The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2004-03-16 CITY OF MERIDIAN PRE-COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, March 16, 2004 at 6:00 p.m. City Council Chambers 1. Roll-call Attendance: ~ Shaun Wardle ;t Bill Nary -+- Charlie Rountree Keith Bird +- Mayor Tammy e Weerd 2. Adoption of the Agenda: ~ jI'l.-L/ 3. Update I Discussion of Employee Compensation - Pauline Skeggs and Stacy Kilchenmann: ("'30 minutes) 4. Executive Session per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1)(b)&(c): 5. Discussion of City of Meridian support of ITD's policv to restrict vehicular access to SH 20-26: '" Approximate allowable time set for agenda item may change depending on discussion. Please use the designated minutes as a guideline only. Meridian City Pre-Council Agenda - March 16, 2004 Page 1 of 1 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeling. MAYOR Tammy de Weerd ,J,", ^ -~.,;iI~ feLi:'.'t"l Mt-':i' c% CITY OF 1~!~1_~. .'...;::';11- " erldicrn Jt; CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS Shaun Wardle William L. M. Nary Charles M. Rountree Keith Bird JDAHO '-.l.. -" " V I // /y Y ql~lLE i 1903 LEGAL DEPARTMENT (208) 406-9272 . FAX 466-4405 PARKS & RECREATION (208) 888-3579 . Fax 898-550 I PUBLIC WORKS (208) 898-5500 . Fax 887-1297 BUILDING DEPARTMENT (208) 887-2211 . Fax 887-1297 PLANNING & ZONING (208) 884-5533 . Fax 888-6854 NOTICE OF PRE-COUNCIL MEETING MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Meridian will hold a Pre-Council Meeting at City Hall, 33 East Idaho, Meridian, Idaho, on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 at 6:00 P.M. The Meridian City Council will be discussing agenda items which are on the regular scheduled City Council meeting as well as the following issues: Update / Discussion of Employee Compensation Executive Session per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1)(b)&(c) Discussion of City of Meridian support of I TO's policy to restrict vehicular access to SH 20-26 The public is welcome to attend the meeting. ,,\\\llllll/IJ/lfl \\\\\ 00::. MFJ;;>~'III, \\ _I · ~ '.' , II '\:<..' "1'4 "... $'~a o'fl.?OFi'41; '1/ /~ ~ ~.,,9 (:'^ -:. ,~ v _ F'~ % - - - - - - DATED this 12th of March, 2004. 33 EAST IDAHO AVENUE. MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642. (208) 888-4433 City Clerk Office Fax (208) 888-42] 8 . Human Resources Fax (208) 884-8723 . Finance & Utility Billing Fax (208) 887-48 [3 RECEIVED MAR 1 (, 2004 CITY OF MERIDl!ll'f COMPENSATION PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT FLOWCHART Internal Equity Perform Job Analysis & Develop Descriptions Evaluate Positions into Grades & *FLSA Status Group Positions Into Grades External Competitiveness Identify Survey & Participants Gather Data Report Results Set Ranges Assess Program Costs Develop Program Develop Written Policies Employee Contribution Program Ad ministration Communication, Implementation & Training of Staff Update Program Message ( l"age 1 or 1 Will Berg From: Rata Cunningham Sent: Tuesday, March 16,200412:48 PM To: Tammy De Weerd (deweerdt@meridiancity.org); Bill Nary (Wnary@cityofboise.org); Council Rountree (cmrountree@aol.com); Council Wardle (shaunwardle@yahoo.com); Keith Bird (birdronaldkeith@msn.com) Cc: Will Berg (bergw@meridiancity.org); Anna Powell (powella@meridiancity.org); Bill Musser (rnusserb@meridiancity.org); Brad Watson (watsonb@rneridiancity.org); Doug Strong (strongd@meridiancity.org); Gary Smith (smithg@meridiancity.org); John Shawcroft (shawcroj@meridiancity.org); Kenny Bowers (bowersk@meridiancity.org); Pauline Skeggs (skegssp@meridiancity.org); Rick Clinton (clintonr@meridiancity.org); Stacy Kilchenmann (kilchens@meridiancity.org) Subject: email Bonus&Wage summaries.xls attached you'll find a worksheet detailing the amount needed for a proposed bonus & a worksheet of the amount needed for merit increases, call if you have questions. IlEJCEI\TED t1AR 1 6 2004 CITY OF MERIDIAi'4" 3/16/2004 :ffi: ..C)/ '0 i::)': mi '0' '0. :.q., ,; o .... .... = "" (\') g o :'16 '.N /'1"",.,' o ,'....... 'a..;.; -,......... iU), ,.....' '.N.' ~ (/> ..c E ::I c: III ::I c: o CO ..J U) 0 .... CD "" N N .... <C tt U) C!- ot I- .... fIi en CD 0 CD C') 0 I- .... ~ en 0 C') N 0 Ul '<t en N 0 N (/> I,() U) C!- .... .... >< o::i a) fIi fIi tU .... I- .... .... ~ CD 0 GI) ~ .... 0 .... en 1'0:. U) en .... - .... 16 N 0 ,Q It) C') en ~ en c C'l CD CD C') .!!! 0 0 en ot ~ c? C') ca .... .... - en 0" - - - '<t 0 0 0 C') GI) GI) 0 CO N C') CD GI) >- l"- I"- *' '<t CD CO ~ N U. 0 0 N CO "'It r-: c: It) T"" T"" :::: N Q) c - - - - 0 0) 0 0 0 C'\l 0 0 0 >< Q 0 Q 0 0 0 Q N tU 00 ..f N ::!!: .... N ~ - - - - 0 Cl C'\l 0 0 0 0 0 Q 0 ,: 0 Q O~ 'C 0 0 T"" C N N tU - Ul - :l ~ 0 'LO - - - 0 T"" 0 Q 0 I:) I:) \0 .!!l T"" U) It) C'\l Q I:) I"- ca N .... I:) C!- (J 00 c? 16 "" l< W T"" N ~ ~ - '0 - 0 ~ '<t I:) I:) I:) I:) I,() N (:) Q C') Q I:) N q ct ~ U) 0 CD .... "" ..f 0 .... ~ - - - - 0 '<t I:) C') I:) l"- I:) I:) \0 1\i I:) It) It) Q C'l I:) .... 1'0:. It) en .... .... c? ~ - - - - T"" 0 0 0 I,() 'C CO c: .S: c .5 'C en III III :l III C ..J III Cl (/> 'C Q) u.. (/> :l ;5 ::I C ~ C ~ (J ~ u.. c: ~ :l 0 0 0 u. 0 > 0 Ql ?- m Q. Q. en 0.. Ul E e E ]! E '& c Q) ca Q) (J Q) ... z ..... c '08- ..... ca ~ - 0 Ql 0 c '# C) ~~ .!:.~ C) ~ o co ~ o co *' C'l ~ <) l"- N ~ <) '<t '<t *' ...... T"" N C') ...... o - - ::I o Q) 0> ~ Q) > CD III Q) III ::I c: Ul 0 ca.o "5 Q) c; ~ ~ CD Q ~ E ~ -~ ~ E = 8 ::I = III III "-'! r.r;:; X u;::) ~ u) ~ --- Q) ~ "J:: 0 ~ CD a::: 10 E ~ <:.( E :E ~ ::I ~ III Q) <:,) 0> CD ~ ::I c: 0 m '(6 E Q) III Q) OJ ~ ..... o *' I"- ...a: o "C Q) c: (/> (.) III .!1 .t: - T"" E ue Q)..... uu ::I (/> -u ~ ::I Q) (.) c: X (/> Q) Q) c: .o(/> Q) Q) >.0 CD 0 ,.clll 1Il"tij u Q) CD > Q) CD .t:,.c E ~ Q) Q) E- t:.t: CD@' CoQ) Q) ... "Cl<= '<t o o ~ T"" -. C') March 12, 2004 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING APPLICANT March 16, 2004 ITEM NO. III -.-3 REQUEST Update / Discussion of Employee Compensation - Pauline Skegges and stacy Kilchenmann AGENCY COMMENTS 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: See previous Date: Staff Initials: Phone: Contacted: Emailed: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. March 4, 2004 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING APPLICANT March 9, 2004 ITEM NO. ~ REQUEST Proposal for Employee Compensation - Pauline Skeggs and Stacy Kilchenmann AGENCY COMMENTS 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: SffiLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: ,G . LA S5LU --- rV ,{)1JVl jy~ {Iv c tfN I/OtV ~./I t7 Date: Staff Initials: Phone: Contacted: Emailed: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. March 12, 2004 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING APPLICANT March 16, 2004 REQUEST Executive Session per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1}(b)&(c) ITEM NO. --.Jf AGENCY COMMENTS 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: SffiLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: Contacted: Emailed: Date: Staff Initials: Phone: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. March 12,2004 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 16, 2004 APPLICANT ITEM NO. .." ~ REQUEST Discussion of City of Meridian support of ITD's policy to restrict vehicular access to SH 20-26 AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: See attached 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: Emailed: Date: Staff Initials: Phone: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS Keith Bird William L.M. Nary Shaun Wardle Charles M. Rountree otG~idi~n IDAHO , ,. MAYOR Tammy de Weerd CITY HALL (208) 888-4433 - Fax 887-4813 PUBUC WORKS BmLDING DEPARTMENT (208) 887-2211 - Fax 898-9551 LEGAL DEPARTMENT (208) 466-9272 - FAX 466-4405 March 17, 2004 J{ CE MAR 1 0 20011 Sue Sullivan Transportation Planner Idaho Transportation Department City Of Meridim1 City Clerk Office Re: Letter of Support for Restricted Access to SH 20-26 (Chinden Blvd.) for Ada County Parcel No. S0425110150 Dear Ms. Sullivan: The City of Meridian understands ITD District 3 is in the process of negotiating right-of-way acquisition for the construction of a traffic signal at the intersection of Meridian Road and SH 20-26. This construction project involves a land acquisition from the parcel located at the southwest corner of the intersection (Ada Co. Parcel No. S0425110150), which is currently owned by Lorna M. Dennett and Risch, Goss & Insinger. The parcel is approximately 10 acres in size and is located outside of Meridian ' s corporate boundaries but within our Area of City Impact. In August 2003, the City of Meridian annexed approximately 400 acres ofland in the same section as the subject parcel for Paramount Subdivision. According to Meridian's Zoning & Development Ordinance, the subject parcel would need to be annexed prior to receiving any municipal services. As you and our Planning & Zoning Department staffrecently discussed, the City of Meridian has a keen interest in how transportation planning and construction affects the SH 20-26 corridor. Over five miles of property frontage on the south side of SH 20-26 lies within our planning area. As such, we're interested in lID's actions and decisions regarding the number and type of approaches approved for properties within this corridor. The purpose of this letter is to inform ITD of the City of Meridian's support ofITD's Type 4 access policy which limits the number of approaches in urban areas to the half mile locations. We believe SH 20-26 needs to be preserved as a high volume, limited access facility that maintains travel speeds of between 45 and 5S mph. The City, as the land use authority, and ITD and ACHD, as the transportation Page 2 lID-Restricted 20-26 Access 1vfarch 17, 2004 authorities, have the opportunity to protect this important east-west roadway between Caldwell and Boise. The following three (3) policies are taken from the City of Meridian 2002 Comprehensive Plan and are the basis of our support to limit the number of new approaches to SH 20-26: . "New development should protect street and road corridors so that they can mesh with the existing street system to accommodate future transportation demands." (Chapter VI, pg. 71, #2, third bullet) . "The capacity of arterial and collector roadways can be greatly diminished by excessive driveway connections to the roadways." (Chapter VI, pg. 72, #2, last bullet) . "Restrict curb cuts and access points on collectors and arterial streets." (Chapter VII, pg. 107, Goal IV, Obj. D, Action #2) To date, the City of Meridian has not received any development applications for the subject parcel. However, as noted above, any future urban redevelopment would require annexation. As a part of said annexation, the City would likely require the applicant/developer to acquire access to a public street other than SH 20-26 (i.e. Meridian Road) prior to the annexation becoming finalized. We appreciate the opportunity to communicate the City of Meridian's concerns on this matter. Please feel free to contact us or our Planning Department staffwith any questions. Sincerely, Tammy de Weerd Mayor William L.M. Nary City Council President Keith Bird Councilman Shaun Wardle Councilman Charles M. Rountree Councilman Cc: Anna Powell, Planning Director Brad Hawkins-Clark, Principal City Planner April 15. 2004 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING APPLICANT April 20. 2004 ITEM NO. 5~B REQUEST Approve minutes of March 16. 2004 Pre-Council Meeting AGENCY COMMENTS 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: i~/ Contacted: Emailed: Date: Staff Initials: Phone: Materials presented at public meeHngs shall become property of the City of Meridian. CITY OF MERIDIAN PRE-COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, March 16, 2004 at 6:00 p.m. City Council Chambers 1. Roll-call Attendance: Shaun Wardle Bill Nary Charlie Rountree Keith Bird _ Mayor Tammy de Weerd 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Update I Discussion of Employee Compensation - Pauline Skeggs and Stacy Kilchenmann: ("'30 minutes) 4. Executive Session per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1 )(b)&(c): 5. Discussion of City of Meridian support of ITD's policy to restrict vehicular access to SH 20-26: * Approximate allowable time set for agenda item may change depending on discussion. Please use the designated minutes as a guideline only. Meridian City Pre-Council Agenda - March 16, 2004 Page 1 of 1 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. Meridian City Pre-Council Meetina March 16. 2004 The Meridian City Pre-Council meeting was called to order at 6:00 P.M. on Tuesday, March 9, 2004 by Mayor Tammy de Weerd. Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, Bill Nary, Keith Bird, Shaun Wardle and Charlie Rountree. Staff Present: Jill Holinka, Pauline Skeggs, Stacy Kilchennman, Anna Powell, Bill Musser, Gary Smith, Doug Strong, Kenny Bowers and Will Berg. Item 1. Roll-call Attendance: X Bill Nary X Shaun Wardle X Keith Bird X Charlie Rountree Mayor Tammy de Weerd X Item 2. Adoption of the Agenda: Bird: Mr. President. Nary: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we adopt the agenda as published. Rountree: Second. Nary: It's been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda as published. All those in favor say aye. ALL AYES. MOTION CARRIED. 3. Update I Discussion of Employee Compensation - Pauline Skeggs and Stacy Kilchenmann: Nary: Pauline do you want to start? Skeggs: Mayor, President Nary and Council members I have Wade Larson from Organization Resources, Inc. here today. He handled our re-classification plus he worked with the City on putting our programs and processes in place and he wants to just kind of give you an overview of our program and to address any concerns that you may have with that. In addition, like I said, he updated our compensation program and he helped us put together the evaluation forms and the rating structure, so I know he has got information to present so I am going to turn it over to Wade. Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting March 16, 2004 Page 2 of 19 Larson: Mayor and Council I understand that there were some questions regarding the structure with the compensation program. I am not exactly sure what exactly the specific questions are and so what I came prepared tonight was not for a full explanation of all the details of the compensation program - you don't have enough time. What I would like to do is kind of give you an idea as to what the structure is, what the layout is and then maybe address your specific questions and concerns about that. Unless, of course, you have any other route that you would like to take in terms of the explanation of the program. Nary: No that seems fine. Larson: I limited this to about a one-page handout just so we could kind of go over the structure. If we have additional questions then we can talk about that further at a different date. This layout gives us an overview kind of the four-prong approach to compensation management in terms of the general overview and this is the structure that was followed in putting together the City's plan. Now the City has always had a compensation structure of course and for at least the last several years has worked under the guise of a job description structure and a standard compensation structure, but in putting together in terms of revising it, we started about five years ago with the IEC Group when they came in and did a complete analysis of all the positions and realigned the structure. Since then we have tweaked it, modified it as the needs and the objectives of the organization have changed as well. Essentially, there are four parts to this program. The first part is the internal equity component where we take a look at each position, not the person in the position, but the position itself. We identify what are the essential functions, what are the requirements and standard job description function? Once the job description is put together and that's typically drafted by the supervisors, as they know the position the best. It's run through Human Resources for finalization and then it goes through an evaluation structure based on the internal evaluation process you come up with ranking essentially as to where the positions are placed internally. That leads into the second component, which is the external competitiveness component and that's where we take a look at the market and assess what is the value of the job? We come up with job ranges, market values and because of the fluctuating nature of compensation we take a look at that on a regular basis. We identify key positions and we evaluate those on a regular basis as well as any time that there is a major change to a position or anytime that it's been a while since the position has been evaluated from a market perspective we take a look outside and see what the other comparator agencies are looking at. As part of that process we identify who comparator agencies are, which tends to be organization similar in structure and nature to the City of Meridian and from there we gather the data and crunch the numbers and combined with the internal equity component, we assigned grade ranges, pay ranges and that's essentially where the positions are unless there is some good reason for the job to change or other situations; market value Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting March 16, 2004 Page 3 of 19 changes to adjust the positions. The third component is the employee contribution, which involves the performance management process. Four or five years ago - the City has always had a performance evaluation system, but four or five years ago we decided to tie that directly into the compensation program and adequately reward those who are performing. As such, two years ago we took a close look, a strong look at the evaluation process to enhance performance within the organization and as such we developed several types of evaluations depending on the nature of the job and as such we also came up with six performance ratings depending on where they fell. The lower two are essentially not satisfactory, needs improvement and those of course didn't receive any kind of merit increase. We established the competent level -- the competent rating. The competent rating was to acknowledge those who are essentially new to the position who aren't quite up to 100 percent yet in their position, but we acknowledge the performance in their efforts for that year. We have a satisfactory rating, which should include those who are at least at about the 85 percent performance level. Those are those who are doing the jobs, they are meeting and often times exceeding the requirements of the position. From there we go up to the excels category, which is to denote those who are typically in the 90 to 95 percents, sometimes up to 100 percent most of the time. Then we have the outstanding category, which is to recognize those who are consistently at the top of the performance factor, often times achieving 100 percent, but usually in the 95 to 100 percent category there. So those are the essential ones and the fourth component is the administration, which involves the regular updating of the program and make sure that we are still in line. As a result of this we have set this up some time ago. We have consistently done market surveys about once a year and so over the last four years of the approximately 116 positions that the City has, not counting the fire positions, approximately 78 of those positions have been evaluated during the four year period of time just to make sure that we are still in alignment with the outside market. As a result, each year we have come with some recommendations for some adjustments or to maintain positions and actions have been taken on that. Just as a final component in terms of the training, once the overall structure was revamped a few years ago we did meet with the department heads, worked out the details, trained them on how to use it and two years ago after revising the performance evaluation process, we went through training with supervisors and managers for that as well. So with that that gives you kind of an overview as to the structure of the system, the theories behind it and without going into too many details it gives you an overview of the structure. With that I would be open to any questions or concerns that might have on it. Nary: Council, any questions? Rountree: Mr. President. Nary: Mr. Rountree. Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting March 16,2004 Page 4 of 19 Rountree: Wade, you talked about going back in and reevaluating certain set of classifications. Is that established by contract with you or is that something - in your recollections is that something directed by the City Council or is that done by HR specialist or what was the mechanism, at least you understood for getting that done? Larson: Sure. There is nothing that's established to contract, per se. About five years ago the IEC Group was the initial group that came in and revamped that and that's about the same time that I came on board with the IEC Group. I worked with Pauline as the primary consultant from the group, the primary contact. About three years ago, I separated from the lEG Group and established my own consulting group and from that time we have maintained the relationship. The majority of the relationship there has been primarily updating the evaluations, the compensation with the terms of the market studies, revamping the performance management process. But, in terms of contract per se, there is nothing that has been consistent, it's an as needed basis. Rountree: I have another question. It relates to the competency satisfactory classification in terms of performance if you will and the expectation from that system that those kinds of evaluations would yield some sort of meritorious compensation and I know there are several of us that have questions as it relates to competent and satisfactory employee qualifying what in our minds is a meritorious performance. Could you explain the philosophy that's in place because the system is new to me as a brand new councilman? Larson: When we took a look at this, we had - we saw what we often see in most organizations or anytime that there is heavy emphasis placed on the compensation element on the performance management outcome. There is a tendency to inflate performance, to inflate the performance rating in order to achieve a higher pay rate. As such what we want to do - what we are taking a look at it, where the vast majority of employees were hitting at the above average rating, when in fact we knew that they were at a more of a satisfactory rating where they were meeting expectations, sure we want a merit increase but we didn't want to inflate the performance ratings. We want a true measure of performance to help coach them and improve their performance. As such, we took a look at the structure and the previous structure had five levels. Typically in a five level component there is a central tendency that takes place that hits around the satisfactory component and that's really what our target was; understanding that the vast majority of employees are doing a good job, they are coming to work, they are doing a great job and they are doing what they are supposed to do and often times they go above and beyond. In that case, however, we really want to save the excels for those who really were excelling above and beyond what the requirements of the job were, but at the same time wanting to recognize those who were meeting the expectations of the job description. In terms of the distinction between satisfactory and competent, we Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting March 16, 2004 Page 5 of 19 actually inserted the competent to reflect those people who were essentially good employees. They weren't quite at 85 percent of their performance, typically in most cases because they were new employees and that's, as I understand it, about where it's been averaged typically reserved for those who were new in their job either their first or second year. If somebody is in their position for longer than a year and has still not achieved higher than a competent rating, we need to take a look at some performance management issues and that (inaudible) in. Skeggs: (Inaudible discussion) Larson: Okay, I had them switched, but- Rountree: You are not the only one confused. Larson: --it's my structure so - but I only have this in front of me. I don't have my toys in front of me, but that's a good question. So, the reason for the distinction between the two; one is higher and one is lower. What's to recognize the fact that some folks are new to their positions? They are working hard, but at the same time they are not quite up to that 90 percent where we expect a fully competent, well-seasoned employee to be at. Rountree: Thank you for that explanation. That helps kind of differentiate at least the competent satisfactory. I believe we separated, we differentiated the merit increase for each of those levels, primarily based on the fact that yeah, we wanted to give them a little something to recognize their efforts, but they are not - it's not as meritorious as those who are at full capacity, the full competent level. De Weerd: Mr. President. Nary: Madame Mayor. De Weerd: I guess my concern is all of those different levels are so close together, there is no range, so it's kind of like if - you know, our excels are at 96 percent and you have someone who is competent at 94 percent, I think that is Mr. Nary's example, how can you differentiate one getting a larger raise and not. I have yet to meet someone who can perform at 100 percent all the time. So, I guess I would ask there is not a whole lot of buffer between each one to help separate who excels, who is competent? I understand the satisfactory is for newer employees, so that leaves the competent, excels and outstanding without any measurements to give specific examples of why you would be anything more than your what's expected of you anyway, which I don't think can always be a 100 percent either. Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting March 16, 2004 Page 6 of 19 Larson: That raises an excellent question, Mayor. That really goes to the fundamental nature of compensation management. Taking it in terms of the theorist behind the compensation process, you have so many different structures out there. Ranging from something that's simple that the state has, for example, is a pass/fail. You pass, you fail. It's a two-prong measurement. But, what they find in most cases from the management perspective is that that is not enough differentiation to say those who need, those who exceed and reward those who exceed. Even certain state departments have kind of separated themselves and said sure we will go to the pass/fail, but then we will have our own internal measurements. Mostly from a coaching perspective for performance management process. That's the real heart of this process is not to use the performance management just as a way to manage pay, but as a way to manage performance and that's really at the heart of it. So, we can go to a three prong, where it's - where we have a does not meet, a meets or an exceeds, which is okay and it's better than the pass/fail, but you are still missing out on the differentiation, especially at the lower end; are they failing completely or do we need improvement? There is a distinction there. At the same time at the upper end as you mentioned, you have a hard time to find those who are 100 percent all the time and as the training has been provided to the managers we explained to them that we are talking about the top two or three percent of the entire workforce would fall into that. So, from the City perspective my understanding is that there are only about two or three that actually met that criterion over the past year, which is about right in line with where our expectations were. However, the exceeds expectation is there to say yes you are doing an above average job; you are not walking on water, but it is a way to recognize the above satisfactory performance and so the ones in the middle, hopefully, I have explained the reason for the differentiation in the middle, the competent verses satisfactory one is for the more newer folks, one is for those who are well-seasoned in their positions and doing their job. They are coming to work and doing a pretty good job each day. The two levels at the bottom end are of course so we can differentiate between you are not doing your job verses we need some improvement and there is some hope for you and at the same time we decided to plug in the top two to differentiate those who truly do walk on water as it were and those who are coming to work and do an excellent job. That is what that excels category is for. In terms of the criteria to differentiate, that - I have seen several performance management systems that have tried to get as scientific as possible to add some kind of tangible measurement. It's tough. Performance management is and always has been a subjective case, which is where we go to the training that we provided to managers and supervisors and employees as well; we have trained all the employees in terms of setting up expectations that are specific, measurable, time related so that we can add as much tangibility to those as possible. At that point, we leave it to the directors, the departments heads and the managers to say yeah we trust them to be able to differentiate and that and make the judgment call within their own areas. That's really where the training was left. Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting March 16, 2004 Page 7 of 19 Rountree: Mr. President. Nary: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: You mentioned in your discussion about formulating or assisting the City in putting together the performance program that there is a tendency to over inflate City above average rating. Was that a general statement or was that something that you actually saw in the system that the City has? Larson: That's a general statement for performance in general. As I understand it, based on the past years' ratings, we are hitting where we actually expected in terms of the breakdown of what percentages of the City employees where we are having about 46 percent fall into that competent factor. It's in the mid-teens, I believe, for the excels and we are talking only two to three percent in the outstanding category, which breaks out about where our goals and objectives were to meet, but the - the real issue becomes how dependent is your performance management system in terms of how much the employee gets paid. What we find is that in systems where satisfactory means satisfactory, hey congratulations you get to keep your job and there is no additional merit increase for that satisfactory rating or the middle mark. What we find is that there tends to be a tendency to inflate performance ratings so that more employees can fall into the exceeds expectations category just to get that merit increase. So, we try to address this to say here is a category and we are going to recognize your performance by giving you a merit increase. It's not going to be nearly as much as the others, but it is a merit increase to recognize the good performance and that will help to alleviate that overrating problem. As a side note, one of the issues that comes from - this is not really a decompensation, but in terms of the overall package for performance management what we find is another issue of overrating - of over inflating the ratings is that when it comes time to discipline, or to terminate an employee it becomes really difficult to find somebody who's been exceeding expectations and being able to take the appropriate action. What we do here is we can hold the managers more accountable, they reward who is supposed to be rewarded and we are safer in a lot of other categories as well. De Weerd: Mr. President. Nary: Madame Mayor. De Weerd: Can't you do that by building into your evaluation process, a mechanism that if they give a certain rating or above that they have to site specific examples of what that meritorious performance is. Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting March 16, 2004 Page 8 of 19 Larson: Yes and it is already built into the system. Anything above satisfactory or above competent requires notes in terms of justification and anything below satisfactory or competent also requires the notes for documentation. Nary: You know, Mr. Larson, I guess I would agree with a lot of what you said. My concern is that in looking at the form that we use it is incredibly complicated. I guess my experience has been is that the more complicated it gets the less it gets used appropriately because it takes so much time to fill that out and that's I guess one of the tools we'd asked or discussed last week of revisiting as to whether or not that is an adequate tool. You know, I guess and maybe it's a philosophical difference. One I don't think what you are saying as to ways of compensation does anything other than sort of lull everybody into that middle category because they are trying to make sure they get something, but very few people can exceed 100 percent consistently so we have very few people, I mean we have - I think we have two, currently, employees who are outstanding. We have a majority of them falling in the competent and excels and I think all you end up with is a bunch of people (inaudible) in the middle and there is no real incentive compensation wise to be hired. We are talking a half percent between each category and I'll tell you, I don't think you are going to see a tremendous increase in performance when one employee gets 2.5 percent and the other employee gets 3.5 percent. That one percent does not, in my experience, make people strive to get further and I guess that is what, I think, our discussion has been is that there is such a fine separation between these different categories and although I - like I said I agree with you that having them more categorized in general is okay, I don't think by separating them out by half a percent really does that and especially on top of the fact that at least in the two years I have been here we have always granted employees an across the board raise in addition to merit. You know, it's not sending the message in my mind that merit is truly for meritorious work. One of the things that we discussed last week was that at the competent level one of the things that is in there for the managers to evaluate and assess an employee's performance is competent means this employee doesn't do a lot of extra work. Well, that's good; there is nothing wrong with that - that's not merit that is something else. Having the across the board raises, I think, addresses those employees that are competent, doing their job, coming in, staying and getting their work done and I don't think there is anything wrong with that I think that deserves something. I just think if you are going to have merit and you are going to separate it out by such minute amounts that you are not really encouraging people to strive to do more. You really are saying, you know what if [ can live with 2.5 I don't really have to work too hard while they are getting 3.5. It's not that much money and it's not that much difference. Larson: That's true and from what I heard you say, I think there are four issues that you raised and I will try and hit each of those four and we can see if it addresses your issues, I am not sure that we are going to achieve any kind of Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting March 16, 2004 Page 9 of 19 conclusion by any means, but maybe I can give you some background there. Let's go back to the forum as the first one in terms of the structure of the forum. The original forum that we had that was working with is pretty wide open, very general in nature and it was left up to the supervisors to basically spell out the performance expectations, the results and became very tedious and time- consuming to formulate themselves what is it that we are going evaluate and so in terms of the structure the reason why we have six or seven different forms and the reason why it's structured the way that it is - we actually worked with the supervisors themselves, the departments heads to ask them what do you need in your evaluation? So, that's why we have that many and so in terms of the design itself, the criteria for the evaluation that is something that the department heads actually threw in as their form of input - for ours we need this, this and this and so we laid it across the table and then in those categories were certain job types needed different type of performance evaluation, that's where the differentiation comes from. So, in terms of the complexity that was actually requested as an alternative because they felt that as a result of creating more columns, more things laid out that it would actually create less work for them in terms of the amount of time that it would take for them to layout the expectations because it would be laid out in the form. So, in terms of the form design that was actually done on a consensus basis where we sought a lot of input from the department heads. That was a requested situation. In terms of the differentiation, one of the essential components to a compensation program is the ability to pay it. Now, when you layout, for example, four different measurements, four different ratings that would receive some kind of compensation. In a situation where you have more money, the spread would of course be larger. Where you have had certain budgetary constraints over the last couple of years, those differentiations have narrowed down considerably. You address the issue of the CPI, the COLA the Cost of Living Adjustment. We had extensive discussion during the process to say should we just incorporate the CPI, the COLA adjustment into the entire matrix. The word came back that there would be so much disgruntled-ness amongst the employees that they wanted to keep that. In a lot of cases, in a lot of compensation structures that I have put together they do the cost of living adjustment and that is essentially what goes to those who reach the satisfactory level, which means that those are who unsatisfactory or need improvement basically do not receive a cost of living increase. That created some concern, given the culture of the organization so we left the COLA adjustments separate from the merit increase. In terms of the separation of only half a percent, I don't look at the actual percentages on a year-to-year basis. We built this as a way to differentiate performance and in terms of what the separation is that really comes down to that pot of money that's available on an annual basis. So, it's really up to the supervisors to differentiate who are going to get what and how much money that they have. So, that is really why we structured it that way. In terms of the percentage being a motivation, I agree a half percent is not that big of a motivation, but in terms of tight times, that half of percent merit increase is something that dictates to those who are satisfactory yes they need something. Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting March 16, 2004 Page 10 ofl9 If it needs to be widened at the top in order to create additional motivation that's an internal management decision and that was built into the structure that on an annual basis the management would decide what the percentage increases would be on that table. So, that's where that was built. A final concern is in terms of the differentiation themselves. It's true that if we are looking at it as just a compensation tool the differentiation is not there, however, based on much study the employees are very particular to the type of feedback they receive. The money is important, but it's not nearly as big a motivator as other considerations. For example, the work environment, the structure, knowing clear expectations and the feedback from the supervisor. By laying out these differentiations in terms of performance the employees are given clear cut expectations, they are giving clear cut messages as to how their rating is and by creating the structure that we did within the performance evaluations it should leave little doubt as to how they are performing. So, those were some of the bases that we used in terms of the concerns that you raised. Nary: Other questions, Council? Thank you. Larson: All right, thanks. Nary: Council you have some numbers that were prepared by the finance department as I guess talking points discussion. Does anybody have any thoughts as to what Mr. Larson provided as some better understanding of how the different categories are established, but I think partly what I heard him say is kind of what we hear about, is what goes in those categories is what we are kind of having to wrestle with. You have some numbers in front of you. Does anybody have any thoughts? We also have an executive session to get to, so - Bird: Mr. President. Nary: Mr. Bird. Bird: As you can see, the firefighters are not included in this range, nor is the department heads so - other than that I believe all the rest of the employees are covered. Nary: And the reason for that was because their compensation is assessed differently than the other employees. That's why they are not in this (inaudible). Bird: I have follow up. I also and which Shaun and Charlie don't have any way being able to confirm or deny this, but I did not understand this January 1 st was going to be a merit increase. We were just going to look at the wages and everybody would - we would see what we had to give and I didn't take it as merit. Maybe you and the Mayor did. I can't -- I guess I didn't go far enough back in my minutes that I had at home to look it up. I for one, even though I did Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting March 16, 2004 Page 11 of 19 vote along with the motion last week I am still not - I still want to see everybody within the City get some kind compensation and our motion last week left some people out. I don't believe it was a merit raise it was quoted. Nary: Madame Mayor. De Weerd: I don't think anything was specifically stated, Keith, other than we set this aside and asked the directors to come back with recommendations and so the expectations were pretty - or there were no expectations other than looking for a recommendation that we could discuss and consider. Nary: I guess I would concur with that as well. I guess I look that there is a lot of pieces that we are talking about in compensation and we are discussing merit. In the past, at least in my experience in the past was what was given was across the board, sometimes termed as cost of living raise; probably not the appropriate terminology, but an across the board raise this most recent October an across the board raise was given to all employees as an attempt to offset the increases in health benefit costs. It was a complete increase to some employees and a minor increase to others and maybe not an increase to other people as well, but there was an increase that was done and so normally the second raise that we have discussed previously was for merit and what percentages for merit. Those merit raises didn't go to everybody they only went to these four categories in the past. So, that's I think at least what the discussion point was. I guess I would agree with the Mayor. I don't think we really nailed down anything in particular that we were going to be giving across the board raises, merit raises. I think there are a lot of pieces to discuss merit being one of them and I think we sort of laid out on the table last week a few of the others in regards to the evaluation program and whether or not it's adequate, whether or not we need to re-evaluate that and look at some other options out there, whether or not re-c1assifying jobs and whether or not that's appropriate. I think we are still awaiting for some finalization on some of the other alternative incentives that we were looking at as to compensation as well as employee incentives in regards of smaller bonuses or some other type of employee incentive, so I don't think this is the end all. I don't think we resolved everything by this issue. I just think it's a piece that we wanted to get to first. As you note and for the record I had also asked Ms. Cunningham for the purpose of discussion to include since we had been talking about just a set bonus amounts for these categories to include a bonus amount, again, for purpose of discussion for the other two categories we have been discussing in regards to merit. Again, as I have said a number of times, I truly believe at some we need to be a lot clearer as to what we intend merit to mean. I also recognize that we haven't been very clear in the past. So, there have been some mixed messages and maybe the budg"et time is the opportunity to really clarify going forward each year as to what the expectations we feel should be towards receiving merit compensation, not the other forms, but at least for merit. Because we haven't been very clear as a Council in the past because as Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting March 16, 2004 Page 12 of 19 Mr. Larson stated the culture of the City maybe hasn't differentiated very strongly between satisfactory, competent, excels and outstanding that this was, I guess like I said for the purpose of discussion I asked Ms. Cunningham to give us some numbers that would at least create a gap between the two categories we had some concern with for merit, as well as the top two categories (inaudible) at least a gap that at least is a little more significant, maybe to some folks, but with the message that we are going to still discuss it further in the future, discuss it as part of our budget process and see where we are at. That's the reason for those other two columns on your financial form. Stacy, did you have any input? I don't want you to feel left out. Kilchennman: No, I am just here to provide number crunching as needed. Nary: Does any other department directors have any input? Musser: Mr. President, members of the Council, one thing that I would comment on is it's been my impression over a number of years and since we have implemented performance appraisal system that we have there is a large amount of confusion and I think some things have been taken for granted as Mr. Larson pointed out. I know that I have worked with him as we initiated the first set that we went through and then also helped out with the revisions that we were looking at. But, one of the things that I see that are a little bit problematic at times is, I think, some assumptions have been made without clear direction given from the Council as to what the expectations were at the time when it was implemented and what they expected via department heads so we could pass that down to employees and then employees could respond by performance to meet those expectations. So, from what I am hearing this evening I think that seems to be putting us a little bit better on track on recognizing that there is a problem that we probably need to clarify much better and a more thorough manner. Rountree: Mr. President. Nary: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Chief arrow shot and accepted. I think we need to do a better job. Musser: I appreciate the comment, Councilman Rountree and by no means was I indicating as pointing a finger. It's all of us and that's the way I look at it. It's your directors here as much as it is the Council. We are the team that has to come together and do it and it's just my observation having been a little bit outside of this team and now a member of the team directly since I was appointed Chief. De Weerd: Mr. President. Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting March 16, 2004 Page 13 ofl9 Nary: Madame Mayor. De Weerd: I guess as a team it is important that we all work on this. When the evaluation was redone, Council still hadn't seen it. Actually the last week was probably the first time Councilman Bird and Councilman Nary had seen it. I had seen it maybe a month before. We'd heard about it, certainly, but we had never seen it. I do believe that maybe if we could all pull together as a team we could be very clear on those areas that we really want to fine tune and be clear when you do use it as a tool for employee performance and employee reward. Nary: Council, just to keep the discussion going and looking at the financial forms and if I read them incorrectly I am sure Ms. Kilchennman will correct. It appears in the three different areas of funds that we have. We have a total of money that was set aside towards this employee compensation issue of $370,110 and with this proposal that's before you if it's adequate with the $250 bonuses to the employees that rated out in the satisfactory and competent level; $750 bonus to the employees who rated in the excels level; and $1,000 bonus to the employees who rated in the outstanding level; and $2,000 bonus to the employees that have reached their maximum on their pay grade and still have a rating in the outstanding and excels level, including the step plan for the Police Department. The totals of all of that and doing that is $106,916. Kilchennman: Mr. President we did have one question - a little confusion on the employees that reached their max on defining which employees those were. Is it that they have been at their max one-year or is that they have been at their max for ten years? Maybe you would want to clarify that in the executive session a little bit. Nary: Okay, thank you. The remaining money is still needed for; again, department heads' pay or performance bonuses of any kind have to be addressed. The firefighters issue has to be addressed again. The other employee programs that we have asked for and the department heads have been working on to provide incentives, we don't have numbers for that as to what that may cost. I believe now, again maybe Ms. Skeggs can correct me, the numbers of the employees is this about a third of the employees that have been evaluated to date so the $106,000 is just for the employees that have been evaluated. There are still about two thirds of the employees that need to be evaluated. Skeggs: President Nary, I think what accounting did is that they took those employees - we had 52 employees to date that have been evaluated, but they looked at the ratings from last year and kind of best-guessed estimate based on those, what they were rated as to what they would be rated this year. I know Stacy had mentioned about the maximum because we had 11 employees that were at the maximum of the range in the police step program, but we have six Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting March 16, 2004 Page 14 of 19 employees as of September 30th had went to their seventh year level. They did get a step increase from the six year to the seventh year in September, but accounting had put $2,000 in what information you got because they are at their maximum now, but I had told Reta, well basically they already got an increase in September and we were looking at those individuals that haven't gotten increases in the last couple of years to recognize those individuals. But, I know she did put those six individuals in the police program in the information that you have before you and I think that's where Stacy needed clarification on that. Nary: So, that six is part of the nine that's listed in the max category? Skeggs: Well, Reta had said that she had 16 because there were 11 in the police step program and then she added six more that she had asked me about. I hadn't seen the financial information that she gave you so I don't know what's on there. Bird: She shows 11 in the max, Pauline. Skeggs: Okay. Nary: Yeah, nine in the general fund and two in the enterprise fund are in the max category and I guess when we discussed it last week, again, we didn't make any final decision. We discussed employees that basically hadn't received an increase in October 2003 and October 2002. So, it wasn't for the folks that just got increased in the middle at least was the discussion. Skeggs: I have a question on the police step program because their program was set up for if they had average performance they went to the next step. If you are looking at increases for just excels and outstanding or $250 for marginal, would that mean that those individuals in the step program if they got satisfactory or competent wouldn't go to the next step or are we kind of maintaining that program specifically and they've got average performance, it doesn't matter they would just go to the next step level - grade level? Nary: I guess for me I believe where we talked about the step program we talked about a separate and apart from the other one to institute that back where we thought we were. Skeggs: And that's what accounting asked and I said well I would agree that the police step program is a step program and we are just kind of working if they got average they go to the next step so it wouldn't mean that they had to get excels or outstanding. Nary: Council, do you need time to think about it? Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting March 16, 2004 Page 15 ofl9 Bird: Mr. President. Nary: Mr. Bird. Bird: I think we need to think about it and we do have an executive session that we need to go into and Mr. Rountree needs to leave for a few minutes, so we need to get in on the executive session. Nary: Okay. De Weerd: Mr. President. Nary: Madame Mayor. De Weerd: I guess beings how we are so late, we may want to have the executive session at the tail-end of the regular agenda and discuss Item 5, so Councilman Rountree can take care of his business and we can start our regular agenda on time. Nary: Thank you. Bird: That's fine with me. Nary: Okay. Then we will - if Council is okay with that then we will go ahead and move to Item No.5. 4. Executive Session per Idaho State Code 67M2345(1)(b)&(c): 5. Discussion of City of Meridian support of ITO's policy to restrict vehicular access to SH 20-26: Rountree: Mr. President. Nary: Yes, Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I respectfully request that I step down from this discussion. Nary: Certainly. I think we all understand that. De Weerd: I guess you don't want your name on this letter either? Bird: Probably not. Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting March 16, 2004 Page 16 of 19 (Inaudible discussion) Nary: Ms. Powell. Powell: Mr. President, members of the Council you have in your packet a letter to Sue Sullivan for - or a draft letter - done by Brad Hawkins-Clark. The issue is the small property in the red circle up above - southwest corner of Chinden and Meridian Road, so it's that property right there. We have been working with ITD for the last year trying to get them to buy into the idea of just having access at the half mile. Right now they are debating whether they want to give it the half-mile along Chinden, but we have been working with them to try and at least get it at the half-mile. Then on developments between the mile and the half mile second section is to have a back-age road. Meaning that there would be some property between the highway and a local street or it might be across access if it is a commercial property, but just the idea that there is - instead of having a frontage road where you just have a road and then two roads on either side of the highway, that'd be a back-age road. So, you would have the highway, building, internal roadway. So, we have been working with them on that idea and they have asked Meridian to support a no access for the property shown up above. They do have frontage on Meridian Road, where they could get in and get on to the highway from there. They are protesting to get an access onto the highway. So, the letter is just saying that the City of Meridian supports limiting access to the highway from that property. It would take the access from Meridian Road. With that, I will try and answer any questions. Nary: Council is there any questions? De Weerd: Mr. President. Nary: Madame Mayor. De Weerd: I guess this is consistent in discussions that we have had and really (inaudible) of access and not repeating another Eagle Road scenario. I think this is just consistent with the direction that we have been going in. Powell: I believe so and again as we have been in it - in Paramount you approved a half mile access to Chinden, apparently ITD didn't review the request at that time and now they are considering taking it out or not granting that access so I think that by the City showing support for their efforts on this we may also be a little more successful in lobbying for our half mile locations for the neighborhood centers and the mixed-use projects. So, I think it's a good sign of support for ITD in hopes of getting to the mutually agreeable goals of not creating another Eagle Road. Wardle: Mr. President. Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting March 16,2004 Page 17 of 19 Nary: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I guess my - so that I can clarify this, is it ITD's position that they are not going to be allowing access except at the mile? Powell: Well, I don't - as an overall picture I don't know that they have absolutely decided yet, but for this particular property they have said since it has access to the mile road there, Meridian Road, that they will not allow access. I think they are still debating whether access will be at the half-mile or the mile for the full-length of the road. Wardle: Mr. President. Nary: Certainly, go ahead. Wardle: So, what we are saying is essentially we would like one more access at that half mile point roughly all the way across Chinden for a five mile period, so that we can support our Comprehensive Plan? Powell: Yes. Wardle: And if ITD's current policy were to stay in place that would mean essentially that those could have the potential to disappear and significantly change what we are talking about. Is that correct? Powell: Well, I am not sure if I can answer exactly because I don't know the (inaudible) detail of what ITD is doing right now. But, my understanding is there was a study done a number of years back where they phase out the access, which makes no sense. You get a commercial development going in there that is counting on that access and then you take it away 10 years later doesn't make sense. Maybe that's the problem that they had with Eagle Road, so I think they are taking a much harder line now, particularly in the last few months on Chinden in saying no, no access. You know, you don't have a guaranteed right to access and we have looked at all the properties the way they are kind of configured along Chinden and we do believe that a back-age road is possible. Sometimes, you may have to wait for one development or one parcel on either side of you to develop, but it's not like somebody would be having to wait for 10 properties to develop before it got to them. So, I think it really is feasible on Chinden. There are enough large parcels there that the back-age road concept will work at and then a location at the half-mile. I guess what they are trying to do just on this particular one - this is really just site-specific to this property that we are just agreeing with them and again advocating for a half mile locations. Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting March 16,2004 Page 18 of19 Wardle: Right. Okay and so we are agreeing that we would like to see commercial growth and we believe - I guess what the letter tells me is that while we agree with the position with on this one individual project in the future to help foster commercial growth we would like to see them implement our policy of the half mile and we are suggesting that you can do that with what's called a baggage road, is that correct? Powell: Yeah. Did you say baggage or back-age? Wardle: That's why I am clarifying. I thought I heard you say baggage. Powell: It's a bad word all around. It's back-age. Wardle: Okay, I will try not to make that mistake again. Nary: So, essentially we agree with ITO on this particular issue for different reasons than - we have a different reason why we agree with them than what their reason is? Powell: No, it's the same reason, they don't want to allow access at this location. The only thing would be if it were here we might have a difference of opinion. Nary: They are not saying that they agree with the half-mile issue they are just saying that - Powell: Not yet. Nary: -- and we don't want it there because we would prefer it at a half-mile. Powell: -- right. Nary: They are not agreeing to that they are just saying that we don't want it there? Powell: Perfect. Yes. Nary: Madame Mayor did you need a motion for this? I mean you have got a letter here. I think Mr. Rountree says he has recused himself; maybe he doesn't want to be on the letter even, which is his choice, but do you really need a motion or you just want us to sign it? De Weerd: I think just your signatures will be enough. Do you need a motion, Anna? Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting March 16, 2004 Page 19 of 19 Powell: I don't believe so. I just wanted to let you all know what the issue was and we can take Rountree's name off. That is probably appropriate. De Weerd: Mr. President. Nary: Madame Mayor. De Weerd: I don't know if it would be something the clerk could do during one of our recesses is to print this off so you could sign. Is that possible? (Inaudible discussion) De Weerd: We will try and find it on Peggy's computer and see if we can print it off. Nary: Well, we have opted to move Item 4, Executive Session to the end of our regular agenda, so we will make sure to note that when we begin the regular meeting, otherwise we have no other further business in Pre-Council. Bird: I move we close Pre-Council. Wardle: Second. Nary: Moved and seconded to adjourn the Pre-Council meeting. All those in favor say aye. ALL AYES. MOTION CARRIED. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:00 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: ~ \\\\ M //11 \\\\ -{ Of E:irto 11/// ~\'''"~. ~ ~ :; v. ,cpt'PO~ h '1-- ~ ~ ~ ~o S - ~ - - == SEAJATT ST~D: ~~~ WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., C 1- / '20 / CJ4- DATE APPROVED ** TX CU","IRMATION REPORT ** A5 OF MAR 12 '134 16:53 PRGE.131 CITY OF MERIDIAN DATE TIME TO/FROM MODE MIWSEC PGS CMDIl STATUS 01 03/12 16:213 120846644135 EC--S 00'36" 13132 153 OK 132 133/12 16:21 8841159 EC--S 1313'36" 0132 153 OK 03 133/12 16:22 20888413744 EC--S 130'35" 1302 153 OK 134 03/12 16:23 POLICE DEPT EC--S 00'35" 1302 153 OK 0S 03/12 16:25 69855131 EC--5 BO' 36" 002 153 OK 06 0,3/12 16:26 l..IBRRRY EC--5 00' 44" 0132 153 OK 07 133/12 16:27 92083776449 EC--S 00'35" 002 153 OK ea 133/12 16:28 200 388 6924 EC--S 013'43" 0132 153 OK 1219 03/12 16:29 2088886854 EC--S 013'34" 002 153 OK 10 03/12 16:31 >'lLL AMERICAN INS EC--S 1313'46" 13132 153 OK 11 03/12 16:32 200 B95 03913 EC-S 013'35" 0132 153 OK 12 133/12 16:33 1283001340 133--5 00'45" 002 153 OK 13 03/12 16: 34 200 387 6393 EC--5 00'35" 002 153 OK 14 03/12 16:36 8885052 EC--S 013'34" 0132 153 OK 15 133/12 16'37 CHERRY LANE 133--5 131'13" 13132 153 OK 16 03/12 16'39 POST OFFICE EC--5 1313'55" 13132 153 OK 17 03/12 16:41 IDAHO ATHLETIC C EC--S 013' 35" 1302 153 OK 16 03/12 16:42 887 0816 (;3--S 131'12" 002 153 OK 19 133/12 16:43 ID PRESS TRIBUNE EC--S 1313'35" 0132 153 OK 20 133/12 16:45 20888867131 EC--5 1013'35" 002 153 OK 22 133/12 16:52 ADA CTY DEUELMT EC--5 00'35" 002 153 OK VtLLl\V YOS1-to, \u!oli0 NotJl-t/ - fil)o.V\t& ~ CITY OF MERIDIAN PRE-COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, March 16, 2004 at 6:00 p.m. City Council Chambers 1. Roll-call Attendance: _ Shaun Wardle _ Bill Nary _ Charlie Rountree _ Keith Bird _ Mayor Tammy de Weerd . 2. Adoption of the Agenda; 3. Update J Discussion of Employelt Compensation - Pauline Skeggs and Stacy Kilchenmann; (*30 minutes) 4. Executive Session per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1)(b)&(c): 5. Discussion of City of Meridian support of lID's poliCV to restrict vehicular access to SH 20-26: * ~pproxi."'ate allowable time set for agltnda Item may change depending on dISCUSSIon. Please use the designated minutes as a guideline only. Meridian City I'ro-Cooncil A9ondo - M""'h 11>. 2004 I'~. 1 or 1 A~ motorlolG P"'s~lW at ""bile me.tings onoll b..."", I'l1lporty.r lho City of ",...ia"," Anyone dOllI,lOlIIl<:OOm",od.llon lor d~.b1lhloG rel.led 10 d"""mon~ andlor he.rings . pi.... .onlBOt th. CiIY Clorl<'o Office ol88Il-4<<lJ .1 I...t 48 hour:; prJor loth. public m.ollng. MAYOR Tammy de Weerd fl1arr , ~D~t fey pubU~ No*(- V.-:/V1(Avt.~ ~ p. ~l~~~;~~ ~ P ./" CITY OF I~t~li~~ .. L/Vl erldicrn'~""l;"\ IDAHO l .?y ~ q"lt' ) 1903 LEGAL DEPARTMENT (208) 466.9272 . FAX 466~4405 CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS Shaun Wardle William L M. Nary Charles M. Rountree Keith Bird PARKS & RECREATION (208) 888-3579 . Fax 898-5501 PUBLIC WORKS (208) 898-5500 . Fax 887-1297 BUILDING DEPARTMENT (208) 887.2211 . Fax 887-] 297 PLANNING & ZONING (208) 884-5533 . Fax 888-6854 NOTICE OF PRE-COUNCIL MEETING MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Meridian will hold a Pre-Council Meeting at City Hall, 33 East Idaho, Meridian, Idaho, on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 at 6:00 P.M. The Meridian City Council will be discussing agenda items which are on the regular scheduled City Council meeting as well as the following issues: Update / Discussion of Employee Compensation Executive Session per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1)(b)&(c) Discussion of City of Meridian support of ITO's policy to restrict vehicular access to SH 20-26 The public is welcome to attend the meeting. \\\\1\111111111' \\\ 1"'J::'j 'f'l "\"~I of !'.fti..:.lrl'-"'7'I,/ ........ """""\ ~4 /.z ~ :',...... o. ./1. /... :2 {.i o?P r'14,;; v ~ .::: ~G ~A ~ ,~ v ~ ff' ~ ~ SEAL ~ DATED this 12th of March, 2004. 33 EAST IDAHO AVENUE · MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 · (208) 888-4433 City Clerk Office Fax. (208) 888-42! 8 . Human Resources Fax (208) 884-8723 . Finance & Utility Billing Fax (208) 887.48 J 3 ~llo: J ~ost ~'t ~ Jbl;0 AJrflL0-7hd.tI\~ \ CITY OF MERIDIAN PRE-COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, March 16, 2004 at 6:00 p.m. City Council Chambers 1. Roll-call Attendance: Shaun Wardle Bill Nary _ Charlie Rountree Keith Bird _ Mayor Tammy de Weerd 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Update I Discussion of Employee Compensation - Pauline Skeggs and Stacy Kilchenmann: (*30 minutes) 4. Executive Session per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1 )(b)&(c): 5. Discussion of City of Meridian support of ITO's policv to restrict vehicular access to SH 20-26: * Approximate allowable time set for agenda item may change depending on discussion. Please use the designated minutes as a guideline only. Meridian City Pre-Council Agenda - March 16,2004 Page 1 of 1 All materials presented at public meetings shalf become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the pUblic meeting. ** TX CONFIRMATION REPORT ** AS OF MAR 12 '04 16:20 PAGE. 01 CITY OF MERIDIAN 30 31 DATE TIME TO/FROM 03/12 16:16 3810160 03/12 16:17 PUBLIC WORKS MODE EC--S EC--S MIN/SEC PGS 00'54" 002 00'35" 002 CMD1=i STATUS 153 OK 153 OK -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- V Lut~ YDSt 10'\ \ JhliG NDtIL-t..r -1V1a.v'\KJ3, ~ CITY OF MERIDIAN PRE-COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, March 16,2004 at 6:00 p.m. City Council Chambers 1. Roll-can Attendance: _ Shaun Wardle _ Bill Nary Charlie Rountree _ Keith Bird _ Mayor Tammy de Weerd 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Update I Discussion of Employee Compensation - Pauline Skaggs and Stacy Kilchenmann: ("30 minutes) 4. Executive Session per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1)(b)&(c): S. Discussion of City of Meridian support of ITO's policy to restrict vehicular access to SH 20-26: "Approximate allowable time set for agenda Item may change depending on discussion. prease use the designated minutes as a guideline onl~. Meridian City Pre-Council Ag&nda - MaJC111S, 2004 Pose 1 Qf 1 AU mat&rla!E> presented at publle meetings sh1l11 beeome property of the City of Meridian. Anyone deillrlng 8iXommodatlon fDr dillabllllleG related 10 dDCIJmants and/Dr h6aring~ please contacttM Clly Clerk's Office at 888--4433 at rllasl48 hours prior 10 Ihe public meellng. REVISED 3-16-04 CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, March 16, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers 1. Roll-call Attendance: -L Shaun Wardle )( Bill Nary lJ Charlie Rountree =z:= Keith Bird tU1;lrl~ X Mayor Tammy de Weerd @ 7:2,( rfrv 2. Pledge of Allegiance: 7/Jr[, P ;/()!) I .1! I 3. Community Invocation by Pastor Shawn Ragan with The Church of God Seventh Day: ~ ~feL 4. Adoption ofthe Agenda: dj'lprtJvJt..- t-ev/f.e..c( Cl~tL- 5. Consent Agenda: A. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 03- 022 Request for annexation and zoning of 5 acres from RT to C-G zones for Kissler (Dealv Parcel) by BRS Architects - southeast corner of East Ustick Road and North Eagle Road: -fit6-&. 10 '3/Z'3-&4- B. Award of Bid for 2004 Sewer Cleaning I TV Inspection Project: ~~I/-< C. HVAC Maintenance Renewal for the Meridian Police Department: tl-JPr-' v<- D. Additional Services - Black Cat lift Station with JUB: ~r-m~ 6. Introduce Miss Meridian Hannah Bankhead: j>Y'.e~d.... 7. Department Reports: A. Fire Department - Kenny Bowers 1. Discussion with Fire Department donated extrication eauipment: r;tpdk:t-.e- o.{ efhtp/l1.-€A-f ~ t!- '1-0 u., / Lo w ;J /}1..e..-- 2. Discussion with Fee Schedule: (J ~- -. ~(N...- dd;U'~ Mayor's Office - Mayor Tammy de Weerd B. Meridian City Council Agcnda- March 16,2004 Page I of2 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring acconunodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. . t! - ;J11&/l1-v7?"1) .( 2PM:'-J - ~ /ow-d( REVISED 3-16-04 ( / - 7lhfj117r~ve revrkd;.X'd a.n?Y\!7~ 1. Appointment of Tara Green to Deputy City Clerk: tL-f(li??VL- . \ 8. (Items Moved from Consent Agenda) ft.(?fA/Yl.:f' 9. FP 04-015 Request for Final Plat approval of 15 residential building lots and 4 other lots on 4.47 acres in a R-4 zone for Woodside Creek Subdivision by woo~~~OP~~~~L~ - 1115 North Ten Mile Road: 10. Continued Public Hearing from March 9, 2004: RZ 03-013 Request for a Rezone of 5.51 acres from R-4 to C-N zones for proposed Cedar SprinQs Professional Center by Kevin Howell - north of West Ustick Road and west of North Meridian Road: a-.fHrruz:) -fo frera~ -f'lf i"c(~ /17Y ClfJ?rova-t 11. Continued Public Hearing from March 9, 2004: PP 03-044 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 5 commercial building lots and 1 common lot on 5.51 acres in a proposed C-N zone for proposed Cedar SprinQs Professional Center by Kevin Howell - north of West Ustick Road and west of North Meridian Road: -L,., rlf' J. I/-'- '__ 0 a-f/-&7'f't.e.:; zv jJrep~ 7/\ l' C -e. (/7)Y- arp-v-oVl/-'\.- 12. Continued Public Hearing from March 9, 2004: CUP 03-067 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for four office buildings, a car wash, two fuel pumps and a drive through coffee stand in a Neighborhood Center designation for proposed Cedar SprinQs Professional Center by Kevin Howell - north of West Ustick Road and west of North Meridian Road: to ' I/r:: .( c 1..( I". - c:;~ 0t.L a~l1-e::f rep~~ I' Tl7Y-/~ c.. 13. Public Hearing: AZ 03-036 Request for annexation and zoning of 19.7 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Salisbury Subdivision No.2 by Earl, Mason, and Stanfield, Inc. - south of West Ustick Road and west of North Meridian Road: .L c./ ,/' Ii I'i'l 1''.. .,j,., ,,_ 11 ~if' TO jH'Jt....f1~ 7'11" "r C ~ a-vr- ~(~ 14. Public Hearing: PP 03-042 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 72 single-family residential building lots and 2 common lots on 19.7 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Salisbury Subdivision No.2 by Earl, Mason and Stanfield, Inc. - south of West Ustick Road and west of North Meridian Roa9: r/r 'i'l F::._ _ -11_ . ..... 0 cJl/~:; 1-0 ~tVUV or {rJ- f C (--1:. VlIY ~I ~ 15. Public Hearing: CUP 03-072 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a drive-thru window for a proposed coffee shop for Central Park Plaza by Nahas Enterprises - northeast comer of South Progress Avenue and Central Drive: /~-I:J-.n-ru.y 10 ~/J~ f"1.;:.( c1,.e ~ ~v~ 16. Water, Sewer and Trash Delinquencies: W;~vv"- 17. Ordinance No. tJ 4- - 1071 Assistant to the Mavor: ~r-o v'-Z fB~ eX e.eu-17\re. ..k.r d) O?\..> h? -2- 3K (d [Jo3 (Ce) no de.c'J/~ Administrative Meridian City Council Agenda - Marcb 16, 2004 Page 2 of2 AIl materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian, Anyone desiring acconunodation for disabilities related to documents and/or bearings please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. REVISED 3-16-04 CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, March 16, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers 1. Roll-call Attendance: X Shaun Wardle X Charlie Rountree X X Bill Nary X Keith Bird Mayor Tammy de Weerd 2. Pledge of Allegiance: Tim P. 3. Community Invocation by Pastor Shawn Ragan with The Church of God Seventh Day: Presented 4. Adoption of the Agenda: Approve Revised Agenda 5. Consent Agenda: -" A. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 03- 022 Request for annexation and zoning of 5 acres from RT to C-G zones for Kissler (Dealv Parcell by BRS Architects - southeast comer of East Ustick Road and North Eagle Road: Table to March 23,2004 Meeting B. Award of Bid for 2004 Sewer Cleaning I TV Inspection Project: Approve C. HVAC Maintenance Renewal for the Meridian Police Department: Approve D. Additional Services - Black Cat Lift Station with JUS: Approve 6. Introduce Miss Meridian Hannah Bankhead: Presented 7. Department Reports: A. Fire Department - Kenny Bowers 1. Discussion with Fire Department donated extrication equipment: Update of equipment donated to Yellow Pine 2. Discussion with Fee Schedule: Approve Adjustment Meridian City Council Agenda - March 16,2004 Page 1 of3 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property ofthe City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings please contact the City CleIk's Office at 8884433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. REVISED 3-16-04 B. Mayor's Office - Mayor Tammy de Weerd 1. Appointment of Tara Green to Deputy City Clerk: Approve C. Planning and Zoning Department - Anna Powell 1. Tingy Brady - Approve Revised Plat: Approve 8. (Items Moved from Consent Agenda) 9. FP 04-015 Request for Final Plat approval of 15 residential building lots and 4 other lots on 4.47 acres in a R-4 zone for Woodside Creek Subdivision by Woodside Properties, LLC -1115 North Ten Mile Road: Table to April 6, 2004 Meeting 10. Continued Public Hearing from March 9, 2004: RZ 03-013 Request for a Rezone of 5.51 acres from R-4 to C-N zones for proposed Cedar Springs Professional Center by Kevin Howell - north of West Ustick Road and west of North Meridian Road: Attorney to prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law for Approval 11. Continued Public Hearing from March 9, 2004: PP 03-044 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 5 commercial building lots and 1 common lot on 5.51 acres in a proposed C-N zone for proposed Cedar Sprinas Professional Center by Kevin Howell - north of West Ustick Road and west of North Meridian Road: Attorney to prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law for Approval 12. Continued Public Hearing from March 9, 2004: CUP 03-067 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for four office buildings, a car wash, two fuel pumps and a drive through coffee stand in a Neighborhood Center designation for proposed Cedar Sorinas Professional Center by Kevin Howell - north of West Ustick Road and west of North Meridian Road: Attorney to prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval 13. Public Hearing: AZ 03-036 Request for annexation and zoning of 19.7 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Salisbury Subdivision No.2 by Earl, Mason, and Stanfield, Inc. - south of West Ustick Road and west of North Meridian Road: Attorney to prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law for Denial 14. Public Hearing: PP 03-042 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 72 single-family residential building lots and 2 common lots on 19.7 acres in a proposed R-B zone for proposed Salisbury Subdivision No.2 by Earl, Mason and Stanfield, Inc. - south of West Ustick Road and west of North Meridian City Council Agenda- March 16,2004 Page 2 of3 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property ofthe City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. REVISED 3-16-04 Meridian Road: Attorney to prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial 15. Public Hearing: CUP 03-072 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a drive-thru window for a proposed coffee shop for Central Park Plaza by Nahas Enterprises - northeast comer of South Progress Avenue and Central Drive: Attorney to prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval 16. Water} Sewer and Trash Delinquencies: Approve 17. Ordinance No. 04-1071 Mavor: Approve : Administrative Assistant to the 18. Executive Session per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1)(b)&(c): No Decision Meridian City Council Agenda - March 16,2004 Page 3 of3 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings please contact the City Clerk's Office at 8884433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. April 15, 2004 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING April 20, 2004 ITEM NO. 5 -A APPLICANT REQUEST Approve minutes of March 16, 2004 City Council Regular Meeting AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY AITORNEY 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: arrrvV Contacted: Emailed: Date: Staff Initials: Phone: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Meridian City Council Meetinq March16. 2004. The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:10 P.M., Tuesday, March 16,2004, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd. Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, William Nary, Keith Bird, Charlie Rountree and Shaun Wardle. Others Present: Jill Holinka, Will Berg, Anna Powell, Brad Watson, Kenny Bowers, Bill Musser, Gary Smith, and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-call Attendance: Roll call. X Shaun Wardle X Charlie Rountree X X Bill Nary X Keith Bird Mayor Tammy de Weerd De Weerd: I will go ahead and call the City Council regular meeting of Tuesday, March 16th, to order. I would like to welcome you all here tonight. We do have a couple of changes, if you haven't been to Council for a while. We have added the Pledge of Allegiance and a community invocation to our agenda and we will be proceeding with that after roll call vote. '" Bird: Vote? De Weerd: I mean attendance. Item 2: Pledge of Allegiance: De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. We will be led in the pledge by Tim Pastelak. He is with Troop NO.1. So, if you will, please, stand. (The Pledge of Allegiance recited.) Item 3: Community Invocation by Pastor Shawn Ragan with The Church of God Seventh Day: De Weerd: Thank you, Tim. J do have a pin for you. I'd like to present you with a Meridian water tower pin for leading us today. Thank you for joining us. Okay. Today for the community invocation we have Pastor Ragan with the Church of God Seventh Day. Ragan: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, it's a pleasure to be here this evening. Let us pray. Father, we come before you this evening, Lord, thankful for this time we have, Lord, thankful for the opportunity in the nation we live in where we can have city Meridian City Council March 16,2004 Page 2 of 46 council meetings. Lord, I just pray that you would be with this meeting this evening, Lord, that you might just guide and direct and give wisdom to the decisions that are being made. I pray that you would be with our Mayor and members of the City Council, Lord, not just tonight in the decisions that they are making, Lord, but on a daily basis. Father, just continue to bless them and their families. Lord, bless our city, our government, and I just pray to be with our Police Department, our Fire Department, the various administrative offices, Father, that you just might, you know, just really bless that and, Lord, lead and guide and direct in what is being done. Father, I just once again thank you. We'd just ask that you be with our community, be with the City of Meridian. Father, we just -- once, again, we thank you and we praise you in the name of your Son Jesus Christ, Amen. Thank you. Item 4; Adoption of the Agenda: De Weerd: Thank you so much. Okay. Item NO.4 is adoption of the agenda. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: We need to add a couple of items to the deal. Under Department Reports, Item C, Planning and Zoning, as per an item. Also Item 18 we moved from the pre-Council meeting, an Executive Session as per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1 )(b) and (c). And we have also been asked by the representative of the developer on Woodside Creek Subdivision to table that until 4/6/04 and that is Item 9. And with that I would make a motion that we adopt the revised agenda. :.0 Wardle: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda as amended by Mr. Bird. Any further discussion? Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: On the Consent Agenda, Item 5-A, did we need to -- De Weerd: Table that. Nary: -- table that? De Weerd: Uh-huh. Nary: Did you say that? Meridian City Council March 16, 2004 Page 3 of 46 Bird: No, I didn't, but I was going to take care of that when we do the Consent Agenda. Nary: Okay. Great. I'm sorry. Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Any further discussion? All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 5: Consent Agenda: A. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 03- 022 Request for annexation and zoning of 5 acres from RT to C-G zones for Kissler (Dealy Parcel) by BRS Architects - southeast corner of East Ustick Road and North Eagle Road: Tabled. B. Award of Bid for 2004 Sewer Cleaning I TV Inspection Project: C. HV AC Maintenance Renewal for the Meridian Police Department: D. Additional Services - Black Cat Lift Station with JUB: De Weerd: Item 5 is the Consent Agenda. Mr. Nary. Nary: No. No. I was just asking a question. De Weerd: I assume you have a motion, though. Nary: I guess Item 5-A was asked to be tabled to next -- to the 4/6 meeting? Is that the date? De Weerd: No. I think it's just for a week, isn't it? Bird: It's 3/23. Nary: Well, we don't have -- Bird: Yeah. We got one 3/23. Nary: Oh. You're right. You're right. I'm sorry. 3/23. I have got another one on my mind for 4/6. I'm sorry. So, then, I'd move for the approval of Consent Agenda to table Item 5-A to 3/23 and move approval of Items B, C, and 0 and for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest to all the appropriate papers. Wardle: Second. Meridian City Council March 16,2004 Page 4 of 46 De Weerd: Thank you. ]t's been moved and seconded and approve the Consent Agenda with removal of Item A to March 23rd. Any further discussion? Mr. Clerk, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 6: Introduce Miss Meridian Hannah Bankhead: De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Item 6. I would like to introduce you to our Miss Meridian, Hannah Bankhead. She is a BSU student and a senior in mass communications; correct? Bankhead: Correct. De Weerd: With a minor in political science. I think we could all talk to her about that one. She grew up and graduated from Cambridge High School and she wanted to come and talk to you, let you know whom she is, and also the city events, she certainly, as Miss Meridian, is available and would love to participate. And I didn't put those words in your mouth; right? -" Bankhead: No. Everything is correct. Good evening. I just wanted to thank you guys so much for having me here before and since the Mayor did such a good job introducing myself and where I come from, I will just talk a little bit about as to why I'm here. And there is, basically, a couple different reasons. One is to thank you, because the City of Meridian has basically -- like you said before, I'm, actually, from another community and you guys have just -- and everybody behind me has basically just adopted me and I appreciate that so much, especially since now that the Miss Meridian has kind of become an independent entity away from the Chamber of Commerce, so we are trying to build up the program just to be -- work for the Chamber of Commerce, but also for the entire community, so to broaden that goal. So, thank you so much on just welcoming me into your community. So, that's one of the things I wanted to say. And, then, also just to offer any services I can help for the community. Right now I'm volunteering once every two weeks for the Boys and Girls Club of Meridian, which I can tell you is one of my favorite things to do on a Thursday afternoon. Basically, what I help out with over there is I just -- I help with the Power Hour, which is tutoring, whenever the kids, basically, have issues with that day, whether it's reading, math, whatever. Since I'm a college student, it's pretty -- it's nice, because most of these kids are from elementary schools and I can actually help them. It's not over my head yet. But, you know, if there is anything else that any -- that any of the Councilor Mayor herself has -- any issues or community service ideas, you're welcome to give me a call. I know her secretary has my number. I'm just like you, I'm a servant of the community and if there is any way or any activity that you think I can serve the community better, please, I would love to know and love to find out. I know the Mayor called me to be a judge at the chili feed Meridian City Council March 16, 2004 Page 5 of 46 and that was fabulous. I got to meet Mr. Nary and Mr. Wardle and that was a lot of fun and I don't know if Mr. Bird or Mr. Berg were there, so -- and I don't think I have met you guys. Nary: They were more in the background. Bankhead: Oh. Okay. We had the fun job of actually eating, but -- so, you know, just to offer my services because, I know that you guys are busy and if there is, you know, anything that I can help out with, I don't really -- it doesn't have to be -- you know, a lot of people think, oh, you know, beauty queen must be out in the spotlight, whatever, you know, always be dressed up, you have something really pretty and dramatic. Really, it's about serving the community, just like what your job is, and that's basically it. So, if there is any questions? De Weerd: Council, do you have any questions? Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: Did you say you were at the Boys and Girls Club on Thursday afternoon? .,; Bankhead: Every other Thursday. Right now I'm also volunteering for the one at Ada County. So, it's kind of -- and I'm in the process of graduating this May and trying to find a new job. So, it's a little hectic right now. I'm hoping to bring that on a weekly basis instead of bi-weekly basis, but -- yeah. Nary: I just want to tell my nine-year-old daughter, because she met you at the chili feed, too. So, when she can be down there at the Girls and Boys Club. Bankhead: Oh, is she down there? Nary: Oh, yeah. De Weerd: And she just loves Miss Meridian. Nary: Yes, she does. Bankhead: Any other questions? De Weerd: Well, thank you so much for joining us and offering -- and indicating an interest in being as involved in our community as you can. We appreciate that. Bankhead: Thank you. Nary: Thank you. Meridian City Council March 16,2004 Page 6 of 46 De Weerd: Thank you, Hannah. Okay. For the record, Councilman Rountree has joined us. Nice seeing you. Rountree: I'm back. Item 7: Department Reports: A. Fire Department - Kenny Bowers 1. Discussion with Fire Department donated extrication equipment: De Weerd: That's scary. Okay. Item NO.7 is the Department Reports. We will begin with a report from the Fire Department. Kenny Bowers. Bowers: Thank you, Mayor. De Weerd: Discussion of the Fire Department donated extrication equipment. Bowers: Madam Mayor, City Council Members, I just wanted to bring you up to date on the extrication equipment that we donated to Yellow Pine. They have already come down and picked the equipment up, starting to mount it in some of their emergency rigs up there. They are really pleased to have some newer equipment to be able to work with up there. As you know, there was an airplane crash up there awhile back and they did not have any equipment at all to help the people get out of the plane, so they come down, took some of our extrication gear, some of our old stuff, some of our old bottles, and they would like to come back later and possibly pick up some of the radials that we still have on our list, so I wanted you to get up to speed on that. Thank you. ;:0 2. Discussion with Fee Schedule: De Weerd: Thank you, Chief. We have one other item, it's discussion of the fee schedule -- you might not have put that on. Maybe I did. Bowers: Okay. De Weerd: It was just regarding Deputy Chief Silva's memo regarding the fees that we passed last year and the process that he recommended in regards to the sprinkler heads. Kenny, did you want to say anything more about that? Bowers: Madam Mayor, City Council Members, the state had that -- that does all of our plans for sprinkler systems -- fire sprinkler systems has a person that will be retiring soon, so they thought they would get out of the business of doing the check, checking the plans. Well, as it turns out there is a lot of little departments out there that do not have their own fire marshals or their own people to take care of this, so they are going Meridian City Council March 16, 2004 Page 7 of 46 to stay in the business and we will be able to work with them and they can do our plans. We did not anticipate this, so we had moved the price up to $4.20 a sprinkler head and as the state will still be involved and go through all the plans, they also charge two dollars a head. We did not envision whatsoever of charging the people $6.20 a head, no way possible. So, I had Deputy Chief Silva contact Attorney Bill Nichols to come up with a solution and this is the letter that he -- that Joe Silva and Bill Nichols put together to present in front of you guys. If you have any questions, I'm here to try to answer that for you. De Weerd: Council, do you have any questions? Okay. Do we need official action on that? Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: I guess probably for the department's sake, I guess probably a motion, because what he's asking is not for an increase of any kind, but, basically, a different way of calculating it and there is no increase to the person, but I guess he wants to make sure he has authorization to do it that way, so-- '" Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I would concur with that and I have talked to both Chief Bowers and Deputy Chief Silva and that is -- I believe that's what we need is just a confirmation that the fee is going down two dollars a sprinkler head in cost to the contractor or whoever is applying for the sprinkler heads and with that I would move that we approve the two dollar decrease in our sprinkler head fees. Nary: Second. De Weerd: Now, that would not necessarily be a decrease, it would be offset as long as we have the relationship with the state; is that correct? Bowers: Madam Mayor, City Council that is correct. Yes. De Weerd: Okay. Could you specify -- would that be agreeable to specify that in your motion? Bird: Yeah. That's what the letter says there. De Weerd: Okay. Okay. Is there any further discussion? Mr. Berg, just for the record, if you will call roll. Meridian City Council March 16,2004 Page 8 of 46 Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. B. Mayor's Office - Mayor Tammy de Weerd 1. Appointment of Tara Green to Deputy City Clerk: De Weerd: Thank you. Thanks, chief. Item B is a report from the Mayor's office. I did want to -- I know each of you received a letter regarding one of our city employees. This process with the utility billing and with the kind of third party, we received a lot of comments -- certainly we received one also from the author of this letter. I did want to give -- and I know Stacy isn't here, but certainly we appreciate the customer service that has been experienced lately in our billing department and the employee noted is Maria, she's certainly -- this is not the first time I have heard very positive comments on her going above and beyond in giving customer service to our public, so I just wanted to bring that to your attention publicly. And maybe -- I did give this to Pauline to put in her personnel record as well. So, my item is appointment of Tara Green to the Deputy City Clerk. We started this process a while ago of asking Council to approve this appointment, because it is a critical position and that it replaces our City Clerk when he is not available and would be authorized to sign documents in his absence and I believe that we are appointing a very worthy employee. She's given a lot of time and effort above and beyond to the City Clerk's office. It will be nice that we have someone that can fill in without -- I think she's filled in for this position on a number of occasions now, so if you need to hear anything from the director, Will, is there anything you have to add? ~ Berg: Madam Mayor, just accolades that she has done far beyond her duty as Department Specialist, so this is a very worthy promotion. De Weerd: Thank you. Council, do you have any questions? Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: I don't know, did Ms. Green want to give a speech or anything? I see you out in the hallway. I think it's an excellent choice. I really do. I think Tara has been an excellent employee, I think she's more than capable for this job. So, I guess with that I would move the approval of the Mayor's appointment of Tara Green as the Meridian City Deputy Clerk. Bird: Second. Rountree: Second. Meridian City Council March 16, 2004 Page 9 of 46 De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve the appointment of Tara Green as Deputy City Clerk. We don't need roll call on this, do we? Okay. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. Thank you, Tara. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. C. Planning & Zoning. De Weerd: Okay. We did not have any items moved from the Consent Agenda. De Weerd: Item 9 has been requested to be postponed until April 6th. Powell: Madam Mayor? We did have a department report for Planning and Zoning. De Weerd: Oh, I'm sorry, Anna. Yes, we did. We have a department report from our Planning and Zoning director. Powell: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this issue is regarding the enlargement of the dental office by Tingey and Brady. It's on Cherry and 11th Street, I believe, and I think they started, I don't know, three or four months ago. We approved the addition with the certificate of zoning compliance and those are the two drawings that you have here. This shaded area is the proposed addition. This is the floor plan of it. And were it only that easy, they would have been done quite a bit -- a long time ago. This project was originally done as a condominium plat and for those of you who may not know how those work is, basically, a condominium plat defines the vertical -- it defines the space that the building encloses and sets ownerships based on the space of the structure. So, to modify the condominium plat that was recorded, because it doesn't include this additional area, we -- Brad and I tried to do kind of a lot line adjustment thing for them and that didn't work, so we are back here now and, basically, the Ada County surveyor, who is the one that signs the condo plats, has said that it needs to have the same signatures as the original plat. So, on that original plat, the City Clerk has signed for the City Council, so all we would ask tonight is that you allow Mr. Berg to again sign the revised condominium plat for you as being in compliance. .::!. De Weerd: Okay. And that would take a motion. Powell: Couldn't hurt. Yeah. I guess. Yes. De Weerd: Council, any questions? Okay. I would entertain a motion. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I move that we allow the City Clerk to sign for the City Council on the condominium plat for Cherry and 11 th Street; is that correct? Meridian City Council March 16,2004 Page 1 0 of 46 Powell: Tingey Brady. Wardle: Tingey Brady. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to authorize the clerk to sign the Tingey Brady amended plan. Any further discussion? Okay. All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Powell: Thank you, Council. Item 8: (Items Moved from Consent Agenda) Item 9: FP 04-015 Request for Final Plat approval of 15 residential building lots and 4 other lots on 4.47 acres in a R-4 zone for Woodside Creek Subdivision by Woodside Properties, LLC - 1115 North Ten Mile Road: '" De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Item 9 has been requested to postpone. Do I have a motion? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I would move that we continue -- or I guess it isn't a Public Hearing, so I move that we table FP 04-015, to April 6th, 2004. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded to table Item 9 to April 6th, 2004. Any further discussion? All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 10: Continued Public Hearing from March 9, 2004: RZ 03-013 Request for a Rezone of 5.51 acres from R-4 to C-N zones for proposed Cedar Sprinas Professional Center by Kevin Howell - north of West Ustick Road and west of North Meridian Road: Item 11: Continued Public Hearing from March 9,2004: PP 03-044 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 5 commercial building lots and 1 common lot on 5.51 acres in a proposed C-N zone for proposed Cedar Sprinas Meridian City Council March 16. 2004 Page 11 of 46 Professional Center by Kevin Howell - north of West Ustick Road and west of North Meridian Road: Item 12: Continued Public Hearing from March 9, 2004: CUP 03-067 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for four office buildings, a car wash, two fuel pumps and a drive through coffee stand in a Neighborhood Center designation for proposed Cedar Springs Professional Center by Kevin Howell - north of West Ustick Road and west of North Meridian Road: De Weerd: Okay. I will go ahead and open Items 10, 11, and 12, continued public hearings from March 9th, 2004, RZ 03-013, PP 03-044, and CUP 03-067 for Cedar Springs Professional Center and I will start with staff comments. Powell: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council -- an idea of where we are. We are on the north side of Ustick in this small -- in this small approximately five-acre area here. This is the park. This is a future school site as part of Cedar Springs. This is Venable Lane. This is the proposed plat. And you can see there is five lots. One large lot here, a private drive, and, then, four office lots. This is a little easier to see this one and better yet is the color one. There we go. The four -- there would be four buildings on each -- on an individual lot for sale and ownership. The associated parking with each one with cross-access agreements. And, then, we have a car wash facility with vacuums on this side. Fuel canopies or fuel islands here. And, then, a small coffee shop with a drive- thru here. This is the elevations of the structures. The car wash elevation, specifically. These are the offices. Okay. This is here to show you the layout for the school. The orientation is different. We have got north going to the right in this instance, so the proposed subdivision lays here to the left. And, then, the park -- sorry. The north arrow is on -- we have got north arrows going every direction today, except for down, I suppose. This is north. So, you have got the project -- there is a small intervening property here and, then, our project would be over down below. .:> De Weerd: No. Bird: No. It's to the west of it. Powell: Ifs this side? Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. I've got it now. So, here is the intervening property here and, then, the property is over there. I'm sorry. I got confused. All right. Now, lefs see. I just wanted to point out -- this is -- they are asking for a detailed CU and planned development approval for the entire site and that consists of 22,400 square feet of office space and, then, the auto-oriented services on this lot here, which include the car wash, fuel island, vacuuming stations, and coffee shop. The Comprehensive Plan does designate this area as the neighborhood center and I can -- if I can keep on going here. You can see it here. Ifs this portion on -- right here. And there is the park again. The school would be there. So, it is designated as the neighborhood center. This is the first application that has come through with a neighborhood center property. The one at Quenzer or Heritage came in before the Comp Plan was adopted, so this is, Meridian City Council March 16, 2004 Page 12 of 46 actually, the first neighborhood center to come through since the adoption of the Comp Plan. And in the staff report I did want to point out that Brad did spend quite a bit of time on the Comprehensive Plan and the idea of the neighborhood center and what should -- it should entail. I'm going to skip now to the summary of the Planning and Zoning Commission. They did recommend approval of the project. Daren Fluke representing the applicant testified in favor of the application. Joe Simmonich, who owns the property just to the south on the west side of Venable Lane, testified in opposition to the fuel station next to an elementary school. He also stated his preference for residential uses and the car wash is not needed in this area of the city. Other key points of discussion included the width and location of the driveways serving the car wash. This was the original submittal and if you will notice here that there is an island here and a landscape island here, but this is -- was kind of an undifferentiated drive aisle area in both these locations. There was some striping proposed, but no landscaping. The Planning and Zoning did modify the project. Figure out which way I'm going. There we go. They did have the applicant modify the project to include additional landscaping planters to kind of define this private street that goes through the property. The key Commission changes to the original staff recommendation was to remove the requirement for a bike lane on Venable Lane here to the west and the requirement for a fencing plan and they added a condition to the preliminary plat that a new 25 foot wide cross-access easement be shown on the plat to the out parcel to the east. As I mentioned before, there is a small kind of intervening property between this one and the park and it's anticipated that this development will share cross-access with this property that we are -- is the subject of the hearing tonight. So, they have accommodated that on their plat. They haven't shown it -- they haven't shown pavement going up to the east property line, but they have accommodated with a cross- access easement. Also in your file you will find an update memo from Brad, dated March 11th, and that was in regard to the revised site plan and how it meets the requirements of the Planning and Zoning Commission. They did submit a new landscape plan and any approvals tonight should reflect the revised date as stated there. It was March 8th. The new fuel island canopy elevations are dated October 2003 and any motion should include the revised sheet in condition number six. And, then, finally, the revised site plan does not reflect a couple of the proposed changes and one of those was a detached sidewalk on Ustick Road, right-of-way landscape improvements adjacent to Ustick Road, and a parallel parking stall change. So, those are outstanding conditions. Brad felt that they could be taken care of at the certificate of zoning compliance level. So, with that I think I will end staff's presentation. De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Anna, would you go back to the site plan that you had up there? Powell: The vicinity -- '" Meridian City Council March 16, 2004 Page 13 of 46 Bird: The overall site. The overall site. Powell: Okay. Bird: There. There you go. Right there. Powell: You can see the relationship to the school there. Bird: That's the park. Powell: And that's the park. Yeah. Bird: And that's the school. Powell: Here is the four lots and there is the -- Bird: And, then, there is the little enclave between the -- at the -- Powell: Right. Correct. ~ Bird: Okay. Thank you very much, Anna. De Weerd: So, Anna, what is that -- that lot going to be? Powell: This one? De Weerd: Uh-huh. Powell: Well, it, actually, would be pretty easy just to pop out the parking aisle and put a small building there and there and I believe Mr. Howell has actually been trying to acquire that piece of property, so I don't -- or the applicant can testify more to that, but I think they have looked at how they can incorporate that into this site design, basically. De Weerd: So, that's under separate ownership? Powell: Yes. It is not an out parcel from this one. It is under separate ownership and I believe it has been for quite some time. There is a house toward the front of the property. De Weerd: And to the school site, then, how does traffic get to the school site? Powell: They come up Venable Lane and there is an entrance right there and, then, they loop around back onto Venable Lane and come back out this way. Would you like to see the detail of the school site again? Meridian City Council March 16,2004 Page 14 of 46 De Weerd: Yeah. Powell: This is the north boundary of the Cedar Springs Professional Center here. De Weerd: Okay. Powell: So, the school -- I believe the bus traffic probably comes through here, out, and around. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Any further discussion, Council? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. Would the applicant like to step forward? I guess before I have the applicant step forward, part of our ordinance is we need to swear people in who desire to provide testimony on any of these public hearings, so we have been doing it all in one group motion, so if all those who are looking to testify who would like to provide testimony on any of the items on our agenda tonight, if you will, please, raise your right hand. Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? If so, answer I do. .:> (Affirmative answers.) De Weerd: Thank you. If you will, please, state your name and address and spell your last name. Fluke: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Daren Fluke, JUB Engineers, 250 South Beechwood in Boise. Fluke is F-I-u-k-e. Thank you very much for having us here tonight. We are glad to be here with this application, as Anna stated. She did a good job of taking you through the parameters of the development. I'll just reemphasize that this is the first time you have had an application go through your neighborhood center and we have asked for a C-N zoning designation, which is the least intensive commercial designation. It does allow office uses and a car wash, fuel island, through the conditional use process and so that's what we have applied for. Just a couple of things. I won't belabor the development features, unless you have questions, because Anna hit those well. The school site, I would just emphasize for you, was purely conceptual. They have not -- the school district has not decided that that is the layout and you will receive the layout when they apply for the Conditional Use Permit, but that was something that they gave us originally when we went through with Cedar Springs, basically to show what the footprint of the building and the parking would look like, but how that site is going to be arranged has yet to be decided. We did comply with all the conditions of approval as required by the Planning and Zoning Commission. We added a seven-foot sidewalk along here to better accommodate the school, make it more pedestrian friendly. I would note that this road, Venable Lane, is currently being platted as a part of Cedar Springs No. 3 and that's under construction right now and so we had to quickly change the plans and I believe that sidewalk has been installed, that seven Meridian City Council March 16, 2004 Page 15 of 46 feet, as of now. If it hasn't, it's very close to being poured. We added the landscape islands as required by the Planning and Zoning Commission here to better delineate this lot. We took out some striped islands that we had in here in the parking area and added planters to those. And, then, we added a detached sidewalk along here. It's kind of difficult to see, but you can see a little strip there right below the sidewalk, which is the planter strip in between the right of way and the sidewalk and it is noted in the ACHD staff report as well, that this will accommodate a detached sidewalk on this road section that they plan on putting here. The bottom line is we don't have a problem with any of the conditions of approval as recommended by the staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission and we'd just ask for your approval of the application. Is there any questions? De Weerd: Questions, Council? Okay. Thank you. I have a Brent -- and forgive me, Brent, I can't read your last name. Did you want to provide testimony? There is no Brent here. Okay. Joe Simmonich. If you will, please, state your name and your address. Simmonich: Thank you. I'm Joe Simmonich. I live at 955 West Ustick Road, which is approximately just across from this property. De Weerd: Thank you. .3 Simmonich: Are we going to have an access to this property from Ustick Road? Do I see another access there? De Weerd: I believe, Mr. Simmonich, the access is on the bottom right where that arrow is. Simmonich: And we are also going to have an access off of Venable Lane? Are we going to have two accesses into that? De Weerd: Yes. And that's -- that's also shown -- see where the arrow is? Simmonich: Yes. I wasn't aware we were going to have an access to Ustick Road. But, in any event, I really don't think that commercial and gas stations and office buildings are compatible with a grade school. That should be housing. If that were housing, it would eliminate probably a half a bus load of kids coming from some other area, so I feel that either the school is in the wrong place or these commercial developments are in the wrong place and to have a gas station adjacent to a park, residential area -- but according to the new Comprehensive Plan, you zone those neighborhood commercials, but it looks like from the circle you draw that it's about 40 acres. Now, if you are going to have 40 acres of commercial at every half mile line, there is going to be a lot of vacant property for a long, long time for developers waiting for somebody to want that for commercial. So, I'd just like for the City Council to consider these things in the future plans and see if we can't find -- locate these schools where we can have more of a community school, rather than commercial developments Meridian City Council March 16, 2004 Page 16 of 46 and business developments adjacent to schools. So, that's all I have on this matter and thank you very much. De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions? Okay. Thank you. Bill Jackson. If you will state your name and address. Jackson: Yes. My name is Bill Jackson and my address is 12365 West Ustick in Boise. De Weerd: Thank you. Jackson: And I own acreage, which would be east of the proposed area. And my only comment is I share those of Joe Simmonich and that my background has been in construction, I have worked all over the world, and at one time back in New Jersey I had the opportunity to be on planning and zoning and one of the things that I think is very important for the City of Meridian is to have really nice residential communities, not the commingling of say this proposed car wash, along with the fuel dispensing. We had an experience where the Ustick and Cloverdale -- the Maverick went in and put in a gas station and it just did not add to the quality of the area and as we moved forward in Meridian I hope that is given really careful thought how we manage the commercialization. You know, much is already in that area and to me that's a good place to have those areas where kids can feel free to why and not to be threatened by traffic coming in and out. And that's all I want to say is just give that some very careful thought. To make Meridian, hopefully, a premier designation city that will have not only statewide recognition, but, hopefully, national recognition down the road. "" De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Jackson. Any questions? Okay. Thank you, sir. Okay. Is there anyone else who would like to issue testimony on this application? Mr. Fluke, would you like to rebut? Fluke: Thank you, Madam Mayor. I will be brief and just say that the very idea of your Comprehensive Plan is to begin to get a better mix and a tighter matrix of land uses and that's exactly what we are trying to do here is mix together some of these uses and get away from that strict segregation of residential with all those services that you need for daily life. I would anticipate that this is just a small portion of that neighborhood center that you would get some more neighborhood-type commercial to the east, which is vacant, undeveloped land. Currently, it has a dwelling on there. But you will get a broader range of uses and this is just the first one to come in and I believe that exactly the opposite of what the gentleman is proposing is what is smart to do here is provide an integration of land uses and start to provide services that are closer to where people are living. With regard to putting houses there instead, I'd just say if you look at the plats of Cedar Springs, there is some 300 dwellings in this. This is Baldwin Park and it has another couple hundred dwellings and it's being extended down into here. So, all of this will connect by foot and Cedar Springs North is going on up in here now. You're going to have in the neighborhood of, I don't know, 800, 1,000 dwelling units all within about three-quarters of a mile of that school. And I think that's a lot of roof tops to -- for that to be serving and it does provide the opportunity for kids to walk there and I don't Meridian City Council March 16, 2004 Page 17 of 46 think that this use in any way impedes the school being there. We have good separation between our use and theirs. These office lots are in the neighborhood of 150 feet deep, I believe, so -- and the school will fence across there. This will be a neighborhood collector. We will have the wider sidewalks and no parking on there. So, I think the uses actually fit quite well together. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Any questions for the applicant? Okay. Is there any further discussion or comments? Okay. Council, whaes your pleasure? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Hearing nobody jumping out of their chairs wanting to talk, I move that we close the public hearings on RZ 03-013, PP 03-044, and CUP 03-067. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearings on Items 10, 11, and 12. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. ~ MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Discussion? Hearing none -- Rountree: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I would just like to say, as far as the commercial development and the level of commercial, we are certainly not looking at a Maverick convenience store, we are looking at several smaller commercial entities, a car wash, and what I perceive to be a gas card fuel pump center, which would have probably much less impact than a convenience store, and so I see that as meeting the needs of Comprehensive Plan. Bird: I would echo that. Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Meridian City Council March 16,2004 Page 18 of 46 Nary: I guess on that same line, Anna, I think I heard Mr. Fluke say that this was the lowest intense use of zoning for the commercial zoning or neighborhood commercial zone. I mean is a C store even allowed in that type of zone that's being asked for? Powell: I believe it actually is. I can't say positively off the top of my head, but I suspect with a Conditional Use Permit that it would be. Mr. Fluke is looking it up for me, so that's what the pause was for. I did want to just point out that the purpose of the neighborhood center was not strictly retail, though, as I'm sure you know, so it's just -- there was a mix of uses geared -- or intended within those neighborhood centers, so -- it's allowed with a conditional use. Bird: Madam Mayor? Powell: It's allowed -- apparently it's allowed as a principal permitted use, a convenience store is. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I agree with Mr. Simmonich, I don't like to see gas stations that close to a school, but in the same token, they do have quite a buffer zone between that and also with a gas station out in that area -- we have no gas stations out there and people have to travel quite awhile -- or through quite a few subdivisions to get to one and I think it's something that we need in these neighborhood commercial developments. We studied long and hard on the last Comprehensive Plan to incorporate these and I think this was a very, very good way to start myself. '" De Weerd: Okay. Any further discussion? Bird: I will make a motion if you want. De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Bird. Bird: I move that we approve RZ 03-013, Cedar Springs Professional Center, and to incorporate all staff, applicant, public testimony, and for the attorney to draw up the proper papers. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item No. 10 for Cedar Springs Professional Center. Any further discussion? Okay. Hearing none, Mr. Clerk, will you call roll? Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea. Meridian City Council March 16,2004 Page 19 of 46 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Item No. 11. Mr. Bird. Bird: Thank you. I would move that we approve PP 03-044, Cedar Springs Preliminary Plat for their professional center and to incorporate all public, applicant, and staff comments and the attorney to draw up the proper papers. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve Item No. 11 for Cedar Springs Professional Center. Any further discussion? Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: I know that Mr. Bird includes this when he said staff comments, but just for Mrs. Holinka's purposes as well, I think when you're also talking about it, that March 11th memo, as well as the revised -- Bird: Oh, yeah. That was all part of-- Nary: And you meant all of those things, but just to make sure that -- Bird: I'm sorry. I should have dated that. Yes. I'm sorry. Nary: There is a March 11th memo from Mr. Hawkins-Clark and, then, the revised site plan. Bird: Yeah. Nary: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you for the clarification. Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Item No. 12. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Meridian City Council March 16,2004 Page 20 of 46 Bird: I move we approve CUP 03-067, the Conditional Use Permit for Cedar Springs Professional Center and to incorporate all staff, applicant, and public testimony and for the attorney to draw up the proper papers. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve CUP 03-067 for Cedar Springs Professional Center. Any further discussion? Okay. Mr. Berg. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 13: Public Hearing: AZ 03.036 Request for annexation and zoning of 19.7 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Salisbury Subdivision No.2 by Earl, Mason, and Stanfield, Inc. - south of West Ustick Road and west of North Meridian Road: Item 14: Public Hearing: PP 03-042 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 72 single-family residential building lots and 2 common lots on 19.7 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Salisbury Subdivision NO.2 by Earl, Mason and Stanfield, Inc. - south of West Ustick Road and west of North Meridian Road: .:0 De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Items 13 and 14 are public hearings on AZ 03-036 and PP 03-042 for Salisbury Subdivision NO.2. I will open with staff comments. Powell: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we are not going very far. We are going across the street today, so you will see none of the audience leaving, so -- this property is located just south of Ustick Road. This is Waterbury Subdivision. This is the recently approved preliminary and final plat here on this -- and I have forgotten the name of the subdivision already. The property is actually comprised of two properties. There are two existing homes. I did want to point out some interesting things or challenges to the development of this site. The number one being a small strip of land still owned by Mr. Venable on which Venable Lane is placed. You have different properties -- a property right here. The Simmoniches own this. This is on the Simmonich family trust here, so you have basically -- if you count this as one property and, then, three other properties with interest in that private lane. There is further a little bit of challenge in that were you to take Venable Lane exactly where it is today, ACHD wouldn't approve it, because they want it to align with Venable Lane across the street in the property we just looked at. So, it needs to jog onto this property here. This is the proposed Salisbury Subdivision. It has 72 building lots and, as I mentioned before, there are two existing houses. It has two stub streets coming into it, one here from Salisbury Sub, I believe, or Salisbury Park -- Salisbury Lane Subdivision. Excuse me. And this is Sedgewick Drive. And, then, you have Indian Rocks Creek coming in down here and that was approved as part of Clearbook Estates. So, this is not yet Meridian City Council March 16, 2004 Page 21 of 46 constructed, but this would provide another access. The overall density for the project is 3.65 units per acre. They have 5.2 percent of the area in open space, so this is a straight subdivision in the R-8 zoning district. They have not asked for a planned development. The original site plan -- I believe this is the original. Yes. And it had a stub street to Venable Lane for future connection and they did modify the plat at the request of the neighboring properties to enlarge some of the lots bordering their east boundary, so that it would tie in a little better with the existing subdivisions. I'm going to move to the summary sheet from Planning and Zoning Commission, which I don't have marked. The Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended approval of the project and there was two separate public hearings, the first being on January 15th -- I think it actually occurred on January 16th, but we started on January 15th, and the primary -- I raise -- I already discussed some of the issues. There was really two different issues discussed. One was just the overall density and the lot sizes, how they were compatible with the neighboring properties. The other issue was the Venable Lane. The Venable Lane one was primarily a concern of staff and the Simmoniches. The other testifiers were primarily here from the subdivisions talking about the lot sizes. There was -- Brad has detailed all the speakers into fairly great length, so 1'm not going to read all of those. We did have to do some re-noticing because of posting problems at these stub streets. This is the only place you would have been notified, unless you received notice by mail, because they are not on an arterial, it's just these stub streets and, actually, this is the only stub street that exists today. The key Commission changes to staff recommendation were to condition number 16, to require only the subject property owner to relinquish rights for the use of Venable Lane and I guess to go back to the Venable Lane issue, it's really -- staff was concerned that this will become another Wingate Lane. We have four property owners and, then, a fifth property owner with -- that physically owns the land underneath the lane and staff's original recommendation was that they put a connection to this and in our preliminary pre-application meetings with Mr. Stanfield we strongly encouraged that they acquire this 40 foot strip of land, so that they could put the public street out to Ustick and have a secondary access. Based on the neighboring testimony and the Planning and Zoning Commission, they have removed that stub street. Staff still has some questions about how the city will not have this become a vacant piece of property over time, that just this vacant 40 foot strip that sits out there. The question is is it something that these folks need to solve now or is this something we can solve as time goes on. Staff had added a condition of approval that said that these folks needed to get everybody to relinquish property -- or relinquish the right to use Venable Lane when such time as the public street was connected to their property. The Planning and Zoning Commission only made it a requirement of these properties that are involved with this subdivision. I guess with -- I'll end the staff presentation with that and answer more specific questions you may have about Venable Lane or the neighboring concerns. Oh, Mr. Snodgrass did provide written testimony. He was here earlier, had to leave. The clerk should have gotten this to you. It, again, addresses their concerns about the size of the lots and the access issues. There was quite a bit of discussion about construction traffic using Sedgewick versus using Indian Rocks and whether or not it was appropriate to limited traffic only to Sedgewick or only to Indiana Rocks. And I think I will end staff presentation there. ~ Meridian City Council March 16, 2004 Page 22 of 46 De Weerd: Thank you, Anna. Any questions for staff at this point? Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: Tell me again, what were the zoning on those adjacent subdivisions? Were they are R-4's or R-8? Bird: They are R-4's. Powell: Yes. They are all R-4's and I did forget to mention that this is the other side of the neighborhood center. So, when the applicant came in, we did talk about transitioning some density toward that neighborhood center. As you will notice, the stub streets all go north, anticipating that we will get this kind of finer grain of street networks up there and a higher density for that neighborhood center. Yes. They are R-4. Nary: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Any further questions? Would the applicant or representative step forward? -" Stanfield: Good evening, Mayor. Scott Stanfield with Earl, Mason & Stanfield Engineering, 314 Badiola in Caldwell, Idaho. I'm happy to be here tonight. De Weerd: Were you part of the swearing in ceremony? Stanfield: No, I don't think I was. De Weerd: If you will raise your right hand. Is the testimony you are about to give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Stanfield: Yes. De Weerd: Thank you very much. Stanfield: Thank you. Okay. I will just kind of jump into -- and I will give this back to you, Mr. Berg, when I'm finished here. The biggest issue in P&Z hearings when we had the two hearings was the Venable Lane. In our initial submittal to the city we had a stub road to Venable Lane and at that point we did know that Venable Lane was not owned by any of the surrounding land owners, it was still owned by Mr. Venable, who lives away from here. But, nonetheless, we did show that stub road. ACHD did not want that, they did not support that, since nobody but -- fourth, fifth party, if you will, owned the land which is Venable Lane. So, they did not support it. We had a meeting with the city staff and myself and ACHD and after that meeting, then, we revised that and Meridian City Council March 16. 2004 Page 23 of 46 eliminated that stub road to the plan that you see presented to you this evening. So, it's a brief history behind that. What can we do to help prevent another situation with the previous private road that happened in Meridian a while ago? We have agreed in the P&Z meeting to go ahead and Woodside Properties will relinquish any rights through some kind of legal recorded document that he releases the rights to access Venable Lane at the appropriate time or with us before we plat -- it probably needs to be before we plat, but at an appropriate time. And with that, that would run with all of the lots that are purchased in this, since it runs with the land currently anyway and we would release any ingress-egress, so eliminate any chance of anybody in this project being able to access Venable Lane. The neighbors are here to testify and I think there is some confusion as to what is asked from the neighbors on the Planning and Zoning's request originally about getting their blessing not to access Venable and there is some clouded issues there, so we are just trying to do what we can do and I would hope that you would treat the neighboring landowners in the same fashion in the future when -- as they come in for applications. So, again, we have tried. to accommodate all the agencies and just are kind of stuck in the middle of that, but will do what we can to avoid a bad thing happening with the city in the future. Regarding some of the neighbors' comments on Salisbury, again, we are following the city's Comprehensive Plan in this. We have requested an R-8. We are far below an R-8. I think that's been an R-8 for quite some time. The neighboring stub streets were provided through neighboring development, so we are just continuing the city's to and through policy. Jeff Wood, the developer, is here with Woodside Properties and, in fact, he's purchased the strip down in the southeast corner that was created some time ago when Landsbury Subdivision was created. He purchased that strip, which is between us and Clearbrook, Indian Rocks, out of his own pocket, so that we could complete that stub. I believe Clearbrook's plat was approved with just a dead end, because they couldn't get through that strip that wasn't owned by them. So, he's went out of pocket and purchased that and kind of went above and beyond, in our opinion, to really make these stub streets work and the traffic patterns work for everybody. So, generally speaking, on Mr. Snodgrass's letter, we feel we are complying with the Comprehensive Plan, which has been in place, the stub roads have been in place, and everybody should have been aware of what was going to happen in the future. And with that I will stand for any questions. De Weerd: Council, any questions? Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: Mr. Stanfield, part of what I noted in Mr. Snodgrass's letter, as well as his testimony at the Planning and Zoning Commission, was that there hasn't been any contact or discussion with the homeowners in Salisbury One. Stanfield: That's probably -- and I said in the P&Z meeting that that probably is half my fault. Mr. Wood is out of town a lot on his business needs and so I'm kind of the middle Meridian City Council March 16,2004 Page 24 of 46 man and the way I left the first P&Z was if their proposed layout has a chance of working, we would, then, get together, but it didn't work, ACHD pretty much shot it down with their proposed layout, so with that I just left it to the next hearing and, meanwhile, Mark and I did trade phone calls back and forth. Nary: So, there wasn't any -- there wasntt any real attempt, then, to talk about these compatibility issues, traffic issues -- Stanfield: Nothing beyond Mike and my phone tags, no. Nary: And all of that was because of their plan and you were waiting to see if their plan would work? Stanfield: Yeah. If ACHD said we don't have a problem and the City of Meridian Fire Department said we don't have a problem with their plan, then, it's my understanding from the first P&Z meeting, then, we would step back and regroup. Well, the City of Meridian Fire Department didntt have a problem with their plan, but ACHD did. So, felt we really couldn't accommodate them with their revised layout. Powell: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, perhaps the piece of information you're missing is that Mr. Snodgrass did revise the plat, he drew a revised plat himself and presented it to Mr. Stanfield at one of the Planning and Zoning Commission hearings and that's the revised one that Mr. Stanfield is referring to now, just so you're clear. ~ Nary: And I think I understood that. I guess what I was concerned is why you wouldn't meet with them without that. I mean why wouldn't you want to meet with these neighbors to address their concerns? Stanfield: It's not wanting to, my perception was there -- wrongfully so, that there wasntt a reason to, because their layout couldn't happen. So, with that I personally didn't move forward with -- other than phone calls with Mr. Snodgrass. Here is their proposed layout, if anybody wants a copy of it. De Weerd: I guess what my question is -- didn't P&Z also ask you to meet with the homeowners? Stanfield: Not in their -- in their first hearing, Mayor, that's the way I left it with P&Z was go ahead and meet with the homeowners -- if the City of Meridian and ACHD doesn't have a problem with their layout, go ahead and meet with them. They did have a problem, so, then, we moved forward with the second hearing and, then, the second hearing we had the recommended approvals, so -- and at the second hearing there was no discussion brought up that I recall to meet with the neighboring HOA's. De Weerd: But ies still customary when there is issues and someone mentions to meet with the homeowners, that our developers have come back after they have met with the Meridian City Council March 16, 2004 Page 25 of 46 homeowners, because, apparently, there is still some remaining issues, not just tied to the plan that they have submitted. Stanfield: That's correct. And I take full responsibility of that, for not following through with them. I just felt that we -- ACHD shot this layout down, so I -- and I explained at both P&Z meetings that we can't reduce our lots and make this project work and I was pretty clear with that, so there is -- in my opinion, since we couldn't reduce the lots -- number of lots, the size of the lots couldn't get bigger, there is -- we both agreed to disagree. So, there was nothing that could come out of any discussions, other than the discussions I had with Snodgrass between the two hearings. De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions, Council? Okay. Thank you. Stanfield: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. We have several people signed up to testify. Joe Simmonich. Simmonich: Can I go later? De Weerd: You bet. I have a Kevin or Sherry -- Sharon -- and I can't read that last name either. Okay. Chris and Angela Brower. Do you promise the testimony you provide tonight is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God. '" Brower: I do. De Weerd: Thank you. Please state your name and address. Brower: Sure. Chris Brower, 387 West Woodbury Drive in Meridian. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, my neighbors and I in the Waterbury Park Subdivision have two concerns about this project. First, traffic flow. Commissioner Zaremba acknowledged that the applicant's traffic may not go equally on all four eventual access roads. This is important, because after we had already moved into our existing subdivisions, the city's Comprehensive Plan added the idea of a neighborhood center on Ustick and we brought up our concern that high density neighborhood center traffic would try to use our stub street in the northwest part of Waterbury Park as its primary access, rather than using Ustick Road access. We pointed out why would people drive up through the neighborhood center and its high density to a traffic light or stop sign on Ustick and other stop sign at Ustick and Meridian to turn onto Meridian Road to go to the center of town, when all they'd have to do instead is go through our existing subdivision, since it was more direct. We were told not to worry, that traffic, if these parcels around the neighborhood center were developed, would primarily use Ustick Road. To my knowledge, none of the other proposed neighborhood centers is for more than a semi circle. This is a full circle. The Fire Department is fine with only two access roads to this parcel and both of those could be towards Ustick Road. Secondly, construction. Commissioner Freckleton said that there could be a legal issue trying to funnel construction access from this development onto Indiana Rocks Road. As we Meridian City Council March 16,2004 Page 26 of 46 saw in the private Wingate Lane, even when it was illegal for the construction trucks and workers to use Wingate Lane, they did so anyway. The developer asking those trucks please not use the private lane didn't work. Here the developer will be asking trucks and construction workers to, please, not use Sedgewick Road, even though it's a public road, but there is no way to enforce that. The applicant can only encourage all the trucks and construction workers to use the as yet not even started Indian Rocks Road. To sum up, our concerns are traffic, the fact that access to Ustick Road isn't the only primary access for it in construction. We ask you to, please, weigh the concerns of those of us who lived here years before the neighborhood center was proposed and would please consider having the primary traffic points for this project to be toward Ustick Road, as this project will set the precedent for the neighborhood center traffic pattern in the parcel to the west that would drive through our subdivision. Thank you for your consideration. De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions? Okay. Thank you very much. Did Angela want to provide testimony as well? Okay. Is there anyone else who would like to provide testimony on this application? Please state your name and address again. Simmonich: Joe Simmonich and I live at 955 West Ustick Road. De Weerd: And, Mr. Simmonich, you did participate at the beginning of the meeting; correct? .:; Simmonich: Yes, I did. De Weerd: Thank you. Simmonich: The Simmoniches -- our family has owned the property to the west of this development, west of Venable Lane. It is my concern that if this project is going to be excused from having an access to Venable Lane or be involved in the future of Venable Lane, that the properties to the west and possibly the Jim Ward properties -- the Ward property should be excused from having to build or rebuild Venable Lane as a collector street. So, it's our concern that if this property is excused, we should be excused, too, unless for some reason we would voluntarily want to acquire Venable Lane and improve it. Now, I'll ask Jim Ward if he agrees with that. So, that's one thing that I think the Council really should consider is what is going to be required of Venable Lane in the future, so that the Wards and the Simmoniches are not saddled with the building of Venable Lane. It's really a very important thing. As far as usage for construction, as far as I'm concerned, the trucks can use Venable Lane, so they water occasionally and they can access that subdivision for construction. It was also used for construction of the South Slough sewer line to keep from going through residences. So, that should be no problem. And another question I have -- I would like the City Council not to approve the final plat until we have the irrigation system approved. There is a major irrigation line going through there, it's now a raised ditch. When a subdivision goes in, it will be a siphon. If anything pokes a hole in it or if not constructed properly, water will be coming out. It will probably have about a four-foot head on it and the water will be there from -- Meridian City Council March 16, 2004 Page 27 of 46 when the water goes in until it goes out. And, then, it will have to have a drain or it possibly would freeze and break the pipes and, then, I'm going to have a real mess. So, that's about all I have at this time. Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Any questions, Council? Okay. Is there anyone else who would like to provide testimony on this application? Powell: Ma'am Mayor, Members of the Council, just with regard to the construction of Venable Lane, one of the things I didn't mention is there is an open ditch, so that's part of what's at -- the concerns about these property owners in the construction of that. There is an open ditch that would have to be piped, as well as the construction of the collector road. It is shown as a collector on our Comprehensive Plan, so I just wanted to add that additional information. De Weerd: Thank you, Anna. If there is no other testimony, I will ask the applicant to come up and provide rebuttal if he would like to. Stanfield: Yes, Mayor. Thank you. Again, I will try to be as brief as I can. Chris Brower -- I got his name right. I believe the stub road he's talking to is -- if Anna could point to that for me. The last map you had from Waterbury to the -- would be the southwest of the Simmonich family trust piece. There is a stub road that Waterbury put in -- if you could go to the overall map. -'" Powell: Okay. I know what you mean. Here? Stanfield: Keep going to the west. That's not a stub road there, but if you go to the west -- right there. There is a stub road that Waterbury put in and I believe Mr. Brower was concerned with future connections, as Mr. Simmonich's property may develop in the future with traffic patterns, they are going to be like going to Ustick. I believe that the comments that you heard at P&Z was our first P&Z meeting where we didn't have the two stub roads going to the north towards Ustick. The layout you have before you we are providing even distribution within our development and the adjacent development we have two stubs going to the north and the two the east and stub to the east and we are pretty much in the middle of that group and those stub streets to Venable, as Mr. Simmonich's ground develops, that road from Waterbury will no doubt be required to extend to the north towards Ustick. So, it should be a relatively clean shot to Ustick Road, in my opinion. Construction traffic -- Mr. Brower is right, there is nothing the developer or I can really do about construction traffic on public right of way. There is nothing really anybody can do, as long as they are not violating state laws or city ordinances, but we can encourage them through lot sale documents, purchase agreements, we can -- Mr. Wood -- Mr. Jeff Wood of Woodside can help put conditions on the purchases and the construction of the homes, we can mention things during the pre-con about accesses and really manage the site, so we can help do everything we can, but, unfortunately, Mr. Brower is right, once it's a public right of way there is not a lot you can do to stop anybody from using it. Mr. Simmonich is concerned about Venable. I believe in a nutshell Mr. Simmonich saying please treat him -- if you approve Meridian City Council March 16.2004 Page 28 of 46 this tonight, please, treat him the same way that you're having us do on Venable. Is that correct? And with that we have already offered tonight to relinquish our rights. Obviously, if Mr. Simmonich chooses to develop his property, he may want to improve Venable if he purchases it and turn it into a road, but, you know, that would be up to him if we wants to. But treat him the same way you are us and with that I'll stand for any questions. De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Madam Mayor. Just to clarify, we were talking about this stub street over here. If I heard correctly, Mr. Brower's comments were that if this becomes a congested intersection, which it is currently, and you put a road here and, then, your straight shot is here, that becomes the path of least resistance. I didn't hear his comment being here, I heard it as a shortcut from there to there. Stanfield: Well, if that's his comment, I apologize, but, sure, that can happen. But, again, the city's Comprehensive Plan is very clear as to and through and stub road wherever possible. If you don't want a stub road there, I'll take the stub road off. But your Comprehensive Plan is very clear on the even distribution of traffic to all properties around. So, that's why we put it there. But that's a true statement. If there is congestion there, anything could happen, but that's where the design of the future neighborhood center would be the key there. Traffic control devices. Curvilinear streets. Calming devices. Stuff to discourage that short cutting. That's what I would look for in the City of Meridian review of that future neighborhood center. And is all we are trying to do with this project is provide a buffer to that future neighborhood center, which is due north of us -- actually, we clip the north part this project, so the best I can do is provide a buffer between the existing land uses to the more intense uses of the neighborhood land center -- or neighborhood center and, then, the neighborhood center take over from there with proper land use planning, proper roadway alignments and just followed through. ~ Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: Mr. Stanfield, I guess I forgot to ask you when you were up here for the first time, but could you explain a little bit about the open space in this subdivision? Stanfield: The open space -- Anna, if you could flip to the preliminary plat. The open space consists of -- in the southwest corner you see a rather large lot with that one and an octagon around there, that's not a storm water pond, that's a rather large lot -- actually, to the east yet, that whole -- yeah. That whole lot is an open space lot that will be landscaped and, then, a pathway along to the south, which will be an extension of the Clearbrook pathway open space and I think we have also provided whether -- definition of usable or not, we felt we should do it anyway along the westerly boundary along the majority of the portions of the west boundary do we have a ten foot buffer Meridian City Council March 16,2004 Page 29 of 46 between the existing Venable Lane and the back of these new lots, to kind of create a buffer, not knowing what's going to happen to Venable in the future. Again, that-- Nary: And this would be the homeowners that are supposed to maintain -- I wonder if the association is going to maintain this landscape lot along this back road -- Stanfield: No. You're pointing to Venable Lane. To the east of where you're pointing or to the right there is a ten foot strip and it would be an HOA landscape buffer, just like any buffer in any residential subdivision. Nary: How big is this here? Stanfield: Let me look at my cheat sheet here. I don't have it broken out, but 63,000 square feet is the combination of that and the portions of the drain where we are going to put a pathway. Nary: And it's not a drainage lot? Stanfield: Correct. Correct. If you can refer to the upper right of the preliminary plat you're going to see a roadway section that you probably haven't seen before. ACHD just recently adopted that. That's for certain areas that need certain criteria that's driven by groundwater. This site meets that criteria. So, in a sense, you have a detached sidewalk with a wide buffer strip between the edge of the road and the face of the detached, that's a depressed swale with a sand filter strip down the middle with top soil on the top to act as a grassy borrow ditch in a sense. So, we have no concentrated storm water systems in this project. So, correct, Councilmember Nary, that won't be a drainage lot. Provide a nice good access to the pathway. -" Nary: Thank you. Stanfield: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Any further questions? Okay. Thank you. Stanfield: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Council, what's your preference to move on this item? Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I just have a quick comment about the neighborhood association, just from the items I've seen from Planning and Zoning and this letter here. It seems strange to me that the developer would, essentially, not pay any attention to what looked to me like a fairly unified effort for a group to come forward and ask for their ideas to be heard and Meridian City Council March 16, 2004 Page 30 of 46 so I -- part of the trouble that I have here is the fact that we had a pretty diplomatic approach by the neighborhood association to express their concerns and even in the minutes some direction to potentially meet with those members and it wasn't done and so I'm having a hard time getting by that on this project here. De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Wardle. Any other comments or-- Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: I guess I'd echo the same comments that Mr. Wardle had. I'm just flat out amazed that you would have the homeowners association come to the Planning and Zoning Commission -- and I recognize that the plan they may have proposed may not have worked, but to come to Planning and Zoning Commission, to then have encouragement from the Planning and Zoning Commission to meet with neighbors and discuss their concerns and for that never to happen, I am having a hard time. I have some other concerns about the level of intensity and whether or not this R-8 use is appropriate in this location as an attempted buffer between developments that haven't occurred yet and the developments that are, but without meeting with those homeowners -- and I guess I don't accept Mr. Stanfield's explanation as very valid, so I can't support this particular application. ~ Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I would echo and second those thoughts, because I feel that we have done -- we need to go back to some R-4's, but -- we need to go back to some R-4's butting up against R-4's and I think that is it. I think that by not meeting with the homeowners association was disrespectful after being asked to and I'm like Council Nary, I cannot support this in the configuration that it's being brought forth. De Weerd: Thank you. Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Madam Mayor, not to continue, but I will add my thought in terms of the adjacent subdivisions, the zoning that's there in terms of an R-4. I think that there ought to be some consistency in this area. As far as the issues of public streets and access to this parcel, if it's going to develop, the existing street has to be used, so I don't know that there is a solution for that, that's what they are for. This is an example of things kind of working backwards or it would be nice to develop from the core to the arterials, but that being said, at some point in time when this property develops, exiting city streets, public streets, are going to have to be utilized. My main concern, though, is to get consistency with the adjacent zoning and it seems that that whole area is R-4 -- I don't see any attempts to transition to R-4, other than a few smaller lots -- or larger lots and I don't see any attempt, possibly, to transition or think about what might happen Meridian City Council March 16, 2004 Page 31 of 46 with the community or area, commercial center, as well. So, I can't voice any approval for this particular project either. De Weerd: Okay. Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: Yeah. I would give one more point I guess to follow up on what Councilman Rountree said. I mean I understand the rational by the developer of relinquishing the rights of Venable Lane, but I think I agree with Mr. Simmonich, the intent here is, then, to not have to help develop that in the future and place that burden on the remaining property owners. Eventually, all of them will do the same and we will have that dead strip in the middle there that can't be developed and I just can't support that. I just think it's a bad idea, I think it's bad policy. De Weerd: And that certainly isn't a solution. We have had a session of your opinions. The Public Hearing has not been closed, but the application has provided rebuttal. Would you like to recognize any further testimony? Okay. Would you like to provide some testimony? Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? -" Wood: Yes, ma'am. De Weerd: Thank you. Please state your name and address. Wood: My name is Jeff Wood. My address is 1282 East Braemere and I had mentioned to Scott that when we first put our preliminary plans together, we met with staff and it was actually designed as an R-4 subdivision, with a total of 59 lots. Based on feedback from staff, they explained to us that because we are so close to the community center and, in fact, it converges with the north part of this proposed subdivision, that we go back and revise that plat, which we did. We, then, came back with a revised plat with 69 lots. So, we, you know, reduced the density, went through staff review once more and their comment was we need to reduce -- or increase the density of the subdivision yet again. So, we have now revised the plat I think four or five times to try to accommodate all the various interests. So, I would just, you know, submit to you that we have started out as R-4 and, then, ultimately, based on commentary, feedback, we have, you know, arrived at this configuration. With respect to Venable Lane, unfortunately, I don't own Venable Lane and Venable Lane is for sale. You know, one of the options that the city would have would be to purchase Venable Lane and that might be an alternative that, you know, you could consider, but, you know, unfortunately, I don't have any control over that piece of property and I can't see how you would, you know, suspend any activity around Venable Lane while that gets resolved. So, those are my perspectives. I would be happy to answer any questions. Meridian City Council March 16, 2004 Page 32 of 46 De Weerd: Any questions? Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: Mr. Wood, then, in all that time how long have you been working and revising that plat? Wood: We started with this project in -- in -- I believe it was in June of 2003. So, we have been actively working to try and come up with a concept that would work for both the community center, as well as the neighborhood and what we also tried to do was scale the lots so that we could accommodate a transition from R-4 to R-8 and, then, we have also got our CC&Rs designed such that the configuration of a house that should be very compatible with the existing subdivisions. Nary: And in that nine months you couldn't meet with other homeowners associations to discuss their concerns? Wood: To be honest with you, I was not aware of the concerns, other than as Scott had mentioned, we had been in a number of discussions. I saw the revised plat that the homeowners had suggested. I didn't see quite how that was going to work and, then, we pursued, just as Scott had -- Mr. Stanfield had mentioned, through the various agencies, the Fire Department and ACHD, to try and determine was that feasible to try and move fOlWard with that. "- Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Mr. Wood -- and you say you started this as an R-4 and so this is just kind of a comment. What I heard from your representative was one of the reasons they did not meet with the homeowners association is because a reduction in density or to decrease lots would make this project, essentially, unaffordable to develop and so I guess the fact that you're now telling us that it was originally an R-4, however, you couldn't go back to that, even if the homeowners wanted it, it just -- well, it confuses me. Wood: Yeah. Well, we had a completely different configuration of the roadways and the streets. We did not have the two stub streets going north, so all of that was taken into consideration with further, you know, discussion and review. I'm not sure -- I mean we would have to go back and, you know, revise this again. I don't know that that makes any sense, but -- Wardle: You can see my concern that not taking into account the homeowners concerns, because they were asking for a reduction in lots when you tell me you started out with 59. That doesn't make any sense to me. Meridian City Council March 16. 2004 Page 33 of 46 De Weerd: I guess I would just add -- I know where our staff is coming from. With the neighborhood center it does support higher densities and so I do know what they were trying to communicate with you and you have tried to do some transitioning and as Councilman Rountree mentioned, these trips within the subdivision will filter out into the other surrounding neighborhoods as well and we need that connectivity. I guess my concern is the same as Council's and I realize I do not have a vote, but I did want to at least explain from the neighborhood standpoint -- neighborhood center standpoint, the support of that is such that the higher densities are a part of that. The transitioning from the surrounding neighborhoods are important and being a good neighbor and communicating and sitting down with the neighbors is part of an ordinance that we have adopted. We don't require it, we strongly encourage it, and what I have seen throughout the process is that has been encouraged throughout the process, yet it never happened. And so that would be one big concern. And the lane -- I realize you don't own it, you own an access or an easement to it. Wood: Correct. De Weerd: That makes you part of the solution to what happens to it and, again, it gives us the process to encourage that by denying annexation or zoning and platting and all of that to encourage people to sit down together, because this is the only tool we have to encourage neighbors sitting down together and finding solutions before they become a major issue to our city and it's not to just the three involved, it becomes a larger issue and we have had experience with that and I don't think any of us want to go down that -- forgive the pun -- lane again. So -- and that's probably -- we have a history with this kind of experience and this is our only way of assuring that these kind of things are worked out. .:> Wood: I understand. Well -- and I think as Mr. Stanfield mentioned, there was a 30 foot spite strip, you know, is what I understood it to be called right here and I purchased that, so that we could, in fact, provide connectivity into Indian Rocks Road. So, you know, I guess from a developer's standpoint I can only go so far, you know, to try and, you know, work through all issues. And I do understand that there -- you know, we clearly should have addressed some of the concerns of the homeowners in Salisbury and we can certainly go back and do that. I think if -- you know, again, with better understanding of what we envision for the subdivision, how we are going to provide that transition, you know, some of those concerns would probably be allayed. De Weerd: Any further comment? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Meridian City Council March 16,2004 Page 34 of 46 Rountree: I have a question for Mr. Wood. You indicated that, obviously, you don't own the lane, but it's for sale. Who owns it and adjacent -- adjacent parcel or is it a separate described piece of property that's for sale that's long and narrow or what's the situation? Wood: My understanding it is a long and narrow strip of land and I don't honestly know who the landowner is, maybe it's Mr. Venable, I mean -- it may be a part of the Venable family; I'm just not sure. It was my understanding that it was a parcel that was for sale. Rountree: Okay. Thank you. Powell: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Anna. Powell: Commissioner Rountree, it is owned by Erlin and Carl Venable. So, it is owned by the Venables. De Weerd: And it is just the lane; correct? Powell: Correct. I believe it's 40 feet wide. -" De Weerd: A valuable piece of property. Powell: Mr. Stanfield had told us before it was -- it's about an acre in area total and it was -- they were asking about 40,000 or something like that for it the last time it was on the market. It is not on the market currently, as I understand. De Weerd: And, again, I guess it would be just -- it would be nice if the three property owners that are affected by that lane could sit down and discuss how to best proceed with that. And, again, that's our -- this is our only opportunity to encourage those kind of gatherings. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I have a process question for Anna. From what I have heard from the developer, they are willing to go back and work with the neighbors and maybe redraw the project. How do we do that from this Public Hearing, if they are willing to do so? Powell: I believe you can remand it back to the Planning and Zoning Commission for redesign. If you're trying to get at the Venable Lane issues, that would pull in a lot of different properties and it would have to be re-noticed and probably start over, really. If you just want them to address the specifics of this property, then, you probably could remand that back to the Planning and Zoning Commission after their meeting with the neighborhood associations. Meridian City Council March 16, 2004 Page 35 of 46 De Weerd: Thank you. Powell: Madam Mayor, Councilman Wardle, if you do remand it back, you should be very clear to the Planning and Zoning Commission on what you're looking for as far as a revised plat. De Weerd: Council, what is your pleasure here? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I got a question for staff. For Anna. When they come in with an R-4, why would we suggest R-B when everything around it is an R-4? I realize the higher density is around the centers, but -- I mean it just don't -- we have battles every time on this and I don't blame the R-4 people from not wanting smaller lots up against the -- up against their R-4 property. Powell: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council the current R-4, if you just develop at R-4 standards, really gets you less than three units to the acre. The Comprehensive Plan does call for three to eight units to the acre. The neighborhood centers to support any type of retail development or commercial development do need a little extra density around them. If the applicant were to go with an R-4, there wouldn't be an opportunity to hit the three units to the acre with a straight subdivision. So, staff, because a portion of the property is within the neighborhood center, did feel it was appropriate to have an R-8 designation and what we see like -- what we saw on Redfeather the other night was that they were able to make that transition from some of the larger lots to the smaller lots and still maintain the density. Now, they had a planned development application before them, so the designation of R-4 and R-8, effectively, didn't make any difference. Were the lots the same size or even smaller than the ones you're seeing tonight? Yes, they were. If we are forcing folks to go into the planned development side of always having to do a planned development to hit those target densities, it really doesn't have any -- it doesn't really benefit them. You're getting the same design whether it's R-4 or R-8. So, I guess staff, in the interest of trying to provide a more predictable, although perhaps not in this case -- more predictable processing and less additional bureaucratic papers to go through, does try and get people to a zoning category that matches what the proposed density should be. Now, if R-8 -- if you could actually hit eight units to the acre with R-8 -- now that would be a scary thing, but -- well, maybe not, but I mean you can't even get close to eight units to the acre with the R-8 zoning. The R-4 zoning is really something less than three units to the acre, once you meet all -- you know, once you put in 25 percent of it as roads and, then, the landscaping requirements and the minimum lot width, it just doesn't work out to four units to the acre. I guess that's -- I'm done justifying my existence here, so I hope you will forgive me for my preaching for a moment, but that is why we encouraged them to go with an R-8 is to hit some of those minimum -- minimum densities within the Comprehensive Plan as well. " Meridian City Council March 16, 2004 Page 36 of 46 De Weerd: Testimony is over. I'm sorry. Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: Yeah. And I understand where you're coming from, Anna. I think, though, what Mr. Bird -- which I agree with this. I mean on this end when you are butting up against existing homes versus this end where you're not, I can understand that. But, you know, I don't know that you're really impacting this neighborhood center by having a lower density in this portion. We heard from the prior application there was 1,000 homes right here, so it's not like it's not going to be able to support this commercial use in this area there. So, I mean I understand what -- your rational from the staff's standpoint is, but I mean this is just, you know, a small -- two small a piece to try to mix those two policy types of arguments together in my mind, because you have got those neighbors, you have got their issues and concerns in the levels of density and, to be honest, I mean this particular application is about as bare minimum as you can get. I mean 5.2 percent of open space and -- I mean it is about as sparse and minimum standard as you can get for what they are wanting in that area, so -- I mean I don't disagree with what your staff view was and your view is, but I just think in this one when you're talking about butting up against the other neighbors and the like, there has got to be at least some of that discussion and that's what was attempted to be done in meeting those property owners that are adjacent concerns and that didn't get done. And for nine months that never got done, you know, I'm not very sympathetic to this particular project. ~ Powell: Madam Mayor, Councilman Nary, I guess alii want to say is that it sometimes - - well, I believe oftentimes it's not the density that's necessarily proposed, it's how it's proposed. It's the design. And I guess I hate to see the city discouraging 3.65 units to the acre as being too dense in an area that we have said is suitable for three to eight units to the acre and just to say that maybe it's a design issue and not the density of the lots. Perhaps it's the design of the subdivision. De Weerd: Well, it could be the design and it could be the lack of coordination with the surrounding neighbors. Powell: Yes. And that's part of that coordination, yeah, the design fails in that aspect, so -- Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Just a thought. Anna, as I think a lot of the people don't -- it's not the -- how many units per acre, it's the size of the lots. There is a lot of difference in the width and the size of an R-8 zone and an R-4 and when you're backing up to an R-4 subdivision, I Meridian City Council March 16, 2004 Page 37 of 46 mean you're going basically with one and a half lots on every lot of an R-4 if they are done in the standard 80-by-100's or 100-by-80 and your -- because there is difference in the square footage. It's like with Redfeather, I mean they took and put some awful large, wide lots where they butted up against the R-2's out there and, then, they did the other. These have not been done that way in my book and not going before the -- and meeting with the neighbors, homeowners, like I think other Councilman have said, in nine months, that's just not acceptable. De Weerd: So, what is your pleasure on this? What direction do you want to go? Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: And since I brought up the -- how do we get the neighbors involved and the idea to remand that back to Planning and Zoning was brought up, the more testimony I hear the more I have concerns -- and I think the Council shares this -- about the total project itself, along with the access to Venable and I agree with Anna, I don't think those are things that can probably be mitigated with a simple remand to -- I should take that back, not simple, but with a remand to the Planning and Zoning Commission. ~ De Weerd: Okay. Would you like to close the Public Hearing, then? Wardle: Madam Mayor, I move that we close the Public Hearing on Items 13 and 14. Nary: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearings on Items 13 and 14. All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Is there any further discussion before I hear a motion? If not, I would entertain a motion. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I move that we deny AZ 03-036, Salisbury Subdivision No.2, and incorporate all staff, public, and applicant comments. Nary: Second. Bird: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council March 16, 2004 Page 38 of 46 De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: When we have denials you have got to give specific reasons, Shaun, in your motion. Nary: I think -- I guess from the second's standpoint, I think the specific reasons is the lack of coordination with the surrounding property owners, both on the east and western boundaries of this property, trying to incorporate some planning for the uses along Venable Lane, as well as access or improvements in the future on Venable Lane, as well as the -- I guess the preliminary plat would be the compatibility of the zone. So, I think probably for the purposes of annexation is that adequate do you think, Mrs. Holinka? Bird: I think that's -- Holinka: Yes. Nary: Okay. Wardle: And the maker of the motion would like to add that to his motion, if the second agrees. "" Nary: I would concur. De Weerd: Thank you. What a great team you are. Okay. It's been moved and seconded to deny AZ 03-036. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none, Mr. Clerk, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Okay. Item 14. Mr. Wardle. I guess this is immaterial, because we don't have an annexation, but we still need a motion. Wardle: Madam Mayor, I move that we deny PP 03-042, preliminary plat for Salisbury Subdivision No.2, because we did not annex the property into the city. Nary: Second. De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to deny PP 03-042. Any further discussion? Okay. Mr. Berg. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea. Meridian City Council March 16, 2004 Page 39 of 46 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 15: Public Hearing: CUP 03-072 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a drive-thru window for a proposed coffee shop for Central Park Plaza by Nahas Enterprises - northeast corner of South Progress Avenue and Central Drive: De Weerd: Okay. Item 16 -- or 15, I'm sorry, is Public Hearing on CUP 03-072 for Central Park Plaza. We will start with staff comments. Powell: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we are not on Venable Lane any longer. There we are. We are -- sorry about that. The subject property is a portion of what is on the one lot within an existing subdivision. It's -- Winco is right here and Home Depot down here, so -- and this is the canal going back through. So, it's currently an undeveloped site. The subject application is, actually, just on a portion of what's outlined here. They are still working on the final plat, I believe. So, as you see here, this is the lot. This is the proposed building. It is 16,490 square feet for the entire retail building. The proposed coffee shop that will -- that will have the drive-thru is 1,500 square feet and it's located right down here. So, the drive-thru portion is right along there and, then, comes back out onto this kind of large shared drive that goes up to Progress Avenue. They have shown the whole site here. They are coming in for a number of certificates of zoning compliance. This is the only one with a proposed drive- thru, so this is the only one that's subject to the applicant, but we did want to let you see the entire site. There is an odd little parking area here that was discussed at the Planning and Zoning Commission. This, as you will note, is not connected to the rest of the parking drive aisles. Tony Roma's, which is going in this location here, requires that their staff have a separate parking area separate from the parking that will be used by customers. So, this is the parking for this structure here and that was discussed probably more than Mr. Strite would have wanted at the last hearing. Billy Ray Strite of BRS Architects was at the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing. He did testify in favor of the application. No one spoke in opposition. The request for the drive-thru does come forward with a recommendation of approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission. As I said, there was some discussion about the cross-access between these two lots. Staff was pushing for a cross-access agreement. In the event that this changed ownerships, we didn't like the idea of having a parking lot here that you couldn't get to the rest of the parking area. It's just kind of considered, in general, poor planning. There was a reason for it right now, but we thought that there might not be a reason in the future, so the Commission is recommending that the applicant revise the development CC&Rs to include a cross-access agreement between the subject property and the joint parking lot for Tony Roma's. And with that I will end staffs presentation. De Weerd: Thank you, Anna. Any questions at this point? Thank you. Bill Ray, were you here when I swore everyone in? Apparently not. Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? .:> Meridian City Council March 16,2004 Page 40 of 46 Strite: It is. De Weerd: Thank you. Please state your name and address. Strite: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Billy Ray Strite, 1010 Allante, Boise, Idaho. I really don't have very much to say. I think the first page of the staff report was -- as outstanding issues for City Council, none. I will suggest to you that we did change the CC&Rs and, as a matter of fact, the REAs are revised and provided -- I believe those are in the staffs hands now, which did, in fact, create lots -- what we referred to as D and E, that being the southeast corner of that site, the Tony Roma's, quote, private parking, is now a part of the REAs throughout and cross-access is, in fact, available if something should happen and Tony Roma's should not use the site any further. The remainder of the staff report is fine. We agreed to all the conditions. It comes before you with a recommendation for approval. So, unless you have any questions of me, I'm going home. Thank you. De Weerd: Any questions for Billy Ray before he goes home? Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. ~ Nary: I was pretty ambivalent until I saw Tony Roma's on this thing, but -- but on the building that we are actually concerned with where the drive-thru is, is the rest of that building just going to be detached from that coffee area or is it just -- is it going to be like separated like a smaller shopping complex -- I mean separated stores or is it just one big building -- oh, there it is. Okay. I guess I missed that one. So, that's all I wanted. I just didn't know how it was divided up, but -- all right. Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Any further questions? Thank you very much. Strite: Thank you. De Weerd: Is there anyone else who would like to provide testimony on this application? Okay. Council? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move we close the Public Hearing for Item 15, CUP 03-072. Bird: Second. De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on Item 15. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. Meridian City Council March 16, 2004 Page 41 of 46 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Hearing no discussion, I move that we approve Item 15 for a Conditional Use Permit, 03-072, for Central Park Plaza, incorporating all staff comments and testimony received tonight by applicant. Bird: Second. De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to approve CUP 03-072 for Central Park Plaza. Any further discussion? Mr. Clerk. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 16: Water, Sewer and Trash Delinquencies: ~ De Weerd: Goodnight, Billy Ray. Okay. Item 16 is water, sewer, trash delinquencies. This is to inform you in writing, if you so choose, that you have the right to a pre- termination hearing at 7:30 p.m., Tuesday, March 16th, 2004, before the Mayor and City Council to appear in person to be judged on the facts and to defend the claim made by this city that your water, sewer, and trash bill is delinquent. You may retain counsel. Your service will be discontinued on March 17th, 2004, unless payment is received in full. Is there anyone present who wishes to contest his or her water, sewer, and trash delinquency? Seeing none, they are hereby informed that they may appeal or have the decision of the city reviewed by the Fourth Judicial District Court pursuant to Idaho State Code. Even though they appeal, their water will be shut off. The amount of the turn-off list is $33,205.24. Council, do I have a motion? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we approve the turn-off list for delinquency to be discontinued on March 17th, 2004, unless payment is received in full. The amount of delinquency is $33,205.24. De Weerd: Do I have a second? Nary: Second. Meridian City Council March 16, 2004 Page 42 of 46 De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to approve the delinquency turn-off list. Mr. Clerk, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 17: Ordinance No. Assistant to the Mavor: Admin istrative De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Item 17 is an Ordinance No. 04-1071, Administrative Assistant to the Mayor Ordinance. Mr. Clerk, will you, please, read this by title only. Berg: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Ordinance No. 04-1071, an Ordinance of the City of Meridian enacting this new Section 4 of Chapter 6 of Title 1, Mayor, to be known as administrative assistant to the Mayor, providing for administrative assistant to the Mayor as an at-will employee, providing for section of the administrative assistant, providing for the administrative assistant salary to be in conformity with the city wide salary range, providing for conflict, validity, savings clause, and providing for an effective date. -" De Weerd: We had this on our agenda last week. This is just the clean up to have the position as it was intended to be, so it's -- yeah, six years ago. Just more of a clean up. Is there any discussion or do I have a motion to approve this ordinance? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move that we approve Ordinance 04-1071 with suspension of rules. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve Ordinance 04-1071. Mr. Clerk, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 18: Executive Session. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. We added an Item 18 and that is the executive session carried over from the pre-Council meeting. Do I have a motion? Bird: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council March 16, 2004 Page 43 of 46 De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we go into executive session as per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1 )(b) and (c). Rountree: Second. De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn into Executive Session. It is, I think, ten after 9:00. Mr. Clerk, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: No decisions were made while in Executive Session. Okay Council you wish to have staff get any further information in regards to the compensation or employee compensation I should say, I'm sorry. Nary: Madame Mayor. .:> De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: I guess I will kick off. We have over the last couple of weeks discussed extensively a couple of different things and I guess what we would like to have, I guess, some final numbers. One of the areas that I think that we have been fairly much consensus as a group on is the Police Department step plan and for a variety of different reasons that we feel that it is important that we reinstitute that plan. We want to be clear on what the numbers are and the percentages that that may impact the budget. But, the reasons for is that the Police services is in an area in this particular valley that is highly competitive to recruit, highly competitive to retain and highly expensive to train. For all of those reasons, we feel that that's step plan was the means for the City to be competitive in the market place for police officers and so we would entertain reinstituting that plan and bringing those salaries back in line with what was anticipated with the step plan. Mr. Bird do you want to talk about the bonus issue that's for general employees? Bird: Yeah, if you would give me my papers. I can't remember what I had. Madame Mayor. De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I would like to look into changing our bonuses to satisfactory and competent, $500. Excel is $1,000. Outstanding, $1,500. Leave the max at two. And also the new FY04 and also the step plan and I would like to see our Department Heads be given Meridian City Council March 16, 2004 Page 44 of 46 $2,500 of the appointed Department Heads. Then we will negotiate with the fire fighters - 32 union fire fighters. De Weerd: Now, Mr. Bird, I guess I would have a question. Since excels and outstanding are the upper tier and there are only two in the outstanding, would you recommend they get the same amount or --? Bird: I recommended $1,000 for the excels and the outstanding's were $1,500. Outstanding to me is above excels. I didn't do the evaluating. Nary: Madame Mayor. De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: I would concur with Mr. Bird in the sense that I think what we are trying to get to and the message that we have been talking about for the last few weeks was getting to a point of encouraging employees to seek the excels and outstanding performance and so I think it's still a good idea to keep those upper levels up and not make them equal. De Weerd: Okay. I just asked. Okay, we will ask staff to pull together that information. Bill do you want me to talk with Stacy or did you want to? ~ Nary: I can do that in the morning. De Weerd: Okay. Rountree: Madame Mayor. De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: In terms of that information being pulled together, I would also ask for information related to assurance that all the employees were justly compensated for increase in their previous benefits as it related to the intent of the City to hold them harmless to increase in benefits and that those employees in the standard rating that have been rated standard for a period in an excessive one year not receive a meritorious raise and those employees at the end of their pay ranges that have been at the end of their pay range longer than one year receive the additional compensation for being at the end of their pay raise. Bird: (inaudible) motion? (Inaudible discussion) Rountree: I think that we want all that to compile by staff so we can then make a motion at our next meeting. / \ ( Meridian City Council March 16, 2004 Page 45 of 46 De Weerd: I guess I would ask on the step program because we are entering into one more pay period and I don't know how to (inaudible) if you are already have agreement to reinstate that it might be helpful to staff to start working on that now. Since that has - is that retroactive then? Bird: That's retroactive to what --? Rountree: To January. Bird: To January 1st, we told them. De Weerd: Was it January or effective this next pay period? Nary: Or the next pay period. De Weerd: Okay, I guess J would ask that you would consider that at this moment and if you want to not act on it, then it would be not this next pay period, but the following one. So, that's the only reason I am asking. I don't know if you want retroactive to January, make it effective this pay period or if you don't want to act on it tonight to have it effective the following pay period. But, that is something you should at least go into knowing. -" Bird: Madame Mayor. De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: On the step program, I think we all agreed upon that. I have no problem with activating that now. I do - maybe we don't need to go back retroactive on that. Let's just implement it the month of March. I agree with you that we need to get that - that's something that we pretty well agreed upon and it is a source to keep our employees, we hope, you know? So, I would make a motion that we enact the police step plan and make it effective the pay period of March 2004. Nary: Second. De Weerd: Okay, it's been and seconded to move forward with the step program to be effective in March instead of further discussion. Rountree: Madame Mayor. De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I assume even though the motion is made and will be acted on that we still will get the information from staff, the documents and justification and reasoning behind that. Meridian City Council March 16, 2004 Page 46 of 46 De Weerd: Okay. Rountree: Having said that I'll call for question. De Weerd: Okay. All those in favor say aye. ALL AYES. MOTION CARRIED. De Weerd: I would entertain a motion to adjourn. Rountree: So moved. Bird: Second. De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) ~~ ATTEST: ALL AYES. MOTION CARRIED MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:39 P.M. ~ .- - - , March 12, 2004 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING APPLICANT March 16, 2004 ITEM NO. 5,,5 REQUEST Award of Bid for 2004 Sewer Cleaning / TV Inspection Project AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGIN EER: 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: ~~ Date: Staff Initials: Phone: Contacted: Emailed: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ...... () Q) "0' L- a.. c: o +:i () Q) 0. en c: > I- -- CJ) c: c: ctl Q) () L- Q) ~ Q) (j) ""'" o o N 0 '<t 0 ;'Q 800000000 0 0 Q) co Q) 'C!C!C!C!C!000 0 ~ ,g _ 0000000 ' . 0 .... N 2: ro .;::; ;g '<t 00 Ol '<t 00 0 0 I"- .... Q) '0 0... -~C'\!.~q"1.fg fg 00 to -- l.() (0 M (/)1- ~MI"-....'<t(O ~ ro 0- 0... :Q Q) 0 c: ~g (0 (0 to to to OlOl OlOl ~ :::I 0... C"!C"! NNN NN NN .... ~ ...... 00 000 00 00 '2 :) :E 800000000 Cll QJo'C!C!C!C!C!ooo o 001.O0~000 ~ ro .;:: t! '<t 00 to Ol N N N N .- '0 0... - M to to t-- _ 0 0 0 0...1- !;;.,fcONr--:~.....:.....:.....: ~ o ~ U QJ o .;::; 0... ....~-r-~~~~~-r- ~MM'<t'<tl.()l.()l.()l.() 000000000 ~ c: :) (J) ~ LLLLLLlLlLlLLLLLlL ::5 ...J...J...J...J...J...J...J...J...J "0 .:B .- g 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 ro......o 000000 E ffi -C!.C!.l.()0.C!.000 +:2 :::I '<t'<t 00 "OlN . . . (J)O~""Nto""NNNN W QJ QJ QJ QJa.a. a.'- .- .- .- 0... 0... 0... 0-5.....'-'- L.. Q) Q) Q) ~ ~ ~ ~ Q)(/)(/)(f) (/).J::..J::..J::. c: Q)Q)Q)Q)..cOO() ,2 QJ a. a. a. a. () c: c: c: 0. .8- 0: 0: 0: 0: ~ 2; ~ d; .C a.. '- I... l... L... co "t"""" ..- ~ o L.. Q) Q) Q) Q) lfl ~~~~~~~~~ o Q) CJ) CJ) (/) (/) 19 19 19 l!l (f).J::..J::..J::...coooo .J::.()OOO~~~~ o C c: c: c .- '_ ._ ._ c:",,<<:<:<: ,ONl.()OOQ)Q)Q)Q) ro~"f;-'r"""'-(J)CI)cn(J) c c: c: c: c: '-'-.-.- ro ro ro ro ro ~ ~ ~ ~ .!Q.!QJ!!J!!J!!"'ij)"'ij)"Q)"Q) OOO()OI-I-I-I- E ~ ....NM'<tl.Otot--OOOl ro '0 f- March 12, 2004 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 1 6, 2004 APPLICANT ITEM NO. ~ 1'_.J REQUEST HV AC Maintenance Renewal for the Meridian Police Department AGENCY COMMENTS 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: See attached ~vY Contacted: Emailed: Date: Staff Initials: Phone: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. TO: Meridian Police Department Attn: Jean Moore ."AX: 846-73 72 .. Service'" - ., Experts MAf~ 1 >1 '-1"1kl-LL f' DATE; f'e.....l.uf}' 3,2004 PAGES: 3, inclllding cover sheet. Dear Jean, ax Enclosed is the HV AC maintenance renewal for the Mendian Police Department. If you have any quescions please call me at 342-7218 ext. I <-)J or my cellular number is 941-80/8. Sincerely, From the desk of,,, 9{JJ7e4 Jay Stark Commercial Accuunt Manager PH: 208-341-6813 ext.#193 F.'\X: 208-342-0788 E0/113 39t'd lWl BBL0lt:>E8\3(,;1 0S:pl p00~/8\3/€0 PEAK PERFORMANCE SERVICE AGREEMENT PRlC1NC AND ACCEPTANCE Ct!:itomer Meridian l)olice Q.~.tW.!:J.m.fm.\ Billing Address 140] E. Watertower Meridian. ldaho 83742 Contact Jean M.oon') Fax: (208' 846-7372 __..>......_......'.......r..................._..c.....J._..._~.....J...J____ TlvIJ. HEATING ,\\iD iVC ,\bD r.:km'u to iJ~ lhe': Service: ClJrnp,lny, ;'gr~t::i \0 ftlrni,h serVIce::; in al:Co..dHn~.; v,llh (he (.icl1<-i'al <lilt! Supp(el\1~l.\I31 Terms 3\1d Conditlons ami each 'Peak Performance Maintenance S.hedule. Equipment to b~ Serviced (l0) Carri er Package Roof Top U ni IS Maio teu ance Options: Complt:tc Cooling Mainten,UlGe on 10 Systerus.$774.00 X _._~_._ Per Ycur"" $774. (Condenser COli cleaning and pleated filters included) COll1pl~te Heating Maintenance on 10 Systel11s.$695.00 X -L__ POI' Y \::Uf ". $695 (pleated Jiltersincluded) f'iher ('han~e on 10 S'ysl~m$ ,....... ............S324-.(1) .\ _L- Pel' Yelll' - J.M~.. (plcu\(;(\ fd(Cni 1I1clud('d) AnnuallnveSlment:-;: $2,] 17.UO Per Vlsit Billing $529.25 The agreememis effective from 2/03104 through 2/02/05 . Cuslomer Acceptance: Signatllre__~~ Signature Title C II mlll.l.':r('.llil_!~.mi!llL. .Y.1l!lIi!ld~-.r Tille Jay Stark Duk_i3.il/Dt( crYI)~ v,'l'1'lIll N~I\I~ <,fSigncr) A[;(:tpUlnC0 Date '_'~"""" ...h........u E0/W 39\1d lWl 88L0C;\7E802:1 09:pI p00Z/SO/Eg P~AK PERFORMANCE SERVICE AGREEMENT SUPPLEMENTAL CONDITIONS 1. This Agreement pro v i(h:; complete mainLenan~(; \'lsirs and/or niter change ViSlls a:> reqLle~l~d jll;:)' YUill' un 1I1o;.' l'lC\llil1~. ~\Ild UI\Jllllg ~.tlul()nl\::111. 2. Cuil Cleaning.........."..,CondtnserCuil lnt:ludcd-X.._ NOllllt:ludwt! Evaporator Coil J.nclud<::d NOt IncluJl:d x 3. This Agreement provides a 10% percent disCOLlnt offparts and labor lor st;rvice. 4. This Agreement provides priority service. TML witl respond 10 the Cll"SlOmcr's L'equest for emergency service before providj(\g service to ;:Iny l:lls{omtr who doe~ nol have a SelVi('o Agreement. 5. Pt'~ventive Mail1lt:IHI11CC IS (0 be perJi,1J'lllecl JUl"l1'ig l'eglll~1fw(}rking Ilrlurs OU)!llilll 5:00pm Monday thl'O~lgh Friuay) lInkss priol' urnwgcl11enls a)'~ madl.'. 6. Upon comp\(:tion of each Peak Perfonnance inspection, TML will provide lhe Customer with a cQmprehensive inspection report liSlillg work perf0n11Cd, dd'ccrs found and corrected, and any recommended corrective action. 7. Any additional expense incuned from repairs require in eXct.:~$ urthQ :;chcdultd mail1lMUJlCC that totals $150.00 or n10l'l'.: will require wriHt'l1 i.lulhorization frOl11lhe Client or repl(%8nlaIIVl: plior"tu ClH'llpkriol1 oj" I\'parrs. B. l fvl L sha It rllhlntJln I he CUSLO 1111':(' S ~qLll P IlH2111 [0 k Ctp utility and rcpai r COSl as low as posslble, \'1111 Ie preservmg equIpment reliability and life. OCCLljJ<1ll1 c0111f'0I1 will al ways b~ a primary consideration. 9. Th~ Customtr shall operate lhe equipment in accordance with tbe manufacHlrer's recommendations and promptly notify the TML of any abnormal conditions. 10. Any addiliolHd. suv ices thaI are not p<lrl 0 f lh j s u~rel::lYi(;nr, sll all be bi Il~~i ell l he prevai I ing Ii me l:lnu lllLll..::riu 1 ral~. kss the d iscuum I istt'd llh~)VI;: { I. There will b~ "No Ovemn1c" Ch8i'gcd to maiOl~llarH;c <.rgn:eIll01'11 (;U$(ornCl"s. E0/E8 3':)l:i'd lWl 88L0C;pE80C;"[ 0S:PI POOl/80/E0 ** TX CONFIRMhllON REPORT ** AS OF MAR 29 '04 09:05 PAGE. 01 CITY OF MERIDIAN DATE TIME TO/FROM 01 03/29 09:04 208 846 7372 MODE MIN/5EC PGS CMD~ STATUS EC--S 00' 57" 004 029 OK --------~----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- March 12, 2004 MERIDIAN Cl1Y COUNCIL MEETING APPLICANT ITEM NO. \!} ~.; REQUEST HVAC Maintenance Renewal for the Meridian Police Department March 16. 2004 AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY A TIORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: Clf( FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEFT: CITY WATER DEFT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DlSTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MER1DIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GNS:.. MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: See oflal=hert wrF~ Contacted; Emai/ed; Dote: Staff Initials: Phone: Materials prenmlod at public meelinlil~ shall become propel1y ot tile City of Merldlan. Agreement No if".? "" . . --If M t r;-.. ,,0 .dl:'Za~ VI cry-OUUJ ~ Vo :.LJay!. Jay Stark 120 E. 40th. Boise, Idaho 83714 (208) 342-6813 . 1-800-572-6813 . FAX (208) 345-6935 Designed especially for MERDIAN POLICE DEPARTMENT. HV AC MAlNENANCE 120 E. 40th. Boise, Idaho 83714-6346 · (208) 342.6813 . Fax (208) 345-6935 6000 N. Government Way. Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 83815. (208) 772-5165 . Fax (208) 772.615] Type of Agreement Page_of_ PEAl ERFORM:ANCE SERVICE AGREEK .L'-JT PRICING AND ACCEPTANCE Customer Meridian Police Department Billing Address 1401 E. Watertower Meridian. Idaho 83742 Contact Jean Moore Fax: (208) 846-7372 TML HEATING AND NC Also referred to as the Service Company, agrees to fumish services in accordance with the General and Supplemental Terms and Conditions and each Peak: Performance Maintenance Schedule. Equipment to be Serviced (10) Carrier Package RoofTop Units Maintenance Options: Complete Cooling Maintenance on 10 Systems.$774.00 X _1_ Per Year = _$774_ (Condenser Coil cleaning and pleated filters included) Complete Heating Maintenance on 10 Systems.$695.00 X J_ Per Year = _$695_ (pleated filters included) Filter Change on 10 Systems..............H.. H.. .$324.00 X _2 (pleated filters included) Per Year = _$648_ Annual Investment = $2,117.00 Per Visit Billing $529.25 The agreement is effective for one year from the time of signature. Service Company Approval: Signatur \\, 1IIl1llltt h-J \\\\ f M /11, Title I ' l P rJ {J r: ~~...",'\;\.... 0 CJ1tO/"I.t,,;'fitle ~ () 'iWQt:>.. ~A ~ -Ie I. Jie;} ~cP ''''I~ v % ~,pv, ~ ~- :; (T)ope or Print Name of Signer) _ Acceptance Date 3-( b-~ Dje 3 ;{;)~\Io~( Il/leJled:~~~,...( 81,'" ;t'O.../<: '", n ~ .':'- ',1i', \..;,~ '~:"'t"'{ ,-." }~"}.j:'I~;~~;'; 1,~lS]~";~\\\\\'\ Jay Stark PEAK PERFORMANCE SERVICE AGREEl\(fP,NT SUPPLEI\1ENTAL CONDITIONS C 1. This Agreement provide complete maintenance visits and/or filter change visits as requested per year on the heating and cooling equipment. 2. Coil Cleaning.. . . .. . .. _ _. . .. Condenser Coil Included Evaporator Coil Included x Not Included Not Included X 3. This Agreement provides a 10% percent discount off parts and labor for service. 4. This Agreement provides priority service. TJvIL will respond to the Customer's request for emergency service before providing service to any customer who does not have a Service Agreement. 5. Preventive Maintenance is to be performed during regular working hours (8:00am- 5:00pm Monday through Friday) unless prior arrangements are made. 6. Upon completion of each Peak Performance Inspection, TJvIL will provide the Customer with a comprehensive inspection report listing work performed, defects found and corrected, and any recommended corrective action. 7. Any additional expense incurred from repairs require in excess of the scheduled maintenance that totals $150,00 or more will require written authorization from the Client or representative prior to completion of repairs. 8. TML shall maintain the Customer's equipment to keep utility and repair cost as low as possible, while preserving equipment reliability and life. Occupant comfort will always be a primary consideration. 9. The Customer shall operate the equipment in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations and promptly notify the TML of any abnormal conditions. 10. Any additional services that are not part of this agreement, shall be billed at the prevailing time and material rate, less the discount listed above. 11. There will be '~o Overtime" charged to maintenance agreement customers. "'ENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS I. The seIVice company agrees to provide a comprehensive maintenance program designed to reduce your utility an repair costs, after any existing defects are corrected. 2. The customer agrees to furnish safe, reasonable access to the building and covered equipment. The customer will remove any material, fixiures, or walls so adequate access can be gained to the equipment. 3. This agreement does not include the maintenance, repair, or replacement of recording or portable instnilllents, electrical discolUlect switches, casing or cabinets, insulation, gas lines, water lines or non-moving parts as ductwork, vessels, boiler shells, tubes, vents, flues, grilles, tower fill or refractory material. The Service Company shall not be required to fiunish any equipment, service or materials or to perform test, or make any lllodifications that have been reCOlllinended or required by any insurance company, governmental authority, equipment vendor or regulatory authority, or pay any future taxes imposed by any govemmelltal agency. 4. The Service Company shall not be liable for: a) damage or loss resulting from freezing, corrosion, electrolysis, vibration, plumbing stoppage, failure of any utility service, low voltage condition, lightning, single phasing, or any other electrical abnonnalities; b) damage or loss resulting from negligence, faulty system design, abuse, acts of God, malicious mischief, vandalism or improper operation of equipment by customer's employees, agents or tenants; c) damage, loss or delays resulting from fire, eA'P10sion, flooding, the elements, strikes, labor troubles, civil comlllotion or any other cause beyond its control; d) any accident, injury, damage, or loss to equipment, persOlme1, property or revenue Imless directly caused by its negligence; e) any indirect or consequential damages such as, but not limited to, loss of revenue or loss of use of any equipment, process or facilities; f) any identification, abatement, encapsulating or removal of any hazardous material including those containing asbestos. If any hazardous materials are detected during the course of work, tile Service Company can discontinue the work Wltil tile hazard has been eliminated, and shaH receive an exiension equal to the time of delay to complete the work. TIle Selvice Company reserves the right to be compensated for any loss due to a delay caused by asbestos or any other hazardous material. 5. Unless otherwise noted, the SeIVice Company sha11 not be liable for starting and stopping equipment, space temperature regulation, air or water balance, indoor air quality, equipment relocation or maintenance or repair other than during Honnal working hours. If Customer requests work be performed other than during normal hours, tile Customer agrees to reimburse the Service Company for additional charges. 6. The Service Company shan use ordinary care in performing the tasks outlined in tins agreement. No inspection shall guarantee the condition of the equipment or elinrinate obsolescence and nonllal wear. 7. TIle occurrence of any of tile following without prior written consent of the Service Company will constitute a default: a) failure by the Customer to make any payment due within ten days after it becomes due and payable; b) ,my alterations, additions, adjustments or repairs to covered equipment, by anyone other tImn tile Service Company; c) Breach by Customer of any tenn of this Agreement. If the SeIVice Company brings legal action to enforce tIris Agreement, and is successful, it shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorney fees and tile cost of litigation in addition to any judgment for danmges. 8. TIus Agreement begins on the date of acceptance and shall remain in force for the terlll stated. Thereafter, it shaH be automatically renewed and shall continue in effect for successive renewal periods of one year unless either party gives the other written notice of teul1ination at least 30 days before the anniversary date. With 45 days written notice, tile Service Company may add or delete equipment or services and increase or reduce the Agreement price. Customer shall have tile right to tenninate if any changes are not acceptable. 9. TIris Agreement contains tile entire wlderstanding between the Service Company and the Customer. Any modifications, amendments or changes must be in writing and signed by both parties. 120 E. 40th · Boise, Idaho 83714-6346 · (208) 342-6813 U I FAN MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS . INSPECT STARTER COILS AND CONTACTS OF FAN MOTOR . CLEAN OR CHANGE FILTERS AS REQUIRED . CHECK OPERATING CURRENT AND VOLTAGE OF FAN MOTORS . PERFORM COMBUSTION AND DRAFT TEST _ ON BURNER . LUBRICATE MOTOR BEARlNGS AND TIGHTEN ELECTRICAL CONNECTIONS . INSPECT AND CLEAN NOZZLES . TEST SAFETY CONTROLS FOR PROPER OPERATION . CHECK CONDITION OF DRIVE COUPLINGS AND BELTS AND REPAIR OR REPLACE AS REQUlRED . CHECK ZONE DAMPERS FOR PROPER OPERATION AND LUBRICATE AS REQUIRED . CHECK CONDENSER COIL FOR DAMAGE AND LEAKS . CHECK OPERATING SURFACE TEMPERATURE AND MEASURE VIBRATION . CHECK CRANKCASE HEATER ON COMPRESSOR FOR PROPER OPERATION . INSPECT HIGH PRESSURE SAFETY VALVE . CHECK CONTROLS FOR PROPER · CHECK REFRIGERANT CHARGE AND SEQUENCE OF OPERATION PERFORM ACID TEST Heating &. Air Conditioning MECHANICAL CONTRACTOR HEATING · AIR CONDfTfONfNG · SHEET METAL 120 E 40th. Boise, Idaho 83714. (208) 342-6813 Fax No. (208) 345-6935 *COMMERCIAL ACTION LIST* UNIT INFORMATION: MFG MODEL # SERIAL # APPROX AGE OF UNIT FILTER BELT ACTION LIST CHECK OFF 1. CHECK REFRlGERA TION CYCLE 2. CHECK SAFETY CONTROLS 3. CHECK BURNER OPERATION & FLUE ASSEMBLY 4. CHECK PILOT OPERATION 5. CHECK FOR PROPER FLAME 6. CHECK COMBUSTION AIR MOTOR: OIL Y IN 7. LOW AMBIENT CONTROL: YIN OK? 8. INSPECT CONDENSATION DRAINS 9. CHECK CONDENSING MOTORIF AN BLADES 10. CHECK ECONOMIZER 11. BELT: YES_ NO SIZE CONDITION 12. CHECK CONT ACTOR CONDITIONS 13. CHECK WIRING CONNECTIONS 14. CHECK THERMOSTAT IS. CHECK CONDENSER! EY APORATOR COIL IF ACCESSIBLE 16. COMPRESSOR: WORKING OK? YES NO 17. COMPRESSOR: AlYIPS_SP _HP _ WB 18. AMBIENT AIR TEMPERATURE ~ 120 E. 40th · Boise, Idaho 83714-6346 · (208) 342-6813 CONSEQUENCES ~ OF IMPROPER MAINTENANCE 1.. INCREASED TOTAL COST OF OWNERSHIP 2. COMFORT CONDlTIONS NOT MAINTAINED 3.. MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR COST NOT STABILIZED 4.. PREMATURE CAPITAL REPLACEMENT 5. INEFFICIENT FUEL CONSUMPTION EXAMPLES OF INEFFICIENT FUEL CONSUMPTION . POOR DAMPER ADJUSTMENT AND IMPROPER SEQUENCING CAN CAUSE 30- 50% UNNECESSARY HEAT LOSS . DIRT IN AIR HANDLING SYSTEMS REDUCES FLOW EFFICIENCY AS MUCH AS 25% . DIRTY CONDENSER COIL RAISES CONDENSING TEMPERATURE 150 AND CUTS OPERATING EFFICIENCY 15% iii 10% CONDENSER FAN BELT SLIPPAGE CAN CUT COOLING CAPACITY BY 5% o SCALE BUILDUP OF .05 INCHES CAN INCREASE FUEL CONSUMPTION BY 40% o TOO RICH FUEL/A!R MIXTURE CAN INCREASE FUEL CONSUMPTION 15% e .1 INCH OF SCALE ON BOILER WATER SIDE CAUSES 10% HEAT LOSS . 1/8" OF SOOT ON BOILER FIRESIDE CAUSES 30% HEAT LOSS II DIRTY BURNER DROPS HEATING EFFICIENCY AS MUCH AS 20% o A FAULTY 1/2 INCH STEAM TRAP CAN WASTE AS MUCH AS 20 GALLONS OF FUEL A DAY iii OVER HEATING BY 30 AT 500 OUTSIDE AIR TEMPERATUtiE WASTES 17% OF FUEL CONSUMED Heating &. Air Conditioning March 12. 2004 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING APPLICANT March 16,2004 ITEM NO. 5,0 REQUEST Additional Services - Black Lift Station with JUB AGENCY COMMENTS 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: See attached ~ ~~ Contacted: Emailed: Date: Staff Initials: Phone: Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. CitY of Meridian Public Works Dept. CEIVE Memo CiTY OF MERIDIAN rlTv r:1 FRK OFFlrr= To: Brad Watson From: Lenard Grady M CC: Gary Smith Date: 3/11/2004 Re: Proposed Agenda Items for March 16,2004 City Council Meeting The Public Works Department respectfully requests the following item(s) be placed on the March 16 City Council consent agenda: Additional Services - Black Cat Lift Station with JUS Attached is change order for additional services for this project for design of water main in conjunction with the sewer line. Additionally, construction services have been included. The total change is $59,259. Recommended Council Action: The Public Works Department recommends that City Council approve the additional services with JUS Engineers for water main design and construction services during the Black Cat Lift Station Project totaling $591259.00 and authorize the Mayor to sign it. Thank you for your consideration. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding any of these items. From the desk of.. . Lenard Grady Staff Engineer Meridian Public Works Department 660 E. Watertower, Suite 200 Meridian, Idaho 83642 . Page 1 (208) 898-5500 Fax: (208) 898-9551 gradyl@meridiancity.org ~ fa-U.S.) J-U-B ENGINEERS, Inc. ~ 250 S. Beechwood Avenue, Suite 201 . Boise, Idaho 83709-0944 . Telephone (208) 376-7330 . FAX (208) 323-9336 AUTHORIZATION FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES - NO.1 CLIENT: PROJECT NAME: CITY OF MERIDIAN BLACK CAT LIFT STATION AND PRESSURE SEWER 11873 J-U-B Project Number: The following additional items of work on the project referenced above have been or will be provided by J-U-B ENGINEERS, Inc. These additional services are a supplement to the scope of services contained in J-U-B's existing Agreement for Engineering Services for this project approved bv Citv Council on January 28, 2003. Additional Services: As described in Attachment A-1 and A-2 J-U-B ENGINEERS, Inc. was verbally authorized to provide these services by: Name nfa Date nfa Unless otherwise noted below, J-U-B ENGINEERS, Inc. will provide these additional services on a time and materials basis, using the Firm's standard billing rates, or if applicable, the billing rates established in the initial Agreement for Engineering Services. Other Basis for Payment: As outlined in Attachment "A-1" and "A-2". Dated this day of 2001. City of Meridian Print or Type Client Name J~U~B ENGINEERS, Inc. Client or Representative Signature By: By: Tammy deWeerd, Mayor. Print or Type Name and Title Phillip H. Krichbaum, P.E. - Proiect Manaqer Print or Type Name and Title Attest: William G. Berg, Jr., City Clerk J.U-B ENGINEERS, Inc. Attachment 'A-1' - 11873 CITY OF MERIDIAN - BLACK CAT TRUNK SEWER AND LIFT STATION AUTHORIZATION FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES NO.1 ATTACHMENT uA-1" J-U-B ENGINEERS, Inc., Project No. 11873 WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS SECTION 1 - PROJECT UNDERSTANDING Overview The City intends to construct 12" water mains at the following locations: Reach A: Black Cat Road from the entrance to Castle brook Subdivision south to Franklin Road (approximately 4,000 LF). To be incorporated into Black Cat Trunk Sewer Project. Reach B: Franklin Road from Black Cat Road to Ten Mile Road (approx. 5,300 LF). To be incorporated into Boise City Trunk Sewer Project. Reach C: Franklin Road approximately Y2 mile east of Ten Mile Road of the Meridian's School District's bus staging site (approximately 2,600 LF). To be designed as our independent water main project with Reach D. Reach D: Ten Mile Road approximately 250 feet north of Franklin Road To be designed as our independent water main project with Reach C. It is understood that water services, water meters, and associated items will not be incorporated into the design. Design will incorporate applicable City and JSPWC standard details and technical specifications. This amendment provides for engineering services for the aforementioned work and supplements the original agreement. SECTION 2 - CITY RESPONSIBILITIES · Provide water main sizing and locations of valves and fire hydrants. · Provide relevant record drawings of water system. · Coordinate improvements with pending private development. · Provide timely reviews and input as project progresses. SECTION 3 - SCOPE OF ADDITIONAL SERVICES TO BE COMPLETED J-U-B shall furnish services specifically limited to the following at an assumed level of effort depicted on Attachment B-1 and described herein: Task 1- Water Main Desil;!n and Incorporation with Black Cat Trunk Sewer Project A. Design of water main for reaches A and B and incorporate design as part of the construction plans for the Black Cat Trunk Sewer Project. The topographic survey Black Cat Lift Station a Trunk Sewer - Authorization for Additional Services No.1 Page 1 J.U.B ENGINEERS, Inc. Attachment 'A-t' - 11873 has been completed in this area. It is anticipated that the water main will be routed along the north side of the roadway or right-of-way. B. Crossings of the Kennedy Lateral on Black Cat and Franklin roads will be designed as a conventional horizontal boring or jacking. C. Crossing details for the UPRR will be incorporated with the permitting for the Black Cat Trunk Sewer. D. Technical specifications using the City's standards and ISPWC will be incorporated into the project. E. A quantity takeoff and cost estimate will be prepared for the water system improvements. Task 2 - Independent Water Main Project ( Reach C and D) A. Topographic survey for Reach C has been completed. Complete the topographic survey of Reach D per the methodology identified in the original agreement and supplement with additional detailing of exposed features on the Ten Mile Creek bridges. B. Design water main alignment and connections within the ROW of Ten Mile and Franklin roads with considerations for sanitary separation per State Public Drinking Water Regulations, ACHD corridor requirements, surface disturbance, constructability, traffic issues, utility conflicts, and other pertinent design issues. J-U-B shall perform design drafting in AutoCAD 2000 for the construction plans which will include the City's standard notes, vicinity maps, sheet indexes, north arrows, topography, pipe size, type, fitting, surface repair, crossing requirements, property lines, easements, found monuments and property corners, land ownerships, survey control, pay limits, and special details necessary for a biddable product. Drafting shall be completed on 22"x34" mylars, ANSI standard size "D" sheets at an antidpated scale of 1 "=50'. Prepare technical specifications and contract documents using the latest edition of the ISPWC. C. Ten Mile Creek crossings on Ten Mile and Franklin Roads will be designed using either of the following approaches. 1. Aerial crossing will be designed using a steel pipe casing spanning across the waterway by core drilling the bridge's wingwalls or abutments. Hanging the waterline from the bridge girders or decking will not be investigated. Suitability of the abutments for modifications will be based- upon available record drawings and direction from ACHD. 2. Alternatively, conventional horizontal borings or jacking under the waterway will be designed. Boring/jacking will not be designed under the bridge foundations, but off to either side of the bridge. It is anticipated that this work will likely require easement acquisition. D. Agency coordination and permitting is anticipated to include the follOWing tasks: 1. ACHD will be contacted and coordinated with on water main alignments and to determine if roadway or bridge improvements are planned. A site visit will be Black Cat Uft Station Et Trunk Sewer - Authorization for Additional Services No.1 Pa3e 2 J-u-a ENGINEERS, Inc. Attachment 'A-1' - 11873 completed with ACHD bridge\construction personnel regarding suitability for a aerial crossing. Bridge record drawings will be requested. 2. NMID will be coordinated with for the preparation of a license agreement. For the purpose of estimating fees, one (1) legal description is assumed will be required for submittal with the license agreement request. E. Plan Reviews and Final Revisions 1. Upon 90% completion of the plans and specifications, J-U-B shall submit review sets of plans ACHD, DEQ, NMID, and the City. DEQ checklists will be prepared as required. 2. A senior J-U-B staff engineer will conduct an in-house quaUty control and constructability review of the construction plans and contract documents. 3. J-U-B shall incorporate all appropriate revisions as suggested by the City and the permitting agencies in the final set of plans and specifications. Fifteen(15) sets will contract .documents will be prepared for public bidding the project. F. Easements may be required near the crossings of the Ten Mile Creek on Ten Mile and Franklin roads. The easement acquisition policy for the project will be initiated on an assumed two parcels. SECTION 4 - FEE SCHEDULE Basis of Fee and BillinQ Schedule The CITY shall pay J.U-B for its services and reimbursable expenses as follows: · Task 1 - Water Main Improvements Incorporated with Black Cat Trunk Sewer Project Items 1.A. through 1.E on a lump sum basis of .............................................. $ 8,545 · Task 2 - Independent Water Main Project Items 2.A, 2.B, and 2.E. on a lump sum basis of .......................................... $ 12,701 Items 2.C, 2.D., 2.F. on a time and materials basis, with an estimated budget of . $ 12,445 The basis for calculation of fees is presented in Attachment "B-1". Black Cat Lift Station 8: Trunk Sewer - Authorization tor Additional Services No.1 Page 3 Z o E en l- LL :i ...J Cl <l: Z't""1- <( 'W ~~Cl Wenl- ~~ffi n. - :2: .,,, > a. ~O:::::> zWa ::>enw O:::...J...... 1-<(.... I-ZZ <l:O<( C)i=O::: ~-o C)Clm <l:Cl<( .J<l:.J m ~., I 0 : zu..~ ~Z~ C1QI- o:::~Z W.....W 2~2 LLO::::c oOC) >.J:<( 1-1-1- -::>1- C)<l:<( , (. I/) <:> " '" .., "<t co ..,. '" co I/) co "<t '" T"" co" M UJ- ..; ,,; <l>- /,?- w- Ill- /,?- "''''' NNCON___I!}I.OM OO>O>N N<OO>I.Or-M-CO MMCON M M co ..>: -- (O(,[)COI() [",)OOv r--.T"""MIO IDl.Of"o.-Ooct-___t- v co.,... I.l) 10 lOt'- .. 0 ::I v(OQJN.......COCOC') NOMN V____V-f"-...,--NN __molO '<I" "<tN "':l5 E ~"""N-~6R-tA--ID"'9- N~U}U)- "("""" ~ YTfrTor-...fFt-___ N- V9- ~ tR- '" "'''': I-~} '" (J') (J') <'-J;..... '" ..... (J') (J') (J') '" <.<)- 0 I I I I I I I I I I 0 I ! I~~ I N I I I I I I I 0 I I I lci 10 I I I I I 0 0' T""O c:i ~! !'7" "-;"" 0 It) 10 N 0 10 10 0 0: ~o c:i c:i ~; CO: m' <R' u.<>c ,,;. I I~J I I I I It) , I I I~J 10 I lcil I I I I 10 I I I I I 0 I I I jci It) c:i N c:i c:i l!ji c:i ~ "<t '<t 0 N~M It) T"" It) ..- ~ It) 10 :-or; 0 .0 0 N t'- t'- ~ c:i 0 0 It) 10 T"" It) ~ It) It) ..- ..- 00 0 0 N N 0 0 '"",.~ NTlh~nl 0> I I I I ~r"- I n~ 6 61 10 I I~ rlO 1 I 0 1,;< ~. . , t'- t'- . ..; Nt'- t'-: "r'" 0 ..0 00 o~ 0;" 00 ~; .L9; ';;~,_:;.: 0 ll) ll) 10 ..- ..- ..- ..- lOll) ;<;,,~ NN 0 0 0 0 0 00 :.ti. 00 0' '."c ,.~ r-;:.i (',j' -: c,',_., 0 0 0 N N 0 ~":";' ~. m: (J') LOT"'"" ~tOU')T""" o ~~~c:i 000 It) ll) NN 00 10 M N o LOLOlOl.O ~ d~t\.!ci 'l"- 00 r~,"i o o o .l!l '" ~ >. '" D... >. "i:: ::I o :c QJ QJ >. o 0. E LU ~ C. a. <( c: ~ ~ ~I QJ '" 0 ,,,. E - ,- .. 5,~ ~ ~ :;c g15 ~ 5,,g -~ .~ 'iQ :rlCl;l~ -d)crnQ) OS$Zj o ll) cO .Q} fJ] .. c ll) ro 0- D... [!! ro a. [!! 0.. c [J) 'w ll) o ~e~~U) i::c:~8.<i ::;O:;:;Of- CI;lt)::>I-O ,0 "0 ..c 13 t- I~ :a j 1l ~ ~-5ll)OCl) tDL..m"C l~roC- '''' ll)'- QJ r=.rn"Eu:: &8~ 0"" .. :> 2 en Ej ~ :a 5,1s: w 2 Q) ~ ,Q a:: 'w il: i:! * <i c1a--lV"cCl)..c~ Cl52l:0cx(/)O :.:(115 c: ~ ro -8 'ai Iii ,~L~ 8 'S: .~g'E Cii :::J 'iQ (/) 52 & a. -g 0 (J) ",,,,lEll)roro" Cl~~;::~......ffi Cii '; CI;l ,52 * c:: C L- -a.V5 ~ .)J! ro ro ~a; OJ~o. go: &l= ~ <;l 0 OJ 0.. ~ I- ~ 5 [!!Ig " ro~ '-' a. 0.. [!! 0.. Q) ...I ~ o f- ~~ ~ .5 lli < .. ..c f- :g (I) 0 02 Iii 't;lOJ~ co (/) ro _ [J)'" o c CL..!!! 00.. ~ ~ ro '" c a. g~ :co.. ~ .. :!:~ ~o.. f- _ .~ c 'm ~IE ll) .c ~'~I'~ I': .. OJ 'iii~O :g C> g'1 ... 1::-- " ,- .. ""~:z :g III 0 ~ ~0t) _ [J) .!! .~ ,;; III ~ ~ :;.. ll) 0 :;..<(CO U..-N E :2 (J) Ig ::I ...J I c 'iij :!: ~ a> ~ c Cl 'Ci) a> C "iii 1~.;liI < '" m E Ul .- c.... ,28J Ul ....... 0)' Ill", :e:: .e 0 '; OJ::: () tnt::;-c o .- '" C ....cnci)RS u:g_Ul =: ... I:I:l Q.I- 0(,,) [,); :=,,"i:: +:: "'c::..cc .g'ia.. <> ~ i:j:::J ~ a lDUClll c .9' .. ll) o lD I~ ~ :2 Q) <> l:g III 12 o a. o f- < E ::I Q) g ::I ...I 10 o 10 It) ..- o 0 o o ,~~ 3 ~~~ 'Ettig 8-g~ Oro(/) cc OJ 0 E- ll) .g. :!: *' g <>6 _<(ll) I- c ll) 0 I EVJ"C ClC em C ,Q $ e E E -;;~::J m 'f! ,5 <( ro "",BID llJ OJ 0 II> a..oc 't;lOe liid::J cJ:u .2 ~ :a i:5 "~ '5 ':;: t;; olg~ o -- '- O-mg i}j::;: t) ~.I:2 Q [J)OJ2 <(i:i:z C..-N I] to LO Il) .,.... Il) to <to V 0 V '" '" 10 t-- V ,,; III a::r N N ..... ..... ~ .,.... .,.... ~ ~ "''''' ....Nv ....vO lOr--<.o Olr--o ...: -- I!) I!) "!. "<t. N co III a :::> "'.:i5 E ..... ..... .... .... M..... W I- Or~ ..... .......... cI:l JJ.. 8: J I 0 I I I I 0 ci c!t 0' <t.~ C 0' v'. () ~ N 0 ""' I!) .,.... (/) C'l 0 0 ~ ~ ~ (/) (/) C/) ~ ~ <t. l- I Idl Id .... n .... m; ~ .... .... "1 "1 ..- .... 0 N N J[) r""' dl J[) I r-- r-- . 0 0 . .... 0 <-~,'. 0 "1"- 10 '" .... N "'",I 0' 'r<.: N, .....: 0 0 0 I!) I!) Z 0 0 0 ~ n 10 10 10 0 I- "N r-- en "<1) o . ci '0. 0 I- u.. 8g~,; :J ...J - e ~ Q) CI) ~en L5~ Z or- t;j ....I tD"" W Cl:; ~ c.o -< <( ci ;:::.2 Ol- e >- 0 Q) x 00 '" Q)W 0::: Z 0.. I- Eu NI- l- m .....m W en z ~ ~ Me @):> $: W 3 (I) . '" -(I) W a III . 2 W (.) :E :J: Q) C 'E a .8 en :> c.. Q) E Q) Cg N Q) Q. ~ 0::: >- :::J 0. (J ::> 0. (I) a en Z W 0. III t: a c. Q) :::l en E E N CI 0. W W I", c. 0::: :::J 'E <I) ...J C >( ....I tJl 'Q) Cl:; I- <( . c E e 'a; Q) I- Z Z c. '" Q) ;:;; <( 0- C Q) III i= <C 0 <C a :2 '" en W t.) E 0:: '" OJ '- '> Q) 0 III C ~ e CIJ 3: m 0:: en ""' U C Iii <I) .... 0 <C <C tD .r: I~ <C c '" .!!l ...J ...J .- ...: Q) u.. (J :i5 ~~ m 0::: . '0'" :::J I 0 co.. 0.. .... <IS 3: 3: ..,.. "'0.. Z u.. I III CIl.!!! C I- <( fll ~ 'S: > a , Z III <I) Q).- J::l i3 Cl:; .!!l Q ":; 0:: > c I- CIJ ~ C CIl CIJ 0:: I- Z 0:: "'0:: E ~ C:<ii III W <C W C 1Il N '" ~ U C '" :E (2 :E a: 0.. OiL w u.. J: w .... NM u.. 0 0 t.) >- :c ~ l- I- ::J I- C3 <C <:( )-U-B ENGINEERS, Inc. Attachment 'A.2' - 11873 CITY OF MERIDIAN - BLACK CAT TRUNK SEWER AND LIFT STATION AUTHORIZATION FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES NO. 1 ATTACHMENT "A-2" J-U-B ENGINEERS, Inc., Project No. 11873 BID, AWARD, AND CONSTRUCTION ASSISTANCE SERVICES SECTION 1 - PROJECT UNDERSTANDING Overview The City intends to amend the original professional services agreement to include bidding and award services, and limited construction assistance services. Development of the fee estimate is based on the following assumed project: 1) Black Cat Pressure Sewer - Phase 1: Public ROW portion of the pressure sewer from the Lift Station to the Ustick Road near the Nine Mile Creek Crossing. SECTION 2 - CITY RESPONSIBILITIES The following additional items are to be provided by the City without cost to J-U-B. · Pay for all legal advertisement for bids. · City will serve as the construction engineer and Resident Project Representative (RPR). Roles of the Engineer and RPR during construction shall be defined in ISPWC Division 100, Standard General Conditions, and City's Standard Supplementary Conditions ~o the General Conditions. · J-U-B's role in the bidding and construction shall be in accordance with the ISPWC General Conditions as the Engineer's Consultant and J-U-B shall be afforded the same protections as the Engineer under said document. · As Engineer and RPR on the project, the City of Meridian shall perform duties as delineated in the ISPWC General Conditions and shall notify J-U-B prior to any modifications to the design furnished by J-U-B so we may have input on issues required by the modification. SECTION 3 - SCOPE OF ADDITIONAL SERVICES TO BE COMPLETED Services to be Performed by J-U-B: J-U-B shall furnish services specifically limited to the following on a time and materials basis at an assumed level of effort depicted on Attachment B-2 and described herein. The fee estimate is based on the assumed phasing described in Section 1. Black Cat Lift Station ft Trunk Sewer - Authorization for Additional Services No.1 Page 1 J.U.8 ENGINEERS, Inc. Attachment 'A.2' - 11873 TASK 1 - BID AND AWARD SERVICES A. Biddin~. Publishin~. and Administration J-U-B will provide 15 sets of the contract documents required for bidding purposes. Plans and contract documents will be distributed through J-U-B's Boise office. J-U-B will provide bid administration services to coordinate the Bid process with the City, prepare addenda when necessary during the Bid process to clarify bidding requirements, and assist in answering bidders' questions. B. Bid Opening and Award J-U-B will conduct the bid opening, review bids, prepare a bid abstract, provide recommendation for contract award to City, and prepare necessary contract documents to award the project. TASK 2 - CONSTRUCTION ASSISTANCE SERVICES A. Preconstruction Conference J-U-B will arrange and conduct a pre-construction conferences for the assumed phasing of the project with the contractor, City, ACHD, and affected utilities. Meeting minutes will be prepared. B. Construction Staking J-U-B shall provide one (1) set of construction control stakes in accordance with the approved plans for the pressure sewer and related structures. The Contractor shall be responsible for laying out aU work and protection of the control staking. Re-staking will be performed on an additional time and materials basis. The following stakes will be provided: A. Structures: Three (3) stakes per each manhole consisting of one (1) centerline stake and two (2) offset stakes. Each stake will be marked with the cut/fill to the manhole invert. B. Pressure Sewer: Stake at 200-foot stations and all angle points beginning at connections. At each station, two (2) offset stakes will be provided. C. Construction Assistance J-U-B's project manager and subconsultants will be available during construction on an as-needed basis as requested by the City, such as attending construction meetings, shop drawing reviews, reviewing pay applications, and limited site visits to observe general work progress. Black Cat Lift Station ft Trunk Sewer - Authorization for Additional Services No.1 Pase 2 J-U-B ENGINEERS, Inc. Attachment 'A-2' - 11873 D. Record Drawi ngs J-U-B will prepare record drawings from drawings received from the Contractor and City's resident project representative. SECTION 4 - FEE SCHEDULE Basis of Fee and Billin~ Schedule The CITY shall pay J-U-B for its services and reimbursable expenses as follows: . Bid and Award Services Task 1.A. and 1. B., on a time and materials basis, with an estimated budget .......... $4,165 . Construction Services Task l.A. through 2.0., on a time and materials basis, with an estimated budget ... $21,403 The basis for calculation of fees is presented in Attachment "B-2". F:\11873-Black Cat\11873-PM\Contract and Billing\add No.2attach.doc Black Cat Lift Station Et Trunk Sewer - Authorization far Additional Services No_ 1 Page 3 , CITY OF MERIDIAN -BLACK CAT TRuNK SEWER AND LIFT STATION AUTHORIZATION FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES NO.1 ATTACHMENT "B-2" - LABOR AND EQUIPMENT DETAIL "F;lj~<p,I?SE: . Mariacer'", ,';: ' Approx. Employee Hourly Pay Rate$~5.3'8'$29d:t. I ! TASK1n:':",B1DJAND;A~ARll)($E~VJPE~~f\&;{~,fI ATBid Document Publishinq and Adminstration -j Black Cat Pressure Sewer - Phase 1 2 I elAttend Bid Ooenina and Award I Black Cat Pressure Sewer - Phase 1 1 I I SUBTOTALS 3 0 I I I 'T~K:2i:.:.,,qON~;r8.uq;UO~i$ERVlCeSli;:;~j'f..l.; I " PLS& Err; SurVey.. .' ,'-, .:;.<:,.2- Man .. GPS Task TASK E.Neaoialoi .....' Technici~ri Or,;tiirrian ic,itricaISurVeYEquip;'; Subtotal ;,.: . TOTAL:; . . $27.04' $19.71 '.$11,16$16~64" $13.52 $36.40 $40.00. w/multi <"/ . 1;5 $2,834 0.5 0.5 $1,331 o 1.5 o o 2 o I o $4,165 A Conduct Preconstruction Conference Black Cat Pressure Sewer - Phase 1 0.5 B Construction Stakina Brack Cat Pressure Sewer - Phase 1 {11,ooO' 1.25 I C Construction Assistance Black Cat Pressure Sewer - Phase 1 8 4 o Record Drawinas Brack Cal Pressure Sewer - Phase 1 0.5 0,25 SUBTOTALS 9 0 1.5 4 0.25 $539 2.5 5 5 S6,223 $9,605 0.5 2 0.25 1 S3,036 3 2 1.5 5 6 $21,403 March 12, 2004 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING Department Reports March 16, 2004 ITEM NO. 7" A .. r== APPLICANT Fire Department - Kenny Bowers REQUEST Discussion with Fire Department donated extrictation equipment AGENCY COMMENTS 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: See attached tJ r ~;p ~ ~ vvJp ):- [;If aqt1 ~ ~ ~rt1Jf Contacted: Emailed: Date: Staff Initials: Phone: Materials presented at pUblic meetlngs shall become property of the City of Meridian. Meridian Fire Department 540 E. Franklin Road Meridian, [0 83642 208-888-1234 Fax 208-895-0390 Memo RECEIVED MAR - 5 2004 From: City Clerk Will Berg Chief Ken W. Bowers Irl~ City of Meridian City Clerk Office To: Date: March 4, 2004 Re: City Coundl Agenda Addition I would like to get on the City Council Agenda under Department Reports to update the City Council on donated extrication equipment. If you have any questions, just call me. Thanks, . Page 1 March 1 2, 2004 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING Department Reports March 1 6, 2004 ITEM NO. ~ tI1 ::L" APPLICANT Fire Department -- Kenny Bowers REQUEST Discussion with Fire Department fee Schedule AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLlCE 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: I DAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OffiCE: OTHER: See attached L . "Y , ~" l'~\~ {IVY r (J,O tJ Contacted: Emailed: Date: Staff Initials: Phone: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Meridian Fire Department 540 E. Franklin Road Meridian, 10 83642 208-888-1234 Fax 208-895-0390 Memo RECEIVED MAR .. 5 2004 City of Meridian City Clerk Office To: From: Date: Re: Mayor De Weerd, City Council Members, and City Clerk Will Berg Chief Ken W. Bowers ~ . March 4, 2004 Fee Schedule We have worked very closely with Attorney Bill Nichols on the Fee Schedule and he feels comfortable with the proposal. I would like to put this on the City Council Agenda under Department Reports, so we could answer any questions you may have. Thank you. . Page 1 MA YOR TAMMY DE WEERD COUNCIL MEMBERS WILLIAM L.M, NARY KEITH BIRD CHARLES M. ROUNTREE SHAUN WARDLE RURAL FIRE COMMISSIONERS RICHARD GREENE TERRY LEIGHTON STEVE ELLIOTI III \I-j< I CHIEF KEN W. BOWERS DEPUTY CHIEF - FIRE PREVENTION JOSEPH SILVA DEPUTY CHIEF - TRAINING BILL JOHNSON 540 East frunkJin Road Meridian. lD 83642 (208) [;88-1234 Fax (208) 895-0390 De/t;,;'~;~il~~~~;'i t,_.. _I.-.r :M'PRJ'DI.JLN CI'TY/'.RTI'R:4L :JI'R'E 'DET A'R'l..1vlENT March 3, 2004 RECEIVED MAR 1 2 2004 To: Mayor de Weerd & Members of the City Council From: Joseph Silva, Deputy Fire Chief Fire Prevention ~ ! L City of Meridian City Clerk Office Subject: Update on Fee Schedule When the fee schedule was proposed it was assumed that the Meridian Fire Department would use contract labor to complete the fire sprinkler plan review process. Richard Greene of Greene Fire Protection Consulting was the contractor to be utilized to provide this service. Due to a change in employers, Rich will not be able to provide this service in the near term. Currently the plan reviews for fire sprinkler systems are done as follows. The State Fire Marshal contracts with a vendor to perform the plan review on the project and charges $2.00 per sprinkler head. The Meridian Fire Department takes the approved set of plans and performs the underground inspections and several overhead inspections and charges $4.20 per head. This unfortunately has led to an inequity with the Meridian Fire Department charging $4.20 per head on top of the $2.00 per head charged by the State for the plan review. This means that the contractor is being charged $6.20 head. This was not the intent when the fee system was implemented. I would like to propose a solution to this short term problem. When the State Fire Marshal does the plan review and collects the $2.00 per head plan review fee, I propose that upon proof of payment of the State Fire Marshal fees, that the Meridian Fire Department credit that fee paid to the State Fire Marshal against the fees charged by the Meridian Fire Department. The net effect would be that the Contractor would then be paying the $4.20 that had been originally proposed and approved. It is believed that this is a short telm problem not to exceed one year. This solution would not require an amendment to the fee schedule. ~VC)0 ~05>t Jor- PLl bliu A)'r!iL& /ft1littltt<::/ CITY OF MERIDIAN' CITY COUNCil REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, March 16, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers 1. Roll-call Attendance: Shaun Wardle Bill Nary Charlie Rountree Keith Bird Mayor Tammy de Weerd 2. Pledge of Allegiance: 3. Community Invocation by Pastor Shawn Ragan with The Church of God Seventh Day: 4. Adoption of the Agenda: 5. Consent Agenda: A. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law for Approval: AZ 03- 022 Request for annexation and zoning of 5 acres from RT to C-G zones for Kissler (Dealv Parcel) by BRS Architects - southeast corner of East Ustick Road and North Eagle Road: B. Award of Bid for 2004 Sewer Cleaning I TV Inspection Project: C. HV AC Maintenance Renewal for the Meridian Police Department: D. Additional Services - Black Cat Lift Station with JUS: 6. Introduce Miss Meridian Hannah Bankhead: 7. Department Reports: A. Fire Department - Kenny Bowers 1. Discussion with Fire Department donated extrication equipment: 2. Discussion with Fee Schedule: 8. (Items Moved from Consent Agenda) Meridian City Council Agenda - March 16,2004 Page 10f2 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings please contact the City Clerk'$ Office at 8884433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. 9. FP 04-015 Request for Final Plat approval of 15 residential building lots and 4 other lots on 4.47 acres in a R-4 zone for Woodside Creek Subdivision by Woodside Properties, LLC - 1115 North Ten Mile Road: 10. Continued Public Hearing from March 9, 2004: RZ 03-013 Request for a Rezone of 5.51 acres from R-4 to C-N zones for proposed Cedar SprinQs Professional Center by Kevin Howell - north of West Ustick Road and west of North Meridian Road: 11. Continued Public Hearing from March 9, 2004: PP 03-044 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 5 commercial building lots and 1 common lot on 5.51 acres in a proposed C-N zone for proposed Cedar Sprinas Professional Center by Kevin Howell - north of West Ustick Road and west of North Meridian Road: 12. Continued Public Hearing from March 9, 2004: CUP 03-067 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for four office buildings, a car wash, two fuel pumps and a drive through coffee stand in a Neighborhood Center designation for proposed Cedar Sprinas Professional Center by Kevin Howell - north of West Ustick Road and west of North Meridian Road: 13. Public Hearing: AZ 03-036 Request for annexation and zoning of 19.7 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Salisbury Subdivision No.2 by Earl, Mason, and Stanfield, Inc. - south of West Ustick Road and west of North Meridian Road: 14. Public Hearing: PP 03-042 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 72 single-family residential building lots and 2 common lots on 19.7 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Salisbury Subdivision NO.2 by Earl, Mason and Stanfield, Inc. - south of West Ustick Road and west of North Meridian Road: 15. Public Hearing: CUP 03-072 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a drive-thru window for a proposed coffee shop for Central Park Plaza by Nahas Enterprises - northeast corner of South Progress Avenue and Central Drive: 16. Water, Sewer and Trash Delinquencies: 17. Ordinance No. Assistant to the Mavor: Administrative Meridian City Council Agenda - March 16,2004 Page 2 of2 All materials presented at public meetings sball become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings please contact the City Clerk's Office ilt 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. P\cC\se p~++;/tJLl611~ t\jM.\t~ - -l\~sB.~ , . .' ( MAYOR Tammy de Weerd ., F>l flt.:;/~i of1c;;di;~~"j~ '\~ I IDAHO ~ ,.. /} ~ k' C',o>v q/ - ~""...,.- .."",-,,-j...-;; '~'SI!lC' . \ 1903 LEGAL DEPARTMENT (208) 466-9272 . FAX 466.4405 PARKS & RECREATION (208) 888-3579 . Fax 898-5501 PUBLIC WORKS (208) 898.5500 . Fax 887-1297 BUfLDfNG DEPARTMENT (208) 887-221] . Fax 887-1297 PLANNING & ZONING (208) 884-5533 . Fax 888-6854 CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS Shaun Wardle William L. M. Nary Charles M. Rountree Keith Bird NOTICE OF PUBLIC AWARENESS MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL NOTICE OF AWARENESS IS HEREBY GIVEN that members of the City Council of the City of Meridian will be attending the open house of the Emergency Operation Center at ACCEM, at 7200 Barrister Drive, Boise, Idaho on Monday, March 15, 2004 at 11 :00 AM. This is not a meeting or workshop nor is there an agenda. DATED this 12th day of March, 2004. :. ;:~ 33 EAST IDAHO AVENUE. MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642. (208) 888-4433 City Clerk Office Fax (208) 888-42]8 . Human Resources Fax (208) 884-8723 . Finance & Utility Billing Fax (208) 887-4813 ** TX CONFIRMATION REPORT ** 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 32 DATE TIME TO/FROM 03/12 15:45 3810160 03/12 15:47 PUBLIC WORKS 03/12 15:48 12084664405 03/12 15:49 8841159 03/12 15:50 2088840744 03/12 15:52 POLICE DEPT 03/12 15:53 8985501 03/12 15:54 LIBRARY 03/12 15:56 92083776449 03/12 15:57 208 388 6924 03/12 15:58 2088886854 03/12 16:00 ALL AMERICAN INS 03/12 16:01 208 895 0390 03/12 16:02 128300040 03/12 16:03 208 387 6393 03/12 16:05 ADA CTY DEVELMT 03/12 16:06 CHERRY LANE 03/12 16:08 POST OFFICE 03/12 16:10 IDAHO ATHLETIC C 03/12 16:11 887 0816 03/12 16:13 ID PRESS TRIBUNE 03/12 16:14 2088886701 03/12 16:19 8885052 AS OF MAR 12 '04 16:20 PRGE.01 MODE EC--S EC--S EC--S EC--S EC--S EC--S EC--S EC--S EC--S EC--S EC--S EC--S EC--S G3--S EC--S EC--S G3--S EC--S EC--S G3--S EC--S EC--S EC--S CITY OF MERIDIRN MIN/SEC PGS 01'08" 002 00'42" 002 00'42" 002 00'42" 002 00'42" 002 00'41" 002 00'41" 002 00'52" 002 021'41" 2102 00'51" 21212 00'41" 002 00'41" 002 210'41" 002 00'53" 002 00'41" 002 00'40" 002 01'20" 002 01'08" 002 00'41" 002 01'20" 002 00'41" 002 00'41" 002 00'41" 002 CMDtI 152 152 152 152 152 152 152 152 152 152 152 152 152 152 152 152 152 152 152 152 152 152 152 STRTUS OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK -----------------------~--------------------------------------------------------~----------- v~ Ko5kfor PUbUG /Ubr/iLL -frLA/tts'J CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, March 16, 2004 at 7:00 p.rn.. City Council Chambers 1. Roll-call Attendance: Shaun Wardle 8i11 Nary Charlie Rountree Keith Bird Mayor Tammy de Weerd 2, Pledge of Allegiance: 3. Community Invocation by Pastor Shawn Ragan with The Church of God Seventh Day: 4. ,Adoption of the Agenda: I:. ,f'^",_....._. ... ....__.......~_ AS OF MAR 16 '1214 23:44 PAGE. 1211 ** TX CONFIRMATION REPORT ** CITY OF MERIDIAN STATUS OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK MIWSEC PGS 1211'38" 1211213 121121'58" 1211213 1211'121121" 1211213 121121'59" 1211213 121121'59" 1211213 121121' 58" 1211213 121121'59" 1211213 1211' 16" 1211213 1210'58" 1211213 1211' 16" 1211213 00'59" 1211213 121121' 59" 1211213 0121' 58" 1211213 121121' 59" 12183 121121' 59" 883 1211'56" 1211213 01'43" 81213 121121'58" 1211213 121121'58" 1211213 121121'59" 01213 CMDt:t 186 186 186 186 186 186 186 186 186 186 186 186 186 186 186 186 186 186 186 186 MODE EC--S EC--S EC--S EC--S EC--S EC--S EC--S EC--S EC--S EC--S EC--S EC--S EC--S EC--S EC--S 83--S EC--S EC--S EC--S EC--S DATE TIME TO/FROM 1213/16 23:11 38112116121 1213/16 23:13 PUBLIC WORKS 1213/16 23:14 121218466441215 1213/16 23:16 8841159 1213/16 23:17 21218884121744 1213/16 23:19 POLICE DEPT 1213/16 23:21 898551211 1213/16 23:22 LIBRARY 1213/16 23:24 9212183776449 1213/16 23:25 21218 388 6924 1213/16 23:27 212188886854 1213/16 23:28 21218 895 12139121 83/16 23:38 21218 387 6393 1213/16 23:31 ADA CTY DEUELMT 1213/16 23:33 888512152 1213/16 23:35 CHERRY LANE 1213/16 23:37 POST OFFICE 1213/16 23:4121 IDAHO ATHLETIC C 1213/16 23:41 ID PRESS TRIBUNE 1213/16 23:43 212188886781 1219 18 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2121 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -----------------------------------------------------~-----------------------------------~-- REVISED 3-16-04 CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, March 16. 2004 at 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers 1. Roll-call Attendance: L Shaun Wardle . _2(._ Bill Nary tJ:!L- Charlie ~untrae =::&: Keith Bird tfI'vl@1:2.( (.Jhv Mayor Tammy de Weerd Pledge of Allegiance: tim f i/ZJofl.i! I Community Invocation by Pastor Shawn Ragan with The Church of God Seventh Day: ~ t<.,.,vkA- Adoption of the Agenda: #fl?rf)V..e... l-e.vi'J<a.. a~t:V Consent Agenda: 2. 3. 4. 5. A. Findings of Fact and ConchLq,lnn~ nf I ~\.. ~...... A___~_ . ADA COUNTY RECORDER J' , 80lSE IDAHO (}3124104 11'320,. NAVARRO DEPUTY Kathy Ingraham' h," 53 RE~O~DED-REaUEST OF ~gff:: C;~no 11l1I/1"'lfIIYbq~!1BIIIIlII/ '11 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PARTIES: 1. 2. 2. City of Meridian Charles H. and Vickie A. Richardson, Owner Quasar Development, LLC, Developer THIS ~EVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (this "Agreement"), is made and entered into this 15-1~ day of 111 tvLC../u ,2004, by and between CITY OF MERIDIAN, a municipal corporation of the State of Idaho, hereafter called "CITY', and CHARLES H. and VICKIE A. RICHARDSON, whose address is 1835 E. Victory Road, Meridian, Idaho 83642, hereinafter called "OWNER", and QUASAR DEVELOPMENT, LLC, whose address is 3090 Gentry Way, Meridian, Idaho 83642, hereinafter called "DEVELOPER" . 1. RECITALS: 1.1 WHEREAS, "OWNER" is the sole owner, in law and/or equity, of certain tract of land in the County of Ada, State of Idaho, described in Exhibit A for each owner, which is attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein as if set forth in full, herein after referred to as the "Property"; and 1.2 WHEREAS, I.C. S 67-6511A, Idaho Code, provides that cities may, by ordinance, require or permit as a condition ofre-zoning that the "Owner" and/or "Developer" make a written commitment concerning the use or development of the subject "Property"; and 1.3 WHEREAS, "City" has exercised its statutory authority by the enactment of Ordinance 11-15-12 and 11-16-4 A, which authorizes development agreements upon the annexation and/or re-zoning of land; and 1.4 WHEREAS, "Developer" has submitted an application for annexation and zoning of the "Property's" described in Exhibit A, and has requested a designation of (R-8) Medium Density Residential District, (Municipal Code of the City of Meridian); and 1.5 WHEREAS, "Developer" made representations at the public hearings both before the Meridian Planning & Zoning Conunission DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ-03-0 15) PAGE 1 OF 34 1.9 and before the Meridian City Council, as to how the subject "Property" will be developed and what improvements will be made; and 1.6 WHEREAS, record of the proceedings for the requested annexation and zoning designation of the subject "Property" held before the Planning & Zoning Commission, and subsequently before the City Council, include responses of government subdivisions providing services within the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction, and received further testimony and comment; and 1.7 eft... r: WHEREAS, City Council, the f} - day of \J M1... , 2004, has approved certain Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order, set forth in Exhibit B, which are attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein as if set forth in full, hereinafter referred to as (the "Findings"); and 1.8 WHEREAS, the Findings require the "Owner" and "Developer" to enter into a development agreement before the City Council takes final action on annexation and zoning designation; and 1.9 "OWNER" and "DEVELOPER" deem it to be in its best interest to be able to enter into this Agreement and acknowledges that this Agreement was entered into voluntarily and at its urging and requests; and WHEREAS, "City" requires the "Owner" and "Developer" to enter into a development agreement for the purpose of ensuring that the "Property" is developed and the subsequent use of the "Property" is in accordance with the terms and conditions of this development agreement, herein being established as a result of evidence received by the "City" in the proceedings for annexation and zoning designation from govermnent subdivisions providing services within the planning jurisdiction and from affected property owners and to ensure annexation and zoning designation is in accordance with the amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian adopted August 6, 2002, Resolution No. 02-382, and the Zoning and Development Ordinances codified in Meridian City Code Title 11 and Title 12. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ-03-015) PAGE 2 OF 34 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 2. INCORPORATION OF RECITALS: That the above recitals are contractual and binding and are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 3. DEFINITIONS: For all purposes of this Agreement the following words, terms, and phrases herein contained in this section shall be defined and interpreted as herein provided for, unless the clear context of the presentation of the same requires otherwise: 3.1 "CITY": means and refers to the City of Meridian, a party to this Agreement, which is a municipal Corporation and government subdivision of the state of Idaho, organized and existing by virtue oflaw of the State ofIdaho, whose address is 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho 83642. 3.2 "DEVELOPER": means and refers to Quasar Development, LLC, whose address is 3090 Gentry Way, Meridian, Idaho 83642, the party developing said "Property" and shall include any subsequent owner(s)/developer(s) of the "Property". 3.3 "OWNER": means and refers to Charles H. and Vickie A. Richardson, whose address is 1835 E. Victory Road, Meridian, Idaho 83642, the party owning said <'Properti' being developed and shall include any subsequent owner(s)/developer(s) of the '<Property" . 3.4 "PROPERTY": means and refers to that certain parcel(s) of "Property" located in the County of Ada, City of Meridian as described in Exhibit A describing the parcels to be annexed and zoned R -8 attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein as if set forth at length. 4. USES PERMITTED BY THIS AGREEMENT: 4.1 The uses allowed pursuant to this Agreement are only those uses allowed under '<City's" Zoning Ordinance codified at Meridian City Code Section 11-7-2 (D) which are herein specified as follows: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ-03-015) PAGE 3 OF 34 Construction and development of a planned development consisting of 41 building lots with 9 other lots on in a proposed R-8 zone. 4.2 No change in the uses specified in this Agreement shall be allowed without modification of this Agreement. 5. DEVELOPMENT IN CONDITIONAL USE: "Developer" has submitted to "City" an application for conditional use permit, and shall be required to obtain the "City's" approval thereof, in accordance to the City's Zoning & Development Ordinance criteria, therein, provided, prior to, and as a condition of, the commencement of construction of any buildings or improvements on the "Property" that require a conditional use permit. 6. CONDITIONS GOVERNING DEVELOPMENT OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: 6.A "Developer" shall develop the "Property" in accordance with the following special conditions: ANNEXATION AND ZONING CONDITIONS: A. Adopt the Recommendations of the Meridian Planning & Zoning Department as follows: 1. Remove any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project from their domestic service, per City Ordinance Section 5-7 -517, when services are available from the City of Meridian. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation. 2. The following are addressed within this Development Agreement: pathway standards and fencing requirements for the Pathway and micropaths. B. Adopt the Recommendations of the ACHD as follows: 1. The Board of Commissioners authorizes the expenditure of available collected impact fees for the purchase of right-of-way dedicated by the applicant, with the applicant constructing a sidewalk as described below. However, if funds cannot be secured, the applicant shall do one of the following: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ-03-015) PAGE 4 OF 34 a. Dedicate by donation (or through a development offset agreement whereby the applicant is reimbursed from impact fees to be collected solely from the applicant's specific development project) a total of35-feet of right-of-way from centerline (an additionallO-feet of right-of-way) along Victory Road, and construct a minimum 5- foot wide concrete sidewalk along Victory Road, located a minimum of2S-feet 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 Victory 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 Victory Road, located at the back edge of the existing right-of-way. Accomplish all necessary adjustments to properly accommodate existing drainage and utilities. 2. The applicant shall do one of the following: a. Dedicate by donation a total of 35-feet from centerline (an additional 1 O-feet) of right-of-way along Locust Grove Road, and construct a minimum 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk along Locust Grove Road, located a minimum of 28- feet 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 Locust Grove 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 Locust Grove 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 West Sagemoor Street to intersect Victory Road approximately 185-feet west of the east property line, as proposed. 4. Construct West Sagemoor Street to intersect Locust Grove Road approximately 350-feet north of Victory Road, as proposed. 5. Construct West Sagemoor Street as a 29-foot street section with curb, gutter and detached 4-foot concrete sidewalk with parking on one side of the roadway within 50-feet of right-of-way, as proposed. Parking will be restricted on one side of the roadway and adequate signage will be required. (The 4-foot concrete sidewalk was approved by Andrea Tuning of ACHD via email on March 9, 2004.) DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ-03-015) PAGE 5 OF 34 6. Construct South Savia Place as a 29-foot street section with curb, gutter and sidewalk within 42-feet ofright-of-way, a proposed. Parking will be restricted on one side of the roadway and adequate signage will be required. 7. Construct a private road, South Sagemoor Lane, to intesect West Sagemoor Drive approximately 2IS-feet west of West Sagemoor Street. Terminate the private road at the northern property line of the proposed landscape buffer and install traffic bollards to minimize the connection. 8. lfthe City of Meridian approves the private road, pave the private roadway a minimum of20 to 24-feet wide and at least 30-feet into the site beyond the edge of pavement of West Sagemoor Drive and install pavement tapers with IS-foot curb radii abutting the existing roadway edge. Provide a plan showing how the private road grade meets the public road. Street name and stop signs are required for the private road. Verification of the correct, approved name of the road is required. 9. Construct a cul-de-sac turnaround without a center island at the terminus of South Savia Place. Provide a minimum turning radius of 45-feet for the turnaround. 10. Victory Road and Locust Grove Road are classified roadways. Other than the access points that are specifically approved with this application, direct lot access to Locust Grove Road and Victory Road are prohibited. Notes of the lot access restrictions are required on the final plat. 11. Comply with all Standard Conditions of Approval. Standard Conditions of Approval 1. 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. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ-03-015) PAGE 6 OF 34 4. Utility street cuts in pavement less than five years old are not allowed unless approved in writing by the District. Contact the District's Utility Coordinator at 387-6258 (with file numbers) for details. 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. 9. It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify all existing utilities within the right-of-way. The applicant at no cost to ACHD shall repair existing utilities damaged by the applicant. The applicant shall be required to call DIGLINE (1- 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 oftrus 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 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ-03-015) PAGE 7 OF 34 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. The project which comprised of single family dwellings will require a flIe-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 Ill-A 2. Acceptance of the water supply for fire protection will be by the Meridian Water Department. 3. Final Approval of the flIe hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department. The proposed fire hydrant locations will be submitted to the Public Works for plan reVIew. 4. All roads and fire lanes shall have a turning radius of28' inside and 48' outside. 5. Operational fire hydrants and temporary or permanent street signs are required before combustible construction begins. UFC 901.4.2 & 901.3 D. Adopt the Recommendations of the N ampa & Meridian Irrigation District as follows: 1. The District requires a Land Use Application to be filed for review prior to final platting for PP-03-020. All laterals and waste ways must be protected. The District's Eight Mile Lateral courses along the east and north boundary. This easement must be protected and any encroaclunent without a signed License Agreement and approved plan, before any construction is started, is unacceptable. All municipal surface drainage must be retained on site. If any surface drainage leaves the site, the District must review drainage plans. The developer must comply with Idaho Code 31-3805. E. Adopt the Recommendations of the Parks Department as follows: 1. Any proposed pathways must conform to the recommended pathway standards. F. Adopt the action of the City Council taken at their January 6, 2004 meeting as follows: 1. The developer has submitted an approved Preliminary Plat dated 12/29/2003 with the DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ-03-015) PAGE 8 OF 34 Transmittal Letter dated 12/31/03, and which provides for a traffic calming island at the intersection of S. Signorello Lane and E. Sagemoore Drive. This Plat is approved. 2. The developer shall be allowed a reduced rear setback of five feet but it shall only apply to garages only. PRELIMINARY PLAT CONDITIONS: A. Adopt the Special Recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission as follows: 1. Install a swing gate on proposed private street per the recommendation of the Meridian Fire Department. 2. Add 28' feet of grass crete and subtract 28' of asphalt from the proposed private street. 3. Add a third bullet on page 10, item 10, to add a note on the plat requiring a cross- access agreement for each set of shared driveways. 4. Add a second bullet on page 10, item 10, to add a note on the plat stating that no sight obscuring fence shall be taller than 4' in height along the regional pathway, micropaths, or open areas. B. Adopt the Recommendations of the Planning and Zoning and Engineering staff as follows: 1. Sanitary sewer and water service to this site shall be via main line extensions from existing mains in the area. Applicant will be responsible for constructing the sewer and water mains to and through this proposed development. Subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works Department The developers of the Tuscany Village Subdivision, located at the southwest comer of Victory Road and Locust Grove Road, have proposed to extend the Ten Mile trunk line through their proposed subdivision, rather than following Meridian's Public Works master plan which shows the Ten Mile Trunk route following Victory Road and Locust Grove. If the Meridian City Council approves this alternate route for the Ten Mile Trunk at their September 9th meeting, sewer will not be readily accessible DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ-03-015) PAGE 9 OF 34 to the developers of the Sageland Subdivision, and a substantial amount of off-site main would have to be installed by this developer. 2. A permanent pedestrian easement, in favor of the City of Meridian, shall be recorded for the pedestrian pathway prior to the final plat being recorded. The instrument number for the easement shall be referenced on the final plat. The easement shall be sufficient width to cover the 20-foot wide pathway shown. The 10-foot wide hard surfaced pathway shall be constructed and fully improved prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for any building within the subdivision. Additionally, a note shall be added to the face of the final plat indicating the City of Meridian is responsible for the maintenance of the pathway surface located within the easement. The note shall also indicate who will be responsible for landscaping maintenance within the easement. 3. Underground year-round pressurized irrigation must be provided to all landscape areas on site. The applicant has indicated that the pressurized irrigation system within this development is to be connected to an existing Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District system. If a single-point backup 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. 4. A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted with the final plat application. The detailed landscape plan shall include a 6' wrought iron fence along the western and southern edges of the proposed neighborhood park to make it more difficult for children using the neighborhood park to come into contact with traffic on Locust Grove Road and Victory Road. 5. Revise the proposed Private Street to meet the Private Street standards of Meridian's Planned Development ordinance. 6. All grading ofthe site shall be performed in conformance with MCC ll-12-3H. 7. Submit up-to-date groundwater monitoring report to the Public Works Department for review. The report submitted with the application only identifies the groundwater elevation on the day the test holes were dug in April. The initial study indicates that shallow groundwater may be a factor. All drainage areas (detention/retention basins) must be designed to ensure that water is retained only during 100-year storm events, and for a period of time not to exceed 24 hours. Side slopes within drainage areas shall not exceed 3: 1. The project engineer should pay close attention to the results of field studies determining the groundwater, soil type & and characteristics during the DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ-03-015) PAGE 10 OF 34 design and construction phases. The engineer shall be required to certifY that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of3-feet above the highest established normal groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least I-foot above groundwater. 8. Sidewalks shall be installed within the subdivision and on the perimeter of the subdivision pursuant to MCC 12-13-10-8. (4-foot concrete sidewalks are approved by the Planning and Zoning Department via email from Wendy Kirkpatrick dated March 9,2004.) 9. Coordinate fIre hydrant placement with the City of Meridian Public Works Department. lO. Add or revise the following preliminary plat notes: - Add a note to the face of the plat that requires any re-subdi vision of this plat to be in compliance with the most recently approved subdivision standards of the City of Meridian. -Add a note to the face of the plat stating that no sight-obscuring fence shall be taller than four feet in height. 11. Ten (10) copies of the revised plat has been submitted to the City Clerk's Office for this plat stamp dated December 29,2003. GENERAL COMMENTS 1. Submit a copy of the Ada County Street Name Committee's approval letter for the subdivision name, and the lot and block numbering. Make any corrections necessary to conform. 2. Coordinate fire hydrant placement with the City of Meridian Public Works Department. 3. A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all fencing, landscaping, play equipment, pressurized irrigation, sanitary sewer, water, etc., prior to signature on the final plat. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ-03-015) PAGE l1 OF 34 4. All micro-paths within the proposed subdivision shall be designed in accordance with MCC 12-13-15 "Micropath Landscaping". 5. A detailed landscape plan, in compliance with the landscape ordinance shall be submitted for the subdivision with the final plat application. 6. Sidewalks within the proposed subdivision shall be built in accordance with M CC 12- 13-10-8. (4-foot concrete sidewalks are approved by the Plarming and Zoning Department via email from Wendy Kirkpatrick dated March 9,2004.) 7. 250 and 100-watt, 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. The street light contractor shall obtain design and permit from the Public Warks Department prior commencing installations. 8. The subject property has a number of mature trees. Any tree over 4" in caliper that is removed from the property shall be replaced by installing additional trees, being the equivalent number of caliper inches of trees that were removed. Required landscaping trees will not be considered as replacement trees for those trees that have to be removed. 9. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. 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. C. Adopt the Recommendations of ACHD as follows: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ-03-0l5) PAGE 12 OF 34 1. The Board of Commissioners authorizes the expenditure of available collected impact fees for the purchase of right-of-way dedicated by the applicant, with the applicant constructing a sidewalk as described below. However, if funds cannot be secured, the applicant shall do one of the following: a. Dedicate by donation (or through a development offset agreement whereby the applicant is reimbursed from impact fees to be collected solely from the applicant's specific development project) a total of 35-feet of right-of-way from centerline (an additionallO-feet of right-of-way) along Victory Road, and construct a minimum 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk along Victory Road, located a minimum of 28-feet 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 Victory 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 Victory Road, located at the back edge of the existing right-of-way. Accomplish all necessary adjustments to properly accommodate existing drainage and utilities. 2. The applicant shall do one of the following: a. Dedicate by donation a total of 35-feet from centerline (an additionallO-feet) of right-of-way along Locust Grove Road, and construct a minimum 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk along Locust Grove Road, located a minimum of28-feet 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 Locust Grove 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 Locust Grove 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 West Sagemoor Street to intersect Victory Road approximately 185-feet west of the east property line, as proposed. 4. Construct West Sagemoor Street to intersect Locust Grove Road approximately 350-feet north of Victory Road, as proposed. 5. Construct West Sagemoor Street as a 29-foot street section with curb, gutter and DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ.03-0] 5) PAGE 13 OF 34 detached 4-foot concrete sidewalk with parking on one side of the roadway within 50-feet ofright-of-way, as proposed. Parking will be restricted on one side of the roadway and adequate signage will be required. ((The 4-foot concrete sidewalk was approved by Andrea Tuning of ACHD via email on March 9,2004.) 6. Construct South Savia Place as a 29-foot street section with curb, gutter and sidewalk within 42-feet of right-of-way, a proposed. Parking will be restricted on one side of the roadway and adequate signage will be required. 7. Construct a private road, South Sagemoor Lane, to intesect West Sagemoor Drive approximately 215-feet west of West Sagemoor Street. Terminate the private road at the northern property line of the proposed landscape buffer and install traffic bollards to minimize the connection. 8. If the City of Meridian approves the private road, pave the private roadway a minimum of20 to 24-feet wide and at least 30-feet into the site beyond the edge of pavement of West Sagemoor Drive and install pavement tapers with 15-foot curb radii abutting the existing roadway edge. Provide a plan showing how the private road grade meets the public road. Street name and stop signs are required for the private road. Verification of the correct, approved name of the road is required. 9. Construct a cul-de-sac turnaround without a center island at the terminus of South Savia Place. Provide a minimum turning radius of 45-feet for the turnaround. 10. Victory Road and Locust Grove Road are classified roadways. Other than the access points that are specifically approved with this application, direct lot access to Locust Grove Road and Victory Road are prohibited. Notes of the lot access restrictions are required on the final plat. 11. Comply with all Standard Conditions of Approval. Standard Conditions of Approval 1. 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. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ-03-015) PAGE 14 OF 34 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 the District's Utility Coordinator at 387-6258 (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 ofIdaho 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. The applicant at no cost to ACHD shall repair existing utilities damaged by the applicant. 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 oftrus 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. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ-03-0 15) PAGE 15 OF 34 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, reguiations, 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 Meridian Fire Department Recommendations as follows: 1. The project which comprised of single 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 ill-A 2. Acceptance of the water supply for fire protection will be by the Meridian Water Department. 3. Final approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department The proposed fire hydrant locations will be submitted to the Public Works for plan review. 4. All roads and fire lanes shall have a turning radius of28' inside and 48' outside. 5. Operational fire hydrants and temporary or permanent street signs are required before combustible construction begins. UFC 901.4.2 & 901.3 6. Traffic bollards depicted at the southern entrance to S. Signorello Lane, the proposed private drive, need to be removed from the plat. 7. Note that parking is prohibited on both sides of S. Signorello Lane. 8. Note that parking is prohibited on the southern side ofE. Sagemoor Drive and the west side of S. Siduri Lane. 9. Note that parking is prohibited in front oOots 20,21,22, and 23 of Block 2 along the western side of S. Savia Place. E. Adopt the Recommendation of Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District as follows: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ-03-015) PAGE 16 OF 34 1. Applicant shall apply for a Land Use Change/Site Application and filed for review prior to fmal platting for PP-03-020. All laterals and waste ways must be protected. The District's Eight Mile Lateral courses along the east and north boundary. This easement must be protected and any encroachment without a signed License Agreement and approved plan, before any construction is started, is unacceptable. All municipal surface drainage must be retained on site. If any surface drainage leaves the site, the District must review drainage plans. The developer must comply with Idaho Code 31-3805. F. Adopt the Recommendations of the Central District Health Department as follows: 1. This proposal can be approved for central sewage & central water after written approval from appropriate entities is submitted. 2. The Applicant's central sewage and central water plans must be submitted to and approved by the Idaho Department of Health & Welfare, Division of Enviromnental Quality. 3. Run-off is not to create a mosquito breeding problem. 4. Stormwater shall be pretreated through a grassy swale prior to discharge to the subsurface to prevent impact to groundwater and surface water quality. 5. The Engineers and architects involved with the design of the subject project shall obtain current best management practices for storm water disposal and design a storm water management system that prevents groundwater and surface water degradation. G. Adopt the Recommendations of the Parks Department as follows: 1. The pathway must comply with the recommended pathway standards. H. Adopt the action of the City Council taken at their January 6,2004 meeting as follows: 1. The revised submitted plat Exhibit "B" adds a note to reflect that rear yard setbacks for detached garages shall be 5 feet. DEVELOPMENT AG REEMENT (AZ-03-0 [5) PAGE 17 OF 34 2. The developer has submitted an approved Preliminary Plat dated 12/29/2003 with the Transmittal Letter dated 12/31/03, and which provides for a traffic calming island at the intersection of S. Signorello Lane and E. Sagemoore Drive. This Plat is approved. 3. The revised Preliminary Plat denotes 41 building lots with 9 other lots. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CONDITIONS: A Adopt the Recommendations of the Planning and Zoning and Engineering staff as follows: 1. Applicant shall meet all of the requirements of the preliminary plat as a condition of the Conditional Use Permit 2. All development shall comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 3. The reductions to the frontage and minimum lot sizes are approved as submitted, with the clarification that the reduced rear setback of five feet only applies to garages. B. Adopt the Recommendations of the Ada County Highway District as follows: 1. The Board of Commissioners authorizes the expenditure of available collected impact fees for the purchase of right-of-way dedicated by the applicant, with the applicant constructing a sidewalk as described below. However, if funds cannot be secured, the applicant shall do one of the following: a. Dedicate by donation (or through a development offset agreement whereby the applicant is reimbursed from impact fees to be collected solely from the applicant's specific development project) a total of 35-feet of right-of-way from centerline (an additional10-feet of right-of-way) along Victory Road, and construct a minimum 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk along Victory Road, located a minimum of28-feetn-om the centerline ofthe right-of-way. b. Do not dedicate additional right-of-way, but construct a minimum 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk along Victory 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 Victory Road, located at the back edge of the existing DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ-03-015) PAGE 18 OF 34 ( right-of-way. Accomplish all necessary adjustments to properly accommodate existing drainage and utilities. 2. The applicant shall do one of the following: a. Dedicate by donation a total of 35-feet from centerline (an additional lO-feet) of right-of-way along Locust Grove Road, and construct a minimum 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk along Locust Grove Road, located a minimum of 28- feet 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 Locust Grove 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 Locust Grove 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 West Sagemoor Street to intersect Victory Road approximately 185-feet west of the east property line, as proposed. 4. Construct West Sagemoor Street to intersect Locust Grove Road approximately 350-feet north of Victory Road, as proposed. 5. Construct West Sagemoor Street as a 29-foot street section with curb, gutter and detached 4-foot concrete sidewalk with parking on one side of the roadway within 50-feet of right-of-way, as proposed. Parking will be restricted on one side of the roadway and adequate signage will be required. (The 4-foot concrete sidewalk was approved by Andrea Tuning of ACHD via email on March 9, 2004.) 6. Construct South Savia Place as a 29-foot street section with curb, gutter and sidewalk within 42-feet of right-of-way, a proposed. Parking will be restricted on one side of the roadway and adequate signage will be required. 7. Construct a private road, South Sagemoor Lane, to intesect West Sagemoor Drive approximately 215-feet west of West Sagemoor Street. Terminate the private road at the northern property line of the proposed landscape buffer and install traffic boIlards to minimize the connection. 8. If the City of Meridian approves the private road, pave the private roadway a DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ-03-015) PAGE 19 OF 34 minimum of20 to 24-feet wide and at least 3D-feet into the site beyond the edge of pavement of West Sagemoor Drive and install pavement tapers with IS-foot curb radii abutting the existing roadway edge. Provide a plan showing how the private road grade meets the public road. Street name and stop signs are required for the private road. Verification of the correct, approved name of the road is required. 9. Construct a cul-de-sac turnaround without a center island at the terminus of South Savia Place. Provide a minimum turning radius of 45-feet for the turnaround. 10. Victory Road and Locust Grove Road are classified roadways. Other than the access points that are specifically approved with this application, direct lot access to Locust Grove Road and Victory Road are prohibited. Notes of the lot access restrictions are required on the final plat. 11. Comply with all Standard Conditions of ApprovaL Standard Conditions of Approval 1. 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 the District's Utility Coordinator at 387-6258 (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 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ-03-015) PAGE 20 OF 34 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. The applicant at no cost to ACHD shall repair existing utilities damaged by the applicant. 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 ofthe 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 Reconunendations of the Meridian Fire Department as follows: 1. The project which comprised of single family dwellings will require a fire-flow ofl,OOO 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 rn-A 2. Acceptance of the water supply for fire protection will be by the Meridian DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ~03-015) PAGE210F34 Water Department. 3. Final approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department. The proposed fire hydrant locations will be submitted to the Public Works for plan reVIew. 4. All roads and fire lanes shall have a turning radius of28' inside and 48' outside. 5. Operational fire hydrants and temporary or permanent street signs are required before combustible construction begins. UFC 901.4.2 & 901.3 6. Traffic bollards depicted at the southern entrance to S. Signorello Lane, the proposed private drive, need to be removed from the plat. 7. Note that parking is prohibited on both sides of S. Signorello Lane. 8. Note that parking is prohibited on the southern side ofE. Sagemoor Drive and the west side of S. Siduri Lane. 9. Note that parking is prohibited in front oflots 20,21,22, and 23 of Block 2 along the western side ofS. Savia Place. D. Adopt the Recommendations of Central District Health Department as follows: 1. This proposal can be approved for central sewage & central water after written approval from appropriate entities is submitted. 2. The Applicant's central sewage and central water plans must be submitted to and approved by the Idaho Department of Health & Welfare, Division of Environmental Quality. 3. Run-off is not to create a mosquito breeding problem. 4. Stormwater shall be pretreated through a grassy swale prior to discharge to the subsurface to prevent impact to groundwater and surface water quality. 5. The Engineers and architects involved with the design of the subject project shall obtain current best management practices for stormwater disposal and design a stormwater management system that prevents groundwater and surface water DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ-03-015) PAGE 22 OF 34 degradation. E. Adopt the Recommendation ofNampa & Meridian Irrigation District as follows: 1. Applicant shall apply for a Land Use Change/Site Application and filed for review prior to final platting for PP-03-020. All laterals and waste ways must be protected. The District's Eight Mile Lateral courses along the east and north boundary. This easement must be protected and any encroachment without a signed License Agreement and approved plan, before any construction is started, is unacceptable. All municipal surface drainage must be retained on site. If any surface drainage leaves the site, the District must review drainage plans. The developer must comply with Idaho Code 31-3805. F. Adopt the Recommendations of the Parks Department as follows: 1. The pathway must comply with the recommended pathway standards. G. Adopt the action of the City Council taken at their January 6, 2004 meeting as follows: 1. The developer has submitted an approved Preliminary Plat dated 12/29/2003 with the Transmittal Letter dated 12/31/03, and which provides for a traffic calming island at the intersection of S. Signorello Lane and E. Sagemoore Drive. This Plat is approved. 7. COMPLIANCE PERIODI CONSENT TO REZONE: This Agreement and the commitments contained herein shall be terminated, and the zoning designation reversed, upon a default of the "Owner" and/or "Developer" or "Owner" and/or "Developer's" heirs, successors, assigns, to comply with Section 6 entitled "Conditions Governing Development" of subject "Property" of this agreement within two years of the date this Agreement is effective, and after the "City" has complied with the notice and hearing procedures as outlined in I.C. 9 67-6509, or any subsequent amendments or recodifications thereof. 8. CONSENT TO DE-ANNEXATION AND REVERSAL OF ZONING DESIGNATION: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ-03-015) PAGE 23 OF34 "Owner" and!or "Developer" consent upon default to the de-annexation and!or a reversal of the zoning designation ofthe "Property" subject to and conditioned upon the following conditions precedent to-wit: 8.1 That the "City" provide written notice of any failure to comply with this Agreement to "Owner" andlor "Developer" and ifthe "Owner" and/or "Developer" fails to cure such failure within six (6) months of such notice. 9. INSPECTION: "Owner" and/or "Developer" shall, immediately upon completion of any portion or the entirety of said development of the "Property" as required by this agreement or by City ordinance or policy, notify the City Engineer and request the City Engineer's inspections and written approval of such completed improvements or portion thereof in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Development Agreement and all other ordinances of the "City" that apply to said Development. 10. DEFAULT: 10.1 In the event "Owner" and/or "Developer", "Owner" andlor "Developer's" heirs, successors, assigns, or subsequent owners of the "Property" or any other person acquiring an interest in the "Property", fail to faithfully comply with all of the terms and conditions included in this Agreement in connection with the "Property", this Agreement may be modified or terminated by the "City" upon compliance with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. 1 0.2 A waiver by "City" of any default by "Owner" andlor "Developer" of anyone or more of the covenants or conditions hereof shall apply solely to the breach and breaches waived and shall not bar any other rights or remedies of "City" or apply to any subsequent breach of any such or other covenants and conditions. 11. REQUIREMENT FOR RECORDATION: "City" shall record either a memorandum of this Agreement or this Agreement, including all of the Exhibits, at "Developer's" cost, and submit proof of such recording to "Owner" and!or "Developer", prior to the third reading of the Meridian Zoning Ordinance in connection with the annexation and zoning of the "Property" by the City Council. If for any reason after such recordation, the City Council fails to adopt the ordinance in connection with the DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ-03-015) PAGE 24 OF 34 annexation and zoning of the "Property" contemplated hereby, the "City" shall execute and record an appropriate instrument of release ofthis Agreement. 12. ZONING: "City" shall, following recordation of the duly approved Agreement, enact a valid and binding ordinance zoning the "Property" as specified herein. 13. REMEDIES: This Agreement shall be enforceable in any court of competent jurisdiction by either "City" or "Owner" and! or "Developer", or by any successor or successors in title or by the assigns of the parties hereto. Enforcement may be sought by an appropriate action at law or in equity to secure the specific performance of the covenants, agreements, conditions, and obligations contained herein. 13.1 In the event ofa material breach of this Agreement, the parties agree that "City" and "Owner" and/or "Developer" shall have thirty (30) days after delivery of notice of said breach to correct the same prior to the non~breaching party's seeking of any remedy provided for herein; provided, however, that in the case of any such default which cannot with diligence be cured within such thirty (30) day period, if the defaulting party shall commence to cure the same within such thirty (30) day period and thereafter shall prosecute the curing of same with diligence and continuity, then the time allowed to cure such failure may be extended for such period as may be necessary to complete the curing of the same with diligence and continuity. 13.2 In the event the performance of any covenant to be performed hereunder by either "Owner" and/or "Developer" or "City" is delayed for causes which are beyond the reasonable control of the party responsible for such performance, which shall include, without limitation, acts of civil disobedience, strikes or similar causes, the time for such performance shall be extended by the amount of time of such delay. 14. SURETY OF PERFORMANCE: The "City" may also require surety bonds, irrevocable letters of credit, cash deposits, certified check or negotiable bonds, as allowed under Meridian City Code g 12-5-3, to insure that installation of the improvements, which the "Owner" and/or "Developer" agrees to provide, if required by the "City". DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ-03-015) PAGE 25 OF 34 15. CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY: The "Owner" and/or "Developer" agrees that no Certificates of Occupancy will be issued until all improvements are completed, unless the "City" and "Owner" and/or "Developer" have entered into an addendum agreement stating when the improvements will be completed in a phased developed; and in any event, no Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued in any phase in which the improvements have not been installed, completed, and accepted by the "City". 16. ABIDE BY ALL CITY ORDINANCES: That "Owner" and/or "Developer" agrees to abide by all ordinances of the City of Meridian and the "Property" shall be subject to de-annexation if the owner or his assigns, heirs, or successors shall not meet the conditions contained in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, this Development Agreement, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian. 17. NOTICES: Any notice desired by the parties and/or required by this Agreement shall be deemed delivered if and when personally delivered or three (3) days after deposit in the United States Mail, registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed as follows: CITY: DEVELOPER: c/o City Engineer City of Meridian 33 E. Idaho Ave. Meridian, ill 83642 Quasar Development, LLC 3090 Gentry Way Meridian, Idaho 83642 OWNER: with copy to: City Clerk City of Meridian 33 E. Idaho Ave. Meridian, ID 83642 Charles H. and Vickie A. Richardson 1835 E. Victory Road Meridian, Idaho 83642 17.1 A party shall have the right to change its address by delivering to the other party a written notification thereof in accordance with the requirements of this section. 18. ATTORNEY FEES: Should any litigation be commenced between the parties hereto concerning this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled, in addition to any other relief as may be granted, to court costs and reasonable attorney's fees as determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction. This provision shall be deemed DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ-03-015) PAGE 26 OF 34 to be a separate contract between the parties and shall survive any default, termination or forfeiture of this Agreement. 19. TIlVIE IS OF THE ESSENCE: The parties hereto acknowledge and agree that time is strictly of the essence with respect to each and every term, condition and provision hereof, and that the failure to timely perform any of the obligations hereunder shall constitute a breach of and a default under this Agreement by the other party so failing to perform. 20. BINDING UPON SUCCESSORS: This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties' respective heirs, successors, assigns and personal representatives, including "City's" corporate authorities and their successors in office. This Agreement shall be binding on the "Owner" and/or "Developer" of the "Property", each subsequent owner and any other person acquiring an interest in the "Property". Nothing herein shall in any way prevent sale or alienation of the "Property", or portions thereof, except that any sale or alienation shall be subject to the provisions hereof and any successor owner or owners shall be both benefitted and bound by the conditions and restrictions herein expressed. "City" agrees, upon written request of "Owner" and/or "Developer", to execute appropriate and recordable evidence of termination of this Agreement if"City", in its sole and reasonable discretion, had determined that "Owner" and/or "Developer" has fully performed its obligations under this Agreement. 21. INVALID PROVISION: If any provision of this Agreement is held not valid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such provision shall be deemed to be excised from this Agreement and the invalidity thereof shall not affect any of the other provisions contained herein. 22. FINAL AGREEMENT: This Agreement sets forth all promises, inducements, agreements, condition and understandings between "Owner" and/or "Developer" and "City" relative to the subject matter hereof, and there are no promises, agreements, conditions or understanding, either oral or written, express or implied, between "Owner" and lor "Developer" and "City", other than as are stated herein. Except as herein otherwise provided, no subsequent alteration, amendment, change or addition to this Agreement shall be binding upon the parties hereto unless reduced to writing and signed by them or their successors in interest or their assigns, and pursuant, with respect to "City", to a duly adopted ordinance or resolution of "City". 22.1 No condition governing the uses and/or conditions governing development of the subject "Property" herein provided for can be modified or amended DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ-03-015) PAGE 27 OF 34 without the approval of the City Council after the "City" has conducted public hearing( s) in accordance with the notice provisions provided for a zoning designation andlor amendment in force at the time ofthe proposed amendment. 23. EFFECTIVE DATE OF AGREEMENT: This Agreement shall be effective on the date the Meridian City Council shall adopt the amendment to the Meridian Zoning Ordinance in connection with the annexation and zoning of the "Property" and execution of the Mayor and City Clerk. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ-03-015) PAGE 28 OF 34 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have herein executed this agreement and Made it effective as hereinabove provided. Attest: BY; DEVELOPER: o wte rj/J1lM. btr OWNER: By:r~ CHARLESH.IDCHARDSON By:{!{f!t{!/~oL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ-03-015) PAGE 29 OF 34 CITY OF MERIDIAN Attest: STATE OF IDAHO ) :ss . .. . " ~ 1 COUNTY OF ADA ) /.5~ "-t/l/7 ~ / On this __ day of I' I {tly(~ , in the year 2004, before me, a Notary Public, personally appeared SrVl(.{~ J41 Va: rV and T.3(""~ VV\ (f\C< ~(' <t Vi , known or identified to me to be the ---1'l1e-W1 be.....- and Me W\ ~ ..r of QUASAR DEVELOPMENT, LLC, and the persons who executed the instrument and acknowledged to me that they having executed the same on behalf of said limited liability corporation. (SEAL) ot Public for .Idaho c.id.tu. Residing at: {lOA- to Commission expires: -3 ~3 ,. ZtJ/ 0 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ-03-0 15) PAGE 30 OF 34 STATE OF IDAHO ) :ss COUNTY OF ADA ) ,-p On this Ll? day of -----0\. ~(2.a.'\ , in the year 2004, before me, a Notary Public, personally appeared CHARLES H. and VICKIE A. RICHARDSON, husband and wife, known or identified to me to be the persons who executed the instrument and acknowledged to me that they having executed the same. (SEAL) ~...o 011I11"", _.......... \.a J. II B~~ _<Ii ~"\'Y~" 1'......;1-R ^ ~ '> . . "J '<J i> ,: ~ 0" '''" .....~ :: t::) <0 . ". :,..;\ III r .. ~ . a J. : ~I ~ ,:.,~ 't....... :: * j ~. ., : .. .. .. t : '* ~ ~ u ~ V>:" . ~. ~ vr~ ..JiI 0 ........~ )'~, .O"'F....l..;:~~ (I,,, V lI> ."II.......~ '~~~ Notary Pub ic for Idaho A _ Residing at: AJ d.. (6, lottO Commission expires: /o-o(J -07 STATE OF IDAHO ) :ss County of Ada ) On this 23 r). day of }'Y/a.rvh , in the year 2004, before me, a Notary Public, personally appeared Tammy de Weerd and William G. Berg, know or identified to me to be the Mayor and Clerk, respectively, of the City of Meridian, who executed the instrument or the person that executed the instrument of behalf of said City, and acknowledged to me that such City executed the same. (SEAL) 1>"'1" In.. ''''<; .......... :\.CE L .i{~...<'4## ,," 't-~ .......,,~~c ..~./), .... .:- ..... .0 ~".. ' ,,,.., \. I~.O c~ 'V-r . :': I ","0 T.t.it. c" 0;. =*. 'It ~ : : . (" :: - : ........... ~. J< lot :: . ^ :: ~ \ oC""{TBL1C: .: \, f.P-:..... o. $ .. or' ... .. Q .... ~ <1)> ........ ~ .. ......"" l! 0 F \)) ~ ............ (I'.....n~a....i.... DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ-03-0 15) PAGE310F34 EXHIBIT A Leg;al Description Of Property A PARCEL OF LAND BEING A PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST Y4 OF THE SOUTHWEST Y4 OF SECTION 20, T.3N., R. IE., B.M., ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, AND BEING MORE P ARTICULARL Y DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE CORNER COMMON TO SECTIONS 19,20,29, AND 30 OF T. 3N., R. IE., B.M.: THENCE N 00044'50" E FOR A DISTANCE OF 534.95 FEET ALONG THE LINE COMMON TO SAID SECTIONS 19 AND 20, WHICH IS ALSO THE CENTERLINE OF SOUTH LOCUST GROVE ROAD; THENCE N 89022'14" E FORA DISTANCE OF 323.49 FEET TO THE CENTERLINE OF THE EIGHT MILE LATERAL; THENCE ALONG SAID CENTERLINE THE FOLLOWING COURSES AND DISTANCES: S 77011 '52" E FOR A DISTANCE OF 523.60 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, (FORMERLY DESCRIBED AS S 77011 '40" E, 523.65); THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT FORAN ARC DISTANCE OF 155.25 FEET, SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 120.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 74007'42", AND A LONG CHORD WHICH BEARS S 40008'01" E FOR A DISTANCE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ-03-015) PAGE 32 OF 34 OF 144.65 FEET (SAID CURVE FORMERLY DESCRIBED AS HAVING AN ARC LENGTH OF 155.19 FEET, A RADIUS OF 119.96 FEET, AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 74001'30"); THENCE S 03004'10" E FORA DISTANCE OF 319.40 FEET TO THE LINE COMMON TO SAID SECTIONS 20, AND 29, WHICH IS ALSO THE CENTERLINE OF EAST VICTORY ROAD; THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE OF LATERAL N 89034'22" W FOR A DISTANCE OF 951.40 FEET ALONG THE LINE COMMON TO SAID SECTIONS 20, AND 29, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. SUBJECT TO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF LOCUST GROVE ROAD AND VICTORY ROAD. CONTAINING A NET AREA OF 9.80 ACRES MORE OR LESS. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ-03-015) PAGE 33 OF 34 EXHIBIT B Findin2s of Fact and Conclusions of Law/Conditions of Approval DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ.03-0 [5) PAGE 34 OF 34 BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL C/C 09/23/03 - Re-noticed due to plat changes C/C 10/14/03 C/C 10/21/03 C/C 10/28/03 C/C 11/12/03 C/C 11/25/03 C/C 12/09/03 C/C 12/16/03 C/C 01/06/04 IN THE MATTER OF THE ) APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION ) AND ZONING OF 9.8 ACRES FOR ) PROPOSED SAGELAND PLANNED ) UNIT DEVELOPMENT, LOCATED ) AT THE NORTHEaST CORNER ) OF SOUTH LOCUST GROVE ) . ROAD AND EAST VICTORY ) ROAD, MERIDIAN, IDAHO ) ) QUASAR DEVELOPMENT, ) APPLICANT ) Case No. Az-03-015 F1NDINGS 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 September 23,2003, and thenre-noticed to October 14,2003, and continued until October 21, 2003, October 28, 2003, November 12,2003, November 25,2003, December 9, 2003, December 16,2003 and January 6, 2004, at the hour of7:00 p.m., and Anna Powell Planning Director for FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLlCA nON FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING SAGELAND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (AZ-03-015) PAGE 1 OF 19 the Plarming and Zoning Department, Brad Watson oillie Public Works Department, Wayne Forrey, Bruce Mills, and Lucian Tumaha, appeared and testified, and the City Council having duly considered the evidence and the record in this matter therefore makes the follo\Ving Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and Decision and Order: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. There has been complian~e with all notice and hearing requirements set forth in Idaho Code ~S 67-6509 and 67-6511, and Meridian City Code SS 11-15-5 ~d 11-16-1. 2. The City Council takes judicial notice of its zoning, subdivision and development ordinanc~s codified at Titles 11 and 12, Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof, and the Amended Comprehensive Plan ofllie City of Meridian adopted August 6, 2002, 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 is described in the application, is approximately 9.8acres in size and is located at the northeast corner of South Locust Grove Road and East Victory Road, Meridian, Idaho, 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 owners of record of the subject property are Charles H. and Vickie A. Richardson. Applicant is Quasar Development, LLC. 5. The property is presently zoned RUT and Rl (Ada County), and consists of vacant land, 6. The Applicant requests the property be zoned as R-8 (Medium. Density FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPUCA nON FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING SAGELAND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (AZ-03A015) PAGE 2 OF 19 Residential) . 7. The subject property is bordered to the north by R~4, to the south by RUT, to the east by.R-4, and to the west by RUT. 8. The Applicant proposes to develop the subject property in the following manner: a 41 building lots with 9 other lots. 9. The Applicant requests zoning of the subject real property as R-8, which is 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 oimajor importance that affect the consideration of this application. 11. The City Council recognizes the concerns of Matt Schultz expressed in his letter dated August 15, 2003. 12. 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: 1. Remove any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project from their domestic service, per City Ordinance Section 5-7 -517, when services are available from the City of Meridian. Wells may be used for non -domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation. 2. A Development Agreement shall be required. the following shall be addressed in the Development Agreement: pathway standards and fencing requirements for the Pathway and micropaths. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICA nON FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING SAGELAND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (AZ-03-0IS) PAGE 3 OF 19 / [ B. Adopt the Recommendations of the ACHD as follows: 1. The Board of Commissioners authorizes the expenditure of available collected impact fees for the purchase of right-of-way dedicated by the applic~t} with the applicant constructing a sidewalk. as described below. However, iffunds cannot be secured, the applicant shall do one of the following: a. Dedicate by donation (or through a development offset agreement whereby the applicant is reimbursed from impact fees to be collected solely from the applicant's specific development project) a total of 35-feet of right-of-way from centerline (an additional IO-feet of right-of-way) along Victory Road, and construct a minimum 5- foot wide concrete sidewalk along Victory Road, located a minimum of28-feet 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 Victory Road, located a minimum of 28-feet from the centerline of the right-of-way, in an eas.ement provided to the District. c. Do not dedicate additional right-of-way, but construct a minimum 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk along Victory Road, located at the back edge of the existing right- of-way. Accomplish all necessary adjustments to properly accommodate existing drainage and utilities. 2. The applicant shall do one of the following: a. Dedicate by donation a total of 35-feet from centerline (an additionall O-feet) ofright- of-way along Locust Grove Road, and construct a minimum 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk along Locust Grove Road, located a minimum of28-feet 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 Locust Grove 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 sidew~lk along Locust Grove Road, located at the back edge of the existing right-of-way. Accomplish all necessary adjustments to p~oper1y accommodate existing drainage and utilities. 3. Construct West Sagemoor Street to intersect Victory Road approximately 185-feet west of the east property line, as proposed. 4. Construct West Sagemoor Street to intersect Locust Grove Road approximately 350-feet north of Victory Road, as proposed. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXA nON AND ZONIN"G SAGELAND PLANNED DEVELOPlvIENT (AZ-03-015) PAGE 4 OF 19 5. Construct West Sagemoor Street as a 29-foot street section with curb, gutter and detached S-foot concrete sidewalk with parking on one side of the roadway within 50-feet of right- of-way, as proposed. Parking will be restricted on one side of the roadway and adequate signage will be required. 6. Construct South Savia Place as a 29-foot street section with curb, gutter and sidewalk within 42-feet ofright-of-way,.a proposed, Parking will be restricted on one side of the roadway and adequate signage will be required. 7: Construct a private road, South Sagemoor Lane, to intesect West Sagemoor Drive approximately 21S-feet west of West Sagemoor Street. Terminate the private road at the northern property line of the proposed landscape buffer and install traffic bollards to minimize the connection. 8. If the City of Meridian approves the private road, pave the private roadway a minimum of ,20 to 24-feet Wide and at least 30-feet into the site beyond the edge of pavement of West Sagemoor Drive and install pavement tapers with 15~foot curb radii abutting the existing roadway edge. Provide a plan showing how the private road grade meets the public road. Street name and stop signs are required for the private road. Verification of the correct, approved name of the road is r~quired. 9. Construct a cul-de-sac turnaround without a center island at ,the terminus of South Savia Place. Provide a minimum turning radius of 45~feet for the turnaround. 10. Victory Road and Locust Grove Road are classified roadways. Other than the access points that are specifically approved with this application, direct lot access to Locust Grove Road and Victory Road are prohibited. Notes of the lot access restrictions are required on the final plat. ~ 1. Comply with all Standard Conditions of Approval. Standard CO'nditions of Approval 1. 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-~280 (with file number) for details. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW . AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICA nON FOR ANNEXA nON AND ZONING SAGELAND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (AZ-03-015) PAGE 5 OF 19 4. Utility street cuts in pavement less than five years old are not allowed unless approved in writing by the District. Contact the District's Utility Coordinator at 387-6258 (with file numbers) for details. 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 ofIdaho shall prepare and cerlify 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. The applicant at no cost to"ACHD shall repair existing utilities damaged by the applicant. 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 conflffilation 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 pursuan~ to the law in effect at the time the change in use is sought. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXA nON AND ZONING SAGBLAND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (AZ-03-015) PAGE 6 OF 19 C. Adopt the Recommendations of the Meridian Fire Department as follows: l, The project which comprised of single family dwellings will require a :fire-flow of 1,000 gallons per minute available for duration of2 hours to service the entire project. Fire hydrants shall be placed an average of 400' apart. 1997 UFC Appendix ill-A 2. Acceptance of the water supply for fire protection will be by the Meridian Water Department. 3. Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Deparbnent. The proposed fire hydrant locations \-ViII be submitted to the Public Works for plan review. 4. All roads and frre lanes shall have a turning radius of28' inside and 48' outside. 5. Operational fire hydrants and temporary or permanent street signs are required before combustible construction begins. UFC 901.4.2 & 901.3 D. Adopt the Recommendations of the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District as follows; 1. The District requires a Land Use Application to be flied for review prior to final platting for PP-03~020. A1llaterals and waste ways must be protected. The District's Eight Mile Lateral courses along the east and north boundary. This easement must be protected and any encroachment without a signed License Agreement and approved plan, .before any construction is started, is unacceptable. All municipal surface drainage must be retained on site. If any surface drainage leaves the site, the District must review drainage plans. The developer must comply with Idaho Code 31 ~3805. E. Adopt the Recommendations of the Parks Department as follows: 1. Any proposed pathways must conform to the recommended pathway standards. F. Adopt the action of the City Council taken at their January 6, 2004 meeting as follows: 1. The developer has submitted an approved Preliminary Plat dated 12/29/2003 with the Transmittal Letter dated 12/31/03, and which provides for a traffic calming island at the intersection of S. Signorello Lane and E. Sagemoore Drive. This Plat is approved. 2. The developer shall be a1lowed.a reduced rear setback offive feet but it ,shall only apply to garages only. 13. It is found that the requested zoning designations, R~8, is hannonious with and in FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONWG SAGELAND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (AZ-03~015) PAGE 7 OF 19 accordance with the effective Comprehensive Plan ('02) and the Future Land Use Map, which designates the land to be "Medium Density Residential". The Comprehensive Plan also indicates that the subj ect 1?roperty should have a "Multi-Use" pathway running along the northern and eastern edges of the subject property along the Eight Mile Lateral. Page 54 of the Comprehensive Plan ~ddresses the issue of pathways and states that they should be in compliance with the Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan and that the pathway should be located "off street". The applicant has indicated that they will construct a 10' asphalt multi-use pathway with five feet of gravel on both sides of the pathway along the Eight Mile Lateral. 14. It is not anticipated that the applicant intends to rezone the subject property in the future. 15. It is found that the proposed single family residential subdivision would be allowed within the requested R-8 zone, if accompanied with a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development. 16. It is found that the land to the north and east of the subject property has been developed as residential subdivisions similar to the proposed subdivision. It is also found that the requested zoning designation ofR-8 is harmonious with the adjacent developments to the north and east ofthe subject property and should be rezoned as requested. While the applicant has applied for an R-8 zoning designation; the subject property is actually being developed at a density of four dwelling units per acre. 17. It is found that the proposed use (single family residential) will not change the . existing (single family residential and rural residential) or intended character (medium density single FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS O~ LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING SAGE LAND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (AZ.03~OI5) PAGE 8 OF 19 family residential) of the area. 18. It is not anticipated that the proposed residential uses will be hazardous or disturbing to future or existing neighbors. 19. It is found that the property to be annexed will or can be served adequately by all essential public facilities and services. 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 Fire Department has made the following recommendations: . 1) Provide parking on the proposed Sagemoor Lane and paint curbs of Sagemoor Lane red. Provide Fire Department access to the South end of Sage moor Lane via a sv.-ing gate; and . 2) Meridian's Planned Development Ordinance requires private streets over 200' in length to be 42' in width. The applicant will be required to revise the proposed private street so that the street meets private street standards. Review of the ACHD and Fire Department 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 public services and facilities and that the armexation and zoning will not be detrimental to the community's economic welfare. The applicant will be responsible for extending water and sewer facilities to the subject property and for constructing all roads within the proposed subdivision. 21. It is found that the proposed subdivision will not create excessive traffic, noise or other nuisances that would detrimental to the general welfare of the surrounding area. It is recognized that the traffic and noise will increase 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. fINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING SAGELAND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (AZ-03-015) PAGE 9 OF 19 22. It is found that the subdivision's vehicular approaches off Victory Road and Locust Grove Road will not cause significant interference on the surrounding public streets. Review of ACHD comments concerning vehicular approaches and traffic generation will provide additional information on this matter. ACHD recommends approval of the proposed subdivision as submitted. 23. The subject property is presently being used as pasture land. One single family dwelling and several outbuildings are located on the subject property. The proposed subdivision will not result in the loss or damage of scenic or natural features of significant importance. 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. site and that the inclusion of a pathw,,:y that will become a pa,rt of Meridian's pathway system makes the annexation of this property in the best interest of the City. 25. It is found that if the developer pays for the requested improvements and complies with the conditions set forth in these Findings of Fact No. 12, 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. 12 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 illtended character of the general vicinity, in order to assure that the proposed use will not change the essential character of the affected ~icinity and will insure that the proposed uses will not be hazardous or disturbing to the existing~ FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXA nON AND ZONING SAGELAND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (AZ-03-015) PAGE 10 OF 19 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 1. 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 S 11-16 provides the City may annex real property that is Ylithin the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area as set forth in the Citis 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 adoption ofthe Amended Comprehensive Plan City of Meridian adopted August 6, 2002, Resolution No. 02w382. 4, The following are found to be pertinent provisions of the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan and are applicable to this Application: Chapter VI, Goal III, Objective A, Action 3 Chapter VII, Goal V, Objective A, Action 4. 5. The zoning of (R-8) Medium. Density Residential is defined in the Zoning Ordinance at S 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 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING SAGELAND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (AZ-03-015) PAGEl] OF19 is likely to occur in accord with the Comprehensive Plan ofthe City and is also designed to permit the conversion of large homes ~nto tow-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 ofland. See Burt VS. The City ofIdaho Falls, 105 Idaho 65, 665 P2d 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. 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: 1. The applicant's request for annexation and zoning of approximately 9.8 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 9.8 acres. The legal description shall FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING SAGELAND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (AZ-03-015) PAGE 12 OF 19 be prepared by a Registered Land Surveyor, Licensed by the State ofIdaho, 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. 3. 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 & Z~ming Department as follows: 1. Remove any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems wifhin this project from their domestic service. per City Ordinance Section 5-7-517, when services are available from the City of Meridian. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation. 2. A Development Agreement shall be required, the following shall be addressed in the Development Agreement: pathway standards and fencing requirements for the Pathway and micropaths. B. Adopt the Recoiiunendations of the ACHD as follows: 1. The Board of Commissioners authorizes the expenditure of available collected impact fees for the purchase of right-of-way dedicated by the applicant, with the applicant constructing a sidewalk as-described below. However, if funds cannot be secured, the applicant shall do one of ~he following: a. Dedicate by donation (or through a development offset agreement whereby the applicant is reimbursed from impact fees to be collected solely from the applicant's specific development project) a total of 35-feet of right-of-way from centerline (an additionall0-feet of right-of-way) along Victory Road, and construct a minimum 5- foot wide concrete sidewalk along Victory Road, located a minimum of 28-feet 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 Victory 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 Victory Road, located at the back edge of the existing right- of-way. Accomplish all necessary adjustments to prop~rly ac~omrnodate existing drainage and utilities. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING SAGELAND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (AZ-03-01S) PAGE 13 OF 19 2. The applicant shall do one of the following: a, Dedicate by donation a total of 35-feet from centerline (an additionallO-feet) of right- of-way along Locust Grove Road, and construct a minimum 5~foot wide concrete sidewalk along Locust Grove Road, located a minimum of28-feet 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 Locust Grove Road, located a minimum of28-feet from the centerline of the right-ai-way, in an easement provided to the District. c. Do not dedicate additional right-ai-way, but construct a minimum 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk along Locust Grove 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 West Sagemoor Street to intersect Victory Road approximately 185-feet west Qf the east property line, as proposed. 4. Construct West Sagemoor Street to intersect Locust Grove Road approximately 350-feet north of Victory Road, as proposed. 5. Construct West Sagemoor Street as a 29-foot street section with curb, gutter and detached 5-foot concrete sidewalk with parking on one side of the roadway within 50-feet of right-of-way, as proposed. Parking will be restricted on one side of the roadway and adequate signage will be required. 6. Construct South Savia Place as a 29-foot street section with curb, gutter and sidewalk within 42-feet of right-of-way, a proposed. Parking will be restricted on one side of the roadway and adequate signage will be required. 7. Construct a private road, South Sagemoor Lane, to intesect West Sagemoor Drive approximately 215-feet west of West Sagemoor Street. Terminate the private road at the northern property line of the proposed landscape buffer and install traffic bollards to minimize the connection. 8. If the City of Meridian approves the private road, pave the private roadway a minimum of 20 to 24-feet wide and at least 30-feet into the site beyond the edge of.pavement of West Sagemoor Drive and install pavement tapers with 15-foot curb radii abutting the existing roadway edge. Provide a plan showing how the private road grade meets the public road. Street name and stop signs are required for the private road. Verification of the correct, <;1pproved name of the road is required. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXA nON AND ZONING SAGELAND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (AZ-03-0 15) PAGE 14 OF 19 9. Construct a cul-de-sac turnaround without a center island at the terminus of South Savia Place. Provide a minimum turning radius of 45-feet for the turnaround. 10. Victory Road and Locust Grove Road are classified roadways. Other than the access points that are specifically approved with thls application, direct lot access to Locust Grove Road and Victory Road are prohibited. Notes of the lot access restrictions are required on the fmal plat. 11. Comply with all Standard Conditions of Approval. Standard Conditions of Approval 1. 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 ofthe 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 the District's Utility Coordinator at 387-6258 (with file numbers) for details. S. 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. 9. It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify all existing utilities within the right-of- way. The applicant at no cost to ACHD shall repair existing utilities damaged by the applicant. I:INDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICA IION FOR ANNEXA IION AND ZONING SAGELAND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (AZ-03-0 15) PAGE 15 OF 19 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 ofthis 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 COlll1ty Highway Pistrict. 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. The project which comprised of single family dwellings will require a fire-flow of 1,000' gallons per minute available for duration of2 hours to service the entire proj~ct. Fire hydrants shall be placed an average of 400' apart. 1997 UFC Appendix Ill-A 2. Acceptance of the water supply for fire protection will be by the Meridian Water Department. 3. Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department. The proposed fire hydrant locations will be submitted to the Public Works for plan review. 4. All roads and fire lanes shall have a turning radius of28' inside and 48' outside. 5. Operational fire hydrants and temporary or permanent street signs are required before combustible construction begins. UFC 901.4.2 & 901.3 D. Adopt the Recommendations of the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District as follows: 1. The District requires a Land Use Application to be filed for review prior to fmal platting for PP-03-020. All laterals and waste ways must be protected. The District's Eight Mile Lateral courses along the east and north boundary. This easement must be protected and any encroachment without a signed License Agreement and approved plan, before any construction is started, is unacceptable. All municipal surface drainage must be retained on site. If any surface drainage leaves the site, the District must review drainage plans. The FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING SAGELAND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (AZ-03-01S) PAGE 16 OF 19 developer must comply with Idaho Code 31-3805. E. Adopt the Recommendations of the Parks Department as follo~s: 1. Any proposed pathways must conform to the recommended p~thway standards. F. Adopt the action of the City Council taken, at their January 6, 2004 meeting as follows: 1. The developer has submitted an approved Preliminary Plat dated 12/29/2003 with the Transmittal Letter dated 12/31/03, and which provides for a traffic calming island at the intersection of S. Signorello Lane and E. Sagemoore Drive. This Plat is approved. 2. The developer shall be allowed a reduced rear setback offive feet but it shall only apply to garages only. 4. The City Attorney shall prepare for consideration by the City Council the ap.propriate ordinance for the annexation and zoning designation of the real property which is the subject of the application to (R-8) Medium Density Residential District, and Meridian City Code 9 11-7-2. 5. 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 the official boundaries and zoning maps as provided in Meridian City Code g 11-21-1 in accordance 'with the provisions of the annexation and zoning ordinance. NOTICE OF FINAL ACTION AND RIGHT TO REGULATORY TAKINGS ANALYSIS The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code 67-8003, the Owner may request a regulatory taking analysis. Such request must be in writing, and must be filed with the City Clerk not more than twenty~eight (28) days after the final decision concerning the matter at FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION , FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING SAGELAND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (AZ-03-0 I 5) PAGE 17 OF 19 issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for Iudicial Review may be filed. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian, pursuant to Idaho Code S 67-6521. An affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by this decision may, within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of this decision and order, seek ajudicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code. By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the 6 -f!;. day of ,.-. J~u~~ , 2004. ROLL CALL COUNCILWOMAN TAMMY de WEERD VOTED~ COUNCILMAi'1 BILL NARY VOTED-#- fA.....- VOTED -fjt..1V VOTED~ COUNCILWOMAN CHERIE MCCANDLESS COUNCILMAN KEITH BIRD MAYOR ROBERT D. CORRIE (TIE BREAKER) DATED: 1- 6 -()1- MOTION: APPROVED:-f'- DISAPPROVED: ~-;~~ Mayor Robert D. Corrie --- VOTED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING SAGELAND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (AZ-03-01S) PAGE 18 OF 19 By:d1dt.-:4-~9- D~ted: 1~2t-()4 City Clerk .- Z:\Worl:.\M\Meridian\lvferidian J S3 60M'lSageland Planned Development AZ-OJ-{lIS PP..o3.{)20 , - FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING SAGELAND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (AZ-03-0 15) PAGE 19 OF 19 CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 04- ID7! BY: ch~e 12o{vyt~fvif-f- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN ENACTING A NEW SECTION 4 OF CHAPTER 6 OF TITLE 1 MAYOR TO BE KNOWN AS ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT TO THE MAYOR; PROVIDING FORAN ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT TO THE MAYOR AS AN "AT-WILL" EMPLOYEE; PROVIDING FOR SELECTION OF THE ADMINISTTRATIVE ASSISTANT; PROVIDING FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT SALARY TO BE IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CITYWIDE SALARY RANGE; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT, V ALIDITY~ SAVINGS CLAUSE, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. NOW THEREFOREt BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO: SECTION 1: A new Section 4 of Chapter 6 of Title 1 shall be known as Administrative Assistant to the Mayor and is hereby enacted and shall read as follows: 1-6-4: ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT TO THE MAYOR: A. Administrative Assistant Hiring: The Mayor may choose to hire an administrative assistant to assist with the duties of the office of the Mayor. Such assistant shall serve at the pleasure of the Mayor as an at-will employee, and removal may be for any reason or no reason, as deemed by the Mayor in the best interests of the City. The Mayor may select this employee by whatever employment process deemed reasonable by the Mayor, with the approval of the City Council. B. Administrative Assistant Salary: Initial salaries, and any salary changes, of the administrative assistant shall be set by the Mayor, with the consent of the City Council, and said salary shall be in conformity with the citywide salary range. Administrative Assistant to the Mayor Enacting a new Section 4 of Chapter 6 Title 1 PAGE 1 OF 3 SECTION 2: All ordinances, resolutions, orders or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed, rescinded and annulled. SECTION 3: VALIDITY: The Meridian City Council hereby declares that any section, paragraph, sentence or word of this ordinance as adopted and amended herein be declared for any reason to be invalid it is the intent of the Meridian City Council that it would have passed all other portions of this ordinance independent of the elimination herefrom of any portion as may be declared invalid. SECTION 4: SAVINGS CLAUSE: This ordinance does not affect an action or proceeding commenced or right accrued before this ordinance takes effect SECTION 5: DATE OF EFFECT: This ordinance shall be in full force and effect after its passage, approval and publication, according to law. PASSE~BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this /6 ZL day of /hue/v , 2004. APPR~D BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this / {; ~ day of J1tJPu-lIJ , 2004. Mayor T de Weerd \\\~lllll'rlllt. ,\\ . r- ~p.r '1// ."\'~1 0,- r",c.!T/.,,- III" " "'" <..IL., "" " ;'\ -1n "" ~ r:} 'P-F'OR,<j V ~ 2" ,cP r<s: ~ ~.:::t <:)-.::. ~ ~ - - == ::. ~ SEAL ~ //- ..~~~-:. -y fJ; d~/~. J -;:. &ou "OJ .0 ~ City Clerk . -:;.. "1.01'- 'Sf 15"\' "'~.~ ".::: "/ "" ')' '.,' An Ordinance of the City of Meridian By: WiU&nU}:-B'erg,.)r:'; City Clerk First Reading: :3 -16-04- '. ........ Adopted after ftrst reading by suspension of the Rule as allowed pursuant to Idaho Code 50-902: YES >C NO Second Reading: <: Third Reading: - Attest: Administrative Assistant to the Mayor Enacting a new Section 4 of Chapter 6 Title 1 PAGE20F3 STATE OF IDAHO,) : ss. County of Ada. ) On this I ~-f'\, day of fla ~ . 2004, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared T AM:MY de WEERD and WILLIAM G. BERG, JR, known to me to be the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the CITY of Meridian, Idaho, and who executed the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that the City of Meridian executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. .....,t-..,-aI. lI'".l!'t.......,. ........ ~ (\1 tJ () .,~~. ...... o-..c. o...o.o~.. 'Y:t > ~'> ~ 00 ~ ~ 6 ~ o. ..... v.... ~ .0 ",1'111,... """P ~ .. . '" .~~" .. :i'. v ~ ;: : 0 ...... . ~ - : 1 :: (SE~\. qv .LO~ l ~ / \ ~ 0.. 0." i.... ..~ ~ .........:,,4,""..~ "4>#. J"1 '" \..... ...,.'i ...~~ 3 oJ ...... t.."I..IU'" Z:\ Work\M\Meridian\Meridian 15360M\Ordinances City Hall\2004 Ord\Admin Assist to Mayor ORD 01 0704.doc Administrative Assistant to the Mayor Enacting a new Section 4 of Chapter 6 Title 1 PAGE 3 OF 3 ( WHITE PETERSON ATTORNEYS A T LAW KiMNE. DlNrus JIJUE KLEIN FrscIIER ClmJsrOPHERD. GABllERT WM. F. GlORAY, ill T. Guy HAllAM ** JaS. HOLINKA JOIm R KORMANlK * WlLUAM A MOllROW WlLUAM F. NICHOLS ... WHITE PETERSON, PA CANYON PARK AT THE IDAHO CENTER 5700 E. FRANKLIN RD., SUITE 200 NAMPA, IDAHO 83687-7901 TEL (208) 466-9272 FAX (208) 466-4405 CIlRlSTOPHEIl S. NYE PimJp A l'ETERsON TODD A ROSSMAN TERilENCER WIlTl'E"" * Also admitted in CA .... Also admitted in OR *** Also admitted in W A March 17, 2004 William G. Berg, Jr., City Clerk MERIDIAN CITY HALL 33 East Idaho Meridian, Idaho 83642 Re: SUSAN RICE / ACCESSORY USE PERMIT / AUP-03-021 Dear Will: Please find enclosed the original of the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER OF APPROVAL OF APPLICATION FOR ACCESSORY USE PERMIT prepared as per instructions from the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of March 4, 2004, and which are on an upcoming Planning and Zoning consent agenda. If you have any questions arise, please advise. (1;3(jl~ rt:Olinka Z:\Work\M\Meridian\Meridian 15360M\Rice Susan AUP-03-021 \Clerk AUP Ltr 03 1704.doc BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF THE ) REQUEST FOR AN ACCESSORY ) USE PERMIT FORA HOME OCCUPATION ) LOCATED AT 230 W. PINE AVENUE, IN AN ) &-4 ZONE FOR SUAN RICE, MERIDIAN, ) IDAHO ) ) ) ) ) Case No. AUP-03-021 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER OF APPROVAL OF APPLICATION FOR ACCESSORY USE PERMIT The above entitled accessory use permit application having come before the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission on March 4, 2004, at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, at the hour of7:00 o'clock p.m., and the Commission having received the report of Wendy Kirkpatrick of the Meridian City Planning & Zoning Department, and Anna Powell Planning and Zoning Director, Wendy Kirkpatrick of the Meridian City Planning & Zoning Department, the Applicant - Susan Rice, and Charlene Rokovitz, appeared and testified, and the Commission having duly considered the matter makes the following findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Commission takes judicial notice of the Meridian City Zoning, Subdivision and Development Ordinances, codified at 11 Municipal Code of the City of Meridian and all current zoning maps thereof and the amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian adopted August 6, 2002, Resolution No. 02-382. APPROVAL OF ACCESSORY USE PERMIT FOR SUSAN RICE / 230 WEST PINE AVENUE PAGE I OF4 2. Staff has complied with the requirements ofl.C. 9967-6509,67-6512, and 99 11- 2, 11-3 and 11-9-4 of the Meridian City Code. 3. The Planning and Zoning Commission takes judicial notice of its zoning, subdivisions and development ordinances codified at Title 11, Municipal Code of the City of Meridian, and all current zoning maps thereof, and the amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian adopted August 6,2002, Resolution No. 02-382, and maps and the ordinance Establishing the Impact Area Boundary. 4. The Applicant is Susan Rice, and the owner of record ofthe property is Merlyn Schmeckpeper. 5. The proposed location for the Applicant's accessory use is located at 230 West Pine Street, and is within an R-4 zone. 6. The principal permitted use ofthe subject property is residential. 7. The proposed accessory use would be onlv for a bookkeeping office out ofthe home located at 230 W. Pine Street. 8. Applicant was present at the March 4, 2004 hearing before the Commission to testify or to field questions and comments from the Commission. 9. The Commission received testimony from Charlene Rokovitz, owner ofthe property located at 918 West 3rd, and whose son is presently a tenant of the property, and which residence is located directly behind the subject property. Charlene Rokovitz testified as to the illegal operation of business being conducted out of the detached garage as well as the residence at 230 W. Pine Avenue, along with noise and traffic issues, and which her and her son have written letters of concern to the City in these matters, and APPROVAL OF ACCESSORY USE PERMIT FOR SUSAN RICE / 230 WEST PINE AVENUE PAGE20F4 which are on file in the City Clerk's office. The Applicant also testified to her own opposition to the accessory use permit as well as that of her son and neighbors. 10. The Commission took into consideration letters ofobjectionlopposition from Charlene Rokovitz and Darrin Rokovitz, neighboring property owner and tenant located at the property at 918 W. 3rd Street. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. That ~11-9-4 of the Meridian City Code establishes the factors involved in a determination of the Commission as to whether to grant or deny an accessory use permit. 2. That the provisions of ~ 11-9-4 of the Meridian City Code apply to the present application. 3. That the accessory use of a residential property as a bookkeeping office is a use that is habitually or commonly established as reasonably incidental under the requirements of ~11-9-4(A)(1) of the Meridian City Code. 4. That a factor to be considered by the Commission in its determination of an Accessory Use application for a bookkeeping office is the potential adverse impact of such accessory use upon adjacent property. (~11-9-4(1)(e)). 5. That the Applicant has provided sufficient proof to show that the requested accessory use would not provide an adverse impact to other property in the affected area. 6. That the neighboring property owners have not provided sufficient evidence before the Commission to show the probability that such a permit, if allowed, would have an adverse impact to properties in the affected area. APPROVAL OF ACCESSORY USE PERMTr FOR SUSAN RICE / 230 WEST PINE AVENUE PAGE 3 OF4 ORDER GRANTING ACCESSORY USE PERMIT APPLICATION. NOW, THEREFORE, BASED UPON THE ABOVE AND FOREGOING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, the above named Applicant is hereby granted the Accessory Use Permit for reasons stated above. The Planning & Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian hereby adopts and approves this Decision and Order Granting Accessory Use Permit. By action of the Planning and Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the 4th day of March, 2004. ROLL CALL: COMMISSIONER DAVID ZAREMBA VOTED alJ~ COMlvJISSIONER DAVID MOE VOTED fj-u<-- COMMISSIONER WENDY NEWTON-HUCKABAY VOTED ~ COMMISSIONER :MICHAEL ROHM VOTED ~ CHAIRMAN KEITH BORUP tIE BREAKER) DATED: :1-/$ -0 VOTED /i/~~ MOTION: APPROVED: \{ DISAPPROVED: Copy served upon Applicant, the Planning and Zoning Department, Public W~~\lfl11~f~~~/.llfl :-.' :;-u IV1<..Jil"- II Department, and the City Attorney office. ....~..........{.. ... . 'v4, .../~ ! v ~cpf\PoR.q h ""b"'~ ,/ ~ ~ ('0 ~ Byd~~~~ Dated: :i.rlr-C4--~ ~ ~d~ ~ ~ &- ,,~ ~ ::: Z:\Work\MlMeridian\Meridian 15360MlRice Susan AUP-03-021\AUPFindingsConclusionsfromP &Z.doc ~~..., u,s:r lS\ ,"\ ,f;> f ~ %J :?-~ $' ......... (i \;\.V .,... ~'I -O'~;\.~--"J ,.> i'1/:,. . -1,'-,,';'1(: ~~ ') t . \\.\.\. ~;j;'t'~ ,'n i..-:~~.lL\\\ APPROVAL OF ACCESSORY USE PERMIT FOR SUSAN RICE / 230 WEST PINE AVENUE PAGE 4 OF 4 AUP 03-021 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING APPLICANT Susan Rice March 18, 2004 ITEM NO. 3-A REQUEST Findings: Request for an Accessory Use Permit for a bookeeping office out of home for Susan Rice - 230 West Pine Street AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: A~p(oJU s-{) CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: I NTERMOU NT AI N GAS: OTH ER: Contacted: Emailed: Date: Phone: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.