient time to research what can happen if the City fails to retain this position. Presumably the funds obtained through the grant would have to be paid back in full, or in part. Since the funding for the match will be subject to budgetary appropriation each budget year, the grant and related agreements appear to be within the statutory and constitutional requirements for city expenditures. If you have any questions, I would be glad to address them. I am returning all of the above referenced documents to you with this memo. End of Memo. ITEC.? WHITE PETERSON WHITE, PETERSON, MoRRow, GIGRAY, RossMAN, NYE & RossmAN, P.A. MEMORANDUM May 2$, 2003 RECEIVED From: William F. Nichols � JUN - 2 2003 To: Mayor Robert Corrie City Of Meridian y City Clerk Office Cc: Council members Police Chief Mike Worley Stacy Kilchenmann Will Berg, Jr. Subj: COPS in Schools 2003 Grant I have reviewed the materials that were delivered to me at the beginning of the Council meeting held on May 27, 2003. Those materials consisted of. (1) Meridian School Resource Officer Agreement dated May 21, 2003, (2) Meridian School Resource Officer Agreement "Addendum `A"' relating to an SRO position for Mountain View High School, and (3) the COPS in Schools 2003 Grant Application and related materials. The three documents have budgetary implications for the City of Meridian and should be placed on next weeks consent agenda for review and approval of the City Council. The first agreement is essentially the same agreement as before (although I did not check the reimbursement amount that the School District is paying to the City and compare it to previous years). The second agreement, although designated as an addendum, is essentially the same agreement as the first except where necessary to reflect that it only applies to the SRO for Mountain View High School. The second agreement should be modified to make it contingent upon the City receiving the COPS in Schools grant. As currently worded, the City must provide the additional officer even if the grant is not awarded. I believe the school district and the police department intended that the agreement would be subject to a successful grant award, but the document does not say so. Specifically, Paragraph 3 on page 3 should be amended by adding the following phrase at the end of the sentence: "if such grant is awarded as requested in the grant application." The second agreement also sets the School District reimbursement at zero. While this may be true for the first year, is it true for the next two years covered by the grant? If not, the agreement should be amended to indicate what the school match will be in the future. The grant application requires that the City commit funds for four years. On Page 29 of the MEMO application, the match required from the City is $7,701 in the first year, $15,244 in the second year, and $19,701 in the third year. In the fourth year, the City is required to "retain" this position and fully fund it from the City's general fund. I did not have sufficient time to research what can happen if the City fails to retain this position. Presumably the funds obtained through the grant would have to be paid back in full, or in part. Since the funding for the match will be subject to budgetary appropriation each budget year, the grant and related agreements appear to be within the statutory and constitutional requirements for city expenditures. If you have any questions, I would be glad to address them. I am returning all of the above referenced documents to you with this memo. End of Memo. MEMO U.S. Department of Justice � Office of Community Oriented Policing Services ( r%:Op� ; 6 COMMUNITV ORIENTED POLICING SERVICES LLS. VEP6RTY8Rr AF.RIS71ce COPS Application Forms www.cops.usdoj.gov Postmark deadline date for COPS in Schools 2003 applications: June 13, 2003 U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services Carl R. Peed, Director OMB Approval Number: 1103 -0027 COPS in schools 2003 Application Forms The following application is designed to assist law enforcement agencies seeking to hire new, additional career law enforcement officers as school resource officers to engage in community policing in and around pzimary and secondary schools. For more information about COPS grants, call the U.S. Department of Justice Response Center at $00.421..6770. U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 1I00 Vermont Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 COPS Online: http://www.cops.usdoj.gov Revised April 2003 U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 1100 Vermont Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 COPW9 COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICINC SEA VICES U.S. oRpAnroenr OF JULTICr CIS 2003 Application Chocklist Agencies seeking funding to hire new, additional sworn school resource officers under the COPS in Schools (CIS) grant program must complete the application and accompanying forms. Any additional officer position(s) requested through CIS must be new positions that supplement your agency's budgeted sworn force level. If you have any questions about your application, please contact your COPS Grant Program Specialist at $00.421.6770. ❑ COPS in Schools 2003 Application Form The highest rank-ina law enforcement and government executives in the jurisdiction must sign the Application Form. ❑ COPS in Schools Training Requirement The highest ranking law enforcement executive and one designated appropriate school official must sign the CIS training requirement. ❑ Certifications The same law enforcement and governinent executives who signed the CIS Application Form must sign the Certifications. ❑ Assurances The same law enforcement and government executives who signed the CIS Application Forth must sign the Assurances. © hof Long-F�oZ-ms (if applicable) ❑ Retention Plan Certification A complete and signed Retention Plan Certification must be submitted at the time of application. ■ By signing the Retention Plan Certification, your agency is committing to retain the increased number of officer positions with local (non -COPS) :funds for at least one full local budget cycle following the expiration of the 36 - month COPS grant funding period for each officer position (please see the Application Instructions on page 17). ® As specifically as possible, the Retention Plan Certification must identify how your agency plans to secure and provide funding to continue the employment of the additional officer position(s) and must identify the anticipated source or sources of funding for the salary and benefits for the retained position(s). • The Retention Plan Certification must have original signatures of both the law enforcement executive and the government executive. These executives must be the same as the executives who signed the CIS Application Form. ❑ CIS Budget Information Worksheets COPS in Schools Narrative Addendum (Separate from MOU) ❑ Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Form ❑ Adi$n�l-Part�i"ma#i�ago ❑ Sherii St t -up, =W -Special Bent ble) Based on the type of law enforcement agency indicated on page 4 of the application, you must submit the appropriate questionnaire with your Application Package. Contents Unless otherwise noted, failure to submit all required doewnentation at the time of application may delay processing and/or result in the denial of your application. Application Form.....................................................1 COPS in Schools Training Requirements ................................... 9 Certifications........................................................11 Assurances.........................................................13 Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (if applicable)..............................15 Retention Plan Certification.............................................17 Budget Information Worksheets.........................................19 COPS in Schools Narrative Addendum ..................................... 33 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Form ................................ 35 Additional Partner Page (if applicable) ..................................... 41 Sheriff's Department Questionnaire (if applicable) ............................ 43 Start-up Department Questionnaire (if applicable) ............................ 45 Special Department Questionnaire (if applicable) ............................ 47 Application Form COPS in Schools 2003 Application Form Postmark deadline date for COPS in Schools 2003 applications: .lune 13, 2003 Applications must be postmarked on or before June 13, 2003 to be considered for Fiscal Year 2003 funding. All grant awards are subject to the availability of funding. The following application pages and enclosed forms are to be completed by jurisdictions wishing to apply for a COPS in Schools grant to pay for entry- level salaries and benefits of newly hired, additional school resource officers to be deployed to work in and around primary and secondary schools. COPS in Schools funds also may be used to pay for new, additional sworn officers who will take the place of locally -funded veteran officers that your agency deploys as the school resource officer(s) as a direct result of this grant. Each SRO must devote at least 75 percent of his or her time to work in and around primary and secondary schools, in addition to the time that the agency would have devoted. in the absence of the CIS grant. [For additional information, please see examples on page 7 of the Application Instructions.] By signing this form, your agency understands that the COPS in Schools program grant funds provide a maximum federal contribution of up to $125,000 per entry- level officer over the three-year grant period, with any remaining costs to be paid with local funds. There are no waivers of the local match under the COPS in Schools grant program. All budget calculations must be based on the salary and fringe benefits of an entry-level officer in your department. Note. please submit only one COPS in Schools grant application per law enforcement agency under the COPS in Schools 2003 open solicitation period, regardless of the number of schools or school districts involved in the partnership. COPS in Schools funding must -be used to hire new, additional school resource officers, over and above the number of sworn officers that your agency would fund with state or local funds in the absence of the grant (including all officers locally budgeted and any officers already assigned to the schools). Your agency may not reduce its state, local, or Bureau of Indian Affairs funded level of sworn officers (including all officers Locally budgeted and any officers already assigned to the schools) as a result of applying for or receiving COPS in Schools grant funding. [For additional information, please see page 15-17 of the Application Instructions] In addition to the demographic information collected on the application forms, applicants must also submit the enclosed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Form that outlines the roles and responsibilities of the collaborative effort between the law enforcement agency and the primary and/or secondary school(s). The MOU requires the original signatures of the law enforcement executive and appropriate school official(s). In addition, applicants must also subinit a separate typed and double-spaced Narrative Addendum on department letterhead to address the four bulleted topics listed on the Narrative Addendum (page 33 included in the Application Forms.) COPS in Schools Application f=orms COPS in Schools grantees are required to retain all additional officer position(s) awarded for a minimum of one full local budget cycle following the expiration of the 36 -months of COPS grant funding. The additional officer position(s) must be added to the agency's law enforcement budget with state or local funds for at least one full local budget cycle, above all other locally-fiinded officer positions (including other school resource officers) that would have existed in the absence of the grant. As a result of this requirement, all COPS in Schools applicants must submit the enclosed Retention Plan Certification. Failure to submit: or accurately complete any of the application materials may adversely affect an agency's eligibility to receive funding. Application Form Please ensure all questions are answered completely, and typed in the spaces below. All documents submitted with the original copy of the application must have original signatures. Stamped or electronic signatures will not be accepted. Previous editions of this application may not be used (4/16103). Incomplete application or missing documentation may result in the delay of processing and/or result in denial of your application. 1. General Information Applicant Organization's Legal Name: Meridian Police Department Applicant Agency ORI Number: 0010300 The ORI number is assigned to your agencv by the FBI for putposes of UCR crime reporting. It begins with your tivo letter state abbreviation followed by five digits. For f trther clarification, please refer to the Glossary of Cotrni non Grant Terms section of the Application Instructions, page 20. Applicant Agency EIN Number: 82-6000225 The EIN manber is assigned to your agenev by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and consists of nine digits. However, if the Office of Justice Progtraus has assigned your department an EIN number, please use that assigned number. Otherwise, your IRS EIN number should be used. For fnnrther clarification, please refer to the Glossary of Common Grant Tenns section of the Application Inshwetiots, page 19. Federal Congressional District Number(s): I Do not substitute state or local congressional districts. If your agencv spans more than one congressional district, please list all of the districts above. Are you contracting for lav enforcement services? o Yes tNo If'yes,"the government bociv should be natned in the Applicant Organization's Legal Natne space above. For fairther clarification in determining if this applies to your agency, please refer to the Glossary of Common Grant Terrrrs section of the Application Instructions, page 19. In the space below, please provide a brief description of your agency's inability to implement this project without federal assistance. TO Meridian School District and the Meridian Police Department are both suffering from lowered and or stagnant revestties this upcoming fiscal year. The Meridian School District has already had to announce that they cannot afford to have another school resource officer in their brand new high school set to open in the full of 2003. Our City leaders have already stressed that we should try to put together a budget with a 2% set bock from last years This school will serve approximately 1800 stridents and desperately needs to have an SRO in the school. This federal grant will allow its to get the much needed school resource officer into the school for this first and important school year: 3 COPS in Schools Application Forms 11. Executive Information The law enforcement and government executives that appear in this section must be those individuals who will have ultimate financial and programmatic authority for this grant. Typically, these are the highest-ranking officials within. a jurisdiction (chief of police, sheriff, or equivalent for law enforcement executives, and mayor, city manager, or equivalent for government executives). Listing individuals without financial and programmatic authority for the grant could delay the review of your application, or remove your application from consideration. Lav Enforcement Executive's Name: R. Mille Worley Title: Chief of Police Agency Name: Meridian Police Department Address:1401 E. Watertower St. City: Meridian State: Idaho Zip Code: 83642 Telephone. 1-208-846-7300 Fax: 1-208-846-7337 Email: worleym@meridiaiicity.org Type of Police Agency: Municipal ❑State ©County PD ❑ Sheriff* ❑Tribal OSchool* []University/College" ❑Public or Private) ❑Public Housing* ❑New Start -Up* (please specify): ❑0ther* (please specify): * Agency types with an asterisk next to them must complete the addition al appropriate questionnaire found in this Application Forms, and submit it along with the application. Government Executive's Name: Robert Corrie Title: Mayor Name of Government Entity: City of Meridian Address: 33 E. Idaho St. City: Meridian State: Idaho Zip Code: 83642 Telephone: 1-208-884-2468 ext. 204 Fax: 1-208-887-4813 Email: corrieb@mericliancity.org 4 Application Form Type of Government Entity: QState ❑City ❑Town ❑Borough ❑Township ❑Territory ❑Community ❑Pueblo ❑Nation ❑Village ❑Council Other (please specify): Contact information: ❑ County ❑Region ❑School District Name of contact person in your agency familiar with this grant application: John A. Overton Title:_ Lieutenant Telephone: _1-208-846-7339 Fax: I-208-846-7337 Email. _overtonj@meridiancity.org iii Partner information Under the COPS in Schools grant program, applicants must enter into a partnership agreement with an official for a specific school or school district with general educational oversight authority within that jurisdiction. Please note, you must designate one school official as the school representative under the grant program.' In the space below, please provide the information for the individual who will be responsible for ensuring that the appropriate school official attends the mandatory COPS in Schools Training. If the proposed project affects an entire school district, then the official with general educational oversight over the entire school district should complete the information below. In addition, this individual. will be required to sign the attached COPS in Schools Training Requirement. Name of Partner Agency or School District: _Meridian School District School Official Name.—Jan Horning Title:—Director of Secondary Education Address: 911 N. Meridian Road. City:—Meridian State: _idaho_ Zip Code. _83642 _---- Telephone: 208-855-4500_ Fax: _208-888-6700 Email: _horrringj@meridiansehools.org � �If there are nzazltiple partners involved in this project, please protide the information listed above for each of the partners on the attached 'Additional Partner Page" included tsith this application. However, the legal applicant must decide on one school official to be designated for the purpose of this grant. At the present time, only one school official per grant emaz d tivill be permitted to attend the CIS Training dare to logistical constraints. ,rte,. � COPS in Schools Application Forms At the time an application is submitted, agencies must include two separate typed documents prepared in cooperation with the partner school(s), or school district(s), involved in the program. The first document is the Narrative Addendum that outlines the proposed project. For additional information on this requirement, please refer to page 33 of this Application Form. The second document is the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) form that details the roles and responsibilities of the partners involved in this project. For additional information on this requirement, please refer to page 35 of this Application Form. In addition, the Retention Certification Form outlines your agency's plan to retain all additional officer positions awarded for at least one full local budget cycle following the expiration of COPS grant funding for each COPS -funded officer position must also be submitted. The law enforcement executive and government executive that are listed on page 4 of this Application Form must sign this form. COPS In Schools Additional Training Condition **Signatures required** Please have the Law Enforcement Executive and one designated School Representative sign the attached COPS in Schools Training Requirement on page 9. All agencies receiving awards through the COPS in Schools program are required to send the officer(s) deployed into the school resource officer position(s) as a result of this grant, and one individual designated as the school representative under the grant program, to one COPS in Schools Training. The COPS Office will reimburse grantees for training, per diem, travel, and lodging costs for attendance of the required participants up to a maximurn of $1,200 per person attending. Agencies that receive a COPS in Schools grant will receive additional training information following notification of the grant award. The training requirement must be completed prior to the end of the 36 -months of grant funding for officer positions. IV. Department Information: Population served (2000 U.S. Census):* '3 7 i 7 _ If the population that your agency serves is not represented by U.S. Census figures (e.g., school district police departments), please indicate the size of the population served here: Vic_ G� ►SC r ►� I f ccs Square miles covered by your agency:* 1 * Exclude the population and square miles primarily served by other law enforcement agencies within your jurisdiction. For example, a sheriff's department must exclude populations and areas covered by a city police department for which the sheriff's department does not have primary law enforcement authority. Application Form Current budgeted locally funded sworn force strength as of the date of this application: Full-time officers: `�� Part-time nffir.Prc• 5CJ The budgeted locally funded sworn force strength is the number of sworn officers your department has funded in its budget, including state and locally funded vacancies. Do not include unpaid/reserve officers, COPS funded positions (unless they are in the locally f coded retention period), or detention staff. Current actual locally funded sworn force strength as of the date of this application: Full-time officers: L4 9 Part-timP nffi -nrc• 0 The actual locally funded sworn force strength is the actual number of savor n officers employed by your department as of the date of this application. Do riot include vacant state or locally funded positions, COPS funded positions (unless they are in the locally -funded retention period), or rnzpaid/reserve positions. V. Officer Request Information: What is the total number of new officer position(s) for which you are now requesting under this COPS in Schools application? Full-time: I Part-time: Your request should be consistent with your agency's law enforcement needs. Do not request more positions than your agency can support and retain. *Total amount of federal funds requested for all full-time and parttime officer positions: $ 11 'Z's I n o n *Total amount of non-federal matching funds required (local share, if required): * To answer these questions, complete the COPS in Schools 2003 Budget Information Worksheels provided in these Application Forms. The maximum amount of funding available per officer position is $725, 000 (pages 19-31). The difference between 3'125,000 and the agency's total cost per officer position is the agency's local match. Please note the attached budget worksheets are to be completedfor one officer, as a result, please remember to multiply by the total manber of officers requested. COPS in Schools Application Forms I understand that prior to any grant award, the applicant must comply with all application and program requirements of the Public Safety Partnership and Community Policing Act of 1991 and other requirements of federal law. In addition, my signature certifies that this application requests funding only for positions that would not be otherwise funded in my agency's budget with state, local or Bureau of Indian Affairs funds. By signing below, I certify that the information provided on this form and the attached forms is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I understand that false statements or claims made in connection with COPS grants may result in fines, imprisonment, debarment from participating in federal grants or contracts, and/or any other remedy available by law to the Federal government. Law orcement e utive's Signature: Date: (Signatu a of person ed in Section 11 of this form) Gov en ,)Jxecutive's Signature: l Date:v (Signature of person named in 5eclion Il of this form) Fl l Official' gnat r . Date: �� ire of person named under Sect' n III Partner Information" s the d signated Representative for this grant pro am a d the required training.) Please return one original and two copies of all application materials. Please be sure to include all forms as outlined in the CIS 2003 Application Checklist and any additional information necessary to complete this request for grant funding. Completed application forms should be mailed to: COPS in Schools Control Desk U.S. Department of Justice, COPS Office 1100 Vermont Avenue, N.W. 7th floor Washington, D.C. 20530 (please use 20005 zip code for overnight mail) Note: Original signatures are required on the original application to process all funding requests. Faxed copies will NOT be accepted. Applications postmarked after the final application deadline date will not be considered. Please be advised that a hold may be placed on this application if it is deemed that the applicant agency is not in compliance with federal civil rights laws azul/or is not cooperating with an ongoing federal civil rights investigation. OMB Approval Number: 1103-0027 4 COPS in Schools Training Requirement COPS in Schools Training Requirement Award recipients of the COPS in Schools grant program are required to attend one COPS in Schools regionally -based training workshop. The Office of Connnunity Oriented Policing Services (COPS) will be the sole provider of this training workshop should your agency receive a COPS in Schools grant. If awarded, this training requirement roust be completed prior to the end of your 36 -months of grant funding for officer positions. This training requirement will be a grant condition that requires your agency to send the specific COPS in Schools officer(s) who will be deployed into the school(s) as a direct result of receiving the grant to this training should your agency be awarded. This condition also requires that one representative from the specific school or school district into which the officer(s) will be deployed attend this training along with the COPS in Schools officer(s). The school representative must be an administrator with. decision-making authority and be directly involved with the COPS in Schools program. Regardless of the number of schools or school districts involved in this partnership, only one school representative per grant will be permitted to attend the training. The COPS Office will pay for the training, travel, lodging and per diem for the required participants up to a maximum of $1,200 per participant. Due to space limitations, we regret that non -required participants will not be permitted to attend this training even at their own expense. Should your agency receive a COPS in Schools grant, information with respect to training opportunities will be forwarded to the law enforcement executive following the official notification of the grant. Failure to comply with this grant condition by not attending the required training, or by sending incorrect personnel to attend training, may result in the withholding of future COPS grants or other federal funding, as well as any other available legal remedies. By signing this document, the signatory officials indicate their understanding of, and agreement to abide by, this grant condition, which is contingent upon the award of a COPS in Schools grant. of Law EnfVicement Executive Name of Law Enforcemgrft Executive Certifications Certifications Regarding Lobbying, Debarment, Suspension and Other Responsibility Matters, Drug -Free Workplace Requirements Coordination with Affected Agencies. Although the Department of Justice has made even effort to simplify the application process, other provisions of federal law require us to seek your agency's certification regarding certain matters. Applicants should read the regulations cited below and the instructions for certification included in the regulations to understand the requirements and whether they apply to a particular applicant. Signing this form complies with certification requirements under 28 CFR Part 69, "New Restrictions on Lobbying," and 28 CFR Part 67, "Government -wide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) and Government -wide Requirements for Drug -Free Workplace (Grants)," and the coordination requirements of the Public Safety Partmership and Community Policing Act of 1994. The certifications shall be treated as a material representation of fact upon which reliance will be placed when the Department of Justice determines to award the covered grant, 1. Lobbying As required by Section 1352, Title 31 of the U.S. Code, and implemented at 28 CFR Part 69, for persons entering into a grant or cooperative agreement over $100,000, as defined at 28 CFR Part 69, the applicant certifies that: A. No federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or in employee of a member of Congress in connection with the making of any federal grant; the entering into of any cooperative agreement; and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment or modification of any federal grant or cooperative agreement; B. If any funds other than federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a member of Congress in connection with this federal grant or cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall complete and submit Standard Form - LLL, "Disclosure of Lobbying Activities," in accordance with its instructions; C. The undersigned shall require that the language of this certification be included in the award documents for all subawards at all tiers (including subgrants, contracts under grants and cooperative agreements, and subcontracts) and that all sub - recipients shall certify and disclose accordingly, 2. Debarment, Suspension and Other Responsibility Matters (Direct Recipient) As required by Executive Order 12549, Debarment and Suspension, and implemented at 28 CFR Part 67, for prospective participants in primary covered transactions, as defined at 28 CFR Part 67, Section 67.510 - A. The applicant certifies that it and its principals: (i) Are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, sentenced to a denial of federal benefits by a state or federal court, or voluntarily excluded from covered transactions by any federal department or agency; (ii) Have not within a three-year period preceding this application been convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered against them for commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (federal, state or local) transaction or contract under a public transaction; violation of federal or state antitrust statutes or commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery; falsification or destruction of records, making false statements, or receiving stolen property; (iii) the not presently indicted for or otherwise criminally or civilly charged by a goverrunental entity (federal, state or local) with commission of any of the offenses enumerated in paragraph (A)(ti) of this certification; and (iv) Have not within a three-year period preceding this application had one or more public transactions (federal, state or local) terminated for cause or default; and B. Where the applicant is unable to certify to any of the statements in this certification, he or she shall attach an explanation to this application, 3. Brag -Free Workplace (Grantees Other Than Individuals) As required by the Drug -Free Workplace Act of 1985, and implemented at 28 CFR Part 67, Subpart F, for grantees, as defined at 28 CPR Part 67, Sections 67.615 and 67.620 - A. The applicant certifies that it will, or will continue to, provide a drug-free workplace by: (i) Publishing a statement notifying employees that the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession or use of a controlled substance is prohibited in the grantee's workplace and specif} ng the actions that �vili be taken against employees for violation of such prohibition; (ii) Establishing an on-going drug-free awareness program to inform employees about - (a) The dangers of drug abuse in the workplace; (b) The grantee's policy of maintaining a drug-free workplace; 11 COPS in Schools Application Forms (c) Any available drug counseling, rehabilitation and employee assistance programs; and (d) 'The penalties that maybe imposed upon employees for drug - abuse violations occurring in the workplace; (1) Making it a requirement that each employee to be engaged in the performance of the grant be given a copy of the statement required by paragraph (); (iv) Notifying the employee in the statement required by paragraph (i) that, as a condition of employment under the grant, the employee will - (a) Abide by the terms of the statement; and (b) Notify the employer in writing of his or her conviction for a violation of a criminal drug statute occurring in the workplace no later than five calendar days after such conviction; (v) Notifying the agency, in writing, within 10 calendar days after receiving notice under subparagraph (iv)(b) from an employee or otherwise receiving actual notice of such conviction. Employers of convicted employees must provide notice, including position title, to: CAPS Office,1100 Vermont Ave., NW Washington, D.0 20530. Notice shall include the identification number(s) of each affected grant. (v) Taking one of the following actions, within 30 calendar days of receiving notice under subparagraph (iv) (b), with respect to any employee who is so convicted - (a) Taking appropriate personnel action against such an employee, up to and including termination, consistent with the requirements of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended; or Grantee Agency Name and Address: (b) Requiring such employee to participate satisfactorily in a drug abuse assistance or rehabilitation program approved for such purposes by a federal, state or local health, law enforcement or other appropriate agency, (vi) Making a good faith effort to continue to maintain a drug- free workplace through implementation of paragraphs (iv), (v) and (vi). B. The grantee may insert in the space provided below the site(s) for the performance of work done in connection with the specific grant: Place of performance ((street address, city, county, state, zap code) 140T E. Waiertower St. Mer., I D 83642 2000 S. MLLLenni.um Way, Mer., ID 33642 Check © if there are warkplaces on file that are not identified here. Section 67.630 of the regulations provides that a grantee that is a state may elect to make one certification in each federal fiscal year, a copy of which should be included with each application for Department of Justice funding. States and state agencies may elect to use OJP Form 4061/7. Check O if the state has elected to complete OJP Form 4061/7. 4. Coordination The Public Safety Partnership and CommunityPolicing Act of 1994 requires applicants to certify that there has been appropriate coordination with all agencies that maybe affected by the applicant's grant proposal if approved. Affected agencies may include, among others, the Office of the United States Attorney, state or local prosecutors, or correctional agencies. The applicant certifies that there has been appropriate coordination with all affected agencies. Grantee IRS/ Vendor Number: False statements or claims made in connection with COPS grants (including cooperative agreements) may result in fines, imprisonment, disbarment from participating in federal grants or contracts, and/or any other remedy available by law. I certify that the assurances provided are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. Elections or other selections of new officials will not relieve the grantee entity of its obligations under this grant. Typed Name and Title of Law Enforcement Executive (or Official with Programmatic Authority, as applicable): R. Mike 4 ey XhLef of PoUce , Signature: Typed Name andTide of Government Executive (or Official with 12 Date: Authority, as applicable): Date: uz Assurances Assurances Several provisions of federal law and policy apply to all grant programs. We (the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services) need to secure your assurance that the applicant will comply with these provisions. If you would like further information about any= of these assurances, please contact your state's COPS Grant Program Specialist at (800) 421-6770. By the applicant's authorized representative's signature, the applicant assures that it will comply with all legal and administrative requirements that govern the applicant for acceptance and use of federal grant funds. In particular, the applicant assures us that: 1. it has been legally and officially authorized by the appropriate governing body (for example, mayor or city council) to apply for this grant and that the persons signing the application and these assurances on its behalf are authorized to do so and to act on its behalf with respect to any issues that may arise during processing of this application. 2. It will comply with the provisions of federal law which limit certain political activities of grantee employees whose principal employment is in connection with an activity financed in whole or in part with tlus grant. These restrictions are set forth in 5 US.C. § 1501, er seq. 3. It will comply with the minimum wage and maximum hours provisions of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act, if applicable. 4. It will establish safeguards, if it has not done so already, to prohibit employees from using their positions for a purpose that is, or gives die appearance of being, motivated by a desire for private gain for themselves or others, particularly those with whom they have family, business or other ties. 5. It will give the Department of justice or the Comptroller General access to and the right to examine records and documents related to the grant. 6. It will comply with A requirements imposed by the .Department of justice as a condition or administrative requirement of the grant, including but not limited to: the requirements of OMS Circulars A-87, A-21, A-122, or the Federal Acquisition Regulations, as applicable (governing cost principles); OiYM Circulars A-102 or A-110, as applicable (Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements); OMB Circular A-133 (governing audits); the applicable provisions of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended; the current edition of the COPS Grant Dlonitoring Standards and Guidelines; and with all other applicable program requirements, lacus, orders, regulations, or circulars, 7. If applicable, it will, to the extent practicable and consistent with applicable law, seek, recruit and hire qualified members of racial and ethnic minority groups and qualified women in order to further effective law enforcement by increasing their ranks within the sworn positions in the agency, 8. It will not, on the ground of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, disability or agc, unlawfully exclude any person from participation in, deny the benefits of or employment to any person, or subject any person to discrimination in connection with any programs or activities funded in whole or in part with federal funds. These civil rights requirements are found in the non- discrimination provisions of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended (42 U.S.C. § 3789(d)); Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (42 U.S.C. § 2000d); the Indian Civil Rights Act (25 U.S.C. §§ 1301-1303); Section 504 of the Rehabilitation tact of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. § 794); Title Ir, Subtitle A of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq); the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C. § 6101, et seq.); and Department of Justice Non - Discrimination Regulations contained in Title 28, Parts 35 and 42 (subparts C, D, E and G) of the Code of Federal Regulations. A. In the event that any court or administrative agency makes a finding of discrimination on grounds of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, disability or age against the applicant after a due process hearing, it agrees to forward a copy of the fording to the Office of Civil Rights, Office of justice Programs, 810 7th Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20531. B. Grantees that have 50 or more employees and grants over $500,000 (or over $1,000,000 in grants over an eighteen -month period), must submit an acceptable Equal Employment Opportunity Plan ("EEOP") or E) OP short form (if grantee is required to submit an EEOP tinder 28 CFR 42.302), that is approved by the Office of justice Programs, Office for Civil Rights within 60 days of the award start date. For grants under $500,000, but over $25,000, or for grantees with fewer than 50 employees, the grantee must submit an EEOP Certification. (Grantees of less than $25,000 are not subject to the ESOP requirement.) 9. Pursuant to Department of justice guidelines Qune 18, 2002 Federal Register (Volume 67, Number 117, pages 41455-41472)), under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it will ensure meaningful access to its programs and activities by persons with limited English proficiency. 10. It will ensure that any facilities under its ownership, lease or supervision which shall be utilized in the accomplishment of the project are not listed on the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) list of Violating Facilities and that it will notify us if advised by the EPA that a facility to be used in this grant is under consideration for such listing by the EPA. 11. If the applicant's state has established a review and comment procedure under Executive Order 12372 and has selected this program for review, it has made this application available for review by the state Single Point of Contact. 13 COPS in Schools Application Forms 12. Pursuant to Executive Order 13043, it will enforce on- the-job seat belt policies and programs for employees when operating agency -owned, rented or personally -owned vehicles. 13. It will not use COPS funds to supplant (replace) state, local, or Bureau of Indian Affairs finds that otherwise would be made available for the purposes of this grant, as applicable. 14. If the awarded grant contains a retention requirement, it will retain the increased officer staffing level and/or the increased officer redeployment level, as applicable, with state or local :Funds for a minimum of one full local budget cycle following expiration of the grant period. False statements or claims made in connection with COPS grants (including cooperative agreements) may result in fines, imprisonment, disbarment from participating in federal grants or contracts, and/or any other remedy available by la -,u I certify that the assurances provided ate true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. 7n;(7 s or other selecti s f new officials will not relieve the grantee entity of its obligations under this grant. 2 Sigmatu e w Enfor went Executive (or Official with 17.te Progra a �Uyr,as applicable _� 3 8 3 Vf Signature overnment Executive (or Official with Date Financial Authority, as applicable) 14 Disclosure of Lobbying Activities Disclosure of Lobbying Activities N) /A Instructions for Completion of SF -LLL, Disclosure of Lobbying Activities This disclosure form shall be completed by the reporting entity, whether subawardee or prime federal recipient, at the initiation or receipt of a covered federal action, or a material change to a previous fling, pursuant to title 31 U.S.C. section 1352. The filing of a form is required for each payment or agreement to make payment to any lobbying entity for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with a covered federal action. Complete all items that apply for both the initial filing and material change report. Refer to the implementing guidance published by the Office of Management and Budget for additional information. 1. Identify the type of covered federal action for which lobbying activity is and/or has been secured to influence the outcome of a covered federal action. 2. Identify the status of the covered federal action. 3. Identify the appropriate classification of this report. If this is a follow-up report caused by a material change to the information previously reported, enter the year and quarter in which the change occurred. Enter the date of the last previously submitted report by this reporting entity for this covered federal action. itIA 4. Enter the full name, address, city, state and zip code of the reporting entity. Include Congressional District number, if known. Check the appropriate classification of the reporting entity that designates if it is, or expects to be, a prime or subaward recipient. Identify the tier of the subawardee, e.g., the first subawardee of the prune is the I st tier, Subawards include but are not limited to subcontracts, subgrants and contract awards under grants. ii1 5. If the organization filing the report in item 4 checks "subawardee," then enter the full name, address, city, state and zip code of the prime federal recipient. Include Congressional District, if known. N A 6. Enter the name of the federal agency making the award or loan commitment. Include at least one organizational level below agency name, if known. For example, Department of Transportation, United States Coast Guard. 0 f, 7. Enter the federal program name or description for the covered federal action (item 1). If known, enter the full Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number for grants, cooperative agreements, loans and loan cornmitrnents, e,),,, S. Enter the most appropriate federal identifying number available for the federal action identified in item 1 (e.g,, Request for Proposal (RFP) number; Invitation for Bid (IFB) number, grant announcement number; the contract, grant, or loan award number; the application/proposal control number assigned by the federal agency). Include prefixes, e.g., "RFP -DE -90-001." 9. For a. covered federal action where there has been an award or loan commitment by the federal agency, enter the federal amount of the award/loan commitment for the prime entity identified in item 4 or 5. A) to 10. (a) Enter the full name, address, city, state and zip code of the lobbying entity engaged by the reporting registrant identified in item 4 to influence the covered federal action. ILIA (b) Enter the full name(s) of the individual(s) perfortning services, and include full address if different from 10 (a). Enter Last Nannie, First Name, and Middle Initial (MI). XM 11. The certifying official shall sign and date the form, print his/her name, title.and telephone number. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 30 minutes per response, including dime for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send Comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the Office of 1fanagement and Budget, Papenvork Reduction Project (0348-0046), Washington, D.C. 20530. 15 COPS in Schools Application Forms Disclosure of Lobbying Activities 13 / J� Complete this form to disclose lobbying activities pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 1352 (See reverse for instructions and public burden disclosure) Approved by OMB 0348-0046 (as amended) 1. Type of Federal Action: 2. Status of Federal Action: 3. Report Type: a. contract a. bid/offer/application a. initial filing b. grant b. initial award b. material change e. cooperative agreement c. post -award d. loan For Material Change Only: e. loan guarantee Year: f. loan insurance Quarter: Date of last report 4. Name and Address of Reporting Entity: S. If Reporting Entity in No. 4 is Subawardee, Enter 13 Prime © Subawardee Name and Address of Prime: Tier , if known: Congressional District (number), if known: Congressional District (number), if known: 6. Federal Department(Agency: 7. Federal Program Name/Description: CFDA Number, if applicable: 8. Federal Action Number, if known: 9. Award Amount, if known: S 10. a. Name and Address of Lobbying Registrant 10. b. Individuals Performing Services (if individual, last name, first name, MZ): (including address if different from No. IOa) (last name, first name, Ml): 11. Information requested through this form is authorized by Title Signature: 31 U.S.C. Section 1352. This disclosure of lobbying activities is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed by the tier above when this transaction was made or entered into. Print Name: This disclosure is required pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 1352. This information will be reported to the Congress semi-annually and Title: will be available for public inspection. Any person who fails to file the required disclosure shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure. 3 Telephone No.: Date: Federal Use Only: A -0-4—A .v.. 1 -I D .- J.. _a. ___ (a- J -_J n > r r avI s.v.x.. ,­aAJu A'VAIJ[ Updated: February 14, 2002 e02021440 V '4 '1 t1 -1 cz tz 4-J C O � a Q� 0 O a 0 w o U O O O Q1 +a+ U c U E .0 Q w m ❑ N y., U N E O .0 �-+ C N r_ v U E U) ZS iE o C O O (F (6 4., d O vl R r w (� > s m t O o '» A r_ o o a, = •3 Q (D Y � N ma. oW0 ffJ U fA i � ti IL �O w O N O) c! 2 co C O CZ CLCL = Cf 2 m r V i O L) 0 Q CL Lg a 3aa) uO 2 t� 41 D � y o � U O u � uu p V] O O 6J 4) N ej o w Y1 fil 102 ,71 a R ID ¢ + O a 0 y uo o U o U d S A � b cd O U fy' 'CJ w wa v o :� 0 0 ct 0 n U to d1 O L p -c; y .Q O M 75o a "'Ln cd C"r cd v •Q G p �. y a f- }' a O yj r+ v3 w O U r" ro bD O o � C41 4 -^� P, o En 44 u PC O uU d bA 0 ro 'Z� p cQ 20 bb p bb 0 U In > O 0 a U NO D O J V lu m 'let L • � LL r a 3 cv� 0 L L44 W r- u r. Al L c cz � � w � o v a� u v bju a z H Q ,� 17 lu m L \l a 3 u Al cz v � w � a z H Q ,� 17 A u �O oI o l V QI C c CI �4 m m CQQ o cm V CO C erg � a r� 6a , R C? iL �.f a w by -80 PA A ffS � a Y O C u C o � O ' q rn O v 'C7 'C7 [ O O w a a m 04Zi W w v � 0 a ry``� o F iu O cC ,0 v a d tkO .O G 'ZI bo 0 �0� D v 7 Cd O y, to tjo 0 , W �y F �,M aim 7��a a " C y a cc b4 � 0 o O '0 O p n s Ul W C U a " O 7 O biD' O C ` 4 ev u 41 � 0 n G b 0 a L v � 5,C~ C cd i� C W 02 L CA C LL7 �1 CC Hca y c o C-2 u .w C L � nom. N o 0 0 o e o 0 lu Cd o 3 d e O C7 CJ O © 3 9j O C7 O q C? q C7 O O C3 C] CD C) Q Q q Q Q Or •� +' U ,moi a ���„ C a U u C O O as 1aJ cs k Ri u 0 .='Z 4 v o 3^,V" H N ? L� w C xaczrn v C CJ .g p 'O �}"� bFj m a n °j O c�G U '-" 1-4 Enn a U M •A vi y� V) C y a U v v u® O 7G C p r bA C e1 S�cd iC u .0 a bA u b u a O •,-I v' *0 � d '�� ��. C u u aCi � •� u � � G 0 Cd y, W u a 0 i-, �i' ' N LGS"i a. W �14� 0 � H a0 i rn � 4 r Q W U ,, .4n r"O O O Ctl F Ps o O v -0 O O G O i� O O O A V- O U 0 n 0 o a U cn U V V U o 0 0 o e o 0 lu Cd o 3 d e O C7 CJ O O O O O O Q O C7 O q C? q C7 O O C3 C] CD C) Q Q q Q Q o 3^,V" 09. �t1q. Nq C a� �3' V4 Vl 44 O u O ac �H G I U1 � a ate, x � O a .0 C¢ci O C H a Cc'• l y G C w cr ,t7 cli a car y 0ai c U a sr 4) 5 '6 44 r i est C. Fyu� U ---i t -q v VW d O4' 4) •� W,O N H v 7, y1,4 a 4t Z,P C3 , Q-14) E `: o Lia �c' 74 Cd bA G m Ln 93 PI CU Q+ O 4] O 4) 'l7 uy u t y 'j4 u st C a3 *+ a vc t ti O v U 1 sip o 6 r aui . G ro • 0'-rs a cW C v Vc Q •V c ° 0EM Ir'T'i V Q] •�.J is •� i U1 Oi 0 u u (J �i . C •� a4 0 O" bA nm j1 r y cd N v O CS +" ^� 04 C� v tX 1.4 y4y u y " ' _N O ej ;t cd L °� °� id w uy v' O JU e�tl 0-1 cid oo a C aoo ° o o 0 w w .�O O o O O O M CA y- 0M —mUv14 O O o 0 o o Qu 4)Ct C O O w 6 U v C. D O O v UUUWUSCinUUUU c'd Ei ,?� W04 U UU1.0.U,�c)UUU{) O o o e o o c o 0 0 0 o c6 0 o c oe 0 o Q o 0 0 0 o n Q o Q Q o Q o o Q o d o Q o 0 0 0 0 0 O O_ C? O O Q O O O Q Q O O O O Q O d O O O d O Q p 0 Q O to N Ernaa 6-s G Sao b4 ikk f+4 ifT b7' (X#k G_s 64 G# 4 b3 E%k FLs 84 lam ftA G'Y GEk 64 Erik tF 1 M cd s ? cs d Vcs H c! cc c 0 4 U y y u Z v b a U cn x� u *' �'' u r C y y p aJ CJ sa W O n C41 ;4 cn a�fnss''�00 R C mon w aJ °' t v a v C u N C C at +t P-4 di C G n 1 to ca U)'sy G (�` u' 4c3i O a w4-1 c�i U °H vi U C E°F N N Q F+i 1-� 4-4 01 II i G si U f1 v f--' SZ vtn I r Q,� quo rn V e, U c Gp Qa O p to u U ' o ;4 o •j �aoo��u[�.�� ?w a� V '� o L r O m Ed A O ct ,- s" r 4J 7 O " w O O O i m¢ CD V bf} W W S] 04 o O o o n w ° o a o o a o o o U c '? " +�.n v Wl [ u, Cd O O O O cd V O O O O u ¢� n• V U U U ry V) U U V U cd V] 4> a z O C�4 �;l On an N' N u 0 0'•` 00 y C c a o o c o 0 0 c Q� O v vD O += +� n 3 �ID ° G9 1 V U E O � Q' o CD c7oo ggCDCDCD o0 O U O 04 W 0 0 0 O O g q O O O q O O Q O 14, O O -= O a _ copa r o J 141 Y •yam Ci U L sC\ y' Qfw./ CG w Cl 7-1 �y is ',_�_ T^'� =lj �/ } �F i>F Ei F' � 0t , ifs ( i `� •� i-+ yl O e 'S' lb Lr) t -i H �1 v'•• O r V] y .� ..may '� t7 4•4 4.4 (u N r Q 'TJ y �, � Li U Q Ln u gxS� w o y+ I I a U f 7 H- Cd V ' v V 'y ' C u 7;t O �' v v v Q" Cd'� zl a, o, "' 'S C4.. %•5 4 N N u [C I v U 4H 0 1-4 H s W P4 a U M 0 R ❑ o = ❑ O a 0 0 0 G 0 O U v C O �^ V H ay v ^ O v, G aG ra :1 a 4- a •-� U i G cam, "'J Z, LnC O k ++ O O nU cG cl� a u O U Ell ❑ U U [ C ce1,74 . aG 0 r p U_14 76 b 11 u U o p" v ^% rn � � � � U as 'I7 -G L G w w0 c o U 'ate c O O O Lo ,uO u V V U V✓ in V CJ V U m 7� r C C bA r N C OU O yam., ❑ U UQj C .:7 •L6 C `W U C •a 1 14 prra V]U 'zj G N 44 11 y O ° o t, w w A, p 14'-)° W c cu p o W O v O w O O n u O v O G O 0 a V VU V,�cnV V VU O O O O O .01 O 0 4 a O C7 O g O O O O O O O O O O O Q O O O O O O O O En U Gi a� m sM Ca It I c O o o = ❑ O C7 0 0 0 G 0 O U v C O �^ Ucn as - (D ay v O O v, G aG ra :1 a 4- a •-� Z' w O te)! "'J Z, LnC (/7 d1 a4 iy z., vro p cl� a u p p ' bA Ell ❑ U U [ C PI. . aG 0 r p U_14 76 b 11 u U o p" v ^% rn � � � � U as 'I7 ✓ C a G ¢i u u C3 G w w0 c o ,o 10 'ate c O O O Lo ,uO C O O V V U V✓ in V CJ V U m O o o = O O O C7 0 0 0 0 0 0 O CD C� O O G (D O 64 013, 46 k 4A, V—' 44 Es4 H k te)! O O bPr t,4 N C 0♦ � u O " a lHv.. u N O O bPr t,4 N m � O 75 'U tot o Li o a � y G U cd cd U M� V o u u C O w 'v Ed 0 L a a a � n .6D a u 0 � a N � w G" W En H � a o L U U ovo ❑ r T, 0 V N 0 �n r.. o l al to V �I ri m 4 w U. Cil N �4 w w 0 N w44 u Lr! � c o c . 44 v w � G O u U 'b C N ol 41 u y. ° i�Y i. C C f24 sa I O O O �n U .j v O u C) u U t3 s: Qi r cl tz �' N CO M 0 0 0 c U cM T a u 0 u u U U V O a a ,u O o „ a' p 14 l ° Tj u W U: GJ C' -U. u uTI O O w p I "d w L!l u O O O L Ci G :4 V :3 O U Q Qj w C � C;u w eLo ":' I c # O ai O • 0 s4-4 LM (7d v u f1. u F+oz � G vi ^J D, O v u Lr N u b00 N ++ Ei r CSE Ed 41 O u Gi" rs .v S V C C) 0+ CDCD . u E � O > Ln u N cq v O 44 a4 cd mE c En Q Gl s i a� C U QJ L O H tlO QV tv H 0 0 0 4 V ir`k 64 i�Y O Op O O O �n C) 0 0 0 0 J T T a O O O O O t'J i Ci G Cd :3 Lo p w C I c # O ai O cl u O O Lr N 4 � C v Ed 41 u p u ' •41 v Q Gl s i G U cV U QJ h O V) °� o a3 1:4 v en "Ci -Ci N 4 O O 0 O O i Cd :3 p w C I c # O ai cl u 4 � C v u p ' •41 r Q Gl s i Fol N 01 M� GI Q� OI -o � � o 3 Cf O 1° r � v � G u Qj � J U o Ell u ci _O �t O w M fl c� COPS in Schools Narrative Addendum (Submissions should not exceed 10 pages. Documentation submitted beyond this limit may not be considered in the review process. Charts/graphs will not count against the 10 -page Iimit.) Agencies that seek funding under this program are required to submit a separate typed double-spaced Narrative Addendum addressing each of the following four areas. Agencies may provide supporting documentation in the following areas if relevant information is available. Please do not include any confidential data or reports with your application. This Narrative Addendum will be taken into consideration during the application review and approval process. ■ Problem Identification and Justification: Problem Identification: Please provide information On current problems occurring in and around the primary and secondary partner school(s) involved in this grant proposal (for example, drug use or gang activity within the schools). Justification: Documentation such as crime data as it relates specifically to the partner schools, information on gang members in a particular school, the number of suspensions and expulsions related to identified problems, school specific surveys, complaints from the community, etc. M Community Policing Strategies: Please provide information on the proposed activities to be performed by the SRO(s) or those in which they plan to participate. Please outline specific examples and provide as much detail as possible. Some strategies may include conflict mediation, mentoring activities, gang mediation, problem solving projects, truancy programs, etc. ■ Quality and Level of Commitment to the Program: Please confirm that the officer(s) employed under this program will be assigned to work in and around primary or secondary schools 75 percent of his or her time, the number of years over which the proposed program will be implemented, and discuss evidence of previous successes in schools or conducting collaborative problem solving with youth in the community. Please also include a description of the impacted or targeted areas, including the number of schools, number of students, and demographic information for the student population. M Link to Organizational Community Policing: Agencies that seek funding under this program must provide information on how the community policing strategies proposed for the school resource officer as outlined above will link to the overall organizational community policing strategy of your agency. Narrative Addendum 33 Memorandum of Understanding Requirement Please note; The following information is the minimum amount that is required to frslfill the COPS in Schools Memorandum of Understanding requirement. The COPS Office strongly encourages agencies to work collaboratively with your school or partners to formulate additional information that will help successf rly implement the overall school safety plans. Please feel free to provide any additional information that may be pertinent to the grant program or its management. The COPS in Schools grant program offers law enforcement agencies the opportunity to perform community policing while in school. buildings or on school property. SROs who perform their duties in primary or secondary school buildings and/or on school grounds will enhance the services provided to the school population, including students and faculty/staff. To ensure collaboration between the law enforcement agency and the educational community, all applicants must submit a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for the CIS grant program. The MOU is an agreement among parties that defines the roles and responsibilities of the individuals and partners involved, including School Resource Officers (SROs), school officials, law enforcement and education departments, students and parents. Please complete this MOU form in a cooperative effort to ensure input from all partners involved in the program. If additional space is necessary, please attach additional pages along with this MOU form. If additional documentation is attached, please be sure the information is clearly identified by the appropriate section letter (A., B., C., etc.) and title that the information is meant to answer. Failure to respond to any of these criteria/questions may delay the processing of your application, and could ultimately result in the denial of your application. Please type all information. Agency Legal Name: E a � ' �� 1 � L -t [ ! t� 'f� P i f School Partner(s) Name: Agency ORI: G C 1 0 3 0 D Memorandum of Understanding 35 COPS in Schools Application Forms A. Mission Statement (This statement may already exist within your on-going partnership, or may need to be developed jointly to assist in defining the prlmar), purpose of your partnership, and the differences your mission will make within your community.) B. Description of General Duties (This brief description should include proposed programs, daily activities, and/or projects, etc, that the SRO will develop and/or administer. A more detailed description of your community policing strategies is also required to be included in your Narrative Addendum, which will be reviewed independently.) PL.EQsE i'�9fea\� To ATrA j: C. Desired Outcomes (This information may outline the goals and objectives of your partnership that your agency hopes to achieve should your agency receive a CIS arrant.) PLERsF- -REE E 01- 1� f€ Ge , 36 A. Mission Statement: To provide the highest quality service in a partnership between the Meridian Police Department and the Meridian School District, and to further the school districts goal of excellence in education while the police department works toward the goals of preserving and protecting life and property through education, prevention and enforcement inside the public schools of Meridian. B. Description of Duties: The duties of the SRO will include but not be limited to: investigating and preventing crimes against persons or property; identifying and arresting violators of state and local laws; filing investigative reports and other required reports or documents; patrolling; and, to a limited extent, maintaining building security. Controlling traffic, and enforcing traffic laws.To work closely with the school administration, faculty, and students in a common goal of prevention of crime within the school. Along with prevention, the School Resource Officers are looked upon for education of those students by speaking in classrooms, and at career fairs. To handle all law enforcement matters that arise within the school, and at the same time remain approachable for the students that need assistance. To be present at school special events when requested. C. Desired Outcomes: To build a strong partnership within the school between the administration, faculty and students. To create and maintain an open line of communication between the school and the police department. To learn about potential problems before they occur so that we can strive to prevent them from taking place resulting in a direct reduction in crime. "Please provide the name of the agency within your partnership that will be responsible for overseeing the following roles and responsibilities as they pertain to grant requirements and administrative procedures: A Receipt and Disbursement of Grant Rands (27iis entity will be responsible for oversight of grant funds to ensure they are used appropriately as outlined by the grant conditions. This must be the legal applicant of the CIS grant.) ciiy (Name of the law enforcement agency or governing jurisdiction responsible for this task.) E. Programmatic Reporting (Progress reports are required on a periodic basis, and request information on the status of your program, to include officer hiring, training, and school -related community policing activities performed by your officer(s)) C— 1i"y <Dr mer' 1 6) Sad , (Name of the law enforcement agency responsible for this task.) partner that will be F Financial Reporting (Financial Reports (SF -269) are required on a quarterly basis and outline the amount of monies spent including federal expenditures, local snatching contributions, and the un -obligated balance of the award. This must be conducted by the legal applicant of the CIS grant.) L1,7Y Cf eI-z t b►pb-%r.-e lemic�Qr 1� ,�T (Name of the law enforcement agency or governing jurisdiction that will be responsible for this task.) Please address the following grant program issues: G. Information Sharing (This section may address the type and the extent to which information will be shared between the law enforcement agency and school or school district partner(s) throughout the cow -se of the grant. For example, the type of information that the school is permitted/willing to share with law enforcement, as well as information flow from law enforcement to the school partner(s).) Memorandum of understanding 37 G. Information Sharing: When investigations involve criminal activities that do not involve the school, the records release guidelines established through the State of Idaho and followed by our department will be utilized. When the school is the victim of any criminal act, the school will be entitled to the same information as any other victim in the State of Idaho. The school is encouraged to share all information of a criminal nature with the School Resource Officer so that it can be acted upon in a timely manner. COPS in Schools Application Forms H. Supervision Responsibility and Chain of Command for the SRO (This section should clearly establish a definitive chain of command for the SRO, including the individual(s) responsible for the supervision of the SRO. With rare exception, this responsibility lies with the law enforcement executive or his/her law enforcen2ent designee) I. Decision -Making Authority Regarding Enforcement of Applicable Laws and Procedures by the SRO (This section outlines the nuutual understanding between the law enforcement agency and school or school district partner(s) with regard to the scope of authority of the SRO(Y) to enforce state, local, and federal laws.) J. Evaluation of the Program/Grant Project (This section identifies the partner(s) responsible for any evaluation of the overall effectiveness of the SRO prograns) 38 H. Supervision responsibility and Chain of Command for the SRO: The chain of command is outlined as follows for the SRO. Chief of Police Captain CID Lieutenant SRO Sergeant - - - - Principal .*• I. Decision -Making Authority Regarding Enforcement of Applicable Laws and Procedures by the SRO: It is outlined in the School Resource Officer Agreement with the Meridian School District, that the enforcement of applicable laws will be handled by the School Resource Officer, not by School District personnel. Furthermore, the SRO will be under the guidelines of the Meridian Police Department Policy and Procedures and School district personnel will not interfere will any criminal investigation. J. Evaluation of the Program / Grant Project: Evaluation of the success of the Grant Project will be accomplished as a partnership between the Administration of the Meridian School district and the Administration of the Meridian Police Department. Performance evaluations are completed on an annual basis and principals are encouraged to participate and evaluate their SRO's. The MOU must be signed by both the highest-ranking law enforcement executive and the school official(s) who will have general educational oversight and decision-making authority for this grant program. My signature certifies that the SROs deployed into the schools as a result of receiving a COPS in Schools grant will spend at least 75 percent of his or her time in and around primary or secondary schools. Z Dat 66192 ate xwtl partnering with more than one school or school district, you are required to provide additional signatures. 0/A School Official School Official's Signature Date Date School Official's Signature Date School Official's Signature Date Memorandum of Understanding 39 COPS in Schools Additional Partner Page Additional Partner Information Page (If applicable) This form is only required if your agency is partnering with schools from more than one school district. if your partnership involves multiple school partners, your agency must provide the attached information for each school district. This form must be signed by both the school official and the law enforcement executive and returned at the time of application. Name of Partner Agency or School District: School Official Name: Title: Address: City - Telephone: Email: (Signature of School Official) State: Fax: (Signature of Law Enforcement Executive) Zip Code: .nate Date 0/A 41 04� Sheriff's Department Questionnaire Sheriff's Department Questionnaire Please answer the following questions if the legal applicant is a sheriffs department (established or start-up) as defined in the Application Instructions booklet on page 5. Attach additional pages as needed. 1. Do officers have primary law enforcement authority for the population to be served? 13 Yes O No (check one). If "yes", what is the actual population for which your department has primary law enforcement authority? (In other words, the 2000 Census population minus the incorporated towns and cities that have their own police departments.) If "no", please explain below. 2. Does your agency have primary law enforcement authority over the partner school(s) into which you plan to deploy the SRO? If not, please list the name of the agency that has the primary authority over the school(s). 3. In the space below, please break down the time spent by your entire department on the following types of activities. For example: 50 percent law enforcement duties; 30 percent courthouse/bailiff duties; 20 percent jail duties (total should equal 100 percent). 4. Of the total amount of time spent on law enforcement duties (as indicated in question #2), what percentage of that time is spent specifically on community policing activities? 5. Please briefly describe some of the community policing activities your department participates in and/or coordinates. If you have questions about applying for officer position(s) under the CIS program, please contact your COPS Grant Program Specialist through the U.S. Department of Justice Response Center at 800.421.6770. 43 Start-up Department Questionnaire Start-up Department Questionnaire Please answer the following questions if the legal applicant is a start-up agency (of any type) as defined in the Application Instructions booklet on page 5. Attach additional pages as needed. 1. a. Are any law enforcement services currently provided to your jurisdiction by an existing agency, such as a sheriffs department or a neighboring jurisdiction's police department? © Yes © No (check one). b. If the answer is yes, what is the name of the other agency, and is it considered a contractual agreement? For additional information on contractual agreements please see page 19 of the Application Instructions. Has your jurisdiction passed an ordinance, law, or other resolution formally establishing a law enforcement agency? © Yes © No (check one). If yes, please attach a copy of this ruling or legislation. Ensure that this legislation is signed and approved by the member(s) of your governing body with the authority to do so. If "no", your application cannot be funded until a resolution establishing a law enforcement agency has been passed and submitted to the COPS Office. 3. Why is your jurisdiction now creating a start-up agency? 45 COPS in Schools Application f=orms Start-up Department Questionnaire (page 2) 4. Does your jurisdiction have a written community policing plan? 17 Yes © No (check one). If yes, please include a copy of that plan. If not, please specifically outline the community policing activities currently occurring in and around your primary and secondary schools, or list activities that your agency plans to implement should this grant be awarded. If your jurisdiction is required to contribute a .local match (only if your total project for the three-year grant period exceeds $125,000 per entry- level position), does your agency have funding available for this match? © Yes © No (check one). If yes, what source of funding does your agency plan to utilize for the local match? 6. Please provide a brief explanation of the following (include supporting documentation if appropriate): a. Department budget plan b. Equipment purchase plan (cars, weapons, uniforms, etc.) c. Training plan for the officer(s) d. A timetable for the implementation of these plans If you have questions about applying for officer position(s) under the CIS program, please contact your COPS Grant Program Specialist through the U.S. Department of Justice Response Center at 800.421.6770. 46 / Special Department Questionnaire Special Department Questionnaire Please answer the following questions if the applicant is a special department (established or start-up) as defined in the Application Instructions booklet on page 5. Attach additional pages as needed. I. Do officers have primary law enforcement authority for the population to be served? © Yes ❑ No (check one). If not, what is the name of the agency that has primary jurisdiction? 2. What legislation authorizes officers to have police officer status and enforcement authority? Check all that apply: © State © Local ❑ Both "Important! Your agency must attach a copy of the legislation documenting your enforcement authority. 3. Do officers have full and unrestricted arrest authority? If not, what are their limitations? 4. Do officers have full powers over the entire jurisdiction? If not, to what area(s) are they restricted? (e.g., parks, campus, etc.) 5. Do officers provide full police services 24 hours a day, 7 days a week? If not, what are their hours? If you have questions about applying for officer position(s) under the CIS program, please contact your COPS Grant Program Specialist through the U.S. Department of Justice Response Center at 800.421.6770. 47 FOR MORE INFORMATION: U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 1100 Vermont Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 To obtain details on COPS programs, call the U.S. Department of Justice Response Center at 800.421.6770 Visit COPS Online at the address listed below. c04031919_appform Created Date: Apni 16, 2003 CITY OF MERIDIAN STANDARD OPERATING POLICY .AND PROCEDURE NUMBER 7.1 SUBJECT: DRUG AND ALCOHOL POLICY PURPOSE: To outline the goals and objectives of the City's drug and alcohol testing program and to provide guidance to supervisors and employees concerning their responsibilities for carrying out the program. For the purpose of this policy volunteers are stated as employees. This policy applies to all regular full-time, part-time, introductory, temporary, seasonal or contract employees, volunteer firefighters, police reserve officers and all job applicants. BARGAINING UNIT EMPLOYEES (FIRE) The collective labor agreement shall govern the alcohol/drug program/policy for Fire department employees who are represented by the bargaining unit. Represented employees should refer to the labor agreement, Appendix B. POLICY: In recognition of the harmful effects that the use of illegal drugs and the misuse of alcohol can have on employees in the workplace, the City of Meridian has a responsibility to provide and maintain a safe, secure, productive and efficient work environment free of the use, sale or possession of alcohol and controlled substances. The City of Meridian is committed to promoting and maintaining a drug free work environment for our employees, and members of the general public. Furthermore, the City has an obligation to protect the City's property, equipment, operations and reputation. Being under the influence of alcohol or an illegal drug or improper use of a prescription drug on the job poses serious safety and health risks to the user and to all those who work with the user. The use, sale, purchase, transfer, or possession of an illegal drug in the workplace, and the use, possession, or being under the influence of alcohol in the workplace also poses unacceptable risks for safe, healthful, and efficient operations. This Drug -Free Workplace Policy is not intended to replace or supercede testing, reporting, and procedures mandated by federal and state rules, regulations or laws that relate to the maintenance of a workplace free from alcohol and illegal drugs. The City requires compliance with this policy as a condition of employment for qualified applicants or for continued employment for all City employees and volunteers. AUTHORITY & RESPONSIBILITY: The Human Resources Director shall be charged with interpreting and administering this policy. Supervisors and department heads are responsible to ensure compliance to this policy within their areas of responsibility. 101 PROCEDURES AND RELATED INFORMATION PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES A. On -Duty 1. Employees are expected to work alcohol and drug free in order to enable safe and efficient job performance. 2. The use, sale, distribution, manufacture, purchase, transfer, storage, or possession of alcohol or illegal drugs, paraphernalia or the unauthorized use of prescription drugs or any combination thereof, while on City premises, in City vehicles, while operating City equipment, at a job site during work hours or in the scope and course of City employment is strictly prohibited. Any violation of this policy is grounds for disciplinary action, up to and including termination. 3. Employees who report to work and are suspected of being under the influence of alcohol or drugs will not be allowed to drive themselves home or elsewhere. Refusal to comply with this rule may result in immediate termination. 4. Department Heads will have authority to determine if the possession of alcohol, drugs or paraphernalia is within acceptable circumstances or guidelines. B. Off -Duty 1. The off-duty conduct of any employee which results in a criminal conviction for the possession, use, sale, manufacture or distribution of illegal drugs will be subject to discipline up to and including termination. 2. Employees who are acquitted will be returned to work with back pay, if applicable. 3. Any employee convicted of violating a criminal drag statute on or away from the workplace must inform the City of such conviction (including pleas of guilty and nolo contendere) within five days of the conviction. Notification must be made to the employee's supervisor or the Human Resources Director. Failure to inform the City subjects the employee to disciplinary action up to and including termination. Il . MEDICATION PRESCRIBED BY PHYSICIAN A. The use of drugs/medicine prescribed by a licensed medical practitioner will be permitted provided that it will not and in fact does not affect work performance, nor will it impair the employee's ability to safely operate equipment or machinery. The City reserves the right to have a licensed medical practitioner who is familiar with the employee's medical history and assigned duties determine if use of the prescription drag will produce effects which will increase the risk of injury to the employee or others while working. If such a finding is 102 made, the City may limit or suspend the work activity of the employee during the period that the medical practitioner advises that the employee's ability to perform his or her job safely may be adversely affected by such medication. Any employee who has been informed by his/her physician that the prescription drug could cause adverse side effects while working must inform his/her supervisor prior to using the medication on the job. B. Employees must not consume prescribed drugs more often than as prescribed by the employee's physician and they must not allow any other person to consume the prescribed drug. DISCIPLINE A. Any employee who 'possesses, distributes, sells, attempts to sell, or transfers illegal drugs on the City of Meridian's premises or while on City business will be subject to discipline up to and including termination. B. Any employee who is found to be in possession of or under the influence of alcohol in violation of this policy will be subject to discipline up to and including termination. C. Any employee who is found to be in possession of drug paraphernalia in violation of this policy will be subject to discipline up to and including termination. D. Any employee who is found through alcohol or drug testing to have in his or her body system a detectable amount of alcohol or an illegal drug as defined by this policy will be subject to discipline up to and including termination. Employees voluntarily participating in an alcohol/drug rehabilitation program recommended by the EAP will not be subject to discipline for participation in the program. If the employee is required to participate in an alcohol and/or drug program the Employee Assistance Program will notify Human Resources when an employee has completed the rehabilitation program. Prior to returning back to work an employee must have a negative test result and after an employee returns to work, he/she will be subject to unannounced drug and alcohol testing for a period of six (6) months. A single positive test result or failure to successfully complete the recommended rehabilitation program will be grounds for disciplinary action up to and including termination. E. Any employee who refuses to submit to an alcohol or drug test under the terms of this policy will be subject to discipline up to and including termination. F. Employees who are required to participate in the City's Employee Assistance Program (EAP) will be subject to termination for the following policy violations: 1. Failure to contact the EAP within five (5) working days after notification of a positive test result. 2. Refusal or unexcused failure to participate in counseling or the EAP program - 103 IV. 3. Abandonment of a treatment program prior to completion and being released. EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM & SELF REFERRAL A. The City recognizes that alcohol and chemical dependency are highly complex problems that can be successfully treated. Any employee needing help in dealing with these problems is encouraged to use the City's Employee Assistance Program (EAP) and the benefits available through the City's medical plan. The Human Resources Department has brochures and cards on the EAP program. B. Self- Referral I. Rehabilitation assistance in lieu of discharge may be offered: 2. Any employee, who identifies him/herself to have an alcohol or drug problem, provided that the request is made prior to violation of the City's alcohol and drug policy. Employees who self refer to the Employee Assistance Program (EAP) will not be subject to disciplinary action for voluntarily requesting help due to alcohol & drug problems. A request for rehabilitation may not be made in order to avoid the consequences of a positive alcohol or drug test result or to avoid taking an alcohol or drug test when requested to do so under the terms of this policy. 3. To an employee who obtains counseling, evaluation and rehabilitation treatment recommended through the City's Employee Assistance Program (EAP). 4. An employee who is in rehabilitation or who has completed rehabilitation will be allowed to return to work upon presentation of a written release signed by a licensed physician or recognized rehabilitation professional. An employee returning to work after treatment may return to work after taking and passing an alcohol and/or drug test. Employees who undergo a counseling or rehabilitation program will be subject to unannounced testing following completion of such a program for a period of six (6) months. 5. Employees who are referred to outpatient and/or in-patient alcohol or drug rehabilitation will be expected to do so at their own expense, (with the exception of those expenses covered by the City's health insurance program) on their own time or during a leave of absence, covered under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) or during a non -paid leave of absence approved by the City. 6. Affected employees shall, whenever possible, schedule outpatient rehabilitation treatment during times that will not conflict with the employee's work schedule, provided however, employees will be allowed to use vacation or sick leave, or unpaid leave, if outpatient rehabilitation treatment cannot be scheduled other than during their regular work schedule. 104 C. Involuntary Referral When an employee tests positive for alcohol or drug use (or is identified as being under the influence of alcohol or drugs at work) as identified in the City's Alcohol and Drug policy the employee will be sent to the City's EAP program for assessment, and treatment planning. K EDUCATION A. Supervisors and other management personnel will be trained in: 1. Overall City policy; 2. Detecting the signs and behavior of employees who may be using alcohol or drugs in violation of this policy; 3. Recognizing and intervening in situations that may involve violations of this policy; 4. EAP intervention, procedures and supervisor's role; 5. Documentation of employee performance and behavior. B. Employees will be trained and informed of: 1. The health and safety dangers associated with alcohol and drug use; 2. The provisions of this policy through employee meetings and employee orientation. VI. TESTING PROCEDURES A. PRE-EMPLOYMENT TESTING 1. All applicants given a conditional offer of employment will be required to submit to testing for the presence of alcohol and illegal drugs. The offer of employment is contingent upon a negative alcohol and drug test result. A conditional offer of employment will be rescinded for any applicant who tests positive for the presence of alcohol and/or illegal drugs. 2. An applicant will be notified of the City of Meridian's alcohol and drug testing policy prior to being tested; will be informed in writing of his or her right to refuse to undergo such testing; and will be informed that the consequence of refusal is termination of the pre-employment process. 3. An applicant will be provided written notice of this policy, and by signature will be required to acknowledge receipt and understanding of the policy. B. REASONABLE BELIEF' TESTING 1. An employee will be tested for alcohol and illegal drugs, or the abuse of prescription medication, when the employee manifests "reasonable belief' behavior that would endanger their well being, as well as the safety of fellow employees or the general public. The basis of suspicion of alcohol or drug 105 abuse may be a specific, contemporaneous event, or conduct -evidencing impairment observed over a period of time. 2. An employee who is tested in a "reasonable belief' situation will be put on administrative leave with pay pending receipt of written tests results and whatever inquiries may be required. C. POST- ACCIDENT TESTING Any employee involved in a work-related accident will be tested for the use of alcohol and illegal drugs, as soon as possible after the accident, preferably within four (4) hours. Examples of conditions that will require an employee to take an alcohol and drug test include, but are not limited to, accidents, that result in: a. A fatality, personal injury, or injury to another person requiring transport for medical treatment away from the site of the accident; b. Damage to equipment or property owned by the City, or by a third party, that is estimated to exceed $500. c. Damage to a City vehicle that is estimated to exceed $2000. 2. An employee who is seriously injured and cannot provide a specimen for testing will be required to authorize the release of relevant hospital reports, or other documentation, that would indicate whether there were alcohol or drugs in his/her system at the time of the accident. ,Any employee required to be tested under this section must remain readily available for such testing and the employee may not consume any alcohol or illegal drugs. 3. If it is determined by management that an employee's accident was caused by the actions of another, and that there were no unsafe acts on the part of the employee, the City reserves the right to waive post -accident testing of the employee. Employees who are involved in a work-related accident requiring medical treatment are to immediately inform their supervisor of the accident, so that any needed alcohol or drug testing may be promptly conducted in conjunction with their medical treatment. D. RANDOM TESTING 1. Department Heads and employees in sensitive positions will be subject to random alcohol and'drug testing. For purpose of this policy, a sensitive position will be defined as a position in which the duties that are performed as a regular part of the job could reasonably expect to affect health, safety and security of other City employees or the general public. 2. Sensitive positions are those that require an employee to: a. Carry firearms; b. Have custodial responsibility for illegal drugs; c. Perform emergency medical, lifesaving, and/or fire suppression activities. 106 d. Have supervision over children in the absence of their parents or adult guardians; e. Have access to homes and/or businesses in the City; f. Handle hazardous materials that if mishandled, place City employees and/or the general public at risk of serious injury. 3. The job functions associated with these positions directly and immediately relate to public health and safety, the protection of life, and law enforcement. 4. Random tests will be unannounced and occur throughout the calendar year. Random selections will be made by a scientifically valid method that will result in each employee having an equal chance of being tested each time selections are made. The Human Resources Director will notify the individual's supervisor and the individual selected for random testing on the same day the test is scheduled. The supervisor will be notified within two hours of the scheduled testing and the employee will be notified immediately preceding the scheduled testing. Upon notification, the employee shall proceed immediately to the testing site and at the City's discretion; employees may be transported or escorted to the testing site. 5. The annual number of random tests will be no more than fifteen percent (15%) of the average number of employees subject to random testing for alcohol and illegal drugs. {. In implementing the program of random testing the City shall evaluate periodically whether the numbers of employees tested and the frequency with which those tests will be administered satisfies the City goal of achieving a drug-free work force. E. VOLUNTARY RANDOM TESTING As part of the City's alcohol and drug free workplace program, employees not in designated sensitive positions may volunteer for random testing. Employees who are interested in participating in this program should contact Human Resources to obtain a volunteer random consent form. Participation in this program is not a condition of continued employment with the City and volunteers will be subject to all provisions, conditions and procedures of the randoms testing policy. F. CDL TESTING In compliance with the Department of Transportation (DOT) ruling 49 CFR parts 40 and 382, pre-employment, random, reasonable belief and post accident drug and alcohol testing shall be required for employees in positions that require a Commercial Drivers License. VII. DRUG /ALCOHOL SPECIMEN COLLECTION/TESTING PROCEDURES A. Specimen Collection Procedure 1. When a prospective or present employee is notified that he/she is to submit to alcohol and drug testing he/she will be given instructions regarding where and when to report for tests, or at the City's discretion an employee may be 107 .ia tran%, ,jrted or escorted to the place of colleciwn. A collection specialist who has been trained in collection procedures will conduct all specimen collections. Testing will be done in accordance with approved collection procedures. 2. All specimens will be tested for the presence of alcohol and illegal drugs. All specimens tested for illegal drugs will be done by urine analysis. Alcohol testing will be done by a Breath Alcohol Technician (BAT) employed by the collection facility that is trained in operation of an evidential breath -testing device (EBT). If an individual is unable to take a breath -test due to a medical condition then a blood test will be administered. Adulteration Or Submission Of Concealed Specimen I. If during the collection procedure, the collection monitor detects an effort by the prospective employee or an employee to adulterate or substitute a specimen, a second specimen will be requested. If a second specimen is provided, both will be tested. If the second specimen is refused, the collection monitor will inform the Human Resources Director or his/her designee that the donor refused to submit a true specimen. Such substantiated conduct will be considered equivalent to testing positive and the prospective employee will not be offered employment or a present employee will be terminated from further employment with the City. 2. In the event that a prospective or current employee submits a specimen that the laboratory later identifies as a diluted specimen, the City will advise the prospective or current employee of that finding and request that he/she submit a second specimen. Such donors will be advised by the City not to drink any fluids prior to the test. Testing and Confirmation 1. The cut-off levels for all Non -Dot testing is as follows: Drug Class Screening Confirmation Amphetamine Family 1000 ng/ml 500 ng/ml Cocaine 300 ng/ml 150 ng/ml Phencyclidine (PCP) 25 ng/ml 25 ng/ml Marijuana 50 ng/ml 15 ng/ml Opiates 2000 ng/ml 26 ng/ml 2. The cut-off for alcohol concentration will be on two levels. Any employee who tests above a level of 0.02 BAC and up to 0.039'BAC maybe subject to discipline, will not be allowed to work for at least 24 hours and must have a negative test result before returning to work. Any employee who . tests at or above 0.04 BAC is considered to have tested positive and is considered to be under the influence of alcohol. Positive alcohol tests resulting from the breath test will include a confirmatory breath test conducted no later than fifteen (15) minutes after the initial test; or the use of any other confirmatory test can be used that demonstrates a higher degree of reliability. 108 3. Any specimen that screens positive for the presence of illegal drugs will be confirmed by the Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS) confirmation method. Any employee who tests positive for illegal drugs or prescription medication may request to obtain an independent test using the remaining portion of the urine specimen that yielded the positive result. The retest is at the applicants or employees own expense (unless those expenses are covered by the City insurance program). This request must be conveyed to the MRO within 48 hours of the employee being notified of the positive test result. 4. During the time the second test is being conducted, the pre-employment selection process for an applicant will be placed on hold. An employee already working for the City will not be allowed to work. If the retest reverses the positive result, the City shall reimburse the cost of the retest and any lost of compensation and benefits that is incurred as a result of the initial positive test results. The City will have no liability to any employee for errors or inaccurate test results. VIII. TEST RESULT NOTIFICATION A. All results received from the laboratory will be forwarded to -the office of the accredited collection agency for the purpose of their providing medical review officer services. When a test shows a positive test result the employee or applicant will be contacted by the Medical Review Officer (MRO) and will be given the opportunity to provide an explanation for the positive result. The MRO may choose to conduct employee medical :interviews, review employee medical history, or review any other relevant biomedical factors. After the employee has been provided an opportunity to consult with the Medical review officer and the MRO determines that the test is positive the City will be notified. The collection agency will only report results to the Human Resource Director or his/her designee. B. Any employee who is taking a prescription drug that may have been the cause of a positive test result will be asked to provide the name of the medication and the identity of the prescribing physician for verification. If the MRO determines that the positive test result was due to authorized use of prescription medication, he/she will immediately report a negative finding to the Human Resource Director or his/her designee and no further action will be taken. However, if an employee cannot provide a reasonable explanation for his/her positive test result, and the Medical Review Officer (MRO) finds no reason to doubt the validity of the positive test, the Human Resources Director or his/her designee will be notified of the positive test result and disciplinary action will be taken consistent with the terms of this policy. IX. REFUSAL Any employee who refuses to be tested, or fails to provide a specimen or information as directed under the terms of this policy, will be subject to discipline up to and including termination. 109 X. EFFECT OF TESTING POSITIVE A. Any prospective employee who tests positive for alcohol or illegal drugs will not be offered employment. Any introductory, temporary or seasonal employee who tests positive for illegal drugs or alcohol will be terminated. B. Any classified employee (as defined under the City of Meridian's employment classifications) that tests positive for alcohol or illegal drugs, will be subject to disciplinary action consistent with the terms of this policy. (Refer to the disciplinary section of this policy). XI. CONFIDENTIALITY All information relating to drug or alcohol testing or the identification of persons as users of alcohol and drugs will be protected by the City as confidential and given out on a need to know basis, unless otherwise required by law, over-riding public health and safety concerns, or authorized in writing by the person in question. XII. CONCLUSION The terms of this alcohol/drug free workplace policy are intended to achieve a work environment where employees are free from the effects of alcohol and/or drugs. Employees should be aware that the provisions of this policy may be revised when necessary. The City anticipates that by implementing an alcohol and drug free workplace policy, its employees will enjoy the benefits of working in a safer, more secure, and more productive work environment. The City also anticipates that the provisions of this policy will help maintain and promote the health, welfare and safety of the general public. BARGAINING UNIT EMPLOYEES (FIRE) The collective labor agreement shall govern the alcohol/drug program/policy for the Fire department employees who are represented by the bargaining unit. Represented employees should refer to the labor agreement, Appendix B. M. DEFMTIONS A. Alcohol: means any beverage that contains ethyl alcohol (ethanol), including but not limited to beer, wine and distilled spirits. B. Applicant: Any individual tentatively selected for employment with the City. C. City premises or City facilities: for the purpose of this policy means all property of the City of Meridian including, but not limited to, the offices, facilities, land, and surrounding areas on the City's owned or leased property, parking lots, and storage areas. The term also includes the City's owned or leased vehicles and equipment wherever located. D. Drug Paraphernalia: Drug related paraphernalia is any unauthorized material or equipment or item used or designed for use in testing, packaging, storing, injecting, ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise introducing into the human body an unauthorized substance. 110 fr . E: E. Drug testing: means a urinalysis taken for the purpose of determining whether drugs are in the person's system or any other testing the City deems appropriate and reliable. F. Em to ee Assistance Pro am AP): A contract -based counseling program that offers assessment, short-term counseling, and referral services to employees for a wide range of alcohol, drug, and mental health problems and monitors the progress of employees while in treatment. G. Illegal drug_ means any drug as defined by section 802 (6) of Title 21 of the United States Code which is not legally obtainable under chapter 13 of that title. Examples of illegal drugs are cannabis substances, such as marijuana and hashish, cocaine, opiates, phencyclidine (PCP), and so-called designer drugs and look- alike drugs or use of a legal drug not prescribed to the employee. H. Legal drug means any prescribed drug or over-the-counter drug that has been legally obtained and is being used for the purpose for which prescribed or manufactured. L Medical Review Officer: An independent licensed physician who has knowledge of substance abuse disorders and the appropriate medical training to interpret and evaluated all positive test results together with an individual's medical history and any other biomedical information. J. Reasonable belief. means a belief based on objective facts sufficient to lead a prudent person to conclude that a particular employee is unable to satisfactorily perform his or her job duties due to suspected drug or alcohol impairment. K. Under the influence: means a condition in which a person is affected by a drug or by alcohol in a detectable manner. A determination of being under the influence can be established by a scientifically valid test, such as a breath test or urinalysis. 111 May 30, 2003 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING APPLICANT June 3, 2003 ITEM NO. 3-- fy REQUEST Approve Bills: AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. COMMENTS RESOLUTION NO. 03- T BY: delcleeeztj A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN TO PROVIDE FOR FINDINGS AND TO ESTABLISH THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO REPORT NO. 1-2002 BY WASHINGTON INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES, INC. AS A PLANNING DOCUMENT FOR THE CITY OF MERIDIAN; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Mayor and Council have the authority [pursuant to I.C. § 50- 302] to establish resolutions not inconsistent with the laws of the state of Idaho as may be expedient, in addition to the special powers therein granted, to maintain the peace, good government and welfare of the corporation and its trade, commerce and industry; and WHEREAS, the Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho contracted with Washington Infrastructure Services, Inc. to study the transportation needs along the 1-84 corridor; and WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Council have reviewed the published study; and WHEREAS, said corridor study is an essential planning document for the City of Meridian; and WHEREAS, the Mayor and Council have deemed it expedient and in the best interests of the City of Meridian to accept the Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho Report No. 1-2002 as a planning document for the City of Meridian. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO as follows: SECTION 1. Pursuant to Idaho Code §50-301 et seq., the Mayon' and City Council hereby accept the Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho Report No. 1-2002, a copy of said Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho Report No. 1-2002 is attached hereto as Exhibit "A", and consisting of sixty (60) pages, and by this reference incorporated RESOLUTION FOR ACCEPTANCE OF THE COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION REPORT NO. 1-2002 .PAGE i OF 2 Herein. A copy of this Resolution and the attached Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho Report No. 1-2002 for the City of Meridian shall be held on file in the office of the City Clerk. SECTION 2: EFFECTIVE DATE. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect on passage. PASSED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, thisr day of 12003. APPROVED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, thisr� day of z:% , 2003. 6--Nx ----Mayor Robes. D. Carrie ATTEST: s�``\,s,,���,ltt►tttft�l��ff,�tff' M City Clerk M CID �Y 1 Z:1Work\MNMeridian\Meridian 15360M1Resoiutions City Ha11120031Res&1fi ion q-gmniiini Ping Assoc Report No. 1-2002 05 13 03.doc RESOLUTION FOR ACCEPTANCE OF THE COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION REPORT NO. 1-2002 PAGE 2 OF 2 Table of Contents Chapter Page Executive Summary 1 a. Study Areas 1 b. Planning Process 1 c. Cooperative Effort with the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) 2 d. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) 5 e. Roadway Needs Assessment 5 L Financial Element 5 g. Actions by the COMPASS Board 6 1. Introduction 15 2. Corridor Planning .Process 19 a. Land Use Plan 20 b. Transportation Planning Process 20 c. Public Review Process 20 3. Special Planning Elements 23 a. Analysis of Existing Interchanges 24 b. Arterial Cross Street Improvements 25 c. Robinson Road, McDermott Road and Black Cat Road Interchange Alternatives 27 d. Five Mile Road Interchange 31 e. Ten Mile Road Interchange 33 f. Intelligent Transportation System Review 36 4. Transportation Demand Management Elements 40 a. Background 41 b. I-84 Corridor TDM Elements 42 5. Roadway Needs Assessment 44 6. Recommendations for Further Study 53 Interstate 84 Corridor Study Final Report i C - List of Exhibits Exhibit Page` Exhibit 1 1-84 Corridor Transportation Demand management Cost 3 Estimate Exhibit 2 Transportation Demand Management Element — 4 Additional Services and Facilities Exhibit 3 Roadway Needs Assessment — Project Description and 7 Cost Exhibit 4 Roadway Needs Assessment — Committed Projects 9 Exhibit 5 Roadway Needs Assessment --- 2010 Roadway Projects 10 Exhibit 6 Roadway Needs Assessment — 2015 Roadway Projects I 1 Exhibit 7 Roadway Needs Assessment — 2020 Roadway Projects 12 Exhibit 8 Roadway Needs Assessment — Beyond 2020 Roadway 13 Projects Exhibit 9 I-84 Corridor Funding Needs and District 3 Project 14 Available Interstate and Transportation Demand management funding Through 2020 Exhibit 10 Study Area Map 17 Exhibit 11 Upgrade of Existing Interchanges - Summary of 24 Recommendations Exhibit 12 Upgrade of Arterial Roadways - Summary of 26 Recommendations Exhibit 13 Robinson Road, McDermott Road and Black Cat Road 28 Interchange Area Exhibit 14 Robinson Road and McDermott Road Interchange 29 Analysis Exhibit 15 Five Mile Road Interchange Analysis 31 Exhibit 16 Five Mile Road Interchange Area 32 Exhibit 17 2010 Interchange Priority Decision Variables 35 Exhibit 1.8 Ramp Meter Details at Key Interchanges 32 (1-84 Eastbound) Exhibit 19 Prioritization of Ramp Metering Installations at Key 38 Interchanges (1-84 Eastbound) Exhibit 20 Ramp Meter Details at Key Interchanges (1-84 39 Westbound) Exhibit 21 Prioritization of Ramp Metering Installations at Key 39 Interchanges (I-84 Westbound) Exhibit 22 1-84 Corridor TDM Needs Summary — 2004-2020 43 Exhibit 23 Existing Traffic Volumes 46 Exhibit 24 Daily Traffic Volume Forecast - 2010 47 Interstate 84 Corridor Study Final Report Exhibit `Page Exhibit 25 Daily Traffic Volume Forecast - 2015 48 Exhibit 26 Daily Traffic Volume Forecast - 2020 49 Exhibit 27 1-84 Project Priorities — Summarized by Cost and 50 Construction year Exhibit 28 Emmett Highway Extension 55 Interstate 84 Corridor Study Final Report iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Community Planning Association (COMPASS) Board Action The Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho (COMPASS) Board considered and adopted the key elements of the I-84 Corridor Study (the Study) at their regular meeting on October 15, 2001. The Board's actions included: • Formal adoption of the Study needs assessment and financial analysis; • Direction that the products of the Study be incorporated into the respective Transportation Plans for Ada and Canyon Counties; and • Direction that the COMPASS staff present the results of the Study to the Idaho Transportation Board for appropriate action a. Study Areas The Study examines the transportation system needs for the 1-84 Corridor from the Wye Interchange east of Boise (east terminus) to State Highway 44 (west terminus) west of Caldwell. This area was termed the primary study area. The Study: • Examined the existing traffic operations; • Determined any short-term needed improvements; • Forecast traffic volumes for 10 -year, 15 -year, and 20 -year planning horizons; • Identified a list of projects needed for the long-term; • Examined long-term network alternatives; • Provided a cost estimate for those long-term needs; and • Developed a financial plan to fund the anticipated system needs. A secondary study area included the portion of the 1-84 Corridor east of the Wye Interchange. The long-term needs in this area were determined in the "1-84, Orchard Interchange to Gowen Interchange Concept Feasibility Study" completed by CH2M Hill Inc. The financial analysis of the 1-84 Corridor Study included both study areas. b. Planning Process The COMPASS staff in cooperation with the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) managed the overall planning process. Washington Group International, David Evans and Associates, Jeanne Lawson. Associates, ASC Group, and Spatial Dynamics provided professional consulting services. The Treasure Valley Transportation Team (TVTT) provided technical guidance and acted as a sounding board throughout the entire planning process. The TVTT consisted of representatives from each of the affected local jurisdictions. The individual members were often technical staff (e.g. planning directors, city engineers, transportation planners, etc.) and elected officials who represented several agencies. The COMPASS Board received monthly status reports and periodic updates on the Study. 1-84 Corridor Study Final Report 1 The Corridor planning process followed conventional planning procedures. The existing conditions were analyzed to identify any current operating deficiencies. A transportation demand management (TDM) element was developed to increase the use of alternative modes of transportation from 19% to 25%. A list of roadway network alternatives was developed (e.g. new interchanges, interchange redesigns, etc.) and travel forecasts were developed for each of the network alternatives. An assessment was made of the impact of each improvement or alternative. A draft of the Study was presented for public review. Following this review, a final Study was developed. The Study provides background information used in each stage and the final actions of the COMPASS Board. c. Cooperative Effort with the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) The Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) was a full participant in this study. ITD provided representatives from both Headquarters and District 3. They provided important oversight in the preparation of the financial plan and cost estimating procedures. The Idaho Transportation (IT) Board was an .integral part of the planning process. They received regular updates on the progress of the Study and gave helpful insight and advice. The IT Board accepted the Study Results at their November 15, 2001 meeting. d. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) A Corridor -wide transportation demand management (TDM) element was developed to reduce the number of vehicles using the :road system while providing a wide variety of mobility options. TDM strategies are aimed at reducing travel demand by influencing people's travel behavior through one of the following methods: + "Passive" measures that include incentives designed to promote transit and rideshare as alternatives to the use of single occupant vehicles (SOV's); + "Economic" measures that create disincentives to driving alone such as roadway user or parking fees or subsidies for programs to encourage the use of other modes; or + "Administrative" mechanisms designed to coordinate TDM efforts. The TDM element of the Study is tailored to implement the region's goal of 25% of all trips via non --SOV modes by the year 2020. To meet this goal within the I-84 Corridor, the COMPASS emphasized the need to prioritize implementation of effective TDM measures. The TDM element is at the top of a long list of proposed interstate improvements. Travel demand analysis conducted by COMPASS in coordination with the Valley InterArea Transportation (VIATrans) and Ada County Highway District (ACRD) Commuteride staff assumed a TDM element targeted to peak period commuter trips within the most heavily traveled section of 1-84 (west of the Wye Interchange). To attain the 25% goal by 2020 the following items need to be implemented: + Transit trips increase from 1% 1 to 5%; According to 1990 Census information which provides the most current ridesharing data. 1-84 Corridor Study Final Report 2 Vanpoo.1/carpool increase from 10%2 to 12%; Bike/walk remains at 3% and; Work at home remains at 5%. The TDM element includes the addition of 18 park and ride lots, an ambitious marketing program, and implementation of the Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Plan. Exhibit 1 presents cost estimates for the TDM element of the Study. The future TDM facilities and the potential rail corridors are illustrated in Exhibit 2 (Page 4). The TDM policies support several other considerations in the Corridor. First, is the preservation of existing rail corridors in both Canyon and Ada Counties. Second, as new lanes are proposed for the freeway mainline, the potential for high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes must be considered. Third, each new interchange shall examine the potential for adding a park and ride facility and ramp metering on the entrance ramps. ExhTtbit' . 184.: Corridor Transportation Demand Management C©st Estimate Deseriptllon 71 ;Type .Cost Express Capital $15,05000 (4 s) new buses) O&M $90,200,000 Park and Ride Lot Capital & O&M $16,000,000 (18 new lots) Commuter Vans Capital $ 1,200,000 (34 new vans) O&M $ 6,800,000 Marketing and Employer Operations $12,000,000 Programs Transit Intelligent Capital $10,000,000 Transportation System Total $151,250,000 Note: All cost estimates are in 2001 dollars. * Includes employer -based TDM incentive programs such as those currently implemented by ACHD Commuteride. Ibid. 1-84 Corridor study Final Report 3 F f e. Roadway Needs Assessment The roadway needs assessment element of the Study was based upon the COMPASS' travel demand forecasting model. Separate model runs were made for 2010, 2015,.and 2020. The travel forecasting model reflects the 25% goal of alternative transportation for 2020. For each model run, the projected traffic volumes were compared to the planning capacity for each segment of the roadway system. The comparison between the projected volumes and the roadway's capacity determined what projects will be "needed" for each of the planning years. The accumulation of these individual projects established the overall needs assessment. Exhibit 3 (Page 7) summarizes the needed roadway projects and their costs. Exhibit 4 (Page 9) illustrates the projects that have partially committed or full funding. Exhibits 5, 6, and 7 (Pages 10 through 12) illustrate the final roadway needs assessment for 2010, 2015, and 2020 respectively. The roadway needs assessment includes the 25% TDM element implementation. Exhibit 8 (Page 13) shows additional projects anticipated for the planning period beyond 2020. f. Financial Element The financial element of the Study was developed in three stages. In the initial stage, the cost figures for the individual needs assessment elements and a substantial transportation demand management (TDM) element were totaled. The cost of the needed improvements is estimated at $605 million, which is far above the estimated available funding level of $305 million. Exhibit 9 (Page 14) illustrates the total project costs and dentifies the estimate of available funding. In the second stage, an estimate was made of the available funding based upon current revenue sources. In Exhibit 9, the graphics show the available funding and the anticipated funding shortfall. This stage of the analysis identified approximately $305 million in available revenue through 2020. The $300 -million shortfall represents the need for a significant increase in funding. An increase of this magnitude may require local, state and/or federal legislation; and a number of new local administrative measures. In the third phase, the COMPASS Board has agreed (COMPASS Board meeting minutes for August 20, 2001) to sponsor a local policy -makers workshop to develop a financial plan for the needed transit and roadway projects in the 1-84 Corridor. 1-84 Corridor Study Executive Summary - Page 5 g. Actions by the COMPASS Board The COMPASS Board has taken three specific actions on the Study leading to the completion of this project. They include: June 18, 2001 COMPASS Board Minutes. "Dave Wynkoop moved and Roger Simmons seconded to concur with the 1-84 Corridor Study Stage I recommendations, with the exception that the Five Mile Interchange is to be reta�ied as a partial interchange and the Transportation Demand Management Plan inchide the Pace Car concept limited in scope to a neighborhood project. " August 20, 2001 COMPASS Board Minutes. "Frank McKeever moved and Dennis Stegenga seconded that the COMPASS Board invite VIA Trans, Treasure Valley Legislators, and Idaho Transportation Department policy makers to a workshop to develop a financial plan to allow the timely implementation of both transit and roadway improvements in the I-84 Corridor Study. " October 15, 2001 DRAFT COMPASS Board Minutes. "Martin Thorne moved and Dennis Stegenga seconded to approve the Final 184 Corridor Study Findings and Conclusions as presented. " The roadway needs assessment includes several important policies that were developed during the course of the Study. They include: • The ultimate roadway designs should allow the affected local jurisdictions and highway departments to reserve the needed rights-of-way before development occurs. This will help to minimize the future roadway development costs and any disruption to existing businesses along the major roadway corridors. • Commercial developments typically front the higher volume roadways. Residential land uses are often considered to be incompatible with commercial uses. It will be necessary to develop land use plans that minimize the conflicts among the roadways and the various land uses. • The cost of the mitigation elements can often. exceed the cost of the roadway improvements. It will be necessary to develop land use plans that maintain an adequate separation between sensitive land uses and the major roadways. • Any expansion of the roadway network or the public transit system should consider the impacts on future Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) facilities. Additional information and discussions are included in later sections of this report. 1-84 Corridor Study Executive Summary - Page 6 Committed Projects (See Exhibit 4) ` Project Cost: Upgrade the west ramps at the Gowen Road Interchange $1,740,000 Signalize the south ramp intersection at the Eagle Road Interchange $260,000 Construct the Locust Grove Road overpass $9,000,000 Signalize the south ramp intersection at the Meridian Road Interchange $225,000 Improve the eastbound on-ramp at the Garrity Boulevard Interchange $2,000,000 Replace the Franklin Boulevard Interchange southbound overpass $10,000,000 Construct the Karcher Road Interchange $25,400,000 Reconstruct the Franklin Road Interchange (Exit 29) $15,000,000 Widen the I-84 mainline to 6 lanes from Centennial Way to the Notus Highway $560,000 Total Cost of Roadway Projects in the Current Work Program $64,185,000 2010 Roadway Protects (See Exhibit 5) Projec Cast Reconstruct the existing pavement Broadway Avenue to Gowen Road $11,000,000 Reconstruct the existing pavement and widen the mainline to 6 plus 2 lanes from Curtis Road to Broadway Avenue Reconstruct the Gowen Road Interchange Reconstruct the Broadway Avenue Interchange Reconstruct the Vista Avenue Interchange Reconstruct the Orchard Road Interchange, Widen the mainline to 8 lanes from Eagle Road to the Wye, including ramp widening at Eagle Road Reconstruct the Meridian Road Interchange Widen the mainline to 6 lanes from Ten Mile Road to Meridian Road Construct the Ten Mile Road Interchange Reconstruct the Garrity Boulevard Interchange (flyover from westbound 1-84 to southbound Garrity Boulevard) Total Cost of 2010 Roadway Projects 1-84 Corridor Study Executive Summary - Page 7 $108,200,000 $23,500,000 $13,500,000 $15,200,000 $17,000,000 $21,300,000 $22,200,000 $5,000,000 $25,400,000 $7,200,000 $269,500,000 2015 Roadway Projects (See.Exhibit;6) Widen the mainline to 6 lanes from Garrity Boulevard to Ten Mile Road $12,200,000 Construct the Robinson Road/Star Road Interchange $25,400,000 Widen the.mainline to 8 lanes from. Garrity Boulevard to Robinson Road $4,800,000 Reconstruct the Garrity Boulevard Interchange (replace the existing interchange $20,000,000 and widen. Garrity Boulevard), and Widen the mainline to 6 lanes from Nampa Boulevard to the Karcher Interchange $2,400,000 Total Cost of 2015 Roadway Projects $64,8001000 2020 Roadway. Projects (See Exhibit 7) Widen the mainline to 8 lanes from Curtis Road to Broadway Avenue $15,400,000 Construct the Five Mile Road Interchange Widen the mainline to 8 lanes from .Eagle Road to Ten Mile Road, upgrade ramps at Ten Mile Road Widen the mainline to 6 lanes from Nampa Boulevard to Garrity Boulevard Total Cost of 2020 Roadway Projects $N/A $12,500,000 $27,400,000 $55,300,000 Total Cost of Roadway Projects $453,7$5,00 1-84 Corridor Study Executive Summary - Page 8 0 U U x w N Exhibit 9 I-84 Corridor Funding Needs and District 3 Project Available Interstate and Transportation Demand Management Funding Through 2020 Needed: $605 iia Unfunded: $300 m Projected available: $305 m $74 m (FTF, toed �,IhiadV fw, transit capStal projets, $5 in (FTA di ;ret arary f r<-; eafmaf Kd by f+ii ass for smecifir transit proluds) $60 m (PV4A risvfKicnIXV fonds carrar. cd bV cuagreu !or spe:ific higFeray prrjertW) 5735 m (niwe! �,=anr rpntoi: Rind,,) $4 m (s:3;F-rrtndFa, i.e.. nn ederal match 'ata%( paY5 ror enure pro"Ct[) S7 m (vanpout ope-Aiuris return) $20 m (HIT(A - transit 115 sfram rani+ ACHDj S20 m (k .aI _rarrsi' uperaliu-rs supparl NOW frurn properly tae '14C.."Ition) — 510 m (FAA St*P.Prt of 14w interdiangc) Interstate 84 Corridor Study Final Report - Page 14 S35 m (STIP programmed'; — $20 m (artiopated") x 5 i , n i5' v, dy pragraT—npe 'ar inh-u. i-ar�:3r i-npmerrnrnt,, $20 m 'aiir }.p Pundre thrrLgh anticipated privako handing, t�t�t ro Sr'if" has cap- -pr i-ari 1) Introduction Interstate 84 Corridor Study Final Report -.Page 15 1) Introduction The 1998 Treasure Valley 1-84 Corridor Study identified potential solutions to the traffic congestion anticipated in the next 20 years. That original Study (Phase 1) identified a wide range of Corridor improvements, leading to generalized conclusions about capacity needs on I- 84 and the surrounding arterial system. At the conclusion of Phase 1, it was determined that further study was needed to more specifically define a management program for I-84. It was also concluded that the additional study should include policy direction, prioritized operational and capital improvements, and a financial strategy to address funding needs for improvements along the Corridor. The work plan for the Phase 1 effort integrated the efforts of the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD), the Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho (COMPASS), local agency staff, affected regulatory agencies, and stakeholders. Input from the group listed above produced a multi -step work program that developed and refined Corridor improvement alternatives. The original study was developed as a regional plan. The final project goals focused on developing a base Corridor Plan resulting in an efficient, environmentally sensitive transportation system within. the Corridor. The Plan addressed intra- and inter -regional travel, supported economic vitality, and supported the individual character and planning efforts of the communities. The study resulted in a decision about where new interchanges will be needed in Canyon County, and defined the improvements needed to meet Level of Service standards for the freeway mainline throughout the Corridor (See Exhibit 10 on Page 17). The Phase I effort resulted in the decision to construct the Karcher Road Interchange first, followed by the Ustick Road and Middleton Road Interchanges. The Karcher Road Interchange is listed in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and is currently under design. The project team developed and conducted a process for informing and updating elected officials and the public on study objectives, and for obtaining quality input from the public. The Treasure Valley Transportation Team (TVTT) will use this input for consideration at every key step in the study process. The main elements of this public outreach and involvement program were meetings of the Sounding Boards and conducting the open houses for the public in each county. The focus of Phase I of the Treasure Valley 1-84 Corridor Study was to develop a prioritized and phased set of improvements to the freeway system, including parallel and intersecting arterial routes within the study area. Problem areas were first identified for the existing (1997) and future (2020) no -build conditions. Various alternatives and/or strategies were then developed to mitigate projected deficiencies of the major street system. The analysis of existing and future traffic conditions indicates a need for extensive improvements in east -west capacity between cities in Canyon County (Caldwell and Nampa) and Ada County (Meridian, Eagle, Garden City, and Boise). In Ada County, systemwide failure is expected along major east -west, and major north -south travel routes. A summary and evaluation of the various transportation system alternatives is provided in the Technical Appendix. Interstate 84 Corridor Study Final Report - Page 16 In the context of the Phase I Study, a wide range of Corridor improvements were considered and refined, leading to generalized conclusions about capacity needs on 1-84 and the surrounding arterial system. At the conclusion of that study, it was agreed that further study was needed to more specifically define a management program for I-84 that would include policy direction, prioritized operational and capital improvements, and a financial strategy to address funding needs for improvements along the Corridor. The current study, titled ".I-84 Corridor Study," builds on the analyses and conclusions reached during the Phase I Study. This section of the Final Report briefly summarizes the prior analyses and major conclusions, as a reference point for refinement and further evaluation of management strategies for 1-84. Given that this phase of the study focuses specifically on 1-84, this discussion also serves to document the study results from Phase 1 that identified the need for improvements to the regional arterial system as well. One of the key conclusions from Phase 1 is that a balanced investment in both freeway and arterial improvements is needed, and that improvements to the regional arterial system directly affect the level of long-range investment needed for 1-84. While this phase focuses on I-84, it has been assumed that fixture updates to the regional transportation plan will address needed improvements to the arterial system. 2) Objectives of the 1-84 Corridor Study The Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) for Ada and Canyon Counties is one of the fastest growing regions in the nation. The MSA consists of five incorporated cities - Caldwell, Nampa, Meridian, Garden City, and Boise, and the counties of Canyon and Ada. The Phase 1 I-84 Corridor Study (1998) showed that the residents of this region could expect significant travel delays. The operating level of service will fall in ranges of E and F if substantial transportation improvements are not made in the next few years. This phase encompasses two study areas; a primary and a secondary study area. The primary study area examines the transportation system needs for the 1-84 Corridor from the WYE Interchange in Boise (east terminus) to State Highway 44 (west terminus) west of Caldwell. The study accomplished the following: • examines the existing traffic operations • determines any short-term needed improvements • forecasts traffic volumes for 2010, 2015 and 2020 planning horizons • examines long-term network alternatives • identifies a list of projects needed for the long-term • provides a cost estimate for those long-term needs • develops a financial plan to fund the anticipated system needs A secondary study area includes the portion of 1-84 Corridor from the WYE Interchange cast to the Gowen Road Interchange. The long-term needs in this portion of the secondary study area are determined in the "Interstate 84, Orchard Interchange to Gowen Interchange Concept Feasibility Study" by CH2M Hill, Inc. The financial analysis of this phase includes both the primary study area and the secondary study area. Interstate 84 Corridor Study Final Report -Page 18 2) Corridor Planning Process Interstate 84 Corridor Study Final Report - Page 19 2) Corridor Planning Process The procedures used in this phase of the I-84 Corridor Study follow the standard regional transportation planning process. In general, local land use plans are used to determine the number and location of vehicle trips. The roadway system determines the routes of travel and the capacity of the roadway system. Trips are then "assigned" to roadway travel paths between their origins and destinations. a) Land Use Plans The land use plans are developed by the individual general-purpose governments (i.e., each county and each city) in their specific comprehensive plans. The approved land use plans are used to estimate both population and employment figures for each county. The population and employment figures are reviewed and approved by COMPASS' Demographic Advisory Committee. The COMPASS Board has the final approval of these figures. The population and employment data are used to estimate the number of personal and vehicle trips attracted to and generated by each area of the two counties. Local data determine the number of vehicle trips per person and per employee for each of the land use categories. COMPASS has already developed, calibrated, and approved a regional transportation planning model for the Destination 2020 Plan (i.e., the 2020 Long Range Transportation Plan.) The model includes shorter -term planning models for 2010 and 2015 as well. b) Transportation .Planning Process The roadway system's characteristics include the number of travel, capacity and the signed speed limit. These characteristics are used to determine the travel times on various portions of the roadway system. A computer program termed a "travel demand forecast model" replicates the land use and transportation system components to determine the travel times for each travel route between a trip's origin and its destination. Each trip is then "assigned" a travel route based upon the minimum travel time and the roadway system's capacity. All other successive trips are also assigned to their individual travel routes based upon the travel time criteria and the available system capacity. The summation of these individual travel assignments is the total traffic forecast for each roadway segment in the travel model. Separate roadway networks and population and employment data are developed for each model year (i.e., 2010, 2015,.and 2020) by defining the year's individual roadway system characteristics and the local land use plans. c) Public Review Process The public review process was quite lengthy. The following discussion identifies the six types of meetings used in the process. Interstate 84 Corridor Study Final Report - Page 20 Treasure Valley Transportation Team (TVTT) Meetings. Monthly TVTT meetings were held. The TVTT was a group of representatives from each of the affected local jurisdictions. The individual members were often technical staff (i.e., planning directors, city engineers, transportation planners, etc.) although elected officials represented several agencies. The list of TVTT members is included in the Technical Appendix. In general, the TVTT members provided technical guidance to the consulting team in the management and decision-making process of the 1-84 Corridor Study. More specifically, the TVTT members were full participants in the entire work effort. The group reviewed the data, suggested alternatives, reviewed proposed projects, and guided the development of the final 1-84 Corridor Plan. • Sounding Board Meetings. Indivi.dua.l Sounding Board Meetings were held prior to each open house. The Sounding Board membership included a range of interested citizen volunteers who reviewed various plan elements of the 1-84 Corridor Study. They provided vided input for the development of the recommendations, and acted as a public review committee. The Sounding Board meetings were usually held just prior to the public open house meetings. The Sounding Board provided excellent guidance in the preparation and presentation of public review materials Open House Meetings. Two bi county open house meetings were held. The purposes of the public meetings included a public review of the process, solicitation of comments on needed Corridor improvements, and the development of recommendations on financial planning and the project timetable. The specific results of the open house meetings were the following: o First Open House Meeting— This meeting was held on March 21, 2001. The purpose of the meeting was to review the initial findings of the project team. The goal was to reconfirm the list of issues and identify possible solutions. The results were a public verification of the transportation issues, an expansion of the project team's understanding of the Corridor, and an initial set of Corridor improvement projects. In general, the public responses included: overwhelming support for the TDM programs, encouragement for more through lanes on the I-84 mainline, and recommendations for improving traffic operations at several of the existing interchanges. o Second Open House Meeting - This meeting was held on July 19, 2001. The purposes of the meeting were to review the financial elements of the 1-84 Corridor Plan, evaluate the proposed Corridor improvement projects, and comment on the draft Transportation Demand Management Plan. The results were supportive of some elements of the Financial Element, confirmation for widening the I-84 mainline, and modified the program for new interchanges in the Corridor. In general, the public responses included: strong support for the TDM programs that encouraged non drive -alone travel modes, disfavor for the Interstate 84 Corridor Study Final Report - Page 21 TDM programs that penalized drive -alone travel, and encouragement for widening the 1-84 mainline to six lanes from Meridian Road to Garrity Boulevard. The public responses provided only mixed impressions on the interchange locations at Robinson/.McDermott/Black Cat Road. In terms of funding the needed Corridor improvements, the public support was greatest for the statewide funding programs such as, an increased gas tax or higher registration fees. There was little general support for highway user fees such as, toll roads or local gas taxes COMPASS Board Presentations. The COMPASS Board received three major briefings on the study: 1) review of the technical analysis; 2) review of the initial recommendations; and 3) the initial Corridor Plan. The COMPASS Board both helped in the overall review of the project, and provided guidance in the project priority and financial planning elements of the Plan. The COMPASS Board took three specific actions on the I-84 Corridor Study prior to the completion of this project. They include: June .18, 20011 COMPASS Board Minutes. "Dave Wynkoop moved and Roger Simmons seconded to concur with the 1-84 Corridor Study Stage I recommendations, with the exception that the Five Mile Interchange is to be retained as a partial interchange and the Transportation Demand Management Plan include the Pace Car concept limited in scope to a neighborhood project. " August 20, 2001 COMPASS Board .Minutes. "Frank McKeever moved and Dennis Stegenga seconded that the COMPASS Board invite VIA Trans, Treasure Valley Legislators, and Idaho Transportation Department policy makers to a workshop to develop a financial plan to allow the timely implementation of both transit and roadway improvements in the I--84 Corridor Study. " October 15, 2001 DRAFT COMPASS Board Minutes. "Martin Thorn moved and Dennis Stegenga seconded to approve the Final I-84 Corridor Study Findings and Conclusions as presented. " Idaho Transportation Board Presentations. The Idaho Transportation Board is the agency responsible for implementing many of the recommendations of the I-84 Corridor Study. The Idaho Transportation Board received regular progress updates and were asked to accept this study for implementation. The Idaho Transportation Board took the following action: November 15, 2001. The "Transportation Board made a motion to accept the 184 Corridor Study for use as a guide for making decisions on future improvements to the Corridor. " • Individual Agency Briefings. COMPASS staff, with support from the consulting team, provided a number of briefings to the local jurisdictions providing an overview of the planning process and detailed the DRAFT 1-84 Corridor Plan. Interstate 84 Corridor Study Final Report - Page 22 3) Special Planning Elements Interstate 84 Corridor Study Final Report - Page 23 3) Special Planning Elements a) Analysis of Existing Interchanges This section of the project report provides an analysis of the traffic operations at the existing 1- 84 interchanges within the study area. The analysis of existing conditions provides the basis for the subsequent needs analysis. The goal of this task was to review each existing interchange within the study area to determine the current conditions, identify if the respective interchanges conform to current design standards, and to verify the current and future level of service. Exhibit 10 (Page 17) illustrated the freeway and interchange locations within the study area. Exhibit 11 summarizes the operational and design improvements recommended in this phase. Additional information is provided in the Technical Appendix. Eagle Road • Construct dual left -turn lanes for the westbound off -ramp's intersection with Eagle Road. • Conduct a signal warrant analysis at the southern ramp terminal intersection. • Construct dual left -turn lanes for the eastbound off -ramp's intersection Eagle Road. Meridian Road/ • Construct a loop ramp in the northwest quadrant of the interchange to Highway 69 accommodate the westbound -to -southbound movement. The new ramp wil I require widening the bridge structure to accommodate the merging traffic on southbound Meridian Road. • Conduct a signal warrant analysis at the southern ramp terminal intersection, Garrity Boulevard/ 0 Widen Garrity Boulevard to provide two southbound travel lanes fora Can -Ada Road greater distance if the westbound off -ramp is to be used effectively. This will require reconstructing the existing 1-84 bridge structures. • Conduct a signal warrant analysis at the southern ramp terminal intersection. Franklin Boulevard • Replace southbound overpass structure. (Nampa) Nampa Boulevard/ • None. Northside Boulevard a There is some operational opportunity for creating dual left turn lanes for the westbound off -ramp's intersection with Nampa Boulevard. Additional analysis is required. Interstate 84 Corridor Study Final Report - Page 24 Franklin Road/ • Complete the installation of traffic signals at both ramp terminals. US Highway20/26 0 Construct dual left -turn lanes on the ramps when Franklin Road is widened (Caldwell) to five lanes. • Construct separate right -turn lanes on both ramp terminals. • Construct a center turn lane in Franklin Road at the two ramp terminals. This will require a new bridge structure over 1-84. Additional analysis is required. 101h Avenue/ • There is some operational opportunity for creating dual left -turn lanes for Illinois Avenue the two off -ramp intersections. Additional analysis is required. These changes will not require a new bridge structure for 1-84. Centennial Way • There is some operational opportunity for creating dual left -turn lanes for the two off -ramp intersections. Additional analysis is required. These changes should not require a new bridge structure for Centennial Way. U.S. Highway 20/26 • Increase the spacing between the two ramp terminals to a minimum of 650 (Notus Exit) feet. • Increase the distance between the ramp terminals and Old Highway to a minimum of 650 feet. • Align the two south ramp tenninals. State Highway 44/ Increase the spacing between the two ramp terminals to a minimum of 650 State Street feet. b) Arterial Cross Street Improvements This section of the project report provides an analysis of the arterial roadway taking into consideration those decisions on new interchange locations or interchanges recommended for upgrades. Unfortunately, the construction of any new interchange or a major upgrade to any existing interchange will impact the traffic volumes on the adjacent arterial roadway system. These changes (i.e., new traffic volumes) require a re-examination of the arterial roadway system. The goal of this work task was to review the arterial traffic volumes; particularly those arterials near any new interchange locations. The objective was to determine if any arterial improvements are needed to support any of the new interchanges. The results show that many arterial roadways will require a major upgrading, particularly the east -west arterials. Exhibit 10 (Page 19) illustrated the arterial roadway system within the study area. A detailed list of those improvements can be found in the Technical Appendix. Interstate 84 Corridor Study Final Report - Page 25 Exhibit 12 summarizes the recommended operational and design improvements to the arterial roadways. Additional information is provided in the technical appendix. Exhibit 12: Upgrade of Arterial Roadways Summary of Recommendations Interchange Recommended Improvements `. Eagle Road 0 Conduct a signal warrant analysis at the southern ramp terminal intersection. • Construct dual left -turn lanes for the eastbound off -ramp's intersection with Eagle Road. Meridian Road/ Widening the Meridian Road bridge (overpass) structure to provide six Highway 69 travel lanes: two northbound lanes, one northbound left -turn lane, two southbound lanes, and one lane for the merging traffic from the westbound to southbound loop ramp. • Conduct a signal warrant analysis at the southern ramp terminal intersection. Ten Mile Road • Widen Ten Mile Road to provide a minimum of three -lane roadway within the interchange area: one southbound travel lane, one northbound travel lane, and a center turn lane. This will require reconstructing the exiting bridge structures over 1-84. • Conduct a signal warrant analysis at the ramp terminal intersections. Garrity Boulevard/ • Widen Garrity Boulevard to provide a five -lane roadway within the Can -Ada Road interchange area: two southbound travel lanes, two northbound travel lanes, and a center turn lane. This will require reconstructing the exiting 1-84 bridge structures. • Conduct a signal warrant analysis at the southern ramp terminal intersection. Franklin Boulevard 0 Widen Franklin Boulevard to provide a five -lane roadway within the (Nampa) interchange area: two eastbound travel lanes, two westbound travel lanes, and an easthound/westbound left -turn lane. This will require reconstructing the exiting 1-84 bridge structures. • Conduct a signal warrant analysis at both ramp terminal intersections. Nampa Boulevard/ • None. Northside Boulevard Franklin Road/ Complete the installation of traffic signals at both ramp terminals. US Highway20/26 a Construct dual left -turn lanes on the ramps when Franklin Road is (Caldwell) widened to five lanes. • Construct separate right -turn lanes on both ramp terminals. • Construct a center tum lane in Franklin Road at the two ramp terminals. This will require a new bridge structure over 1-84. 10'x' Avenue/ • None. Illinois Avenue Interstate 84 Corridor Study Fina! Report - Page 26 Centennial Way I • None. U.S. Highway 20126 r Increase the spacing between the two ramp terminals to a minimum of (Parma Access) 650 feet. • Increase the distance between the ramp terminals and Old Highway to a minimum of 650 feet. • Align the two south ramp tenminals. State Highway 441 • Increase the spacing between the two ramp terminals to a minimum of State Street 650 feet. • Align the two south ramp terminals. c) Robinson Road, McDermott Road, and Black Cat Road Interchange Alternatives This section of the project report provides an analysis of the potential interchange .location alternatives at Robinson Road, McDermott Road, and Black Cat Road. Previous work in the I- 84 Corridor (Phase 1) identified the potential for a future .interchange between the existing Garrity Road Interchange and the planned Ten Mile Road Interchange. The work effort for this phase included: • Determine if any interchanges are needed in the Robinson Road, McDermott Road, and Black Cat .Road area. • Evaluate the impact of the new interchange on freeway traffic volumes. • Evaluate the potential for federal approval of an interchange at either location. • Recommend a course of action for this potential interchange area. Exhibit 13 (on Page 28) illustrates the Robinson Road, McDermott Road, and Black Cat Road Interchange locations. i) Background Phase 1 of the 1-84 Corridor Study identified the need for upgrading the existing Garrity Road Interchange and recommended the construction of a new interchange at Ten Mile Road. A third recommendation of the Phase I Study was to examine the potential for a future interchange between the existing Garrity Road Interchange and the planned Ten Mile Road Interchange. There are four miles between the Garrity Road Interchange and Ten Mile Road and three section -line roads intersect the I-84 Corridor: They are Black Cat Road, McDermott Road, and Robinson Road. Black Cat Road and Robinson Road have bridge structures over I-84. Both are two-lane facilities without any ramp connections to 1-84. McDermott Road has no overpass or ramp connections to 1-84. Interstate 84 Corridor Study Final Report - Page 27 rr- _OVERLAND r - Exhibit 13: Robinson Road, McDermott Road and Black Cat Road Interchange Area aT Current land uses in the area are generally agricultural with some large -lot rural residential developments. A limited number of residential structures would be affected by the construction of an interchange at any location within this segment of the Corridor. The long-range land use plans indicate that a commercial/employment center is planned between Robinson Road and Garrity Boulevard on the north side of I-84. The areas near McDermott Road and Black Cat Road are anticipated to remain predominantly residential. ii} Recommended Course of Action The Robinson Road interchange is located near the major activity center in the Garrity Boulevard Corridor and therefore acts to mitigate and divert traffic from the congested Garrity Boulevard Interchange. An interchange at Robinson Road is expected to serve 11,000 vehicles per day in 2020 under the current set of land use assumptions. The Robinson Road Interchange will cost $25.4 million. The McDermott Road Interchange is located in an area with a lower development intensity dominated by residential developments. An interchange at McDermott Road will serve 3,600 vehicles per day in 2020 under the current set of land use assumptions. Any decision to locate a new interchange at McDermott Road could increase the area's accessibility and encourage a change of land uses. A significant change in land use would necessarily result in higher traffic Interstate 84 Corridor Study Fina! Report - Page 28 Qtm esu LLP UNION PACIFW v --RAILROAD � VP AHO � rN < f1t EsE jj 4 Z V N 4 FkCTpE?Y 1 � iLi— AAUTC IAAL� FRANKLIN Rd m rr- _OVERLAND r - Exhibit 13: Robinson Road, McDermott Road and Black Cat Road Interchange Area aT Current land uses in the area are generally agricultural with some large -lot rural residential developments. A limited number of residential structures would be affected by the construction of an interchange at any location within this segment of the Corridor. The long-range land use plans indicate that a commercial/employment center is planned between Robinson Road and Garrity Boulevard on the north side of I-84. The areas near McDermott Road and Black Cat Road are anticipated to remain predominantly residential. ii} Recommended Course of Action The Robinson Road interchange is located near the major activity center in the Garrity Boulevard Corridor and therefore acts to mitigate and divert traffic from the congested Garrity Boulevard Interchange. An interchange at Robinson Road is expected to serve 11,000 vehicles per day in 2020 under the current set of land use assumptions. The Robinson Road Interchange will cost $25.4 million. The McDermott Road Interchange is located in an area with a lower development intensity dominated by residential developments. An interchange at McDermott Road will serve 3,600 vehicles per day in 2020 under the current set of land use assumptions. Any decision to locate a new interchange at McDermott Road could increase the area's accessibility and encourage a change of land uses. A significant change in land use would necessarily result in higher traffic Interstate 84 Corridor Study Fina! Report - Page 28 volumes in the interchange area. The McDermott Road interchange will cost $25 million. Because there is no overpass at the present time, construction of a two- lane overpass alone would cost approximately $4 million. Black Cat Road was examined as an alternative interchange location. However, the traffic forecast was very low and the topographic constraints to the south eliminated this option from further consideration. A mid -mile location between .Robinson Road and McDermott Road was reviewed as another alternative. This site appears to attract an important amount of traffic but to a lesser extent. This location also aids Garrity Boulevard. The cost of the mid -mile location is somewhat higher than either Robinson Road or McDermott Road, since additional arterial roadways are needed to support a mid -mile location. A change in the land use plans would necessarily result in higher traffic volumes in the interchange area. The mid -mile interchange and supporting new roadways will cost $35 million. Exhibit 14 illustrates the decision criteria and data for the three interchange alternatives in the Garrity Boulevard to Ten Mile Road area. Additional. information is provided in the Technical Appendix. The TVTT's recommended course of action was as follows: • .Plan for the interchange location near the Robinson Road/Star Road area. • Plan for the new interchange for 2015. Interchange Traffic Volumes - Year 2020 Freeway Traffic Volumes - Year 2020 • 11,000 • 93,800 • 3,600 1 • 8,000 • 92,200 1 • 93,000 Number of Freeway • 6 (3 each direction) • 6 (3 each direction) • 6 (3 each direction) Mainline Travel Lanes • 8 (4 each direction) — Year 2020 between Robinson and Garrity Number of Freeway • 6 (3 each direction) • 6 (3 each direction) • 6 (3 each direction) Mainline Travel Lanes — • 8 (4 each direction) Year 2020 between Robinson and Garrity Interstate 84 Corridor Study Final Report - Page 29 Impact on Arterial • Reduces congestion • No reduction in • Some reduction in Roadway on most arterial congestion on congestion on System roadways. most arterial most arterial • Reduces congestion roadways. roadways. at Garrity Blvd • No reduction in • Some reduction in interchange. congestion at congestion at • Allows detour route Garrity Blvd Garrity Blvd during Garrity interchange. Interchange. construction. • Allows detour • Allows detour route during route during Garrity Blvd. Garrity Blvd. construction. construction. Daily Vehicle Miles of • 776,500 • 772,300 • 775,000 Travel Daily Vehicle Hours of . 23,250 • 21,200 • 22,000 Travel Average Travel Speed • 28.9 • 29.1 • 29.0 (MPH) Construction Cost • $25.4 million • $25 million • $35 million (interchange) (interchange only) (.interchange and • $2.4 million arterials) (freeway widening) Cost per Annual . $8.00 • $23.00 • $15.00 Vehicle Trip Air Quality Emissions • CO = 13,092 kg/yr • CO = 12,960 • CO = 13,000 • PM 10 = 3,208 kg/yr kg/yr kg/yr • PM10 = 3,224 • PMIO = 3,200 kg/yr kg/yr Design Considerations • May be too close to • No distance • Requires Garrity Blvd for conflicts with additional optimal ramp other arterial street design. intersections. system. • Require two additional lanes on the freeway. Note 1. Estimated Interstate 84 Corridor Study Final Report -Page 30 d) Five Mile Road Interchange This section of the project report provides an analysis of the proposed Five Mile Road Interchange. The goal of the analysis was to determine the potential for a new interchange at Five .Mile Road. The analysis was also used to recommend a course of action for this potential interchange. i) Background The Five Mile Road Interchange was recommended as part of the Bench/Valley Transportation Study in 1995. The Ben.ch/Valley Transportation Study was a semi -regional transportation study covering the area of Boise City, Garden City, and Ada County bounded by Orchard Street, Overland Road, Cloverdale Road, and Hill Road. Residential growth plus industrial and retail expansion has resulted in rapidly increasing traffic congestion within the study area. The goals of the 1995 study were to evaluate the current transportation needs, forecast future trave 1 demands and to develop potential solutions for the 33 -square -mile study area. The study's product was a long-range transportation plan. Exhibit 15 summarizes the decision criteria. Additional information is provided in the Technical Appendix. Exhibit 16 (Page 32) illustrates the Five Mile Road Interchange location within the study area. Interchange Traffic Volumes • 41,000 in 2015 • None • 55,000 in 2020 Freeway Traffic Volumes + 161,000 • 130,000 Year 2020 (E/O Five Mile Road) Number of Freeway Mainline • 12 (6 each direction) • 8 (4 each direction) Travel lanes (E/O Five Mile Impact on Arterial Roadway • Reduces congestion on • Reduces congestion on System most arterial roadways. most arterial roadways. • Requires five lanes on • Requires five lanes on Five Mile Road. Five Mile Road. • Requires seven lanes on • Requires five lanes on Five Mile Road in Five Mile Road in interchange area. interchange area. Daily Vehicle Miles of Travel • 10,755,000 • 10,756,500 Daily Vehicle Hours of Travel I • 374,500 Average Travel Speed (MPH) I • 27.8 • 374,900 • 27.6 Air Quality Emissions * CO is 193,390 kg/yr • CO is 195,128 kg/yr • PM10 is 35640 kg/yr * PMI0 is 36,315 kg/yr Interstate 84 Corridor Study Final Report - Page 31 ii} Course of Action The project team reviewed the original BenchNalley Transportation Study, the current COMPASS traffic analysis, and current design considerations that affect the decision on the construction of the Five Mile Road Interchange. The COMPASS Board's recommended course of action was: Include the Five Mile Road Interchange in the overall 1-84 Corridor Plan Assign the new interchange to 2020 The facility design and cost are to be determined at a later date The final COMPASS Board action. was: June 18, 2001 COMPASS Board Minutes. "Dave Wynkoop moved and Roger Simmons seconded to concur with the 1-84 Corridor Study Stage 1 recommendations, with the exception that the Five Mile Road Interchange is to be retained as a partial interchange and the Transportation Demand Management Plan include the Pace Car concept limited in scope to a neighborhood project. " e) Ten Mile Road Interchange The COMPASS staff conducted two separate analyses to determine the location for the first new interchange in the 1-84 Corridor. The background assumptions for both analyses include the following: • Karcher Road Interchange would be complete by the year 2005. • The Franklin Road Interchange (Exit 29) upgrade would be complete by the year 2010. • All the previously reviewed demographic and land use projections would remain unchanged to the year 2010. The first analysis was aimed at determining which, if any, of the western area interchanges had the market demand to justify a new interchange. John Church, Idaho Economics, completed this analysis. It was aimed at an evaluation of proposed interchanges at the following sites: Ustick Road, Middleton. Road, Robinson Road, McDermott Road, and Ten Mile Road. The .market analysis concluded that Ten Mile Road Interchange should be next. The results from the market analysis for the remaining interchanges need to be used with caution because; once an interchange is constructed the entire market will change. The reason; the analysis did not produce a list with a ranking for each possible interchange. The second analysis was an iterative and more traditional process completed by COMPASS, which used COMPASS' travel demand forecasting model. This analysis included the following steps: • Add one new interchange to the model network in 2010 • Evaluate the traffic projections on the interstate and arterial roadway systems • Evaluate the impact of the interchange based on congestion, air quality, and cost • Follow these steps for evaluating each interchange for 2015 and 2020 Interstate 84 Corridor Study Final Report - Page 33 This iterative procedure was completed for each of the Ustick Road, Middleton Road, Robinson Road, McDermott Road and Ten Mile Road Interchange alternatives (See Exhibit 17 on Page 35). After an interchange was selected for 2010, the process was repeated for the years 2015 and 2020, as part of the phasing analysis. The results were reviewed by the 1-84 Demographic Sub -Committee and discussed with the TVTT. The result of the analysis was to construct the Ten Mile Road Interchange by 2010. April 17, 2001 TVTT Meeting: "Katey Levihn made an amendment to the motion and Pam Lowe seconded, to proceed with the variables that were used in Phase 1, include John Church's recommendations, proceed with the prioritization process using Ten Mile Road as the first interchange, come back to a special meeting in two weeks to consider if there are any other variables that were left out, then come back to the TVTT to make a final determination on the first interchange to be constructed. Motion passed unanimously. " May 3, 2001 TVTT Meeting: "Reconfirm the selection of Ten Mile Road as the first interchange priority: Ery stated the TVTT has acted on this item subject to the results of the revised decision variables. No fitrther discussion needed. Interstate 84 Corridor Study Final Report - Page 34 � \ ) § r ) ] a \ § � a � / ] / ) k 4 } � f) Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Review This section of the project report provides a summary of the Treasure Valley Intelligent Transportation System Plan and provides any potential schedule adjustments appropriate to support the implementation of other system improvements. The goal was to determine if any critical elements of the ITS Implementation. Plan may be .needed ahead of other elements based upon the Corridor Improvement Plan. COMPASS completed the Treasure Valley ITS Study in March 1999. That study's purpose was to develop a strategic plan for the development and implementation of ITS technology in the Treasure Valley. The original study included a wide range of topics, including traffic surveillance, traffic control, driver information, and emergency incident management. The study included both the freeway corridor and arterial roadway systems in both counties. The ramp metering strategies tested in this study indicate ramp meters could be an effective tool in reducing or even preventing congestion along I-$4 during future year 2020 peak hour travel times. Installed in a timely fashion, ramp meters could also be key in delaying the need for future freeway investments. In this study, the potential benefits of ramp metering are most clearly seen in improved travel conditions along the freeway mainline. Where individual freeway sections are projected to operate at Level of Service E or even at Level of Service F in the future `Base" condition, operations are shown to improve to Level of Service D or Level of Service E with the introduction of ramp metering at selected interchanges. Travel speeds are expected to increase at noticeable levels along the freeway, with subsequent travel time savings. The strategies tested also indicate that ramp meters can assist in the prevention of freeway bottlenecks by regulating the amount of traffic that can enter the system and by breaking up vehicle platoons. Potential negative effects resulting from ramp metering, as observed in this study, include increased delay for drivers waiting at metered on, -ramps, the buildup of vehicle queues, and potential spillover into adjacent arterial intersections. To prevent or reduce the queuing effects at a meter, the physical characteristics of the on-ramp must be suitable for metering. This would include provisions for ample vehicle storage, acceleration and merging distances, and sight distance. These design characteristics can be accommodated as new interchanges are built and existing interchanges are modified when planned capital investments are made. To prevent spill over onto the adjacent surface streets, meter timing should be set so that traffic demand does not exceed the ramps finite storage. As a safeguard, queue detector loops can be installed at the entrances to the on -ramps to reduce or eliminate the metering rate when queues become excessive. Another possible consequence to ramp metering is an increased delay for the entire freeway system. It is possible that the total delay associated with ramp metering could exceed the reduction in total delay on the freeway mainline, causing a net .increase .in system delay. This was shown to be possible in the ramp metering strategies developed for the eastbound direction, and it is conceivable for the westbound direction as well. Interstate 84 Corridor Study Final Report - Page 36 i) Eastbound Direction Apparently, the standards selected for implementing ramp meters will be satisfied for each of the six key interchanges tested in the eastbound direction. Ramp meters provided at the on - ramps of all six interchanges should contribute to reduced congestion levels along the freeway in the future. Exhibit 18 displays the .ramp meter details for the six key interchanges in the Corridor. They are based on the results of Test 92. This strategy was seen as the most realistic as it balances the needs of reducing congestion on the freeway with the vehicle storage constraints on the on - ramps. It was assumed that two lanes would be provided on an approach if the selected meter rates were high (around 900 vph) or if the vehicle queue storage was exceptionally long. * - The maximum queue reflects the length of storage needed to accommodate l0% of the pre -metered traffic demand. ** - A length of 1,400 feet was added to the maximum queue length to account for the acceleration distance needed for a stopped vehicle to achieve a speed conducive for merging with freeway traffic. *** On-ramp distances were calculated from aerial photographs and account for the total distance from the adjacent arterial intersection to the freeway merging area. It should be noted that the ramp details shown in Exhibit 1.8 are for planning purposes only, and should be considered as approximate and subject to change in the design -level analysis. Sufficient vehicle queue storage and acceleration and merging distances can be provided along the on -ramps to the new interchanges at Karcher Road and Ten Mile Road. The preliminary design for the Karcher Road Interchange indicates additional storage may be available on the adjacent arterial (up to 1,330 feet for the northbound to eastbound right -turn lane). Use of this turn lane for vehicle storage would reduce the maximum queue storage shown in the above table. Proper ramp meter design characteristics can be achieved along the on -ramps of most existing interchanges when future projects to widen. I-84 are implemented. However, there may be design deficiencies at US 20126 (Franklin Road) since there are no plans to widen I-84 in the Interstate 84 Corridor Study Final Report - Page 3 i vicinity of the interchange. It may be possible to provide a longer on-ramp when a planned project to retrofit the interchange with a new bridge structure is implemented. Design deficiencies may also be present at the Eagle Road Interchange (southbound to eastbound loop) where a longer on-ramp length would create the need for an additional lane under the overpass totaling five lanes. This improvement could be implemented with a planned project to widen the I-84 mainline at the interchange and retrofit the existing bridge structure. Aerial photographs indicate additional vehicle storage may be available on the adjacent arterial at the Eagle Road Interchange (up to 900 feet for the northbound to eastbound right -turn lane). Use of this turn lane for vehicle storage would reduce the maximum queue storage shown in the above table. Exhibit 19 displays recommendations for installing ramp meters at each of the six key interchanges in the eastbound direction. The priorities shown for installing ramp meters are based on the selected timings of the planned freeway investments in the Corridor. ii) Westbound Direction Projected peak hour travel demand in the westbound direction along I-84 is expected to exceed capacity between the Meridian Road and Ten Mile Road interchanges, even with full implementation of planned freeway system improvements. As a result, a bottleneck is expected to extend east of the Eagle Road Interchange with operations reaching Level of Service F. It was assumed that ramp meters would be installed at freeway interchanges upstream of the study area along I-84 and perhaps I-184 to reduce the traffic flow in the freeway within the Corridor. It appears that the standards selected for implementing ramp meters will be satisfied for the two interchanges at Eagle Road and Meridian Road in the westbound direction. Ramp meters do not appear to be needed at Ten Mile Road or any other interchange to the west. Exhibit 20 (Page 39) displays the ramp meter details for the two key interchanges in the Corridor. Interstate 84 Corridor Study Final Report - Page 38 * - The maximum queue reflects the length of storage needed to accommodate 10% of the pre -metered traffic demand. ** - A length of 1,400 feet was added to the maximum queue length to account for the acceleration distance needed for a stopped vehicle to achieve a speed conducive for merging with freeway traffic. *** - On-ramp distances were calculated from aerial photographs and account for the total distance from the adjacent arterial intersection to the freeway merging area, Again, it should be noted that the ramp details shown in Exhibit 20 are for planning purposes only, and should be considered as approximate and subject to change in the design -level analysis. Sufficient length for vehicle queue storage and acceleration and merging distances can be provided along the on -ramps to the two existing interchanges (Eagle Road and Meridian Road) where planned freeway improvements could .include longer ori, -ramp designs. Exhibit 21 displays recommendations for installing ramp meters in the westbound direction at the two key interchanges within the study area. The priorities shown for installing ramp meters are based on the selected timings of the planned freeway investments in the Corridor. I tagie xoao interchange Implement with interchange improvements (within 10 years) 2 Meridian Road Interchange Implement when freeway is widened to six lanes/ new westbound - southbound off -ramp loop is constructed (within 10 years) The results of this study indicate that the benefits of installing ramp meters at the above two interchanges cannot be realized unless ramp meter installations are constructed at existing interchanges immediately east of the study area along 1.84 and perhaps I-184. I-84 interchanges to be considered should include: • Cole/Overland Road • Vista Avenue • Orchard Street • Broadway Avenue I-184 interchanges to be considered should include: • Franklin Road • Curtis Road • Fairview Avenue (downtown Boise) Interstate 84 Corridor Study Final Report - Page 39 4) Transportation Demand Management Elements Interstate 84 Corridor Study Final Report - Page 40 4) Transportation Demand Management Elements a) Background The purpose of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) is to reduce the number of vehicles using the road system while providing a wide variety of mobility options to those who wish to travel. TDM elements are aimed at reducing travel demand by influencing peoples' travel behavior through: "passive" measures that include incentives designed to promote transit and rideshare as alternatives to the use of Single Occupant Vehicles (SOVs); "economic" measures that create disincentives to driving alone such as roadway user or parking fees, or subsidize programs to encourage use of other modes; or "administrative" mechanisms designed to coordinate TDM efforts. The TDM element of the 1-84 Corridor Study will need to be effectively tailored to meet the Treasure Valley region's goal of 25% of all peak period trips via non -SOV modes by 2020. In order to meet this goal within the 1-84 Corridor, COMPASS has emphasized the need to prioritize implementation of effective TDM elements at the top of a long list of proposed interstate improvements that comprise the I-84 needs assessment. Travel demand analysis conducted by COMPASS in coordination with. VIATrans and Ada County Highway District (ACHD) Commuteride staff revealed that a TDM program targeted to peak period commuter trips within the most heavily traveled section of I-84 (west of the WYE Interchange) could contribute to the achievement of the 25% goal by increasing transit trips from the current level of 1%3 to 5%, and by increasing vanpool and carpool use from the current level of 10%4 to 12% of all trips by the year 2020. Based upon discussions of the TVTT over the course of the study, the clear preference is for implementation of select passive TDM elements that would target commuter trips in order to meet the regional alternative mode share goal within the I-84 Corridor. The TVTT's second and third preferences are for economic measures and administrative measures, respectively. Both the economic and administrative measures potentially include incentives and disincentives. The goals of the 1-84 Corridor Study include the achievement of a 25% alternative mode share for the Corridor and for the Treasure Valley. This would be accomplished by increasing transit ridership from 1% to 5% and by increasing carpooling/ridesharing services to increase usage from 10% to 12%. TDM elements are discussed in the following sections according to these three categories (passive, economic, and administrative). The following narrative provides both general information on TDM elements and, where applicable, information on existing TDM programs and measures that are being implemented in the Treasure Valley. The narrative concludes with a list of TDM elements that the TVTT recommended for incorporation into the 1-84 Capital Improvement Plan. 3 According to 1990 Census information which provides the most current ridesharing data. 4 [bid. Interstate 84 Corridor Study Final Report - Page 41 b) 1-84 Corridor TDM Elements The I-84 Corridor needs analysis indicates that over $605 million in improvements to the I-84 Corridor are needed from 2004 through 2020. This needs analysis accounts for an estimated $454 million worth. of construction projects and approximately $151 million in TDM elements during this 17 -year period. This level of funding is an estimate of what would be expected to provide a comprehensive package of TDM elements that would support achievement of a 25% alternative mode share for the Corridor and for the Treasure Valley. The TDM elements for the I-84 Corridor were developed by COMPASS, VIATrans, and ACHD Commuteride staff, and supported by the TVTT. Emphasis is placed on substantial increases in express bus service and Commuteride Vanpool service throughout the Corridor. Express route needs have been identified between Canyon County and Boise, and between Meridian and Boise, and within the Boise City, including areas located cast of the WYE Interchange. This increased level of transit and ridesharing services would be supported by a Park & Ride lot system, intensive marketing efforts and transit ITS strategies. Transit ITS could include such measures as ramp metering with traffic queue bypass lanes, variable message display, and "real time" transit schedule and route capabilities. Exhibit 22 (Page 43) provides a summary of the TDM elements and conceptual estimates of probable cost as identified through the 1-84 Corridor needs assessment. Interstate 84 Corridor Study Final Report - Page 42 Note: All cost estimates are in 2001 dollars. * Includes employer -based TDM incentive programs such as those currently implemented by ACHD Commuteride. Interstate 84 Corridor Study Fina! Report - Page 43 5) Roadway Needs Assessment Interstate 84 Corridor Study Fina! Report - Page 44 5) Roadway Needs Assessment The roadway needs assessment was determined strictly upon the capacity needs of the roadway system. The following text and tables provide the Transportation Needs Assessment portion of the I-84 Corridor Study. The needs assessment for the roadway system was determined by comparing the forecasted traffic volumes with the roadway capacities. An iterative approach was used, forecasting traffic volumes for the 2010, 2015, and 2020 planning years. For each planning year, the forecast traffic volumes were compared to the available roadway capacity. The list of needed projects was based upon the goal of providing a minimum volume -to -capacity (V/C) ratio of 1.1. This means that the forecast volume can be as high as 10% (i.e., 1.1 times the available planning threshold) over the capacity of the roadway system. Traffic volume forecasts are provided in Exhibits 23 through 26 (Pages 46 through 49) on the following pages. Exhibit 15 (Page 33) illustrates the existing daily traffic volumes on the interstate system within the study area. These figures illustrate daily, two-way traffic volumes and are based upon recent ITD traffic counts. Exhibits 24 through 26 (Pages 47 through 49) depict the daily, two-way traffic volumes forecasted under 2010, 2015, and 2020 conditions respectively. The forecasts were developed with the COMPASS approved travel demand forecasting model using the approved demographics and land use. Exhibit 27 (Pages 50 through 52) is the cost and. timetable for the roadway system improvements needed to provide a minimum volume -to -capacity (V/C) ratio of 1.1 for each of the three planning years. The table has been based on direction by the TVTT at the September 5, 2001 meeting, and was approved by the TVTT at the September 5, 2001 meeting. Interstate 84 Corridor Study Final Report - Page 45 {�.. ��� j - ' tia a �0 n -. C Cl CD o o g o io c o o c ooO ` o Cl .pp C5 pp o o" N :.0 O o -'. o00 o Q :� pp O o CC O cq (A G4 .: _' ..:: (A) G4 �...% b9 � :.. to 'CA .An..:: 4 O 7 r 59 L�. CrcwR 'RR J. : :ca O CD OV o 'Cop G C:, r :. V O '.4 C -�O o 4 :pOo pOQ O �� pOp O pOp O .0 o 4 4 :. q :' N- N'._N tN .Q _. ,.'tp O rn`+1 M� : (s> iA 49 .:. 64 :69 vy fn V) . O U a $� Y 0 3 v ro o v p O � O CD N o0 1 ; iA .:'W) 4s H 4 pOo Q q p Q n 4 O o C,6 po O O C O 4. .:. N m 0 O Q C O O u'0.� nr4 O :C) o O 0 V 0 0 C:> o Cl 0 o 0 N h NO N 4A':.:: N 69 V3 CD C wcqO N O N O O_ CA G O C O W r 00 U 4Ui u N 00 > a o U QMO an O U' L to '. x V] V y _.. to U n .�� HO� p '. y N .�. •G U cGs h C tC3 '' v � �' G V R m rCs . •X h to ao � d M N O, ti a pNp N in oD U � ka O W � � '� io ,yD C Mx Z :G •� C C :'C ` G G G, ': i.a' C G.: U c] C C 0.0 v : v— c 7, Tu y.^_GA O U '6 -u 'C7 •, �n GO 0. ¢� b wu u,' C O u -? -q 4. 'V-0, :. w b ,"r7 ...� _ '. 5�v�3'.inv aTi y 3 ..:;U 3.0 ....a res o P NO CD cn. CCD Cl C W" u1 4: 0 O p D CD S 4 O ,.O N O O O o vi O Op CLl - m 4 N .40 M .,. 4 O p N ef' ; O O N Ci O co O � N [�[ V! N fqN V3 N tF1 c3l t-- N Gy ON - C. 49 :V) p � u '. n : •ci n ca C � > :: 'p . LL ;, C. L4 u _ u C i u to U v d ti 6 re T L a.N .� C? :Q 1 ' G � y .V o a n01 R ti m L aJ Cl o o x 3 v <3 v 3" 114 3 ¢ ¢ o � � w. u" '; In rl e o: 3 � � Na„ C O IIs. 2R' N v O N .� T V V .SS V] 96 ..:: v rCrss R C O LIS< p d ti 6 re 6) Recommendations for Further Study Interstate 84 Corridor Study Final Report - Page 53 6) Recommendations for Further Study Emmett Highway (State Highway 16) Extension - State Highway 16 Exhibit 28 (Page 55) currently extends from State Highway 44 (State Street) to the north. Any regional traffic using 1-84 must use either Star Road or Linder Road to cross the Boise .River (see Exhibit 24 on Page 47). A possible connection between .1-84 and State Highway 16 has been examined a number of times since 1982. However, each of these earl ier alternatives has assumed that only the Meridian Road and Garrity Boulevard interchanges are available as a connection to I-84. The present study has identified two new interchanges within the study area, one at Ten Mile Road and one at Robinson Road/Star Road. Any extension of State Highway 16 will necessitate the consideration of a connection between State Highway 16 and 1-84. The Ten Mile Road and Robinson Road interchanges are only two of the four possible connections to the interstate system. The planning for the State Highway 16 extension may require reconsideration of the interchange locations cast of Garrity Boulevard. This reconsideration will be important for two reasons: any new connection to I-84 will affect the travel forecast in the area, and any change in the roadway forecasts may impact the final roadway decisions. Lancs Use Planning Issues That Affect Roadway Development — There are several land use planning issues which might affect the future development of roadway projects within the I-84 Corridor. They include: • Corridor Preservation/ Right -of -Way Preservation. The ultimate roadway designs should be determined to allow the various highway departments to reserve the needed right-of-way before development occurs. This will help to minimize the future roadway development costs and any disruption to existing businesses abutting the major roadway corridors. • Compatibility Between Land Uses. Certain land uses, commercial activities for example, are compatible land major roadways and higher traffic volumes. Other land uses, typically residential developments, are incompatible with the higher volume roadways. Residential land uses are often considered to be incompatible with commercial uses. For this reason, it may be necessary to develop land use plans that minimize the conflicts among the roadways and the various land uses. • Separation of Sensitive Land Uses. Some types of land uses are particularly sensitive to the noise and air quality impacts of roadways. This is particularly true of residential developments. Because of this sensitivity, remedial measures such as noise walls are often required as mitigation for roadway improvement projects. The cost of the mitigation elements can often exceed the cost of the roadway improvements. For this reason, it is important to develop land use plans that maintain an adequate separation between sensitive land uses and the major roadways. For these reasons, it will be necessary to consider the land use issues of Corridor preservation, land use compatibility, and the separation of sensitive land uses in future planning efforts for the region. Interstate 84 Corridor Study Final Report - Page 54 Land Use Planning Issues that Affect Transportation Demand Management --- The impact of various Iand use policies will also affect the development and operation of a transportation demand management system. In addition to the elements listed above, the list of planning issues includes: • Preservation of Existing Rail Corridors • Consideration for high occupancy vehicle lanes during any roadway widening project • Preservation of right-of-way for Park & Ride lots • Coordination of any Intelligent Transportation System Facilities Coordination of Roadway Improvement Projects with Local Comprehensive Plans - The link between land use developments and increases in travel demand are well known. Developments create travel demands and the roadway must be planned to accommodate those travel .needs. Inversely, increased travel volumes on the major roadway encourage changes in land use. Interstate 84 Corridor Study Final Report - Page 56 ADA COUNTY RECORDER J. DAVID NAVARRO 6 BOISE IDAHO 0611af03 02:23 PM DEPUTY Bonnie Oberbillig 11 I McCdian CIV QUEST OF AMOUNT .00 103097615 CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 03- (Q 2-rl AN ORDINANCE FINDING THAT, JAMES AND DIANE FUHRMAN, THE OWNERS OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH-EAST CORNER OF S. WELLS STREET AND FREEWAY DRIVE MERIDIAN, TO BE KNOWN AS COMFORT SUITES AND WHICH LIES CONTIGUOUS OR ADJACENT TO THE CITY LIMITS OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO; HAVE MADE A REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION IN WRITING TO THE COUNCIL; AND THAT SAID LAND BE ANNEXED TO THE CITY OF MERIDIAN AND ZONING DESIGNATED GENERAL RETAIL AND SERVICE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (C -G); AND DECLARING THAT SAID LAND, BY PROPER LEGAL DESCRIPTION AS DESCRIBED BELOW, BE A PART OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO; REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS, ORDERS OR PARTS THEREOF IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; AND DIRECTING THE CITY ENGINEER TO ADD SAID PROPERTY TO THE OFFICIAL MAPS OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO; AND DIRECTING THE CLERK OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN TO FILE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDINANCE AND MAP OF THE AREAS TO BE ANNEXED WITH ADA COUNTY RECORDER, AUDITOR, TREASURER AND ASSESSOR, AND THE STATE TAX COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF IDAHO, PURSUANT TO IDAHO CODE SECTION 50-223 AND SECTION 63-2215. BE I T O RDAINED B Y T HE M AYOR A ND THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO: SECTION 1. FINDINGS: That the following described land is contiguous and adjacent to the City of Meridian, Idaho, and that the City of Meridian has received a written request for annexation to the City of Meridian, Idaho, by the owner of said Property, to -wit: A parcel of land for the purpose of rezone, being a portion of Lot 18 of Amended Magic View Subdivision as recorded in Book 52 at Page 4445 and 4446 of Plats, located in the SE 114 of Section 17, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho and more described as follows: ANNEXATION AND ZONING ORDINANCE (AZ -03-007) PAGE 1 OF 4 Commencing at a brass cap monument marking the SE corner of said SE %4, thence along the East line of said SE %4 N00°42'20" W a distance of 2126.48 feet to a point from which a brass cap monument marking the NE corner of said SE '/4 bears N00°42'20" W a distance of 527.39 feet, thence leaving said East line S89°17'40" W a distance of 1306.66 feet to a %Z inch rebar marking the NE corner of said Lot 18 and being the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence along the East line of said Lot 18 S00°28' 18" E a distance of 77.90 feet to a point on the South right-of-way line of Freeway Drive and being on the North line of a parcel of land as described in Meridian annexation ordinance number 660; Thence along said right-of-way line and said North line and along the are of a curve to the right having a radius of 3729.72, an arc length of 735.66 feet, a central angle of 11 °1.8'04", and a chord bearing S62°00'49" W a distance of 734.46 feet to a point of intersection of said right-of-way line and the center line of Wells Street; Thence leaving said right-of-way line and said North line and along said center line of Wells Street N09°38'35" W a distance of 322.90 feet to a point; Thence leaving said center line and along the North line of said Lot 18 N81'33'25" E a distance of 709.71 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said parcel contains 3.42 acres more or Less and is subject to all existing easements and rights-of-way of record or implied. SECTION 2: That the above-described real property be, and the same is hereby annexed and. made a part of the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho. SECTION 3: That the real property herein by this ordinance annexed to the City of Meridian hereinabove described shall be zoned General Retail and Service Commercial District (C -G). SECTION 4: That the City Engineer is hereby directed to alter all use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps, comprehensive plan and all official maps depicting the boundaries of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance. SECTION 5: All ordinances, resolutions, orders or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed, rescinded and annulled. ANNEXATION AND ZONING ORDINANCE (AZ -03-007) PAGE 2 OF 4 SECTION 6: This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication, according to law. SECTION 7: The Clerk of the City of Meridian shall, within ten (10) days following the effective date of this ordinance, duly file a certified copy of this ordinance and a map prepared in a draftsman manner plainly and clearly designating the boundaries of the City of Meridian, including the lands herein annexed, with the following officials of the County of Ada, State of Idaho, to -wit: the Recorder, Auditor, Treasurer and Assessor and shall also file simultaneously a certified copy of this ordinance and map with the State Tax Commission of the State of Idaho, all in compliance with Idaho Code §63-2215 and §50-223. PASSED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this day of ,,z�74—t-7� , 2003. APPROVED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this cl da of Kgi, 2 , 2003. Y Eiaz�-- kMAY ,I Or- &IER, ATTEST:oft Q�4 SEAL CITY CLERK First Reading: �`©-�•, •9 1 P ,`'` O ,w1 Adopted after first reading by susZ &F W, lhe) ,d,d e as allowed pursuant to Idaho Code 50- 902 Yes: )C Second Reading: Third Reading:_ ANNEXATION AND ZONING ORDINANCE (AZ -03-007) PAGE 3 OF 4 STATE OF IDAHO,) Ss. County of Ada ) On this day of , 2003, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared ROBERT D. CORRIE and WILLIAM G. BERG, TR., known to me to be the Mayor and City Clerk of the CITY of Meridian, Idaho, and who executed the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that the City of Meridian executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. %%QvQ 00p4 eel N S,- ®� �% OL (SEAL) 17 ; NOTARY PUBLIC FOR IDAHO RESIDING AT: _ r FA 4 { g R y JOWW j :'04� MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: ZAWorkIMlMeridian\N4eridian 151a'i 01mfort Suites AZ-03-OMAZOrd.doc ANNEXATION AND ZONING ORDINANCE (AZ -03-007) PAGE 4 OF 4 �u / w 2 wk -co EN / b co w W C3 CD - m $ 2 2 m CD o — Z @ 9\ ƒ E CA R F u a � O } 4�W dF- w Z§� j2 D W w LU\ U W z U- r 0 y LL - Z 0 S$E 01-0 W C© e C§ 0.4 3 CO 0 w \ 17 2 0 E d 0 2 2 u U \w w O CO ¥ o/ ƒ \ I \ % w k — _ � Q § § $ E CERTIFICATION OF THE CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN To: The Recorder, Auditor, Treasurer and Assessor of Ada County, and The State Tax Commission of the State of Idaho 1, WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk, of the City of Meridian, Ada County, State of Idaho, do hereby certify that the attached copy of Ordinance No. 03- 1f 21 , passed by the City Council of the City of Meridian, on the day of S , 2003, is a true and correct copy of the original of said document which is in the care, custody and control of,�hev-lt Clerk of the City of Meridian. ,�� , Of M a e._SEAL_ WILLIAM G. BERG, JR. 6, o O 0: STATE OF IDAHO, ss. County of Ada, } r� On this day ofv- 14:-, in the year 2�3 , before me, ,c2 rr , a Notary Public, appeared WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., known or identified to me to be the City Clerk of the City of Meridian, Idaho that executed the said instrument, and acknowledged to me that he executed the same on behalf of the City of Meridian. 9mONS (SEAL) ; 22)?OP'V44 et n ast% �f A 0A ff &� -L�, Notary Public for Idaho Commission Expires: Zg'( ZAWorkW\N4eridian\Meridian 15360WComfort Suites AZ-03-007kCertificationOfC]erkOrd.doc CERTIFICATION OF THE CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN AZ -03-007 ADA COUNTY RECORDER J. DAVID NAVARRO BOISE IDAHO 06113/03 02:23 PM DEPUTY B©nnie Oberbillig RECORDED -REWEST OF Meridian CI AMOUNT .00 I!f 103097613 �1 CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 03- l0 2- 0 AN ORDINANCE FINDING THAT, E.L. BEWS AND SHIRLEY BEWS, HUSBAND AND WIFE, THE OWNERS OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF W. McMILLAN ROAD AND N. TEN MILE ROAD, MERIDIAN, TO BE KNOWN AS VERONA SUBDIVISION AND WHICH LIES CONTIGUOUS OR ADJACENT TO THE CITY LIMITS OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO; HAVE MADE A REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION IN WRITING TO THE COUNCIL; AND THAT SAID LAND BE ANNEXED TO THE CITY OF MERIDIAN AND ZONING DESIGNATED MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (R -S); AND DECLARING THAT SAID LAND, BY PROPER LEGAL DESCRIPTION AS DESCRIBED BELOW, BE A PART OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO; REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS, ORDERS OR PARTS THEREOF IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; AND DIRECTING THE CITY ENGINEER TO ADD SAID PROPERTY TO THE OFFICIAL MAPS OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO; AND DIRECTING THE CLERK OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN TO FILE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDINANCE AND MAP OF THE AREAS TO BE ANNEXED WITH ADA COUNTY RECORDER, AUDITOR, TREASURER AND ASSESSOR, AND THE STATE TAX COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF IDAHO, PURSUANT TO IDAHO CODE SECTION 50-223 AND SECTION 63-2215. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO: SECTION 1. FINDINGS: That the following described land is contiguous and adjacent to the City of Meridian, Idaho, and that the City of Meridian has received a written request for annexation to the City of Meridian, Idaho, by the owner of said Property, to -wit: A parcel of land being a portion of the W %z of the SW 1/4 of Section 26, Township 4 North, Range 1 West of the Boise Meridian, Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows: ANNEXATION AND ZONING ORDINANCE (AZ -03-005) PAGE 1 OF 4 Commencing at the northwest corner of the SW '/ (W '/4 corner) of Section 26, T. 4N., R. 1W., B.M., thence S 89°08'53" E 25.00 feet along the north line of said SW 1/4 to a point on the east right-of-way of N. Ten Mile Road, the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING of this description. Thence continuing S 89°08'53" E 1283.33 feet along said north line to the northeast corner of the W % of said SW %4; Thence S 00°29'44" W 2603.06 feet along the east line of said W % of the SW 1/4 to a point; Thence N 88°59'04" W 20.00 feet to a point; Thence S 00°29'44" W 20.00 feet to a point on the north right of way of W. McMillan Road; Thence N 88°59'04" W 426.46 feet along said north right of way to a point; Thence N 00°21'49" E 633.98 feet to a point of curvature; Thence along a curve to the left 222.97 feet, said curve having a radius of 155.00 feet, a delta angle of 82125'10", tangents of 135.74 feet, and a long chord bearing N 40050'46" W 204.23 feet to a point of tangency; Thence N 82°0321" W 305.24 feet to a point; Thence N 88°58'19 " W 393.13 feet to a point on the east right of way of N. Ten Mile Road; Thence N 00020'43" E 1796.47 feet along said east right of way to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING this description, said parcel containing 61.69 acres, more or less. SECTION 2: That the above-described real property be, and the same is hereby annexed and made a part of the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho. SECTION 3: That the real property herein by this ordinance annexed to the City of Meridian hereinabove described shall be zoned Medium Density Residential District (R-8). ANNEXATION AND ZONING ORDINANCE (AZ -03-005) PAGE 2 OF 4 SECTION 4: That the City Engineer is hereby directed to alter all use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps, comprehensive plan and all official maps depicting the boundaries of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance. SECTION 5: The zoning designation set forth in Section 3 of this ordinance is subject to the terms and conditions of that certain Development Agreement by and between the City of Meridian and the owner of the land described in Section 1 dated the Z� day of �, 2003 and that the uses are to be developed under the planned development process and conditional use permit process. SECTION 6: All ordinances, resolutions, orders or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed, rescinded and annulled. SECTION 7: This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication, according to law. SECTION 8: The Clerk of the City of Meridian shall, within ten (10) days following the effective date of this ordinance, duly file a certified copy of this ordinance and a map prepared in a draftsman manner plainly and clearly designating the boundaries of the City of Meridian, including the lands herein annexed, with the following officials of the County of Ada, State of Idaho, to -wit: the Recorder, Auditor, Treasurer and Assessor and shall also file simultaneously a certified copy of this ordinance and map with the State Tax Commission of the State of Idaho, all in compliance with Idaho Code §63-2215 and §50-223. ANNEXATION AND ZONING ORDINANCE (AZ -03-005) PAGE 3 OF 4 PASSED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, thisday of 2003. APPROVED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this day of Grn2_ , 2003. r� K51WO-0 ATTEST: CITY CLERK OF PvIEW.,{p�� ro'o 0''?,q SAL 7, GG -CID First Reading. �6"-3 L03 Adopted after first reading by suspension of the Rule as allowed pursuant to Idaho Code 50- 902 Yes: ><- No: Second Reading: Third Reading:_ STATE OF IDAHO,) : ss. County of Ada ) On this � O day of IR( L , 2003, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared ROBERT D. CORRIE and WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., known to me to be the Mayor and City Cleric of the CITY of Meridian, Idaho, and who executed the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that the City of Meridian executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and. year first above written. (SEAL) 65! a .0 . 9117a, (m NOTARY PUBLIC FOR IDAHO RESIDING AT: M6L (&W&. .t,)dA MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: aS °4adualla ZAWorkVVWeridian\Meridian 15360M1Varona Subdivision AZ -03-005 PP -03.003 CUP-03-0071AZOrd.doc ANNEXATION AND ZONING ORDINANCE (AZ -03-005) PAGE 4 OF 4 �t w LL z oZ �-z zZ5 o uLI Qm tr R a U c 2 0 La QLO Of �LV96L 6 3Xtl.OZoo©N ,9o'so9z M.tt.6zo006 F 196TC9 600� 3.Z6.I.ZXON �o 0 C z �C's co .c z �E to z 1 a2� 3-i1WN31 N N 0 m Q 9 0 En o 0Z o 04 WN Z W Q CU p PC, Z ra p uw ID O>NUm� 196TC9 600� 3.Z6.I.ZXON �o 0 C z �C's co .c z �E to z 1 a2� 3-i1WN31 N N 0 m Q 9 0 En CERTIFICATION OF THE CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN To: The Recorder, Auditor, Treasurer and Assessor of Ada County, and The State Tax Commission of the State of Idaho 1, WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk, of the City of Meridian, Ada County, State of Idaho, do hereby certify that the attached copy of Ordinance No. 03- 0 ZS passed by the City Council of the City of Meridian, on the day of�vGvn-�, , 2003, is a true and correct copy of the original of said document which is in the care, custody and control of the City Clerk of the City of Meridian. � O HAL _ WILLIAM G. BERG, JR. o� STATE OF IDAHO,) ss. County of Ada, } On this day of & U' in the year ( , before me, _ �,u,rm re' c� - , a Notary Public, appeared WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., known or identified to me to be the City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Meridian, Idaho that executed the said instrument, and acknowledged to me that he executed the same on behalf of the City of Meridian. as e ON S o•• {SEAL} -' 1! R 0 kavntg� Notary Public for Idaho Commission Expires: --29-06 ZAWorkW Weridian\Meridian I5360M1Verona Subdivision AZ -03-005 PP -03-003 CUP-03-0071Certification0iClerkOrd.doe CERTIFICATION OF THE CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN AZ -03-005 PAGE I OF I Gt BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION ON THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR QUEENLAND ACRES FKA MERIDIAN STORAGE, LOCATED SOUTH OF WEST OVERLAND ROAD AND WEST OF SOUTH MERIDIAN ROAD, MERIDIAN, IDAHO BY: QUEENLAND ACRES, INC. APPLICANT CIC 06-03-03 CASE NO. TE -03-004 ORDER GRANTING A ONE (1) YEAR TIME EXTENSION ON THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT This matter coming on regularly before the City Council on the 3rd day of June, 2003, upon the Applicant's time application for a one (1) year extension on the Conditional Use Permit, as provided in MCC § 11-17-4, and good cause appearing. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND THIS DOES ORDER THAT: 1. The above named Applicant is granted a one (1) year extended period of time until June 4, 2004, of this Order for commencing construction on the approved Conditional Use Permit for the above entitled subdivision application. 2. The applicant and/or developer shall be required to follow the conditions of the following entities: Comply with the conditions of the Meridian Fire Department as follows: a. That a fire flow of 2,500 gallons per minute be available to service the entire project. Fire hydrants shall be placed an average of 450' apart at approved locations. 1997 UFC Appendix 111-A Order Granting A One (1) Year Time Extension On The Conditional Use Permit for Queenland Acres (flea Meridian Storage) - TE -03-004 Pagel of 3 b. Operational fire hydrants and approved access roads are required before combustible construction begins. UFC 901.4.2 & 901.3 3. An approved temporary turnaround is required for any dead -ends over 150' that are created by the Phasing Plan. 4. All turning radii shall be a minimum of 28' inside and 48' outside. UFC 902.2.2.3 A 30' wide single access point will be permitted in lieu of a secondary access point as is normally required for similar projects. UFC 902.2.1 6. A security gate, if provided, shall be provided with an approved switch to override the gate. The key switch shall be an approved type. UFC 902.4 7. Combustible vegetation shall be removcd at all times from Phase Il of the project. UFC 1103.2.4 8. Final approval for fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department thru the Public Works Department. 2. Comply with the conditions of the Ada County Highway District as follows: The District has determined that the Right -of -Way and. Development Services Department does not have any site specific requirements for the project at this time due to the fact that the roadway improvements currently exist adjacent to the site. if the site plan or use should change in the future, the District shall review the site plan and may require improvements to the transportation system at that 0111e. 2. In accordance with the District's standard requirements, the applicant shall: a. Meet the District drainage requirements, b. Replace or repair any damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk (as determined by Construction Services), c. Bear all costs for the relocation. of utilities associated with improving street frontages, d. Contact the District's Utility Coordinator or Construction Services Department in regard to all utility street cuts to determine if the pavement is less than five years old. Order Granting A One (1) Year Time Extension On The Conditional Use Permit for Queenland Acres (fka Meridian Storage) - TE -03-004 Page 2 of 3 By action of the City Council at its regular meeting on the 5 r"d day of 2003. DATED this 12 day of 1.t'ac, 2003. Mayor Robert D. Corrie Attest: \`L�����st r r r r r rrtrrrrrrr,J William G. Berg, Jr., Cit Cler S AT_ Copy served upon Applicant, Planniiig,� 0(3 DQ tinent, Public Attorney. 'rrrrrrttrrr rsti����,,\ /' ' BY: ��-�- Dated: City Clerk Works and the City rti ttpr,�t7lrrrrrr 61- /2-03 _ Z:\WorkWMeridianWeridian 15360WQueenland Acres fka Meridian Storage TE-03-004\Time Extension for CUP TE-03-004.doe Order Granting A One (1) Year Time Extension On The Conditional Use Permit for Queenland Acres (flea Meridian Storage) - TE -03-004 Page 3 of 3 BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF J -U -B ENGINEERS, INC. FOR APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR SUTHERLAND FARMS SUBDIVISION NO. 2, LOCATED NORTH OF EAST VICTORY ROAD AND EAST OF SOUTH EAGLE ROAD, MERIDIAN, IDAHO CIC 06/03/03 CASE NO. FP -03-029 ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT This matter coming before the City Council for Final Plat approval pursuant to Meridian City Code § 12-3-7 on June 3, 2003, and the Council finding that the Administrative Review is complete which has included certain comments as stated in a letter to the Mayor and Council from Sonya Allen Planner I for the Planning and Zoning Department, and Bruce Freckleton, Engineering Technician III, and that Brad Hawkins -Clark Planner III for the Planning and Zoning Department, commented at the hearing, and the Council having considered the requirements of the preliminary plat the Council takes the following action: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The Final Plat of "SUTHERLAND FARM SUBDIVISION NO. 2" as evidenced in Plat bearing: "PLAT SHOWING SUTHERLAND FARM SUBDIVISION NO. 2, A ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR SUTHERLAND FARMS SUBDMSION NO. 2 / (FP -03-029) Page 1 of 5 PORTION OF SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, BOISE MERIDIAN, MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO 2003, 11912FP1, 05/08/03 AND HANDWRITTEN DATE: 519/03, SHEET 1 OF 3, GREAT SKY INC. — DEVELOPER, J -U -B ENGINEERS, INC. — ENGINEERS SURVEYOR PLANNERS", Great Sky Inc., Developer, is Conditionally Approved subject to those conditions of Staff comments as set forth in the Memorandum to the Mayor and City Council from Bruce Freckleton, Engineering Technician III, and Sonya AIlen Planner I for the Planning and Zoning Department, dated: Hearing Date: June 3, 2003, listing 11 General Requirements and 13 Site Specific Requirements/Final Plat, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto marked Exhibit "A", and consisting of four pages, and by this reference incorporated herein, and the additional requirements from the action of the Council taken at their June 3, 2003 meeting as follows, to -wit: 1.1 From the Council meeting held on June 3, 2003, the following shall be required: The Preliminary Plat has a cap of 101 houses that could be developed without a secondary access for fire, but this phase of the Sutherland development would push the limit over the 101 buildable houses. So instead of the City Building Department having to track all the building permits, the applicant shall be allowed to construct the secondary road immediately. This will allow the secondary access to be in place long before the 101" building permit is issued. The secondary access will follow off of Eagle Road and come in along the southern portion of the project. 1.2 Comply with the Meridian Fire Department's requirements as follows: 1. That a fire -flow consistent with Appendix III -A of the UFC be provided to service the entire project. Fire hydrants shall be placed an average of 400' apart. 1997 UFC Appendix III -A ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR SUTHERLAND FARMS SUBDIVISION NO.2 / (FP -03-029) Page 2 of 5 2. Operational fire hydrants and temporary or permanent street signs are required before combustible construction begins. UFC 901.4.2 & 901.3 3. Final approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department. 4. All internal and external roads shall have a radius of 28' inside and 48'outside radius. 5. The roadways shall be built to Ada County Highway Standards. 6. Provide a second access point to the project or limit the number of lots to 50. Based on the limited information available on the transmittal interconnectivity it is hard to determine. (This matter is addressed in 1.1 above from the action of the Council taken at their June 3, 2003 meeting.) 1.3 The Central District Health Department requires after written approval from the appropriate entities are submitted, they can approve this proposal for central sewage and central water; that plans must be submitted to and approved by the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, Division of Environmental Quality for central sewage and central water; that run-off is not to create a mosquito breeding problem; and it is suggested that stormwater be pretreated through a grassy swale prior to discharge to the subsurface to prevent impact to groundwater and surface water quality; that engineers and architects should obtain current best management practices for stormwater disposal and design a stormwater management system that is preventing groundwater and surface water degradation. Manuals for guidance: 1. State of Idaho Catalog Of Stormwater Best Management Practices For Idaho Cities And Counties. Prepared by the Idaho Division Of Environmental Quality, July 1997. 2. Stormwater Best Management Practices Guidebook. Prepared by City of Boise Public Works Department, May 2000. ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR SUTHERLAND FARMS SUBDIVISION NO.2 / (FP -03-029) Page 3 of 5 1.4 Comply with the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District as follows: The District requires a Land Use Change Application to be filed for review prior to final platting. 2. All Laterals and wasteways must be protected. All municipal surface drainage must be retained on site. If any surface drainage leaves the site, the District must review drainage plans. 3. The developer must comply with Idaho Code 31-3805. It is recommended that irrigation water be made available to all developments within the District. 2. The final plat upon which there is contained the Certification and signature of the City Clerk and the City Engineer verifying that the plat meets the City's requirements shall be signed only at such time as: 1. The Plat dimensions are approved by the City Engineer; and 2. The City Engineer has veri Eied that all oft -site improvements are completed and/or the appropriate letter of credit or cash has been issued guaranteeing the completion of off-site and required on-site improvements. By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the rd day of 2003. By: ROBERT D. CORRI.E Mayor, City of Meridian ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR SUTHERLAND FARMS SUBDIVISION NO.2 / (FP -03-029) Page 4 of 5 ,���4ssss€.€€trrrrf�� OF Attest: _ E. �G Cb William G. Berg, Jr., Ci C erk Copy served upon Applicant, the Planning�a&Zd�4�4i`g Department, and City Attorney. 6 By: Dated City Clerk Public Works Department, ot�—/4-d3 ZAWork\M\Meridian\Meridian 15360M\Sutherland Farm Subdivision No. 2 FP-03-02910rderFP.doc ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR SUTHERLAND FARMS SUBDIVISION NO.2 / (FP -03-029) Page 5 of 5 SEAL _ ''rrrtrti r€ttttt�ti� HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY MAYOR A Good Place to Live LEGAL DEPARTMENT Robert D. Corrie n /� CITY l./F MERIDILIN (20$) 466-9272 •Fax 466-4405 CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PUBLIC WORKS Tammy deWeerd 33 EAST IDAHO BUILDING DEPARTMENT (208) 898-5500 • Fax 887-1297 Keith Bird MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 Cherie McCandless (208) 86$-4433 • FAX (208) 887-4813 PLANNING AND ZONING William L.M. Nary City Cleric Office Fax (208) 888-4218 DEPARTMENT (208) 884-5533 • FAX 988-6854 STAFF REPORT: Hearing Date: June 3, 2003 To: Mayor, City Council and Planning & Zoning Commission R I E " E I V -E (14 From: Sonya Allen, Planner 10 " MAY 2 9 2003 Bruce Freckleton, Senior Engineering Tech. Cit Of City Meridian City Clerk Office Re: Sutherland Farm Subdivision No. 2 Request for Final Plat Approval of 59 Building Lots on 14.92 Acres in an R-4 Zone for Sutherland Farm Subdivision No. 2, by J -U -B Engineers (File No. FP -03-029) We have reviewed the above -referenced submittal and offer the following comments, as conditions of approval. These conditions shall be considered in full, unless expressly modified or deleted by motion of the Meridian City Council: APPLICATION SUMMARY & LOCATION The applicant, J -U -B Engineers, has requested approval of Sutherland Farm Subdivision No. 2. This is the second phase of Sutherland Farm Subdivision, located on the north side of Victory Road, approximately 118th of a mile east of Eagle Road. The second phase of the subdivision includes 59 single family building lots. The gross density of Phase No. 2 is approximately 3.95 dwelling units/acre, The subdivision is located in an R-4 zone, and the minimum house size within the subdivision is 1,401 square feet, not including the garage area. Reductions of the required minimum lot area, minimum street frontage, setbacks, and maximum block length were approved as part of the Planned Development. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES North: Silverstone Corporate Center, zoned C -G, and rural agricultural property, zoned RUT (Ada County) West: Thousand Springs Subdivision (across Eagle Rd.), zoned R-4, and rural residential property, zoned RUT (Ada County) ,��-/(y„l ! J av SuiherlondFarm2.FP Mayor & City Council Hearing Date: June 3, 2003 Page 2 East: Ranchos Los Altos Subdivision, zoned Rl (Ada County), and Muir Woods Subdivision, zoned R4 (Ada County) South: Rural residential/agricultural properties, zoned RUT & R1 (Ada County) SITE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS/FINAL PLAT 1. Applicant shall meet all terms of the approved preliminary plat, planned development, and development agreement. 2. The pressurized irrigation system within this development is to be owned and maintained by the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water. If a creek 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 shall be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to signature on the final plat by the Meridian City Engineer, 3. Fencing shall be constructed in conformance with Meridian City Code 12-4-10. Developer should extend the same fencing type & height as existing in Sutherland Farm Subdivision No. 1 along the perimeter of this phase. 4. No more than 101 building permits shall be issued within Sutherland Farm Subdivision until a secondary emergency vehicle access to Eagle Road is completed. Secondary access road shall be built in accordance to Meridian Fire Department loading requirements. S. Sanitary sewer service to this site shall be via mainline extension from main lines installed for phase one. Applicant will be responsible to construct the sewer mains to and through this proposed development. Subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. 6. Municipal w ater se rvice t o t his s ite s hall b e v is m ain 1 ine a xtensions from m ain 1 ines installed for phase one. Applicant will be responsible to construct the water mains to and through this proposed development. 7. Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process, prior to signature on the final plat per Resolution 02-374. 8. Add dimensions across the ends of the right-of-ways along the subdivision boundary line. 9. Complete the recording information of the two references to "Sutherland Farm Subdivision." 10. Complete the recording information in the legal description of the Certificate of Owners. FP -03-024 Sutherland Farm 2. FP Mayor & City Council Hearing Date: June 3, 2003 Page 3 11. Complete the Certificate of Owners and its accompanying Acknowledgement. 12. Please add or revise the following plat notes: (10.) YYhere does this note apply? (12.) Complete recording information. 13. Staff's failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or terms of the approved preliminary plat, conditional use permit or development agreement does not relieve Applicant of responsibility for compliance. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 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 City Ordinance 12-4-13. Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association, with written confirmation of said approval submitted to the Public Works Department. 2. Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will have to be removed from their domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9--4-8. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation. 3. Street signs are to be in place, water system shall be approved and activated, pressurized irrigation system approved and activated, drainage lots constructed, fencing installed, and road base approved by the Ada County Highway District prior to applying for building permits. All development improvements, including fencing, micro -paths, irrigation, and landscaping shall be installed and approved prior to obtaining certificates of occupancy. A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all fencing, pressurized irrigation, sanitary sewer, water, etc., prior to signature on the final plat. 4. Two -Hundred -fifty watt (250w) and One -Hundred watt (100w), high-pressure sodium streetlights will be required at locations designated by the Public Works Department. All streetlights shall be installed at subdivider's expense. Typical locations are at street intersections and/or fire hydrants. Final design locations and quantity are determined after power designs are completed by Idaho Power Company. Street light contractor to obtain design and permit from the Public Works Department prior commencing installations. 5. Compaction test results must be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material. 6. Submit "Final" letter from the Ada County Street Name Committee, approving the subdivision and street names. Make any corrections necessary to conform. FP -63-624 (( Suthc land Farm 2.FP "/9 c � Prj € Mayor & City Council Hearing Date: June 3, 2003 Page 4 7 Applicant's engineer will be required to submit a signed, stamped statement certifying that all street finish centerline elevations are set a minimum of three feet above the highest established normal groundwater elevation. S. Coordinate fire hydrant placement with the City of Meridian's Water Deputy Fire Chief and the Public Works Department, 9. Provide five -foot -wide sidewalks in accordance with City Ordinance Section 12-5-2.K. Sidewalks are to provide a clear five -foot -wide walkway pathway without encroachment of mailbox structures. 10. All development shall comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 11. No building permits shall be issued within the development until a final plat has been recorded for this subdivision. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the final plat, with the above stated comments and conditions. FP -03-029 r" Sutherland Farm 2.FP L' 1 - BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF BRIGHTON DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC, FOR APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR QUENZER COMMONS SUBDIVISION NO. 3, LOCATED WEST OF NORTH LOCUST GROVE ROAD AND NORTH OF EAST USTICK ROAD, MERIDIAN, IDAHO CIC 06/03/03 CASE NO. FP -03-030 ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT This matter coming before the City Council for Final Plat approval pursuant to Meridian City Code § 12-3-7 on June 3, 2003, and the Council finding that the Administrative Review is complete which has included certain comments as stated in a letter to the Mayor and Council from David McKinnon Planner II for the Planning and Zoning Department, and Bruce Freckleton, Engineering Technician III, and that Anna Powell Planning Director for the Planning and Zoning Department, David Turnbull, and Mike Wardle, commented at the hearing, and the Council having considered the requirements of the preliminary plat the Council takes the following action: ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR QUENZER COMMONS SUBDIVISION NO. 3 / (FP -03-030) Page i of 5 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: The Final Plat of "QUENZER COMMONS SUBDIVISION NO. 3" as evidenced in Plat bearing: "PLAT SHOWING QUENZER COMMONS SUBDIVISION NO. 3, LOCATED IN THE NE % OF THE SE'/4 OF SECTION 31, TAN., R. IE., B.M., MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO 2003, 01-045-01, SHEET I OF 2, J:IHERITAGE COMMONS_1_01045001Drawings\HERITAGE3_PLAT .dwg, HANDWRITTEN DATE: 4-21-03, ENGINEERING NORTHWEST, LLC, BOISE, IDAHO", Brighton Development Company, LLC, Developer, is Conditionally Approved subject to those conditions of Staff comments as set forth in the Memorandum to the Mayor and City Council from Bruce Freckleton, Engineering Technician III, and David McKinnon Planner II for the Planning and Zoning Department, dated: Hearing Date: June 3, 2003, Transmittal Date: May 29, 2003, listing 18 Conditions of Approval, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto marked Exhibit "A", and consisting of four pages, and by this reference incorporated herein, and the additional requirements from the action of the Council taken at their June 3, 2003 meeting as follows, to -wit: 1.1 From the Council meeting held on June 3, 2003, the following Conditions of Approval shall now read as follows: Conditions of Approval 9. Landscaping adjacent to Locust Grove shall be in compliance with the submitted landscaping plan. The plan shall be reviewed for conformance with the Landscape Ordinance prior to City signature on the plat. ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR QUENZER COMMONS SUBDIVISION NO.3 / (FP -03-030) Page 2 of 5 10. The plat shall be revised to reflect a bus turn -out easement adjacent to Lot 10, Block 3 as previously depicted in the Preliminary Plat. The applicant shall work with ACHD and Valley Ride to determine the size and exact location and tinning of construction of the bus turn -out easement. A revised plat shall be submitted to the City Planning and Zoning staff for review prior to the City's signature on the final plat. 12. Street lights shall be installed in compliance with the approved streetlight agreement, and the ornamental street lights shall be included in all phases of the development. All streetlights shall be installed at subdivider's expense. Typical locations are at street intersections and/or fire hydrants. Final design locations and quantity are determined after power designs are completed by Idaho Power Company. Streetlight contractor to obtain design and permit from the Public Works Department prior to commencing installation. 17. Shall be deleted in its entirety. 1.2 Comply with the Meridian Fire Department's requirements as follows: Provide a fire -flow per the Uniform Fire Code Appendix III -A to service the project. Fire hydrants shall be placed an average of 400' apart. 1997 UFC Appendix III -A 2. Operational fire hydrants and temporary or permanent street signs are required before combustible construction begins. UFC 901.4.2 & 901.3 3. All roads shall have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48'outside. 4. All fire lanes within the project shall have a clear driving surface with a minimum width of 20' available at all times. UFC 902.2.2.1 ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR QUENZER COMMONS SUBDIVISION NO. 3 / (FP -03-030) Page 3 of 5 1.3 The Central District Health Department requires after written approval from the appropriate entities are submitted, they can approve this proposal for central sewage and central water; that plans must be submitted to and approved by the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, Division of Environmental Quality for central sewage and central water; that run-off is not to create a mosquito breeding problem; and it is suggested that stormwater be pretreated through a grassy swale prior to discharge to the subsurface to prevent impact to groundwater and surface water quality; that engineers and architects should obtain current best management practices for stormwater disposal and design a stormwater management system that is preventing groundwater and surface water degradation. Manuals for guidance: 1. State of Idaho Catalog Of Stormwater Best Management Practices For Idaho Cities And Counties. Prepared by the Idaho Division Of Environmental Quality, July 1997. 2. Stormwater Best Management Practices Guidebook. Prepared by City of Boise Public Works Department, May 2000. 2. The final plat upon which there is contained the Certification and signature of the City Clerk and the City Engineer verifying that the plat meets the City's requirements shall be signed only at such time as: The Plat dimensions are approved by the City Engineer; and 2. The City Engineer has verified that all off-site improvements are completed and/or the appropriate letter of credit or cash has been issued guaranteeing the completion of off-site and required on-site improvements. ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR QUENZER COMMONS SUBDIVISION NO.3 / (FP -03-030) Page 4 of 5 By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the 3 V -C( day of (�L , 2003. 041 ,,,,,,, 111;rrf,,Mayor, City of Meridian Attest: � ®►� �, PO William G. Berg, Jr., City Jerk _ ;�� `ST9S�• � Copy served upon Applicant, the Plannin'4 g Dement, Public Works Department, and City Attorney. -'//11 11111 u 11% \%%N By: Dated: City Clerk 6- z-/-©3 ZAWorkW\Meridian\Meridian 15360MQuenzer Commons Subdivision No. 3 FP-03-030\0rderFP.doc ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR QUENZER COMMONS SUBDIVISION NO.3 / (FP -03-030) Page 5 of 5 HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY MAYOR A Good Place to Live LEGAL DEPARTMENT Robert D. Corrie CITY OF MERIDIAN (2U8)466-9272 -Fax 4405 CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PUBLICWORKS OE TammydeWeerd 33 EAST IDAHO BUILDING DEPARTMENT (208} 898-5500 Fax 887-I297 Keith Bird MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 Cherie McCandless (208) 888-4433 • FAX (.208) 887-4813 PLANNING AND ZONING William L.M. Nary City Clerk Office Fax (208) 888-42t8 DEPARTMENT (208) 884-5533 • FAX 888-6854 MEMORANDUM: Hearing Date: June 3, 2003 Transmittal Date: May 29, 2003 To: Mayor, City Council and Planning & Zoning Commission From: David McKinnon Planner II hA R E _1 I V E Bruce Freckleton, Senior Engineering Tech. SAY 2 g 2003 Re: Quenzer Commons Subdivision No. 3 City Of Meridian City Clerk Office • Request for Final Plat Approval of Four (4) Commercial Building Lots on 1.98 Acres in an R-8 Zone (P -D) for Quenzer Commons No. 3, by Brighton Development Company (File No. FP -03-030). We have reviewed the above -referenced submittal and offer the following comments, as conditions of approval. These conditions shall be considered in full, unless expressly modified or deleted by motion of the Meridian City Council: APPLICATION SUMMARY & LOCATION The applicant, Brighton Development Company, LLC, has requested final plat approval of the third phase of the Quenzer Commons Subdivision. This phase of the subdivision consists of 4 (out of a total of 6) commercial building pads located adjacent to Locust Grove. Although the subdivision is located in an R-8 zone, a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development (File No. CUP -02-007) has been approved for the subdivision that allows a portion of the subdivision to be developed in a commercial manner. All four of the lots included in this final plat will be required to obtain a Conditional Use Permit prior to being developed in the future. A bus turn -out was originally approved as part of the preliminary plat adjacent to Locust Grove and Lot 10, Block 3. The applicant has not included the bus turn -out at this location with the Final Plat. We have contacted Valley Ride to ask for their recommendation regarding the need and the necessary dimensions for the approved bus turn -out. There is currently no bus service in Meridian; however, Valley Ride has expressed a desire to have facilities in place if the service is offered in the future. The location of the bus turn -out would affect the amount of landscaping buffer provided on Locust Grove Road (see #10 below). The inclusion of the turn- out may also change the legal description of the subdivision if it is required to be dedicated as FP -03-030 l / quenzer commons 3.FP Mayor & City Council C Hearing Date: June 3, 2003 Page 2 public right-of-way. Staff supports the inclusion of the turn -out and has included it as a condition of approval for the plat (#11 below). In Phase I of this development, the applicant requested ornamental street lights. The City and applicant entered into a Street Light Agreement that was recorded on October 16, 2002 (Inst. # 102119243). The recorded document specifically references Phase I of the development. The applicant has not requested ornamental street Iights on this phase of the development. However, it would seem logical to extend the Street Light Agreement to this phase so that there are consistent street lights throughout the development. The proposed final plat substantially complies with the approved Preliminary Plat and the terms of the Conditional Use Permit. Staff offers the following as conditions of approval CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Applicant shall meet all terms of the approved Preliminary Plat (PP -02-007), Planned Development (CUP -02-007), and Development Agreement (Inst. No. 102078396). 2. The pressurized irrigation system within this development is to be owned and maintained by the Home Owner's Association. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water. If a creek or well source is not available, a single -point connection to the municipal water system shall be required. Plans and specifications for the irrigation system shall be reviewed by the Public Works Department as part of the development plan review process, and a draft copy of the pressurized irrigation system O&M manual must be submitted prior to plan approval. If a single -point connection is utilized, the developer shall be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to signature on the final plat by the Meridian City Engineer. 3. Sanitary sewer and water service to these lots shall be via service line extensions from existing mains through the middle of the subdivision. 4. Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process, prior to signature on the final plat per Resolution 02-374. 5. Revise the plat to graphically depict the landscape easement indicated by plat note number 7. The easement shall be a minimum of 25' on Locust Grove and 10' on E. Heritage Park St. 6. Add or revise the following plat notes: • Add a note to the face of the plat restricting direct lot access to -Locust Grove, unless specifically approved of by the City of Meridian and ACHD. • Add a note to the plat referencing the approved Development Agreement (Inst. No. FP —03-030 quer commons 3.FP ,L -)u C, b ,I // A-,, ,,� G -N Mayor & City Council Hearing Date: June 3, 2003 Page 3 102078396) and the approved Conditional Use Permit (CUP -02-007). • Add a note to the plat referencing the instrument number of the recorded cross access agreement. 7. Correct the plat sheet numbering. 8. A cross access agreement shall be recorded for the lots within this subdivision and shall k be submitted to the City of Meridian prior to signature on the final plat. andscapi adjacen to Locust rove steal be incorirpliance w the bmit d 1 scaping Ian, with odifications accommo to the bus —out. e plan s T b p revi wed for nforrnanc with the La scape Ord ance pro city si ture on the plat. �6 �q'�CtAJ14'/4�The plat shall be revised to reflect a bus -turn out adjacent to Lot 10, Block 3 as previously depicted in the Preliminary Plat. The applicant shall work with ACHD and Valley Ride to determine the size and exact location of the bus turn -out. A revised plat ��f t shall be submitted to the City Planning and Zoning staff for review prior to the City's signature on the final plat. 11. Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project shall be removed ofrorn their domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9-4-8. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation. 1rStreet lights shall be installed in compliance with the approved streetlight agreement. Two -Hundred -fifty watt (250w) and One -Hundred watt (100w), high-pressure sodium streetlights will be required at locations designated by the Public Works Department. All streetlights shall be installed at subdivider's expense. Typical locations are at street intersections and/or fire hydrants. Final design locations and quantity are determined after power designs are completed by Idaho Power Company. Street light contractor to obtain design and permit from the Public Works Department prior commencing installations. 13. Compaction test results must be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material. 14. Applicant's engineer will be required to submit a signed, stamped statement certifying that all street finish centerline elevations are set a minimum of three feet above the highest established normal groundwater elevation. 15. Coordinate fire hydrant placement with the City of Meridian's Water Deputy Fire Chief and the Public Works Department. 15. Provide sidewalks in accordance with City Ordinance Section 12-13-10-8. FP -03-030 quenzer commons 3. FP fY Mayor & City Council: Hearing Date: June 3, 2003 � �age 4 ,l- ,\ 1�. -�� b 'lding p rmits s1kall be Isued Nthin t he 1oks cre ted by tN sukdM�Ior\ukil\� IYohdinal Use ermit is, obtain cd from\the Cit forldevelo mer . 18. Staff s failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or terms of the approved preliminary plat, conditional use permit or development agreement does not relieve Applicant of \� responsibility for compliance. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of'the final plat, with the above stated comments and conditions. FP-03A3o / ' / quenzercommons3.FP BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR TIME EXTENSION TO RECORD THE FINAL PLAT AND VARIANCE FOR INTERMOUNTAIN OUTDOOR SPORTS SUBDIVISION, LOCATED AT 1375 EAST FAIRVIEW AVENUE, MERIDIAN, IDAHO BY: GERRY SWEET, APPLICANT CIC 06-10-03 CASE NO. TE -03-005 ORDER GRANTING A ONE (1) YEAR TIME EXTENSION TO RECORD THE FINAL PLAT AND VARIANCE This matter coining on regularly before the City Council on the ] V' day of June. 2003, upon the Applicant's time application for a one (1) year extension within which to summit the Final Plat for recording and for the variance to the perimeter landscape requirements, which were originally approved on June 4, 2002, as provided in § 12-3-6 B, and good cause appearing. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND THIS DOES ORDER THAT: The above named Applicant is granted a one (1) year extended period of time until June 4, 2004, of this Order within which to submit the Final Development Plan Plat and variance to the perimeter landscape requirements for the above entitled subdivision application. Additionally, the applicant shall be required to comply with the Preliminary/Final Plat conditions Order Granting A One (1) Year Time Extension For Filing The Final Plat and Variance (TE -03-005) PAGE 1 OF 3 and requirements, P/FP-02-001, and the Ada County Highway District and the additional Meridian Fire Department's requirements and/or concerns as follows: Ada County Highway District: On April 1, 2002 the District acted on MPFP02-001/Interinountain Outdoor Sports Subdivision. The conditions and requirements also apply to MTE-03-005. Meridian Fire Department: Meridian Fire Department: 1. That a fire -flow of 1,000 gallons per minute shall be available for duration of 2 hours to service the entire project. Fire hydrants shall be placed an average of 400' apart. 1997 UFC Appendix III -A 2. Operational fire hydrants and temporary or permanent street signs arc required before combustible construction begins. UFC 901.4.2 & 901.3 The roadways shall be built to Ada County Highway Standards and have a back- to-back measurement of 36'. UFC 902.2.1 4. All radii shall be 28' inside and 48' outside radius. All cul-de-sacs to be a 50' radius. 6. Insure that all yet undeveloped parcels are maintained free of combustible vegetation per section 1103.2.4 of the Uniform Fire Code. 7. Provide a second emergency access point which is 20' wide until the project is tied into another project or back into West McMillan. By action of the City Council at its regular meeting on the 10 day of 2003. DATED this ZZ(d day of 14L U_l 2003. Mayor Robert D. Corrie Order Granting A One (1) Year Time Extension For Filing The Final Plat and Variance (TE -03-005) PAGE 2 OF 3 `ktss,srttrttrtl��� N` Attest: &porq o F SE AL William G. Berg, Jr., City C rk = G q Copy served upon Applicant Planning and tto p~`a 1�t,��ublic Works and the City Attorney. Osttttttlrrd{ddr pF��/`jl���i,'� l�01i'l ff � BY: Dated: City Clerk ° k PD ZAWork\M\Meridian\Meridian 15360M11ntermountain Outdoor Sports Sub TE 03 005TH and Variance Time Extension TE-03-005.doc Order Granting A One (1) Year Time Extension For Filing The Final Plat and Variance (TE -03-005) PAGE 3 OF 3 SHORT FORM AGREEMENT BETWEEN OWNER AND HDR ENGINEERING, INC. FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT is made as of this 19"' day of May, 2003, between the City of Meridian ("OWNER") a municipal corporation through its Public Works Department, with principal offices at 660 E Water Tower Lane_ Suite 200, Merida Idaho 83642- 2300, and HDR ENGINEERING, INC., ("ENGINEER') a Nebraska corporation, with offices at 418 South 9�'' Street, Suite 301, Boise, Idaho 83702, for services in connection with the project known as Vulnerability ,AssessmentOversight ("Project"); WHEREAS, OWNER desires to engage ENGINEER to provide professional engineering, consulting and related services ("Services") in connection with the Project; and WHEREAS, ENGINEER desires to render these Senvices as described in SECTION I, Scope of Services. NOW, THEREFORE, OWNER and ENGINEER in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, agree as follows: SECTION I. SCOPE OF SERVICES ENGINEER will provide Services for the Project, which consist of the ,Scope of Services as outlined on the attached Exhibit A. SECTION II. TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ENGINEERING SERVICES The "HDR Engineering, Inc. Terms and Conditions for Professional Services," which are attached hereto in Exhibit B, are incorporated into this Agreemi.nt by this reference as if fiblly set forth herein. SEC TION M. RESPONSIBILITIES OF OWNER The OWNER shall provide the information set forth in paragraph 6 of the attached "'HDR Engineering, Inc. Terms and Conditions for Professional Services." SECTION IV. COMPENSATION Compensation for ENGINEER'S services under this Agreement skull be on the basis of lump sum. The amount of the lump sum is Twelve Thousand Dollars ($12.000). Lump Sum shall mean a fixed amount which shall be the total compensation agreed upon in advance for Scope of Services. SECTION V. PERIOD OF SERVICE Upon receipt of written authorization to proceed, ENGINEER shall perform the services described in Exhibit A within a reasonable period of time. Unless otherwise stated in this Agreement, the rates of compensation for ENGINEER'S services have been agreed to in anticipation of the orderly and continuous progress of the project through completion. If any specified dates for the completion of ENGINEER'S services are exceeded through no fault of the ENGINEER, the time for performance of those services shall be automatically extended for a period which may be reasonably required for their completion and all rates, measures and amounts of ENGINEER'S compensation shall be equitably adjusted. SECTION VI. RESPONSIBILIT>CES OF THE OWNER Owner shall provide documents for review by HDR as detailed in Exhibit A, Scope of Work. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first written above. "OWN R" _. BY: : NAW".- Robert D. Carrie TITLE: Mayor ,`,1�y111111lrllll//, Of-MERI �'''�., ADDRESS: O zr ATTEST: SEAL I3Y:,�.CCc% Gc �c� p ; NAME: Wilham G. Berg, Jr. -16 Z'sr isl • Q'Z'.z' TITLE - City Clerk NT� �4``1�� AAryrr�cW ,6+V CiIto rrrlrlrrlliiti�r� HDR ENGINEERING, INC. ::ENGINEER" BY: NANM- Mara TITLE. Vice President ADDRESS: 418 S. SP St., Suite "O 1 Boise, ID 83702 ---� Cc A p�pfv,, Q61 Z13/0 3 EXHIBIT A .SCOPE OF SERVICES For Vulnerability Assessment Oversight Project For. THE CITY OF MERIDIAN 1.0.- BACKGROUND Recent Federal legislation requires the City to conduct a security vulnerability assessment of the potable water system. The City has personnel trained in vulnerability assessment methodology, but lacks the experience in performing vulnerability assessments. HDR has vulnerability assessment experience, and the City has asked'HDR to provide technical oversight of the City's vulnerability assessment effort. 2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES Task1.0. Definition of Water System Security Clbjectives, Background Data Collection, and Prioritization of Adverse Events The purpose of this task is to define water system security objectives, establish the security planning team and gather background information on Meridian's water infrastructure systems. The City will then prioritize facilities based on criticality. The following subtdsks detail these activities. Subtask 1.1. Establish Security Planning Team City staff to develop project team consisting of City staff members. Subtask 1.2. Collect and review Background lnfonnation The City will collect background information to be used in the vulnerability assessment analysis. HDR will use this information as a reference. This information includes: Facility site plans. System and design capacities. System performance reports. Regulatory permits. Sources and quantities of normal water supply. Interconnects for alternative or emergency water supply. Operational procedures and policies. Security policies and procedures. Visitors policies and procedures. Contractor policies and procedures. Existing emergency response plan. Existing security contracts. Reports or records of previous security - related incidents. Crime demographics. Staff organization and employee job descriptions. Communications system description or general specifications. Public access constraints or public relations requirements. Public information protocols. Facility long- and short-term expansion plans. Neighboring area landscaping or architectural requirements. Types, quantities and characteristics of all hazardous substances stored at each site or facility. Interdepartmental agreements with emergency services (fire, emergency response, public health, fire, and law enforcement). Inter -agency agreements with other municipalities or owners of alternative water supply. Location map of water distribution system. System design performance. Applicable zoning codes and ordinances. CIP for security enhancements. SCADA servers and workstations. SCADA PLCS and RTUs. Network hubs, routers, switches, etc. Network and host -based firewalls. Network and host -based Intrusion Detection systems (N -IDS and H -IDS). Virtual Private Network (VPN) Servers. Alithent i cation, Authorization and Audit (AAA) servers. Network Management/Monitoring Servers (NMS). Zoning codes and ordinances as applicable. Svbtask 9.3. Define Mission Objective Criteria and Critical Facilities City staff will review facilities and threat analysis goals, establish and refine the mission objective criteria, and establish goals for the prevention of a potential loss.. Criticality can be measured in terms such as duration of service outage, cost of service outage, and character of service zones. Using the RAM -W ranking worksheets, City staff will rank micsion objectives and facilities using the pairwise comparison technique. st, uAs'K I.4. PRIORITIZATION OF ADVERSE EVENTS AvFECTING THE WATER SYSTEM, AND END USERS Using the RAM -W ranking worksheets, City staff will rank facilities using weighted evaluation criteria and pairwise comparison. Task 1.0 Products Meridian. Contact information for Security Planning Team Background information One copy of all ranking worksheets to HDR. HDR: Review comments on ranking worksheets TASK 2.0. EVALUATE POSSIBLE METHODOLOGIES OF MALEVOLENT ACTS AND ASSESSMENT OF THE LIKELIHOOD OF MALEVOLENT ACTS City staff to contact local law enforcement, FBI, as well as operations superintendents at each facility and review reported crime data. City staff to develop the design basis threat(s) (insider, outside and cyber) appropriate for each facility City to develop a list of the most likely threat potentials. These threats may include vandalism, theft, disgruntled customer (outsider), disgruntled employee (insider), and terrorism. City to generally evaluate threats that could be system -wide or occur at random locations (such as verbal threats and/or contamination at random access points to system). Risk analysis of these will be limited to general observations/recommendations-for response. City will summarize Design Basis Threat assessment for review and comment by HDR. Tasks 2.0 Products Meridian: Copy of crime data findings to HDR RAM -W threat analysis worksheets HDR: Written corhments on threat analysis worksheets City of Meridian -3- Vulnerability Assessment Oversight HDR Engineering, Inc. Consulting Services 511 &2003 Scope of Services TASK 3.Q. CHARACTERIZATION OF THE WATER SYSTEM BY SITE, ASSESSMENT OF CONTROL SYSTEM, AND ASSESSMENT OF SECURITY POLICIES AND PROCEDURES By raviewing background information and the site assessment, City staff will determine the interdependence on the critical infrastructure, such as electrical power, SCADA, piping systems, as well as the operating functions of the water system. in addition,a vulnerability assessment of the control systems,.and an assessment of Security Policies and Procedures will be performed to support the Risk Evaluation task. Suhtask 3.1. Site Characterization Based on background information previously collected by the City, City staff will develop a system block diagram for all critical facilities including interdependencies of other facilities and supply points: The diagrams will include barriers, major components (including large pieces of equipment, buildings, and storage units), and SCADA and communications system components. Subtask 3.2. Onsite Physical Assessment City staff will conduct the physical site assessment and will tour each critical facility as.well as representative sub -critical facilities and review its operating components. Observations, discussions, and interviews will be recorded in written notes and digital photographs. The site assessment will include observation of the following items: Condition and serviceability. Environmental conditions (light, humidity, noise, vibration, temperature, etc.) Suitability for intended use (deterrence, detection, delay, response, mitigation.) Hardware connectivity Software platform transparency Contractor security policies Motor pool policies Hazardous materials handling Communication system NAR (nuisance alarm rate) PAR (false alarm rate). Personnel entry and parking policies Chemical and equipment delivery policies In addition to the above, other operations for the water department offices will also be reviewed. These operations will include: Handling of cash. Screening and movement of customers throughout the building City of Meridian -4- Vulnerability Assessment Oversight HDR Engineering, Inc. Consultfig Services 5/1 FY2003 Scope of Services Protection of employees with direct customer contact Building evacuation routes and emergency plans. Public parking location, access, controls. Existing security system effectiveness will be assessed in the field by the team. Any protection system judged to be lower than medium or high performance will be identified as vulnerability. This assessment will result in a ranking of which water facilities are most likely to be successfully attacked. Submitical facilities will be assessed in the field for major vulnerabilities. Facilities such as small to mid- sized distribution pipelines, storage reservoirs and pumping stations, if considered noncritical, may be analyzed as typical systems. General recommendations will be made regarding the physical protection systems and operational systems associated with non-critical facilities. HDR will provide general comment . on Site investigations as part of Task 4.0 efforts_ SUBTASK 3.2. ASSESSMENT OF VULNERABILITY OF CONTROL SYSTEM City staff will assess the vulnerability of both SCADA and Cyber security for Meridian's facilities. HDRNVestin will be available for a two-hour phone call priorto the control system vulnerability assessment to provide guidance on how to conduct this assessment. HDRNVestin will provide limited comment of the control system vulnerability assessment as part of the Task 4.0 efforts. SUBTASK 3.3. ASSESSMENT OF SSECURtTY POLICIES AND PROCEDURES City staff will review written security policies to evaluate policies and procedures. Items to be included are: Entry control procedures. Access to keys. Reporting Arrangements with police and private security companies. Responding to alarms. Policies regarding distribution of sensitive information. City staff will study case histories of responses to vandalism, intrusion, or theft to assess current practices and include threats to City staff. HDR will provide general comment of Policies and Procedures assessment as part of the Task 4.0 effort. Task 3.0 Products Meridian: System block diagram Schedule for onsite physical assessment Operator interviews. City of Meridian -5- Vulnerabifity Assessment Oversight HDR Engineering, Inc. Consuffing Services 5/18/2003 Scope of Services Field notes and digital photographs. Ranking of which water facilities are most likely to be successfully attacked. Documents describing present control system architecture. Security policies and Procedures. Case Histories of security threat responses, including threats to City staff. TASK 4.0. PERFORMANCE -RASED RISK EVALEIAMN City staff will produce fault trees for use in conducting the Risk Analysis and Consequence Assessments. City staff will conduct a risk analysis for the existing security system as a baseiine•comparison for security system enhancement recommendations. The risk analysis will be conducted using the RAM -W" risk equations and the values for probability of security system effectiveness and consequence of the loss from attack. City staff will perform a consequence assessment for each critical facility. Consequence assessments will estimate consequences including economic loss, business disruption, repair and/or cleanup, and public confidence. The consequence, assessments will be based upon the design basis threat. The Consequence Assessments will include: Developed measures of consequence. Developed consequences for each facility. Ranking of critical assets. Evaluation of existing protection systems at each critical system Assessment of system's ability to detect, delay ,and respond. Assessment of operational protection measures. A facilities upgrade analysis will be undertaken to identify security upgrades required to achieve the amount of risk reduction desired. City staff must decide upon the desired level of protection and corresponding risk reduction prior to the upgrade analysis. The goal will be the application of countermeasures to the risk equation until the desired level of risk is attained. The upgrade analysis will include. - , A calculation of system effectiveness for each critical facility Consideration of adversary paths. Evaluation of physical protection or operations systems for delay, detection, and response. Identification of vulnerabilities. City of Meridian -6- Vulnerability Assessmant Oversight HDR Engineering, Inc. Consulting Services 511 8/2003 Scope of Services Calculation of risk associated with each critical facility based on the design basis threat, the consequences analysis and the security system effectiveness. Task 4.0 Deliverables Meridian: Fault Trees for Critical Systems Draft Consequence Assessments Upgrade analysis HDR: Written comment on Fault trees, Consequence Assessments, and upgrades analysis. General comments on products developed in Task.3.0 TASK 5.0, PRIORrTIZED PLAN FOR SECURITY IMPROVEMENTS AND FINAL. SECURITY PLAN Subtask 5. T Implementation Platt City staff will develop a fist of the most feasible} cost-effective fixes, upgrades, and capital projects to reduce identified water system vulnerabilities. City staff will prepare a detailed plan for implementation based on a prioritization of potential improvements. The implementation plan will Recommend security enhancements, if appropriate, for critical facilities that may include a combination of physical and electronic security as well as operations procedures Apply the risk analysis to each recommended security enhancement to determine if the desired reduction in risk is achieved_ Provide planning, level budgetary level estimates for the anticipated implementation cost for each enhancement. SUBTASK 5.2. SECURITY PLAN City staff will prepare the draft of the Security Plan. The draft Plan will include a summary of all analyses performed and direction,received from HDR during this phase- of the project. The draft Plan will identify potential security enhancement alternatives for each vulnerability as wall as estimated capital costs. In addition, an implementation plan will also be part of the Security Plan, and be based on the CIP for the City. The content of this draft Plan is highly confidential. Each copy of the draft Plan will be numbered, and City staff will produce a tracking log for each copy of the draft Plan. All reviewers must make all comments on. the draft version and return the original to the City's project manager. City staff will incorporate recommendations into a revised Final Security Plan. The final security plan will identify all upgrades, enhancements, or procedural modifications. City of Meridian -7- Vulnerability Assessment Oversight HDR Engineering, Inc. Consulting Services 511 ai2003 Scope of Services Task 5.0 Products Meridian. Draft and Final Implementation Plan Draft and Final Security Plan 3.0 SCHEDULE HDR will review and comment on products developed in Tasks 1,2, and 4 when transmitted by the City. 4.0 PAYMENTS TO HDR Payment for Basic Services: For the scope of services described in Section 2, Scope of Services, total compensation will be a lump sum of $12,000.00. Payment for Additional Services: Compensation for additional services will be on the basis of a Lump Sum or Per Diem as agreed upon before the initiation of any such services. HDR will not perform any Additional Services activities without written authorization from the Public Works Department. HDR may recommend immediate security enhancements for vulnerable assets that may be at risk. At Meridian's request, HDR will provide a cost estimate for design/build services for these specific high priority enhancements. Design/build activities are not included in this scope of services. HDR will proceed with design/build services only upon authorization fmm the City. City of Meridian -&- Vulnerability Assessment Oversight HDR Engineering, Inc. Consulting Services 5/98/2003 Scope of Services TERMS AND CONDITIONS HDR ENGINEERING, INC. General Terms and Conditions for Vulnerability Assessments STANDARD OF PERFORMANCE The standard of care for all professional engineering, consulting and related services performed or furnished by ENGINEER and its employees under this Agreement will be the care and skill ordinarily used by members of ENGINEER's profession practicing under the same or similar circumstances at the same time and in the same locality. ENGINEER makes no warranties, express or implied, under this Agreement or otherwise, in connection with ENGINEER's services. CLIENT acknowledges that it is not practical and in many cases possible to identify and prevent all possible means of vulnerability breaches. CLIENT hereby agrees to bring no claims and to hold ENGINEER harmless from any claim arising out of the intentional, willful, malicious, criminal, or negligent acts of thlyd-parties including, but not limited to, terrorist attacks. INSURANCE ENGINEER agrees to procure and maintain, at its expense, Workers Compensation and Employer's Liability insurance as required by statute; Automobile Liability insurance for bodily injury and property damage covering all vehicles, including hired vehicles, owned and non -owned vehicles; Commercial General Liability insurance for personal injury and property damage; and Professional Liability insurance for protection against claims caused by negligent acts, errors, or omissions for which ENGINEER is legally liable. ENGINEER agrees to indemnify CLIENT to the extent claims are covered by ENGINEER's insurance up to the limitations of liability contained in this agreement. 3. CONTROLLING LAW This Agreement is to be governed by the law of the state where ENGINEER's services are performed. 4. CLIENT -PROVIDED SERVICES AND INFORMATION CLIENT will provide all criteria and information pertaining to the Project in CLIENT's possession, and any requirements or budgetary limitations. The CLIENT agrees to bear full responsibility for the technical accuracy and content of CLIENT - furnished documents, information and services. In performing services hereunder, it is understood by CLIENT that ENGINEER is not engaged in rendering any type of legal, insurance or accounting services, opinions or advice. Further, it is the CLIENT's sole responsibility to obtain the advice of an attorney, insurance counselor or accountant to protect the CLIENT's lagal and financial interests. To that end, the CLIENT agrees that CLIENT or the CLIENT's representative will examine all studies, reports, sketches, drawings, specifications, proposals and other documents, opinions or advice prepared or provided by ENGINEER, and will obtain the advice of an attorney, insurance counselor or other consultant as the CLIENT deems necessary to protect the CLIENT's interests before CLIENT takes action or forebears to take action based upon or relying upon the services provided by ENGINEER. S. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS CLIENT and ENGINEER, respectively, bind themselves, their partners, successors, assigns, and legal representatives to the covenants of this Agreement. Neither CLIENT nor ENGINEER will assign, sublet, or transfer any interest in this Agreement without the written consent of the other. CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT OF DOCUMENTS ENGINEER shall keep and maintain all documents, including all reports, drawings, specifications, computer software or other items furnished by CLIENT and/or prepared by ENGINEER pursuant to this Agreement confidential in accordance with ENGINEER's Confidential Document Retention Policy. ENGINEER shall be erAftled to retain one copy of all such documentation on a confidential basis to enable ENGINEER to continue serving the CLIENT's future needs or to respond to any inquiries associated with ENGINEER's services. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT CLIENT or ENGINEER may terminate the Agreement, in whole or in part, by giving seven (7) days written notice, if the other patty substantially fails to fulfill its obligations under the Agreement through no fault or the terminating party. Where the method of payment is "lump sum," or cost reimbursement, the final invoice will include all services and expenses associated with the project Up to the effective date of termination. An equitable adjustment shall also be made to provide for termination settlement costs ENGINEER incurs as a result of commitments that had become firm before termination, and for a reasonable profit for services petformed. 8. SEVERABILITY If any provision of this agreement is held invalid or unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall be valid and binding upon the parties. One Or more waivers by either party of any provision, term or condition shall not be construed by the other party as a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same provision, term or condition. 9. INVOICES ENGINEER will submit monthly invoices for services rendered and CLIENT will make prompt payments in response to ENGINEER's invoices. ENGINEER will retain receipts for reimbursable expenses in general accordance with Internal Revenue Service rules pertaining to the support of expenditures for income tax purposes. Receipts will be available for inspection by CLIENTS auditors upon request. If CLIENT disputes any items in ENGINEER'S invoice for any reason, including the lack of supporting documentation, CLIENT may temporarily delete the disputed item and pay the remaining amount of the invoice. CLIENT will promptly notify ENGINEER of the dispute and request clarification and/or correction. After any dispute has been settled, ENGINEER will include the disputed Item on a subsequent, regularly scheduled invoice, or on a special invoice for the disputed item only. CLIENT recognizes that late payment of invoices results in extra expenses for ENGINEER. ENGINEER retains the right to assess CLIENT interest at the rate of one percent (1 %) per month, but not to exceed the maximum rate allowed by law, an invoices which are not paid within forty-five (45) days from the date of the invoice. In the event undisputed portions of ENGINEER's invoices are not paictwhen due, ENGINEER also reserves the right, affer severr (7) days prior written notice, to suspend the performance of its -services. under this Agreement until all past due amounts have been paid in full. 16. CHANGES The parties agree that no change or modification to this Agreement, or any attachments hereto, shall have any force or effect unless the change is reduced to writing, dated, and made part of this Agreement. The execution of the change shall be authorized and signed in the same manner as this Agreement. Adjustments in the period of services and in compensation shall be in accordance with applicable paragraphs and sections of this Agreement. Any proposed fees by ENGINEER are estimates to perform the services required to complete the project as ENGINEER understands it to be defined. For those projects involving conceptual or process development services, activities often are not fully definable in the initial planning. In any event, as the project progresses, the facts developed may dictate a change in the services to be performed, which may alter the scope. ENGINEER will inform CLIENT of such situations so that changes in scope and adjustments to the time of performance and compensation can be made as required. If such change, additional services, or suspension of services results in an increase or decrease in the cost of or time required for performance of the services, an equitable adjustment shall be made, and the Agreement modified accordingly. 11. CONTROLLING AGREEMENT These Terms and Conditions shall take precedence over any inconsistent or contradictory provisions contained in any proposal, purchase order, requisition, notice -to -proceed, or like document. In resolving inconsistent or contradictory provisions between this Agreement and the Task Order pertaining to a specific project, the terms of the Task Order shall control. 12. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT AND NONDISCRIMINATION In connection with the services under this Agreement, ENGINEER agrees to comply with the applicable provisions of federal and state Equal Employment Opportunity, and other employment, statutes and regulations. 13. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS CLIENT represents that, to the best of its knowledge and belief, it has disclosed to ENGINEER the existence of known hazardous materials, including but not limited to asbestos, PCB's, petroleum, hazardous waste, hazardous biological matter or radioactive material located at or near the project site, including type, quantity and location of such hazardous materials. CLIENT acknowledges that ENGINEER is not and shall not be considered (1) the owner of material, substances, or wastes noted in the Scope of Work; (ii) the operator of a waste management facility; (iii) the generator, Storer, or disposer of hazardous or solid waste; (iv) to have arranged for the transportation or disposal of any wastes, pollutants, or contaminants by virtue of the performance of ENGINEER's services under this Agreement or anything contained herein, as those terms are used in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA"), as amended, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA'), as amended, or any other federal, state stature or regulation governing the treatment, transportation, storage, or disposal of substances, materials or wastes. MDR Engineering, Inc. General Terms & Conditions for 14. EXECUTION This Agreement, including the exhibits and schedules made part hereof, constitute the entire Agreement between ENGINEER and CLIENT, supersedes and controls over all prior written or oral understandings. This Agreement may be amended, supplemented or modified. only by a written instrument duly executed by the parties. 15. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY CLIENT recognizes that ENGINEER's fee for performing services hereunder is not commensurate with the risks associated with potential damages, losses or claims arising therefrom. As a result, CLIENT agrees to limit HDR's and its employees' total liability to CLIENT for any loss or damage, including third party losses, damages or claims, arising out of or in connection with the performance of services or any other cause, including ENGINEER's and its employees' professional negligent acts, errors, or omissions, shall not exceed the lesser of $50,000 or the total compensation received by ENGINEER hereunder, and CLIENT shall indemnify, release and hold ENGINEER and its employees harmless from any liability above such amount. 16. LITIGATION SUPPORT In the event ENGINEER is required to respond to a subpoena, government inquiry or other legal process related to the services ii connection with a legal or dispute resolution proceeding to which ENGINEER is not a party, CLIENT shall reimburse ENGINEER for reasonable costs in responding and compensate ENGINEER at its then standard rates for engineering services when gathering information and documents and shall pay ENGINEER its standard rates for providing expert witness services when attending depositions, hearings, and trial. 17. NO THIRD -PARTY BENEFICIARIES Except as expressly contained in this agreement, no party other than CLIENT shall have the right to rely upon the finds and recommendations of ENGINEER and that there shall be no express or intended third -party beneficiaries to this agreement. (8!2002)