Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-11-03CITY OF MERIDIAN PRE -COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA Wednesday, November 3, 2004 at 6.30 p.m. City Council Chambers 1. Roll -call Attendance: O Shaun Wardle X Christine Donnell X Charlie Rountree X Keith Bird X Mayor Tammy de Weerd 2. Adoption of the Agenda: approve as amended 3. Discussion of Request to Allow City of Nampa Sewer Service to an 80 Acre Parcel at Black Cat and Victory Roads: Staff from Nampa Meridian Irrigation to discuss (*20 minutes) 4. Discussion of Interim Ordinance: Discussed (*5 minutes) 5. Request for Disposal of Surplus Property: (*5 minutes) 6. Executive Session per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1)(f): No Decision *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— November 3, 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. ill K CITY OF MERIDIAN PRE -COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA Wednesday, November 3, 2004 at 6:30 p.m. City Council Chambers Roll -call Attendance. C� Shaun Wardle_ Christine Donnell Charlie Rountree Keith Bird _X Mayor Tammy de Weerd Adoption of the Agenda: a7, b e-- A -f A h, rte,, aLc WL 3. Discussion of Request to Allow City of Nampa Sewer Service to an 80 Acre Parcel at Black Cat and Victory Roads: (*20 minutes) �7� '� f v-", 4. Discussion of Interim Ordinance: (*5 minutes) WrCAxrea-, 5. Request for Disposal of Surplus Property: (*5 minutes) 6 7 - 2 3 45 0 ) � } *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 — November 3, 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. h v � � C>wc rld&n IDAHOSINCE 03 9 1 ' 1903 MAYOR Tammy de Weerd CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS William L. M. Nary Keith Bird Charles M. Rountree Shaun Wardle CITY DEPARTMENTS Fire 540 E. Franklin Road 888-1234/fax 895-0390 Parks & Recreation 11 E- Bower Street 888-3579/fax 898-5501 Planning & Zoning 660 E. Watertower Lane Suite 202 884-5533/fax 888-6854 Police 1401 E. Watertower Lane 888-6678/fax 846-7366 Public Works 660 E. Watertower Lane Suite 200 898-5500/fax 898-9551 - Building 660 E. Watertower Lane Suite 150 887-2211/fax 887-1297 - Sewer (WWTP) 3401 N. Ten Mile Road 888-2191/fax 884-0744 - Water 2235 N. W. 8th Street 888-5242/fax 884-1159 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 Wednesday, November 3, 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: Discussion of Request to Allow City of Nampa Sewer Service to an 80 acre Parcel at Black Cat and Victory Roads -- Discussion of Interim Ordinance Request for Disposal of Surplus Property The public is welcome to attend the meeting. DATED this 291h of October, 2004. WILLIAM G. BERG, J ``,tti,itrl rr rrr+�rrf�r, �kp AL 9L 0 CITY HALL 33 EAST IDAHO AVENUE iMER1DIAN, IDAHO 83642 (208) 888-4433 CITY CI.FRK-F\X 888-4218 Iru.%rA,\ RLsouticl.s-F1x 884.8723 FHNANCL & uTu.rn' BILLING-Lnx 887-4813 MAYOR'S OFFICL-.r.tx 884-8119 CITY OF MERIDIAN PRE -COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA Wednesday, November 3, 2004 at 6:30 p.m. City Council Chambers Roll -call Attendance: Shaun Wardle Christine Donnell Charlie Rountree Keith Bird Mayor Tammy de Weerd 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Discussion of Request to Allow City of Nampa Sewer Service to an 80 Acre Parcel at Black Cat and Victory Roads: (x`20 minutes) 4. Discussion of Interim Ordinance: (*5 minutes) 5. Request for Disposal of Surplus Property: (*5 minutes) `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 — November 3, 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. November 19, 2004 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING APPLICANT November 23, 2004 ITEM NO. 'Jr -B REQUEST Approve Minutes of November 3, 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: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials• Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. PRE -COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA Wednesday, November 3, 2004 at 6:30 p.m. City Council Chambers 1. Roll -call Attendance: O Shaun Wardle X Christine Donnell X Charlie Rountree X Keith Bird X Mayor Tammy de Weerd 2. Adoption of the Agenda: approve as amended 3. Discussion of Request to Allow City of Nampa Sewer Service to an 60 Acre Parcel at Slack Cat and Victory Roads: Staff from Nampa Meridian Irrigation to discuss (*20 minutes) 4. Discussion of Interim Ordinance: Discussed (*5 minutes) 5. Request for Disposal of Surplus Property: (*5 minutes) 6. Executive Session per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1)(f): No Decision *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 — November 3, 2004 Page 1 of 1 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anvnna r[aeirinn l:nr r3is5hlMiF ral.f.A #n rE­vnnni� anrUnr haarinnc Meridian November 3. 200 The Meridian City Pre -Council meeting was called to order at 6:30 P.M. on Tuesday, November 3, 2004 by Mayor Tammy de Weerd. Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, Keith Bird, Shaun Wardle and Charlie Rountree. Others Present: Bruce Freckleton, Bill Nary, Kenny Bowers, Anna Canning, Dean Willis and Will Berg. Item 1 • Roll -G=ill AfteI ida dye. X Christine Donnell X Keith Bird 0 Shaun Wardle X Charlie Rountree X Mayor Tammy de Weerd Iters 2. Adoption of the Agenda. Bird: It's been requested to add an Item No. 6, Executive Session per Idaho State Code 67 2345('1)(f) and hope that that meets your approval and if it does I would entertain a motion to adopt the agenda as revised. Rountree: So moved. Donnell: Second. Bird: It's been moved and seconded to adopt the revised agenda. All in favor? ALL AYES. MOTION CARRIED. Iters 3. Discussion of Request to Allow City of Nampa Sewer Service to an 80 -Acre Parcel at Black Cat and Victory Roads: Freckleton: Madame Mayor, members of the Council this is a request by Shaun Wardle — or Shaun Nickel pinch-hitting tonight for Brad Watson. It's an 80 -acre site that on the map that I have got up here, it's — my laser is not working. But, you can see it, it's in yellow right up there. This is Victory Road on the north boundary of the 80 -acre parcel, McDermott to the west. The City of Meridian's area of impact is in gray and our referral area is in blue. The limits of our sanitary sewer or urban service -planning boundary is the red dashed line that you will see depicted here. The request is to have this site sewered to City of Nampa. Our sewer master plan as I mentioned only covered the area within the red dashed line. There is a fairly significant lateral that goes through here called the Caulken's Lateral. The topography of the land falls off to the southwest from that lateral and falls northeast this way. So, as far as trying to get gravity sewer to Meridian City Pre -Council Meeting November 3, 2004 Page 2 of 9 this area, we cannot provide it. The only way that we would be able to provide service to this site would be to either install a regional lift station to be able to pump the sewage north all the way up to our plant, which is in this area right here. Or, build another plant out south of town, which neither of those options are real attractive. The Black Cat Sewer Trunk project is underway to bring service down into this area from the plant. We are going to be building the regional lift station — kind of hard to see on this map. The regional lift station is just south of Cherry Lane in this area here. If we were to try and do something down in the south here, we would need to revisit our entire master plan. We would probably need to put the brakes on this Black Cat project that is underway because line sizes have been set based on the service area within the limits shown on the map. So, we would kind of need to revisit and start over for that area. I think that basically sums it up. I am sure the applicant would like to address the issue. Bird: Thank you, any questions for the staff at this point? Shaun, do you want to Nickel: Thank you, do I need to state my name for the record? Shaun [Nickel, 55 North 2" d Street in Eagle. Kind of a unique question i am posing to you this evening. Just to give you a brief history, my client went through a preliminary plat application for a non-farm development with Ada County a year and one half ago on this site and received approval for 16, one -acre lots. Those are the subdivision that you cluster in one area and then you leave 75 percent of the property in open space for future development. Our intention was to have a community septic system in place to handle sewage upon working with DEQ it became apparent that the package treatment systems that have been (inaudible) approved in the past are kind of put under more scrutiny and they would not approve that system out here so we have a preliminary plat that's basically sitting without the ability to serve it with sewer. My client did approach Nampa City to just see the availability of their sewer system and they told my client that they didn't see a real problem with that, however, they needed something from Ada County. So, when we went and spoke to Ada County the first thing they told us to do was come and talk to you folks and just see if — just kind of start the conversation, I guess. They had never really experienced any of them of this process of bringing services across the County line, nor have I and so that's the uniqueness, I guess, of our request. To develop in this area, it is in the RR- rural residential zone even by providing sewer out there we are still limited to the county's rural residential zoning, which means that we only could do 10 -acre lots or the non-farm development. So, even by providing sewer out here, we would not be able to do rezones and get any urban densities or urban subdivisions out here. We would still be limited to either one unit per five acres, which is what you can get with the non-farm or the one until per ten acre if you did just 10 -acre lots. Of course a ten -acre lot would not need sewer. They could do that with a septic system, so it would strictly be these one -acre non-farm developments if there were any others that would hook onto that system. That's kind of a brief history Meridian City Pre -Council Meeting November 3, 2004 Page 3 of 9 of where we are at. We just want to see where the city stands or what their thinking is on that. I did meet with Brad about a month ago and you know he kind of scratched his head as well and didn't know what to think of it. So, I kind of proposed that to you guys to ponder. Bird: Any questions for Shaun? Rountree: Mr. President. Any hesitancy on the part of the applicant that there would be some new sort of stipulation on those lots that they potentially or could at some point and time in the future become annexed or part of the City of Meridian? Nickel: Absolutely not. Bird: Any other questions? De Weerd: Mr. President, Bird: Madame Mayor. De Weerd: I think with a lot of the activity it looks like it's coming up in the south. It's really important that Meridian and Kuna get together and start deciding how those areas between our two cities are to be served and I think it almost goes back to the direction that we gave to staff last week and they need to get together with — they need to really examine this area and see what we can do. Either we are going to continue to exist with only the area of impact that we show master plan and service right now or we start looking for a future growth and how we are going to serve that and how we are going to work with the areas around us. This catches us all off guard. This is the first that I have heard about it and so, I don't know how to respond, but we do need to take a look at this site. I don't feel comfortable to give an answer tonight and I am know that everyone that would be served on the Black Cat Sewer Trunk Line has been told they can't develop anything until we get a Ten Mile Interchange. So, we are not really looking to grow in that area. It is a county density sub, so it's a little bit unique to what else we have seen, but I don't know what the comfort level of the rest of the Council is, but I think we really need to sit down and talk about this. Bird: Any others? I would agree with the Mayor that this is something that we need to look into because Black Cat wasn't planned on going across the freeway — south of the freeway until we got the interchange in there and I haven't heard anything different. Shaun, I think, we as a Council need to sit down and decide which way we want to go on this. Not only that, I think we need to — our staff needs to contact Nampa and make sure that what they do and what we do is in a joint agreement. You know, it might be that it's too expensive for even the Black Cat if we have to pump back up there for drains and I do remember the JUB book that I have got, it does run that way -- it falls off instead of fall back, so { Meridian City Pre -Council Meeting November 3, 2004 Page 4of9 think that is something that the two staffs need to get together on and we need to look and I think as a Council, my own personal opinion is we need to take a long hard look at it and not make a sudden decision that isn't right. That's my opinion. Any others? Nickel: Mr. President. Bird: Shaun. Nickel: May I initiate that discussion between the two staffs? Is that a problem? Bird: That would be fine, Shaun. That would be great. Nickel: At least to get it going and then maybe we can bring back at a future date that conversation and look at it again. Rountree: I think the only thing that I would be interested in is this is but one piece out there. Does the City of Nampa have designs on commercialization and (inaudible) facility that potentially could service this whole area and that certainly has an impact on what it is we are looking at as far as growth and infrastructure. I agree with the Mayor as well that's something that the City of Kuna needs to be aware of as well. This could be or would be the first step in having Nampa becoming Boise and extending infrastructure to areas and then all of a sudden have these odd developments across the county to — Bird: They are even going across county line -- Rountree: -- but that's going to happen someday anyway and that's something we are all going to have to live with. Nickel: For your reference, Mr. President and Councilman Rountree, the Nampa impact area currently is, I believe, right here. And thea it goes that way and they are in the process with Canyon County and renegotiating that and bringing it down to — it kind of notches down and square off their impact area about another mile or so to the south. There is a lot of activity right now on this side. A couple of the developments that I am working on actually separate from this one, but — so I know that the sewer is about two miles away right now from that. So, this developer would be brining that sewer line down, my developer. But, again there would be participation with the action that's going on over in that area. Bird: Well, I think that if you want to get the staffs together and let's get this going, but I think we need to really think it over and make sure that we get all the is crossed and all the I's dotted. Nickel: And then, Mr. President, as your request or recommendation also to contact the City of Kuna? Meridian City Pre -Council Meeting November 3, 2004 Page 5 of 9 Bird: I don't think it would hurt to have Kuna involved too because I think it's very good that we would have them. De Weerd: Mr. President, Bird: Madame Mayor. De Weerd: I think these are two different meetings. I think the meeting regarding this particular site is one thing, the rest of it is another and I don't want that to be developer driven, I want it to be city driven and so they are two separate things. The other one is more of a long term. I guess we need to start knowing what Nampa's plans are because they are dumping their traffic on our roads and those roads are not planned for improvement for some time. So, we know they will be going right into our city and beyond so there is a real growth issue in that regards that is separate from the site. Maybe our planning staffs need to get together too and start seeing what their plans for growth in that area if they are bringing their sewer — I didn't even know their sewer was that far out. Our planning staffs, Meridian, Kuna and Nampa need to get together and start discussing this and at some point bring in ACFID as well. Watson: We would be happy to do that. Bird: Okay, let's continue on with the — and get this thing taken care of, get the planning staff together and get it done. It is a problem and Nampa is closer and (inaudible ---) just drive out there. (Inaudible discussion) Item 4. Discussion of Interim Ordinance: Nary: Mr_ President, members of the Council, Madame Mayor actually this is a discussion probably for both Ms. Canning and myself. We had received some information from Dr. Freilich, from the Mayor and Ms. Canning got this as well and this is basically a suggestion from the study by Dr. Freilich that we consider an interim ordinance that is essentially rather than a moratorium, but some different standards and maybe Ms. Canning could speak to some of those things as to what was being proposed and then we could discuss and this is to make sure that you are aware of what's being proposed and I guess some recommendations from us as to what to do with that. Canning: President Bird, Madame Mayor, members of the Council. I did want to give you a little bit of a background on how this came about. At the last steering committee, which was a couple of weeks ago, at the end of that Mr. Freilich asked if anyone would be interested in it. It wasn't a big topic of discussion and I have to tell you it's not something he put a lot of emphasis on either. It was just like, if you want one we will send it to you and if you don't want it, we won't send I Meridian City Pre -Council Meeting November 3, 2004 Page 6 of 9 it to you. Who is interested? I did raise a hand just cause 1 wanted to see what it was, in all honesty. When it showed up it was just like oh well this is interesting, but I really don't think City Council is going to want to go for it_ You have that before you. In all honesty, I didn't go into detail on it because by my cursory review it just didn't seem like the direction we were headed. Shortly after that got a phone call from a planner at Ada County who is looking at it. We haven't actually been able to connect, but basically her voice mail was have you seen this thing and what do you guys doing? Then yesterday I had a similar discussion with ACHD. So, I think everyone that got it feels a little bit uncomfortable with it, so I don't think it's something we need to dwell on. I talked to the ACHD folks yesterday and we decided that maybe the best thing to do is say one of the things that the Freilich study is trying to do is build consensus on these issues. Because we are not at that point yet, it's really not worth spending a lot of time on this interim ordinance trying to gain the consensus for that. Let's work on the other things in the study and build that consensus and maybe when we get to the end, then we will adopt the ordinances. So, I don't think it's going to be a big deal not to adopt it. I think that everybody has some concerns or -- about the interim ordinance they received. There are three different ones. The county got one version, the city has got another version and then ACHD got a third version. Bird: Any questions or statements Council? Rountree: I haven't a question, but we probably ought to express our opinion to whomever is coordinating that and at this point they haven't — well, they have hired a coordinator or they are in the process of hiring a coordinator for the blue print study and either verbally or in writing and in our opinion it's premature for not a direction in which to go. Canning: I am sorry, Mr. President, Councilman Rountree did you say you would like to write a letter? Rountree: I said we ought to let them know that that's our position. I don't know if the rest of the cities are, but if in fact that's where we are we have got to let them know, De Weerd: Mr. President. Bird: Madame Mayor. De Weerd: I guess, I don't know if we need to do it with formality of the letter other than to have staff bring that word back at the steering committee and I can certainly bring that message back when we meet as a coalition. Rountree: That would better you bring it up than us? Meridian City Pre -Council Meeting November 3, 2004 Page 7 of 9 De Weerd: Yes, I would certainly take that opportunity. Bird: I would agree with that. Christine is that your feelings too? Donnell: Sounds great since I don't know what study you are even talking about. 1 think you are doing just fine. Rountree: That's probably not a bad position to be in. Canning: Councilmember Donnell if you would like more information on it you are welcome to give me a call or come by the office I would be happy to get you up to speed on it. Item S. Request for Disposal of Surplus Property: Nary: Mr. President, members of the Council, Madame Mayor there is in your packet is a memo and a Finance Department regarding disposal of property. Where this all started is a really pretty simple thing. We had a, I think, a screen of some sort with the Wastewater Treatment Plant that we wanted to donate to the City of Emmett for their use and it's a fairly long string of emails that went back and forth about the process. There is already an existing Finance Department policy. It's not a citywide policy, although one thing I would recommend you consider is making it a citywide policy rather than just a departmental policy. It has disposal guidelines. I think the law has changed some because in looking through the policy the Idaho Code Sections that are quoted in there don't reflect the same thing that's in the policy so I think the law may have been changed so we could probably clean that up. But, basically the reason it's before you is because I suggested that before we dispose of property that we find a method or a practice to make sure that the both of the liaison for the department was aware of what the property was that was being disposed and that it be on your agenda in some fashion so we propose to bring it tonight in the Pre -Council, if you would like it in the future to basically be run through the — it requires it be approved by the Mayor in the policy, though we add that the departmental liaison as part of that sign off, we could certainly do that. If you would like it on your consent agenda with a resolution so that you have some document that documents what property we are disposing of when we are donating it to either a charitable organization or another municipality we could certainly do that, but really all we were looking for was some process questions from you and then we could get this screen donated to where it needs to go. I think it's been a couple of months that they have been badgering this back and forth. But, I just wanted to make sure that you were aware of that and what due process you would like to see it in the future. Bird: Any questions or statements? Meridian City Pre -Council Meeting November 3, 2004 Page 8 of 9 Rountree: Mr. President if we are going to do this — make the processes simple and straight forward as we can; with this specific matter at hand I would request for disposal of the screen and let them know. I think it's a good reuse of something that is just going to sit and rust in a bone yard that another city could utilize it and take advantage of that and I think that is something we ought to do. Bird: And we should bring a resolution forward. Rountree: I think our resolution is appropriate to do that given the size and initial capital investment. Bird: I would agree with what Mr. Nary said and I think we do on all our property that we donate or surplus property needs to be done on a resolution then because we do then have a track record of it if we have to ever track anything down and I agree with Mr. Rountree that I would like to see somebody get some use out of it instead of sitting out there and rusting away_ Nary: Mr. President, members of the Council with your indulgence then I will work with finance and we will clean up the policy a little bit and then I will go prepare a resolution that as I told the Finance Department we have done it pretty routinely and I can do it pretty quickly — that was part of their concerns is some of these things in the past took a little longer than they wanted them to. So, I can get this done pretty quickly. We will bring it back and maybe you will see it. Rather than us brining it every time to Pre -Council we will just put it on your consent agenda when we have these items, but we will have the liaisons from the different departments to make sure they have seen it as well as the Mayor before it gets there, so that way you will know that it is coming and then if you have an item that you want to pull off to discuss, you certainly can do that. Bird: Thank you, Mr. Nary. Item 6. Executive Session per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1)(f): Bird: I would entertain a motion to go into Executive Session. Rountree: So moved. Donnell: Second. Bird: Mr. Clerk, roll call. Berg: Thank you Mr. President, members of the Council roll call vote. Rountree, aye; Donnell, aye; Bird, aye; ALL AYES. MOTION CARRIED. Meridian City Pre -Council Meeting November 3, 2004 Page 9 of 9 Bird: Council, I would entertain a motion to come out of Executive Session. Rountree: So moved. Donnell: It's been moved and seconded. All in favor say aye. ALL AYES. MOTION CARRIED. Bird: Okay, let it be noted that no decisions were made and Council that takes care of our Pre -Council meeting. I would entertain a motion for adjournment. Rountree: So moved. Donnell: Second. Bird: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All in favor say aye. ALL AYES. MOTION CARRIED. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:18 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: �� ` s Y �• ER i MAYOR .r ATTESTED: /l 1 ", 614 -- DATE DATE APPRW, E� W111 t;t? a � nz L WILLIAM G. BERG, J ., ITY C K 1116 ., October 29, 2004 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING November 3, 2004 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 3 REQUEST Discussion of Request to Allow City of Nampa Sewer Service to an 80 acres parcel at Black Cat and Victory Roads 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: Contacted: Emailed: Sce 0 -VA ad c& :-IW 40117 Date: Phone: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. RECEIVED ERCT 2 9 2004 City Of Meridian City Clerk Office Memo TO: Mayor De Weerd & City Council From: Brad Watson, P.F. CC: File, Anna Canning, City Clerk ©ate: 10/28104 Re: November 3, 2004 City Council Meeting Agenda Item The Public Works Department requests that the item below be considered on November 3 City Council agenda, under Department Deports, for Council's consideration: Request by Shawn Nickel for an 80 -acre Parcel located near the City of Meridian referral area to be severed by City of Nampa. A copy of correspondence from Shawn Nickel is attached. The developer intends to develop a 18 lot non-farm subdivision utilizing the City of Nampa sewer system. This property is outside Meridian's referral area and sewer master planning area but lies in Ada County. The Public Works Department has no objection to this request Thank you, U s Page 1 Page 1 of t Brad Watson From- Shawn Nickel [shawn@landconsultants.netj Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 12:58 PM To: watsonb@meridiencity.org Cc: djordan@group-one.com; cgeiger@ehminc.com Subject: Sewer Discussion with Council Fallow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Hi Brad. Thanks for meeting yesterday. Please accept this request to bring up in front of the Meridian City Council the question of Nampa City extending sewer and possibly water across the Canyon County/Ada County line to serve a 16 -lot non farm development that I represent. The property is located on the southeast corner of McDermott Road and Victory Road in RR zoned Ada County. You stated that this could be presented to the City Council at a future Pre -Council meeting. Please let me know the time and date of the meeting when you get it scheduled. Thanks again. Shawn L. Nickel 10/28/2004 52 N. 2nd Street Eagle, Idaho 83616 Office — 208-938-3812 Fax — 208-938-5873 Email: spawn@landconsultants.net Land Consultants Inc. To: Brad Watson, City Engineer From: Shawn L. Nickel Fax: 887-1297 Pages: 2 ( including cover page) Phone: Date: 10121/2004 Re: Nampa Sewer extension issue cc: ❑Urgent ❑Por Review ❑ Please Comment ❑ Please Reply ❑ Please Recycle Brad, Here is a vicinity map for the issue we discussed getting on the pre -council agenda regarding expansion of Nampa services into Ada Co. Please let me know asap. Thanks, Shawn VICINITY MAP ADA COUNTY DEV ELbPMEN'r SERVICES 200 W Front Street CityLimits l5oiscr, ID 83702 Ada County Areas of City Impact 208-287-7900 Boise F— f Airport Influence Areas Eagle ___" N Garden City A% Rivers and Canals - Kuna Zoning � _ J Meridian Streets Star This map is made from data copyrighted by Ada County. Ada County shalt not be liable for inaccuracies or 2000 0 2000 4000 Feet misuse of this map. Maps bearing this disclaimer may -'"-" be photocopied freely. However, use in any digital form requires written permission of Ada County. October 24, 2004 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING November 3, 2004 APPLICANT ITEM NO. REQUEST Discussion of Interim Ordinance 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: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. October 29, 2004 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING November 3, 2004 APPLICANT ITEM NO. REQUEST Request for Disposal of Surplus Properly 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: Contacted: Emailed: See attached Date: Phone: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shalt become property of the City of Meridian. Interoffice Memo 10/29/2004 To: Charlie Rountree and Mayor Tammy De Weerd From: Reta Cunningham CC: Will Berg, John Shawcroft, Brad Watson Ref surplus to donate r r, cri,N, of t4 IDAI-10 RECOVED OCT Cily of Meridian Ciiy Clerk Office WWTP has a piece of equipment they would like to donate to Emmett Wastewater Facility. It was determined that the Departments would send their disposal of surplus property to Finance and we would forward it on to the Council Liaison and Mayor for their review. Finance would also send it on the Clerk's office to be added to a Pre -Council Agenda for Council approval and resolution. It would be up to the Council Liaison to contact the department if they have questions or need additional information about the donation or would like someone from the department at the Pre -Council meeting. You'll find attached John Shawcroft's request to Donate the Rotomat asset. Feel free to call me if you have questions. W1,11, w(JI tau p'� 4k,�) � "O�- PreCmuru i I c�Wdc- x s� ` ,:CH y OF° E CmerlI. � 1� ' i9P3 MAYOR Tammy de Weerd CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS William L. M. Nary Keith Bird Charles M. Rountree Shaun Wardle CITY DEPARTMENT'S Fire 540 E. Franklin Road 888-1234/fax 895-0390 Parks & Recreation 11 E. Bower Street 888-3579/fax 898-5501 Planning & Zoning 660 E. Watertower Lane Suite 202 884-5533/fax 888-6854 Police 1401 E. Watertower Lane 888-6678/fax 846-7366 Public Works 660 E. Watertower Lane Suite 200 898-5500/fax 898-9551 - Building 660 E. Watertower Lane Suite 150 887-2211/fax 887-1297 - Sewer (WWTP) 3401 N. Ten Mile Road 888-2191/fax 884-0744 - Water 2235 N. W. 8th Street 888-5242/fax 884-1159 ASSET TRANSFER REQUEST For Lakeside Rotomat Fine Screen Dear Mayor and City Council Members. Part of on-going Headworks Project at the WWTP is the replacement of the existing fine screen with larger equipment designed to handle our increased flows. As a result, the existing screen has been removed and currently sits unused in our bone yard. While serviceable, the equipment is under sized for any future applications at the WWTP. Therefore, I am looking to dispose of the equipment as surplus property. City policy states the equipment needs to go to auction, be scraped, or transferred to another government entity. The machine is unsuitable for auction because it is specialty wastewater equipment and has no application outside the wastewater treatment arena. Scrap value will be around $200 - $300 and I feel it would be a waste of serviceable equipment. This leaves transfer to another entity with a need for such a machine. My contacts within the wastewater community have allowed me to find a new home for the rotomat. Emmett, Idaho already has an identical machine in service and they are interested in acquiring our old machine for redundancy. With your approval, the rotomat will be transferred to Emmett with the understanding that the City of Emmett bears the burden of all shipping and installation costs. There will be no cost to the City of Meridian. We have done this one other time during my tenure. Our old aeration blowers removed during an upgrade project were transferred to Rathdrum, Idaho, where they are in service to this day. I think this is a far better fate for this type of equipment than relegation to the scrap yard. Thank you for your consideration on this matter. Sincerely, John T. Shawcroft Wastewater Supt. CITY HALL 33 EAST IDAHO AVENUE MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 (208) 888-4433 CIT)' CLERK—I \X 888-4218 1IUNIA:.N RESOuRcLs—n%x 884-8723 FINr NO" & UTILITI' B1LLIt\G-1=rIX 897.4813 J%LWOII'S OFFICE—F%X 884.8119 r r a CITY OF IDAHO T �f C'hn� 19Y13 PURCHASING POLICY DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE Adopted September 2002 Purpose Commodities and services purchased in the public sector represent a direct cost to the taxpayer. Every purchase that city employees make is subject to public scrutiny. Competition is the central principal of public procurement. The rules and regulations in this procedure were developed to encourage competitive solicitation for sound value, guard against favoritism and profiteering and promote the interest of local economies by providing equal opportunities to compete for government business. References Procedure detail can be found in specific purchasing and expenditure processing field memorandum. See Attachment A Definitions Public Purchasing: The purchasing or procurement of an item or a service that meets the need of the city, at the best price, from the most responsive and responsible vendor. Idaho Code: This policy refers to several Idaho Statutes. See attachment A for a list of all statutes that impact public purchasing. The city follows Title 50 Municipal Corporations Chapter 3 Powers and follows code written for state purchasing whenever practical. Purchasing Ethics and Vendor Relationships Every city employee has a personal responsibility to conduct government business in an ethical manner and assure the integrity of the city purchasing and procurement processes. Department managers are responsible for adherence to City and State purchasing rules and regulations. A. Prohibitions The City has adopted the following state statutes in regard to purchasing prohibitions: I.C.#67-5726 — Conflict of interest regarding the holding of contracts or selling to the City property or supplies by City employees. I.C.#67-5726 — Prohibition regarding the influencing or conspiring to influence public purchasing decisions and contract awards. Attempts at influence may include kickbacks and bribes, peddling or payment of a fee, back door selling, hard -sell tactics, fraternization, or offering gifts to avoid following published procedures or gain advantages. • 1.C.#67-5726, I.C.#67-5717 -- Circumventing Purchasing Authorization — Prohibits efforts by employees to obtain products or services by avoiding the competitive process by splitting purchases, creating false emergency situations and non-use of City-wide contracts. B. Code of Ethics All City of Meridian employees responsible for procuring goods or services will: 1. Follow the rules and regulations of the City of Meridian and the laws of the state of Idaho. 2. Avoid activities that would compromise or give the perception of compromising the best interests of the City. 3. Reduce the potential for any charges of preferential treatment by actively promoting the concept of competition. 4. Act as good custodians of public money by obtaining maximum benefit for funds spent. 5. Never solicit or accept money, loans, credits or prejudicial discounts, gifts or entertainment material in nature (generally exceeding $50) favors or services from your present or potential suppliers, which might influence or appear to influence purchasing decisions. C. Vendor Relationships Developing and maintaining good relationships with our suppliers is important. Maintain and practice, to the highest degree possible, business ethics, professional courtesy, and competence in all transactions. Adhere to and protect the supplier's business and legal rights to confidentiality for trade secrets, and other proprietary information. Fil Procedure Acquisition cost includes unit price plus delivery and installation. 1. PURCHASING AUTHORITY: each Department Director or designee within the city will have the authority to acquire goods or service in accordance with the following guidelines. A. PURCHASES UP TO $1,000 Each Department Director or designee can make purchases up to $1,000 at their discretion without competitive bidding as long as the expenditure is within their appropriated budget. B. PURCHASES FROM $1,000 to $5,000 Such purchases can be made with the approval of the Department Director but must be accompanied by a signed purchase order. The approval should take place when the purchase order is issued, before any obligation has been incurred. If the item is already on contract or an open purchase order a purchase order is not required but the initial contract purchase order should be referenced on the invoice. C. PURCHASES MORE THAN $5,000 and LESS THAN $25,000 These purchases require informal, written bids and issuance of a purchase order. See informal bid procedures below. Each Department's City Council Liaison must sign all purchase orders in this range. D. PURCHASES $25,000 OR GREATER Expenditures at this level must go through a formal bid process in compliance with State Code Section 50-341. See formal bid procedures below. 3 II. INFORMAL BIDrriNG A. At least three bids must be obtained if possible and at least three of those must be from vendors with a significant Idaho presence ( if possible). There is no maximum number of bids. Idaho Code Section 50-341 defines significant Idaho presence as follows: "For the purposes of this section, any bidder domiciled outside the boundaries of the state of Idaho may be considered as an Idaho domiciled bidder, provided that there exists for a period of one (1) year preceding the date of the bid a significant Idaho economic presence as defined herein. Significant Idaho presence shall consist of the following: 1. That the bidder maintain in Idaho fully staffed offices, or fully staffed sales offices or divisions, or fully staffed sales outlets, or manufacturing facilities, or warehouse or other necessary related property; and 2. If a corporation be registered and licensed to do business in the state of Idaho with the office of the secretary of state." B. The request for quotation may be written or oral. Both must be documented with date, name or person providing quote and signed by the City employee obtaining the quote. C. Splitting of Requirements: Acquisition requirements shall not be divided to avoid bid statutes, rules, or policies. D. The award shall be made to the bidder offering the lowest acceptable quotation. If a bid is not acceptable retain written explanation of the reason. This is to provide support documentation in the event of challenge by an unsuccessful vendor. AWARDING BIDS — Awards may be made in any of the following ways. (Documentation demonstrating the informal bid process was followed needs to be forwarded to accounting with the request for payment.) a. Lowest Cost — Generally, awards are made to the lowest cost responsible bidder. Responsible bidder is defined as the vendor whose bid conforms in all material respects to the request for quotation and reflects the lowest acquisition price. Comparisons of costs should include all costs, including such items as delivery costs, setup charges, removal charges, labor charges, any additional materials required, and other elements described in the quotation. b. Best Value or Weighted Cost - To determine best value a weighted analysis may be used. In a weighted analysis, cost is only one factor in determining the award. Other factors may include evaluation of specifications, comparative performance examinations, vendor references, product usability, flexibility, maintenance, company resources, previous experience, etc. To assure a fair determination of award, identified factors are weighted according to importance in the overall purchasing decision. Relative scores are assigned to each factor, including price, to determine the lowest acquisition cost. c. Life — Cycle Costing Awards may also be made to bidders offering the lowest life cycle cost. Life cycle costing means the total cost of an item for its entire life span. It includes initial purchase price, operating supplies, maintenance, repairs, salvage value, and disposal costs. 5 III. FORMAL BIDDING Purchases $25,000 and greater are processed using the formal bid process. There are two approaches to purchases of this size — a bid or a request for proposal. Bids are generally used for tangible property and in instances where the purchaser knows what they want and the goal is to obtain the best price. Requests for proposal are generally used for services and in cases where the need is known but all the solutions are not. A : • 1. Developing Specification The term "specification" refers to a description of the characteristics or a commodity or service required. It is the explicit requirement furnished with a solicitation upon which a purchase order or contract is to be bases. Specifications are written not to restrict bidding but to encourage open competition. The goal is invite maximum reasonable competition. Checklist for Specifications: a. Specifications should be clear and accurate, yet simple. Do not make them so specific that a loophole eliminates competition and allows a vendor to take advantage of the purchaser. b. Specifications should be as flexible as possible. Inflexible specifications defeat the competitive bid process. c. Specifications must be written so it easy to check that the product or service meets the specification d. Specifications should be reasonable. e. Specification should be as fair as possible and allow for competitive bidding by several bidders. 2. Procedure for Bid Solicitation a. NOTICE — The notice inviting bids must set the date and place for the bid opening. The first publication shall be at LEAST two (2) weeks before the date of the bid opening. A longer time period might be preferable. Notice must be published at least twice, not less than one (1) week apart, in the official newspaper of the city. The notice should succinctly set forth the project to be done. Bid notice information must be forwarded to the City Clerk at least one full week before the first public notice is to appear. The notice must list the location of bid forms, bidders instructions, contract documents, general and special instructions, drawings and specifications as well as the name of the project manager. The city may require a deposit or charge for bid documents. 0 b. PRE-BID CONFERENCE Pre-bid conferences may be held to explain the item or project requirements. They should be announced to all prospective bidders known to have received an Invitation to Bid. The conference should be held long enough after the Invitation to Bid has been issued to allow bidders to become familiar with the project but long enough after to allow consideration of the conference results in bid preparation. Nothing in the pre-bid conference can change the Invitation to Bid unless a change is made by written addendum. If a transcript is made, it shall be a public record. A pre-bid conference is an excellent way to receive vendor input prior to a bid opening. Vendors have the opportunity to point out inconsistencies in specifications or provide suggestions on technical specifications that may benefit the city. 3. ADDENDA TO INVITATIONS TO BID a. Addenda to Invitations to bid shall be identified as such and shall ask that the bidder acknowledge receipt of all addenda issued. The addendum shall reference the portions of the Invitation for Bid it amends b. Addenda shall be sent to all prospective bidders known to have received the invitation to bid. The City Clerk or Project Manager will notify all prospective bidders by fax or mail. c. Addenda shall be distributed within a reasonable time to allow prospective bidders the opportunity to adjust bid preparation. If the date and time previously set for the bid opening do not accommodate such preparation the bid opening time must be increased and once again all prospective bidders notified by the City Clerk or Project Manager. A bid opening time should be documented in the addendum. 4. BID OPENING AND EVALUATION a. All bids must be received in the City Clerks office by the date and time specified in the Invitation to Bid. b. All bids must be signed c. No bid received by the City may be withdrawn after the time set in the notice for the opening d. The project manager prepares the bid tabulation sheet before the bid opening e. The City Clerk publicly opens the bids at the time and place stated in the public notice. No person is denied the right to be present at the opening of bids. The first items read are the signature and the bid VA security` information. If this information is not available the bid is void and cannot be considered. f. The City Clerk hands the bids to the Project Manager for review. The Project Manager: •Attaches bid bond if required *Attaches acknowledgement of addenda is required. • Reference HVAC/Mechanical/Electrical subs if required • t=ills out and totals bid schedule • Reads responsive bid amount out loud • States who the apparent low bid is • States that all bids will be evaluated for arithmetic correctness and other items as seemed appropriate *Announces the date that a recommendation of award will be presented to the City Council. g. Bid results are available in the City Clerks Office to all interested parties. h. If the Lowest responsible bid is less than or equal to $25,000 council action is not required. (The Mayor must sign all City contracts) i. If two or more bids are the same the city council may accept the one it chooses. If no bids are received the council may make the expenditure without further compliance with this section. 5. Council Action for bid decisions that exceed $25,000 a. Staff recommendations are placed on the Consent agenda. If the item is controversial or reflects policy that has not been addressed it can be added to the Council agenda for discussion. Council may also pull Consent items and ask for discussion with staff. At their discretion staff may choose to not place the item on the consent agenda and may present the contract to the Council as a regular agenda item. b. The City Council may: 1. Accept staff recommendation 2. Approve an alternate bid in accordance with state statute and city policy 3. Defer action and request more information 4. Reject all bids and re -advertise 5. After rejecting bids the City Council may, after finding it to be a fact, pass a resolution declaring that the purpose of the expenditure can be realized more economically by day labor, or the materials or supplies furnished at a lower price in the open market. Upon adoption of the resolution, it may fulfill the purpose of the expenditure in the manner stated without further compliance with competitive bidding requirements. 6. If no bids are received the City may make the expenditure without further compliance with competitive bidding requirements. This includes buying the material and supplies and/or having city employees do the work. 7. The Project Manager will notify the successful bidder of the award of the bid. 6. MISTAKES IN BIDS a. Reference Idaho Code 5A-1904 (B -B) for specific reasons for (and ramifications of) withdrawing a bid. 7. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC WORKS REQUIREMENTS Public Works contractors have additional requirements for construction projects. 1. Must be bondable for performance and payment 2. Must have a valid Public Works license through the State of Idaho 3. Must have class of license specific to dollar value of project 4. Must satisfy insurance requirements 5. May have to hold certain specialty license C IV REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL A. A request for proposal is generally utilized in the acquisition of services or complex purchases. A RFP describes a problem or need in general terms and seeks a written response including pricing information, which describes the solution or means of providing the property requested by the request for Proposal. Price might be an evaluation criterion for proposals, but will not necessarily be the predominant basis for contract award. B. Specific criteria are applicable to professional service contracts with design professionals, construction managers, and professional land surveyors. These criteria are described in Idaho Statute 67-2320 State Government and State Affairs, Chapter 23, Miscellaneous Provisions, Professional Service Contracts With Design Professionals, Construction Managers And Professional Land Surveyors. C. To choose between a request for proposal or competitive sealed bidding consider the following factors:. 1. Whether the relative skills, expertise, or technical capability of the offers will have to be evaluated 2. Whether the cost is secondary to the characteristics of the property or service sought, as in a work of art 3. Whether the conditions of the service, property or delivery conditions are unable to be sufficiently described in the Invitation to Bid. 4. Whether the acquisition is for highly complex or technical property of services and evaluation of the vendor's approach, management capabilities, innovation, or other technical factors are secondary to cost. D. The RFP is written so that potential offerers understand the problem they are being asked to address. Any limits or conditions that apply must be included. The RFP must state in general terms all of the evaluation factors and their relative importance, including price. E. Evaluation of Proposals The evaluation must be based on the evaluation factors set forth in the RFP. Numerical rating systems are generally used but are not required. Factors not specified in the Request for Proposal shall not be considered in evaluating offers or determining award of contract. F. Award 1.A written determination shall be made explaining how the award was found to be most advantageous for the agency based on the evaluation criterion set forth in the Request for Proposal. 2. If only one proposal is received in response to a Request for Proposal, the City, as it deems appropriate, may make an award, reject the proposal, or if time permits, re -solicit for the purpose of obtaining additional proposals. 10 i - V. DETERMINATION OF NEED TO CONTRACT A. A contract may be established as the result of a bid or a RFP. Agreements where someone is performing a service defined by the City that will exceed $5,000 generally require a written contract. B. The Mayor must approve contracts for $25,000 or less. C. All contracts exceeding $25, 000 will be placed on the city council consent agenda. If the council requires discussion they can be pulled from the consent agenda and discussed. Staff may also request such contract not be placed on the consent agenda. D. The city attorney must review all contracts for legal adequacy. E. All contracts must be signed by the Mayor, City Clerk attests to Mayor's Signature. F. The original signed copy of every contract must be retained in a central file in the City Clerk `s office. The City Clerk will forward a signed copy to the Finance Department for payment verifications. G. The City Attorney must approve any decision made to breech a contract due to failure to perform. The City Attorney will perform the steps necessary to legally terminate the contract. 11 VI. LEASES A. The City may enter into lease agreements. If possible the City will use the competitive bidding process. B. All leases exceeding $25,000 will be placed on the city council consent agenda. If the council requires discussion they can be pulled from the consent agenda and discussed. C. The city attorney must review all lease agreements for legal adequacy. D. The Mayor must sign all lease agreements and City Clerk attest to Mayor's signature. E. The original signed copy of every lease agreement must be retained in a central file in the City Clerk's office. The City Clerk will forward a copy to the Finance Department for payment verifications. 12 i` tr VII. Risk Management and Insurance Requirements A. Public Works is responsible for ensuring that all insurance requirements are met for their projects. Public Works will maintain necessary documentation in their offices and have available for audit upon request. B. Project Managers for all other city contracts that require insurance will be responsible for obtaining proof of insurance and having the documents available for audit upon request. B. Workman's Compensation -- providers of services to the city may be required to file a certificate of Workers Compensation Insurance. Each department is responsible for ensuring a copy of the certificate is filed with the contract if appropriate. Contact the City Treasurer to determine if the certificate is necessary. 13 Vill. EXCEPTIONS TO COMPETITIVE BIDDING A. COOPERATIVE BIDDING The Department may use the established state, federal, city, or county contracts to make purchases. Attach a printout of the pertinent information from the state's web page to the purchase order. The Division of Purchasing contract information is located at: http://www2.state._id.us/adm/purchasin-g/aayinfo.htm Departments may also piggyback on other city or county bids within six months of the original bid award if the pricing is consistent the original bid and the bid process followed state statute 50-341 and state statute 67-2349. All bid documentation must accompany the purchase order. City employees are strongly urged to use State of Idaho contracts. State contracts are developed to include price, delivery, reporting capability and other beneficial services. They meet the important competitive bidding criteria and save the time and effort the employee spends shopping around. A. EMERGENCY PURCHASING Any sum may be expended by the city in the event of an emergency. The Mayor must designate the emergency and provide expenditure approval. Per Idaho Statute 50341 in the event of an emergency such as "extraordinary fire, flood, storm, epidemic or other disaster, of it is necessary to do emergency work to prepare for national or local defense or to safeguard life, health, or property." Such contracts may not be for a period that exceeds one year. B. SOLE SOURCE PURCHASING — Purchases under $25,0000 Competitive bidding requirements may be waived if the there is only one vendor for the goods or services to be acquired: Sole source acquisitions must be approved by the department's liaison prior to purchase Examples of sole source purchases • Where the compatibility of equipment, components, accessories, computer software, replacement parts, or service is the paramount consideration • Where a sole supplier's item is needed for trial use or testing • Purchase of video's, books, or other copyrighted materials • Purchase of property for which it is determined there is no functional equivalent • Purchases of public utility services 14 C. PROFESSIONAL OR CONSULTANT SERVICES — contracts less than $25,000 Professional service contracts for less than $25,000 may be entered into without formal bidding. Professional service contracts require review by the City of Meridian attorney for legal adequacy and the Mayor's signature. Consultant Services: Work rendered by either independent individuals or firms who possess specialized knowledge, experience, and expertise including but not limited to such areas as management, personnel, finance, accounting, planning and data processing. The consultant's work will be performed according to the consultant's methods without being subject to the control of the city. Professional Services: Work rendered by an independent contractor who has a professional knowledge of some department of learning or science. This includes but is not limited to accounting and auditing, legal, education, engineering, architecture, and research. SPECIAL CONDITIONS EXIST FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS WITH DESIGN PROFESSIONALS, CONSTRUCTION MANAGERS, AND PROFESSIONAL. LAND SURVEYORS. SEE IDAHO CODE 67-2320 Use Internet to go to Access Idaho - Government — Legislature- Idaho Statutes — Title 67 — Chapter 23 D. Use of Correctional Industries The city can purchase Correctional Industry furniture and other goods or services without competitive bidding. The city may also utilize Idaho Department of Correction labor crews without competitive bidding. 15 IX. PAYMENT PkOCESSING { A. Access Purchase Order System This system was designed to bring uniformity to the City's purchase orders and to give Departments their actual budget balance at any given time. To maintain accuracy it is important that all purchases be entered into the system, regardless of amount. Purchases under the purchase order requirement dollar limit may be entered in the system without generating an actual purchase order. This system is not linked to the City's accounting system so the balance in the purchase order system must be balanced to the accounting system financial reports on a monthly basis. B. Purchase Order Requirements 1.The purpose of a purchase order is to obtain and document approval to purchase BEFORE the purchase is made. The purchase order should be completely filled prior to approval. 2. All fields on the purchase order should be filled out: a. Bill To: City Hall address b. Ship To: Purchaser's Location c. Complete vendor name and address d. Item description, account coding and price e. Reason for purchase 3. There is a cost associated with generating purchase orders. Recognizing this the City does not require purchase orders for purchases under $1,000, items on an existing contract (reference original purchase order number on invoice), or utility charges. C. Invoice Processing 1. All invoices will be processed and paid by the City's Finance Department. All vendors should be directed to use one address, the city hall address: City of Meridian Attn Accounts Payable 33 East Idaho Meridian, Idaho 83042 D. Central accounts payable will open mail and distribute invoices to the correct departments. Statements will be retained and reviewed in Accounts Payable. 1. All receiving documents must be initialed and dated and included with the payment invoice. 2. Upon receipt of invoice departments will match receiving documents, purchase orders if appropriate, bid documents if appropriate, to invoices. 16 f � 3. Each invoice will be stamped with a stamp that provides Accounts Payable with the information necessary to enter the invoice in the accounting system. This information includes Account number or numbers, Purpose of Purchase, and Approval Signature 4. Completed invoices should be sent back to the City Hall Accounts Payable office as soon as necessary documents are assembled. All invoices for the month MUST be received in Accounts Payable by the 5th of the following month. 5. Purchase orders or either the department head or the city council liaison must sign invoices before they are sent to Finance. 6. Accounts Payable will batch department payment requests and generate and mail vendor payments. Invoice is paid the 16th of the month following the date of the invoice. 7. Review of Purchases The accounting department will review invoices for compliance with city and statutory rules and regulations. However the primary responsibility for the propriety of the expenditure rests with the Department Director who signed the invoice. 8. Opening Credit Accounts For purposes of good internal control the use of store lines of credit will be discouraged. The decision to open a line of credit is the responsibility of the Finance Director. City employees are not authorized to open lines of credit and apply for and receive charge cards. Such accounts will be canceled. 17 IIX. SURPLUS PROPERTY A. DEFINITION OF SURPLUS PROPERTY Personal property owed by the city where the cost of maintenance, transportation, storage, or other costs exceed the economic or useful life of the property. B. DISPOSAL Surplus property will be disposed of in the manner that maximizes the value received by the City of Meridian in accordance with the following guidelines: All employees of the City, including their spouses, dependents, or any person acting on the employee's behalf, are prohibited from acquiring surplus property form the City UNLESS the property is acquired through a competitive bid process, such as an auction or sealed bid. C. GUIDELINES The following guidelines determine the method used to dispose of property. Nominal Value: 1. Item has a value of zero or less than what it would cost to dispose of the property. 2. Dispose of item by donating to charitable organization that qualifies under Section 501 (c) and 501 (c) (19) of the Internal Revenue Service or to any state or local government pursuant to I.0 50-1405 or: Dispose of item at local refuse site or have it removed by outside party willing to pay for removal. Less Than $7,000 Value Sell or transfer to another state or local government pursuant to I.C. 50- 1405 without public advertisement or competitive bid or: Sell at public auction conducted by a licensed auctioneer or: Sell to the highest bidder in response to notice of public sale advertised for at least one week in a newspaper of general circulation. Greater Than $7,000 Value Sell at public auction conducted by a licensed auctioneer or: M Sell after receipt of sealed bids to the highest responsible bidder after notice of public sale. D. EXCEPTIONS With approval from the City Council and the Mayor items of greater than nominal value may be donated to 501 ( c) (3) and 501 ( c ) (19) charitable organization or to the state or other local governments pursuant to I.C. 50-1405. E. PROCEDURES FOR DISPOSAL 1. To dispose of an item a Property Disposal Authorization Request must be completed. See Attachment B, Property Disposal Authorization Request 2. Once the form is complete it should be routed as follows: a. Signature (and date) of Department head b. Send to Accounting Department. Accounting will review the form for completeness, sign, and date. c. Accounting will route to Mayor for approval, Mayor will sign and date and return to accounting. d. Accounting will return the Property Disposal Authorization Form to the requesting Department so they can proceed with disposal. A copy of the form will be maintained in Accounting. e. Once the property is disposed of the Department will note on the form the final disposition of the property and forward to Accounting with asset change form. f. It is the responsibility of each Department to document actual final disposal of the property. Failure to do so will be noted on the monthly property disposal report prepared for the Mayor and Council. g. Accounting will update the fixed asset system and remove the item. Accounting will retain the documentation for audit purposes. h. Once a month accounting will prepare a report for the Council summarizing the month's disposal requests and actions. The council president will initial the report indicating that it has been reviewed. 19 CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Wednesday, November 3, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers 1. Roll -call Attendance: O Shaun Wardle X Christine Donnell X Charlie Rountree X Keith Bird X Mayor Tammy de Weerd 2. Pledge of Allegiance: Josh Hatfield — Boy Scout Troop 166 3. Community Invocation by Pastor Bud Henthorn, with Meridian Gospel Tabernacle: Presented 4. Adoption of the Agenda: Approve as amended 5. Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of September 21, 2004 Pre -Council Meeting: Approve B. Approve Minutes of September 28, 2004 Pre -Council Meeting: Approve C. Approve Minutes of October 12, 2004 City Council Regular Meeting: Approve D. Tabled from October 12, 2004: Land Lease Agreement with Ken Hamilton Presentations: Approve E. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 04- 024 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 47.66 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for proposed Silverleaf Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC — 2683 West Chinden Boulevard: Approve F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 04- 031 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 143 single-family residential building lots and 19 common lots on 47.66 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Silverleaf Subdivision by Meridian City Council Agenda — November 3, 2004 Page l of 4 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City or Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. Centennial Development, LLC — 2683 West Chinden Boulevard: Approve G. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 04-033 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development consisting of a school lot and single-family residential lots with reductions to the minimum requirements for lot size and street frontage for proposed Silverleaf Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC — 2683 West Chinden Boulevard: Approve H. Order to Remand back to Planning and Zoning Commission for Alexandria Subdivision AZ 04-011, PP 04-017, and CUP 04- 015: Approve I. Coral Creek 1 Blackstone Lift Station Upgrade: Approve J. Change Order No. 1 for the 2004 McMillan Water Extension Protect: Approve K. Approve Bills: Approve 6. Department Reports: A. Planning and Zoning Department -- Anna Powell 1. New Employee / Planner: 7. (Items Moved from Consent Agenda) Nothing 8. FP 04-059 Request for Final Plat approval of 3 single-family residential building lots on .45 acre in an R-4 zone for Ashford Greens Subdivision No. 7 by Brighton Corporation. (Ashford Greens Sub. No. 7 is a re- subdivision of Lots 88, 89, 90 and 91 of Block 23 of Ashford Greens Sub. No. 2) — east of North Black Cat Road and north of West Cherry Lane: Approve 9. FP 04-060 Request for Final Plat approval of 2 single-family residential building lots on .34 acre in an R-4 zone for Ashford Greens Subdivision No. 8 by Brighton Corporation. (Ashford Greens Sub_ No. 8 is a re- subdivision of Lots 43, 44 and 45, Block 23 of Ashford Greens Sub No. 2) — east of North Black Cat Road and north of West Cherry Lane: Approve 10. FP 04-061 Request for Final Plat approval of 92 single-family residential building lots and 19 common lots on 30.67 acres in an R-8 zone for Redfeather Estates Subdivision No. 2 by Packard Estates Meridian City Council Agenda —November 3, 2004 Page 2 of 4 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. Development, LLC — south of East Ustick Road and east of North Eagle Road: Approve 11. FP 04-062 Request for Final Plat approval of 46 single-family residential building lots and 3 common lots on 13.73 acres in an R-8 zone for Redfeather Estates Subdivision No. 3 by Packard Estates Development, LLC — south of East Ustick Road and east of North Eagle Road: Approve 12. FP 04-063 Request for Final Plat approval for 50 single-family residential building lots and 13 common lots on 15.34 acres in a R-8 zone for Sheridan Place Subdivision by Robert Chavez — east of North Locust Grove Road and north of East McMillan Road: Table to November 9, 2004 Agenda 13. FP 04-064 Request for Final Plat approval of 35 single-family residential building lots and 6 common lots on 8.84 acres in an R-8 zone for Sienna Creek Subdivision by Sagewood Development, Inc. — north of West Ustick Road and east of North Linder Road: Approve 14. AP 04-003 Request to appeal the decision and order of the Planning and Zoning Commission denying the Preliminary Plat of Kingsbridge Subdivision by Vision First, LLC — 4070 South Eagle Road: Approve - Notice Public Hearing for Preliminary Plat for November 30, 2004 15. Continued Public Hearing from October 19, 2004: AZ 04-023 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 76.72 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for proposed Kingsbridge Subdivision by Vision First, LLC -- 4070 South Eagle Road: Re -Notice Public Hearing for November 30, 2004 16. Continued Public Hearing from October 19, 2004: CUP 04-032 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development consisting of single-family residential lots with reductions to the minimum requirements for lot size, street frontage and request to exceed the maximum block length allowed for proposed _Kingsbridge Subdivision by Vision First, LLC — 4070 South Eagle Road: Re -Notice Public Hearing for November 30, 2004 17. Public Hearing: VAC 04-007 Request for a Vacation of irrigation easements in Block 1 of Stokesberry Subdivision on the east 10 feet of Lots 2, 3 & 4; the northerly 10 feet of Lot 2, the southerly 10 feet of Lot 3; the northerly 5 feet of Lot 3; and the southerly 5 feet of Lot 4, by Properties West, Inc — west of North Eagle Road and north of East Fairview Avenue: Prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval Meridian City Council Agenda — November 3, 2004 Page 3 of4 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. 18. Public Hearing: CUP 04-029 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a daycare facility for 30 to 40 children in an R-8 zone for Condra Steeves Daycare Center by Condra and Donald Steeves - 1258 East Cougar Creek Drive: Prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval 19. Public Hearing: RZ 04-011 Request for a Rezone of 9.16 acres from R- 8 to C -C zone for Cairns Crossing Subdivisionby Landmark Engineering and Planning, Inc. - south of West Cherry Lane and east of Linder Road: Prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval 20. Public Hearing: PP 04-033 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 11 commercial building lots on 9.16 acres in a proposed C -C zone for Cairns Crossing Subdivision by Landmark Engineering and Planning, Inc. - south of West Cherry Lane and east of Linder Road: Prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval 21. Public Hearing: AZ 04-025 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 121.96 acres from R4 (Ada County) to R-4 zone for Vienna Woods Subdivision No. 1-7 and Edinburgh Place Subdivision No. 1-2 by the City of Meridian - NEC of East McMillan Road and North Locust Grove Road: Continue Public Hearing to November 16, 2004 22. Water, Sewer, & Trash Delinquencies: Approve 23. Ordinance No. 041112 City Attorney: Approve 24. City Attorney 1 Human Resources: Report on Benefits Option Flex Pay: Approve Meridian City Council Agenda — November 3, 2004 Page 4 of 4 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Wednesday, November 3, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers 1. Roll -call Attendance: 0 Shaun Wardle X Christine Donnell X Charlie Rountree X Keith Bird — A Mayor Tammy de Weerd 2. Pledge of Allegiance: J%F/L ted /soy fe,a,4,4 o /66 3. Community Invocation by Pastor Bud Henthorn, with Meridian Gospel Tabernacle:gk.„� 4. Adoption of the Agenda: ar 5. Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of September 21, 2004 Pre -Council Meeting: B. Approve Minutes of September 28, 2004 Pre -Council Meeting: C. Approve Minutes of October 12, 2004 City Council Regular Meeting: ayV,,rw v+-, D. Tabled from October 12, 2004: Land Lease Agreement with Ken Hamilton Presentations: 69 ,N t„_r._ E. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 04- 024 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 47.66 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for proposed Silverleaf Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC — 2683 West Chinden Boulevard: F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 04- 031 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 143 single-family residential building lots and 19 common lots on 47.66 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Silverleaf Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC — 2683 West Chinden Boulevard: appy -vv-,_ Meridian City Council Agenda — November 3, 2004 Pagel or4 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiting accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing please contact the City Clerk's Office at 8 88-443 3 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. G. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 04-033 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development consisting of a school lot and single-family residential lots with reductions to the minimum requirements for lot size and street frontage for proposed Silverleaf Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC — 2683 West Chinden Boulevard: a)9vyllo-wc.. H. Order to Remand back to Planning and Zoning Commission for Alexandria Subdivision AZ 04-011, PP 04-017, and CUP 04- 015: I. Coral Creek 1 Blackstone Lift Station Upgrade: J. hange Order No. 1 for the 2004 McMillan Water Extension, , Prosect: wr-, K. Approve Bills: ymVIA— 6. Department Reports: 7. (Items Moved from Consent Agenda) 8. FP 04-059 Request for Final Plat approval of 3 single-family residential building lots on .45 acre in an R-4 zone for Ashford Greens Subdivision No. 7 by Brighton Corporation. (Ashford Greens Sub. No. 7 is a re- subdivision of Lots 88, 89, 90 and 91 of Block 23 of Ashford Greens Sub. No. 2) — east of North Black Cat Road and north of West Cherry Lane: V�C_ 9. FP 04-060 Request for Final Plat approval of 2 single-family residential building lots on .34 acre in an R-4 zone for Ashford Greens Subdivision No. 8 by Brighton Corporation. (Ashford Greens Sub. No. 8 is a re- subdivision of Lots 43, 44 and 45, Block 23 of Ashford Greens Sub No. 2) — east of North Black Cat Road and north of West Cherry Lane: A71"_VVL.9_ 10. FP 04-061 Request for Final Plat approval of 92 single-family residential building lots and 19 common lots on 30.67 acres in an R-8 zone for Redfeather Estates Subdivision No. 2 by Packard Estates Development, LLC — south of East Ustick Road and east of North Eagle Road: VX__ 11. FP 04-062 Request for Final Plat approval of 46 single-family residential building lots and 3 common lots on 13.73 acres in an R-8 zone for Redfeather Estates Subdivision No. 3 by Packard Estates Development, LLC — south of East Ustick Road and east of North Eagle Road: 06~ vL4- Meridian City Council Agenda —[November 3, 2004 Page 2 of All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 49 hours prior to the public meeting. 12. FP 04-063 Request for Final Plat approval for 50 single-family residential building lots and 13 common lots on 15.34 acres in a R-8 zone for Sheridan Place Subdivision by Robert Chavez – east of North Locust Grove Road and north of East McMillan Road: A6ee 1-, 11-1–all- 13. f–%–a¢13. FP 04-064 Request for Final Plat approval of 35 single-family residential building lots and 6 common lots on 8.84 acres in an R-8 zone for Sienna Creek Subdivision by Sagewood Development, Inc. – north of West Ustick Road and east of North Linder Road: 14. AP 04-003 Request to appeal the decision and order of the Planning and Zoning Commission denying the Preliminary Plat of Kingsbridge Subdivision by Vision First, LLC – 4070 South Eagle Road: �vf7 u- /J /,k fir- 15. Continued Public Hearing from October 19, 2004: AZ 04-023 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 76.72 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for proposed Subdlvisi —;on by Vision First, LLC – 4070 South ra Eagle Road: _�fi� p/!t. Y�N 16. Continued Public Hearing from October 19, 2004: CUP 04-032 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development consisting of single-family residential lots with reductions to the minimum requirements for lot size, street frontage and request to exceed the maximum block length allowed for proposed Kin sbrid a Subdivision by Vision First, LLC – 4070 South Eagle Road: re h,9_h c, /,/!t a,yW, 13 - 17. Public Hearing: VAC 04-007 Request for a Vacation of irrigation easements in Block 1 of Stokesberry Subdivision on the east 10 feet of Lots 2, 3 & 4; the northerly 10 feet of Lot 2; the southerly 10 feet of Lot 3; the northerly 5 feet of Lot 3; and the southerly 5 feet of Lot 4, by Properties West, Inc – west of North Eagle Road and north of East Fairview Avenue: prV -1'% c/.,( cv-r c�rrrr,rr tiit,e_ 18. Public Hearing: CUP 04-029 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a daycare facility for 30 to 40 children in an R-8 zone for Condra Steeves Daycare Center by Condra and Donald Steeves – 1258 East Cougar Creek Drive: /9,re/24,-Le t4t G/.1p A�y_ &ppmvat') 19. Public Hearing: RZ 04-011 Request for a Rezone of 9.16 acres from R- 8 to C -C zone for Cairns Crossing Subdivision by Landmark Engineering and Planning, Inc. – south of West Cherry Lane and east of Linder Road: ;�PfZ,.- 20. Public Hearing: PP 04-033 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 11 commercial building lots on 9.16 acres in a proposed C -C zone for Cairns Meridian City Council Agenda — November 3, 2004 Page 3 of 4 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. 21. 22. 22. Crossinq Subdivision by Landmark Engineering and Planning, Inc. - south of West Cherry Lane and east of Linder Road: 1,2riz19A"C- A%� Q/e 16-Y- 1jrw Public Hearing: AZ 04-025 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 121.96 acres from R4 (Ada County) to R-4 zone for Vienna Woods Subdivision No. 1-7 and Edinburgh Place Subdivision No. 1-2 by the City of Meridian - NEC of East McMillan Road and North Locust Grove Road: jw f„ jl-G6-v -�- Water, Sewer, & Trash Delinquencies: Ordinance No. 694-- 1112' w/pPIL-c. City Attorney: 17 +x Z3. C/{� �}'HahnGy I,lun.a"- 2ePo es r k",t " / ,,o.�s 8)� FleK Pa y Meridian City Council Agenda — November 3, 2004 Page 4 of 4 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. November 19, 2004 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING November 23, 2004 APPLICANT ITEM NO. J -C REQUEST Approve Minutes of November 3, 2004 City Council Regular 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: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall bocome property of the City of Meridian. CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Wednesday, November 3, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers 1. Roll -call Attendance: 0 Shaun Wardle X Christine Donnell X Charlie Rountree X Keith Bird X I Mayor Tammy de Weerd 2. Pledge of Allegiance: Josh Hatfield — Boy Scout Troop 166 3. Community Invocation by Pastor Bud Henthorn, with Meridian Gospel Tabernacle: Presented 4. Adoption of the Agenda: Approve as amended 5. Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of September 21, 2004 Pre -Council Meeting: Approve B. Approve Minutes of September 28, 2004 Pre -Council Meeting: Approve C. Approve Minutes of October 12, 2004 City Council Regular Meeting: Approve D. Tabled from October 12, 2004: Land Lease -Agreement with Ken Hamilton Presentations: Approve E. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 04- 024 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 47.66 acres from RUT to R4 zone for proposed Silverleaf Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC — 2683 West Chinden Boulevard: Approve F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 04- 031 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 143 single-family residential building lots and 19 common lots on 47.66 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Silverleaf Subdivision by Meridian City Council Agenda —November 3, 2004 Page 1 of Centennial Development, LLC — 2683 West Chinden Boulevard: Approve G. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 04-033 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development consisting of a school lot and single-family residential lots with reductions to the minimum requirements for lot size and street frontage for proposed Silverleaf Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC -- 2683 West Chinden Boulevard: Approve H. Order to Remand back to Planning and Zoning Commission for Alexandria Subdivision AZ 04-011, PP 04-017, and CUP 04- 015: Approve I. Coral Creek 1 Blackstone Lift Station Upgrade: Approve J. Chane Order No. 1 for the 2004 McMillan Water Extension Project: Approve K. Approve Bills: Approve 6. Department Reports: A. Planning and Zoning Department -- Anna Powell 1. New Employee f Planner: 7. (Items Moved from Consent Agenda) Nothing 8. FP 04-059 Request for Final Plat approval of 3 single-family residential building lots on .45 acre in an R-4 zone for Ashford Greens Subdivision No. 7 by Brighton Corporation. (Ashford Greens Sub. No. 7 is a re- subdivision of Lots 88, 89, 90 and 91 of Block 23 of Ashford Greens Sub. No. 2) — east of North Black. Cat Road and north of West Cherry Lane: Approve 9. FP 04-060 Request for Final Plat approval of 2 single-family residential building lots on .34 acre in an R-4 zone for Ashford Greens Subdivision No. 8 by Brighton Corporation. (Ashford Greens Sub. No. 8 is a re- subdivision of Lots 43, 44 and 45, Block 23 of Ashford Greens Sub No. 2) -- east of North Black Cat Road and north of West Cherry Lane: Approve 10. FP 04-061 Request for Final Plat approval of 92 single-family residential building lots and 19 common lots on 30.67 acres in an R-8 zone for Redfeather Estates Subdivision No. 2 by Packard Estates Meridian City Council Agenda — November 3, 2004 Page 2 of 4 Development, LLC — south of East Ustick Road and east of North Eagle Road: Approve 11. FP 04-062 Request for Final Plat approval of 46 single-family residential building lots and 3 common lots on 13.73 acres in an R-8 zone for Redfeather Estates Subdivision No. 3 by Packard Estates Development, LLC — south of East Ustick Road and east of North Eagle Road: Approve 12. FP 04-063 Request for Final Plat approval for 50 single-family residential building lots and 13 common lots on 15.34 acres in a R-8 zone for Sheridan Place Subdivision by Robert Chavez --- east of North Locust Grove Road and north of East McMillan Road: Table to November 9, 2004 Agenda 13. FP 04-064 Request for Final Plat approval of 35 single-family residential building lots and 6 common lots on 8.84 acres in an R-8 zone for Sienna Creek Subdivision by Sagewood Development, Inc. — north of West Ustick Road and east of North Linder Road: Approve 14. AP 04-003 Request to appeal the decision and order of the Planning and Zoning Commission denying the Preliminary Plat of Kingsbridge Subdivision by Vision First, LLC — 4070 South Eagle Road: Approve - Notice Public Hearing for Preliminary Plat for November 30, 2004 15. Continued Public Hearing from October 19, 2004: AZ 04-023 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 76.72 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for proposed Kingsbridge. Subdivision -by Vision First, LLC — 4070 South Eagle Road: Re -Notice Public Hearing for November 30, 2004 16. Continued Public Hearing from October 19, 2004: CUP 04-032 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development consisting of single-family residential lots with reductions ,to the minimum requirements for lot size, street frontage and request to exceed the maximum block length allowed for proposed Kingsbridge Subdivision by Vision First, LLC — 4070 South Eagle Road: Re -Notice Public Hearing for November 30, 2004 17. Public Hearing: VAC 04-007 Request for a Vacation of irrigation easements in Block 1 of Stoke be Subdivision on the east 10 feet of Lots 2, 3 & 4; the northerly 10 feet of Lot 2; the southerly 10 feet of Lot 3; the northerly 5 feet of Lot 3; and the southerly 5 feet of Lot 4, by Properties West, Inc — west of North Eagle Road and north of East Fairview Avenue: Prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval Meridian City Council Agenda—November 3, 2004 Page 3 of 4 18. Public Hearing: CUP 04-029 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a daycare facility for 30 to 40 children in an R-8 zone for Condra Steeves Daycare Center by Condra and Donald Steeves — 1258 East Cougar Creels Drive: Prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval 19. Public Hearing: RZ 04-011 Request for a Rezone of 9.16 acres from R- 8 to C -C zone for Cairns Crossing Subdivision by Landmark Engineering and Planning, Inc. — south of West Cherry Lane and east of Linder Road: Prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval 20. Public Hearing: PP 04.033 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 11 commercial building lots on 9.16 acres in a proposed C -C zone for gaims Crossing.Subdivision by Landmark Engineering and Planning, Inc. — south of West Cherry Lane and east of Linder Road: Prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval 21. Public Hearing: AZ 04-025 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 121.96 acres from R4 (Ada County) to R-4 zone for 'sienna Woods Subdivision No. 1-7 and Edinburgh Place Subdivision No. 1-2 by the City of Meridian — NEC of East McMillan Road and North Locust Grove Road: Continue Public Hearing to November 16, 2004 22. Water, Sewer, & hash Delinquencies: Approve 23. Ordinance No. 04-1112 : City Attorney: Approve 24. City Attorney 1 Human Resources: Report on Benefits Option Flex Pay: Approve Meridian City Council Agenda --November 3, 2004 Page 4 of MeridianCity Council Regular Meeting November 3 2004. The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:22 P.M., Tuesday, November 3, 2004, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd. Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, Keith Bird, Charlie Rountree, and Christine Donnell. Members Absent: Shaun Wardle. Others Present: Bill Nary, Will Berg, Anna Canning, Bruce Freckleton, Bill Musser, Kenny Bowers, and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll -call Attendance: Roll call. X Shaun Wardle X Christine Donnell X Charlie Rountree X Keith Bird X Mayor Tammy de Weerd De Weerd: Okay. 1 will go ahead and call the regularly scheduled City Council meeting to order. it is Wednesday, November 3rd, 7:22. 1 would like to welcome you all here with us tonight. We will start the meeting with the roll call attendance. Item 2: Pledge of Allegiance: Josh Hatfield -- Boy Scout Troop 166 De Weerd: I'd also like to welcome Troop 166. We appreciate you joining us tonight and we do have one of their members Josh Hatfield who will lead us in the pledge. If you will all rise? (Pledge of Allegiance recited.) Item 3: Community Invocation by Pastor Bud Henthorn, with Meridian Gospel Tabernacle: De Weerd: Thank you, Josh. Item 3 is our community invocation by Pastor Bud Henthorn with the Meridian Gospel Tabernacle. Please take this moment to join us in the community invocation or a time for a moment of silence. Henthorn: Heavenly Father, we come before you this evening in awe of the spectacle that we have just witnessed. We have seen over 120 million people cast a vote. We have seen those ballots collected and counted overnight and we have seen how this great nation has made its voice heard and we are grateful today to be Americans. We are grateful, Lord God, for the freedom that you have purchased for us. We are grateful for the grace that has made us and preserved us as a nation. Father, we have witnessed our national leaders debating issues with such passion and such conviction. i Meridian City Council November 3, 2004 Page 2 of 62 We have watched as our fellow Americans have made their opinions known and we have entered into those discussions with our neighbors and yet, Lord, we have emerged today knowing that we are one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for everyone and for this we are grateful. We ask, Heavenly Father, that you would grant the men and women of this City Council with grace to lead this community with courage and with conviction and we pray, Father, that you would allow those of us who are participating in that process tonight to share our opinions, to share them with passion, to share them with courage and yet, Lord, to always remember that no matter what issues we are debating, no matter how much we may disagree with one another, help us, Lord God, to remember that we are all brothers and sisters in Christ, we are all created by the same Heavenly Father, we are all equally valued by the one who gave his life for us. We pray, God that unity and harmony and human value and dignity would prevail according to your grace, in Jesus name, amen. Item 4: Adoption of the Agenda: De Weerd: Pastor, thank you for that message and I do have a pin for you, so you can't leave that quickly. Thank you. Okay. Item No. 4 is adoption of the agenda. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: We do have a couple of requests. The Planning and Zoning director has requested if we would move 17 on the regular agenda up to 13A, it would be highly appreciated and No. 22, the ordinance number is 04-1112 and item number -- we'd like to add Item No. 23, with the Council's approval, department report by the city attorney. And with that I would move that we adopt the revised agenda. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. The motion has been moved and seconded to approve the agenda as amended. Any further discussion? Rountree: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 5: Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of September 21, 2004 Pre -Council Meeting: B. Approve Minutes of September 28, 2004 Pre -Council Meeting: Meridian City Council November 3, 2004 Page 3 of 62 C. Approve Minutes of October 12, 2004 City Council Regular Meeting: D. Tabled from October 12, 2004: Land Lease Agreement with Ken Hamilton Presentations: E. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 04- 024 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 47.66 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for proposed Silverleaf Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC — 2683 West Chinden Boulevard: F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 04- 031 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 143 single-family residential building lots and 19 common lots on 47.66 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Sllverleaf Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC — 2683 West Chinden Boulevard: G. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 04-033 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development consisting of a school lot and single-family residential lots with reductions to the minimum requirements for lot size and street frontage for proposed Silverleaf Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC -- 2683 West Chinden Boulevard: H. Order to Remand back to Planning and Zoning Commission for Alexandria Subdivision AZ 04-011, PP 04-017, and CUP 04- 015: I. Coral Creek I Blackstone Lift Station U rade: J. Chane Order No. 1 for the 2004 McMillan Water Extension Protect: K. Approve Bills: De Weerd: Item 5, Consent Agenda. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I would move we approve the Consent Agenda as published and for the Mayor to sign and Clerk to attest on all proper papers. Rountree: Second. Meridian City Council November 3, 2004 Page 4 of 62 De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda. Any further discussion? Mr. Berg. Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, absent; Donnell, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 6: Department Reports: De Weerd: Thank you. There are no items under department reports. Staff, is there any last minute items? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we did make an offer on a new planner yesterday and he has accepted. We just don't have room for him yet, so, hopefully, he will start toward the middle of the month and his name is Joe Genther, he's from -- formerly worked for Ada County and has -- brings a lot of wonderful talents and experience to our team and we are very excited about it, so -- De Weerd: That's great, Anna. Now, we have even higher expectations of your department. Item 7: (Items Moved from Consent Agenda) De Weerd: Okay. There were no items moved from the Consent Agenda. Item 8: FP 04-059 Request for Final Plat approval of 3 single-family residential building lots on .45 acre in an R-4 zone for Ashford Greens Subdivision No. 7 by Brighton Corporation. (Ashford Greens Sub. No. 7 is a re- subdivision of Lots 88, 89, 90 and 91 of Block 23 of Ashford Greens Sub. No. 2) — east of North Black Cat Road and north of West Cherry Lane: De Weerd: So, we will move to Item 8, FP 04-059. 1 will open this with staff comments. Canning: So much for those high expectations. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I apologize for that. I realized that the picture wasn't showing exactly what I wanted it to, so I was trying to change it. 1 did want to give a quick photo credit, because everybody commented on this. This picture was taken by Compass staff and e-mailed to us the other day and we did appreciate them thinking of us and it just goes to show the cooperation between staffs these days. They were impressed by how nice it looked, so they took a picture and sent it to us. Okay. Now, to the item at hand. Sorry. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is a final plat request for three single-family lots on 4.45 acres in an R-4 zone. You may remember that you recently vacated the easements on the former lots. It was formerly four lots, we vacated those easements. They are now final platting three lots. It is a re -subdivision of, as I said, four lots, Lots 88, 89, 90 and 91 of Block 23 of Ashford Greens Subdivision No. 7. This Meridian City Council November 3, 2004 Page 5 of 62 is still in substantial compliance with the approved plat and staff is recommending approval. De Weerd: Okay. Does the applicant agree with all staff comments? Canning: Yes. We have a letter stating that they do. De Weerd: Okay. Council, do you have any questions for staff? Bird: I have none, Mayor. Rountree: 1 have none. De Weerd: Okay. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Hearing no comments, I would move that we approve Item No. 8, FP 04-059, final plat for Ashford Greens Sub No. 7, subject to staff comments. Bird: Second, De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve Item No. 8. Any further discussion? Okay. Mr. Berg. Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, absent; Donnell, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 9: FP 04-060 Request for Final Plat approval of 2 single-family residential building lots on .34 acre in an R-4 zone for Ashford Greens Subdivision No, 8 by Brighton Corporation. (Ashford Greens Sub. No. 8 is a re- subdivision of Lots 43, 44 and 45, Block 23 of Ashford Greens Sub No. 2) — east of North Black Cat Road and north of West Cherry Lane: De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Berg. Okay. Item 9, FP 04-060. Anna. Canning: This is why I was working on it. I apologize, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. This was a similar situation where we recently vacated the easements on three lots and now they are final platting two lots. It's a re -subdivision of Lots 43, 44 and 45 of Block 23 of Ashford Greens Subdivision No. 2. The preliminary -- or the final plat substantially complies with the preliminary plat. There is one less lot, but staff is recommending approval. And we do have a letter from the applicant stating that they are in agreement with the conditions of approval. Meridian City Council November 3, 2004 Page 6 of 62 De Weerd: Thank you. I saw the G.Smith and thought, oh, an old memo. Council, any further -- Bird: I have none, Mayor. De Weerd: -- information needed? Okay. Do I have a motion? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move that we approve Item No. 9, FP 04-060 for Ashford Greens Sub No. 8, subject to staff comment. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve Item 9. If there is no further discussion, Mr. Berg? Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, absent; Donnell, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 10: FP 04-061 Request for Final Plat approval of 92 single-family residential building lots and 19 common lots on 30.67 acres in an R-8 zone for Redfeather Estates Subdivision No. 2 by Packard Estates Development, LLC — south of East Ustick Road and east of North Eagle Road: De Weerd: Okay. Item 10 is FP 04-061. Start with staff comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is a final plat approval for 92 single-family residential lots and 19 common lots on 30.64 acres. The subdivision will have a gross density of 3.01 dwelling units per acre and a net density of about 4.08 dwelling units per acre. This is the final plat as you see it here. This was the preliminary plat. The area is circled in red. We turned sideways. We are turned -- we have got different directions going there, but it's the same. This is -- north is heading to the left and then -- and, then, north is heading up here. So, the plat -- the submitted final plat substantially complies with the approved preliminary plat. Some lots were reconfigured in Block 9. However, the number of building lots stayed the same and there is one less lot on the final than was approved on the preliminary plat for Block 13 and two lots less on Block 10. The open space has increased accordingly in these areas, so staff is recommending approval of the final plat as submitted. There is a letter from the applicant and there is one clarification note and, then, they have -- they have asked us to address one concern with item number 22, it's regarding Nampa -Meridian Meridian City Council November 3, 2004 Page 7 of 62 Irrigation District. The note that you see there is the standard note that Bruce puts on the plats that's generally what Nampa -Meridian Irrigation District wants. Bruce said he's comfortable if they want to approve something else, as long as Nampa -Meridian has approved it, that he could work with that. So, he would ask that the Council give him some latitude to address that issue consistent with Nampa -Meridian's approval. I just don't want to give up the microphone today. I could, though. De Weerd: So, Anna, you are okay with the response from the applicant and in agreement? Canning: Yes. There was just those two issues, so we are in agreement with those items. De Weerd: Okay. Council, do you have any questions? Bird: I have none, Mayor. De Weerd: Okay. Does the applicant have any further comment? Okay. And, Bruce, now that you were able to get that away from her -- Freckleton: I wrestled it away from her. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I would just ask that in regards to site specific comment number 22 on page four of five, that we get something in writing from Nampa -Meridian Irrigation District specifically addressing the width of the easement. Typically, what they have required is a five-foot easement width from the centerline of the pipe towards the lot. In this design they have their pipe designed three feet off the property line, giving us a total of eight feet, and so that's what I had requested, but if Nampa -Meridian in this case wants to agree to something less, I would just request that I get something in writing to that effect, just for the paper trail. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Council, do you have a motion? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we approve FP 04-061, Redfeather Estates Subdivision No. 2, with staff comments, particularly Mr. Freckleton's regarding the Nampa -Meridian Irrigation on site specific item number 22. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve with the special note on item 22 regarding if it's a lesser standard, that we need a letter confirming that from Nampa -Meridian Irrigation District. Is that -- Meridian City Council November 3, 2004 Page 8 of 62 Bird: That's right. De Weerd: Okay. Does that work, Bruce? Okay. Mr. Berg, will you call roil. Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, absent; Donnell, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 11: FP 04-062 Request for Final Plat approval of 46 single-family residential building lots and 3 common lots on 13.73 acres in an R-8 zone for Redfeather Estates Subdivision No. 3 by Packard Estates Development, LLC — south of East Ustick Road and east of North Eagle Road: De Weerd: Thank you. Item 11 is FP 04-062. Anna. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is another final plat for Redfeather Estates asking for approval of 46 single family lots and three common lots on 13.73 acres. It will have a gross density of 3.35 dwelling units per acre and a net density of 4.19 units per acre. This is the portion of the preliminary plat. This time they are both going in the right direction. The final plat does comply with the approved preliminary plat. There were some minor changes. The open space storm drainage lot increased and some of the lot frontages decreased slightly in size, but they are still within the minimum frontage approved for the planned development and, then, the open space configuration on Lot 5, Block 20, we thought had changed, but as the applicant stated in their letter, it was just a misunderstanding on staffs part, because it was done on a prior plat or on another plat. There is a letter from the applicant that raises a number of concerns -- well, not concerns, but clarifications and discussions and staff has -- agrees with the comments made by the applicant regarding -- on that letter. So, staff is okay with those concerns and is recommending that Council would make those changes. The changes would be to remove note number nine and to remove 11-A. Okay. And, then, the other issue is regarding number 19 and that issue was discussed during the issue is whether or not to leave the ditch open or to have it tiled and that was discussed during the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing and staff would accept that ditch be left open. That was the recommendation of the P&Z. De Weerd: Okay. Any questions, Council? Rountree: I have none. Bird: I have none, Mayor. De Weerd: Any additional comment from the applicant? Canning: Sheri, any additional -- Meridian City Council November 3, 2004 Page 9 of 62 Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I would move that we approve FP 04-062, Redfeather Estates Subdivision No. 3 and to remove items No. 9 and 11-A and on item number 19 to leave the ditch open. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve Item 11 with the noted changes. Any further discussion? Mr. Berg. Roll -Call Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, absent; Donnell, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 12: FP 04-063 Request for Final Plat approval for 50 single-family residential building lots and 13 common lots on 15.34 acres in a R-8 zone for Sheridan Place Subdivision by Robert Chavez — east of North Locust Grove Road and north of East McMillan Road: De Weerd: Okay. Item 12 is FP 04-063, final plat. Staff comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is a final plat for Sheridan Place Subdivision. This -- you see the final plat here. This is the approved preliminary plat. This takes access off of Ustick. This is on the north side of Ustick and it connects into Vienna Woods and Edinburgh subdivisions. This was our annexation path to those subdivisions. The final plat has 50 single-family lots and 13 common lots on 15.34 acres. The gross density is 3.26 dwelling units per acre, the net density is 4.31 dwelling units per acre. It is -- it does have R-8 zoning and the lot sizes run from 6,500 square feet to 7,000 square feet. The final plat does comply with the approved preliminary plat and this is just the first phase of it as you see there. No. That's the whole thing. Sorry. This is the entire preliminary plat as you see it. We have a letter from the applicant and it does raise some -- some issues. Those are on number seven, 11, and 16, those conditions of approval. The first one the applicant had asked us to clarify where the ten foot setback is, is it from the common area lot line or the street, and it would be measured from the common area lot line, not from the street. The second one was they have requested that the Ada County Highway District approve the use of an existing 20 foot wide driveway. The issue was that they couldn't take access in this corner lot down in that area, but the applicant, through the preliminary plat process, had asked for a 20 foot access easement through that common lot, so -- to serve an existing home. So, staff agrees that that condition of approval restricting access to Ustick should be removed. There is a common lot in the way here. So, the only -- the only lot it may apply to is this one here, but they would have to go over a common lot in that area. The third issue, they have just asked to -- that was number 16. Sorry. Both 11 and 16 Meridian City Council November 3, 2004 Page 10 of 62 related to that issue. So, they have asked for some -- a change in wording and staff is in agreement with those changes. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Anna, would you go over those last two items you just discussed, because I'm not sure what you said. Canning: I'm sorry, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council member Rountree. I'll do that one again. Okay, Rountree: Thank you. Canning: The existing condition reads -- the existing -- on number 11. The first sentence says existing house on Lot 9, Block 5, which is that lot right there, will be required to take access from North Schubert Way, which is right there. But through the process they had specifically requested and been approved to take access from an existing driveway to Ustick. So, they have asked us to strike that sentence I just read. And, then, the other issue is on note number -- on condition number 16, the staff planner had asked them to add a note stating that direct -- I'm sorry, it's not Ustick, it's McMillan. It could be one of those kind of nights. It's McMillan. It says direct lot access to East McMillan Road is prohibited. So, they have asked that it read instead: Except for the cross -access easement shown for Lot 9, Block 5, direct lot access to East McMillan Road is prohibited. Is that more clear Council -member Rountree? I apologize. Rountree: Essentially, Madam Mayor, what we have said is that there will be no access to McMillan and what they are asking for is that there will be allowed access to McMillan from Lot 9. Canning: Correct. And they did -- they had asked for that during the preliminary plat process. It's one of those situations where the existing garage can't be reworked to serve from Schubert. But the Council has in the past -required applicants to make it work. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Anna, you indicated there was some approval involved in that. Was that approval part of the approval of the preliminary plat or was that part of the coordination on the part of the applicant with ACHD? Canning: I believe they got it specifically approved by ACHD. Meridian City Council November 3, 2004 Page 19 of fit Rountree: Okay. De Weerd: Anna, so what was the discussion at Council regarding -- I know Council has been pretty particular about having those extra accesses and that's why there is discussion about accessing it within the subdivision, not having yet one more access out onto a busy road. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I don't remember discussing the issue in detail. In all honesty, I'll need to go pull the file on the preliminary plat. I don't have it with me. I'll have to look at the original staff report and the minutes and report back to you. If you want to hold this one over for a week, I can have that for you next week. De Weerd: Okay. Council, would that be your desire? Rountree: That would be my preference, Madam Mayor, to get that clarified, because I'm not of the opinion at this point to agree with that recommendation. De Weerd: Okay. Does the applicant have any comment at this time? Please state your name and address. Stiles: Sheri Stiles, 150 East Aiken Street, Eagle, Idaho. Mayor de Weerd, Councilman Rountree, the access was shown on the approved preliminary plat. It had always been the intention to show that. Ada County Highway District's comments were included in the development agreement and it does reference use the existing driveway on the east side of the property. That east was in error, it should have been the west, and the applicant has taken that approval to do some extensive remodeling of that home to make it fit in better with the new neighborhood. They will be paving it the entire length into the property, but it was part of the preliminary plat approval. Rountree: Thank you, Sheri. De Weerd: Okay. Council, what would you like to do? Rountree: Madam Mayor, it still would be my preference to hold this until we can get the input from the staff on this particular item. De Weerd: Okay. So, do I have a motion? Rountree: And I would move as such, that we hold this Item No. 12 until our next regularly scheduled meeting, which is the 9th of November. Bird: Table it until then? Rountree: Just table it until then. Meridian City Council November 3, 2004 Page 12 of 62 Bird: I would second that. De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to table Item 12 to November 9th. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 13: FP 04-064 Request for Final Plat approval of 35 single-family residential building lots and 6 common lots on 8.84 acres in an R-8 zone for Sienna Creek Subdivision by Sagewood Development, Inc. — north of West Ustick Road and east of North Linder Road: De Weerd: Item 13 is FP 04-064. Staff comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, try and get my major arterials right this time. This is Sienna Creek Subdivision. This is the preliminary plat. Ustick -- it really is Ustick this time -- runs to the south of the property and, then, this takes access off of Venable, which comes up on the east side of the property and, then, there is two entrances -- or one entrance off of Venable, then, it connects through Cedar Springs for an access. Yeah. This one is closed off. Now it's got two accesses off of Venable. There we go. This is a request for 35 single-family building lots and six common lots on 8.84 acres and this is the first phase of Sienna Creek Subdivision. It's R-8 zoning and it will have a gross density of 3.9 dwelling units per acre and a net density of 5.5 dwelling units per acre. We did have a CU approved that allowed for reduced requirements for lot size and street frontages. The preliminary plat does substantially comply -- I mean the final plat does substantially comply with the approved preliminary. And staff is recommending approval. I know that the applicant has concerns with the fencing issues associated around the common lot at the entrance of the property and I will let her bring those issues up to you. And that's all for now. De Weerd: Okay. Is the applicant here? Wanner-Sissler: Good evening, Madam Mayor, Council members. My name is Lisa Wanner-Sissler, doing business as Sagewood Development. I reside at 2752 South Goshen Way in Boise. My comments are two fold in regards to the fencing. Neither of them are a make it or break it situation for me, but I do have some strong preferences about what I would like to see happen. For rear lot lines adjoining common areas, I'm wondering if a five foot semi-solid fence, rather than a four foot semi-solid fence would be acceptable to the Council. I'm strictly thinking of people in their backyards and what most people are used to is a fence higher than four feet in their backyard. So, my preference for marketability purposes only would be to see a five-foot semi-solid fence around the rear lot lines that adjoin into the park -like area. My second concern has to do with the four lots that would technically have side yard fencing adjoining the common area. Two of those lots would have side yard fencing on Venable Lane, which is the more -- you know, which is the main local commercial street that comes into the Meridian City Council November 3, 2004 Page 13 of 62 subdivision and, then, there are two more lots that would technically front onto common area space up in the interior of the subdivision and I'm wondering if, rather than a four foot -- the way that the -- that comment number four in the staff comments reads, under item A, is that there would be a four foot semi-solid fence adjoining all common areas and on those side yards I would prefer to see something like a four foot solid structure, followed by a one or two foot, you know, open or semi -open structure to get up to a five or six foot fencing requirement. So, that's, basically, in a nutshell what 1 would ask for and if you have any questions, I would be happy to explain my preferences further. De Weerd: Council, any questions for the applicant? Rountree: I have none. Bird: I have none, Mayor. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Wanner-Sissler: Thank you. Canning: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Anna. Canning: Members of the Council, I did want to point out that the wording that is on the condition is the one that went through on the preliminary plat. That standard condition is a five-foot with -- or a four -foot with two feet of semi-solid -- four foot solid with two feet of semi -open or a five-foot open. So, it was an unusual standard that got into the staff report, so staff doesn't have any objections to modifying it to meet the applicant's concerns that she's raised. De Weerd: Okay. In both the areas noted? Canning: Yeah. That would be fine. De Weerd: Okay. Council, any further information needed? Rountree: No. Bird: I have none, Mayor. De Weerd: Okay. Donnell: Madam Mayor, I'm going to make my first motion. Rountree: I was hoping you would. Meridian City Council November 3, 2004 Page 14 of 62 De Weerd: Thank you. Bird: Go for it. Donnell: That's only because I'm going to beat Councilman Bird or Councilman Rountree. See if I can do this right. Rountree: Well, we have been waiting for you. Donnell: I knew it. I'm sure you have been waiting. Madam Mayor, I move that we approve Item No. 13, FP 04-064, Sienna Creek Subdivision, with those changes as approved by staff. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve Item 13. Is there any further discussion? Thank you. Mr. Berg. Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, absent; Donnell, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 17: Public Hearing: VAC 04-007 Request for a Vacation of irrigation easements in Block 1 of Stokesberry Subdivision on the east 10 feet of Lots 2, 3 & 4; the northerly 10 feet of Lot 2; the southerly 10 feet of Lot 3; the northerly 5 feet of Lot 3; and the southerly 5 feet of Lot 4, by Properties West, Inc — west of North Eagle Road and north of East Fairview Avenue: De Weerd: In Council's motion to approve the agenda, they did move Item 17 ahead of 14, so I will go ahead and open Item 17, Public Hearing VAC 04-007 with staff comments. Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: Since this is a Public Hearing, did you want to swear in all of the parties now, since you'd have to at least if comments are going to be on Stokesberry? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Nary. Thank you. We are in the public commenting section of our agenda and since our city attorney has not changed this ordinance yet, we are required to swear in everyone who would like to provide testimony on any of the public hearings, Items 15 through 21. So, if you will raise your right hand if you intend on offering testimony in any of those items tonight. Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? If so answer I will. Meridian City Council November 3, 2004 Page 15 of 62 (Affirmative answers.) De Weerd: Okay. Anna. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is a request to vacate irrigation easements. You may recall Stokesberry Subdivision is along Eagle Road just south of the Carol Subdivision and the applicant came in to reconfigure the plat sometime ago. There was -- they opened this up into several lots facing a common drive aisle with parking on either side, so there is -- they have re -platted several lots, but before they can get construction going, they need to vacate the existing easements on the first plat that was done. So, that's their request tonight is to vacate the easements that you see hatched here. Staff does have a notarized letter from Nampa -Meridian saying that they are -- they have consented to the easement vacation and staff is recommending approval of this vacation easement. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Anna. Would the applicant like to provide any additional comment? Okay. It is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone who would like to offer testimony on this item? Council? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Seeing that nobody wants to have a Public Hearing, 1 will move that we close the Public Hearing on VAC 04-007. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to close the Public Hearing on Item 17. All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Bird. Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: I move that we approve VAC 04-007, Stokesberry Subdivision vacation of easements of irrigation and incorporate staff comments. Donnell: Second. De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve Item 17. Is there any further discussion? Mr. Clerk. Meridian City Council November 3, 2004 Page 16 of 62 Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, absent; Donnell, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 14: AP 04-003 Request to appeal the decision and order of the Planning and Zoning Commission denying the Preliminary Plat of Kingsbridge Subdivision by Vision First, LLC -- 4070 South Eagle Road: De Weerd: Thank you. Item 14 is AP 04-003 and I will ask, Anna, to briefly introduce this application and, then, ask our city attorney to explain the process or do we want to reverse that order? Nary: It's your preference, Madam Mayor. De Weerd: Well, we will start will you, Mr. Nary. Nary: Okay, De Weerd: Since you're so amenable tonight. Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this matter before you here, Item 14, is not a Public Hearing, it is an appeal of a decision by the Planning and Zoning Commission denying the preliminary plat. That is the decision to grant -- or to approve or deny a preliminary plat is within the purview of the Planning and Zoning Commission. In their decision and order they list a number of reasons for their denial and one of the those reasons is based on a legal premise that, in my opinion, is in error. Their belief that the denial was appropriate for the plat was because they had recommended denial of annexation, because there was an issue that was raised at the Planning and Zoning hearing regarding some covenants between an adjoining property, as well as some issues regarding the applicability of an Ada County ordinance to this property. The Planning and Zoning Commission made this decision in regards to the Ada County ordinance in error, because the Ada County ordinance would not apply to the City of Meridian if this property were to be annexed. So, basing that premise as a reason for recommending denial of the annexation and, therefore, recommending denial of the preliminary plat, is, in my opinion, an error and so that is something that you would need to consider in this appeal tonight. Again, it's not a Public Hearing, so what I recommend, Council, for you to do is to put on the record the reasons that are here in front of you tonight, so the record is clear. Again, one of those -- the rest of the conditions that they listed are within their purview, it's just the one that was based on a faulty legal premise that I believe is in error. If you concur with that decision, then, I would give the applicant an opportunity to also make comment and, then, Council, you can make the decision on whether you agree with that or not and, then, I would recommend the following action: If you chose to grant the appeal, that you re -notice all of these matters for a hearing later and not tonight, because the plat itself has not initially been -- been noticed, because, again, it was not a Public Hearing and continue all of these matters for one hearing in front of this body. You also have the option to Meridian City Council November 3, 2004 Page 17 of 62 remand this matter back to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review if you'd like, although they did address it very briefly at their meeting in October when this was requested for reconsideration. So, you're not obligated to send it back, you can hear it again. Or, in the alternative, you can deny the appeal of this matter entirely and if you do that, it's not necessary for you to hear the annexation and zoning or the CUP, but you can certainly hear those if you wish and make a decision separately on those applications. So, you have a couple of different options in front of you, but that's — process -wise that's how we are here at this point and how you can go forward. De Weerd: So, Mr. Nary, 1 guess the item that you think kind of leaves us open legally, is that -- Nary: It's in their decision and order -- yes. Decision and order, it is C-1-13 and that, again, deals with -- is an issue that was raised at the Public Hearing at the Planning and Zoning Commission regarding some discrepancies -- or at least belief by the -- the members of the public about some covenants in regards to the adjoining property, that, in my opinion, aren't relative to whether or not you choose to annex. If you hear this matter, you stili have within your discretion the decision on whether to annex this property, whether to zone it as it's being requested, to grant the conditional uses with the changes to the subdivision that are being requested and to approve the subdivision as it's designed. All of those are within your discretion. My only point is that the decision -- or the premise that was based at the annexation should be denied because of the applicability of the Ada County ordinance to this property, once it's annexed to the City of Meridian, is wrong. It is not applicable to the city once you annex it. The other premise that the covenants of a different subdivision may apply is not the city's battle, that is -- that is a -- if a lawsuit is to stem from that, that is between that adjoining property and this property. That's not the city's fight and that's not within the city's purview to decide on when making a decision whether to annex this property or not. De Weerd: Okay. Council, do you have any questions for Mr. Nary? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Mr. Nary, you indicated in process that one of the options is the possibility of continuing the hearings that we have scheduled tonight. Is that the right word or would we table them or just re -notice all of the hearings pursuant to this matter? Nary: Madam Mayor, Council -member Rountree, we would be required re -notice them anyway, because of the -- because the plat itself hasn't been noticed. Mr. Berg's office can re -notice all of these -- these hearings in one notice anyway. So, I'm not as hung up as the prior counsel on which word is more appropriate, but you could certainly set all of these matters over, notice them up in one -- in one notice to all the property owners as required by statute and you would be fine. To a specific date. And you can r Meridian City Council November 3, 2004 Page 18 of 62 certainly pick that date tonight, so assist Mr. Berg in getting that notice out, but you could certainly do that. De Weerd: I think all property owners are here, so that would be easy. Nary: It appears there are certainly many of them here. De Weerd: Okay. Well, I think counsel -- Mr. Nary did a good summary, so I will save Mrs. Canning from that. Would the applicant like to add any further information to this appeal? If you will, please, state your name and address. Elliott: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. My name is Ken Elliott. E -1 -1 -i -o -t -t. I'm resident legal counsel for the applicant Vision First, Limited Liability Company. Our address is 661 South Rivershore Lane, Suite 120, Eagle. 83616. Randy Cuarno, the CEO of Vision First and the managing member of the LLC, is here with me this evening and is prepared to answer any questions that the Council might have. Just to briefly follow up on what the city attorney said, by filing this appeal we are not asking the City Council to make a quick interpretation of this Dartmoor covenant and support the Council's judgment for the conclusions of the Planning and Zoning Commission. We are just asking the City Council to conclude that the interpretation of the private covenant is outside the scope of the City Council's decision when finding if annexation is in the public interest. As the city attorney recommended, we think that the decision by declaring that the city takes no position and makes no findings or conclusions on that private covenant or it's continued enforceability, would take the city out of the middle of any potential litigation between the applicants and the Dartmoor residents and would leave it to us to resolve as a private matter, either amicably or with some assistance from the district court. We are prepared to do that and we think that the city's decision as to public interest and the grounds for annexation and plat approval should be based on the Comp Plan and the area of impact agreement between the city and Ada County and we would respectfully ask the City Council, as Mr. Nary has recommended, to grant our appeal and, then, to reschedule these three files for a combined hearing at the City Council at a later date. Thank you very much. If you have any questions I would be happy to answer them. De Weerd: Council, any questions? Bird: I have none, Mayor. Rountree: I don't have any. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Council? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Meridian City Council November 3, 2004 Page 19 of 62 Bird: Just the legality. What we need to do is -- you have not opened the public hearings on 15 and 16, we are just dealing with 14 right now; am I not right? Nary: Yes. That's right. Bird: So -- and we need to table all three to a certain date and get them re -noticed, all three of them. Is that not right, Mr. Attorney? Nary: Yes. Bird: Thank you. Nary: We have to make a motion on the appeal. Bird: We will have to make a motion on the appeal separate. Nary: Correct. Rountree. Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Point of clarification on the last comment, that we would have two separate motions in the event that that's what we are going to do? Nary: Madam Mayor -- Rountree: A motion on the appeal and, then, a motion to set the matter aside or hear it tonight or whatever. Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council -member Rountree that is correct. You would need to make one motion on the appeal on whether you choose to grant the appeal or deny that and, then, a second motion as to whatever action you wish to take, setting all of these three matters over to a date certain for -- and direct that they be noticed up as required, remanding it if you wish -- I guess those would be your two options. De Weerd: Mr. Nary, 1 guess just because I'm not going to try and explain what you have already explained, because we have already been down that road, but the whole reason the 15 and 16 -- items 15 and 16 would make sense to re -notice and continued is they should accompany the plat and because the plat has not been noticed, it cannot be heard tonight. Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, that is exactly right. Meridian City Council November 3, 2004 Page 20 of 62 De Weerd: Okay. Well, you explained it very well. And it was also your recommendation that the appeal be considered because of the legality issue? Nary: Yes, Madam Mayor. De Weerd: Of one of the -- Nary: Yes, Madam Mayor. De Weerd: Okay. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: If we don't have anymore discussion, I will try this. The attorney might have to help me along here, but I would move that we grant the appeal of the decision and order of the Planning and Zoning Commission, AP 04-003, denying the preliminary plat of Kingsbridge Subdivision by Vision First, LLC. I guess that's all 1 have to say on that one. Rountree: I will second that. De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Bird, just to clarify, the appeal is to _- your motion was to approve the appeal to hear the presentation on the preliminary plat. Bird: Yes. De Weerd: Not to approve the preliminary plat. Bird: Not to approve the preliminary plat, to approve the appeal of the decision and order. De Weerd: Okay. Okay. Is there any further discussion? Mr. Berg. Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, absent; Donnell, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 15: Continued Public Hearing from October 19, 2004: AZ 04-023 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 76.72 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for proposed Kingsbridge- Subdivision by Vision First, LLC — 4070 South Eagle Road: Item 16: Continued Public Hearing from October 19, 2004: CUP 04-032 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development Meridian City Council November 3, 2004 Page 21 of 62 consisting of single-family residential lots with reductions to the minimum requirements for lot size, street frontage and request to exceed the maximum block length allowed for proposed Kingsbridge ,Subdivision by Vision First, LLC — 4070 South Eagle Road: De Weerd: Thank you. Bird: Now, Madam Mayor, I will try all three of them. I move that we re -notice on Items 14, 15 and 16 -- 14, 15 and 16, Kingsbridge Subdivision, to set the date of November 30th, 2004. Donnell: I second that. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to re -notice Items 15 and 16 and the preliminary plat, Item 14, for November 30th. Is there any discussion? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree, Rountree: I'd just point out that if we act favorably on that motion, that you cannot imply that this is an approval of this application or this annexation, it's simply a matter to bring it back before Council as a package. De Weerd: Okay. Bird: And I agree with that statement. That's very good. De Weerd: So noted. Mr. Berg, will you call -- oh, I don't need to ask you to do that. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Canning: Madam Mayor, before the applicant leaves, we did -- as staff we did want to point out that we have received the full copies of the revised preliminary plat, so staff will need those as soon as possible if they are going to prepare any kind of response to that. Berg: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Berg. Berg: We will need that also for the notice, if we are going to send out a notice. I'm sure the public would like to see the most current plat that's going to be before you in their application. Meridian City Council November 3, 2004 Page 22 of 62 De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. And so I guess all of those that are here on those items, the date has been -- we really like seeing you here and we appreciate your patience, but -- so we will hear this item, then, on November 30th. There is no more appeals or anything, so public testimony will be taken on the 30th of November. Item 18: Public Hearing: CUP 44-029 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a daycare facility for 30 to 40 children in an R-8 zone for Condra Steeves Daycare Center by Condra and Donald Steeves — 1 258 East Cougar Creek Drive: De Weerd: Okay. I will go ahead and open the Public Hearing for Item 18, CUP 04-029 with staff comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I was not here for the reconsideration hearing, but this is a reconsideration item for this day care. The conditional use permit came before you for -- it was for 30 children, that's what would be supported by the lot layout. The applicant did request reconsideration and Mr. Bird did change his motion, I believe, to -- or Mr. Rountree, I'm sorry. Rountree: I will admit to it. Canning: And staff does not have any -- we do not have anything regarding the proposed changes to the initial recommendation, so I'm going to let the applicant present those to you. De Weerd: Okay. Any further comments? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward? Steeves: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Condra Steeves, 7035 North Linder Road, Meridian. De Weerd: Thank you. Steeves: We are actually going to tag team it tonight, because I am doing a part and they are doing whatever. I don't -- anyway, for the reconsideration, we had first asked for 30 to 40 students and the preschool noted as it's set as a day care, but in the preschool we have now changed our request from 30 to 40 to 27, which is our current enrollment, dropping to 25 at reenrollment. And that changes it 30 percent in our numbers that we have gone down. There was two main issues, the size and the safety, and we are willing to drop down to those numbers that we had talked about. That also could be extrapolated to traffic, too, 30 percent decrease, and that -- in the safety issues we have passed our Central District Health inspection, they have done their safety stuff on it, we have passed our fire marshal thing and -- 1 mean inspection and we also have talked to the police department and have gotten some good tips on how to secure the home. There would not be anyone living in it after hours. We are 9:00 to 3:00 and, Meridian City Council November 3, 2004 Page 23 of 62 then, the place would be vacated. It already is vacated and so it has been empty, except for us to have been moving things in here and there. We already have the neighbor next -- on the east is parking their car in the driveway in the evenings off and on to keep it looking like it's lived in. We are putting in a security system. The doors all ding even when people walk in during the day, so we know who is coming and going. The security system, we had talked about the backyard, wondering how to keep it secure prior -- I mean for our conversation with the police department. They suggested the biggest deterrent would be a neighborhood watch, which they do not have in the neighborhood yet. I would love to bring that up and start a neighborhood watch and also having neighbors around who are watching -- like I mentioned the neighbor to the east next door is watching and parking their car in there. My sister at 1076 Cougar Creek down the street, is also patrolling as she comes back and forth. The neighbors kitty-corner, the Cabes, are going to be watching for us, too. Also, the backyard, they said the biggest deterrent is motion lights, to get the motion lights on, so as soon as someone were to walk in the back, the lights would come on. As long as the neighborhood knows that it's secured and we have a security system and that people are watching it, he didn't feel like there was going to be those kind of issues there. Can we have that first one back up? May 1 ask that? Okay. There had been concern raised from the street behind, which is Stormy -- the block right behind it is Stormy, as per traffic, because there is a new subdivision going -- I don't know how to do this. Rountree: Push the button. Steeves: There you go. Behind here is a subdivision going in, which is going to create more traffic for the street. The -- we can request a stop sign be put there. People who are coming through this way are not going to want to come through there as a cut back if they have to stop. That's just not going to -- 1 mean no one is going to want us to do that. They'd rather go through the light. On this street we were not successful in getting the speed limit changed, since that's the highway district and they just don't change speed limits, unless -- I don't know. But they can -- we can request a speed monitor put up, so as people drive by it shows their speeds and that will help them to slow down and realize what the speed limit is, because being there the last couple of weeks, just setting up and getting ready for inspections and all these things that we were asked to do, they are going really fast. But I don't during the day -- it was evening when we were over there, so they are going a lot faster than the speed limit and we would like to get that changed to where they are keeping the speeds down. And, then, also you can request speed bumps, but whether you will actually get them or not -- but those are things that can be done. Any questions for me? De Weerd: Council, any questions? Rountree: No. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. If you will state your name and address. Meridian City Council November 3, 2004 Page 24 of 62 Bolinder: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, my name is Erik Bolinder, 913 West River Street. I'm here on behalf of the applicant in support of approval of this Conditional Use Permit. 1 would point out that since this is a rehearing motion, the applicant specifically asked that the people -- all the people that came before to the hearing in support, that they not show up again and burden you with repetitive testimony of what they brought to you before and I would refer you to the record of that hearing as you can consider this rehearing tonight. First of all, based on the record from the prior hearing, there are a few conclusions that everyone here appears to agree with. The first one is Mrs. Steeves is highly qualified to provide a safe, structured, educational preschool at the site. Second, Mrs. Steeves and her numerous supporters have demonstrated a high demand for this kind of service to the area and to the community. And, third, Mrs. Steeves and her supporters have spent considerable time and effort to do, first of all, the right thing in going through the conditional use process, informing neighbors, and offering a whole litany of conditions of approval. They have addressed parking, traffic, safety, and landscaping. They have even offered a provision whereby the Conditional Use Permit may not be transferable to another operator or assure that conditions are actually met. This will assure that the conditions are actually met and that the use does not evolve beyond what is appropriate. As far as health and safety go, keep in mind that Central District Health and the fire department must inspect and approve the operation for its use before they are able to operate and that's what they have been doing is actually going through that process now to show that they can get that approval. The Council discussion from the last hearing seemed centered on the conclusion that this is a business and, therefore, consider it a commercial use. Under the definition of commercial use in Title 11, this appears to be a logical conclusion. However, the analysis doesn't stop at the mere definition of commercial use. In fact, if you look at Section 11-8-1, the zoning schedule of use control, under the subheading residential, there is a list of land uses under residential. These uses could also, technically -- a number of these uses could also technically meet the definition of commercial use. Boarding or lodging houses, family child care, home, group children's home, home occupations, libraries, and private parks are all listed as residential land uses. But depending on how they are managed, they could also be commercial uses. Despite this fact, the ordinance lists these explicitly as residential land uses in the schedule of use controls. More on point, another use that is listed under the heading residential land uses, is childcare centers. And this is the very use for which the applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit. The ordinance already contemplates this use as a compatible residential use. In fact, the ordinance lists this use as a residential land use. It's interesting to note that childcare centers is also listed under commercial land uses in Section B of the same schedule, illustrating that these two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. We should note the actual use for which the application is being made. Mrs. Steeves intends on operating a preschool. This almost fits more clearly into the code definition of school, except for one minor fact. The definition of school includes applying the courses of study required by the State Board of Education. That's one thing that's included in their definition and the State Board of Education has not promulgated any courses of study for a preschool or a nursery. They start at kindergarten. Barring that fact, if you look at the whole definition, it would meet more appropriately that definition than of a childcare center or a day care. This creates Meridian City Council November 3, 2004 Page 25 of 62 at least a legitimate question as to whether what Mrs. Steeves is trying to do really fits that definition and for the reason of that one caveat in the definition; they chose to submit the application as a childcare center. Even so, Mrs. Steeves follows an organized curriculum that is completely designed to better prepare preschool age children for the curriculum they face in kindergarten, including those courses of study required by the state board of education once they reach kindergarten level. This is not a kiddy drop off center, it's not a baby-sitting business, it's not a day care. It's a preschool. It would meet the definition of a school under the Meridian City Code, but for the reference to State Board of Education requirements. I don't think anyone would argue whether a school generally would be an incompatible use in an R-8 zone. Likewise, a childcare center is also contemplated as a compatible residential use in the code. Mrs. Steeves' preschool with its home feel serves a very unique purpose of transitioning the child from the home environment to the educational environment. I wish we had the time to get into performance data or studies that show how effective this type of transition is in preparing our children for kindergarten. You have the toddler who gets out of diapers, who is used to the home environment, who now will need to transition to a learning environment in an institution and a preschool like this in a home environment provides that transition and providing that transition close to home in a neighborhood is a very appropriate residential use. We have heard a lot of anecdotal testimony confirming this by those who support this approach. And this is not just another business trying to come to Meridian with a competitive edge. This is a preschool that will effectively serve its neighborhood and, in fact, further the goals and objectives of the Comp Plan. A vital service will be provided in close proximity to its patrons at a relatively low impact, much like neighbors who are able to walk to school, parents will be able to walk children to this site. You even heard testimony from a future employee who will also be able to walk to work. This is the kind of use that helps accomplish the goal of providing a balance of uses while reducing impact if such a use were not as convenient. With all the conditions that the applicant has offered to accept and based on the fact that this is truly a contemplated use in a residential zone, I would urge you to approve this conditional use application. I will be happy to stand for any questions at this time. De Weerd: Council, any questions? Bird: I have none, Mayor. De Weerd: Thank you. Bolinder: Thank you. Nickle: Madam Mayor, Council, Shawn Nickle, 52 North 2nd Street in Eagle, representing Condra Steeves. Very quickly, by reducing the number of children in this facility, this does free up an additional space in the park -- in the driveway, which, in turn, would allow vehicles to pull into the driveway, to drop off children, turn around, and go back out Cougar Creek without doing the loop around the subdivision and possibly going out on Stormy Drive. Mrs. Steeves is going to make that a requirement of her € f' Meridian City Council November 3, 2004 Page 26 of 62 students and her students' parents that will make this use more compatible with some of the opposition testimony at the last hearing. In addition, because this is an allowed use within the residential, we are asking for the waiver to the side landscaping requirements and, again, it is our belief that the requirements that are currently in the child care section refer to this, if it was going to go into a commercial setting, and, therefore, require that additional landscaping. We believe we can meet that landscaping and we can work with staff on the appropriate type of buffering -- fencing, buffering requirements to make sure that this is a compatible use to the area. I will stand for any questions. De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions? Bird: I have none, Mayor. Donnell: Madam Mayor, I do. De Weerd: Mrs. Donnell. Donnell: Explain to me again, if you would, how they are going to make a turn around in that area. Oh, thank you. That's helpful. But rather than go around the subdivision, is what I heard you say, rather to make that total loop and go out, that the parents would drop off the children, turn, and come back and go back the way they entered. But where can they do that? Nickle: Madam Mayor and Council -member Donnell, the parking requirement for this type of facility is one space per ten occupants, which have required us to have one, two, three, four parking spaces. By eliminating that -- by reducing that number, it frees up an extra space, thereby, a car can come in, pull into the driveway, drop off their children, and, then, back out and continue -- or go back towards Cougar Creek. Donnell: So, they don't make a -- Nickle: Right. And that would be a requirement that she would put on the parents to make sure that they do not inconvenience any other neighbors by pulling around. Canning. Madam Mayor, Council -member Donnell, the applicant is a little confused on their parking requirements. Nickle: Am I? Canning: Staff had always said that this site could only accommodate 30 children, because the parking requirements is one per each staff person, which would be the two in the garage, and, then, one per every ten children, which would be the three in the front. So, the reduction to 27 students from 30 still does not reduce the parking requirements. You would still be required to have all three parking spaces available. Meridian City Council November 3, 2004 Page 27 of 62 Nickle: Madam Mayor and Council -member Donnell, it would still provide -- they would still be able to go in there, though, and back up with -- even with three cars in that -- and thanks for clearing that up for me, Anna. That is our intent, again, to have those cars back -- pull into the driveway, back out, and, then, go back towards Locust Grove. I think that's my time. Donnell: Madam Mayor, follow-up question. It doesn't seem very safe to me to have cars backing out into the traffic. Does it not seem to make more sense for cars to be able to go in and, then, come back out, rather than backing out? Do you see what I'm saying? And I guess I just -- it seems to me that when I see most -- I'll give you an example. The day care and preschool that's on Linder Road right before the railroad tracks, that's a circular drive, you can go in, drop your children off, you know, continue on. You can go, then, either direction. So, would it not be better to have some way that -- rather than to pull in and, then, back out again? Does that seem safer? Nickle: That would seem safer. I don't believe we have the room to do a full circular driveway. Donnell: So, there isn't the space to do that? Nickle: Not without -- if you put the map back up. They are referring to this area right here, so, yes, we could have them make that turn and go back out that way. That's another option, I guess, for a requirement to the parents. Donnell: Except many of them may just continue to choose -- I would choose just to go around and go back out. Nickle: They could. Yeah. They could. It would be a request by Condra to her parents and from what I understand of the parents, they -- you know, they are responsible and I think they can come to that agreement. One other thing to point out is that the hours of operation, I think, was key in I think the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation of this to the Council, because the 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, would be offset from the normal commute time and I think that even if there was one or two that did not follow Condra's instructions and was to make the loop, it would probably not impact that neighborhood as much, but -- Donnell: Particularly, if the grandmother goes to pick them up and doesn't know which way to go. Nickle: That is true and that could happen. Donnell: That has happened other places. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. I do have a number of people signed up. If I call your name, I will indicate whether you signed up for or against. If you would like to provide testimony, you're certainly invited to step forward as I call your name. Don Steeves, for. Meridian City Council November 3, 2004 Page 28 of 62 Okay. Okay. So, if I mess up your name, please, don't get too offended. Karen Hadley, for. Stephanie Perry, for. Okay. Malinda Jensen, for. Okay. Ann Vaughn, against. Okay. Sharon Gilbert, against. And I -- this person signed her name, so I can't read it. Maureen or Marlene. Sorry. Marlene, what is your last name? Nicholson. Signed up against. And if any of you want to provide testimony, please, step forward. Gary Gilbert against. Okay. Tina Christensen, against. Okay. Christensen: Madam Mayor, Members of the Board, my name is Tina Christensen. I live at 1429 East Stormy Drive, which is a block north of Cougar Creek. I have lived on Stormy Drive for seven years and I'm a single person, teacher, and 1 just feel like my home is an investment and 1 feel that if we set a precedent of putting a business in our subdivision area, that we set the precedent of other people doing that and I feel like that would devalue the -- my home and I also feel like the traffic going through, just more of increase in traffic and on my street there are lots of children on the street and I feel like that could be a hazard for them, So, thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Brenda Cabe, for. And Robin Harris, against. Please state your name and address. Harris: Yes. Thank you. My name is Robin Harris, I live at 1301 East Stormy Drive and I'm also speaking for my wife and another person that you mentioned asked me to speak for them, Gary and Sharon Gilbert. I have some comments that I wrote. I would like to go through those first and, then, I would like to address some of the issues -- or some of the comments raised by the applicants, if I may. When I first saw the notice for this day care or preschool, 1, actually, didn't realize that it was for 40 children. I thought it was going to be a husband and wife who was going to have a day care for like five or six children in their home. Otherwise, 1 would have been here earlier. But I probably misread something. I oppose this 40 children preschool for the following reasons: First, a house of less than 1,500 square feet I would think would be too small for -- at that time 40 children, but even for 25 children, even though the city staff has looked at it and approved it for fire and that type of thing. There already is a business on this street and it's actually next door to where this house is. It's not, I guess, according to the definition that was read earlier, wouldn't classify as a commercial business, but it is a hospice for mentally handicapped males. In this case it's all males. I approve -- I'm not against that business and I, actually, enjoy that it's there in a setting. However, this would be right next to where all these children would be. I live directly behind this particular place and there is a lot of commotion sometimes, not always, and a lot of things that are spoken that maybe wouldn't be appropriate for small children to hear. The Cougar and Stormy Streets form this U pattern. I'd like to speak to that just a little bit and, then, later I will come back to some of the comments that were made. With 25 children this could increase the traffic on Stormy by about 50 auto trips a day. That's two trips per child if they make this U -shape loop, which there is plenty of incentive to do that. I go running at 3:00 o'clock, at 9:00 o'clock, because I work shift work and -- or used to and there is still plenty of traffic on Locust and on Ustick at these hours. It's not the peak, but there is still plenty of traffic and a person coming in could make -- Meridian City Council November 3, 2004 Page 29 of 62 Nary: You have to use this mike, sir. Canning: And, sir, if you would prefer, there is a laser pointer right at that podium and you can just use that. Harris: Oh, tied to the podium. I see. Okay. Can't take it home. If you come on around over here, boom, this street right here takes you straight to Ustick and it's easy access to Ustick, instead of having to cross traffic on -- over here on Locust Grove. Another thing is you got all these people coming in, they talked about turning around, believe me, you're going to have all these people coming at one time trying to turn around and that's going to be congested. It will be convenient for these people to continue on around, come back to Locust, and come on down or go over here to Ustick. This little cul-de-sac thing right here is not very large, if there are any cars parked there, there will be nobody turning around there. Also, it's dangerous, because now you have all these people coming out of here, coming down this way. So, you do have some traffic concerns there. Then, also, with this development that is being built here, it will increase the auto trips -- have the potential to increase the auto trips here by an additional 120 per day. So, now we have increased the whole auto trips on Stormy Drive right there by about 170 auto trips a day, assuming, you know, every person does this -- uses this road. In the past I have been a president of the homeowners association here. We have tried many things to get people to slow down on this road. Nothing has been successful. We did -- the city did come out and put one of those speed warning deals. That was fine for the week that they left it there, as soon as it was gone, boom, it just -- a week later it was like it was never there in the first place. We have a gentleman that lives right here, he has -- he's retired, he has stood out here to slow people down and, you know, nobody cares. We have numerous children that play along this street and there is nothing to slow these people down. A stop sign right here, we tried to get a stop sign here when this little division was put in. No go. A stop sign would not be put in there. Speed bumps and things like that, nothing has ever been -- De Weerd: Sir, could you, please, summarize. Harris: Pardon? De Weerd: If you, could, please, summarize. Harris: Okay. Well, to answer some of the points brought up by the other gentleman, people walking their children to this preschool, that's only temporary until those children grow older. There is no control over that, so you will still have people driving here. The driveway will still be a congested place, because all of these children -- all of these people will be coming at the same time. And 1 think I have already answered some of the other points that this gentleman brought up. Thank you very much. De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions? Thank you, Mr. Harris. Okay. That is who I had signed up to testify. Is there anyone else who would like to offer testimony on this application? Meridian City Council November 3, 2004 Page 30 of 62 Jensen: I'm Malinda Jensen, 1885 North Aronmink in Meridian, and the biggest issue that seems to be coming out is the traffic thing. You have to remember -- I am for -- and you have to remember that we car pool. I mean I have more than one child in my car and we do not come at the same time. Not everybody shows up at 12:45 at the same time, and so I think the biggest issue, too, is that subdivision that's coming in right next to them, to Stormy Drive, the people on Stormy Drive, I think, you know, if that subdivision wasn't there, it might be such a big deal. That's just what I think. So, traffic, I don't think, is gang to be any different than what you see normally. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Nicholson: I'm Marlene Nicholson and I live at 1263 East Stormy Drive and I just moved into the area about two years ago and the reason I moved into that area, because there was not a lot of traffic, it was nice, slow -- it was a nice place to retire. I moved from a busy area where they -- the street won't be open, it was opened, and all I had was traffic going back and forth across. What happens now if you decide that you're going to approve this and they don't do as you say? Can that go back and, you know, you take back what has happened? We just -- you know, I just don't think it needs to be there. If there is a day care, it needs to be in a commercial area where most day cares are -- or most preschools are, instead of in a subdivision, where there are small children, increased traffic, that type of thing. De Weerd: Okay, Thank you. Okay. Any further testimony? Please state your name and address. Alton: Judy Alton, 1252 East Stormy Drive. De Weerd: Thank you. Alton: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I'm here to represent myself and about 36 neighbors whom we felt didn't really understand what was going to be going into our neighborhood. When we were initially approached about this day care center, we were just told, you know, we are looking at having a day care center in the neighborhood, come to a meeting. Nary: Ma'am, could you pull the mike down, please. Alton: Oh, I'm sorry. My assumption and the assumption of most of our neighbors was this was going to be a home-based business, we are talking five or six children, and no one had an objection to that, we all live busy lives, and so we didn't pursue it any further than that. At our last meeting Representative Rountree and Wardle spoke very insightfully about the commercial nature and encroachment into our residential neighborhoods and we'd like to thank them for that, for acknowledging that. It's very important to us. We have moved into a residential neighborhood, because that's where we wanted to live. If we had wanted to live in a mixed-use area, we would have F Meridian City Council November 3, 2004 Page 31 of 62 relocated in that kind of development. I commend Mrs. Steeves for what she's doing. She's providing a service to the community, and all the reports are glowing that she does wonderful things for children and no one has any criticism of her or of that. What we are opposed to is commercial development in our neighborhood. We do have some concerns about traffic, but our bigger concern is the City of Meridian is at a crucial point, we are growing like crazy and what we are going to be in the future we have to determine now if we want to preserve the kind of environment where we can have separation between commercial businesses and what that brings with it and our living areas. We need to make that decision now. If we begin to allow a worthwhile and a worthy cause business, if we give that the okay now, where are we going to draw the line? We are told that there is going to be 1 think three classes a day and that's great, but if we say yes to that, what if the desire and the need arises for four classes a day? Can we say no to that? We have no control over whether people are going to car pool or not. You know, they are and that's wonderful, but what about new people? There is no way of controlling where they drive or whether they car pool. There is a wonderful facility on Locust Grove, it appears to me, about a quarter of a half -mile away. It's a house that's been converted into a business. Empty. Up for lease at this time. Lots of parking. Lots of area for play. It would be a wonderful preschool. We would like to see that kind of facility used, rather than a house in one of our neighborhoods. No, we are not against children, we would just like to see some more creative solutions, perhaps, developed. If we were talking about four or five children, we could -- you could multiply the services all over the community and still meet the same need, but fit into the current zoning. So, we would like to respectfully request that you would decline this and some of the people who have signed our petition are here tonight and I'd like to ask them to stand. What our petition said -- we took this from the notification that was sent out about this meeting. It says I respectfully oppose allowing the property located at 1258 Cougar Creek Drive to be changed from residential to a commercially zoned property for the purpose of Condra Steeves operating a permanent and full-time 30 to 40 student preschool business from that location. I understand now it's not going to be that many, but that was what came out in the notice. And I suppose it may not technically be changing the zoning, but we are making an allowance provision to allow a commercial business. Thank you for your time. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. S.Alton: My name is Steve Alton, 1252 East Stormy Drive. I don't want to go over everything that's already been said, but 1 do want to get this out of my face and I want to emphasize a little bit more some questions that we have been wrestling with with this idea of putting a business in our neighborhood. The question does come up of what if and a what if question is what if the cars don't turn around, what if they do come around to our neighborhood? That's already been brought up. What is our recourse at that point? What if the children -- and all the testimony that we heard in the last meeting about how many people are going to walk to this environment, what if they don't do that when it's 15 degrees, a wind's blowing, and there is ice on the ground, which is probably -- they are probably not going to walk, they are probably going to drive. And, then, what do we do when this is expanded -- and this has already been brought up, but what do Meridian City Council November 3, 2004 Page 32 of 62 we do when it's been expanded to four classes a day? And the last testimony in the last meeting Condra Steeves said that 60 people are interested, but you only want to approve 25. That raises the question in my mind of would there be a lot of pressure to accommodate the rest if nobody could monitor this, if there were no governing bodies to enforce what we have -- what you could possibly agree on tonight as being okay? What is our recourse at that point? Do we come back in? Is there another opportunity for us to reverse this? I don't know. Those are questions that we have. I don't know how you get them answered. De Weerd: Mr. Nary, do you want to explain about a Conditional Use Permit? Nary: Certainly, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. The question you're asking is can the Council condition some of the things that are being requested as to the increasing class sizes, hours of operation, all of those things the Council has the ability to place those conditions upon this property, so they can't expend the use. I don't recall in the staff report -- I think previously it was brought up that one of the conditions that planning and zoning specifically had set on this particular conditional use that it went to Mrs. Steeves. It didn't go to the property, it went to her. So, it couldn't be transferred to another property owner. Someone couldn't purchase this business and operate it under this Conditional Use Permit, because what was recommended is that it went to her for her operation only. So, the Council can place all of those conditions. If they aren't being met, then, we do have -- we do have enforcement mechanisms within the city to enforce all of those conditions. If that isn't complied with, then, that can be brought back for the City Council for a revocation of that Conditional Use Permit. So, there are mechanisms that are already in place in the city code to place those restrictions upon this property and to enforce it if they aren't being adhered to. S.Alton: Okay. And who monitors this? Nary: Who monitors -- S.Alton: The enforcement. Nary: The enforcement is monitored by our code enforcement division. S.Alton: They patrol, they -- Nary: No, they don't patrol. I mean -- no. No. No. S.Alton: How does it happen? Nary: Okay. How does it happen? It's happens from people calling the city saying this isn't being adhered to. S.Alton: So we patrol -- Meridian City Council November 3, 2004 Page 33 of fit Nary: Here is the problem. S.Alton: Got you. Right. That's good. Nary: Exactly. S.Alton: Suggestion or statement. This is a worthwhile endeavor, there is no doubt about it. I don't want to argue that point. There is a need for it, there is a desire for it, it's legitimate. It was stated in the last meeting that Condra Steeves wasn't doing this for money and I appreciate that. That's a noble endeavor to do this for families and kids and make no money at it. What I would suggest to meet that need of the children and to meet our concerns, for the City Council to consider -- and this is what I think Judy was trying to allude to about the four or five, is to take the 60 children that want to come -- or 60 families that want to participate right now and divide those into groups of four and five in their own neighborhoods, they can walk -- they can do the walking four or five houses down or where ever those four or five families live in close proximity, they can come under the guideline of a true day care, nobody will object, Condra Steeves can send over her teachers to teach -- not only teach the children, but teach the parents how to do what they are proposing to do and that, then, in those cells -- those cells can be -- the location can be rotated on a daily basis house to house to house, so it's moving through the neighborhood, it's never at one place saturating traffic and those kind of concerns. The beauty of it is is that that can grow, potentially, to -- there are no limits. It can go on forever and it can continue to duplicate as what they have learned is duplicated into the homeowners in the area and, then, they duplicate into others. De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions? Bird: I have none. Rountree: None. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. When we give someone extra time, because they speak on behalf of people, it's unusual that we, then, ask everyone to come up and speak as well, but -- Gilbert: I will be very brief. De Weerd: Thank you. Gilbert: My knees are shaking. De Weerd: Please state your name and address. Gilbert: My name is Sharon Gilbert and I live on Cougar Creek. I'm about six houses between the proposed property and Locust Grove. Meridian City Council November 3, 2004 Page 34 of 62 Nary: We need your address, ma'am. Gilbert: 1396 Cougar Creek. De Weerd: Thank you. Gilbert: Right now there is a lot of talk about the traffic and the traffic on Cougar Creek is quite heavy and most of it -- I think -- we have only been there four months -- comes from the group home that will be next door to the proposed property. It's -- from what 1 have observed it's a shift change and they just come racing in there and I realize by the time they get to the proposed property they are probably slowing down, but i am concerned about the children. 1 realize that a parent will be dropping their child off and a parent will also be picking their child up, but there is also that one in a lifetime chance that a child could be out in the street when somebody from the group home comes. My other issue with the group home is, you know, children are curious and if they are playing in the backyard as they are out next to the fence, I don't know what kind of language they might hear coming from next door. I don't know what they might see if they peek through the fence. That's a concern for me. Concern for the children. De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions? Okay. Is there any further testimony? Would the applicant like to have their five minute rebuttal? Steeves: Thank you, Mayor, Councilmen. In, yeah, rebuttal to those, to start with, the -- De Weerd: if you will just restate your name. Steeves: Okay. Condra Steeves, 7035 North Linder Road, Meridian, Idaho. The traffic -- we don't have 25 coming in at the same time. Our classes are staggered. Monday, Wednesday, Friday we only have 17 that are even coming. We just run them as classes. They are preschool classes. They come in nine at a time, go to a room with a teacher, and so you have probably four cars coming in at 9:00 and four coming -- five, maybe, at 9:30. Sixty kids -- we run Monday, Wednesday, Friday classes, Tuesday - Thursday classes, Monday through Thursday classes in the afternoon, so you can right there where it's -- what -- anyway, they are staggered days, too. So, we could have that many enrolled and not have that many children on the premises and not have that many cars come in. So, the 50 car, whatever -- how it was figured, doesn't quite compute with what we do. The people on Cougar Creek we have talked to within our radius. They also what is -- they are the ones that are going to be impacted, the people the most -- are those people and as you see, they are not here against it and they have actually supported us and petitioned for us. They don't feel like that's going to be a big issue. As to the commercial, it's not -- it's not a commercial, it's a residential home, and when they moved into the R-8 zone the provisions are already there to allow this. This is an allowed use. There is one, two streets up, a home, same thing, 44 kids, and it runs from 6:30 in the morning to 6:00 o'clock at night and it's just a drop off. What we are trying to do is preserve the residential neighborhood to do the small classes and to keep it as a home in the residential. It will be bought as a residence, it will be listed as a f Meridian City Council November 3, 2004 Page 35 of 62 residence, it will not affect property values, and it will fit very nicely into the residents and, like I say, the R-8 zone does allow this. This is already allowed. So, that's not -- when it comes to the law, the code, that's not an issue. It is allowed. De Weerd: Okay. Any questions? Bird: I have none, Mayor. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Just for clarification. It's my understanding that you do have the classes and the classes are inside, it's not -- Steeves: They are never outside. Rountree: -- a day care, you don't turn them loose in the backyard? Steeves: No. If they went outside to play, it would be in the backyard. The group home is right next door. It's a blackout fence, so the kids -- I mean they could get next to it and try and look. It's the garage that's next door, not the home. They have a separate garage. The group home men -- there are five to eight in there. Five at last count. And they are if they are able to get up and move around, they are out at work during the day while we are there. The evening there has been some reports of some language, even some things that wouldn't be appropriate for children. We are there when they are not, they are there when we are not, and that is one reason is also a good use for that house. The family had it on the market for three years next to the group home. It wouldn't sell. People just were afraid to move in next to a group home. We can work very well next to them and co -exist and be able to provide that service, too. De Weerd: Thank you. Rountree: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Council? Rountree: I don't have any further questions or discussion. De Weerd: Okay. Donnell: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mrs. Donnell. Meridian City Council November 3, 2004 Page 36 of 62 Donnell: If I might ask for clarification. if I listened to the testimony, between a school, which a state board does provide a written curriculum for, and a day care and since I'm very new to this, an R-8 zone allows a day care, but does not allow a school; is that right? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, probably Mrs. Canning can answer that easier for you. I think -- I think that's been the issue that we have wrestled with on this, is that it sort of fits in between those two things, which, again, is what a conditional use is for. Donnell: Sure. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council -member Donnell, I'm looking up school really fast. Just one moment. 1 don't have it memorized yet. A private nursery school is listed as conditional in R-8, as is a child-care center. So, those are consistent. There was a lot of discussion about the difference between a preschool and a day care and having had a mother who was a preschool teacher, I very much understand the difference and I understand them wanting to make the distinction, but from a land use standpoint, the uses are identical. You have children arriving at a site and leaving a site, accompanied by parents. From a land use perspective those distinctions are not important. So, we have processed this as a day care. We could have also processed -- it's just there is that -- there is an inconsistency in the code about the private nursery school. One would think that definition would apply, but when you actually go and read the definition there is a problem there. The public school definition also has the language about being consistent with the state education rules. So, that distinction is not really all that important. Either way it's a conditional use. Or if you want to say it's a use that's not listed in the zoning ordinance, it becomes a conditional use for the R-8 district, so -- Donnell: Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. If there is no further information needed and if you're ready to consider a motion -- Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree, Rountree: I move that we close the Public Hearing on Item No. 18. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. Motion to close the Public Hearing on Item 18. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. Meridian City Council November 3, 2004 Page 37 of 62 MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Okay. Discussion? Or a motion? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree, Rountree: Since I was the Councilman who made the motion previously to deny this application and since the denial and with the additional information this evening, my concerns, which were two -- one was the scope or the scale of the facility that was originally proposed in a residential area I thought was not appropriate and I think that scaling it back to no more than 27 initially, with re-application for the next term of the school to be no more than 25, is more in line with what I would envision a residential slash commercial slash some kind of an activity in a residential area that's, in fact, an R- 8 residential zone, but by its nature does allow this kind of use with our conditions. The other issue I was concerned with was safety and several things that I heard tonight eased my concern there. One, the coordination that's been done with the police chief and the suggestions and I believe recommendations and agreement on the part of the applicant for lighting, their offer to assist in the community and in the neighborhood to pursue a community watch or neighborhood watch program, I think that's -- that's a real benefit for the community. Usually what it takes is somebody to champion that and once they are in place they are a good thing, but you have to have somebody that's wanting to take the drive to do it. So, I think that offer to at least assist in that effort is laudable. Having said that, Madam Mayor, I would move that we approve CUP 04-029, request for conditional use for Condra Steeves day care center and slash preschool. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve Item 18 with the findings and the notation that it is 25 at the beginning of the new term. Rountree: With the testimony presented here this evening and staff comment. And I'm sure we are going to get a request about landscaping. De Weerd: Yes, Anna. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I could not follow all of the proposals that the applicant was making. I got the two -- the lighting, I believe, was in the rear yard and, then, I have got the 25 to 27. A number of those issues she raised I was wondering if Council -member Rountree wanted those added as conditions of approval. There are -- enforcing the neighborhood watch I don't think would be possible, so I'm just trying to clarify exactly which of those proposals you wanted included in the conditions of approval. Meridian City Council November 3, 2004 Page 38 of 62 Rountree: Madam Mayor, Anna, the one significant one is the number limitation in terms of students, so not to exceed 25 after this initial class of 27 -- I don't know, do they graduate or whatever they do. Go on to public school. And the safety items that were testified by the applicant be included as conditions and that was lighting and -- I don't remember all the particulars that she and the chief had explained, but that should be on the transcript. Other than that, I have no other specifics. Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: And just to clarify, because I don't know that I heard that, the original types of conditions that were discussed previously and recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission, such as the conditional use is to Mrs. Steeves herself, the hours of operation, those would be included as well, I assume, Council -member Rountree. Rountree: My intention was that all of the previous conditions are still applicable. Nary: Thank you. Canning: And, finally, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, there is still an outstanding issue on whether or not a variance is required from the parking standards. The Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended that one not be required. I will refresh your memory. Hold on. The -- and this is an issue, again, because we have got a commercial use in a residential district. The parking would overhang -- the required setback is 20 feet for this property. The code says that the parking cannot be in the required setback area. The applicant has been able to get the parking so that it's within 15 feet. Now, a 15 -foot setback is allowed for a residence if the garage does not -- if it's a portion of the house that isn't the garage. So, there is this question of the 15 foot -- does this piece of property have a 15 -foot or a 20 -foot setback. Fifteen foot generally applies to a residence, being allowed to move that residence forward. The standard setback is 20 feet for the district. De Weerd: What does the motion maker want to do about that? Rountree: Well, Madam Mayor, I suppose that would be subject to another motion. But I could add it to mine. De Weerd: I believe, legal counsel, can that be included in the findings? Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, yes. If you feel a variance is appropriate, one of the requirements of a variance that usually is a sticking point is whether or not there is any other alternative, whether or not this is, essentially, the most reasonable alternative. Here you already have a house that's there, so it's not -- it's not that they can't -- they can't build it differently and it is -- was built as a residence, so you certainly could make the findings, if you want to include that variance to allow a 15 foot, Meridian City Council November 3, 2004 Page 39 of 62 rather than 20, as part of your motion, you could certainly do that and we could make findings. Canning: We haven't noticed a variance. The question before -- I'm sorry, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. The question before the Council is staff has said that we believe a variance is required. We need directions from Council as to whether or not you believe that to be true. If you think that this does require a variance, we need to add a condition of approval to the application stating that a variance application is required. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Anna, can't it be -- can't it be a condition on a CUP? It would go with the CUP. I mean this is -- the variance -- you know, if the CUP goes away, we don't want the variance left there. Why couldn't it be a condition on the CUP, the same as other conditions you put on CUPs? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the only way to vary from a set dimensional standard is either through the variance process or the planned development process. This was not processed as a planned development. There would have been additional requirements for amenities and different things that staff would have looked at for that application, so -- De Weerd: So, it's more to put a condition for a variance application? Canning: That or to make the determination that this property has a 15 -foot setback. De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Nary, any comment? Nary: Madam Mayor, just give me -- give me one moment to look at the -- De Weerd: So, Mrs. Donnell, you're not the only one a little bit out of the loop tonight. Donnell: Thank you very much. Except since there is a motion and a second, can we also have some discussion while he's taking a minute? Nary: Sure. De Weerd: Yes. Donnell: I can't support, you know, this motion. I just need to say that. I keep asking myself would I want this in my neighborhood and I keep telling myself I don't think so. And so -- and this is coming from someone who loves schools and loves children and has, you know, all her life. But I think there is an appropriate place for a preschool. I Meridian City Council November 3, 2004 Page 40 of 62 don't see this as a private day care, even though I know that there is, you know, a fine distinction. So, I just want to make that clear for the record. De Weerd: Thank you. Nary: Let me look at the findings real quick. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, in looking at city code on this particular one, I do think it's within your discretion to grant what's being requested by the applicant, which is that the Council's determination is that a 15 foot front yard setback is adequate and compliant with the code, because it is -- this is a residential property. There is -- there is commercial aspect of use, but whether or not to apply that 20 -foot setback requirement is within your discretion. You can also do, as Mrs. Canning as directed -- or has indicated, that you can require that they submit a variance application as well, if you're unclear or uncomfortable with simply making that determination. But our code has a lot of leeway in that regard and you have -- in my opinion you have the discretion to make that decision, so -- De Weerd: Okay. So -- Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: If the second would agree, I would like to amend my motion to include the language that the 15 foot setback for residential is compliant in this particular application and also clarify that there will be a condition that landscaping will be done and/or maintained on this particular property that's consistent and compatible with a residential use. Bird: Second would agree to that. De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Nary, do you have enough within that motion to draw up findings? Nary: Madam Mayor, you probably should ask Mrs. Canning. She's the one that -- she drafts them and I read them, so -- De Weerd: I'm sorry. Nary: That's okay. De Weerd: Mrs. Canning. But we do have the record here. Canning: I believe so. 1 think the only thing I'm missing is some of the safety lighting features that were discussed with the police chief and I'm sure Mrs. Steeves or the chief would be happy to help me with that, if I need to do the findings before the minutes come out, usually we have the minutes. Meridian City Council November 3, 2004 Page 49 of 62 De Weerd: Okay. Okay. The motion, then, on Item 18 is to approve with the stated changes on the public record. Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, absent; Donnell, nay. MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT. Item 19: Public Hearing: RZ 04-011 Request for a Rezone of 9.16 acres from R-8 to C -C zone for Cairns Crossing Subdivision by Landmark Engineering and Planning, Inc. — south of West Cherry Lane and east of Linder Road: Item 20: Public Hearing: PP 04-033 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 11 commercial building lots on 9.16 acres in a proposed C -C zone for Cairns Crossing Subdivision by Landmark Engineering and Planning, Inc. — south of West Cherry Lane and east of Linder Road: De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Items -- Council, do you want to take a ten-minute break or do you want to just finish? Okay. I will open up the public hearings on Items 19 and 20 for RZ 04-011 and PP 04-033. 1 will open -- Canning: I'm sorry, ma'am, I thought you had done a break. De Weerd: No. Canning: Sorry. I guess I heard what I wanted to. Sorry about that. De Weerd: No pressure, Anna. Canning: Yeah. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is a request for a commercial zoning. It's -- the property is currently zoned R-8. It's on Cherry Lane next to the Meridian Middle School as shown here. It's just east of Linder Road. It's currently vacant. There is a commercial use just to the west that was approved through certificate of zoning compliance. As I mentioned previously, the property is currently zoned R-8. The applicant is requesting a rezone to Community Commercial, C -C, and that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation as commercial on this property. The applicant is also requesting preliminary plat approval of 11 commercial lots. Each lot will have a single use building on it. Sometimes the buildings are attached, as in the case along the south property, and the east. The others are stand- alone buildings on their own lot. The proposed lots range in size from 21,000 square feet to 73,000 square feet. And, let's see, ACHD -- the applicant originally had three access points to Cherry Road. It's one, two, and three. ACHD did ask them to -- or required them to reduce it to two. Those two are shown on this -- this plan and they do have cross -access here to the west as well. I did notice before the hearing started that you do not have a summary recommendation on this project. I apologize for that. I believe this was -- Wendy -- Ms. Kirkpatrick did not finish it before she left and, i Meridian City Council November 3, 2004 Page 42 of 62 apparently, that slipped through the cracks as far as getting that recommendation done. I do apologize. The city attorney has said that that won't hinder tonight's hearing, because we have the staff report, the conditions of approval, and I will briefly summarize the Planning and Zoning Commission. Most of the discussion at the Planning and Zoning Commission was regarding the properties to the south. As you see here, there is a stub street going into the property and the developer had a similar situation when he developed the property just to the west. There was a stub street there. So, he had worked with this neighborhood before. They have been clear in making their concerns known regarding the stub streets that they do not want them to go through. The applicant has complied with that request. What they are proposing -- what the applicant is proposing along the south boundary is to do a concrete block wall up to the stub street and, then, they will pick up the concrete block wall again. ACRD, though, did require that they provide a ten -foot pedestrian access through the property and also a 20 -foot emergency service access. This is -- the applicant has prepared this drawing for tonight to show what he plans to do. The street comes in at an odd angle and that's what you see here, 13th Avenue. And, then, what they will do is they will bring the sidewalk up through here and they will continue the sidewalk up through here on through the landscape buffer. It's a little bit unusual -- the condition reads ten feet. Well, they are asking to provide five feet here and five feet here and, then, the 20 feet will come through at a right angle to the street and it's got the right -- correct turning radius for the fire department to get their trucks and maneuver in there. Then, they would put a gate from -- between the two sidewalks, so that general access was restricted and cut -through -- cars could not cut through. The applicant's concern was that if he did a ten -foot pathway, that people might use that to actually drive into the property. Staff has agreed that in this instance the two five feet probably is better than ten feet, so -- and, then, just designing the transitions as well, the five feet seems to work well. So, staff is in support of the applicant's request to do that. This item did -- was a major discussion at the Planning and Zoning Commission and the height of the wall and the block wall -- all of that was probably the major point of discussion from the surrounding property owners. The other discussion was the access points for the property. When ACHD reduced it to two, they made specific reference to lining up with the ingress access point of the library, so the east access will line up with that of the library, so that you have got those two major access points to Cherry Lane lined up from one another across the street and that was the other big topic of concern. In the motion made by Chairman -- or by Mr. Zaremba, they did make some specific changes to the conditions of approval and I can read those now and, then, we can incorporate those into a motion if the Council wishes to do that. So, I will put that on the record for now, so that you understand those. They wanted to change on page nine, paragraph five, add a sentence to say that the applicant will work with staff to plan the final relocation of Cairns Lateral. Staff had just asked for some clarification on what would be done with that. They felt that staff could workout that issue with the applicant. And, then, on paragraph six, subparagraph B -- and this was regarding the access points -- it was to modify the plat to show two access points off Cherry Lane and align the eastern access point with the library's and to add the word ingress access point, so that it says it's aligned with the library's ingress access point. And that was the end of the motion. So, Meridian City Council November 3, 2004 Page 43 of 62 there was very few modifications to staffs original condition of approval. With that, I believe I will end staffs presentation and answer any questions you may have. De Weerd: Council, any questions for staff at this time? Bird: 1 have none, Mayor. Rountree: I have none. Donnell: None. De Weerd: Okay. Is the applicant -- were you sworn in? Boyle: I have not been. 1 apologize. De Weerd: Is the testimony that you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Boyle: Yes, it is. De Weerd: Thank you. Boyle: Thank you, Madam Mayor -- De Weerd: Please state your name. Boyle: -- and City Councilmembers, Clint Boyle with Landmark Engineering and Planning. Business address is 104 9th Avenue South in Nampa. Home address here in Meridian, 3668 East Judicial. This evening it's a pleasure to be in front of you on this project. Many of you are familiar with this area. You will recognize it. This particular piece of property is the nine acres that are adjacent to Linder Crossing, a commercial development which is at the intersection of Cherry Lane and Linder. That project was completed some time ago and we believe is a nice functioning commercial development amenity to the city. Same developer is proposing this extension to that project, so this is, essentially Linder Crossing No. 2. Unfortunately, he couldn't use that subdivision name when we processed it through the county surveyor, so here it is Cairns Crossing, which is the name of the irrigation lateral that cuts across the site. So, for marketing purposes it will be marketed as Linder Crossing Phase Two. It does consist of 11 commercial lots. This project, from the time that we started the concept plan, has been through several different meetings. After we prepared the initial concept plan on this, we met with Patty Younger, the Meridian librarian, and had some good discussion with her. That initial meeting we came in with a proposal and we had three access points, one roughly in this location here, another one lined up with 13th Street across the way, and, then, another access that basically split between the two library drives. If you're familiar with the Meridian library, there is an entry drive, which would be the eastern drive, and there is an exit drive, which is the western drive. So, initially, we had those Meridian City Council November 3, 2004 Page 44 of 62 split with our driveway. After that particular meeting, Patty Younger expressed a desire that if we were to propose a driveway across from the library, that it align with one of the library drives. So, recognizing that, that's when we came back with the proposal to align a driveway near the east boundary that aligned with that entry drive. Through discussions with ACRD, as the project kind of progressed through time, they also came back and requested an elimination of one of the proposed driveways on the site. If there were bare land across from the site, based on ACHD's policies, that driveway would have been allowed. There is an existing church that has some existing driveways and due to some offsets there they felt that there would be safety issues with the location of that drive. The developer eliminated that drive as well, considering those comments. Taking it a step forward, we held two neighborhood meetings on the project. The first neighbor meeting was with property owners that were immediately adjacent to the site and that would be the residential lots that abut on the south. There is also some residential lots here on the west. So, any of the adjacent property owners received a notice of that meeting and I believe we have a couple of them that I recognize from the meeting here tonight and from previous meetings and we had some good discussion with the neighbors on the project and, obviously, they have concerns with how the project is going to be designed. The developer committed to extend the block wall. Linder Crossing Phase One has an existing block wall. It was agreed that that block wall would be extended from where it ties in in Linder Crossing No. 1, traveling south along the west boundary and, then, traveling all across the south boundary of the project, that there would be a block wall installed for the neighbors. One of the primary topics of discussion from the neighbors was the 13th Avenue stub. The road just stubs to the property right now, dead end stub, and there was a fairly strong sentiment from the neighbors that we just run that wall straight across and that that is forever barricaded off, the 13th Avenue extension. The developer made the agreement that he would do that if that was an acceptable option for the agency approvals, being ACHD and the City of Meridian. Since that time, going to ACHD and working with Meridian staff, they have indicated that they want a pedestrian access, as well as emergency access, through that 13th Avenue location. So what was finally agreed upon -- and I don't know if my presentation person here can click to that -- can click over to the little overhead that had the exhibit. Okay. The exhibit's gone. It must be off making copies. I do have copies for the Council, but I'll just describe it briefly. What was ultimately agreed upon -- and this was through discussions with Meridian fire, with Joe Silva, Kenny Bowers, with Meridian staff, Wendy before she left, Brad, and also Anna has been involved in those discussions -- and that is that there would be a 20 -foot wide emergency access for five. That access would be gated and it will be -- the developer's proposing to make that -- I mean a nice gate, it will be a vinyl -- solid vinyl fencing gate and it would be a 20 -foot wide double gate that could open up to allow emergency access. On the project side of the gate he would pave that across the landscape area with the appropriate radiuses for fire district and if we can all visualize now. We have a blank screen. This is great. Oh, you do have the letter. Okay. Excellent. And so the design that I believe everybody is in agreement on is that there would be a 20 -foot wide gate with the drive aisle on the other side that would allow for emergency vehicles to proceed into the site, that the pedestrian access would consist of a five foot opening where, essentially, the sidewalk ends right now and another five foot Meridian City Council November 3, 2004 Page 45 of 62 opening over on the other side. Those sidewalks would extend into the project and it would just be a nice flow right off the street sidewalk into the sidewalks that extend into the project. Now, with that said, a street -- obviously, if you add up the numbers, a street is a little wider than that and what we are proposing is that there would be just some small segments of vinyl fencing, opaque vinyl fencing, that would extent between the opening for the pedestrians and the 20 -foot wide gate. So, in other words, the overall break -- there will be an overall break in the block wall, on either side of the block wall you will have the five foot pedestrian openings, then, you will have some vinyl fencing and, then, the 20 -foot gate per the fire department and staff and other discussions that we have had. So, this kind of -- it gives you the example of how we propose that design to function and work with the project. And I know that was a primary item of discussion. We believe that everybody is on the same page with it, with this concept that we have presented. With that said, I did submit comments earlier and I think that in looking through the staff report -- and I received a staff summary. I'm not sure if that was just a draft now. I was kind of wondering. But all my comments were based on the exhibits that I had from the staff report that I received on the 28th of October and I believe that we are in agreement with all those comments. The only -- I had just one clarification on the building designs. There was discussion about making sure that any buildings that are adjacent to Cherry Lane not have a cold blank wall look, that they be dressed up with windows, with architectural projections, et cetera, and the developer has agreed with the proposal that Meridian staff presented, which is 40 percent glass on those walls adjacent to Cherry Lane and, then, provide, you know, at least one architectural feature, either a projection or a parapet or something to break up that elevation and he certainly wants this to be a nice looking project from the street, obviously, so he's interested in making sure the buildings that are out along Cherry look good and make it an inviting project into the center. With that said, I would be happy to answer any questions, but I think the conditions that I received for the rezoning and the preliminary plat we are in agreement with and, then, I just provided the clarification in the letter today. Thank you for your time and we request approval. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions for the applicant? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Boyle: Thank you very much. De Weerd: Okay. I do have two people signed up for or against. Michelle Gaffagan. Would you like to provide testimony? Gaffagan: Hi, Madam Mayor and Council people. My name is Michelle Gaffagan, I live at 1538 West 15th, and my property is adjacent to the west side of the property. The few things we did talk about in the meeting were some hours of operation and from what I got is that the three buildings behind -- the last three buildings -- back buildings were going to be presented from I think 6:00 to 11:00, but they never specified any time Meridian City Council November 3, 2004 Page 46 of 62 frames for the front four buildings or the two side buildings next to the high school -- or the junior high. And I'd really like being -- the three back buildings to have the hours of operation pushed to, if we could, 6:00 to 10:00, because they are really close to the residents and we do need sleep every now and then. And the second one -- I did notice on the drawings -- and I just wanted for clarification if -- I'm going to catch her off guard. If she could go to the -- if the corner -- if that is a trash can, that it be moved next to the buildings, so we don't have a back -- SSC backing right up into our back property, if that is, indeed, a true back -- or, indeed, a true trash can. They had said that this was just, basically, a drawing, that the buildings could change, you know, facing different ways or move a little bit. So, I just wanted to make the suggestion that if, indeed, that is trash, to move the trash closer to the buildings. I do know that Boise BFI starts running their commercial trash at 3:00 a.m. and I'm not quite sure what SSC does. Also, we talked about the lighting and I know Patty Younger did mention in the letter to Planning and Zoning that -- to have the lower lighting, such as the hospital -- or the hospital -- the library has and we had discussed that and they said that some of the measures of the lighting could be costly to them, but it would be in our backyard, it would be kind of nice to kind of have it a little dimmed, as well as the building on the far west side not have any windows facing that way, even though there is some parking, because our residence is right back here. And those are my three points I wanted to bring up. Thank you for your time. De Weerd: Thank you. And Jan Shurte. Or Shurte. Shurte: Madam Mayor and Council -members, my name is Jan Shurte, I live at 1522 West 15th Street, and, basically, the reason that we put for and against is because we just wanted to make sure that some of the points that were covered from before got carried over. And so that's why we have been waiting. But the wall is a very important thing to us, because we -- and it was agreed upon, I believe, a six foot wall and I don't think that's been mentioned and the wall was supposed to be exactly the same as the wall that they have on the present -- the same design and everything. They talked about the lighting in the parking lot that would be installed in such a way to shine away from the homes, so they said that was a part of your usual standards. This was at the Planning and Zoning meeting. And that the neon lighting -- I don't know if we discussed neon lighting, but we definitely -- where we are located at is right along here and we wouldn't want lighting on this side. Now, I can't imagine why they would, but just in case I thought I would mention it. You never know or -- you know, or their business to reflect out that direction. I can't imagine that they would, since this is the front portion of that building. But we just wanted to make it clear, because it sounds like that the -- maybe -- I don't know if it got into the minutes of the Planning and Zoning. We also had concerns about the hours of operation. We wanted -- we were hoping for 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. due to the fact that -- that delivery hours, which I found out -- which I didn't know -- are the same as the hours of operation and so when you have got your delivery trucks backing in there to unload things with the beepers going and everything, it would -- and there are -- there are homes all the way along that west side and all the way along the south side there. It would be disruptive I thought at 6:00 in the morning for that to be occurring and so I was hoping for 7:00 to 10:00, instead of 6:00 to 11:00. That was one } Meridian City Council November 3, 2004 Page 47 of 62 of the things that we were against in our, for and against. And on the height of the building, I am assuming that the height -- and it was my understanding is to be the same as the Linder Crossing Phase One buildings, the same design, which we have no problem with that. And that the types of businesses to go in there would be businesses that fit with the Comprehensive Plan, which I think are a residential commercial business type, which would not include things such as bars, let's say, and things like that. And so, let's see, I think that's -- I think that covers everything I wanted to just kind of bring up from the last meeting, so that nobody -- because none of you were there, so I would appreciate you considering all those items. De Weerd: Thank you. And definitely the bars would be excluded, because of the church across the street and the school right next door. Would not be eligible. Shurte: And that is another -- just one more thing and I'll leave -- is that the children do walk along the street there and they walk all over the place there, because of the middle school and everything, so, you know, you might just, you know, think about the hours of operation for that, too, so -- De Weerd: Thank you. Canning: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Anna. Canning: This comedy of errors is almost at an end, thankfully. And I apologize. We did locate the summary recommendation in the findings and I would like to verify several of the statements made by the last three people regarding those -- the former hearing. There is a condition that the south perimeter block wall shall be designed such that the top of the wall matches the top of the existing wall at Linder Crossing, allowing for overall wall height to exceed six feet if the ground contours down and that was an issue that was raised at the Planning and Zoning Commission, that for some people the wall was six and a half feet tall and that's just because the ground slopes down away from the wall. But they did agree to maintain a six-foot height to the wall on their property site. Lots 8, 9, 10, and 11 of Block 1, which are those down here along the south, shall have a restriction that any use that is not consistent with the standard limited office zone, shall be restricted to hours of operation between 6:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. every day of the week. So, that was a condition placed on those lots. There was also an addition of a cross -access agreement among these property owners. We were missing that one. And, finally, they -- in the outstanding issues before City Council, Brad Hawkins -Clark picked this up from Ms. Kirkpatrick when she left, and after reviewing the minutes he had requested further clarification from City Council on how they wanted to address the condition from Planning and Zoning that said that the building elevations along Cherry Lane and Brad had proposed to add a condition to the development agreement requiring that all Cherry Lane facing building elevations -- that would be those at the north end of the property -- be at least 40 percent glass and floors above the main floor to be a minimum of 20 percent glass, if they were two story. Also, Meridian City Council November 3, 2004 Page 48 of 52 awnings, modulated articulated walls, parapets, eaves, overhangs, or similar design features be used to minimize long, monotonous walls and to incorporate those into all future buildings that are oriented to Cherry Lane. So, the applicant has agreed to do that and was comfortable with that -- that condition, so you would need to add that condition as noted in the staff recommendation. And, then, there is -- he also raised the outstanding issue of the 13th Avenue access, which I do believe we have resolved tonight already, so with that I will end staffs second presentation on the project. It does come forward with a recommendation for approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission. De Weerd: Thank you, Anna. Would the applicant like to come and summarize? Boyle: Mayor and Council Members, again, Clint Boyle representing Mr. Stubblefield on the project. And I appreciate Anna's presentation there. That is in accordance with what I have received. The letter that I submitted to the Council was just to clarify the outstanding items that were listed in that executive summary to the Council, which was the conceptual design of the 13th Street access and, then, the commitment that, yes, we will -- we are willing to do the 40 percent glass, like I indicated, and, then, the break up in the architecture -- to break up and make those attractive facades along Cherry Lane. So, we agree with staff. Appreciate working with them on those conditions. They just -- the planning commission left it a little bit open-ended, which I kind of like, because it just said work with staff on the elevations, which is kind of nice, but they wanted a little further -- further clarification in the record and, that's fine, I think that's appropriate. The other items -- there was a lot of discussion. The plan that is shown here, again, we presented a conceptual plan for the buildings on the site, with the parking, so the Council would be able to get a feel for the rhyme and reason as to why we placed lot lines where we did and where the utilities were running through. We do meet the ordinance requirements as far as the landscape buffers, so the residential areas will have the 25 -foot wide landscape buffer with the tree plantings. The developer, you know, went above and beyond to continue that block wall, recognizing that there were requests from the neighbors to have that extended. The issue with the hours of operation, Linder Crossing Phase One that's adjacent to this site, there was a Conditional Use Permit process on it that also had hours of operation placed on it of 6:00 in the morning to 11:00 in the evening, so this agreement that was proposed in the staff report is something that the developer would like to see as the 6:00 a.m, to 11:00 p.m. hours of operation on those buildings that are along the south boundary there adjacent to the residential areas, as proposed in the staff report. The building elevations, again, the developer intends to develop this project with a similar look to that that you see with Linder Crossing Phase One and that is his intention. As far as some of the items that were brought with regards to the trash enclosures and loading and unloading, again, we don't know where exactly those are going to end up being located, that will be something as we come in with specific building plans we will locate. The way these buildings are designed, right now, yeah, we do show some loading areas on the concept plan. Does that mean that when it actually comes in there is going to be a loading area there? No, not necessarily. The trash enclosure, as far as their location, again, we do have the perimeter landscaping around that's going to provide separation Meridian City Council November 3, 2004 Page 49 of 62 -- even further separation, besides the fact that you do have a block wall. Block walls probably -- and I don't know the acoustic effects between a vinyl fence or a wood fence and a block wall, but I would imagine a block wall is probably one of the better, if not best methods of blocking sound and noise that's available, outside of maybe the vegetation and the plantings. So, I think that they will have some nice buffering there adjacent to them. As far as lighting, the developer -- he will comply with the ordinances. Meridian ordinances already require that lights be directed away from residential areas. Linder Crossing Phase One he has shields on those lights that are on the back side adjacent to residential properties and he intends to do that with this development as well to be in compliance with those ordinances. Again, we feel like it's going to be a nice project. We have strove to work with the neighbors as much as we can within reason. Like I said, we had a couple of neighborhood meetings there and worked through some of these issues and made some commitments to them and with that said, again, we agree with the staff conditions, incorporating that letter of clarification that I submitted today with the design concept for 13th and, again, the commitment on the architectural features along Cherry Lane. With that said, I respectfully request your approval and stand for questions if you have any. Thank you. De Weerd: Council, do you have any questions? Bird: I have none, Mayor. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: And I don't mean to make these comments because of this project, but the project gives me an opportunity to make my point yet again, that -- and Cherry Lane is kind of my barometer on what's going on with signs and we required this development, as we have required all developments in Meridian, but particularly Cherry Lane, to provide nice landscape buffers and driving up and down Cherry Lane I can see those buffers, but I can also see everything from shave and a haircut to a car loan to a home loan to the sweetest deal you can find on taking new applications staked out in these landscaped areas with metal fence posts, banners, sandwich boards, right-of-way signs -- you name it it's there. It continues to be there. It continues to irritate me. Can we put a condition on the rezone on this, that the conveyance of these properties in the future have a condition that if anybody puts a sign that is inconsistent with the City of Meridian signing ordinance, it will be removed post haste without any due process, the fact that these things crop up and they don't go away. Bright signs have been on Albertson's for the past three years. They have been in front of U.S. Bank buildings in every location in the Treasure Valley for the last year and a half. They just don't go away. Sorry, John, but it just gave me another opportunity to poke at that issue. I appreciate the developers are willing to comply with Meridian's landscape requirements, but we are not doing them justice by allowing and continuing to allow that to go on. Having said that, I think this is a great idea. Meridian City Council November 3, 2004 Page 50 of 62 De Weerd: As long as the landlord doesn't allow obnoxious signs in the landscape buffer. I hope that staff got the hint on this and maybe we could start -- Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council -member Rountree, you have just a rezone and a preliminary plat before you tonight. I'm not -- I think if you had a conditional use you may be able to address that issue. I'm not sure we can make it a requirement of the plat. Rountree: I'm checking for ways to make it easy for the city to do this. Canning: Point well taken, though, and we will increase our coordination with the police department to try and take care of the temporary sign problem. De Weerd: And maybe we need to look at our ordinance on temporary signs. Rountree: We need some help there. We are not getting this taken care of. But that has nothing to do with this application. Canning: As part of our rewrite we weren't touching the sign ordinance, but I think I have gotten some direction that we will go and look at the temporary sign ordinance. De Weerd: I think that's a good idea. Next time he will probably stomp his feet. Rountree: Take my shoes off. De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? Bird: I have none. Rountree: I have none. Donnell: None. De Weerd: Okay. Boyle: Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Rountree: I have no more comments, if that's what you're looking for, anymore discussion. Donnell: Are you needing to have a motion to have the Public Hearing closed? Bird: You got her. Meridian City Council November 3, 2004 Page 51 of 52 Donnell: So moved. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to close the Public Hearing on Items 19 and 20. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Donnell: And, Madam Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we approve public -- or the request for rezone, Item No. 19, RZ 04-011, the Cairns Crossing Subdivision. And can I make the motion for the next item or does that have to be a separate motion? De Weerd: Separate. Donnell: Okay. So, that would be just the motion, then, for the rezone. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve Item 19 and on a rezone is that where you would make sure to list any special conditions, Mr. Attorney, on hours of operation or lighting specifically for shielding and trash receptacles and those kinds of things? That would be the plat? Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Mrs. Canning can probably remind me, but I thought I saw a recommendation from the Commission that there be a development agreement, so all of those conditions could be put in the development agreement. De Weerd: But you would want to specifically state those. Nary. Yes. Donnell: Does that need to be part of the motion, then? Nary: That would be helpful, yes. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the Exhibit A that you may or may not have by this time does list several conditions of approval -- or additions to the development agreement. The only one that needs to be included in the motion is to add the language proposed by the developer regarding the Cherry Lane facing building elevations that they provided in their letter. Donnell: So, I would amend my motion to include the recommendation that has been agreed to by the developer in terms of the front of the buildings -- what's a better name for that. Meridian City Council November 3, 2004 Page 52 of 62 Rountree: Elevations. Bird: Elevations. Donnell: Oh. Thank you. Elevations. Thank you. De Weerd: Per the -- Donnell: Per the November 3rd, 2004, letter. Bird: Second agrees. De Weerd: Okay. Is there any further discussion? Mr. Clerk. Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, absent; Donnell, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Thank you. Item 20. Donnell: Madam Mayor, I'd like to make a motion to -- that we approve Item No. 20, the preliminary plat 04-033 for the Cairns Crossing Subdivision. And were there recommendations as well? Rountree: Per staff recommendations. Donnell: Thank you very much. And as per staff recommendations. Rountree: Second. Donnell: Oh, I'm going to get good at this. Maybe. De Weerd: Okay. Is there any further discussion? Canning: Madam Mayor, Councilmember Donnell, would that include the clarification on the pedestrian path, that it could be consistent with what the applicant has presented tonight? Donnell: That would include that. Absolutely. Canning: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Any further discussion? Okay. Mr. Berg. Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, absent; Donnell, yea. Meridian City Council November 3, 2004 Page 53 of 62 MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 21: Public Hearing: AZ 04-025 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 121.96 acres from R4 (Ada County) to R-4 zone for Vienna Woods Subdivision No. 1-7 and Edinburgh Place Subdivision No. 1-2 by the City of Meridian — NEC of East McMillan Road and North Locust Grove Road: De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Item 20 is a Public Hearing AZ 04-025. We will open -- I'm sorry. Item 21. We will open this Public Hearing. It was posted as November 2nd, rather than the 3rd, and it will need to be reposted, but I guess since I see no one for this item, I would entertain a motion to continue this Public Hearing, since I have now opened it. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we continue the Public Hearing AZ 04-025 to November 16th, 2004. Rountree: I will second, but just a question. De Weerd: Second with discussion. Yes. Mr. Nary, it must be for you. Rountree: Is that date because of the posting requirements -- is that date because of the posting requirement or -- Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council -member Rountree, there is ten days requirement for posting. Rountree: Okay. Okay. Nary: And the property -- 1 did receive an e-mail today from Mr. Hood and the property has been posted, so it's been posted for the 16th in anticipation of this motion. De Weerd: Don't change the date. Please. Okay. So, we do have a motion to continue to November 16th. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 22: Water, Sewer, & Trash Delinquencies: De Weerd: Okay. Item 22. 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., Wednesday, November 3rd, Meridian City Councii November 3, 2004 Page 54 of 62 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 December 4th, 2004, unless payment is received in full. Is there anyone present who wishes to contest his or her water, sewer, and trash delinquency? Okay. They are hereby informed that they may appeal and 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 $27,954.21. Council, may I have a motion? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move that we approve the water, sewer, trash delinquency turn off list for November 4th in the amount of $27,954.21. Bird. Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve the shut off list. Mr. Clerk, will you, please, call roll. Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, absent; Donnell, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 22: Ordinance No. 04-1112 : City Attorney: De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Berg. Item 22 is Ordinance 04-1112. Mr. Clerk, will you, please, read this item by title only. Berg: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Ordinance No. 04-1112, an Ordinance amending Title 1, Chapter 8-C, Section 1 of the Meridian City Code regarding the position of City Attorney, providing for Deputy City Attorneys, defining duties and responsibilities for the City Attorney and deputies and providing for a waiver of the reading rules and providing an effective date. De Weerd: You have heard this ordinance read by title only. Is there anyone who would like to hear it read in its entirety? If so, you are certainly welcome to read it yourself. Okay. Do I have a motion? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move that we approve Ordinance 04-1112, with suspension of rules. Meridian City Council November 3, 2004 Page 55 of 62 Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve Item 22. Mr. Clerk, will you call roll. Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, absent; Donnell, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Thank you. I just need a count -- I think that Peggy had e-mailed you all on the Hymns of Celebration. Those tickets are free, but they have special reserve seating, if you would like to go. So, I just need a count. I think It's the 21st, 22nd, and 23rd. Rountree: 1 know when it is. What is it? Just a choir? De Weerd: It's like a concert. Bird: It's an orchestra and choir. It's very nice. Donnell: I lost the flyer. Rountree: Is it local? Bird: 1 think it is. I'd take a couple tickets. De Weerd: There is three different nights, so I would need to know which night. So, if you will just let Peggy know? Bird: Well, Tuesday is out. Rountree: Sunday, Monday and Tuesday. 21st, 22nd and 23rd. Donnell: Of November. Rountree: Of November. De Weerd: So, Keith two. Bird: Not Tuesday. Rountree: If I ask, probably two, but don't ask. De Weerd: So two? Rountree: No. I will ask. Meridian City Council November 3, 2004 Page 56 of 62 De Weerd: Okay. And you'll call Peggy? Bird: I want two, but I better find out what night. Item 23: City Attorney — Bill Nary: Benefits De Weerd: So, I'll just leave it all up to you. Okay. Mr. Nary. Nary: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. I thought since the late hour I'd stand over here, rather than try to talk to the side of you and what I have before you -- we have talked a couple of times over the last few weeks regarding the city's benefits. This is not the time -table we'd like to normally have. We have open enrollment that needs to get done starting next week. In the future I'd like to bring this before you well in advance of that kind of time table, but because of circumstances when I started, the lack of a director we haven't had through the summer, we haven't had a benefits consultant until recently as well, we haven't been able to do that. So, that being said, I do have some very good -- good information for you and, hopefully, you will approve the recommendations that we have. We have taken this information to both the department directors, the benefits committee, through finance to make sure we are all in line with what's been budgeted for these renewal rates and I think we have some very good -- very good news. Our benefits consultant Marsh Company was able to secure a lesser increase than was originally proposed by Blue Cross for our medical insurance. Originally they proposed a 33 percent -- 33.4 percent increase. Marsh was able to get them down to a 22 percent increase and with an additional change in one portion of our plan they were able to get the increase down to 20.7 percent. We had budgeted approximately 25 percent for that renewal, so we are well under budget for that. Some of the other ones were a little -- one of the other ones was a little higher, so it does work out. It's not a complete four percent return, but there is some -- there is going to be some savings. The three tiered plan for the prescriptions basically is a change for the employees in this way: Currently there is a ten dollar co -pay for certain prescriptions and a 20 dollar co -pay for others. In this new plan there is a ten dollar co -pay for certain prescriptions and a 25 co -pay for others and a 40 dollar co -pay for certain name brand non -generic types of drugs. What Marsh did with that increase is they looked at that increase to the employee; they looked at what the employees currently use and how many employees would be affected by that. What they were able to determine is that based on the usage of prescription medication, that approximately nine percent of the employees use those types of prescription drugs that would be affected by that level of increase. They weren't able to secure data on whether or not at least some of those nine percent would be able to switch to a generic brand. They did indicate that some of them would not be able to, but some -- but they believe some would, but they didn't have data to really show that, but other than just anecdotal type data. But overall 91 percent of the employees would not be impacted to that great a degree and, again, it would lower our increase to a 20 percent increase versus initially was a 34 percent increase. On the other programs that the city provides, the dental program was a slight increase over the other one. It's requesting a 23 percent increase. Delta Dental, in Meridian City Council November 3, 2004 Page 57 of 62 providing the data to Marsh, was able to show that our increase probably should be closer to 35 percent, but was able to bring it in at 23 percent. So, we were able to still get it at a rate that was affordable and within the budget that we had set for this benefit. The other additional services we have, the employee assistance program, the vision provider, and, then, some of the short-term disability, long-term disability, the ones that are provided for employees, all of those were at rates that were all within -- without any -- excuse me -- without any increases. The other ancillary products that we have, we have been using standard insurance for the short-term disability, long term, life, accident, death and dismemberment, dependent life, and voluntary life, we have been using standard. They were able to secure -- Marsh was able to secure a quote from United Heritage, a local company, to provide the exact same coverage for all employees at a lower cost to the city, with no change in the product of the employees. So, overall, we have a lower increase -- obviously, an increase, but a 21 percent increase versus 34 for the medical insurance, we have an increase that's within our budget and there is some savings. What I had asked and recommended to the directors and to the benefits committee and I'm recommending to you to consider, is one of the ways to alleviate that issue or concern of the increased amount of prescription medication is the city has already had a program through Express Flex for employees that's a flexible spending medical reimbursement program. There is three programs that we have. One allows employees to take their monthly co -pay amount that they pay towards their family or children and have it taken out of their check pre-tax. We have 196 employees who currently are on our medical plan, 171 of those employees get that taken out of their check pre-tax. So, most people use that -- use that service very well. There is no cost to the employee for that. We have two other methods of flexible reimbursement that employees can use that we don't have very much usage in. One of them is medical reimbursement. An employee can set a certain amount of money to be taken out of their checks pre-tax, they determine the amount, the amount can be up to 3,000 dollars, but it can be any amount they choose, and that can cover their deductibles, that can cover a variety of different medical services, as well as things like orthodontics that we don't have coverage for, lasik surgery if they choose glasses, contacts, and it actually goes as far that it will cover things like cold medicine and Tylenol, if you want to send those in. It's a very good service, the reimbursement rate -- or the reimbursement time is very quick. It can be reimbursed to employees within a day if they do it direct deposit. We don't have very much usage in that. We have approximately 48 employees that use it currently. Part of the reason I believe that employees don't use it is that they aren't given enough information as to how it can work for them. Secondarily, there is a $5.50 a month administrative fee for employees to access that program. The third one we have is for dependent care. We have seven employees that use it for dependent care. My belief is, without doing any surveying, without doing anything, that I'm sure we have employees -- more than seven employees that have children in day care of some sort that could use the service. Again, I believe the fee and education has not been there to make employees understand how that could work for them. What I'm proposing to you - - and verified with the finance department that within the budgetary savings that we have we can afford to do this, is a couple of things. I'm recommending that the city pay that 5.50 per month per employee that signs up for the program. That's approximately 65 dollars a year per employee to do that. The question that you may ask is why would Meridian City Council November 3, 2004 Page 58 of 62 we want to do that. Well, of all the benefits we provide for medical, for vision, for all of these things, this is, actually, the only benefit that the city gets a return on as well. Most of the other ones we are just paying for it. This one, because of the pre-tax dollar savings that the employee gets the benefit of, because it mean more money in their pocket, in that second sheet I gave you is just a very rough example of how we could fund this. Currently, based on just the number of employees that are in this program, the city saves approximately 6,500 dollars a year. If we funded this program just for the current employees that are in it, we'd still make 3,200 dollars a year. It's money that we had not captured as savings that we were already making as revenue. If we can increase the numbers of people by taking that -- to me a disincentive away by having employees pay for the administrative cost, we should, hopefully, be able to increase the number. You know, very simple math, we increase the numbers, the more money the employees make, the more money the city makes in savings from tax dollars. It's, to me, a very good accessible program that the other piece that -- that we need to work on is educating the employees to why it works for them. But it's an affordable way to do it. What I'm proposing is that we do it for one year only, that that's the message that we tell the employees, that this is a one-year experiment. We will have some better data, because we have never done this before, to be able to tell you next budget year that this works or doesn't work, that this is affordable for a longer term commitment, but right now it's a one year experiment to see if this would work. Again, it's within the budgetary amount of money that we have. We can afford to do this, without it impacting the money we have already set aside for this benefit. The other piece of that, there is a small risk to the city. Employees on the medical reimbursement, the amount of money they choose to set aside out of their paycheck is reimbursable for them from the first day, from January 1st they can be reimbursed the full amount. The risk to the city is that if that employee were to leave employment prior to the end of the year and they have been reimbursed the total amount, the city is responsible for that difference. So, what 1 have asked the finance department to do is come up with a number that we can set a reserve aside from that savings to be able to, again, cushion that if that were to happen. Although it's a risk, in my opinion it's not a significant risk at this point, because, one, our turnover is very low, the usage has been very low. Now, eventually, it may -- it may have a bigger fiscal impact in the future, but right now our usage has been low enough and what the Marsh consultants have told us is in their -- in the data that they have done with other businesses and other entities that use this program, that the approximate amount of reserve that we would need is about six percent. So, based on the current usage, if we had had a six percent reserve, we need to have about 1,600 dollars set aside for that. The higher usage, obviously, the six percent, the amount's going to go up, but that's the amount of loss that the entity has suffered over the course of a year is about a six percent loss. Again, many entities make money, many entities make more money and are able to roll that savings over each year, so they can fund the program continuously. Again, we don't have any data to be able to do that, but if we don't try and we don't take a step and we don't try to do something else, we are never going to ever be able to gather information and data for you. It is an affordable program. I think it's a very good program for employees and I think it shows, again, if nothing else, it's a benefit that, actually, the city gets a return as well. And so I think we can do it. I think if you're of the mind set to approve that, I think it would be a good thing Meridian City Council November 3, 2004 Page 59 of 62 for the employee and the city to do that. But everything else, like I said, can be -- we can go forward, if you're all comfortable with that. If there is other information 1 can gather for you, we can certainly do that, but I think we have -- I think Marsh has done an excellent job in getting some affordable rates for us and keeping us within our budget and, then, giving us some flexibility to be able to provide something more. Donnell: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Donnell: Just two things, Mr. Nary. One, a comment. In my former employment we had this program and it definitely is a savings to the organization. In fact, quite a bit of savings. And so I would really recommend that this be offered. My question is is Marsh responsible for the education of the employees? When we used a firm -- because what you're paying for is the administration. You're paying for them to -- to handle the documentation that's submitted by the employee when they want reimbursement for the money that has been set-aside for them -- that they have set aside out of their own paycheck. And so I think they also are responsible for providing some in-service. That's just a suggestion. I think that a company -- it's certainly something we could ask them to do. And that just means they come in, they explain what the benefit is to the employee in some kind of venue and that generally helps, because they can do a pretty good job of explaining why it's such a benefit. And, then, secondly, has the law changed where if, in fact, a person does not utilize all of the money that they set aside, the organization keeps or does the company keep? Marsh. Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council -member Donnell, money doesn't go to Marsh. Marsh is simply a consultant. We use an express -- Express Flex is the name of the company that we use. Donnell: Okay. So, they are the ones that actually keep the money if it's not all expended by the employee? Nary: Right. And currently the law has not changed, it's still a use it or lose it. There is legislation that is being proposed to allow that medical savings accounts, which a lot of people are familiar with that as well, do allow that roll over. The difference with it -- and we have looked at that -- is it requires a hard deductible. It requires deductibles of a minimum of 2,500 dollars. I don't think 1 want to be up here today saying let's have 2,500 deductibles for our employees. On the education piece, part of what's going to go on next week -- and we are doing things a little bit differently. What we have done in the past was we basically had all these different vendors of these different programs come and give their pitches to the employees and the city's involvement was basically done by the prior director and no one else. Well, since I have been there, what I have done is one of the people that -- in my department, who has been -- worked here for a very long time, Mrs. Clinton, is our benefits person, she handles all of the paperwork that goes through with our benefits. She works with all the employees on these issues for family medical leave, as well as all these other benefits. She will be at all of these things. The Meridian City Council November 3. 2004 Page 60 of 62 employees aren't required at that meeting to fill out all this paperwork. It is an information gathering thing. So, the education responsibility is on us. Marsh is there, they do help explain all of these different programs, how it works for the individual employees, but -- and they have provided us with one tool that I think will help the people on the flexible spending account, they have, essentially, a program that an employee can take with them -- basically we can e-mail it to them, they can plug in their own numbers onto what they make, what amount they want to set aside, and what that's going to mean to them, how much money they will realize in their own pocket by what they choose to put into the program themselves. And, really, our pitch right up front -- because, again, for a lot of folks this is new to them -- is figure out what you spend. I mean most people know, especially for things that they plan, if they have a set amount of regimen they take of prescription drugs monthly, they know what that amount is. They know what they can set aside and if they are going to spend it anyway, then, the best way to do it is through this program. What else we have done in working with the finance department is come up with a sheet of benefits for all employees. We should be able to have all of those by the open enrollment time. So every employee is going to get a sheet -- I didn't bring copies tonight, I'm sorry. It looks something like this and what this will have, it will have each employee's name, their position on it, what their salary is, what benefits the city provides them and what the costs of those benefits are, so that the employee understands it isn't just what they make, but what the city puts into what they make. So, again, in providing that tool to folks so they understand how these benefits impact them and what it costs the city to provide them -- I think some of these things will start getting that message out to folks that they all have to share in what these costs are. Most employees don't realize that they are only paying a small portion of the percentage of the benefits that they receive. De Weerd: Council, I would also say that this plan has -- is extremely convenient as well, because you can fax it in and it can be direct deposited in your checking account the next day. So, it's very convenient for the employee as well and through hands-on educational part, the small percentage of employees who are affected by the prescription drug, they will definitely be sat down and talk about this plan, because it may have -- it definitely has potential of helping them cover the additional costs that they would have in their prescriptions. So, you know, we will work closely with them. I think, also, as discussed at the benefits committee, this is our opportunity to start getting on top. We have a rating issue with our insurance and we need to get on top of that with a better education program and pro -active outreach, with preventative health care and those kinds of things, giving them options and education and case management plan. These kinds of things we hope to turn the tied to some of our rating issues. Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, there is one other practice that I want to make you aware of and ask your -- if you agree with this proposal and to consider this as part of it. A practice that has existed in human resources prior to me coming here -- it's not a written policy, but it's a practice that has existed, is there is certain benefits that employees receive that they are not allowed to use within their first six month of employment and one of those is vacation time. New employees aren't allowed to use vacation during their first six months. And I have no objection to that, I'm not proposing Meridian City Council November 3, 2004 Page 61 of 62 anything regarding that, I understand the reasons for it. But one of the benefits that employees get that have -- that are not allowed access to is this flexible spending program. To me that's a disincentive and it makes -- I can't fathom a very logical reason to not allow employees to access it, because our orientation program it is very small, it's very one on one, we generally have no more than three or four employees with Mrs. Clinton as our benefits specialist, presenting all of these different plans and I will tell you we -- from her, she'll say she gets very positive feedback from employees about this flex plan and, then, she has to tell them go away and come back in six months and, then, you can sign up. I recognize there is a risk that employees can leave employment and that they may have -- they may have exhausted or expended part of the plan that doesn't get reimbursed. But my feeling is that exists with all employees, it doesn't just exist with brand new employees. On a one-on-one basis, if we are going to get people to participate in this plan, that's where we can get them the best information that will matter to them that would make them want to be a participant. And, again, this is a benefit that benefits the city, as well as the employee. So, part of what I'd like to do with that is to remove that practice and allow employees that -- new employees to be able to access this flex plan right from the beginning when they sign up for all of their other benefits. Again, there is certainly some risk, but there is much more upside to the city and to the employees to provide this. Donnell: Are they also providing a day care -- the day care option? Nary: Yes. Donnell: That's all part. And that one is -- they can't -- Nary: They cannot exceed it. Donnell: -- exceed that one. Nary: Correct. Yeah. The best way to characterize that, as the Marsh people did, is you look at them like a bucket and with the medical reimbursement, however much you choose to put in it on day one, your bucket is full of whatever you wanted, but on the day care side it's not. It's what you put into it each month is what you're eligible to be reimbursed back out of that. So, you cannot exceed it. Again, my feeling is employees who aren't using that program; they are leaving money on the table. is there any other questions? If all of those things sound, you know, acceptable to you, I just need a motion for approving that. If there is parts of it you're not comfortable with, maybe I can answer some other questions. De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Oh, I was just going to say if he needs a motion, I'd make a motion to accept the plan that's been presented to us. Donnell: I second that. Meridian City Council November 3, 2004 Page 62 of 62 Bird: Including the change in the policy with the new employees getting the -- De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve the recommendation from our city attorney slash HR person. Is there any further discussion? All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Thank you. I would entertain a motion to adjourn. Donnell: I can wake up for that. I so move. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: All those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Thank you. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:35 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) 19 1:5-6 DE WEER D JJjllDATE APPROVED ATTE ILLIAM G. BERG, TY tLE N' 0g Ocfober 29, 2004 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING November 3, 2004 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 5-D REQUEST Tabled from October 12, 2004 m- Land Lease Agreement with Ken Hamilton Presentations AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: See previous Iters packet CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff initials: Materials presented at public meetings shalt become property of the City of Meridian. October 8, 2004 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING October 12, 2004 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 5-B REQUEST Tabled from October 5,2004: Land Lease Agreement with Ken Hamilton AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: See Previous Item Packet CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: 04/ CITY BUILDING DEPT: 3 } CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT:19 11 CITY PARKS DEPT: 'v MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. October 1, 2004 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING APPLICANT October 5, 2004 REQUEST Land Lease Agreement with Ken Hamilton Presentations ITEM NO. 5-L AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: See attached CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: I f CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials pmsented at public meetings shallbeacome property of the City of Meridian. September 14, 2044 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING APPLICANT September 14, 2004 ITEM NO. 5-D REQUEST Land Lease Agreement with Ken Hamilton Presentations AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: See cdfached CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: 4 CITY BUILDING DEPT: �� CITY WATER DEPT: ✓ j CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: f/✓'� p MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. LAND LEASE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this 17 day of -s� 2004, by and between the City of Meridian, a municipality and political subdivision of the State of Idaho, hereinafter referred to as the "Lessor," party of the first part, and Ken Hamilton d/b/a Ken Hamilton Presentations, Inc., hereinafter referred to as the "Lessee," parry of the second part, WITNESSETH: That the said Lessor, for and in consideration of the rents, covenants and agreements hereinafter mentioned on the part and behalf of the said Lessee to be paid, kept and performed, does by these presents grant, demise and lease unto the said Lessee, and the said Lessee does by these presents hire, rent and take from the said Lessor, that certain premises located on the following described real property, to wit: Beginning at the SW corner of the NEI/4NW1/4, Section 18, T.3N., R.1E., B.M., Ada County, Idaho, the real point of beginning; thence Northerly along the Westerly boundary of said NE1/4NW1/4, Section 18, a distance of 1050 feet to a point on the Northeasterly bank of a stream called Ninemile Creek; thence Easterly parallel to the Southerly boundary of said NE1/4NW1/4, Section 18, a distance of 622 feet to a point; thence Southerly parallel to the Westerly boundary of said NEIA NW1/4, Section 18, a distance of 1050 feet to a point on the Southerly boundary of said NEIANW I/4, Section 18, thence Westerly along the Southerly boundary of said NEI/4NWI/4, Section 18 to the real point of beginning comprising 15.0 acres. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD said premises, together with the appurtenances, privileges, rights and easements thereto belonging, unto the said Lessee for the term of five years, LAND LEASE AGREEMENT - 1 said term to commence on July J , 2004, and terminate on July } �f , 2009, for the rental and upon the terms and conditions as follows: RENTAL: Lessee covenants and agrees to pay annual rent for said premises for the term of this Lease Agreement in the sum of $250.00 per year for the term of this lease agreement which shall be payable on July % of each year, commencing July } , 2004. Provided, however, that the rental for the first and last payment of this Lease Agreement shall be paid upon the execution of this Lease Agreement. NO RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL OF SALE: In the event Lessor decides to sell the above described premises, it is understood and agreed that Lessor has not granted to Lessee a right to purchase the premises; it is specifically understood that in the event Lessor does sell the said property, it will have to be sold to the highest bidder but that Lessee may bid on the property. USE OF PREMISES: Lessee covenants and agrees that the leased premises shall be used for a parking area and/or for an extension of the "pit" area; and any other business that is compatible therewith, and shall not be used for any other purpose or purposes without the prior written consent of Lessor. Lesssor and Lessee shall each have keys and shall lock and unlock the east bypass gate according to their respective uses; that the north gate to the leased property shall be open during the racing season of the Meridian Speedway during the race season from 9:00 o'clock a.m, to 5:00 o'clock p.m.; that Lessee has the option and right to fence off the leased property from the Meridian Speedway stadium; that the Lessor may use the non -paved area of the LAND LEASE AGREEMENT - 2 r "pit" area if it desires to if prior written notice and arrangements, written or non -written, are made with Lessee. It is agreed that Lessee may have the use of the land for parking and other uses, but Lessee agrees that he shall not charge a price for parking on the land or for any other use of the land. MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR: Lessee agrees to maintain and repair the demised property and improvements in as good condition as the same are in at the time Lessee shall take possession of the demised premises, reasonable wear, tear and damage by the elements excepted, subject to the specific duties imposed upon the respective parties hereto by this Lease. Lessee shall be totally responsible for all maintenance and repairs on the premises, and, at the termination of this Lease in any manner, Lessee shall surrender said premises to Lessor in such condition. ALTERATIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS: Lessee shall have the right to make improvements or alterations to said leased premises upon approval of the Lessor, provided that any improvements or alterations thereof will not damage the leased premises. Provided, however, upon the termination of this Lease, such improvements or alterations as shall have been added or made by Lessee shall revert to the Lessor, and shall become a part of the real property so leased herein. SIGNS AND EQUIPMENT: Lessee shall have the right to place a reasonably sized sign upon the premises advertising parking for Lessee's business; provided, however, that said sign will not obstruct the vision of the leased property on either side of the property subject to this Lease Agreement. Upon termination of this Lease, Lessee shall have the right to remove LAND LEASE AGREEMENT - 3 said sign from the premises so long as Lessee repairs any damage to the structure occasioned by such removal at Lessee's own cost. COMPLIANCE WITH LAW: Lessee agrees to comply with all municipal, state and federal laws, rules, regulations and ordinances and to do all things necessary to stay in compliance with the same. UTILITIES: It is expressly agreed that during the full term of this Lease, Lessee shall furnish and promptly pay for any and all expenses accruing by reason of Lessee's use and occupancy of the leased premises in or about said premises at Lessee's own cost and expense. TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS: Lessee shall pay all real estate taxes and assessments of any kind levied against the above demised premises during the term of this Lease and any extension thereof, and Lessee shall pay any personal property taxes and assessments of any kind levied against Lessee's personal property located upon the above described premises, promptly as the same become due. ASSIGNMENT OR SUBLEASING: Lessee shall not assign this Lease nor sublet to any other lessee the said leased premises or any portion thereof, without the written consent first obtained of Lessor; provided, however, such consent shall not be unreasonably withheld by Lessor. AUTOMATIC CANCELLATION: It is understood and agreed that voluntary or involuntary filing of bankruptcy, or assignment for the benefit of creditors, or any other act of insolvency by or on behalf of the Lessee shall automatically cancel this Lease, and Lessor shall be entitled to immediate possession of the leased premises. LAND LEASE AGREEMENT - 4 DAMAGE OR DESTRUCTION: If the demised premises shall be damaged by fire, the elements, explosions or other causes, Lessee will, at Lessee's own proper cost and expense, cause the same to be repaired and restored to the same condition as before such damage was done, subject to delays due to adjustment of insurance claims, strikes and other causes beyond Lessee's control or, in the alternative, Lessor shall cause such repair to be made and Lessee shall reimburse Lessor therefor from insurance proceeds received by Lessee. If the demised premises shall be so damaged as to be unfit in whole or in part for occupancy or use in the manner and form as theretofore used, Lessee shall cause the same to be promptly restored, repaired and rebuilt to the extent of Lessee's obligations for maintenance under the terms of this Lease. FIRE .HAZARDS: The Lessee shall not do anything on the premises or bring or keep anything thereon which will increase the risk of fire, or which will conflict with the regulations of the fire department or any fire laws, or with any fire insurance policies on the premises, or with any rules or ordinances established by the board of health, or with any municipal, state or federal laws, ordinances or regulations. LABOR CONTRACTS AND EMPLOYEES: The parties hereto expressly covenant and agree that all labor contracts and employment agreements with employees shall be made directly with Lessee and that all such employees shall be deemed solely the employees of Lessee and in no way employees of Lessor. Lessee covenants and agrees to indemnify and hold harmless Lessor of and from any liability for any acts of employees of Lessee or any acts of persons working for Lessee under a labor contract. LAND LEASE AGREEMENT - 5 RIGHT OF INSPECTION: Lessor shall have the right to enter the demised premises at any reasonable time to examine the same and to determine the state of repair or alterations which shall or may be necessary for the safety and preservation of the premises. WASTE PROHIBITED: Lessee shall not commit any waste or damage to the premises hereby leased nor permit any waste or damage to be done thereto. LIABILITY: Lessor shall not be liable for any injury or damage which may be sustained by any person or property of the Lessee or any other person or persons resulting from the condition of said premises or any part thereof, or from the dirt or subsurface, or from any other source or cause whatsoever, and Lessee agrees to indemnify and hold harmless Lessor from such liability. INSURANCE: A. Liability Insurance. The Lessee shall at all times keep in force a standard insurance policy insuring the City and the Lessee against public liability on or in any way connected with the premises with the limits of liability in those amounts as currently set forth in the Idaho Tort Claims Act, or in such amounts as may hereafter be set forth by said Act during the term of this lease. Lessee further agrees to provide City with written proof of insurance at least annually, or upon the reasonable request of City. B. Lessee to Indemnify _City: Lessee agrees to defend, indemnify and hold City harmless for any damages or claims which arise out of the Lessee's use or occupancy or the leased premises. FIRE AND EXTENDED COVERAGE INSURANCE: Lessee shall be obligated to maintain fire and extended coverage on the demised premises for the full insurable value thereof and Lessee shall name Lessor as an additional insured thereon. Lessee shall furnish Lessor with a certificate of such insurance coverage, or renewals thereof, at least annually, and shall keep all such policies in a current status. Lessee may maintain fire and extended coverage on LAND LEASE AGREEMENT - 6 the contents and personal property of Lessee located with said structures as Lessee desires, but Lessor shall be under no obligation to maintain any fire or extended coverage insurance on those contents or personal property of Lessee. CONDEMNATION: If the entire premises, or a substantial part thereof, are condemned or taken by purchase in lieu thereof, then this Lease shall terminate as of the time possession is taken. Any condemnation award shall be divided between the parties hereto in accordance with and in proportion to their respective Lessor and Lessee interests. SURRENDER OF POSSESSION: Lessee agrees to surrender possession of said leased premises to Lessor at the expiration of this Agreement, or any extension thereof, in the same condition as when the same were entered into by Lessee, wear and tear, reasonable use and occupancy and damage by the elements excepted. DEFAULT AND FORFEITURE: Time and the strict and faithful performance of each and every one of the conditions of this Agreement are expressly made the essence of this Agreement. If default be made by the Lessee in payment of any part of Lessee's annual payment when the same shall become due, or default be made by the Lessee in keeping, performing or observing any of the covenants and agreements herein contained and such default shall remain so for a period of thirty (30) days after written notice shall have been sent by certified or registered mail to Lessee as hereinafter provided, then in such event the Lessor may, at Lessor's election, either in law or equity, seek specific performance of this Agreement or may declare said term and Lease forfeited and ended and re-enter said demised premises again to repossess and enjoy the same as in their first estate, and the effect of such default shall in itself, at the election of Lessor, without further notice or demand constitute a forfeiture and termination of this Lease, and if LAND LEASE AGREEMENT - 7 thereafter the Lessee shall fail to surrender possession of the demised premises to Lessor, the Lessee shall be deemed guilty of an unlawful and forcible detention of said premises. If Lessee shall abandon or vacate said premises, or if this Lease be terminated for breach of any of the covenants and agreements herein contained, Lessee hereby agrees to pay all reasonable expenses incurred by Lessor in obtaining possession of said premises from Lessee, including reasonable legal expenses and attorney's fees, and to pay such other expenses as the Lessor may incur in putting the premises in good order and condition as herein provided, and also to pay all other reasonable and necessary expenses or commissions paid by Lessor in re-leasing the premises. In the event of notification of default by Lessor to Lessee and Lessee does in fact cure such default, then and in that event Lessee shall pay, in addition to all arrearages as existing under the notice of default, the reasonable attorneys fees incurred by Lesson- in determination of the default and the notification to the defaulting Lessee. Additionally, this lease shall also be terminated for one of the following: a) At the expiration of the term provided herein; b) Upon determination of the Lessor that the Lessee has failed to observe any of the conditions, exceptions or reservations or to fulfill any of the provisions set out in this agreement; c) At the option of the Lessor on the discontinuance of use of the leased premises by the Lessee; or d) By the mutual agreement of the parties hereto. The foregoing rights and remedies are not intended to be exclusive, and all parties shall have any and all other remedies permitted in law or equity. The rights and remedies of the parties are not intended to be mutually exclusive except to such extent that they are inherently and LAID LEASE AGREEMENT - 8 necessarily contradictory, and it is intended that all permissible remedies and rights may be exercised concurrently or successively, or both. LESSOR'S LIEN: It is agreed between the parties that Lessor shall have a valid lien upon all goods, chattels and other property belonging to Lessee located on the leased premises as security for the payment of rent and fulfillment of the faithful performance of the covenants and conditions of this Lease. This is to say that Lessor may distrain for any rent or damages that may be due hereunder any of said property, whether the same be exempt from execution or not, and that Lessee in that case, hereby waives all legal right which Lessee now has, or may have, to hold or retain any such property under any exemption laws in the State of Idaho. However, any lien of Lessor shall be junior, inferior and subordinate to crop or financing liens as given by Lessee to third parties. This provision shall not conflict with Lessee's right to obtain financing for crops. The lease of the said equipment is not to be considered a secured transaction despite the fact that a financing statement may be filed herein. HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES: Lessee represents and warrants that the premises will never be used for the generation, manufacture, storage, treatment, disposal, release or threatened release of any hazardous substances as those terms are defined in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended, 42 USC § 9601 et seq. ("CERCLA") Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act ("SARA"), applicable state laws or regulations adopted pursuant to either of the foregoing, and/or by applicable Federal or State laws and regulations. For the purpose of this lease, "hazardous substances" shall also include petroleum products. Lessee agrees to indemnify and hold harmless LAND LEASE AGREEMENT - 9 Lessor against any and all claims and losses resulting from a breach of this provision of this agreement. This obligation to indemnify shall survive the payment of the indebtedness and the satisfaction of this agreement. TERMINATION: Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Lease may be terminated at any time by either parry giving thirty (30) days written notice to the other party of an intention to terminate this Lease Agreement. ATTORNEY'S FEES: In the event an action is brought to enforce any of the terms or provisions of this Lease, or enforce forfeiture thereof for default thereof by either of the parties hereto, the successful party to such action or collection shall be entitled to recover from the losing party a reasonable attorney's fee, together with such other costs as may be authorized by law. In case suit shall be brought for an unlawful detainer of the said premises for the recovery of any rent due under the provisions of this Lease, or because of the breach of any other covenant herein contained on the part of Lessee to be kept or performed, Lessee shall pay to Lessor all costs, expenses and attorney's fees which shall be incurred by Lessor in enforcing the covenants and agreements of this Lease Agreement. NOTICES: All notices required to be given to each of the parties hereto under the terms of this Agreement shall be given by depositing a copy of such notice in the United States mail, postage prepaid and registered or certified, return receipt requested, to the respective parties hereto at the following address: Lessor: William G. Berg, Jr., City Clerk 33 East Idaho Avenue Meridian, Idaho 83642 LAND LEASE AGREEMENT - 10 Lessee: Ken Hamilton d/b/a Ken Hamilton Presentations, Inc. P.O. BOX 158 Meridian, Idaho 83680 or to such other address as may be designated by writing delivered to the other parry. All notices given by certified mail shall be deemed completed as of the date of mailing except as otherwise expressly provided herein. REPRESENTATIONS: It is understood and agreed by and between the parties hereto that there are no verbal promises, implied promises, agreements, stipulations, representations or warranties of any character excepting those set forth in this Agreement. BINDING EFFECT: The provisions and stipulations hereof shall inure to the benefit of and bind the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and successors in interest of the respective parties hereto. RECORDING: The parties hereto agree that they will not record a copy of this Agreement, Lessee's occupancy of said premises being notice of Lessee's interest therein, and the recording of said Lease by Lessee shall, at the option of Lessor, constitute a default in the terms and conditions hereof SITUS: This Lease is established and accepted by the Lessee under the Iaws of the State of Idaho, and all questions concerning its validity, construction and administration shall be determined under such laws. HEADINGS: The bolded paragraph headings are for convenience only and are not a part of this Lease agreement and shall not be used in interpreting or construing this Lease agreement. LAND LEASE AGREEMENT - 1I SEVERABILITY: If any portion or portions of this Lease shall be, for any reason, invalid or unenforceable, the remaining portion or portions shall nevertheless be valid, enforceable and carried into effect, unless to do so would clearly violate the present legal and valid intentions of the parties hereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Lessor and Lessee do execute this Lease Agreement the day and year first above written. ATTEST: William G. Berg, in, STATE OF IDAHO } :ss County of Ada } "Lessor" CITY OF MERIDIAN, a municipality and political subdivision of the State of Idaho t�yof `�j1i11Ttiflil! f ,.� �}my de Weerc r e, SEAL ;ice, � asp ��-� • ����,�. KEN HAMILTON, d/b/a KEN HAMILTON PRESENTATIONS, INC. Ken Hamilton, President of Ken Hamilton Presentations On this ' day of Acem 6e,- in the year 2004, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared Tammy de Weerd and LAND LEASE AGREEMENT -12 William G. Berg, Jr., known or identified to me to be the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Meridian, a municipality and political subdivision of the State of Idaho, known to me to the entity that granted the authority to the said individuals to subscribe their names to the within and foregoing instruments in their capacity as Mayor and City Clerk, and acknowledged to me that they executed the same in the name of the City of Meridian. IN WITNESS "WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. o• 00,E'L r++� *# � •°1,�SC Ste''•. (SEAL) 'O'OTA,� my A(J B LIG eo mss+ N 0®08 ss 0 4*�� STATE OF IDAHO ) °t•y.`•sa**' :ss County of Ada ) ublic for Idaho ion expires: at:0,� A0/r)7 On this 0-7 day of o 9, _ , in the year 2004, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared Ken Hamilton, known or identified to me to be the for Ken Hamilton Presentations, Inc., and the person who subscribed his name to the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same on behalf of Ken Hamilton Presentations, Inc. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. SE's 111% Notary Public for Idaho Commission expires: ov- s--io *42DO Residing at: * �%' W k11G11iG1e�iidi en'n I536W&Hamilton lien Land Lease Agreementli.and Lease Agnt 07 09 04.doe of iU®.�®® LAND LEASE AGREEMENT - 13 a - ry or cridlan 3 ' 3 E. Idaho Ave, Meridian, )D 83642 VAI October 29, 2004 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING November 3, 2004 APPLICANT Centennial Development, LLC ITEM NO. AZ 04-024 M REQUEST Findings for Approval -- Request for Annexation and Zoning of 47.66 acres from RUT to R4 zones for proposed Silverleaf Subdivision -- 2683 West Chinden Boulevard 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: Contacted: Emailed: See affached Findings WDate: I ( I / 1 Phone: --------- - 1,� f'!l o Staff khats: Materials presented at public meetings shalt become property of the City of Meridian. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW DECISION & ORDER In the Matter of Annexation and Zoning of 47.66 Acres from RUT to R-4, AND Preliminary Plat Approval for One -Hundred -Forty -Three Single -Family Building Lots, Eighteen Other/Common Lots, and One School Lot for Silverleaf Subdivision, AND Conditional Use Permit Approval for a Planned Development Consisting of Single -Family Homes with Reduced Lot Frontages and Reduced Lot Sizes, by Centennial Development, LLC. Case Nos. AZ -04-024, PP -04-031, CUP -04.033 For the City Council Hearing Date of: October 19, 2004 A. Findings of Fact Hearing Facts a. A notice of a public hearing was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the City Council public hearing, the first publication appearing and written notice mailed to property owners or purchasers of record within three hundred feet (300') of the external boundaries of the property. The notice of public hearing before the City Council was posted upon the property under consideration more than one week before said hearing. All other noticing was done consistent with Idaho Code §67- 6509. The matters were duly considered by the City Council at the October 19, 2004, public hearing(s). The applicant, affected property owners, and government subdivisions providing services within the planning jurisdiction of the City of Meridian were given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence. b. Written and oral testimony was received on this matter, as reflected in the records of the City Clerk (for written testimony) and in the official meeting minutes (for oral testimony). C. The Planning and Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing and issued a written recommendation on the subject matter to the City Council. d. The City Council heard and took oral and written testimony and duly considered the evidence and the record in this matter. 2. Process Facts a. There has been compliance with all notice and hearing requirements set forth in Idaho Code §67-6509, 6512, and Meridian City Code §§ 11-15-5 and 11-17-5 as evidenced by the Affidavit of Mailing, and the Affidavit of Publication and Proof of Posting filed with the staff report. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NOS. AZ -04-024, PP -04-031, AND CUP -04-033 - PAGE I of 5 Application and Property Facts a. In addition to the application and property facts noted in the staff report and the Planning & Zoning Recommendation for the subject application(s), it is hereby verified that the property owner(s) of record at the time of issuance of these findings are Donald and Jean Hobbs, and Jerry and Sandy Stevenson. 4. Required Findings per Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance a. See Exhibit G for the findings required for the Annexation and Zoning application. b. See Exhibit H for the findings required for the Preliminary Plat application. C. See Exhibit I for the findings required for the Conditional Use Permit application. B. Conclusions of Law I . The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the "Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975," codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code (I.C. §67- 6503). 2. The Meridian City Council takes judicial notice of its Zoning, Subdivision and Development Ordinances codified at Titles I 1 and 12, Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof The City of Meridian has, by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, which was adopted August 6, 2002, Resolution No. 02-382 and Maps. 3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code 11-17-9. 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s) received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this Decision, which shall be signed by the Mayor and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk upon the applicant, the Planning and Zoning Department, the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. 7. That this approval is subject to the Legal Description in Exhibit A, the Preliminary Plat dated June 23, 2004 as shown in Exhibit B, the Site Plan dated July 12, 2004 as shown in Exhibit C, and the Conditions of Approval in Exhibits D, E, and F. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application. C. Decision and Order CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NOS. AZ -04-024, PP -04-031, AND CUP -04-033 - PAGE 2 of Pursuant to the City Council's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 12-3-5 and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: 1. The applicant's Preliminary Plat as evidenced by having submitted the Preliminary Plat dated June 23, 2004 is hereby conditionally approved; 2. The applicant's Site Plan as evidenced by having submitted the Site Plan dated July 12, 2004; The following modifications to site specific conditions were made at the City Council hearing a) Add an additional traffic calming device on the road from Ten Mile (Satinwood), b) Comply with the Noise Evaluation Process standards set forth in ITD's Planning & Zoning Recommendations Noise Evaluation/Mitigation, for Chinden Boulevard (see handout); and, 4. The site specific and standard conditions of approval are as shown in Exhibits D, E, and F. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits 1. Notice of Twelve (12) Month Preliminary Plat Duration Please take notice that after the date of approval of the preliminary plat, the owner or developer shall have one year within which to file the request for approval of the final plat. After approval of final plat, the owner or developer shall have one year to begin construction of the public utilities and one year thereafter to complete construction of those public facilities (MCC 12-24B & Q. 2. Notice of Eighteen (18) Month Conditional Use Permit Duration Please take notice that the conditional use permit shall be valid for a maximum period of eighteen (18) months unless otherwise approved by the council. During this time, the permit holder must commence the use as permitted in accordance with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, acquire building permits and commence construction ofpermanent footings or structures on or in the ground. In this context "structures" shall include sewer and water lines, streets or building construction. The applicant has specified in the application and to the commission and council a construction schedule and completion date for the project. If the completion date specified for the project is exceeded, the conditional use application shall become null and void. However, the applicant may submit an application for a time extension on the project for city council review. The application for time extension shall be submitted at least thirty (30) days prior to the CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NOS. AZ -04-024, PP -04-031, AND CUP -04-033 -.PAGE 3 of 5 deadline for completion of the project. For projects requiring platting, the final plat must be recorded within this eighteen (18) month period. For projects with multiple phases, the eighteen (18) month deadline shall apply to the first phase. In the event that the development is made in successive contiguous segments or multiple phases, such phases shall be constructed within successive intervals of one year from the original date of approval by the council. If the successive phases are not submitted within one year intervals, the conditional approval of the future phases shall be null and void (MCC 11-17-4.B.). E. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis 1. 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 issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for Judicial Review may be filed. 2. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian, pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521 an affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the issuance or denial of the conditional use permit approval may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code. F. Exhibits Exhibit A: Legal Description Exhibit B: Approved Preliminary Plat (with conditions) Exhibit C: Approved Site Plan (with conditions) Exhibit D: Annexation & Zoning Conditions of Approval Exhibit E: Preliminary Plat Conditions of Approval (all agencies) Exhibit F: Conditional Use Permit Conditions of Approval (all agencies) Exhibit G: Annexation and Zoning Findings Exhibit H: Preliminary Plat Findings Exhibit I: Conditional Use Permit Findings ®C By a tion of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the r day of 2004. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NOS. AZ -04-024, .PP -04-031, AND CUP -04-033 - PAGE 4 of 5 COUNCIL MEMBER SHAUN WARDLE COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTINE DONNELL COUNCIL MEMBER CHARLIE ROUNTREE COUNCIL MEMBER KEITH BIRD MAYOR TAMMY de WEERD (TIE BREAKER) Attest: William G. Berg, Jr., Copy served upon Applicant, and City Attorney. 11 3-�15f- VOTED �yf� VOTED VOTED VOTED -- I of BE' AL �6 ��r Is1 The PlanniWj, n -I 'g Department, Public Works Department By: 1 Dated: City Clerk's Office CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NOS. AZ -04-024, PP -04-031, AND CUP -04-033 - PAGE 5 of 5 EXHIBIT A Legal Description -:;:. - otY _ fix-' __* - _; '260d�^ P -�;- • =°;� a on �' 7. p y;. {� tdC,° Project No. 04-019 Silverleaf Subdivision Boundary Description 12081 904-5399 f,,2 1-450 Ease Wacerrower Sc Suite 150 Mar dno, Idaho 83642 Phone (208) 846-8570 Fax (208) 884.5399 July 13, 2004 --- — A parcel of land being a portion of the NWl/4 Section 26, TAN-, R.1 W-, B.M., Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest comer of said Section 26, from which the West 1/4 comer ofsaid Section bears South 00'21'W" 0" West, 2633.61 feet; thence along the West boundary of said Section 26 South 00121'10" West, 1346.16 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNYNG. Thence leaving said West boundary line South 89°09'47" East, 287.51 feet; Thence South 00121'10" West, 3 1 M feet; Thence South 89'09'47" East, 1023.02 feet to a point on the 'West boundary of the East 112 of the NW 114 of said Section 26; Thence along said West boundary North 00-2918" East, 486-39 fuel to a point at the center of an irrigation ditch; Thence leaving said West boundary and along the center of said irrigation ditch the following three courses: Thence South 57°4613" East, 84.56 feet; Thence South 68'00'27" East, 129.75 feet; Thence South 71'25'27" East, 97.72 feet; Thence South 86145'44" East, 107.65 feet; Thence leaving said irrigation ditch North 00001,so" West, 1016.67 feet to a point on the North boundary ofsaid Section 26; Thence along said North boundary South 89'10'58" East, 929.42 feet to a point on the North-South mid-section line of said Section 26; Thence leaving said North boundary and along said North-Soutti acid -section line South 00°37'33" West, 1805.36 fcct; Pro fessienaf Lond Surveyors F• III jail Jul 13 04 03:49p Joe Hicks, 1208) Ba4-5399 P-2 Thence North 73136'181, West, 489.75 feat; Thcnce North 83°30'42" West, 232,70 fect; Thenec North 54°54'43" West, 196.55 feet; Thence North 20°08'17" West, 121.61 feet; Thence North 71'49'42" West, 140.90 feel; Thcnce South 87°03'36" West, 268.57 feet to a point on the West boundary of the East 1/2 ofthe NW 1/4 ofsaid Section 26; Thence along said West boundary South 00°29'18" West, 274.02 feet; 'thence leaving said West boundary North 89009'47" West, 1309.82 feet to a point on the West boundary of said Section 26; Thence along said West boundary North 00-21'10" East, 329,58 feet to the Point Qf Beginning. Containing 48.52 acres, more or less. AUG 10 2004 Meridian }?UMp Works DopL EXHIBIT B Approved Preliminary Plat Silverleaf Subdivision (File PP -04.031) f E Ij 1 E y l f l£F�i Q! X13[ i>��f i�'£`si9 tr 4dS!P"`� � F!`�j} �:i«•Y� 7 �i IE.: f} } R Y i F jJ 3 £ Ia S!{MI F: !I 1 Ft'W R Y i F jJ 3 £ ri F: !I 1 Ft'W zfl i EXHIBIT C Approved Site Plan Silverleaf Subdivision (File CUP -04-033) I i — � r iV, 4 iil;lis '-i9�•.igi�pjfAiB wi 4 � !�i T€/i All, f{� S VIgAll, Sizl f! 1.1§S144f•€•S§ :qqgga�� "���q'q f` �i 1��'•�� S��fP��$E �i ��iiiiF� .m..l�€�s I i 4 iil;lis '-i9�•.igi�pjfAiB wi 4 � EXHIBIT D Annexation and Zoning Conditions of Approval Centennial Development, LLC (File AZ -04-024) The City Council of the City of Meridian hereby approves the Annexation and Zoning as requested by the Applicant for the property described in the application, subject to the following: 1. The legal description submitted with the application (dated 7-13-04, stamped by Gregory G. Carter) shows the property as contiguous to the existing corporate boundary of the City of Meridian and is approved. 2. Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will have to be removed from their domestic service, per City Ordinance Section 5-7-517, when services are available from the City of Meridian. Wells may be used for non- domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation. 3. All irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or lying adjacent and contiguous to the parcel shall be tiled per City Ordinance 12-4-13. Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association (ditch owners), with written approval or non -approval submitted to the Public Works Department. If lateral users association approval can't be obtained, plans will be reviewed and approved by the Meridian City Engineer prior to final plat signature. 4. Any future subdivision, uses and construction on this property shall comply with the City of Meridian ordinances in effect at the time. 5. A Development Agreement will be required as part of this annexation request. A condition of the Development Agreement shall be that the applicant participates in any road infrastructure agreements in the North Meridian Planning Area negotiated with ACRD and shall faithfully perform the terms of such agreement or agreements. EXHIBIT E Preliminary Plat Conditions of Approval Centennial Development, LLC (File PP -04-031) SITE SPECIFIC COMMENTS ----PRELIMINARY PLAT 1. All conditions of the accompanying Annexation/Zoning (AZ -04-024) and Conditional Use Permit (CUP -04-033) application shall also be considered conditions of the Preliminary Plat (PP -04-031). 2. The applicant may construct a temporary vehicular access to Chinden Boulevard (SH 20/26), if approved by YTD. The temporary access road shall be constructed to ACRD standards and shall be removed within two (2) months of access being provided from either Silverleaf Way or Kingwood Drive in Lochsa Falls. If ITD approves a temporary access to Chinden Boulevard, a note should be placed on the final plat stating that Lot 12, Block 9 is a non -build lot until the temporary access to Chinden Boulevard is abandoned. 3. A minimum of two points of access will be required for any portion of the project, which serves more than 50 homes. The two entrances shall be separated by no less than '/2 the diagonal measurement of the project. Prior to issuance of the 51St building permit on the northern section of the development, a secondary emergency access approved by the Meridian Fire Department shall be provided. 4. Provide public stub streets to the north (Nickel Avenue), and west (Kingwood Drive and Shawn Street) as proposed. Extend the three public stubs streets provided to this property from the Lochsa Falls development (Glade Creek Drive, Powell Creek Avenue, and Tango Creek Drive) as proposed. 5. If Glade Creek Drive is not constructed and accepted by ACRD east of the site (in Lochsa Falls), construct a temporary turnaround at the eastern terminus of Satinwood Street that meets the design and construction standards of the Meridian Fire Department and ACRD. 6. With the submittal of the final plat application, the applicant shall submit a copy of the Ada County Street Name Committee's final approval letter for the street names, subdivision name, and lot and block numbering. Make any other corrections necessary to conform. 7. The submitted 4 -page landscape plan prepared by The Land Group, Inc., dated 6- 23-04 is approved as submitted, with the following modifications: • Amend the scale to be I"= 50' (currently shown as 1" = 100') on all. sheets. • Depict a minimum 40 -foot wide (35 -foot wide currently shown) landscape buffer along Chinden Boulevard (including a 5 -foot wide detached sidewalk). Said landscape buffer shall be located beyond any future street right-of-way, as proposed. If it is shown that the adjoining Lochsa Falls Subdivision has the sidewalk within their 35 -foot landscape buffer, this project may match that project. • All micropaths within the proposed subdivision shall be designed in accordance with MCC 12-13-15 "Micropath Landscaping" and MCC 12-4-3 "Pedestrian Walkways." Micropath fencing shall be constructed per MCC 12- 13-15-9. • Construct a minimum 10 -foot wide (8 -feet currently shown) gravel shoulder along Ten Mile Road and landscape the remaining portion of the right-of-way with lawn or other ACHD approved groundcover. • All areas being counted toward the open space requirement shall be free of "wet ponds" or other such nuisances. All stormwater detention facilities incorporated into the required open space are subject to Ordinance 12-13-14 and shall be fully vegetated with grass and trees, as depicted on the submitted landscape plan. Other than the changes listed above, the approved landscape plan is not to be altered without prior written approval of the Planning & Zoning Department. Submit 10 copies of a revised landscape plan, depicting the above-mentioned changes and any other changes that may be required by the Planning & Zoning Conu-nission, to the City Clerk at least 10 days prior to the next public hearing. 8. All irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or lying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be tiled per MCC 12-4-13. Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association (ditch owners), with written approval or non -approval submitted to the Public Works Department. If lateral users association approval can not be obtained, plans will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to final plat signature. 9. The applicant has not indicated who will own and operate the pressurized irrigation system within this development. Underground year-round pressurized irrigation must be provided to all lots within this development. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water. If the pressurized irrigation system within this development is to remain a private homeowners' association system., complete plans and specifications shall be reviewed by the Public Works Department as part of the development plan review process. A draft copy of the pressurized irrigation system O&M manual shall be submitted prior to plan approval. The applicant shall be required to utilize any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single -point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single -point connection is utilized, the developer shall be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. 10. A detailed fencing plan shall be submitted upon application of the final plat. If permanent fencing is not provided, temporary construction fencing to contain debris must be installed around the perimeter prior to issuance of building permits. All fences shall taper down to 3 -feet maximum within 20 feet of all right- of-way. ight- ofway. All fencing shall be installed in accordance with MCC 12-4-10. 11. Maintenance of all common areas shall be the responsibility of the Silverleaf Homeowners' Association. 12. Permanent sanitary sewer service to this development is to be provided by the undeveloped "North" Black Cat service area. Temporary service shall be via a "private" lift station pumping the sewage generated within the development to a discharge point in N. Ten Mile Road. The "private" lift station shall be designed to accommodate the remaining undeveloped area of the NW portion of this section. The developer may enter into a maintenance contract with the City of Meridian for the operation and maintenance of the facility. Subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. Applicant shall execute City of Meridian standard forms of easements, for any mains that are required to provide service. 13. Municipal water to this site shall be via extensions from existing mains in Ten. Mile Road, and from future mains within Lochsa Falls. Applicant will be responsible to construct the sewer and water mains to and through this proposed development, thereby making them available to adjacent properties. Subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. Applicant shall execute City of Meridian standard forms of easements, for any mains that are required to provide service. 14. Direct lot access to Ten Mile Road and Chinden Boulevard is prohibited. A note shall be placed on the final plat restricting access to Ten Mile Road and Chinden Boulevard. Q TS—PRELIGENERAL REQUIREMENTS—PRELIMINARY R� MENMINARY PLAT 1grading performed in conformance gr g e shall be perfo with MCC 11-12-3H. 2. Sidewalks shall be installed within the subdivision and on the perimeter of the subdivision pursuant to MCC 12-13-10-5. 3. A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all fencing, landscaping, pressurized irrigation, sanitary sewer, water, etc., prior to signature on the final plat. 4. A detailed landscape and fencing plan, in compliance with the landscape and subdivision ordinance and as noted in this report, shall be submitted for the subdivision with the final plat application. S. Coordinate fire hydrant placement with the City of Meridian Public Works Department. 6. Two -hundred -fifty and one -hundred -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 Works Department prior commencing installations. 7. 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 mitigated. Submit any up -dated groundwater/soils monitoring data, as collected. and analyzed by a soils scientist, to the Public Works Department for review. Any drainage areas (detention/retention basins) must be designed to ensure that water will percolate or discharge with a period of time not to exceed 24 -hours for all storms up to and including a 100 -year storm events. Side slopes within drainage areas shall not exceed 3:1. Any portion of a drainage area not improved with sod/grass seed (or other approved landscaping) shall not count towards the required open space area. The project engineer should pay close attention to the results of field studies determining the groundwater, soil type & and characteristics during the design and construction phases. The engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3 -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 1 -foot above groundwater. 9. The applicant 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. 13. The applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process, prior to signature on the final plat per Resolution 02-374. 14. Staff's failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or terms of the approved annexation/conditional use does not relieve the applicant of responsibility for compliance. 15. Preliminary plat approval shall be subject to the expiration provisions set forth in MCC 12-2-4. SANITARY SERVICES COMPANY (SSC) 1. No comment. MERIDIAN FIRE DEPARTMENT 1. One and two family dwellings will require a fire -flow of 1,000 gallons per minute available for duration of 2 hours to service the entire project. Fire hydrants shall be placed an average of 400 -feet apart. International Fire Code Appendix D. 2. Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department. a. Fire Hydrants shall have the 4 %2" outlet face the main street or parking lot aisle. b. The Fire hydrant shall not face a street which does not have addresses on it. C. Fire hydrant markers shall be provided per Public Works spec. d. Locations with fire hydrants shall have the curb painted red 10' to each side of the hydrant location. C. Fire Hydrants shall be placed on corners. f. Fire hydrants shall not have any vertical obstructions to outlets within 10'. 3. The phasing plan may require that any roadway greater than 150' in length that is not provided with an outlet shall be required to have an approved turn around. 4. All entrance and internal roads shall have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48' outside. 5. Operational fire hydrants and temporary or permanent street signs are required before combustible construction begins. 6. To increase emergency access to the site a minimum of two points of access will be required for any portion of the project, which serves more than 50 homes. The two entrances shall be separated by no less than % the diagonal measurement of the project. 7. The proposed 134 -lot subdivision with an estimated 2.9 residents per household would have a total estimated population of 389 residents at build out. 8. The Fire Department requests that any future signalization installed as the result of the development of this project be equipped with Opticom Sensors to ensure a safe and efficient response by fire and emergency medical service vehicles. This cost of this installation is to be borne by the developer. 9. No parking signs and painted curbs will be required for all Fire Lanes. MERIDIAN PARKS DEPARTMENT 1. Minimum acreage standard for City Park: The City is willing to develop and maintain Community Parks, Urban Parks, and Neighborhood Parks. Neighborhood Parks will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. The City may choose to maintain neighborhood parks at an acreage of seven acres or larger. It will be the responsibility of private homeowner groups or associations to develop and maintain the smaller mini parks and some Neighborhood Parks in their subdivision that the City does not maintain. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT 1. The applicant shall do one of the following: a. Dedicate by donation a total of 48 -feet of right-of-way (an additional 23 -feet of right-of-way) along Ten Mile Road, and construct a minimum 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalk along Ten Mile Road, located a minimum of 41 -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 Ten Mile Road, located a minimum of 41 -feet from the centerline of the right-of-way, in an casement provided to the District. c. Do not dedicate additional right-of-way, but construct a minimum 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalk along Ten Mile Road, located at the back edge of the existing right-of-way. Accomplish all necessary adjustments to properly accommodate existing drainage and utilities. 2. Construct a local roadway (West Satinwood Street) to intersect Ten Mile Road approximately 160 -feet south of the north property line, as proposed. 3. Construct the internal roadways as 36 -foot street sections with rolled curb, gutter and 5 -foot concrete sidewalk within 50 -feet of right-of-way, as proposed. 4. Extend Kingwood Drive from the east property line approximately 645 -feet north of the south property line, as proposed. 5. Extend Silverleaf Way from the south property line approximately 490 -feet west of the east property line, as proposed. 6. Extend West Satinwood Street from the east property line approximately 100 -feet north of the south property line, as proposed. 7. Construct a stub street that extends to the west property line approximately 550 - feet south of State Highway 20126 (Chinden Boulevard), as proposed. Install a sign at the terminus of the roadway stating that, "THIS ROAD WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE". S. Construct West Kingwood Drive as a stub street to the west property line approximately 170 -feet south of the north property line, as proposed. Construct a temporary turnaround at the terminus of the roadway and install a sign at the terminus of the roadway stating that, "THIS ROAD WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE". 9. Construct North Nickel Avenue as a stub street to the north property line approximately 550 -feet east of Ten Mile Road, as proposed. Install a sign at the terminus of the roadway stating that, "THIS ROAD WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE". 10. Construct Shawn Street as a stub street to the west property line, as proposed. Install a sign at the terminus of the roadway stating that, "THIS ROAD WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE". 11, Construct a driveway that intersects Ten Mile .Road at the north. property line, as proposed. This driveway is approved to access a lift station and pump house. ONLY and is not approved to access another lot or use. 12. Construct two (2) islands/medians within West Satinwood Street, as proposed. Provide a minimum of a 21 -foot street section on either side of the proposed island/median. Construct the island to be a minimum of 4 -feet wide with a minimum area of I00 -square feet and shall be owned and maintained by the homeowners association. 13. Construct four knuckles without center islands within the subdivision, as proposed. 14. Construct a stamped concrete crosswalk at intersection of North Nickel Avenue and West Satinwood Drive, as proposed. 15. Construct a special radius for the northbound right -turn lane at the Ten Mile Road and West Satinwood Street intersection. 16. A portion of Silverleaf Subdivision's preliminary plat is being approved contingent upon the right-of-way within Lochsa Falls being dedicated to the public and the roadways being constructed or a financial surety in place for the construction of the roadways prior to the signature of the final plat for Silverleaf Subdivision. 17. Comply with requirements ofITD for Glenwood Street frontage. Submit to the District a letter from ITD regarding said requirements prior to District approval of the final plat or issuance of a building permit (or other required permits), whichever occurs first. Contact District III Traffic Engineer Dan Coonce at 334- 8340. 18. 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 Construction Services at 387-6280 (with file numbers) for details. 5. All design and construction shall be in accordance with the Ada County Highway District Policy Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Construction Services procedures and all applicable ACRD Ordinances unless specifically waived herein. An engineer registered in the State of Idaho shall prepare and certify all improvement plans. 6. The applicant shall submit revised plans for staff approval, prior to issuance of building permit (or other required permits), which incorporates any required design changes. 7. Construction, use and property development shall be in conformance with all applicable requirements of the Ada County Highway District prior to District approval for occupancy. 8. Payment of applicable road impact fees are required prior to building construction in accordance with Ordinance #195, also known as Ada County Highway District Road Impact Fee Ordinance. 9. It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify all existing utilities within the right-of-way. Existing utilities damaged by the applicant shall be repaired by the applicant at no cost to ACHD. The applicant shall be required to call DIGLINE r (1-800-342-1585) at least two full business days prior to breaking ground within ACHD right-of-way. The applicant shall contact ACRD Traffic Operations 387- 6190 in the event any ACHD conduits (spare or filled) are compromised during any phase of construction. 10. No change in the terms and conditions of this approval shall be valid unless they are in writing and signed by the applicant or the applicant's authorized representative and an authorized representative of the Ada County Highway District. .The burden shall be upon the applicant to obtain written confirmation of any change from the Ada County Highway District. 11. Any change by the applicant in the planned use of the property which is the subject of this application, shall require the applicant to comply with all rules, regulations, ordinances, plans, or other regulatory and legal restrictions in force at the time the applicant or its successors in interest advises the Highway District of its intent to change the planned use of the subject property unless a waiver/variance of said requirements or other legal relief is granted pursuant to the law in effect at the time the change in use is sought. SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT L All irrigation/ drainage facilities along with their easements must be protected and continue to function. The facility involved is the North Slough Lateral, 2. A Land Use Change Application must be on file prior to any approvals. 3. A license agreement must be signed and recorded prior to construction of any S.T.D. facilities. 4. Any changes to the existing irrigation system such as relocation, tiling, and landscaping must be approved by Settlers Irrigation District, 5. All storm drainage must be retained on-site. C. The development must supply irrigation access to all lots within the above- mentioned subdivision. 7. This property is located entirely within Settlers Irrigation District, therefore, S.I.D. will be the irrigation entity having jurisdiction. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTIi 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 degradation. IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT (ITD) 1. The US 20-26 has been designated a principal arterial type IV access control. Idaho Transportation Department is assuming that the Silverleaf Subdivision is not asking for any (permanent) access to be granted from US 20-26. All the approaches should be designed to access other Ada County Roads or thru adjacent subdivision to cut down on access to Chinden Boulevard. 2. Noise abatement will be the responsibility of the developer and will be constructed off of the State Right of Way. MERIDIAN POLICE DEPARTMENT I. No comments received. r,. EXHIBIT F Conditional Use Permit Conditions of Approval Centennial Development, LLC (File CUP -04-033) SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS (Conditional Use Permit) 1. Applicant shall meet all of the requirements of the Annexation/Zoning (AZ -04- 024) and Preliminary Plat (PP -04-031) as a condition of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP -04-033). 2. The project shall conform to the R-4 dimensional standards, except as follows: Minimum lot size: 5,000 square -feet. Minimum frontage: 50 -feet (non cul-de-sac lots). 3. Provide amenities in accordance with the requirements of the City Council. The applicant shall provide detailed open space calculations at the P&Z Commission public hearing, clarifying what percentage of the site will be set aside as landscaped open space. If modifications to the plat/site plan/landscape plan are required by the Commission, said plan shall be submitted to the City Clerk at least 10 days prior to the public hearing. Unless otherwise required by the City Council, the proposed amenities (tot -lot, picnic area, pathways, and open space) shall be installed as depicted on the submitted landscape plan. 4. Construction within Silverleaf Subdivision shall substantially comply with the ten (10) elevations submitted by the applicant, prepared by R. Haverfield. Construction materials used on the structures shall be approved by the City of Meridian Building Department and in accordance with the most recent Uniform Building Code. 5. The applicant shall work with Meridian Planning & Zoning staff, the Meridian School District, as well as ACHD staff on striping, signage, or other means to create an efficient crosswalk(s) design for the micropath/pathway crossings to/from the future school site. SANITARY SERVICES COMPANY (SSC) 1. No comment. MERIDIAN FIRE DEPARTMENT 1. One and two family dwellings will require a fire -flow of 1,000 gallons per minute available for duration of 2 hours to service the entire project. Fire hydrants shall be placed an average of 400 -feet apart. International Fire Code Appendix D. 2. Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department. a. Fire Hydrants shall have the 4 %2" outlet face the main street or parking lot aisle. b. The Fire hydrant shall not face a street which does not have addresses on it. c. Fire hydrant markers shall be provided per Public Works spec. d. Locations with fire hydrants shall have the curb painted red 10' to each side of the hydrant location. e. Fire Hydrants shall be placed on corners. f. Fire hydrants shall not have any vertical obstructions to outlets within 10'. 3. The phasing plan may require that any roadway greater than 150' in length that is not provided with an outlet shall be required to have an approved turn around. 4. All entrance and internal roads shall have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48' outside. 5. Operational fire hydrants and temporary or permanent street signs are required before combustible construction begins. 6. To increase emergency access to the site a minimum of two points of access will be required for any portion of the project, which serves more than 50 homes. The two entrances shall be separated by no less than V2 the diagonal measurement of the project. 7. The proposed 134 -lot subdivision with an estimated 2.9 residents per household would have a total estimated population of 389 residents at build out. 8. The Fire Department requests that any future signalization installed as the result of the development of this project be equipped with Opticom Sensors to ensure a safe and efficient response by fire and emergency medical service vehicles. This cost of this installation is to be borne by the developer. 9. No parking signs and painted curbs will be required for all Fire Lanes. MERIDIAN PARKS DEPARTMENT 1. Minimum acreage standard for City Park: The City is willing to develop and maintain Community Parks, Urban Parks, and Neighborhood Parks, Neighborhood Parks will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. The City may choose to maintain neighborhood parks at an acreage of seven acres or larger. It will be the responsibility of private homeowner groups or associations to develop and maintain the smaller mini parks and some Neighborhood Parks in their subdivision that the City does not maintain. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT 1. The applicant shall do one of the following: a. Dedicate by donation a total of 48 -feet of right-of-way (an additional 23 -feet of right-of-way) along Ten Mile Road, and construct a minimum 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalk along Ten Mile Road, located a minimum of 41 -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 Ten Mile Road, located a minimum of 41 -feet from the centerline of the right-of-way, in an casement provided to the District. c. Do not dedicate additional right-of-way, but construct a minimum 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalk along Ten Mile Road, located at the back edge of the existing right-of-way. Accomplish all necessary adjustments to properly accommodate existing drainage and utilities. 2. Construct a local roadway (West Satinwood Street) to intersect Ten Mile Road approximately 160 -feet south of the north property line, as proposed. 3. Construct the internal roadways as 36 -foot street sections with rolled curb, gutter and 5 -foot concrete sidewalk within 50 -feet of right-of-way, as proposed. 4. Extend Kingwood Drive from the cast property line approximately 645 -feet north of the south property line, as proposed. 5. Extend Silverleaf Way from the south property line approximately 490 -feet west of the east property line, as proposed. 6. Extend West Satinwood Street from the east property line approximately 100 -feet north of the south property line, as proposed. 7. Construct a stub street that extends to the west property line approximately 550 - feet south of State Highway 20/26 (Chinden Boulevard), as proposed. Install a sign at the terminus of the roadway stating that, "THIS ROAD WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE". 8. Construct West Kingwood Drive as a stub street to the west property line approximately 170 -feet south of the north property line, as proposed. Construct a temporary turnaround at the terminus of the roadway and install a sign at the terminus of the roadway stating that, "THIS ROAD WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE". 9. Construct North Nickel Avenue as a stub street to the north property line approximately 550 -feet east of Ten Mile Road, as proposed. Install a sign at the terminus of the roadway stating that, "THIS ROAD WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE". 10. Construct Shawn Street as a stub street to the west property line, as proposed. Install a sign at the terminus of the roadway stating that, "THIS ROAD WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE". I L Construct a driveway that intersects Ten Mile Road at the north property line, as proposed. This driveway is approved to access a lift station and pump house. ONLY and is not approved to access another lot or use. 12. Construct two (2) islands/medians within West Satinwood Street, as proposed. Provide a minimum of a 21 -foot street section on either side of the proposed island/median. Construct the island to be a minimum of 4 -feet wide with a minimum area of 100 -square feet and shall be owned and maintained by the homeowners association. 13. Construct four knuckles without center islands within the subdivision, as proposed. 14. Construct a stamped concrete crosswalk at intersection of North Nickel Avenue and West Satinwood Drive, as proposed. 15. Construct a special radius for the northbound right -turn lane at the Ten Mile Road and West Satinwood Street intersection. 16. A portion of Silverleaf Subdivision's preliminary plat is being approved contingent upon the right-of-way within Lochsa Falls being dedicated to the public and the roadways being constructed or a financial surety in place for the construction of the roadways prior to the signature of the final plat for Silverleaf Subdivision. 17. Comply with requirements of ITD for Glenwood Street frontage. Submit to the District a letter from ITD regarding said requirements prior to District approval of the final plat or issuance of a building permit (or other required permits), whichever occurs first. Contact District III Traffic Engineer Dan Coonce at 334- 8340. 18. Comply with all Standard Conditions of Approval Standard Conditions of Approval I. Any existing irrigation facilities shall be relocated outside of the right-of-way. 2. All utility relocation costs associated with improving street frontages abutting the site shall be borne by the developer. 3. Replace any existing damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk and any that may be damaged during the construction of the proposed development. Contact Construction Services at 387-6280 (with file number) for details. 4. Utility street cuts in pavement less than five years old are not allowed unless approved in writing by the District. Contact Construction Services at 387-6280 (with file numbers) for details. 5. All design and construction shall be in accordance with the Ada County Highway District Policy Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Construction Services procedures and all applicable ACRD Ordinances unless specifically waived hercin. 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. Payment of applicable road impact fees are required prior to building construction in accordance with Ordinance #195, also known as Ada County Highway District Road Impact Fee Ordinance. 9. It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify all existing utilities within the right-of-way. Existing utilities damaged by the applicant shall be repaired by the applicant at no cost to ACRD. The applicant shall be required to call DIGLINE (1-800-342-1585) at least two full business days prior to breaking ground within ACRD right-of-way. The applicant shall contact ACHD Traffic Operations 387- 6190 in the event any ACRD conduits (spare or filled) are compromised during any phase of construction. 10. No change in the terms and conditions of this approval shall be valid unless they are in writing and signed by the applicant or the applicant's authorized representative and an authorized representative of the Ada County Highway District. The burden shall be upon the applicant to obtain written confirmation of any change from the Ada County Highway District. 11. Any change by the applicant in the planned use of the property which is the subject of this application, shall require the applicant to comply with all rules, regulations, ordinances, plans, or other regulatory and legal restrictions in force at the time the applicant or its successors in interest advises the Highway District of its intent to change the planned use of the subject property unless a waiver/variance of said requirements or other legal relief is granted pursuant to the law in effect at the time the change in use is sought, SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT I . All irrigation / drainage facilities along with their easements must be protected and continue to function. The facility involved is the North Slough Lateral. 2. A Land Use Change Application must be on file prior to any approvals. 3. A license agreement must be signed and recorded prior to construction of any S.I.D. facilities. 4. Any changes to the existing irrigation system such as relocation, tiling, and landscaping must be approved by Settlers Irrigation District. 5. All storm drainage must be retained on-site. 6. The development must supply irrigation access to all Lots within the above- mentioned subdivision. 7. This property is located entirely within Settlers Irrigation District; therefore, S.I.D. will be the irrigation entity having jurisdiction. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH 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 degradation. IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT (ITD) 1. The US 20-26 has been designated a principal arterial type IV access control. Idaho Transportation Department is assuming that the Silverleaf Subdivision is not asking for any (permanent) access to be granted from US 20-26. All the approaches should be designed to access other Ada County Roads or thru adjacent subdivision to cut down. on access to Chinden Boulevard. 2. Noise abatement will be the responsibility of the developer and will be constructed off of the State Right of Way. MERIDIAN POLICE DEPARTMENT 1. No comments received. EXHIBIT G Annexation and Zoning Findings Silverleaf Subdivision (File AZ -04-024) The City Council hereby approves the following analysis of required findings by staff According to Meridian City Code (MCC) 11-15-11, General Standards Applicable to Zoning Amendments, both the Planning & Zoning Commission and Council are required "to review the particular facts and circumstances of each proposed zoning amendment in terms of the following standards and shall find adequate evidence answering the following questions about the proposed zoning amendment. " The following is the list of standards found in 11-15-11 and analysis by staff, A. Will the new zoning be harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and, if not, has there been an application for a Comprehensive Plan amendment; In Chapter VTI of the Comprehensive Plan, `medium density' is defined as areas including single-family homes at densities of three to eight dwelling units per acre; `low density' consist of single-family homes at densities of three dwelling units or less per acre. Staff finds that the requested zoning designation, R-4, is harmonious with and in accordance with the 2002 Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map, which designates the land to be "Low Density Residential" near Chinden Boulevard, and "Medium Density Residential" for the southern portion of the site. In addition, in the applicant's cover letter (from Shawn Nickel, dated July 15, 2004) several Comprehensive Plan policies are listed, all of which support the annexation and proposed residential use of the property. B. Is the area included in the zoning amendment intended to be rezoned in the future; Concurrent with the annexation and zoning application, the applicant has submitted a preliminary plat proposing single-family lots on the subject site (Silverleaf Subdivision, PP -04-031). Staff does not anticipate that the applicant plans to rezone the subject property in the future if the accompanying CUP and PP applications are approved. C. is the area included in the zoning amendment intended to be developed in the fashion that would be allowed under the new zoning —for example, a residential area turning into a commercial area by means of conditional use permits; Staff finds that the proposed single-family development could be allowed within the requested R-4 zone, if the accompanying Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development is also approved. D. Has there been a change in the area or adjacent areas which may dictate that the area should be rezoned. For example, have the streets been widened, new railroad access been developed or planned or adjacent area being developed in a fashion similar to the proposed rezone area; Staff finds that the land to the south and east have been developed in a manner similar to the proposed subdivision, with single-family dwelling units. Lochsa Falls Subdivision to the south and east was approved with a gross density of 2.92 dwelling units per acre. There have been no recent street improvements in the area. Further, neither Ten Mile Road nor Linder Road is currently scheduled within ACHD's Five Year Work Program or Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) for roadway widening. Chinden Boulevard is not in ITD's current STIP for roadway improvements (is in corridor preservation). Permanent sanitary sewer service to this development is to be provided by the undeveloped "North" Black Cat service area. The applicant proposes temporarily pumping the sewage generated within the development to a discharge point in N. Ten Mile Road. The Public Works Department does not have concerns with this concept, provided that the "private" lift station is designed to accommodate the remaining undeveloped area of the NW portion of this section. Other urban services, such as water, are near to this site and the applicant should be able to extend such services to the site. Staff finds that the subject site is proposed for development in a fashion similar to other properties in the area. E. Will the proposed uses be designed, constructed, operated and maintained to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not change the essential character of the same area; Staff finds that the proposed R-4 zoning and subsequent residential use proposed with the concurrent preliminary plat match the intended character of the vicinity, as noted on the Future Land Use Map in the Comprehensive Plan. Staff also finds that the proposed zoning/uses can be designed and constructed in a manner that will be harmonious with, and appropriate in appearance with, the existing and intended character of the surrounding area. The existing character of the area will, and is, currently changing, especially upon build -out of the proposed project and other similar subdivisions in the general vicinity. Staff does not find that the proposed zoning/uses will adversely change the essential character of area. See Preliminary Plat Analysis below for further information. F. Will the proposed uses not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses; Due to other existing and proposed uses near the site, staff does not anticipate that the proposed zoning/uses will be hazardous to future or existing uses or neighbors in the area. Staff does not anticipate that the proposed residential uses will be hazardous as long as the conditions outlined in this report are complied with and construction traffic and house construction is conducted in a manner consistent with City Code. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council rely on public testimony to determine whether the proposed use will be disturbing or hazardous to the neighboring uses. G. Will the area be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, sewer or that the person responsible for the establishment of proposed zoning amendment shall be able to provide adequately any of such services; Permanent sanitary sewer service to this development is to be provided by the undeveloped "North" Black Cat service area. The applicant proposes temporarily pumping the sewage generated within the development to a discharge point in N. Ten Mile Road. The Public Works Department does not have concerns with this concept, provided that the "private" lift station is designed to accommodate the remaining undeveloped area of the NW portion of this section. Other urban services, such as water, are near to this site and the applicant should be able to extend such services to the site. Water to serve this development is existing or currently under development with Lochsa Falls Subdivision. The applicant shall be responsible for the extension of utilities to and through this proposed development. Sizing and routing shall be coordinated with the Public Works Department. The applicant and/or future property owners will be required to pay park and highway impact fees as well as construct on-site storm water drainage facilities. As of the print deadline for this report, the ACRD has not had a chance to review and comment on the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) for this development. Therefore, there is no staff report from ACHD and this item has not yet been scheduled on an ACHD agenda. Please review any comments that may be sent from ACHD between the print deadline and the hearing. Based on the comments received from other agencies/departments, staff finds that the public services listed above can be made available to accommodate the proposed development. The Commission and Council should reference any written and/or verbal testimony submitted by any public service provider, regarding their ability to adequately service this project. Further, the Commission and Council should determine if the above finding can be made without ACHD's analysis of this development on the roadway system. H. Will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community; If approved, the developer will be financing the extension. of sewer, water, local street infrastructure, utilities and irrigation services to serve the project. The primary public costs to serve the future residents will be fire, police, school facilities and services. Staff finds there will not be excessive additional requirements at public cost and that the annexation and zoning will not be detrimental to the community's economic welfare. I. Will the proposed uses not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors; According to the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) prepared by the Washington Group International the proposed project is anticipated to generate 1,921 vehicle trips per day. Staff recognizes that traffic and noise will increase with the approval of this subdivision; however, staff does not believe that the amount generated will be detrimental to the general welfare of the public. Staff does not anticipate the proposed annexation and subsequent uses will create excessive noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors. Staff finds that the proposed residential zoning/uses will not be detrimental to people, property or the general welfare of the area. J. Will the area have vehicular approaches to the property which shall be so designed as not to create an interference with traffic on surrounding public streets; The applicant is proposing to construct one public street entrance into the site from Ten Mile Road and one temporary access into the site from Chinden Boulevard (SH 20/26). The applicant is also proposing to extend two stub streets into the site that were approved with the Lochsa Falls development. If the proposed vehicular approaches (streets) are approved and accepted by ACHD, staff does not believe that the subdivision will create interference with traffic on the surrounding public streets. Please review the ACHD report for this project for additional information regarding this finding. K. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic feature of major importance; and Staff finds that no natural or scenic features of major importance will be lost or damaged by approving the annexation and rezone. Any existing trees larger than 4" caliper that are removed should be mitigated for, per the Landscape Ordinance, L, Is the proposed zoning amendment in the best interest of the City of Meridian. (Ord. 592, 11-17-1992)? Staff finds that all essential services are available or will be provided by the developer to the subject property and will not require unreasonable expenditure of public funds. The applicant is proposing to develop the land in substantial compliance with the City's comprehensive plan. The land east and south of the subject property was previously annexed into the City and this is a logical expansion of existing zoning and land uses. In accordance with the findings listed above, staff finds that the annexation/rezone of this property would be in the best interest of the City EXHIBIT H Preliminary Plat Findings Silverleaf Subdivision (File PP -04-031) The City Council hereby approves the following analysis of required findings by staff: Sections 12-3-3 J.2 and 12-3-5 D read as follows: "In determining the acceptance of a proposed subdivision, the CommissionlCouncil shall consider the objectives of this title and at least the fallowing: A. The conformance of the subdivision with the Comprehensive Development Plan; In Chapter VII of the Comprehensive Plan, `medium density' is defined as areas including single-family homes at densities of three to eight dwelling units per acre; `low density' consist of single-family homes at densities of three dwelling units or less per acre. Staff finds that the proposed single- family residential subdivision, with a gross density of 3.0 dwelling units per acre, is harmonious with and in accordance with the 2002 Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map, which designates the land to be "Medium Density Residential" and "Low Density Residential", near Chinden Boulevard (provided the Commission and Council grant the requested planned development). B. The availability of public services to accommodate the proposed development; Staff finds that public services are available or can be made available to accommodate the proposed development. See Annexation and Zoning Analysis "G" and "H" above. C. The continuity of the proposed development with the capital improvement program.; Because the developer is installing sewer, water, and utilities for the development at their cost, staff finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. D. The public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; The development will not require major expenditures for providing supporting services. Staff recommends the Commission and Council rely upon comments submitted from the public service providers (i.e. police, fire, ACRD, etc) to determine this finding. (See finding "G" under Annexation and Zoning Analysis above, and the Agency Comments and Conditions at the end of this report for more detail.) E. The other health, safety or environmental problems that may be brought to the Commission's attention. Staff finds that there should not be any health, safety or environmental problems associated with this subdivision that should be brought to the Council or Commission's attention. ACRD considers road safety issues in their analysis; no hazardous natural features have been identified on the site. Staff finds the Commission and Council should rely on any public testimony that may be presented to determine whether the proposed use may cause health, safety or environmental problems that staff is unaware of. EXHIBIT I Conditional Use Permit Findings Silverleaf Subdivision (File CUP -04-033) The City Council hereby approves the following analysis of required findings by staff. The Commission and Council shall review the particular facts and circumstances of each proposed conditional use in terms of the following and may approve a conditional use permit if they shall find evidence presented at the hearing(s) is adequate to establish (I 1- 17-3): A. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and all yards, open spaces, parking, landscaping and other features as may be required by this ordinance; As part of the Planned Development (PD) the applicant is requesting relief from the standard street frontage requirement and lot size of the R-4 zone, as required by Meridian City Code. See Special Consideration #1 below for detailed analysis. Staff finds that the subject property is large enough to accommodate the requested use and all other required features. Although the site is large enough to accommodate all of the features required by ordinance, the applicant has asked, through the Planned Development, to modify specific development standards. B. That the proposed use and development plan will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in accordance with the requirements of this Ordinance; Staff finds that the proposed single-family residential subdivision, with a gross density of 3.0 dwelling units per acre, is harmonious with and in accordance with the 2002 Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map, which designates the land to be "Medium Density Residential," and "Low Density Residential," near Chinden Boulevard (provided the Commission and Council grant the requested planned development). C. That the design, construction, operation, and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area; Staff finds that the general design, construction, operation, and maintenance should be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the area. D. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity; Staff does not anticipate that the proposed development will have an adverse impact on the surrounding property. However, staff recommends that the Commission and Council rely upon public testimony, staff's analysis, and other agency comments when determining if the proposed uses will adversely affect the other properties in the vicinity. E. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, street, police, and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, sewer or that the person responsible for the establishment of proposed conditional use shall be able to provide adequately any such services; Please see Annexation and Zoning Analysis "G" and "H" above, the Other Agency/Department Comments and Conditions at the end of this report, and any comments that may be submitted to the City Clerk regarding this project. F. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community; If approved, the developer will be financing the extension of sewer, water, local street infrastructure, utilities and irrigation services to serve the project. The primary public costs to serve the future residents will be fire, police, school facilities and services. Staff finds there will not be excessive additional requirements at public cost and that the proposed development will not be detrimental to the community's economic welfare. G. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment, and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property, or general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors; Please see Annexation and Zoning Analysis "I" above. Staff recognizes that traffic and noise will increase with the approval of this subdivision; however, staff does not believe that the amount generated will be detrimental to the general welfare of the public. Staff does not anticipate the proposed development will create excessive noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors. Staff finds that the proposed residential use will not be detrimental to people, property or the general welfare of the area. H. That the proposed use will have vehicular approaches to the property which shall be so designed as not to create an interference with traffic on surrounding public streets; Staff does not believe that the proposed vehicular approaches will create an interference with traffic on the surrounding public streets. Please see Annexation and Zoning Analysis "J" above. However, neither ACHD nor ITD have provided the City with a detailed review (staff report) on the proposed vehicular approaches. The Commission and Council should review any comments the ACHD and/or ITD provide for this project when determining this finding. I. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. See comments under Annexation and Zoning Analysis "K" above. October 29, 2004 PP 04-031 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING November 3, 2004 APPLICANT Centennial Development, LLC ITEM NO. 5-F REQUEST Findings for Approval -- Request for Preliminary Plat approal of 143 single-family residential building lots and 19 common lots or, At7.6 ul acres -1r, a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Silverleaf Subdivision -- 2683 West Linden Boulevard AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY _ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FICHE 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: COMMENTS See attached Findings Dot,21:1till 01Phone: Emailed: $ /�! Staff Initials: _ Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW DECISION & ORDER In the Matter of Annexation and Zoning of 47.66 Acres from RUT to R-4, AND Preliminary Plat Approval for One -Hundred -Forty -Three Single -Family Building Lots, Eighteen Other/Common Lots, and One School Lot for Silverleaf Subdivision, AND Conditional Use Permit Approval for a Planned Development Consisting of Single -Family Homes with Reduced Lot Frontages and Reduced Lot Sizes, by Centennial Development, LLC. Case Nos. AZ -04-024, PP -04-031, CUP -04-033 For the City Council Hearing Date of: October 19, 2004 A. Findings of Fact Hearing Facts a. A notice of a public hearing was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the City Council public hearing, the first publication appearing and written notice mailed to property owners or purchasers of record within three hundred feet (300') of the external boundaries of the property. The notice of public hearing before the City Council was posted upon the property under consideration more than one week before said hearing. All other noticing was done consistent with Idaho Code §67- 6509. The matters were duly considered by the City Council at the October 19, 2004, public hearing(s). The applicant, affected property owners, and government subdivisions providing services within the planning jurisdiction of the City of Meridian were given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence. b. Written and oral testimony was received on this matter, as reflected in the records of the City Clerk (for written testimony) and in the official meeting minutes (for oral testimony). C. The Planning and Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing and issued a Written recommendation on the subject matter to the City Council. d. The City Council heard and took oral and written testimony and duly considered the evidence and the record in this matter. 2. Process Facts a. There has been compliance with all notice and hearing requirements set forth in Idaho Code §67-6509, 6512, and Meridian City Code §§ 11-15-5 and 11-17-5 as evidenced by the Affidavit of Mailing, and the Affidavit of Publication and Proof of Posting filed with the staff report. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NOS. AZ -04-024, PP -04-031, AND CUP -04-033 - PAGE I of 5 3. Application and Property Facts a. In addition to the application and property facts noted in the staff report and the Planning & Zoning Recommendation for the subject application(s), it is hereby verified that the property owner(s) of record at the time of issuance of these findings are Donald and Jean Hobbs, and Jerry and Sandy Stevenson. 4. Required Findings per Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance a. See Exhibit G for the findings required for the Annexation and Zoning application. b. See Exhibit H for the findings required for the Preliminary Plat application. C. See Exhibit I for the findings required for the Conditional Use Permit application. B. Conclusions of Law L The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the "Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975," codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code (I.C. §67- 6503). 2. The Meridian City Council takes judicial notice of its Zoning, Subdivision and Development Ordinances codified at Titles 11 and 12, Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has, by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, which was adopted August 6, 2002, Resolution No. 02-382 and Maps. 3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code 11-17-9, 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s) received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this Decision, which shall be signed by the Mayor and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk upon the applicant, the Planning and Zoning Department, the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. 7. That this approval is subject to the Legal Description in Exhibit A, the Preliminary Plat dated June 23, 2004 as shown in Exhibit B, the Site Plan dated July 12, 2004 as shown in Exhibit C, and the Conditions of Approval in Exhibits D, E, and F. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application. C. Decision and Order CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NOS, AZ -04-024, PP -04-031, AND CUP -04-033 - PAGE 2 of 5 Pursuant to the City Council's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 12-3-5 and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: 1. The applicant's Preliminary Plat as evidenced by having submitted the Preliminary Plat dated June 23, 2004 is hereby conditionally approved; 2. The applicant's Site Plan as evidenced by having submitted the Site Plan dated July 12, 2004; 3. The following modifications to site specific conditions were made at the City Council hearing; a) Add an additional traffic calming device on the road from Ten Mile (Satinwood), b) Comply with the Noise Evaluation Process standards set forth in ITD's Planning & Zoning Recommendations Noise Evaluation/Mitigation, for Chinden Boulevard (see handout); and, 4. The site specific and standard conditions of approval are as shown in Exhibits D, E, and F. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits 1. Notice of Twelve (12) Month Preliminary Plat Duration Please take notice that after the date of approval of the preliminary plat, the owner or developer shall have one year within which to file the request for approval of the final plat. After approval of final plat, the owner or developer shall have one year to begin construction of the public utilities and one year thereafter to complete construction of those public facilities (MCC 12-2-4.B & C). 2. Notice of Eighteen (18) Month Conditional Use Permit Duration Please take notice that the conditional use permit shall be valid for a maximum period of eighteen (18) months unless otherwise approved by the council. During this time, the permit holder must commence the use as permitted in accordance with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground. In this context "structures" shall include sewer and water lines, streets or building construction. The applicant has specified in the application and to the commission and council a construction schedule and completion date for the project. If the completion date specified for the project is exceeded, the conditional use application shall become null and void. However, the applicant may submit an application for a time extension on the project for city council review. The application for time extension shall he submitted at least thirty (3 0) days prior to the CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NOS. AZ -04-024, PP -04-031, AND CUP -04-033 - PAGE 3 of 5 deadline for completion of the project. For projects requiring platting, the final plat must be recorded within this eighteen (18) month period. For projects with multiple phases, the eighteen (18) month deadline shall apply to the first phase. In the event that the development is made in successive contiguous segments or multiple phases, such phases shall be constructed within successive intervals of one year from the original date of approval by the council. If the successive phases are not submitted within one year intervals, the conditional approval of the future phases shall be null and void (MCC II -I7 -4.B.). E. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis L 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 issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for Judicial Review may be filed. 2. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian, pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521 an affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the issuance or denial of the conditional use permit approval may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code, F. Exhibits Exhibit A. Legal Description Exhibit B: Approved Preliminary Plat (with conditions) Exhibit C: Approved Site Plan (with conditions) Exhibit D: Annexation & Zoning Conditions of Approval Exhibit E: Preliminary Plat Conditions of Approval (all agencies) Exhibit F: Conditional Use Permit Conditions of Approval (all agencies) Exhibit G: Annexation and Zoning Findings Exhibit H: Preliminary Plat Findings Exhibit I: Conditional Use Permit Findings By ction of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the c r-4day of 2004. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NOS. AZ -04-024, PP -04-031, AND CUP -04-033 - PAGE 4 of 5 COUNCIL MEMBER SHAUN WARDLE COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTINE DONNELL COUNCIL MEMBER CHARLIE ROUNTREE COUNCIL MEMBER KEITH BIRD VOTED�� VOTED VOTED VOTED-06,0L- -p— MAYOR - r MAYOR TAMMY de WEERD (TIE BREAKER)%��,% ¢-- VOTED SEAL William G. Berg, Jr., Ci Clerk ��� SCM -, rise Copy served upon Applicant, The Plamili �d'Z' g�Vx}e and City Attorney. By Dated: I y Clerk's Office \~ 1N partment, Public Works Department II -2/A -0i CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NOS. AZ -04-024, PP -04-03 I, AND CUP -04-033 - PAGE 5 of 5 EXHIBIT A Legal Description -� tet. ���, -�N u :• �>��a .i✓� -a 9631 t—Ii15 Project No. 04-019 Silverieaf Subdivisiou Boundary Description [2tS81 H84-5393 p.2 IISO Eas�Watertower Sc Suite ISO Mer'tdran, Idaho 83632 Phone (208) 846-8570 Fax (208) 864-5399 - July 13, 2004 A parcel of land being a portion of the NW V4 Section 26, TAN., K.1 W„ B.M„ Ada County, Idaho, more Particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest corner ofsaid Section 26, from which the Test 1/4 comer ofsaid Section bears South 00°21' 10" West, 2633.61 feet; thence along the West boundary of said Section 26 South 00°21'10" West, 1346.16 feet to the ILEAL ppINT ©1 i3EGINNMG. Thence leaving said West boundary line South W'09'47" East, 287.51 feet; Thence Soutar 00°21'10" West, 31.08 feet; Thence South 89°09'47" East, 1023.02 fact to a point on the West boundary of the East 112 ofthe NW 114 ofsaid Section 26; Thence along said West boundary North 00°29' 18" East, 486.39 feet to a point at the center of an irrigation ditch; Thence leaving said West boundary and along the center of said irrigation ditch the following three courses: Thence South 57'46'13" East, 84.56 feet; Thence South 68°00'27" East, 129.75 fecy Thence South 71125'27".East, 97.72 feet; Thence South 86°45'44" East, 107.65 feet; Thane leaving said irrigation ditch North 00-01 'Sol, West, 1016.67 feet to a point on the North boundary of said Section 26; Thence along said North boundary South 89°10'58" East, 929.42 feet to a point on the North-South mid-section line of said Section 26; Thence leaving said North boundary and along said North-South mid-section line South 00`37'33" West, 1805.36 feet; Pr0fessfenaI Land Surveyors Jul 13 04 03;49p JOO flicks (2tI9) 0Ff4 -5399 p. 3 Thence ]North 73°36'[8" West, 489.75 feet; Thence North 83'30'42" West, 2.32.70 feet; Thence North 54654'43" West, 196.55 feet; Thence North 20°08'17" West, 121.61 feet; Thence North 71'48'42" West, 140.90 feet; Thence Soulh 87°03'36„ West, 269.57 feet t0 a poiri on the West bott.,dar� of the East 1/2 oftheNW1/4 ofsaid Section 26; Thencc along said West boundary South 00-29'18" West, 274,02 feet; Thence leaving said West boundary North 89°09'47" West, 1309.82 feet to a point on the West boundary ofsaid Section 26; Thence along said West boundary North 00°21' 10" Cast, 329,58 feet 10 the Point Of Beginning. Containing 48.52 acres, more or less. by Mekdi= PuWIp Works D* EXHIBIT B Approved Preliminary Plat Silverleaf Subdivision (File PP -04-031) --Lj jr ij .q j; 231 hN � Oz� 33. "IV EXHIBIT C Approved Site Plan Silverleaf Subdivision (File CUP -04-033) :eggin �� i a I l! EXHIBIT D Annexation and Zoning Conditions of Approval Centennial Development, LLC (File AZ -04-024) The City Council of the City of Meridian hereby approves the Annexation and Zoning as requested by the Applicant for the property described in the application, subject to the following: L The legal description submitted with the application (dated 7-13-04, stamped by Gregory G. Carter) shows the property as contiguous to the existing corporate boundary of the City of Meridian and is approved. 2. Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will have to be removed from their domestic service, per City Ordinance Section 5-7-517, when services are available from the City of Meridian. Wells may be used for non- domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation. 3. All irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or lying adjacent and contiguous to the parcel shall be tiled per City Ordinance 12-4-13. Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association (ditch owners), with written approval or non -approval submitted to the Public Works Department. If lateral users association approval can't be obtained, plans will be reviewed and approved by the Meridian City Engineer prior to final plat signature. 4. Any future subdivision, uses and construction on this property shall comply with the City of Meridian ordinances in effect at the time. 5. A Development Agreement will be required as part of this annexation request. A condition of the Development Agreement shall be that the applicant participates in any road infrastructure agreements in the North Meridian Planning Area negotiated with ACHD and shall faithfully perform the terms of such agreement or agreements. EXHIBIT E Preliminary Plat Conditions of Approval Centennial Development, LLC (File PP -04-031) SITE SPECIFIC COMMENTS—PRELIMINARY PLAT 1. All conditions of the accompanying Annexation/Zoning (AZ -04-024) and Conditional Use Permit (CUP -04-033) application shall also be considered conditions of the Preliminary Plat (PP -04-031). 2. The applicant may construct a temporary vehicular access to Chinden Boulevard (SH 20/26), if approved by ITD. The temporary access road shall be constructed to ACRD standards and shall be removed within two (2) months of access being provided from either Silverleaf Way or Kingwood Drive in Lochsa Falls. If ITD approves a temporary access to Chinden Boulevard, a note should be placed on the final plat stating that Lot 12, Block 9 is a non -build lot until the temporary access to Chinden Boulevard is abandoned. A minimum of two points of access will be required for any portion of the project, which serves more than 50 homes. The two entrances shall be separated by no less than % the diagonal measurement of the project. Prior to issuance ' of the 5 I st building permit on the northern section of the development, a secondary emergency access approved by the Meridian Fire Department shall be provided. 4. Provide public stub streets to the north (Nickel Avenue), and west (Kingwood Drive and Shawn Street) as proposed. Extend the three public stubs streets provided to this property from the Lochsa Falls development (Glade Creek Drive, Powell Creep Avenue, and Tango Creek Drive) as proposed. 5. If Glade Creek Drive is not constructed and accepted by ACHD east of the site (in Lochsa Falls), construct a temporary turnaround at the eastern terminus of Satinwood Street that meets the design and construction standards of the Meridian Fire Department and ACRD. 6. With the submittal of the final plat application, the applicant shall submit a copy of the Ada County Street Name Committee's final approval letter for the street names, subdivision name, and lot and block numbering. Make any other corrections necessary to conform. 7. The submitted 4 -page landscape plan prepared by The Land Group, Inc., dated 6- 23-04 is approved as submitted, with the following modifications: • Amend the scale to be I" = 50' (currently shown as I" = 100') on all sheets. • Depict a minimum 40 -foot wide (35 -foot wide currently shown) landscape buffer along Chinden Boulevard (including a 5 -foot wide detached sidewalk). Said landscape buffer shall be located beyond any future street right-of-way, as proposed. If it is shown that the adjoining Lochsa Fails Subdivision has the sidewalk within their 35 -foot landscape buffer, this project may .Snatch that project. • All micropaths within the proposed subdivision shall be designed. in accordance with MCC 12-13-15 "Micropath Landscaping" and MCC 12-4-3 "Pedestrian Walkways." Micropath fencing shall be constructed per MCC 12- 13-15-9. • Construct a minimum 10 -foot wide (8 -feet currently shown) gravel shoulder along Ten Mile Road and landscape the remaining portion of the right-of-way with lawn or other ACHD approved groundcover. • All areas being counted toward the open space requirement shall be free of "wet ponds" or other such nuisances. All stormwater detention facilities incorporated into the required open space are subject to Ordinance 12-13-14 and shall be fully vegetated with grass and trees, as depicted on the submitted landscape plan. Other than the changes listed above, the approved landscape plan is not to be altered without prior written approval of the Planning & Zoning Department. Submit 10 copies of a revised landscape plan, depicting the above-mentioned changes and any other changes that may be required by the Planning & Zoning Commission, to the City Clerk at least 10 days prior to the next public hearing_ 8. All irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or lying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be tiled per MCC 12-4-13. Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association (ditch owners), with written approval or non -approval submitted to the Public Works Department. If lateral users association approval can not be obtained, plans will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to final plat signature. 9. The applicant has not indicated who will own and operate the pressurized irrigation system within this development. Underground 3Lrougqpressurized irrigation must be provided to all lots within this development. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water. If the pressurized irrigation system within this development is to remain a private homeowners' association system, complete plans and specifications shall be reviewed by the Public Works Department as part of the development plan review process. A draft copy of the pressurized irrigation system O&M manual shall be submitted prior to plan approval. The applicant shall be required to utilize any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single -point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single -point connection is utilized, the developer shall be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. 10. A detailed fencing plan shall be submitted upon application of the final plat. If permanent fencing is not provided, temporary construction fencing to contain debris must be installed around the perimeter prior to issuance of building permits. All fences shall taper down to 3 -feet maximum within 20 feet of all right- of-way. All fencing shall be installed in accordance with MCC 12-4-10. 11. Maintenance of all common areas shall be the responsibility of the Silverleaf Homeowners' Association. 12. Permanent sanitary sewer service to this development is to be provided by the undeveloped "North" Black Cat service area. Temporary service shall be via a "private" lift station pumping the sewage generated within the development to a discharge point in N. Ten Mile Road. The "private" lift station shall be designed to accommodate the remaining undeveloped area of the NW portion of this section. The developer may enter into a maintenance contract with the City of Meridian for the operation and maintenance of the facility. Subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. Applicant shall execute City of Meridian standard forms of easements, for any mains that are required to provide service. 13. Municipal water to this site shall be via extensions from existing mains in Ten Mile Road, and from future mains within Lochsa Falls. Applicant will be responsible to construct the sewer and water mains to and through this proposed development, thereby making them available to adjacent properties. Subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. Applicant shall execute City of Meridian standard forms of easements, for any mains that are required to provide service. 14. Direct lot access to Ten Mile Road and Chinden Boulevard is prohibited. A note shall be placed on the final plat restricting access to Ten Mile Road and Chinden Boulevard. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS—PRELIMINARY PLAT L All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H. 2. Sidewalks shall be installed within the subdivision and on the perimeter of the subdivision pursuant to MCC 12-13-10-8. 3. A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all fencing, landscaping, pressurized irrigation, sanitary sewer, water, etc., prior to signature on the final plat. 4. A detailed landscape and fencing plan, in compliance with the landscape and subdivision ordinance and as noted in this report, shall be submitted for the subdivision with the final plat application. 5. Coordinate fire hydrant placement with the City of Meridian Public Works Department. 6. Two -hundred -fifty and one -hundred -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 Works Department prior commencing installations. 7. 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 mitigated. 8. Submit any up -dated groundwater/soils monitoring data, as collected and analyzed by a soils scientist, to the Public Works Department for review. Any drainage areas (detention/retention basins) must be designed to ensure that water will percolate or discharge with a period of time not to exceed 24 -hours for all storms up to and including a 100 -year storm events. Side slopes within drainage areas shall not exceed 3:1. Any portion of a drainage area not improved with sod/grass seed (or other approved landscaping) shall not count towards the required open space area. The project engineer should pay close attention to the results of field studies determining the groundwater, soil type & and characteristics during the design and construction phases. The engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3 -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 1 -foot above groundwater. 9. The applicant 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. 13. The applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process, prior to signature on the final plat per Resolution 02-374. 14. Staffs failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or terms of the approved annexation/conditional use does not relieve the applicant of responsibility for compliance. 15. Preliminary plat approval shall be subject to the expiration provisions set forth in MCC 12-2-4. SANITARY SERVICES COMPANY (SSC) 1. No comment. MERIDIAN FIRE DEPARTMENT 1. One and two family dwellings will require a fire -flow of 1,000 gallons per minute available for duration of 2 hours to service the entire project. Fire hydrants shall be placed an average of 400 -feet apart. International Fire Code Appendix D. 2. Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department. a. Fire Hydrants shall have the 4 %" outlet face the main street or parking lot aisle. b. The Fire hydrant shall not face a street which does not have addresses on lt. C. Fire hydrant markers shall be provided per Public Works spec. d. Locations with fire hydrants shall have the curb painted red 10' to each side of the hydrant location. e. Fire Hydrants shall be placed on corners. f. Fire hydrants shall not have any vertical obstructions to outlets within 10'. I The phasing plan may require that any roadway greater than 150' in length that is not provided with an outlet shall be required to have an approved turn around. 4. All entrance and internal roads shall have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48' outside. 5. Operational fire hydrants and temporary or permanent street signs are required before combustible construction begins. 6. To increase emergency access to the site a minimum of two points of access will be required for any portion of the project, which serves more than 50 homes. The two entrances shall be separated by no less than %2 the diagonal measurement of the project. 7. The proposed 134 -lot subdivision with an estimated 2.9 residents per household would have a total estimated population of 389 residents at build out. 8. The Fire Department requests that any future signalization installed as the result of the development of this project be equipped with Opticom Sensors to ensure a safe and efficient response by fire and emergency medical service vehicles. This cost of this installation is to be borne by the developer. 9. No parking signs and painted curbs will be required for all Fire Lanes, MERIDIAN PARKS DEPARTMENT 1. Minimum acreage standard for City Park: The City is willing to develop and maintain Community Parks, Urban Parks, and Neighborhood Parks. Neighborhood Parks will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. The City may choose to maintain neighborhood parks at an acreage of seven acres or Iarger. It will be the responsibility of private homeowner groups or associations to develop and maintain the smaller mini parks and some Neighborhood Parks in their subdivision that the City does not maintain. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT 1. The applicant shall do one of the following: a. Dedicate by donation a total of 48 -feet of right-of-way (an additional 23 -feet of right-of-way) along Ten Mile Road, and construct a minimum 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalk along Ten Mile Road, located a minimum of 41 -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 Ten Mile Road, located a minimum of41-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 Ten Mile Road, Iocated at the back edge of the existing right-of-way. Accomplish all necessary adjustments to properly accommodate existing drainage and utilities. 2. Construct a local roadway (West Satinwood Street) to intersect Ten Mile Road approximately 160 -feet south of the north property line, as proposed. 3. Construct the internal roadways as 36 -foot street sections with rolled curb, gutter and 5 -foot concrete sidewalk within 50-fect of right-of-way, as proposed. 4. Extend Kingwood Drive from the east property line approximately 645 -feet north of the south property Iine, as proposed. 5. Extend Silverleaf Way from the south property line approximately 490 -feet west of the east property line, as proposed. 6. Extend West Satinwood Street from the east property line approximately 100 -feet north of the south property line, as proposed. 7. Construct a stub street that extends to the west property line approximately 550 - feet south of State Highway 20/26 (Chinden Boulevard), as proposed. Install a sign at the terminus of the roadway stating that, "THIS ROAD WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE". 8. Construct West Kingwood Drive as a stub street to the west property line approximately 170 -feet south of the north property line, as proposed. Construct a temporary turnaround at the terminus of the roadway and install a sign at the terminus of the roadway stating that, "THIS ROAD WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE". 9. Construct North Nickel Avenue as a stub street to the north property line approximately 550 -feet east of Ten Mile Road, as proposed. Install a sign at the terminus of the roadway stating that, "THIS ROAD WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE". 10. Construct Shawn Street as a stub street to the west property line, as proposed. Install a sign at the terminus of the roadway stating that, "THIS ROAD WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE". 11. Construct a driveway that intersects Ten Mile Road at the north property line, as proposed. This driveway is approved to access a lift station and pump house. ONLY and is not approved to access another lot or use. 12. Construct two (2) islands/medians within. West Satinwood Street, as proposed. Provide a minimum of a 21 -foot street section on either side of the proposed island/median. Construct the island to be a minimum of 4 -feet wide with a minimum area of 100 -square feet and shall be owned and maintained by the homeowners association. 13. Construct four knuckles without center islands within the subdivision, as proposed. 14. Construct a stamped concrete crosswalk at intersection of North Nickel Avenue and West Satinwood Drive, as proposed. 15. Construct a special radius for the northbound right -turn lane at the Ten Mile Road and West Satinwood Street intersection. 16. A portion of Silverleaf Subdivision's preliminary plat is being approved contingent upon the right-of-way within Lochsa Falls being dedicated to the public and the roadways being constructed or a financial surety in place for the construction of the roadways prior to the signature of the final plat for Silverleaf Subdivision. 17. Comply with requirements of ITD for Glenwood Street frontage. Submit to the District a letter from ITD regarding said requirements prior to District approval of the final plat or issuance of a building permit (or other required permits), whichever occurs first. Contact District III Traffic Engineer Dan Coonce at 334- 8340. 18. 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 Construction Services at 387-6280 (with file numbers) for details. 5. All design and construction shall be in accordance with the Ada County Highway District Policy Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Construction Services procedures and all applicable ACHD Ordinances unless specifically waived herein. An engineer registered in the State of Idaho shall prepare and certify all improvement plans. 6. The applicant shall submit revised plans for staff approval, prior to issuance of building permit (or other required permits), which incorporates any required design, changes. 7. Construction, use and property development shall be in conformance with all applicable requirements of the Ada County Highway District prior to District approval for occupancy. S. Payment of applicable road impact fees are required prior to building construction in accordance with Ordinance #195, also known as Ada County Highway District Road Impact Fee Ordinance. 9. It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify all existing utilities within the right-of-way. Existing utilities damaged by the applicant shall be repaired by the applicant at no cost to ACHD. The applicant shall be required to call DIGLINE (1-800-342-1585) at least two full business days prior to breaking ground within ACRD right-of-way. The applicant shall contact ACHD Traffic Operations 387- 6190 in the event any ACHD conduits (spare or filled) are compromised during any phase of construction. 10. No change in the terms and conditions of this approval shall be valid unless they are in writing and signed by the applicant or the applicant's authorized representative and an authorized representative of the Ada County Highway District. The burden shall be upon the applicant to obtain written confirmation of any change from the Ada County Highway District. 11. Any change by the applicant in the planned use of the property which is the subject of this application, shall require the applicant to comply with all rules, regulations, ordinances, plans, or other regulatory and legal restrictions in force at the time the applicant or its successors in interest advises the Highway District of its intent to change the planned use of the subject property unless a waiver/variance of said requirements or other legal relief is granted pursuant to the law in effect at the time the change in use is sought. SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT 1. All irrigation / drainage facilities along with their easements must be protected and continue to function. The facility involved is the North Slough Lateral. 2. A Land Use Change Application must be on file prior to any approvals. 3. A license agreement must be signed and recorded prior to construction, of any S.I.D. facilities. 4. Any changes to the existing irrigation system such as relocation, tiling, and landscaping must be approved by Settlers Irrigation District. 5. All storm drainage must be retained on-site. 6. The development must supply irrigation access to all lots within the above- mentioned subdivision. 7. This property is located entirely within Settlers Irrigation. District, therefore, S.I.D. will be the irrigation entity having jurisdiction. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH 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 degradation. IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT (ITD) 1. The US 20-26 has been designated a principal arterial type IV access control. Idaho Transportation Department is assuming that the Siiverleaf Subdivision is not asking for any (permanent) access to be granted from US 20-26. All the approaches should be designed to access other Ada County Roads or thru adjacent subdivision to cut down on access to Chinden Boulevard. 2. Noise abatement will be the responsibility of the developer and will be constructed off of the State Right of Way. MERIDIAN POLICE DEPARTMENT 1. No comments received. EXHIBIT F Conditional Use Permit Conditions of Approval Centennial Development, LLC (File CUP -04-033) SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS Conditional Use Permit 1. Applicant shall meet all of the requirements of the Annexation/Zoning (AZ -04- 024) and Preliminary Plat (PP -04-031) as a condition of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP -04-033). 2. The project shall conform to the R-4 dimensional standards, except as follows: • Minimum lot size: 5,000 square -feet. • Minimum frontage: 50 -feet (non cul-de-sac lots). 3. Provide amenities in accordance with the requirements of the City Council. The applicant shall provide detailed open space calculations at the P&Z Commission public hearing, clarifying what percentage of the site will be set aside as landscaped open space. If modifications to the plat/site plan/landscape plan are required by the Commission, said plan shall be submitted to the City Clerk at least 10 days prior to the public hearing. Unless otherwise required by the City Council, the proposed amenities (tot -lot, picnic area, pathways, and open space) shall be installed as depicted on the submitted landscape plan. 4. Construction within Silverleaf Subdivision shall substantially comply with the ten (10) elevations submitted by the applicant, prepared by R. Haverfield. Construction materials used on the structures shall be approved by the City of Meridian Building Department and in accordance with the most recent Uniform Building Code. 5. The applicant shall work with Meridian Planning & Zoning staff, the Meridian School District, as well as ACHD staff on striping, signage, or other means to create an efficient crosswalk(s) design for the micropath/pathway crossings to/from the future school site. SANITARY SERVICES COMPANY (SSC) 1. No comment. MERIDIAN FIRE DEPARTMENT 1. One and two family dwellings will require a fire -flow of 1,000 gallons per minute available for duration of 2 hours to service the entire project. Fire hydrants shall be placed an average of 400 -feet apart. International Fire Code Appendix D. 2. Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department. a. Fire Hydrants shall have the 4 %2" outlet face the main street or parking lot aisle. b. it. The Fire hydrant shall not face a street which does not have addresses on C. Fire hydrant markers shall be provided per Public Works spec. d. Locations with fire hydrants shall have the curb painted red 10' to each side of the hydrant location. e. Fire Hydrants shall be placed on corners. f. Fire hydrants shall not have any vertical obstructions to outlets within 10'. 3. The phasing plan may require that any roadway greater than 150' in length that is not provided with an outlet shall be required to have an approved turn around. 4. All entrance and internal roads shall have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48' outside. 5. Operational fire hydrants and temporary or permanent street signs are required before combustible construction begins. 6. To increase emergency access to the site a minimum of two points of access will be required for any portion of the project, which serves more than 50 homes. The two entrances shall be separated by no less than %z the diagonal measurement of the project. 7. The proposed 134 -lot subdivision with an estimated 2.9 residents per household would have a total estimated population of 389 residents at build out. 8. The Fire Department requests that any future signalization installed as the result of the development of this project be equipped with Opticom Sensors to ensure a safe and efficient response by fire and emergency medical service vehicles. This cost of this installation is to be borne by the developer. 9. No parking signs and painted curbs will be required for all Fire Lanes. MERIDIAN PARKS DEPARTMENT I . Minimum acreage standard for City Park: The City is willing to develop and maintain Community Parks, Urban Parks, and Neighborhood Parks. Neighborhood Parks will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. The City may choose to maintain neighborhood parks at an acreage of seven acres or larger. It will be the responsibility of private homeowner groups or associations to develop and maintain the smaller mini parks and some Neighborhood Parks in their subdivision that the City does not maintain. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT 1. The applicant shall do one of the following: a. Dedicate by donation a total of 48 -feet of right-of-way (an additional 23 -feet of right-of-way) along Ten Mile Road, and construct a minimum 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalk along Ten Mile Road, located a minimum of 41 -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 Ten Mile Road, located a minimum of 41 -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 Ten Mile Road, located at the back edge of the existing right-of-way. Accomplish all necessary adjustments to properly accommodate existing drainage and utilities. 2. Construct a local roadway (West Satinwood Street) to intersect Ten Mile Road approximately 160 -feet south of the north property line, as proposed. 3. Construct the internal roadways as 36 -foot street sections with rolled curb, gutter and 5 -foot concrete sidewalk within 50 -feet of right-of-way, as proposed. 4. Extend Kingwood Drive from the east property line approximately 645 -feet north of the south property line, as proposed. 5. Extend Silverleaf Way from the south property line approximately 490 -feet west of the east property line, as proposed. 6. Extend West Satinwood Street from the east property line approximately I00 -feet north of the south property line, as proposed. 7. Construct a stub street that extends to the west property line approximately 550 - feet south of State Highway 20126 (Chinden Boulevard), as proposed. Install a sign at the terminus of the roadway stating that, "THIS ROAD WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE". Construct West Kingwood Drive as a stub street to the west property line approximately 170 -feet south of the north property line, as proposed. Construct a temporary turnaround at the terminus of the roadway and install a sign at the terminus of the roadway stating that, "THIS ROAD WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE". 9. Construct North Nickel Avenue as a stub street to the north property line approximately 550 -feet east of Ten Mile Road, as proposed. Install a sign at the terminus of the roadway stating that, "THIS ROAD WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE". 10. Construct Shawn Street as a stub street to the west property line, as proposed. Install a sign at the terminus of the roadway stating that, "THIS ROAD WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE". I I . Construct a driveway that intersects Ten Mile Road at the north property line, as proposed. This driveway is approved to access a lift station and pump house. ONLY and is not approved to access another lot or use. 12. Construct two (2) islands/medians within West Satinwood Street, as proposed. Provide a minimum of a 21 -foot street section on either side of the proposed island/median. Construct the island to be a minimum of 4 -feet wide with a minimum area of 100 -square feet and shall be owned and maintained by the homeowners association. 13. Construct four knuckles without center islands within the subdivision, as proposed. 14. Construct a stamped concrete crosswalk at intersection of North Nickel Avenue and West Satinwood Drive, as proposed. 15. Construct a special radius for the northbound right -turn lane at the Ten Mile Road and West Satinwood Street intersection. 16. A portion of Silverleaf Subdivision's preliminary plat is being approved contingent upon the right-of-way within Lochsa Falls being dedicated to the public and the roadways being constructed or a financial surety in place for the construction of the roadways prior to the signature of the final plat for Silverleaf Subdivision, 17. Comply with requirements of ITD for Glenwood Street frontage. Submit to the District a letter from ITD regarding said requirements prior to District approval of the final plat or issuance of a building permit (or other required permits), whichever occurs first. Contact District III Traffic Engineer Dan Coonce at 334- 8340. 18. 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 Construction Services at 387-6280 (with file numbers) for details. 5. All design and construction shall be in accordance with the Ada County Highway District Policy Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Construction Services procedures and all applicable ACRD Ordinances unless specifically waived herein. An engineer registered in the State of Idaho shall prepare and certify all improvement plans. 6. The applicant shall submit revised plans for staff approval, prior to issuance of building permit (or other required permits), which incorporates any required design changes. 7. Construction, use and property development shall be in conformance with all applicable requirements of the Ada County Highway District prior to District approval for occupancy. 8. Payment of applicable road impact fees are required prior to building construction in accordance with Ordinance #195, also known as Ada County Highway District Road Impact Fee Ordinance. 9. It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify all existing utilities within the right-of-way. Existing utilities damaged by the applicant shall be repaired by the applicant at no cost to ACRD. The applicant shall be required to call DIGLINE (1-800-342-1585) at least two full business days prior to breaking ground within ACHD right-of-way. The applicant shall contact ACHD Traffic Operations 387- 6190 in the event any ACHD conduits (spare or filled) are compromised during any phase of construction. 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. I L 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 Iaw in effect at the time the change in use is sought. SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT I . All irrigation / drainage facilities along with their easements must be protected and continue to function. The facility involved is the North Slough Lateral. 2. A Land Use Change Application must be on file prior to any approvals. 3. A license agreement must be signed and recorded prior to construction of any S.I.D. facilities. 4. Any changes to the existing irrigation system such as relocation, tiling, and landscaping must be approved by Settlers Irrigation District. 5. All storm drainage must be retained on-site. 6. The development must supply irrigation access to all lots within the above- mentioned subdivision. 7. This property is located entirely within Settlers Irrigation District; therefore, S.I.D. will be the irrigation entity having jurisdiction. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH L 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 degradation. IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT (ITD) I . The US 20-26 has been designated a principal arterial type IV access control. Idaho Transportation Department is assuming that the Silverleaf Subdivision is not asking for any (permanent) access to be granted from US 20-26. All the approaches should be designed to access other Ada County Roads or thru adjacent subdivision to cut down on access to Chinden Boulevard. 2. Noise abatement will be the responsibility of the developer and will be constructed off of the State Right of Way. MERIDIAN POLICE DEPARTMENT 1. No comments received. EXHIBIT G Annexation and Zoning Findings Silverleaf Subdivision (File AZ -04-024) The City Council hereby approves the following analysis of required findings by staff- According taff According to Meridian City Code (MCC) 11-15-11, General Standards Applicable to Zoning Amendments, both the Planning & Zoning Commission and Council are required "to review the particular facts and circumstances of each proposed zoning amendment in terms of the following standards and shall find adequate evidence answering the following questions about the proposed zoning amendment. " The following is the list of standards found in 11-15-11 and analysis by staff. A. Will the new zoning be harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and, if not, has there been an application for a Comprehensive Plan amendment; In Chapter VII of the Comprehensive Plan, `medium density' is defined as areas including single-family homes at densities of three to eight dwelling units per acre; `low density' consist of single-family homes at densities of three dwelling units or less per acre. Staff finds that the requested zoning designation, R-4, is harmonious with and in accordance with the 2002 Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map, which designates the land to be "Low Density Residential" near Chinden Boulevard, and "Medium Density Residential" for the southern portion of the site. In addition, in the applicant's cover letter (from Shawn Nickel, dated July 15, 2004) several Comprehensive Plan policies are listed, all of which support the annexation and proposed residential use of the property. B. Is the area included in the zoning amendment intended to be rezoned in the future; Concurrent with the annexation and zoning application, the applicant has submitted a preliminary plat proposing single-family lots on the subject site (Silverleaf Subdivision, PP -04-031). Staff does not anticipate that the applicant plans to rezone the subject property in the future if the accompanying CUP and PP applications are approved. C. Is the area included in the zoning amendment intended to be developed in the fashion that would be allowed under the new zoning —for example, a residential area turning into a commercial area by means of conditional use permits; Staff finds that the proposed single-family development could be allowed within the requested R-4 zone, if the accompanying Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development is also approved. D. Has there been a change in the area or adjacent areas which may dictate that the area should be rezoned. For example, have the streets been widened, new railroad access been developed or planned or adjacent area being developed in a fashion similar to the proposed rezone area; Staff finds that the land to the south and east have been developed in a manner similar to the proposed subdivision, with single-family dwelling units. Lochsa Falls Subdivision to the south and east was approved with a gross density of 2.92 dwelling units per acre. There have been no recent street improvements in the area. Further, neither Ten Mile Road nor Linder Road is currently scheduled within ACHD's Five Year Work Program or Capital Improvements Plan (CTP) for roadway widening. Chinden Boulevard is not in ITD's current STIP for roadway improvements (is in corridor preservation). Permanent sanitary sewer service to this development is to be provided by the undeveloped "North" Black Cat service area. The applicant proposes temporarily pumping the sewage generated within the development to a discharge point in N. Ten Mile Road. The Public Works Department does not have concerns with this concept, provided that the "private" lift station is designed to accommodate the remaining undeveloped area of the NW portion of this section. Other urban services, such as water, are near to this site and the applicant should be able to extend such services to the site. Staff finds that the subject site is proposed for development in a fashion similar to other properties in the area. E. Will the proposed uses be designed, constructed, operated and maintained to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not change the essential character of the same area; Staff finds that the proposed R-4 zoning and subsequent residential use proposed with the concurrent preliminary plat match the intended character of the vicinity, as noted on the Future Land Use Map in the Comprehensive Plan. Staff also finds that the proposed zoning/uses can be designed and constructed in a manner that will be harmonious with, and appropriate in appearance with, the existing and intended character of the surrounding area. The existing character of the area will, and is, currently changing, especially upon build -out of the proposed project and other similar subdivisions in the general vicinity. Staff does not find that the f I - proposed zoning/uses will adversely change the essential character of area. See Preliminary Plat Analysis below for further information. F. Will the proposed uses not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses; Due to other existing and proposed uses near the site, staff does not anticipate that the proposed zoning/uses will be hazardous to future or existing uses or neighbors in the area. Staff does not anticipate that the proposed residential uses will be hazardous as long as the conditions outlined in this report are complied with and construction traffic and house construction is conducted in a manner consistent with City Code. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council rely on public testimony to determine whether the proposed use will be disturbing or hazardous to the neighboring uses. G. Will the area be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, sewer or that the person responsible for the establishment of proposed zoning amendment shall be able to provide adequately any of such services; Permanent sanitary sewer service to this development is to be provided by the undeveloped "North" Black Cat service area. The applicant proposes temporarily pumping the sewage generated within the development to a discharge point in N. Ten Mile Road. The Public Works Department does not have concerns with this concept, provided that the "private" lift station is designed to accommodate the remaining undeveloped area of the NW portion of this section. Other urban services, such as water, are near to this site and the applicant should be able to extend such services to the site. Water to serve this development is existing or currently under development with Lochsa Fails Subdivision. The applicant shall be responsible for the extension of utilities to and through this proposed development. Sizing and routing shall be coordinated with the Public Works Department. The applicant and/or future property owners will be required to pay park and highway impact fees as well as construct on-site storm water drainage facilities. As of the print deadline for this report, the ACHD has not had a chance to review and comment on the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) for this development. Therefore, there is no staff report from ACHD and this item has not yet been scheduled on an ACHD agenda. Please review any comments that may be sent from ACHD between the print deadline and the hearing. Based on the comments received from other agencies/departments, staff finds that the public services listed above can be made available to accommodate the proposed development. The Commission and Council should reference any written and/or verbal testimony submitted by any public service provider, regarding their ability to adequately service this project. Further, the Commission and Council should determine if the above finding can be made without ACHD's analysis of this development on the roadway system. H. Will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community; If approved, the developer will be financing the extension of sewer, water, local street infrastructure, utilities and irrigation services to serve the project. The primary public costs to serve the future residents will be fire, police, school facilities and services. Staff finds there will not be excessive additional requirements at public cost and that the annexation and zoning will not be detrimental to the community's economic welfare. I. Will the proposed uses not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors; According to the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) prepared by the Washington Group International the proposed project is anticipated to generate 1,921 vehicle trips per day. Staff recognizes that traffic and noise will increase with the approval of this subdivision; however, staff does not believe that the amount generated will be detrimental to the general welfare of the public. Staff does not anticipate the proposed annexation and subsequent uses will create excessive noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors. Staff finds that the proposed residential zoning/uses will not be detrimental to people, property or the general welfare of the area. J. Will the area have vehicular approaches to the property which shall be so designed as not to create an interference with traffic on surrounding public streets; The applicant is proposing to construct one public street entrance into the site from Ten Mile Road and one temporary access into the site from Chinden Boulevard (SH 20/26). The applicant is also proposing to extend two stub streets into the site that were approved with the Lochsa Falls development. If the proposed vehicular approaches (streets) are approved and accepted by ACRD, staff does not believe that the subdivision will create interference with traffic on the surrounding public streets. Please review the ACHD report for this project for additional information regarding this finding. K. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic feature of major importance; and Staff finds that no natural or scenic features of major importance will be lost or damaged by approving the annexation and rezone. Any existing trees larger than 4" caliper that are removed should be mitigated for, per the Landscape Ordinance. L. Is the proposed zoning amendment in the best interest of the City of Meridian.. (Ord. 592,11-17-1992)? Staff finds that all essential services are available or will be provided by the developer to the subject property and will not require unreasonable expenditure of public funds. The applicant is proposing to develop the land in substantial compliance with the City's comprehensive plan. The land east and south of the subject property was previously annexed into the City and this is a logical expansion of existing zoning and land uses. In accordance with the findings listed above, staff finds that the annexation/rezone of this property would be in the best interest of the City. i` EXHIBIT H Preliminary PIat Findings Silverleaf Subdivision (File PP -04-031.) The City Council hereby approves the following analysis of required findings by staff. Sections 12-3-3 1.2 and 12-3-5 D read as follows: "In determining the acceptance of a proposed subdivision, the Commission/Council shall consider the objectives of this title and at least the following: A. The conformance of the subdivision with the Comprehensive Development Plan; In Chapter VII of the Comprehensive Plan, `medium density' is defined as areas including single-family homes at densities of three to eight dwelling units per acre; `low density' consist of single-family homes at densities of three dwelling units or less per acre. Staff finds that the proposed single- family residential subdivision, with a gross density of 3.0 dwelling units per acre, is harmonious with and in accordance with the 2002 Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map, which designates the land to be "Medium Density Residential" and "Low Density Residential", near Chinden Boulevard (provided the Commission and Council grant the requested planned development). B. The availability of public services to accommodate the proposed development; Staff finds that public services are available or can be made available to accommodate the proposed development. See Annexation and Zoning Analysis "G" and "H" above. C. The continuity of the proposed development with the capital improvement program; Because the developer is installing sewer, water, and utilities for the development at their cost, staff finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. D. The public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; The development will not require major expenditures for providing supporting services. Staff recommends the Commission and Council rely upon comments submitted from the public service providers (i.e. police, fire, ACRD, etc) to determine this finding. (See finding "G" under Annexation and Zoning Analysis above, and the Agency Comments and Conditions at the end of this report for more detail.) E. The other health, safety or environmental problems that may be brought to the Commission's attention. Staff finds that there should not be any health, safety or environmental problems associated with this subdivision that should be brought to the Council or Commission's attention. ACHD considers road safety issues in their analysis; no hazardous natural features have been identified on the site. Staff finds the Commission and Council should rely on any public testimony that may be presented to determine whether the proposed use may cause health, safety or environmental problems that staff is unaware of. EXHIBIT I Conditional Use Permit Findings Silverleaf Subdivision (File CUP -04-033) The City Council hereby approves the following analysis of required findings by staff. The Commission and Council shalt review the particular facts and circumstances of each proposed conditional use in terms of the following and may approve a conditional use permit if they shall find evidence presented at the hearing(s) is adequate to establish (I I- 17-3): A. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and all yards, open spaces, parking, landscaping and other features as may be required by this ordinance; As part of the Planned Development (PD) the applicant is requesting relief from the standard street frontage requirement and lot size of the R-4 zone, as required by Meridian City Code. See Special Consideration #1 below for detailed analysis. Staff' finds that the subject property is large enough to accommodate the requested use and all other required features. Although the site is large enough to accommodate all of the features required by ordinance, the applicant has asked, through the Planned Development, to modify specific development standards. B. That the proposed use and development plan will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Pian and in accordance with the requirements of this Ordinance; Staff finds that the proposed single-family residential subdivision, with a gross density of 3.0 dwelling units per acre, is harmonious with and in accordance with the 2002 Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map, which designates the land to be "Medium Density Residential," and "Low Density Residential," near Chinden Boulevard (provided the Commission and Council grant the requested planned development). C. That the design, construction, operation, and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area; Staff finds that the general design, construction, operation, and maintenance should be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the area. D. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity; Staff does not anticipate that the proposed development will have an adverse impact on the surrounding property. However, staff recommends that the Commission and Council rely upon public testimony, staff s analysis, and other agency comments when determining if the proposed uses will adversely affect the other properties in the vicinity. E. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, street, police, and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, sewer or that the person responsible for the establishment of proposed conditional use shall be able to provide adequately any such services; Please see Annexation and Zoning Analysis "G" and "H" above, the Other Agency/Department Comments and Conditions at the end of this report, and any comments that may be submitted to the City Clerk regarding this project. F. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community; If approved, the developer will be financing the extension of sewer, water, local street infrastructure, utilities and irrigation services to serve the project. The primary public costs to serve the future residents will be fire, police, school facilities and services. Staff finds there will not be excessive additional requirements at public cost and that the proposed development will not be detrimental to the community's economic welfare. G. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment, and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property, or general welfare by reason of excessive production, of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors; Please see Annexation and Zoning Analysis "I" above. Staff recognizes that traffic and noise will increase with the approval of this subdivision; however, staff does not believe that the amount generated will be detrimental to the general welfare of the public. Staff does not anticipate the proposed development will create excessive noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors. Staff finds that the proposed residential use will not be detrimental to people, property or the general welfare of the area. H. That the proposed use will have vehicular approaches to the property which shall be so designed as not to create an interference with traffic on surrounding public streets; Staff does not believe that the proposed vehicular approaches will create an interference with traffic on the surrounding public streets. Please see Annexation and Zoning Analysis "J" above. However, neither ACHD nor ITD have provided the City with a detailed review (staff report) on the proposed vehicular approaches. The Commission and Council should review any comments the ACHD and/or ITD provide for this project when determining this finding. I. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. See comments under Annexation and Zoning Analysis ".K" above. October 29, 2004 C UP 04-033 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING November 3, 2004 APPLICANT Centennial Development, LLC ITEM NO. S -G REQUEST Findings for Approval --- Request for a CUP for a PD consisting of a school lot and single-family residential lots with reductions to the minimum requirements for lot size and street frontage for proposed Silverleaf Subdivision -- 2683 West Chinden Boulevard AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: COMMENTS See attached Findings wrr v -k-1 OTHER: Contacted:�Ayt, Date: [� C {� Phone: Emailed: j}, �� [ CZtrt .( k56 -� n -f Staff Initials: Materials presented of public meeflhgs shall become property of the City of Meridian. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW DECISION & ORDER In the Matter of Annexation and Zoning of 47.66 Acres from RUT to R-4, AND Preliminary Plat Approval for One -Hundred -Forty -Three Single -Family Building Lots, Eighteen Other/Common Lots, and One School Lot for Silverleaf Subdivision, AND Conditional Use Permit Approval for a Planned Development Consisting of Single -Family Homes with Reduced Lot Frontages and Reduced Lot Sizes, by Centennial Development, LLC. Case Nos. AZ -04-024, PP -04-031, CUP -04-033 For the City Council Hearing Date of: October 19, 2004 A. Findings of Fact I. Hearing Facts a. A notice of a public hearing was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the City Council public hearing, the first publication appearing and written notice mailed to property owners or purchasers of record within three hundred feet (300') of the external boundaries of the property. The notice of public hearing before the City Council was posted upon the property under consideration more than one week before said hearing. All other noticing was done consistent with Idaho Code §67- 6509. The matters were duly considered by the City Council at the October 19, 2004, public hearing(s). The applicant, affected property owners, and government subdivisions providing services within the planning jurisdiction of the City of Meridian were given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence. b. Written and oral testimony was received on this matter, as reflected in the records of the City Clerk (for written testimony) and in the official meeting minutes (for oral testimony). C. The Planning and Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing and issued a written recommendation on the subject matter to the City Council. d. The City Council heard and took oral and written testimony and duly considered the evidence and the record in this matter. 2. Process Facts a. There has been, compliance with all notice and hearing requirements set forth in Idaho Code §67-6509, 6512, and Meridian City Code §§ 11-15-5 and 11-17-5 as evidenced by the Affidavit of Mailing, and the Affidavit of Publication and Proof of Posting filed with the staff report. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NOS, AZ -04-024, PP -04-031, AND CLIP -04-033 - PAGE I of 5 Application and Property Facts a. In addition to the application and property facts noted in the staff report and the Planning & Zoning Recommendation for the subject application(s), it is hereby verified that the property owner(s) of record at the time of issuance of these findings are Donald and Jean Hobbs, and Jerry and Sandy Stevenson. 4. Required bindings per Zoning and Subdivision. Ordinance a. See Exhibit G for the findings required for the Annexation and Zoning application. b. See Exhibit H for the findings required for the Preliminary Plat application. e. See Exhibit I for the findings required for the Conditional Use Permit application. B. Conclusions of Law 1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the "Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975," codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code (I.C. §67- 6503). 2. The Meridian City Council takes judicial notice of its Zoning, Subdivision and Development Ordinances codified at Titles I 1 and 12, Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof The City of Meridian has, by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, which was adopted August 6, 2002, Resolution No. 02-3 82 and Maps. 3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code 11-17-9. 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s) received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this Decision, which shall be signed by the Mayor and City Clerk and then, a copy served by the Clerk upon the applicant, the Planning and Zoning Department, the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. 7. That this approval is subject to the Legal Description in Exhibit A, the Preliminary Plat dated June 23, 2004 as shown in Exhibit B, the Site Plan dated July 12, 2004 as shown in Exhibit C, and the Conditions of Approval in Exhibits D, E, and. F. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application. C. Decision and Order CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NOS. AZ -04-024, PP -04-031, AND CUP -04-033 - PAGE 2 of 5 Pursuant to the City Council's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 12-3-5 and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: I. The applicant's Preliminary Plat as evidenced by having submitted the Preliminary Plat dated rune 23, 2004 is hereby conditionally approved; 2. The applicant's Site Plan as evidenced by having submitted the Site Plan dated July 12, 2004; 3. The following modifications to site specific conditions were made at the City Council hearing; a) Add an additional traffic calming device on the road from Ten Mile (Satinwood), b) Comply with the Noise Evaluation Process standards set forth in ITD's Planning & Zoning Recommendations Noise Evaluation/Mitigation, for Chinden Boulevard (see handout); and, 4. The site specific and standard conditions of approval are as shown in Exhibits D, E, and F. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits 1. Notice of Twelve (12) Month Preliminary Plat Duration Please take notice that after the date of approval of the preliminary plat, the owner or developer shall have one year within which to file the request for approval of the final plat. After approval of final plat, the owner or developer shall have one year to begin construction of the public utilities and one year thereafter to complete construction of those public facilities (MCC 12-2-43 & C). 2. Notice of Eighteen (18) Month Conditional Use Permit Duration Please take notice that the conditional use permit shall be valid for a maximum period of eighteen (18) months unless otherwise approved by the council. During this time, the permit holder must commence the use as permitted in accordance with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground. In this context "structures" shall include sewer and water lines, streets or building construction. The applicant has specified in the application and to the commission and council a construction schedule and completion date for the project. If the completion date specified for the project is exceeded, the conditional use application shall become null and void. However, the applicant may submit an application for a time extension on the project for city council review. The application for time extension shall be submitted at least thirty (30) days prior to the CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NOS. AZ -04-024, PP -04-031, AND CUP -04-033 - PAGE 3 of 5 deadline for completion of the project. For projects requiring platting, the final plat must be recorded within this eighteen (18) month period. For projects with multiple phases, the eighteen (18) month deadline shall apply to the first phase. In the event that the development is made in successive contiguous segments or multiple phases, such phases shall be constructed within successive intervals of one year from the original date of approval by the council. If the successive phases are not submitted within one year intervals, the conditional approval of the future phases shall be null and void (MCC 11-17-4.B.). E. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis 1, 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 issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for Judicial Review may be filed. 2. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian, pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521 an affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the issuance or denial of the conditional use permit approval may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code. F. Exhibits Exhibit A: Legal Description Exhibit B: Approved Preliminary Plat (with conditions) Exhibit C: Approved Site Plan (with conditions) Exhibit D: Annexation & Zoning Conditions of Approval Exhibit E: Preliminary Plat Conditions of Approval (all agencies) Exhibit F: Conditional Use Permit Conditions of Approval (all agencies) Exhibit G: Annexation and Zoning Findings Exhibit H: Preliminary Plat Findings Exhibit I: Conditional Use Permit Findings By5tion of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the day of IVOV61.-Y44-1. , 2004. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NOS. AZ -04-024, PP -04-031, AND CUP -04-033 - PAGE 4 of 5 COUNCIL MEMBER SHAUN WARDLE COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTINE DONNELL COUNCIL MEMBER CHARLIE ROUNTREE COUNCIL MEMBER KEITH BIRD MAYOR TAMMY de WEERD (TIE BREAKER) Gly 3—O 4 - VOTED 6f� VOTED AftMn— yz"�— VOTED VOTED_ VOTED — Attest: i BEAL William G. Berg, Jr., City lerk �V '&r 4z Copy served upon Applicant, The Planning*'A4zoning']epartment, Public Works Department and City Attorney. By: Dated: Z�.. ity Clerk's Office CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NOS. AZ -04-024, PP -04-03 1, AND CUP -04-033 - PAGE 5 of 5 EXHIBIT A Legal Description Jul 13 04 63:481- Joe kicks Project No. 64-019 Silver[eaf Subdivision Boundary Description [2081 884-5398 P.2 1.450 East Watertower Sc Since 150 Fltridian, Idiho 836€2 Phone (208) 846-8371) Fax (208) 884_5399 --July 13, 2004 --- — A parcel of land being a portion Of the NW114 Section 26, TAN., R.1 W., B.M., Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest corner of said Suction 26, from which the West 1/4 comer ofsaid Section beets South 0021' € 0" West, 2633.61 feet; thence along the West boundary of said Section 26 South 00121'16" West, 1346.16 feet to the REAL POrNT OF BEGINNING. Thence leaving said West boundary line South 89'09'47" East, 28751 feet; Thence South 00°21'10" West, 31.48 feet; Thence South 89°09'47" East, 1023.02 feet to a point on the West boundary of the East 112 of the NW114 of said Section 26; Thence along said West boundary North 0029'18" East, 486.39 feet to a point at the center of an irrigation ditch; Thence leaving said West boundary and along the center of said irrigation ditch the following three courses: Thence South 574613" Fast, 84.56 feet; Thence South 68°00'27" East, 129,75 .feet; Thence South 71 °25'27" East, 97.72 feet; Thence South 86145'44" East, 107.65 feet; Thence leaving said irrigation ditch North 00°01'50" West, 1016.67 feet to a point on the North boundary of said Section 26; Thence along said North boundary South 89°10'58" East, 929.42 feet to a point on the North-South mid-section line of said Section 26; Thence leaving said North boundary and along said North-South raid -section line South 00°37'33" West, 1805.36 feel; Professic.gQi Land Surveyors J�' 13 04 03:49p .tae };1cks t208F 884-5399 p.3 Thence North 73036'1 V West, 489.75 feet; Thence North 83°30'42" West, 232.70 feet; Thence [forth 54°54'43" West, 1945.55 feet; Thence North 20°08'17" West, 121.61 feet; Thence North 7348'42" West, 140.90 feet; Thence South R7°03'36" West, 269-57 feet to s point on the WaSt boundary ofth,e East 1/2 of the NW114 ofsaid Section 26, Thence along, said West boundary South 00029'18" West, 274.02 feet; Thence leasing said West boundary North 89°09'47" West, 1309.82 feet to a point on the West boundary ofsaid Section 26; Thence along said W(?nt boundary North 00°21'14"Last, 329,58 feet to the Point of Beginning. Containing 48.52 acres, more or less. IQ - AUG 1 0 2004 MIIPit{ M Worka i)vvt EXHIBIT B Approved Preliminary Plat Silverleaf Subdivision (File PP -04-031) gmpg jig I oil Ih f W N abdow aim, Ulm .0' Tf A My EXHIBIT C Approved Site Plan Silverleaf Subdivision (File CUP -04-033) iLLJ r fly 7T. I EXHIBIT D Annexation and Zoning Conditions of Approval Centennial Development, LLC (File AZ -04-024) The City Council of the City of Meridian hereby approves the Annexation and Zoning as requested by the Applicant for the property described in the application, subject to the following: L The legal description submitted with the application (dated 7-13-04, stamped by Gregory G. Carter) shows the property as contiguous to the existing corporate boundary of the City of Meridian and is approved. 2. Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will have to be removed from their domestic service, per City Ordinance Section 5-7-517, when services are available from the City of Meridian. Wells may be used for non- domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation. 3. All irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or lying adjacent and contiguous to the parcel shall be tiled per City Ordinance 12-4-13. Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association (ditch owners), with written approval or non -approval submitted to the Public Works Department. If lateral users association approval can't be obtained, plans will be reviewed and approved by the Meridian City Engineer prior to final plat signature. 4. Any future subdivision, uses and construction on this property shall comply with the City of Meridian ordinances in effect at the time. 5. A Development Agreement will be required as part of this annexation request. A condition of the Development Agreement shall be that the applicant participates in any road infrastructure agreements in the North Meridian Planning Area negotiated with ACHD and shall faithfully perforin the terms of such agreement or agreements. EXHIBIT E Preliminary Plat Conditions of Approval Centennial Development, LLC (File PP -04-031) SITE SPECIFIC COMMENTS --PRELIMINARY PLAT 1. All conditions of the accompanying Annexation/Zoning (AZ -04-024) and Conditional Use Permit (CUP -04-033) application shall also be considered conditions of the Preliminary Plat (PP -04-031). 2. The applicant may construct a temporary vehicular access to Chinden Boulevard (SH 20/26), if approved by ITD. The temporary access road shall be constructed to ACHD standards and shall be removed within two (2) months of access being provided from either Silverleaf Way or Kingwood Drive in Lochsa Falls. If ITD approves a temporary access to Chinden Boulevard, a note should be placed on the final plat stating that Lot 12, Block 9 is a non -build lot until the temporary access to Chinden Boulevard is abandoned. 3. A minimum of two points of access will be required for any portion of the project, which serves more than 50 homes. The two entrances shall be separated by no less than %2 the diagonal measurement of the project. Prior to issuance of the 51St building permit on the northern section of the development, a secondary emergency access approved by the Meridian Fire Department shall be provided. 4. Provide public stub streets to the north (Nickel Avenue), and west (Kingwood Drive and Shawn Street) as proposed. Extend the three public stubs streets provided to this property from the Lochsa Falls development (Glade Creek Drive, Powell Creek Avenue, and Tango Creek Drive) as proposed. 5. If Glade Creek Drive is not constructed and accepted by ACHD east of the site (in Lochsa Falls), construct a temporary turnaround at the eastern terminus of Satinwood Street that meets the design and construction standards of the Meridian Fire Department and ACHD. 6. With the submittal of the final plat application, the applicant shall submit a copy of the Ada County Street Name Committee's final approval letter for the street names, subdivision name, and lot and block numbering. Make any other corrections necessary to conform. 7. The submitted 4 -page landscape plan prepared by The Land Group, Inc., dated 6- 23-04 is approved as submitted, with the following modifications: • Amend the scale to be I"= 50' (currently shown as V= 100') on all sheets. • Depict a minimum 40 -foot wide (35 -foot wide currently shown.) landscape buffer along Chinden Boulevard (including a 5 -foot wide detached sidewalk). Said landscape buffer shall be located beyond any future street right-of-way, as proposed. If it is shown that the adjoining Lochsa Falls ,Subdivision has the sidewalk within their 35 -foot landscape buffer, this project may match that project. • All micropaths within the proposed subdivision shall be designed in accordance with MCC 12-13-15 "Micropath Landscaping" and MCC 12-4-3 "Pedestrian Walkways." Micropath fencing shall be constructed per MCC 12- 13-15-9. • Construct a minimum 10 -foot wide (8 -feet currently shown) gravel shoulder along Ten Mile Road and landscape the remaining portion of the right-of-way with lawn or other ACHD approved groundcover. • AlI areas being counted toward the open space requirement shall be free of "wet ponds" or other such nuisances. All stormwater detention facilities incorporated into the required open space are subject to Ordinance 12-13-14 and shall be fully vegetated with grass and trees, as depicted on the submitted landscape plan. Other than the changes listed above, the approved landscape plan is not to be altered without prior written approval of the Planning & Zoning Department. Submit 10 copies of a revised landscape plan, depicting the above-mentioned changes and any other changes that may be required by the Planning & Zoning Commission, to the City Clerk at least 10 days prior to the next public hearing. 8. All irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or lying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be tiled per MCC 12-4-13. Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association (ditch owners), with written approval or non -approval submitted to the Public Works Department. If lateral users association approval can not be obtained, plans will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to final plat signature. 9. The applicant has not indicated who will own and operate the pressurized irrigation system within this development. Underground ear -round pressurized irrigation must be provided to all lots within this development. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water. If the pressurized irrigation system within this development is to remain a private homeowners' association system, complete plans and specifications shall be reviewed by the Public Works Department as part of the development plan review process. A draft copy of the pressurized irrigation system O&M manual shall be submitted prior to plan approval. The applicant shall be required to utilize any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single -point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single -point connection is utilized, the developer shall be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. 10. A detailed fencing plan shall be submitted upon application of the final plat. if permanent fencing is not provided, temporary construction fencing to contain debris must be installed around the perimeter prior to issuance of building permits. All fences shall taper down to 3 -feet maximum within 20 feet of all right- of-way. All fencing shall be installed in accordance with MCC 12-4-10. 11. Maintenance of all common areas shall be the responsibility of the Silverleaf Homeowners' Association. 12. Permanent sanitary sewer service to this development is to be provided by the undeveloped "North" Black Cat service area. Temporary service shall be via a "private" lift station pumping the sewage generated within the development to a discharge point in N. Ten Mile Road. The "private" lift station shall be designed to accommodate the remaining undeveloped area of the NW portion of this section. The developer may enter into a maintenance contract with the City of Meridian for the operation and maintenance of the facility. Subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. Applicant shall execute City of Meridian standard forms of easements, for any mains that are required to provide service. 13. Municipal water to this site shall be via extensions from existing mains in Ten Mile Road, and from future mains within Lochsa Fails. Applicant will be responsible to construct the sewer and water mains to and through this proposed development, thereby making them available to adjacent properties. Subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. Applicant shall execute City of Meridian standard forms of easements, for any mains that are required to provide service. 14. Direct lot access to Ten Mile Road and Chinden Boulevard is prohibited. A note shall be placed on the final plat restricting access to Ten Mile Road and Chinden Boulevard, GENERAL REQUIREMENTS—PRELIMINARY PLAT 1. All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H. 2. Sidewalks shall be installed within the subdivision and on the perimeter of the subdivision pursuant to MCC 12-13-10-8. 3. A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all fencing, landscaping, pressurized irrigation, sanitary sewer, water, etc., prior to signature on the final plat. 4. A detailed landscape and fencing plan, in compliance with the landscape and subdivision ordinance and as noted in this report, shall be submitted for the subdivision with the final plat application. 5. Coordinate fire hydrant placement with the City of Meridian Public Works Department. 6. Two -hundred -fifty and one -hundred -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 Works Department prior commencing installations. 7. 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 mitigated. 8. Submit any up -dated groundwater/soils monitoring data, as collected and analyzed by a soils scientist, to the Public Works Department for review. Any drainage areas (detention/retention basins) must be designed to ensure that water will percolate or discharge with a period of time not to exceed 24 -hours for all storms up to and including a 100 -year storm events. Side slopes within drainage areas shall not exceed 3:1. Any portion of a drainage area not improved with sod/grass seed (or other approved landscaping) shall not count towards the required open space area. The project engineer should pay close attention to the results of field studies determining the groundwater, soil type & and characteristics during the design and construction phases. The engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3 -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 1 -foot above groundwater. 9. The applicant 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. 13. The applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process, prior to signature on the final plat per Resolution 02-374, 14. Staff's failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or terms of the approved annexation/conditional use does not relieve the applicant of responsibility for compliance. 15. Preliminary plat approval shall be subject to the expiration provisions set forth in MCC 12-2-4. SANITARY SERVICES COMPANY (SSC) 1. No comment. MERIDIAN FIRE DEPARTMENT 1. One and two family dwellings will require a fire -flow of 1,000 gallons per minute available for duration of 2 hours to service the entire project. Fire hydrants shall be placed an average of 400 -feet apart. International Fire Code Appendix D. 2. Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department. a. Fire Hydrants shall have the 4 %2" outlet face the main street or parking lot aisle. b. it. The Fire hydrant shall not face a street which does not have addresses on C. Fire hydrant markers shall be provided per Public Works spec. d. Locations with fire hydrants shall have the curb painted red 10' to each side of the hydrant location. e. Fire Hydrants shall be placed on comers. f. Fire hydrants shall not have any vertical obstructions to outlets within 101 . 3. The phasing plan may require that any roadway greater than 150' in length that is not provided with an outlet shall be required to have an approved turn. around. 4. All entrance and internal roads shall have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48' outside. 5. Operational fire hydrants and temporary or permanent street signs are required before combustible construction begins. 6. To increase emergency access to the site a minimum of two points of access will be required for any portion of the project, which serves more than 50 homes. The two entrances shall be separated by no less than %2 the diagonal measurement of the project. 7. The proposed 134 -lot subdivision with an estimated 2.9 residents per household would have a total estimated population of 389 residents at build out. S. The Fire Department requests that any future signalization installed as the result of the development of this project be equipped with 4pticom Sensors to ensure a safe and efficient response by fire and emergency medical service vehicles. This cost of this installation is to be borne by the developer. 9. No parking signs and painted curbs will be required for all Fire Lanes. MERIDIAN PARKS DEPARTMENT L Minimum acreage standard for City Park: The City is willing to develop and maintain Community Parks, Urban Parks, and Neighborhood Parrs. Neighborhood Parks will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. The City may choose to maintain neighborhood parks at an acreage of seven acres or Iarger. It will be the responsibility of private homeowner groups or associations to develop and maintain the smaller mini parks and some Neighborhood Parks in their subdivision that the City does not maintain. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT 1. The applicant shall do one of the following: a. Dedicate by donation a total of 48 -feet of right-of-way (an additional 23 -feet of right-of-way) along Ten Mile Road, and construct a minimum 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalk along Ten Mile Road, located a minimum of 41 -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 Ten Mile Road, located a minimum of 41 -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 Ten Mile Road, located at the back edge of the existing right-of-way. Accomplish all necessary adjustments to properly accommodate existing drainage and utilities. 2. Construct a local roadway (West Satinwood Street) to intersect Ten Mile Road approximately 160 -feet south of the north property line, as proposed. 3. Construct the internal roadways as 36 -foot street sections with rolled curb, gutter and 5 -foot concrete sidewalk within 50 -feet of right-of-way, as proposed. 4. Extend Kingwood Drive from the east property line approximately 645 -feet north of the south property line, as proposed. 5. Extend Silverleaf Way from the south property line approximately 490 -feet west of the east property line, as proposed. 6. Extend West Satinwood Street from the east property line approximately 100 -feet north of the south property line, as proposed. 7. Construct a stub street that extends to the west property line approximately 550 - feet south of State Highway 20/26 (Chinden BouIevard), as proposed. Install a sign at the terminus of the roadway stating that, "THIS ROAD WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE". 8. Construct West Kingwood Drive as a stub street to the west property line approximately 170 -feet south of the north property line, as proposed. Construct a temporary turnaround at the terminus of the roadway and install a sign at the terminus of the roadway stating that, "THIS ROAD WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE". 9. Construct North Nickel Avenue as a stub street to the north property line approximately 550 -feet east of Ten Mile Road, as proposed. Install a sign at the terminus of the roadway stating that, "THIS ROAD WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE". 10. Construct Shawn Street as a stub street to the west property line, as proposed. Install a sign at the terminus of the roadway stating that, "THIS ROAD WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE". 11. Construct a driveway that intersects Ten Mile Road at the north property line, as proposed. This driveway is approved to access a lift station and pump house. ONLY and is not approved to access another lot or use. 12. Construct two (2) islands/medians within West Satinwood Street, as proposed. Provide a minimum of a 21 -foot street section on either side of the proposed island/median. Construct the island to be a minimum of 4 -feet wide with a minimum area of 100 -square feet and shall be owned and maintained by the homeowners association. 13. Construct four knuckles without center islands within the subdivision, as proposed. 14. Construct a stamped concrete crosswalk at intersection of North Nickel Avenue and West Satinwood Drive, as proposed. 15. Construct a special radius for the northbound right -turn lane at the Ten Mile Road and West Satinwood Street intersection. 16. A portion of Silverleaf Subdivision's preliminary plat is being approved contingent upon the right-of-way within Lochsa Falls being dedicated to the public and the roadways being constructed or a financial surety in place for the construction of the roadways prior to the signature of the final plat for Silverleaf Subdivision. 17. Comply with requirements of ITD for Glenwood Street frontage. Submit to the District a letter from ITD regarding said requirements prior to District approval of the final plat or issuance of a building permit (or other required permits), whichever occurs first. Contact District III Traffic Engineer Dan Coonce at 334- 8340. 18. 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 Construction Services at 387-6280 (with file numbers) for details. 5. All design and construction shall be in accordance with the Ada County Highway District Policy Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Construction Services procedures and all applicable ACHD Ordinances unless specifically waived herein. An engineer registered in the State of Idaho shall prepare and certify all improvement plans. 6. The applicant shall submit revised plans for staff approval, prior to issuance of building permit (or other required permits), which incorporates any required design changes. 7. Construction, use and property development shall be in conformance with all applicable requirements of the Ada County Highway District prior to District approval for occupancy. Payment of applicable road impact fees are required prior to building construction in accordance with Ordinance #195, also known as Ada County Highway District Road Impact Fee Ordinance. 9. It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify all existing utilities within the right-of-way. Existing utilities damaged by the applicant shall be repaired by the applicant at no cost to ACRD. The applicant shall be required to call DIGLINE (1-800-342-1585) at least two full business days prior to breaking ground within ACHD right-of-way. The applicant shall contact ACHD Traffic Operations 387- 6190 in the event any ACHD conduits (spare or filled) are compromised during any phase of construction. 10. No change in the terms and conditions of this approval shall be valid unless they are in writing and signed by the applicant or the applicant's authorized representative and an authorized representative of the Ada County Highway District. The burden shall be upon the applicant to obtain written confirmation of any change from the Ada County Highway District. 11. Any change by the applicant in the planned use of the property which is the subject of this application, shall require the applicant to comply with all rules, regulations, ordinances, plans, or other regulatory and legal restrictions in force at the time the applicant or its successors in interest advises the Highway District of its intent to change the planned use of the subject property unless a waiver/variance of said requirements or other legal relief is granted pursuant to the law in effect at the time the change in use is sought. SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT 1. All irrigation / drainage facilities along with their easements must be protected and continue to function.. The facility involved is the North Slough Lateral. 2. A Land Use Change Application must be on file prior to any approvals. 3. A license agreement must be signed and recorded prior to construction of any S.T.D. facilities. 4. Any changes to the existing irrigation system such as relocation, tiling, and landscaping must be approved by Settlers irrigation District. 5. All storm drainage must be retained on-site. 6. The development must supply irrigation access to all lots within the above- mentioned subdivision. 7. This property is located entirely within Settlers Irrigation District, therefore, S.I.D. will be the irrigation entity having jurisdiction. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH 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 degradation. IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT (ITD) 1. The US 20-26 has been designated a principal arterial type IV access control. Idaho Transportation Department is assuming that the Silverleaf Subdivision is not asking for any (permanent) access to be granted from US 20-26. All the approaches should be designed to access other Ada County Roads or thru adjacent subdivision to cut down on access to Chinden Boulevard. 2. Noise abatement will be the responsibility of the developer and will be constructed off of the State Right of Way. MERIDIAN POLICE DEPAR'T'MENT L No comments received. EXHIBIT F Conditional Use Permit Conditions of Approval Centennial Development, LLC (File CUP -04-033) SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS (Conditional Use Permit) L Applicant shall meet all of the requirements of the Annexation/Zoning (AZ -04- 024) and Preliminary Plat (PP -04031) as a condition of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP -04-033). 2. The project shall conform to the R-4 dimensional standards, except as follows: • Minimum lot size: 5,000 square -feet. • Minimum frontage: 50 -feet (non cul-de-sac lots). 3. Provide amenities in accordance with the requirements of the City Council. The applicant shall provide detailed open space calculations at the P&Z Commission public hearing, clarifying what percentage of the site will be set aside as landscaped open space. If modifications to the plat/site plan/landscape plan are required by the Commission, said plan shall be submitted to the City Clerk at least 10 days prior to the public hearing. Unless otherwise required by the City Council, the proposed amenities (tot -lot, picnic area, pathways, and open space) shall be installed as depicted on the submitted landscape plan. 4. Construction within Silverleaf Subdivision shall substantially comply with the ten (10) elevations submitted by the applicant, prepared by R. Haverfield. Construction materials used on the structures shall be approved by the City of Meridian Building Department and in accordance with the most recent Uniform Building Code. 5. The applicant shall work with Meridian Planning & Zoning staff, the Meridian School District, as well as ACHD staff on striping, signage, or other means to create an efficient crosswalk(s) design for the micropath/pathway crossings to/from the future school site. SANITARY SERVICES COMPANY (SSC) 1. No comment. MERIDIAN FIRE DEPARTMENT I . One and two family dwellings will require a fire -flow of 1,000 gallons per minute available for duration of 2 hours to service the entire project. Fire hydrants shall be placed an average of 400 -feet apart. International Fire Code Appendix D. 2. Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department. a. Fire Hydrants shall have the 4 %Z" outlet face the main street or parking lot aisle. b. it. The Fire hydrant shall not face a street which does not have addresses on C. Fire hydrant markers shall be provided per Public Works spec. d. Locations with fire hydrants shall have the curb painted red 10' to each side of the hydrant location. e. Fire Hydrants shall be placed on corners. f. Fire hydrants shall not have any vertical obstructions to outlets within 10'. 3. The phasing plan may require that any roadway greater than 150' in length that is not provided with an outlet shall be required to have an approved turn around. 4. All entrance and internal roads shall have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48' outside. 5. Operational fire hydrants and temporary or permanent street signs are required before combustible construction begins. 6. To increase emergency access to the site a minimum of two points of access will be required for any portion of the project, which serves more than 50 homes. The two entrances shall be separated by no less than % the diagonal measurement of the project. 7. The proposed 134 -lot subdivision with an estimated 2.9 residents per household would have a total estimated population of 389 residents at build out. 8. The Fire Department requests that any future signalization installed as the result of the development of this project be equipped with Opticom Sensors to ensure a safe and efficient response by fire and emergency medical service vehicles. This cost of this installation is to be borne by the developer. 9. No parking signs and painted curbs will be required for all Fire Lanes, MERIDIAN PARKS DEPARTMENT l . Minimum acreage standard for City Park: The City is willing to develop and maintain Community Parks, Urban Parks, and Neighborhood Parks. Neighborhood Parks will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. The City may choose to maintain neighborhood parks at an acreage of seven acres or larger. It will be the responsibility of private homeowner groups or associations to develop and maintain the smaller mini parks and some Neighborhood Parks in their subdivision that the City does not maintain. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT 1. The applicant shall do one of the following: a. Dedicate by donation a total of 48 -feet of right-of-way (an additional 23 -feet of right-of-way) along Ten Mile Road, and construct a minimum 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalk along Ten Mile Road, located a minimum of 4I -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 Ten Mile Road, located a minimum of 41 -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 Ten Mile Road, located at the back edge of the existing right-of-way. Accomplish all necessary adjustments to properly accommodate existing drainage and utilities. 2. Construct a local roadway (West Satinwood Street) to intersect Ten Mile Road approximately 160 -feet south of the north property line, as proposed. 3. Construct the internal roadways as 36 -foot street sections with rolled curb, gutter and 5 -foot concrete sidewalk within 50 -feet of right-of-way, as proposed. 4. Extend Kingwood Drive from the cast property line approximately 645 -feet north of the south property line, as proposed. 5. Extend Silverleaf Way from the south property line approximately 490 -feet west of the east property line, as proposed. 6. Extend West Satinwood Street from the east property line approximately 100 -feet north of the south property line, as proposed. 7. Construct a stub street that extends to the west property line approximately 550 - feet south of State Highway 20126 (Chinden Boulevard), as proposed. Install a sign at the terminus of the roadway stating that, "THIS ROAD WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE". 8. Construct West Kingwood Drive as a stub street to the west property line approximately 170 -feet south of the north property line, as proposed. Construct a temporary turnaround at the terminus of the roadway and install a sign at the terminus of the roadway stating that, "THIS ROAD WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE". 9. Construct North Nickel Avenue as a stub street to the north property line approximately 550 -feet east of Ten Mile Road, as proposed. Install a sign at the terminus of the roadway stating that, "THIS ROAD WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE". 10. Construct Shawn Street as a stub street to the west property line, as proposed. Install a sign at the terminus of the roadway stating that, "THIS ROAD WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE". 11. Construct a driveway that intersects Ten Mile Road at the north property line, as proposed. This driveway is approved to access a lift station and pump house. ONLY and is not approved to access another lot or use. 12. Construct two (2) islands/medians within West Satinwood Street, as proposed. Provide a minimum of a 21 -foot street section on either side of the proposed island/median. Construct the island to be a minimum of 4 -feet wide with a minimum area of I00-squarc feet and shall be owned and maintained by the homeowners association. 13. Construct four knuckles without center islands within the subdivision, as proposed. 14. Construct a stamped concrete crosswalk at intersection of North Nickel Avenue and West Satinwood Drive, as proposed. 15. Construct a special radius for the northbound right -turn lane at the Ten Mile Road and West Satinwood Street intersection. 16. A portion of Silverleaf Subdivision's preliminary plat is being approved contingent upon the right-of-way within Lochsa Falls being dedicated to the public and the roadways being constructed or a financial surety in place for the construction of the roadways prior to the signature of the final plat for Silverleaf Subdivision. 17. Comply with requirements of ITD for Glenwood Street frontage. Submit to the District a letter from ITD regarding said requirements prior to District approval of the final plat or issuance of a building permit (or other required permits), whichever occurs first. Contact District III Traffic Engineer Dan Coonce at 334- 8340. 18. Comply with all Standard Conditions of Approval. Standard Conditions of Approval . Any existing irrigation facilities shall be relocated outside of the right-of-way. 2. All utility relocation costs associated with improving street frontages abutting the site shall be borne by the developer. 3. Replace any existing damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk and any that may be damaged during the construction of the proposed development. Contact Construction Services at 3876280 (with file number) for details. 4. Utility street cuts in pavement less than five years old are not allowed unless approved in writing by the District. Contact Construction Services at 387-6280 (with file numbers) for details. 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 #195, also known as Ada County Highway District Road Impact Fee Ordinance. 9. It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify all existing utilities within the right-of-way. Existing utilities damaged by the applicant shall be repaired by the applicant at no cost to ACRD. The applicant shall be required to call DIGLINE (1-800-342-1585) at least two full business days prior to breaking ground within ACHD right-of-way. The applicant shall contact ACHD Traffic Operations 387- 6190 in the event any ACHD conduits (spare or filled) are compromised during any phase of construction. 10. No change in the terms and conditions of this approval shall be valid unless they are in writing and signed by the applicant or the applicant's authorized representative and an authorized representative of the Ada County Highway District. The burden shall be upon the applicant to obtain written confirmation of any change from the Ada County Highway District. 11. Any change by the applicant in the planned use of the property which is the subject of this application, shall require the applicant to comply with all rules, regulations, ordinances, plans, or other regulatory and legal restrictions in force at the time the applicant or its successors in interest advises the Highway District of its intent to change the planned use of the subject property unless a waiver/variance of said requirements or other legal relief is granted pursuant to the law in effect at the time the change in use is sought. SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT I . All irrigation / drainage facilities along with their easements must be protected and continue to function. The facility involved is the North Slough Lateral. 2. A Land Use Change Application must be on file prior to any approvals. 3. A license agreement must be signed and recorded prior to construction of any S.I.D. facilities. 4. Any changes to the existing irrigation system such as relocation, tiling, and landscaping must be approved by Settlers Irrigation District. 5. All storm drainage must be retained on-site. 6. The development must supply irrigation access to all lots within the above- mentioned subdivision. 7. This property is located entirely within Settlers Irrigation District; therefore, S.I.D. will be the irrigation entity having jurisdiction. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH 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 degradation. IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT (ITD) 1. The US 20-26 has been designated a principal arterial type IV access control. Idaho Transportation Department is assuming that the Silverleaf Subdivision is not asking for any (permanent) access to be granted from US 20-26. All the approaches should be designed to access other Ada County Roads or thru adjacent subdivision to cut down on access to Chinden Boulevard, 2. Noise abatement will be the responsibility of the developer and will be constructed off of the State Right of Way. MERIDIAN POLICE DEPARTMENT L No comments received. EXHIBIT G Annexation and Zoning Findings Silverleaf Subdivision (File AZ -04-024) The City Council hereby approves the following analysis of required findings by staff. According to Meridian City Code (MCC) 11-15-11, General Standards Applicable to Zoning Amendments, both the Planning & Zoning Commission and Council are required "to review the particular facts and circumstances of each proposed ,zoning amendment in terms of the following standards and shall find adequate evidence answering the following questions about the proposed zoning amendment. " The following is the list of standards found in 11-15-11 and analysis by staff, A. Will the new zoning be harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and, if not, has there been an application for a Comprehensive Plan amendment; In Chapter VII of the Comprehensive Plan, `medium density' is defined as areas including single-family homes at densities of three to eight dwelling units per acre; `low density' consist of single-family homes at densities of three dwelling units or less per acre. Staff finds that the requested zoning designation, R-4, is harmonious with and in accordance with the 2002 Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map, which designates the land to be "Low Density Residential" near Chinden Boulevard, and "Medium Density Residential" for the southern portion of the site. In addition, in the applicant's cover letter (from Shawn Nickel, dated July 15, 2004) several Comprehensive Plan policies are listed, all of which support the annexation and proposed residential use of the property. B. Is the area included in the zoning amendment intended to be rezoned in the future; Concurrent with the annexation and zoning application, the applicant has submitted a preliminary plat proposing single-family lots on the subject site (Silverleaf Subdivision, PP -04-031). Staff does not anticipate that the applicant plans to rezone the subject property in the future if the accompanying CUP and PP applications are approved. C. Is the area included in the zoning amendment intended to be developed in the fashion that would be allowed under the new zoning —for example, a residential area turning into a commercial area by means of conditional use permits; Staff finds that the proposed single-family development could be allowed within the requested R-4 zone, if the accompanying Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development is also approved. D. Has there been a change in the area or adjacent areas which may dictate that the area should be rezoned. For example, have the streets been widened, new railroad access been developed or planned or adjacent area being developed in a fashion similar to the proposed rezone area; Staff finds that the Iand to the south and east have been developed in a manner similar to the proposed subdivision, with single-family dwelling units. Lochsa Falls Subdivision to the south and east was approved with a gross density of 2.92 dwelling units per acre. There have been no recent street improvements in the area. Further, neither Ten Mile Road nor Linder Road is currently scheduled within ACHD's Five Year Work Program or Capital improvements Plan (CIP) for roadway widening. Chinden Boulevard is not in ITD's current STIP for roadway improvements (is in corridor preservation). Permanent sanitary sewer service to this development is to be provided by the undeveloped "North" Black Cat service area. The applicant proposes temporarily pumping the sewage generated within the development to a discharge point in N. Ten Mile Road. The Public Works Department does not have concerns with this concept, provided that the "private" lift station is designed to accommodate the remaining undeveloped area of the NW portion of this section. Other urban services, such as water, are near to this site and the applicant should be able to extend such services to the site. Staff finds that the subject site is proposed for development in a fashion similar to other properties in the area. E. Will the proposed uses be designed, constructed, operated and maintained to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not change the essential character of the same area; Staff finds that the proposed R-4 zoning and subsequent residential use proposed with the concurrent preliminary plat match the intended character of the vicinity, as noted on the Future Land Use Map in the Comprehensive PIan. Staff also finds that the proposed zoning/uses can be designed and constructed in a manner that will be harmonious with, and appropriate in appearance with, the existing and intended character of the surrounding area. The existing character of the area will, and is, currently changing, especially upon build -out of the proposed project and other similar subdivisions in the general vicinity. Staff does not find that the proposed zoning/uses will adversely change the essential character of area. See Preliminary Plat Analysis below for further information. F. Will the proposed uses not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses; Due to other existing and proposed uses near the site, staff does not anticipate that the proposed zoning/uses will be hazardous to future or existing uses or neighbors in the area. Staff does not anticipate that the proposed residential uses will be hazardous as long as the conditions outlined in this report are complied with and construction traffic and house construction is conducted in a manner consistent with City Code. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council rely on public testimony to determine whether the proposed use will be disturbing or hazardous to the neighboring uses. G. Will the area be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, sewer or that the person responsible for the establishment of proposed zoning amendment shall be able to provide adequately any of such services; Permanent sanitary sewer service to this development is to be provided by the undeveloped "North" Black Cat service area. The applicant proposes temporarily pumping the sewage generated within the development to a discharge point in N. Ten Mile Road. The Public Works Department does not have concerns with this concept, provided that the "private" lift station is designed to accommodate the remaining undeveloped area of the NW portion of this section. Other urban services, such as water, are near to this site and the applicant should be able to extend such services to the site. Water to serve this development is existing or currently under development with Lochsa Falls Subdivision. The applicant shall be responsible for the extension of utilities to and through this proposed development. Sizing and routing shall be coordinated with the Public Works Department. The applicant and/or fixture property owners will be required to pay park and highway impact fees as well as construct on-site storm water drainage facilities. As of the print deadline for this report, the ACHD has not had a chance to review and comment on the Traffic Impact Study (TTS) for this development. Therefore, there is no staff report from ACRD and this item has not yet been scheduled on an ACHD agenda. Please review any comments that may be sent from ACHD between the print deadline and the hearing. Based on the comments received from other agencies/departments, staff finds that the public services listed above can be made available to accommodate the proposed development. The Commission and Council should reference any written and/or verbal testimony submitted by any public service provider, regarding their ability to adequately service this Project. Further, the Commission and Council should determine if the above finding can be made without ACHD's analysis of this development on the roadway system. H. Will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community; If approved, the developer will be financing the extension of sewer, water, local street infrastructure, utilities and irrigation services to serve the project. The primary public costs to serve the future residents will be fire, police, school facilities and services. Staff finds there will not be excessive additional requirements at public cost and that the annexation and zoning will not be detrimental to the community's economic welfare. I. Will the proposed uses not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors; According to the Traffic Impact Study (TTS) prepared by the Washington Group International the proposed project is anticipated to generate 1,921 vehicle trips per day. Staff recognizes that traffic and noise will increase with the approval of this subdivision; however, staff does not believe that the amount generated will be detrimental to the general welfare of the public. Staff does not anticipate the proposed annexation and subsequent uses will create excessive noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors. Staff finds that the proposed residential zoning/uses will not be detrimental to people, property or the general welfare of the area. J. Will the area have vehicular approaches to the property which shall be so designed as not to create an interference with traffic on surrounding public streets; The applicant is proposing to construct one public street entrance into the site from Ten Mile Road and one temporary access into the site from Chinden Boulevard (SH 20/26). The applicant is also proposing to extend two stub streets into the site that were approved with the Lochsa Falls development. If the proposed vehicular approaches (streets) are approved and accepted by ACRD, staff does not believe that the subdivision will create interference with traffic on the surrounding public streets. Please review the ACHD report for this project for additional information regarding this finding. K. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic feature of major importance; and Staff finds that no natural or scenic features of major importance will be lost or damaged by approving the annexation and rezone. Any existing trees Iarger than 4" caliper that are removed should be mitigated for, per the Landscape Ordinance. L. Is the proposed zoning amendment in the best interest of the City of Meridian. (Ord. 592,11-17-1992)? Staff finds that all essential services are available or will be provided by the developer to the subject property and will not require unreasonable expenditure of public funds. The applicant is proposing to develop the Iand in substantial compliance with the City's comprehensive plan. The land east and south of the subject property was previously annexed into the City and this is a logical expansion of existing zoning and land uses. In accordance with the findings listed above, staff finds that the annexation/rezone of this Property would be in the best interest of the City. EXHIBIT H Preliminary Plat Findings Silverleaf Subdivision (File PP -04-031) The City Council hereby approves the following analysis of required findings by staff: Sections 12-3-3 J.2 and 12-3-5 D read as follows: "In determining the acceptance of a proposed subdivision, the Commission/Council shall consider the objectives of this title and at least the following: A. The conformance of the subdivision with the Comprehensive Development Plan; In Chapter VII of the Comprehensive Plan, `medium density' is defined as areas including single-family homes at densities of three to eight dwelling units per acre; `low density' consist of single-family homes at densities of three dwelling units or less per acre. Staff finds that the proposed single- family residential subdivision, with a gross density of 3.0 dwelling units per acre, is harmonious with and in accordance with the 2002 Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map, which designates the land to be "Medium Density Residential" and "Low Density Residential", near Chinden Boulevard (provided the Commission and Council grant the requested planned development). B. The availability of public services to accommodate the proposed development; Staff finds that public services are available or can be made available to accommodate the proposed development. See Annexation and Zoning Analysis "G" and "H" above. C. The continuity of the proposed development with the capital improvement program; Because the developer is installing sewer, water, and utilities for the development at their cost, staff finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. D. The public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; The development will not require major expenditures for providing supporting services. Staff recommends the Commission and Council rely upon comments submitted from the public service providers (i.e. police, fire, ACRD, etc) to determine this finding. (See finding "G" under Annexation and Zoning Analysis above, and the Agency Comments and Conditions at the end of this report for more detail.) E. The other health, safety or environmental problems that may be brought to the Commission's attention. Staff finds that there should not be any health, safety or environmental problems associated with this subdivision that should be brought to the Council or Commission's attention. ACHD considers road safety issues in their analysis; no hazardous natural features have been identified on the site. Staff finds the Commission and Council should rely on any public testimony that may be presented to determine whether the proposed use may cause health, safety or environmental problems that staff is unaware of. EXHIBIT I Conditional Use Permit Findings Silverleaf Subdivision (File CUP -04-033) The City Council hereby approves the following analysis of required findings by staff The Commission and Council shall review the particular facts and circumstances of each proposed conditional use in terms of the following and may approve a conditional use permit if they shall find evidence presented at the hearing(s) is adequate to establish (11- 17-3): A. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and all yards, open spaces, parking, landscaping and other features as may be required by this ordinance; As part of the Planned Development (PD) the applicant is requesting relief from the standard street frontage requirement and lot size of the R-4 zone, as required by Meridian City Code. See Special Consideration #1 below for detailed analysis. Staff finds that the subject property is large enough to accommodate the requested use and all other required features. Although the site is large enough to accommodate all of the features required by ordinance, the applicant has asked, through the Planned Development, to modify specific development standards. B. That the proposed use and development plan will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in accordance with the requirements of this Ordinance; Staff finds that the proposed single-family residential subdivision, with a gross density of 3.0 dwelling units per acre, is harmonious with and in accordance with the 2002 Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map, which designates the land to be "Medium Density Residential," and "Low Density Residential," near Chinden Boulevard (provided the Commission and Council grant the requested planned development). C. That the design, construction, operation, and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area; Staff finds that the general design, construction, operation, and maintenance should be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the area. D. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity; Staff does not anticipate that the proposed development will have an adverse impact on the surrounding property. However, staff recommends that the Commission and Council rely upon public testimony, staffs analysis, and other agency comments when determining if the proposed uses will adversely affect the other properties in the vicinity. E. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, street, police, and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, sewer or that the person responsible for the establishment of proposed conditional use shall be able to provide adequately any such services; Please see Annexation and Zoning Analysis "G" and "H" above, the Other Agency/Department Comments and Conditions at the end of this report, and any comments that may be submitted to the City Clerk regarding this project. F. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community; If approved, the developer will be financing the extension of sewer, water, local street infrastructure, utilities and irrigation services to serve the project. The primary public costs to serve the future residents will be fire, police, school facilities and services. Staff finds there will not be excessive additional requirements at public cost and that the proposed development will not be detrimental to the community's economic welfare. G. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment, and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property, or general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors; Please see Annexation and Zoning Analysis "I" above. Staff recognizes that traffic and noise will increase with the approval of this subdivision; however, staff does not believe that the amount generated will be detrimental to the general welfare of the public. Staff does not anticipate the proposed development will create excessive noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors. Staff finds that the proposed residential use will not be detrimental to people, property or the general welfare of the area. H. That the proposed use will have vehicular approaches to the property which shall be so designed as not to create an interference with traffic on surrounding public streets; Staff does not believe that the proposed vehicular approaches will create an interference with traffic on the surrounding public streets. Please see Annexation and Zoning Analysis "J" above. However, neither ACRD nor ITD have provided the City with a detailed review (staff report) on the proposed vehicular approaches. The Commission and Council should review any comments the ACHD and/or ITD provide for this project when determining this finding. I. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. See comments under Annexation and Zoning Analysis "K" above. October 29, 2004 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING November 3, 2004 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 5-H REQUEST Order to Remand back to Planning and Zoning Commission for Alexandria Subdivision AZ 04-011, PP 04-017, and CUP 04-015 AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See aftaehed Order 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: _ Phone: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN IN THE MATTER OF THE REMAND ) TO PLANNING AND ZONING FOR } THE APPLICATIONS OF ALEXANDRIA } SUBDIVISION LOCATED SOUTH OF ) E. MCMILLAN ROAD ON N. LOCUST ) GROVE ROAD, TOWNSHIP 4 N., RANGE ) 1E, SECTION 31, MERIDIAN, IDAHO } LONNIE JOHNSON, } APPLICANT } CIC 08-2404 CIC 09-21-04 CASE NOS. AZ -04-0.11, PP -04_017 CUP -04-015 ORDER OF REMAND TO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION This matter having come before the City Council on August 24, 2004 and September 21, 2004, at the hour of 7:00 o'clock p.m., at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho, Meridian, Idaho, and the Council having received the Recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Commission, and additionally having heard testimony at the September 21, 2004 meeting from Brad Hawkins -Clark, Principal City Planner for the Planning and Zoning Department, and Mike Wardle, representing the applicant, the Applicant would need to re -design the Site Plan and Preliminary Plat and address the proposed zoning of the non-residential portion at the east end of the development due to three distinct issues raised at the October 12, 2004 Pre -City Council meeting, which pertained to the following issues: The 2.17 acres at the east end of the property is proposed as a Neighborhood Commercial (C -N) zone and contains four non-residential building lots. The City has previously approved three other mixed-use developments on the west side of N. Locust Grove Road that include either commercial or office uses. The City Council is concerned with strip, non-residential development along Locust Grove Road and the additional traffic generated by these uses. ORDER GRANTING REMAND TO PLANNING AND ZONING AZ -04-011, PP -04-017, CUP -04-015 Page 1 of 4 2. The City Council finds this parcel is not close enough to the half section line — which is where neighborhood centers are to be located based upon the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map — to warrant non-residential uses. Medium density residential uses are preferred. It is recommended that the applicant re -design the development to incorporate all residential uses and zoning. 3. The City Council recognizes the concerns of the public with the proposed C -N zoning and, specifically, the hours of operation as compared with office or residential type uses. Therefore, due to the aforementioned issues, the City Council issues the following Decision and Order: DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING ORDER OF REMAND TO PLANNING AND ZONING Based upon the above and foregoing facts and testimony, the Applicant would need to re- design the project and amend the zoning due to three distinct issues raised at the October 1.2, 2004 Pre -City Council meeting, which pertained to the following: 1. The 2.17 acres at the east end of the property is proposed as a Neighborhood Commercial (C -N) zone and contains four non-residential building lots. The City has previously approved three other mixed-use developments on the west side of N. Locust Grove Road that include either commercial or office uses. The City Council is concerned with strip, non-residential development along Locust Grove Road and the additional traffic generated by these uses. 2. The City Council finds this parcel is not close enough to the half section line — which is where neighborhood centers are to be located based upon the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map — to warrant non-residential uses. Medium density residential uses are preferred. It is recommended that the applicant re -design the development to incorporate all residential uses and zoning. 3. The City Council recognizes the concerns of the public with the proposed C -N zoning and, specifically, the hours of operation as compared with office or residential type uses. ORDER GRANTING REMAND TO PLANNING AND ZONING AZ -04-011, PP -04-017, CUP -04-015 Page 2 of 4 IT IS HERESY ORDERED AND THIS DOES ORDER THAT: 1. The decision of the City Council is based upon the findings discussed at the September 21, 2004 public hearings and further elaborated at the October 12, 2004 Pre -City Council meeting for the annexation and zoning, preliminary plat and conditional use permit applications. That there are three distinct issues as outlined above and, therefore, the Applicant will need to re -design this project to address those concerns. 2. This matter is remanded back to the Planning and Zoning Commission for further action in accordance with this decision. By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the �r`� day of �O!/t�il�v-fie. 2004. ROLL CALL: C4l,Gf2GG! 6�-l2�__� COUNCILMAN WARDLE COUNCILMAN ROUNTREE COUNCILMAN BIRD MAYOR TAMMY de WEERD (Tie Breaker) DATED: 3 — o MOTION: APPROVED: Voted 4*6J4-o'� Voted '�fL' Voted { Voted — DISAPPROVED: Copy served upon Applicant, the Planning and Zoning Department, Public Works Dep ent and the City Attorney. ORDER GRANTING REMAND TO PLANNING AND ZONING AZ -04-011, PP -04-017, CLIP -04-015 Page 3 of 4 City Clerk C/ r' `? STIP&Z\Findings and OrdersWexandria Sub Rern6gd ORDER GRANTING REMAND TO PLANNING AND ZONING AZ -04-011, PP -04-017, CUP -04-015 Page 4 of 4 October 29, 2004 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING November 3, 2004 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 5-f REQUEST Coral Creek 1 Blackstone Lift Station Upgrade AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: See attached CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: _ 4 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.- FFICE:OTHER: OTHER: Contacted: Date. Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: _ Materials presented at public meefings sham become property of the City of Meridian. City of Meridian City Cleric Office To: Will Berg; Tara Green From: Clint Dolsby, Staff Engineer CC: Brad Watson, Public Works Director Date: 10/28/2004 Re: Proposed Agenda Item for November 3, 2004 City Council Meeting The Public Works Department respectfully requests the following item be placed on the November 3 City Council agenda, under Consent Agenda, for Council's consideration: The Coral Creek/Blackstone Lift Station needs to be upgraded to accommodate additional sewage flow from the Castlebrook Subdivision. The total cost estimate for this upgrade is $35,000, which is the developer of Castlebrook Subdivision's responsibility. The upgrade is explained in the attached memorandum. Recommended Council Action: The Public Works Department recommends that City Council approves the Coral Creek/Blackstone Lift Station upgrade for $35,000. Thank you for your consideration. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding any of these items. 0 Page I Temporary Coral Creek/Blackstone Lift Station Analysis The temporary Coral Creek/Blackstone Lift Station was designed to serve the Cora[ Creek and Blackstone subdivisions with a total of 102 ERU's (equivalent residential units). Since the temporary Coral Creek/Blackstone Lift Station was put into service, Castlebrook Subdivision Phase I and Phase 11 have been approved. Castlebrook Subdivision Phase I has 52 ERU's and will be served by the temporary Coral Creek/Blackstone Lift Station. Castlebrook Subdivision Phase II and the proposed Castlebrook Subdivision Phase III (85 ERU's) were planned for construction after the Black Cat Sewer extension was completed. Since the Black Cat Sewer Extension will not be completed before Castlebrook Subdivision Phase II and Phase III, the temporary Coral Creek/Blackstone Lift Station needs to be upgraded to accommodate the additional flows. The proposed Chesterfield subdivision will add 215 ERU's to the temporary Coral Creek/Blackstone Lift Station, requiring additional upgrades. A summary of the estimated flows and total dynamic head (TDH) for the temporary Coral Creek/Blackstone Lift Station are shown in Table 1. Table 1 - Coral Creek/Blackstone Lift Station Flow and TDH Estimates Subdivision ERU's Area, Acres Peak Sanitary Flow, gpm' Ill Flow, gpmZ Flow, gpm Total Flow, gpm TDH, ft Coral Creek/Blackstone 102 32 54 12 66 66 28 Castlebrook Phase 52 40 28 15 43 109 30 Phase 2 65 24.21 35 9 44 153 48 Phase 3 85 23.15 45 9 54 207 75 Chesterfield Subdivision 215 1 46.4 114 18 132 339 160 Totals 519 1 166 251 57 339 -- -- unit sanitary flow assumed to be 80 gpcd with a 10% pump oversize factor and a 2.9 sanitary peak hour flow to average daily flow peaking factor. Assumes a unit infiltration/inflow factor of 500 gpad. A two week field monitoring study of the temporary Coral Creek/Blackstone Lift Station was conducted by JUB Engineering in April, 2003. In April 2003, raw sewage from the Blackstone subdivision and Coral Creek subdivision was flowing to the lift station. Phase I of the Castlebrook subdivision was under construction. The average pumping rate for the Coral Creek/Blackstone Lift Station over this two week period was approximately 60 gpm. This flowrate is nearly equal to the estimated flowrate for the Blackstone and Coral Creek Subdivisions in Table 1. The temporary Coral Creek/Blackstone Lift Station consists of two ABS model AFP1040M18.4 2.4 horsepower pumps. These pumps were designed for single pump operation with a backup pump. Both of the pumps were operating at the same time frequently during the JUB field monitoring study in April, 2003. This suggests that the pumps are approaching their capacity. The existing pumps projected operating conditions for the subdivision pumping design flows are shown in Table 2. Table 2 - Existing ABS Pump Operating Points Subdivision Total Flow, gpm TDH, ft Coral Creek/Blackstone 66 30 Castlebrook $35,000 Chesterfield Subdivision Phase 1 109 28 Phase 2 153 25 Phase 3 207 20 Chesterfield Subdivision Total 339 12 The total dynamic head and corresponding flowrates for the existing ABS pumps shown in Table 2 are too low to accommodate the projected flowrates and TDH in Table 1 for Castlebrook Subdivision Phase II and Phase III and the Chesterfield Subdivision. In order to serve these subdivisions, the pumps need to be replaced with pumps that are capable of handling the increased flow and TDH requirements. The pump upgrades have been split into two categories, which are the pumps required to serve the Castlebrook Subdivisions and the pumps required to serve the entire development. These upgrades are shown in Table 3. The existing wet well, rails and discharge piping will be used for the new pumps in the temporary Coral Creek/Blackstone Lift Station. The pump control panel will need to be replaced with a 3-phase control panel, which is reflected in the cost estimate shown in Table 3. Table 3 - ABS Pump Upgrade Cost Estimates Subdivision Pump Horsepower Cost Estimate Castlebrook Phase 3 12 hp ea $30,000 Connect 3 -Phase Power -- $5,000 Total $35,000 Chesterfield Subdivision 27 hp ea $42,000 Connect 3 -Phase Power -- $5,000 Total $47,000 2 October 29, 2004 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING November 3, 2004 APPLICANT ITEM NO. S -i REQUEST Change Order No. 1 for the 2004 McMillan Water Extension Project AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: See attached CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. RECEIVED OCT 88 2004 City of Meridian City Clerk office U 1. A.Trq To; Will Berg; Tara Green From: Clint Dolsby, P.E., Staff Engineer CC: Brad Watson, P. E., Public Works Director Date: 10/28/2004 Re: Proposed Agenda Item for November 3, 2004 City Council Meeting The Public Works Department respectfully requests the following item be placed on the November 3 City Council agenda, under Consent Agenda, for Council's consideration: Change Order No. 1 for the 2004 McMillan Water Extension „Project. Additional work is required for the completion of the 2004 McMillan Water Extension Project Engineering Services. This change order consists of the following work: Construction surveying and easement acquisition services for the water extension project. Keller Associates, Inc submitted a cost for this change order as summarized below: Keller Associates, Inc $4,400.00 Recommended Council Action: The Public Works Department recommends that City Council approves Change Order No. 1 for the 2004 McMillan Water Extension Project with Keller Associates, Inc. for $4,400.00 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. 0 Page 1 CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 No. 1 DATE OF ISSUANCE EFFECTIVE DA OWNER . City of Meridian CONSULTANT Keiler Associates, Inc. Contract: 2004 McMillan Water Extension Prolect Project: 2004 McMillan Water Extension Project OWNER's Contract No. NIA ENGINEER's Contract No. NIA ENGINEER You are directed to make the following changes in the Contract Documents: Description: This change order consists of the following work: Construction surveying and easement acquisition services for the water extension project. Reason for Change Order: Compensate the consultant for the construction surveying and easement acquisition that was not included in the consultant's scope of work in order to final the contract. Attachments: (List documents supporting change): Letter for additional services received from Keller Associates, Inc dated October 28, 2004. CHANGE IN CONTRACT PRICE: Original Contract Price $ 22,435.20 Net Increase (Decrease) from previous Change Orders No, 0 to -O $ 0 Contract Price prior to this Change Order. $ 22,435.20 Net increase (decrease) of this Change Order: $ 4,400.00 Contract Price with all approved Change Orders: $ 26,835.20 CHANGE IN CONTRACT TIMES: Original Contract Times: Substantial Completion: Ready for final payment: (days or dates) Net change from previous Change Orders No. _ to No. _ Substantial Completion: Ready for final payment: (days) Contract Times prior to this Change Order: Substantial Completion: Ready for final payment: (days or dates) Net increase (decrease) this Change Order: Substantial Completion: Ready for final payment: (days) Contract Times with all approved Change Orders: Substantial Completion: Ready for final payment: (days or dates) RECOMMENDED: ACCEPTED: APPROVED: ATTEST: By: By: Clint Dolsby, Staff Engineer Date: Approved by City Council. Date: Consultant By: By: Tammy de Weerd, Mayor William G. Berg, Jr. City Clerk Date: Date: EJCDC 1910-8-B (1996 Edition) Prepared by the Engineers Joint Contract Documents Committee and endorsed by The Associated General Contractors of America and the Construction Specifications Institute. i ELLE A Company o}'13•afeasiorfrt1 ,Engineers 131 SAV 7th Avenue, Suite A • Meridian, li7 83642 208-238-€992 • Rm 208-288-1999 • m%wkellerassociaces.com October 28, 2004 Mr. Clint Dolsby, P.E. City of Meridian Public Works Department 660 Watertower Lane, Suite 200 Meridian, Idaho 53642 RE: McMillan Water Extension project Additional Services proposal Dear Clint: We propose to provide additional services for construction surveying and easement acquisition for the referenced project as described below. This work was not included in the project Agreement for Engineering Services Scope of Work. Construction surveying will consist of construction staking the water line improvements at 100 -foot intervals, angel points, and crossings, and the collection of horizontal record water line information (after construction is complete) for use in updating the record drawings. Field work is estimated at 3 days, with a cost of $2,400. Provide easement acquisition services required for the pressure reducing vault. Work includes parcel owner meetings, coordination and negotiations, title report, preparing easement sketch and legal description and contract documents. Provide easement acquisition package to the City. This work is estimated at $2,000. Additional work estimated at $4,400. If you have any questions or need additional information, please call me. Sincerely, KELLER ASSOCIATES, INC. Donn Carnahan, P.E. Project Manager DC/cw cc: File Meridian • Pocatello Quality Engineering to Satisfied Clients t04049/2/04-625 October 29, 2004 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING November 3, 2004 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 5 - REQUEST Approve Bilis 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: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at pubffc meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. October 29, 2004 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING November 3, 2004 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 22 REQUEST Water, Sewer & Trash Delinquencies 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 EST:INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emalled: Stan Initials: Materials presented of public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. DELINQUENCY FOR TURN OFF SCHEDULED FOR November 4, 2004 CYCLE 2 RECEIVED O - 3 MON City of Meridian city Clerk Office MAYOR: 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. Wednesday, November 3, 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. This service will be discontinued on November 4, 2004 unless payment is received in full. Is there anyone present who wishes to contest his or her water, sewer and trash delinquency? (No response.) MAYOR: 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 $27,954.21 , CITY OF MERIDIAN Delinquent Account List- council Page: 1 Standard Payment Customers Nov 03, 2004 03:35pm Current Period: 11/05/2004 No Delinquent Minimum AmountDelinquent Balance Report Criteria: Terminated customers not included Customer. Cust No O = (a) 880000001 Customer. Bill Cycle = 2 Last Pmt Last Pmt Cust No Name Balance Non-Delinq 09/20/2004 08/20/2004 07/20/2004 Date Amount 13.13.8426.2 A.M. THOMPSON MOONLAKE Tl 66.23 65.02 1.21 10/28/2004 55.00- 18.422114.2 ACKLEY, WENDY 87.26 39.76 47.50 09/02/2004 120.77- 15.21.3146.3 AGUERO, JEREMY 159.44 94.94 64.50 - - 09/14/2004 142.34- 16.31.0202.2 ALFERINK FAMILY TRUST 71.92 36.50 35.42 09/07/2004 88.76- 9,09.9144.2 ALIAS, MICHAEL 85.64 48.40 37.24 11/01/2004 38.92- 18.43.0156.1 ALIBEGIC, MUSTAFA 75.60 35.28 40.32 - 10/05/2004 60.00- 15.15.0110.2 ALTA 122.02 75.58 46.44 - 10/06/2004 119.78 - 14.19.6556.2 AMAR, STEVE 86.30 29.52 27.90 28.86 09/10/2004 28.88- 7.48.0004.1 AMERICAN BUILDING CONTRA( 53.82 24.94 28.88 - 09/16/2004 47.68- 15.21.1784.1 ANDERSEN, SHARRON 114.90 58.48 55.42 - - 10/28/2004 60.00- 14,20.1420.2 ANDERSON, CARL & ANDREA 78.66 43.08 35.58 09/09/2004 33.62- 10,32.1532.2 ANDERSON, CHRISTY 91.86 45.00 46.86 - 09/14/2004 44.90- 15.15.0037.2 ANDERSON, EDWARD 42.57 - - 8.13 34.44 07/1212004 37.38- 14-19.1360.1 ANDERSON, KIRK & CHERYL 80.71 - - 10.31 70.40 04/27/2004 35.20- 14.19.0068.2 ANDERSON, SKIP & JULIE 209.98 51.52 48.90 52.82 56.74 07/19/2004 29.02- 15.15.0638.2 ARCHULETA. STEVEN & HILLY t 45.96 43.04 2.92 - - 10/19/2004 47.86- 14.20.2006.1 ARNETT, DUKE 74.46 48.56 25.90 - 10/28/2004 65.00- 5.00-17.39.0002.1 17.39.0002.1 ASIN HOMES 131.50 106.26 22.59 2.65 08/13/2004 22.62- 3,90.0152.1 ASPEN HOMES 36.00 21.18 11.34 3.48 - 08/03/2004 1.04- 3.90.0160.1 ASPEN HOMES 49.24 31.64 17.60 - - 09/0812004 6.22- 3.90.0138.1 ASPEN HOMES 24.69 21.21 3.48 - - 09/08/2004 3.26- .26-3.90.0004.1 3.90.0004.1 ASPEN HOMES 89.40 27.88 40.16 21.36 - 08/03/2004 8.23- 3.90,0244.1 ASPEN HOMES 190.04 79.04 51.44 55.10 4.46 10.20.0132.1 ASPEN HOMES 62.89 50.60 12.29 - - 08126/2004 30.00- 9.09.0644,1 ASPEN HOMES 58,32 36.14 17.72 4.46 - 15.21.0066.1 ATHAY, ROBERT 147.74 61.58 86.16 - 09/07/2004 74.00- 4.00- 15.2Z 1614.3 15.22,1614.3 AULT, DANIEL & ALYSON 87.94 43.04 44.90 09/30/2004 9.56- 16.31.3480.1 BAIRD, CATHARINE D 77.66 40.10 $7.56 - - 08/26/2004 70.00- 18.42.2076.2 BAISCH, SHELLY 171.68 68.18 69.06 34.44 07/29/2004 160.00 - 17.34.0846.2 BAILER, MARREEN 47.26 43.68 3.58 - - 09/17/2004 100.00 - 10.10.0022.2 BALDWIN, RENEE 87.08 48.40 38.68 - - 09/29/2004 41.00- 15.21.0052.1 BALDWIN, ROBERT 85.80 45.90 39.90 - - 10/05/2004 41.86- 9.92,7020.3 BALLARD, MICHAEL & JACQUE 82.41 44.16 37.06 1.19 _ 17.33.2646.2 BALNG TRUST 76.08 39.12 36.96 - - 10/19/2004 45.00- 13.13,1200.3 BEATON, BONNIE 101.10 55.92 45.18 10/08/2004 42.00- 17.34.1572.2 BEATY, ANNA 33.67 33.64 .03 - 10/05/2004 45.25- 16.32.0652.2 BECKLEY, BRADLEY 109.32 45.00 64.32 - 11/02/2004 75.00- 16.32.0716.1 BEDDOR, HAROLD & DOROTHY 40.74 39.74 1.00 - 10/01/2004 44.15- 16,32.0508.1 BELL, DERRICK 118.70 67.22 51.48 - 10/04/2004 120.00- 17,33.2316.1 BELL, RICHARD 197.48 73.46 94.92 29.10 10/0412004 85.00- 17,33.1828.1 BELL, RONALD & JULIE 115.66 40.58 33.62 41.46 09/07/2004 80.96- 3.03.5064.1 BELLO HOMES 108.99 56.98 28.86 19.65 3.48 07/21/2004 2.13- 15.21.0490.2 BENHAM, MICHAEL & ISRAEL 102.20 55.34 46.86 - - 09107/2004 9.56- 17.33.2772.3 BENNETT, GREG 133,14 81.14 52.00 - - 10/06/2004 52.00- 14,19.6688.1 BENNETT, MASON 135.44 19.82 34.02 39.90 41.70 07/21/2004 71.00- 14,14.3628.2 BENSON, JOSHUA 96.14 54.28 41.86 - - 09/21/2004 41.86- 15,21,0130.1 BESKER, GLORIA 150,46 88.82 61.64 10/06/2004 58.70- 18.42,1798.1 BETTENCOURT, RICHARD 91.28 81.28 10.00 10/08/2004 64.10- 15.21.1410.2 BETZOLD, MARK & SHARON 177.78 101.98 75.80 10/06/2004 102.86- 15.21.3298.5 8EUTLER, SHANE 157.64 140.22 17.42 10/0812004 88.24- "' in Msg column indicates no Notice is to be sent CITY OF MERIDIAN Delinquent Account List- council Page: 2 Standard Payment Customers Nov 03, 2004 03:36pm Current Period: 1110512004 No Delinquent Minimum AmountDelinquent Balance Last Pmt Last Pmt Cust No Name Balance Non-Delinq 09/20/2004 08/20/2004 07/20/2004 Date Amount 18.42.4038.3 *** BIBIKOV, DANIEL 84.72 51.92 32.80 09/21/2004 65.60- 3.03.5124.2 BIGHAM, CINDY 72.91 40.64 32,27 - - 15.22.1740.3 BINGHAM, DUNCAN & PAULINE 85,50 28.58 28,46 28.46 09/14/2004 35,38- 17.33.2432.1 BIRD, TROY 102.00 51.54 50.46 - 10/05/2004 53.40- 16..31,3372.2 BLACK, KENNETH 92.84 43.04 43.92 5.88 09/30/2004 43.92- 17.33.2600.1 BLACKHURST, SCOTT 112.24 35.52 37.38 39.34 - 09/07/2004 76,72- 17.33.2730.1 BLEAZARD, BARRETT 96.44 48.76 47.68 - 09127/2004 47.68- 10.20.0020.1 BOB BROWN 57.40 21.18 17.60 18.62 08/12/2004 3.48- 18,42.0408.1 BOBKO, RAYMOND 67.34 33.72 33,62 - 08!3012004 75.08- 15.15.0774.2 BONN ING, ROBERT & ANGELA 82.86 39.04 43,82 10/05/2004 38,92- 17.34.1318.2 BOOHER, CRAIG & DANA 156.90 71.64 85.26 10/0512004 105.84- 15.15.0528.2 BORGES, FRED & TRACY 72.76 39.04 33.72 - 08/11/2004 45,00- 18.42.3036.1 BOSIO, LAWRENCE 48.36 45.42 2.94 - 10/22/2004 45.30- 10.10.0626.1 BOSSLER, LISA 82.08 63.76 18.32 - - 10/18/2004 117.38- 3.03.5166.3 BOSWORTH, SHARON 71.46 52.00 19.46 - - 09/29/2004 25.02- 15,22.0840.1 BRAINARD, ROBERT & JEREEN 123.96 71.16 52.80 - 10/06/2004 52.80- 15,21.1054.1 BRAUNSTEIN, BERNARD & KAR 107.12 64.74 42.38 - - 11/02/2004 54.40- 16.16.3306.2 BREWER, CHRIS & ELIZABETH 54.88 54.08 .80 - - 10/21/2004 87,88- 16,32.0926.1 BRIGGS, NADINE 161.56 61.18 100.38 - - 11/01/2004 50.00- 3.03.5632.1 BRIT-TENOW, KEVIN & MIA 69.93 40.14 23.29 3.48 3.02 - 13.13.8972.2 BROADBENT, GREG & TINA 52.24 34.18 18.06 - - 10/1212004 10.56- 3.03.5514.1 BROADWAY HOMES 17.38 13.90 3.48 - - 3.03.5512.1 BROADWAY HOMES 17.38 13.90 3.48 - - - 3.03.5020.1 BROADWAY HOMES INC 71.42 21.18 28.88 21.36 - 08/11/2004 28.38- 16.32.0436.1 BROWNING, MARK L. 53.82 51.86 1.96 - - 11/02/2004 74,30- 18A2,1822.1 BRUCE, BITTON 102.86 41.98 60.88 - 09/07/2004 35,98- 8.08,0144.2 BRUCE, TIMOTHY 152.92 105.02 47.90 - 10/06/2004 92,60- 18.42,2398.2 BRYANT, JOHN 92.30 41.80 50.50 - 09/07/2004 83.88- 15.21.2718.2 BUNCH, CORRINEi 59.98 59.94 .04 - 10/07/2004 84.28- 14.19.7150.2 BURCHFIELD, DARRELL 88.74 43.94 44.80 - - 10/01/2004 90,88- 14,19,6498.5 BURCHFIELD, DARRELL 115,28 66.32 48.96 - - 10/0412004 69.94- 15,22,1324.1 BURDEN, DAREON 129.60 57.02 72.58 - - 09/27/2004 73.56- 17.34,0850,1 BURGESS, LW 70.54 69.76 .78 - - 10/1212004 83.00- 17.33,2264.2 BURNS, E. GALE 121.14 38.62 43.42 38.52 .58 06/06/2004 64.30- 17.34.1456.1 BURROUGHS. JEFF 138.88 59.06 61.90 17.92 - 09121/2004 100,00- 15.22.2524.2 BURTON, LONNY & ANNE: 117.58 48.36 69.22 - - 09/08/2004 97,46- 6.06.9212.2 BUSH, PHILLIP 47.32 29.01 18.31 10/13/2004 15.00- 17.33.2708.4 CALIMAG, EMMA 76.18 38.14 38.04 - 09/07/2004 38.04- 15.21.0522.1 CALWELL, MARC 124.26 44.48 40.88 38.92 09/07/2004 74.70 - 16.31.3536.2 CAMPBELL, SCOTT 86.74 28.98 28.88 28.88 - 08/06/2004 66.58- 15.21.2800.1 CAMPBELL, RON 250.39 - - - 250.39 05/27/2004 193.06- 16.31.3058.3 CANADA, JOHN & KIMBERLY 89.90 43.04 46.86 - - 09/0112004 52.74- 16.32.0910.3 CANNELL, FRANK & CATHY 187.58 77.18 110.40 - 10/0512004 90.14- 8.08.0532.1 CAPITOL BUILDING CO 9.51 7.94 1.57 - - - 16.32.1592A CARLYLE. KEITH 42.48 41.00 1.48 - - 11/01/2004 40.00- 17.34.2114.1 CARR, NANCY 82.28 47.44 - - 34.84 09/10/2004 90.00- 15.22.1160.3 CARSON, PAMELA 162.13 29,73 60.08 72.32 - 09/08/2004 78.74- 3.18.0410.1 CHAMBERS CONSTRUCTION 22.22 16.41 4.46 1.35 - 15.22.1328.2 CHAMBERS, ERIK & RACAHEL 172.70 68.28 104.42 - 10/01/2004 96.98- 14.14.3012.2 CHAMPAGNE, KIMBERLY & DEN 94.46 60.08 34.38 - 10/04/2004 60.00- 1.5.21,1402.2 CHAPMAN, JAMES 104,75 52.36 52.39 - 10/05/2004 60.00- 15.21,2658.1 CHAPPELL, ANTHONY 92,50 45.08 47.42 - 10/12/2004 7,5.00- 16,32,0360.1 CHERRY LANE MOBILE PARK 1,279.95 1,279.16 .79 10/1912004 1,468,30- 13,13.8808.2 CHRISTENSEN, ANNETTE & KAI 157.92 86.64 71,28 09/08/2004 70.30- 15-15.00,34,2 CHRISTENSEN, BRANDON & ME 78.94 40.02 38.92 - 10/14/2004 39.90- 9.90- "' in Msg column indicates no Notice is to be sent ! I: CITY OF MERIDIAN Delinquent Account List- council Page: 3 Standard Payment Customers Nov 03, 2004 03:36pm Current Period: 11/05/2004 No Delinquent Minimum AmountDetinquent Balance Last Pmt Last pmt Gust No Name Balance Non-Delinq 09/20/2004 08120120D4 07/2012004 Date Amount 15.15.0047.2 CHRISTENSEN, DAVID 137.98 83.86 54.12 10/06/2004 54.68- 15.22.1078.1 CLAPP, ROCH 135.35 92.36 42.99 09/01/2004 267.51- 15.15.0784.1 CLARK, JERMEY & HEATHER 85.98 42.06 43.92 - 09/17/2004 48.04- 14.20.1580.1 CLARK, MARK 87.00 55.26 31.74 10/01/2004 100.00- 15.21.1902.2 CLARKE, MICHELE 83.92 46.88 37.04 10/01/2004 80.00- 18.42.2376.3 CLAY, STEVEN & SUSAN 104.50 46.30 58.20 09/1612004 135.00 - 8.08.1340.2 CLEGG, ALAN & JULIE 100,40 55.92 44.48 - 09/21/2004 87.98- 15.21.1766.1 COFFMAN, RICK K. 108.36 52.68 55.68 - 10/05/2004 93,00- 15.21.2048.4 COLBURN, RICHARD 48.77 34.54 14.23 - 10/06/2004 41,89- 15.22.2306.2 COLEMAN, KEVIN 88.92 43.04 45.88 - 09/07/2004 44.90- 8.08.1002.1 COREY BARTON HOEMS 21.23 21.18 05 - - 10/1512004 32.50- 15.15.0134.3 COSSEL, TRAVIS & CANDICE 80.31 40.10 39.02 1.19 - - 15.22,2628.2 COSTNER, SHANNON 97.68 39.04 41.86 16.78 - 08/06/2004 64.98- 16.32A610,7 COVINGTON, SARA 81.08 40.10 40.98 - - 09/07/2004 45.88- 5.88-14.14.3000.2 14.14.3000.2 COVING, VINCE & KIMBERLY 57.46 55.50 1.96 - 09/21/2004 84.24- 9.09.9620.2 COWLES, GREGORY 65.53 41.62 23.91 - - 9.09.9672.2 COWLES, GREGORY 6 58.19 51.02 7.17 - - 9.92.7006.2 COX, ANN K. 67.92 41.62 26.30 - - 15.21.1740.2 COX, JAY & CARROL 306.96 88.14 102.35 116.47 09109/2004 112.75- 17.34.2710.5 CRANE, SHANE 91.86 43.04 48.82 08/24/2004 123.52- 14.19.6670A CRIST, JERRY 83.24 45.86 37.38 10/05/2004 37.38- 17.34.185B.6 CROSBY, BRIAN & MICHELLE 162.12 75.72 86.40 09/02/2004 80.52- 16.32.1634.1 CROSBY, CRAIG 61.10 39.12 21.98 - 10/27/2004 59.00- 18.42.2370.4 CROW, KEN & ALICIA 180.66 95.58 83.52 1.56 10/06/2004 60.00- 15.22.1149,1 CRYSTAL SPRINGS HOMEOWN 414.20 131.86 135.78 146.56 08/31/2004 216.68- 6.06.11930,11 CUPP, SHAD & BECKY 63.44 34.73 28.71 - - 10/19/2004 59.47- 8.08.1006,2 CURRY, BRIAN & RASHELLE 100.24 55.34 44.90 09/24/2004 44.90- 1,5.22.1640.1 CURTIS, BERNICE 68.50 67.52 .98 - 1010812004 62.94- 18.42.0434.1 DAHLGREN,SHIRLEY 57.86 28.00 29.86 09/07/2004 56.78- 18.42.2400.1 DAVIS, LEE W. 91.34 $2.50 58.84 09/02/2004 49.04- 17.34.1056.2 DAVIS, MIKE & MARY 114.74 61.34 53.40 - - 09/21/2004 52.42- 3.03.5178.2 DAVIS, ROMAN & HEATHER 90.44 47.50 40.98 1.96 - 09/30/2004 40.98- 17.34-1770.1 DAVIS, WADE & WYNETTE 123.50 44,18 58.76 20.54 10/04/2004 50.00- 15.21.0454.3 DAWDY, DEBRA & CALVIN 81.02 37.12 28.62 15.28 - 07/22/2004 42.94- 18.42.0456.3 DAY, BARBARA 64.40 31.76 32.64 - 09/14/2004 31.66- 14.14.4324.1 DBD INC. 82.40 52.16 30,24 - 10/26/2004 55.00- 17.34.1136.2 DEATS, DAVID & BROOKE 87.94 43.04 44.90 _ 09/02/2004 42.94- 15.21.0206.3 DELANEY, MELISSA 121.36 77.48 43.90 10/19/2004 99.90- 16.31.3002.3 DENKER, ERIN & JEFF 55.69 48.52 7.17 - 3.03.5068.1 DESIGN CONSTRUCTION 8.53 6.96 1.57 - - 6.06.1254.2 DITTMAN, AARON & JANALEE 44.25 44.21 .04 - - 10/19/2004 43.63- 3.03.5760.1 DODGE ENTERPRISES INC 30.87 25.48 3.48 1.91 - - 6.06.9594.1 DOHERTY, JACOB 62.05 28.85 33.21 - - 09/14/2004 50.85- 15.21.0144.1 DOMKA, DEBBIE 45.60 34.30 11.30 - - 10/08/2004 60.00- 17.33.2612.6 DONALDSON, NEAL 131.94 32.74 62.64 36.56 - 09/08/2004 54.36- 15.21A958.1 DOTY, CHRISTY L, 156.78 78.94 77.84 - - 09/02/2004 85.68- 3.03.5074.1 DOUBLE DUTCH 63.28 33.60 21.36 4.84 3.48 - 3.03.5362.1 DOUBLE DUTCH DEVELOPMEN' 36.98 21.18 11.34 4.46 08/17/2004 1,04- 3.03.5390.1 DOUBLE DUTCH DEVELOPMEN' 32.24 21.18 7.58 3.48 - 08/17/2004 1.04- 14.19.0072.2 DUGGINS, ROY & ALTHEA 85.36 46.44 38.92 - 09/01/2004 37.94- 7.94-9.09.0006.1 9.09.0006.1 DUNSTAN, KYLE & LAUREL 95.79 46.52 17.62 17.62 14.03 - 18.42.2598.2 EASTBURN,GARY 128.96 63.56 65.40 - - 10/15/2004 72.26- 2.26-15.15.0004.4 15.15.0004.4 EDENBROOK, INC. 89.24 45.16 44.08 09/27/2004 48.00- 17.34.1898.1 EDINGER, REX S. 144.88 78.68 66.20 10/06/2004 71.10- 16.31.3034.11 EDWARDS, MARILYN 92.76 61,92 30.84 - 10/06/2004 106.68- -in Ms9 column indicates no Notice is to be sent CITY OF MERIDIAN Delinquent Account List- council Page: 4 Standard Payment Customers Nov 03, 2004 03:313pm Current Period: 11/05/2004 No Delinquent Minimum AmountDelinquent Balance Last Pmt Last Pmt Cust No Name Balance Non-Delinq 09/20/2004 08/20/2004 07/2012004 Date Amount 16.$2.1258.2 *** ELAM, ROGER & PHAEDRA 132.98 80.56 52.42 - 10/06/2004 80.46- 14.19.1212.1 ELLIOTT CONSTRUCTION 96.92 42.92 28.88 25.12 08/17/2004 17.60- 14.20.1978.1 ELLIOTT, JANE 88.71 51.90 36.81 - 09/07/2004 20.00- 17.34.0592,1 ELLIS, TODD & DANA 82.09 60.12 21.97 - 11/02/2004 50.00- 15.21.2876,1 ERNESTO, BRIAN 49.44 46.56 2.88 - - 10/13/2004 45.00- 13,13.6040.2 EVERITi-, JON 92.56 50.04 42.52 - - 09/14/2004 47.42- 7.42-17.39.0004.1 17.39.0004.1 FAIRVIEW LAKES BTS 222.37 202.93 19.44 - - 09/27/2004 4.29- 14.20.1440.1 FALK, RICHARD 50.44 49.46 .98 - - 09/07/2004 40.98- 3,03.5030,2 FARMER, THOMAS & TAMMY 46.19 42.60 3.59 - - - 16.31.0820.1 FARR, JERRY 90.54 44.34 46.20 - - 09/17/2004 53.06- 17.33.2404.1 FARRELL, MICHAEL 60.17 44.84 15.33 - - 10/13/2004 38.23- 15.21.0988.3 FIELDING, J. DAVID & ALISON 236.60 89.72 146.88 - - 10!0512004 131.20- 17.34.2868.2 FINLEY, JASON & GLENNA 40.52 40.42 .10 - - 10/01/2004 37,28- 14.14.3516.2 FLORES, DAVID 99.26 52.40 46.86 - 10/04/2004 51,76- 15.22.1616.3 FONNER, ROBERT & DENISE 64.99 39.12 25.87 16.31,0776.2 FOSTER, COLLEEN & WAYNE 99.04 47.12 51.92 09/10/2004 92.16- 15.22.1618.1 FOWERS, JOHN 131.08 54.84 76.24 - - 10/05/2004 92.90- 16.31.3434.1 FRANK, GARY 57.86 28.00 29.86 09/07/2004 28.88- 15.22,2586.2 FRANKLYN, MARK & DONNA 91.54 44.38 47.16 10/14/2004 47.16- 17.34.2933.1 FREI, LINDA 61.46 30.78 30.68 09/08/2004 29.70- 17.34,G916.1 FRENCH, JOHN 70.41 48.76 21.65 08/26/2004 150.00- 17.34.1088.2 FUCHS, DARRIN 72.81 37.16 35.65 - 16.31.0176.2 FULLER, MELISSA 180.06 103.12 76.94 10/06/2004 94.58- 6.08.1918.3 FULLILOVE, RICHARD 88.54 49.93 38.61 09/20/2004 37.63- 15.15.0053.2 GABRIEL, RON 102.80 49.50 53.30 - 09/22/2004 75.46- 16.31.0226.4 GARCIA, REANA 120.10 40.10 40.00 40.00 - 09/07/2004 40.98- 15.21.0234.3 GARRETT, DAMON 129.14 82.60 46.54 - - 10/07/2004 100.00- 14.20,1826,1 GIBBS, LORIN 121.24 110.82 10.42 - - 11/02/2004 87.98- 110.20.0026.2 GILL, HANSJEET & AMARJEET 66.53 66.52 .01 - 10/19/2004 67.05- 18,42A240.1 GILLETT, JOSHUA 45.74 43.78 1.96 - 09/27/2004 42.68- 18.42.1176.1 GOLDENFEATHER HUD HOUSIt 46.44 - - 46.44 07/06/2004 88.96- 15.21,1022A GORBERT, SCOTT & WARNER, 70.20 58.28 11.92 - - 15.22.0900.1 GOWING, CHARLES & CAROLY1' 47.45 47.44 .01 - 10/19/2004 65.95- 17.33.4270.3 GRANT, KEVIN 48.38 23.26 25.12 - 08/31/2004 27.08- 15.22.1754.2 GRAPATIN, JEREMY & EMILY 45.52 44.60 .92 - 09/30/2004 90.00- 17.33.2752.1 GRAVES, DENNIS 103.96 52.52 51.44 - 10/04/2004 55.36- 15.21.1734.2 GROAT, STEPHANIE 166.00 98.80 67.20 10/06/2004 6000- 16.32.1168.1 GULBIS, ANTHONY 55.22 54.24 .98 10/29/2004 60.00- 15.21,0462.3 GUNNARSON, HOWARD & RUTi 78.68 78.26 .42 - 11/03/2004 90.00- 8.08,1044.2 GURRERO, CHRISELDA 102.20 57.30 44.90 08/31/2004 73.52- 15.21,2696.2 HAAS, DAVID & JUDY 133.94 45.16 88.78 - 09/08/2004 115.60- 15.21,2654.1 HAINES, TODD 93.44 56.34 37.10 - 10/15/2004 30.00- 15.15,0029.2 HALL, JOHN & CAROLYN 83.16 43.78 39.38 10/04/2004 45.00- 8.15.0150.1 HALLMARK HOMES 24.64 4.64 - 20.00 - - 17.34.2732.1 HAMILTON, LLOYD 83.36 39.28 44.08 - - 10/19/2004 41.14- 17.33.1842.1 HAMMON$, KENNETH & MARIBI 77.46 34.86 42.60 - 09/15/2004 85.72- 16.31.3378.3 HANCOCK, ROBERT 96.44 51.62 44.82 - 09/09/2004 20,00- 16.31.3394.2 HANHARDT, ANDREW & CAMILL 78.28 38.22 40.06 - 09/08/2004 83.06- 14.14.3640.2 HANSEN, ROBERT & MARY 61.46 48.96 12.50 - - 11/03/2004 45,00- 16.32,1170.2 HARRIS, JR. , CHARLES EDWAF 143.88 47.60 46.52 49.76 - 08/17/2004 53.00- 15.21.2090.2 HARRIS, WILLIAM 123.96 87.82 36.14 - - 10/06/2004 116.98 - 17.34.0512.1 HARRIS, WILLIAM & EMO JEAN 121.29 39.76 81.53 - - 09/27/2004 100.25- 15.21A786,1 HART, DOUGLAS & DONNA 109.96 41.54 49.89 18.53 - 08/31/2004 120.00- 15.22.2590.2 HART, JULIE 51.49 31.36 20.13 - - 09/07/2004 51.09- 16.31.2218.1 HART, WILLIAM 93,38 35.28 58.10 - 09/08/2004 1.88- 91.88- `•• in MSg column indicates no Notice is to be sent 1. f CITY OF MERIDIAN Delinquent Account List- council Page: 5 Standard Payment Customers Nov 03, 2004 03:37pm Current Period: 11105!2004 No Delinquent Minimum AmountDelinquent Balance Last Pmt Last Pmt Cust No Name Balance Non-Delinq 09/20/2004 08/20/2004 07/20/2004 Date Amount 15.22.2288.2 *** HARTMAN, BRUCE 56.12 27.34 28.78 09/08/2004 28.78- 18,42.028131 HARTWELL, MARK 84.50 41.82 42.68 - 09/08/2004 42.68- 14.119.11106.3 HARVEY, BARBARA & CLAIR 150.04 56.32 48.86 46.86 08/17/2004 83.26- 15.22.2352.2 HARVEY, CLAIR & BARBARA 101.40 40.26 61.14 - 09/08/2004 45.06- 15.21.0182.3 HARWOOD, WILLIAM AND EMM, 166.56 - 55.52 41.80 69.24 06/30/2004 64.34- 15.21.1026.2 HATCH, DAVID 230.57 123.12 107.45 - - 09109/2004 138.16- 17.34.3234.2 HATCH, GARY 91.84 38.62 53.22 - 10/13/2004 49.30- 15.21.1904.1 HATCHER, LAVONNE 128.60 40.02 88.58 - - 10101/2004 138.62- 10.10.2058.2 HAYS, ROBERT & TEFFANY 95.34 51.42 43.92 - - 09/02/2004 93.72- 15.15.0644.4 HEIL, SHAWN & MOINA 91.86 45.98 45.88 - - 09/27/2004 21.52 - 17.33.4246.1 HELFERICH, ROGER 95.44 30.78 32.64 32.02 - 09/07/2004 65.00- 17.33,2766.2 HENDERSON, KEVIN 44.02 43.04 .98 - - 10127/2004 41.96- 15.21.0494.2 HENDRIX, JANIE 123.58 44.56 40.00 39.02 09!07!2004 39.02- 14A9.0822.1 HEPPER HOMES 38.13 37.87 .26 - 10/13/2004 37.19- 15.22.2526.2 HERBERT, WILLIAM III 158.86 44.60 75.46 38.80 09/08/2004 75.00- 9.09.0710.1 HERITAGE HOMES 37.79 33.33 4.46 - - - 16.31.0248.1 HEUGHINS, RUSSELL S. 72.90 35.52 37.38 09/09/2004 72.26- 15.21.0548.1 HIBDON, JOHN 61.82 33.20 28.62 09/07/2004 64.30- 16.31,0848.1 HIGHLEY, TERESA 103.60 38.62 64.98 - 09/24/2004 66.94 - 8.08.5082.2 HOAND, SAMANTHA & HO, LEIN 46.41 41.62 4.79 - - - 16.32.1456.1 HOLLINGSHEAD, BRETT 159.38 77.78 81.60 10/06/2004 55.52 - 17.33.4346.1 HOLLOWAY, PAIGE 82.74 29.72 53.02 - - 10/12/2004 35.00- 15.21,1928.2 HOLMES, MICHAEL & LAURIE 184.20 90.82 92.66 .72 - 10/05/2004 65.00- 6.06,2080,2 HOLT, PETE & KATHRYN 78.10 39.81 38.29 - - 10/0512004 44.17 - 15.22.2334.2 HOLTZ, MARIANNE 83.04 42.06 40.98 - 09/17/2004 53.72- 16.31.3056.2 HOME BUYERS GROUP LLC 156.23 22.79 39.58 42.52 51.34 07/06/2004 54.28- 8.08.1534.2 HOPKINS, JUSTIN & TAMARA 72.70 41.62 31.08 - - - 6.06.1000.2 HORLACHER, DERK & JULIE 70.27 42.25 28.02 - 10/05/2004 32.89- 14,20.0454,1 HOWELL, DONALD 42.84 41.70 1.14 - - 10/25/2004 65.48- 9,09,9118,1 HRISTOV, JORDAN 65.26 43.90 21.36 - 09/01/2004 17.60- 14.19,6554,2 HSU, TOMAS & GUADALUPE 105.80 58.12 47.68 - 08/30/2004 44.74- 16.31.3072A HULSIZER, KEN 52.48 45.74 6.74 - 11/0212004 45.74- 16.31.3648.2 HUMPHREY, MARIE & DAVID 152,78 75.96 76.82 - 10/05/2004 79.76- 15.15.0048.3 HUNTER, PAUL 67.14 $7.48 29.66 - 10/04/2004 50.00- 14.19.0264.1 HUTCHISON, DON 86.71 42.62 44.09 - 10/01/2004 42.13- 14.20.1780.2 HUTSON, ARTIE & RUTH ANN 89.52 87,44 2.08 09/30/2004 70.00- 16.32.0648.1 HUTTON, DAVID 74.54 35.36 39.18 - 09/29/2004 76.42- 9.09.9232.2 HYMAS, AARON 66.73 41.62 25.11 - 8.08.0142.2 INGLE, ADAM & SARAH 69.10 63.10 6.00 - 10/22/2004 62.32 - 17.33.2754.1 INGOE, BRADLEY 95.62 47.38 48.24 08/30/2004 98.44- 3.03.5008.2 IVIE, RONALD JR & HOLLY 115.17 63.76 37.06 14.35 - 18.42.1934.4 JACOBSEN, FRANK 101.82 46.56 55.26 09/21/2004 62.12- 1,5.15,0019.1 JAMES A BENJAMIN 33.40 31.76 1.64 - 09/02/2004 95.30- 17.33,0358.1 JAMES COURT APTS 631.60 623.60 8.00 11/01/2004 616.16- 16.32.0936.1 JARDINE, MICHAEL 113.57 53.18 57.00 3.39 10/05/2004 65,00- 18.42.1902.3 JENKINS, LARRY & JEAN 88.10 17.70 17.60 17.60 35.20 - 16.32.1622.1 JENKINS, LELAND 90.88 45.00 45.88 - - 10/05/2004 44,90- 15.22.2530.2 JENNI, TERRY & KIM 97.26 45.26 52.00 - 10/05/2004 52.98 - 7.40.0018.2 JENSEN, CHRISTOPHER & DON 120.02 65.24 54.78 - 10/04/2004 57,72- 13.13,9102.3 JENSEN, SCOTT & REBECCA 153.14 - 37.06 37.06 79.02 - 18.42.1800.2 JEWELEE, MICHAEL 115.20 38.14 37.06 40.00 - - 17.33.2374.3 JLC PROPERTIES 86.96 43.04 43.92 - 09/21/2004 140.92- 17,34,2106,2 JLC PROPERTIES LLC 130.34 76.30 54.04 10/06/2004 52.12- 9.09.9012.2 JOHNS, CHARLES & TAMARA 125,74 70.54 55.20 09/24/2004 54.22- 16.32.0616,2 JOHNSON, CONNIE JO 161.92 $6.50 125.42 11/02/2004 60.00- 160.00- "• in Msg column indicates no Notice is to be sent E CITY OF MERIDIAN Delinquent Account List- council Page: 6 Standard Payment Customers Nov 03, 2004 03:37pm Current Period: 11105!2004 No Delinquent Minimum AmountDeiinquent Balance Lost Pmt Last Pmt Cust No Name Balance Non-Delinq 09120/2004 08/20/2004 07/20/2004 Date Amount 16.32.1570.3 *** JOHNSON, JACOB & BAIRD, NIC 84.34 38.30 39.18 6.86 10/21/2004 39.18- 15.21,2790.2 JOHNSON, REX & DORTHY 74.51 50.16 24.35 - - 10/05/2004 - 16.31.0160A JOHNSON, WILLIAM G 55.12 35.52 19.60 10/05/2004 36.40- 9.09.0286.2 JOHNSTON, TONDA 43.82 43.66 .16 10105!2004 35.00- 3.90.0162.2 JOHNSTON, TRAVIS & JULIE 121.42 50.44 70.98 - 09/09/2004 118.48- 16.32.1674.1 JONES, M JAY 97.04 32.74 31.66 32.64 09/14/2004 32.64- 15.22.1340.2 JONES, STEPHEN & CONNIE 70.60 31.92 38.68 - - 09/01/2004 67,10- 10.20.0314.2 JORGENSEN, TOM & PATTY 103.18 57.30 45.88 - 10/13/2004 44.90- 4.90-18.42.2034.1 18.42.2034.1 JOYCE, THOMAS 80.86 59.30 21.56 - 10/14/2004 88,58- 8.58-16.32.0522.2 16.32.0522.2 JUHASZ, DON C. 96.08 53.50 42.58 - 10/07/2004 45,00- 13.13.4038.2 JUSTENSEN, LARRY & DANIELL 106.88 60.44 46.44 - 10/0512004 46.44- 15.21.1422A K, MIA & GUSSIE, MITCH 81.08 40.10 40.98 09/21/2004 30,34- 7.40.0178.1 KATHAN, TIMOTHY 100.24 54.36 45.88 09/07/2004 44.90- 15.22.1066.3 KAUFUSI, FAUNITENI & KAREN 114.56 49.24 56.56 8.76 - 10/20/2004 60.00- 17.34.0812.1 KAUTZ, KARL & LORRAINE 136.14 64.12 72.02 - - 10/05/2004 82.00- 15.21.0028.2 KEENEY, DONLAN & ELISABETF 82.80 38.06 40.88 3,86 - 11/02/2004 40.00- 18.18.5002.2 KELSO, DEBORAH & RICHARD 85.00 41.08 43,92 - - 09/1712004 42,94- 18.42.1810.2 KESTER, ROBERT 134.12 42.80 43.66 44.64 3.02 09/13/2004 93,20- 14.20.1470.2 KIBBLE, HOWARD 109.06 55.34 53.72 - - 09107t2004 17.93- 15.22.1338.2 KILLION, DAVID & AMY 50.80 39.80 11.00 - 10/0112004 42.00- 15.21.1408.2 KING, JAMES 75.52 38.30 37.22 - - 09/07/2004 37.22- 14.20.0428.4 KIRSCHNER, JOHN & MARILY 124.56 44.56 39.02 40.98 08/10/2004 42.94- 3.03.5872.1 KOLE CROFTS 12.33 8.85 3.48 - - - 3.03.5296.1 KOLE CROFTS 98.36 26.90 25.12 40.16 6.18 06/24/2004 30.00- 1419.6642,1 KRENZ, ROY 186.26 37.62 35.98 36.96 75.70 07/08/2004 70.00- 10.10.0062.3 KROMAR, BRIAN & KRISTA 38.92 37.94 .98 - - 08/26/2004 31.40- 9.09.9124.2 KURISU, ED 92.35 64.74 27.61 - - 17.33.4154.4 KUYKENDALL, STEPHEN & MICI 134.33 67.54 66.79 - 14.19.7180.3 LAFEVER, DANIEL 62.32 45.58 16.74 - - 15.15.3028.2 LAMKE, PATRICIA 86.14 42.64 43.50 - - 09/07/2004 43.50- 7.40.0180.1 LANCASTER, M. & MCDONALD, 56.34 21.18 18.58 18.58 - 10/06/2004 17.60- 1,9.21.1112.3 LANDEN, LAURA A 103.16 48.48 43.92 10.76 - - 15.21.2814.2 LANDOW, JOANN 97.28 47.38 49.90 - - 10/05/2004 53.00- 3.00-9.09.0002.2 9.09,0002.2 LANG, GARY & JANET 98.28 54.36 43.92 - 09/07/2004 44.90- 14,20.0208.2 LANGEVIN, MICHAEL & DARCIE 105.22 70.88 34.34 - 10/07/2004 64.42- 4.42-15.22.2066.2 15.22.2066.2 LANORE, TAMARA 70.94 33.56 37.38 - 09/23/2004 38.36- 15.21.3018,1 LARSON, GORDON 92.36 55.10 37.26 - - 10/1212004 45.00- 8,0a,5064.2 LAWHORN, JASON & WENDY 188.00 94.14 46.44 47.42 09/0212004 50.36- 13,13,9078.2 LEBEAU, CRAIG & KELCEE 103.68 38.92 33.36 31.40 08/09/2004 67.70- 14.20.1986.3 LEDO, CHRISTOPHER & GLAYD 191.59 36.51 62.12 92,96 09/13/2004 100.00- 18.43.0370.2 LEMAR, RICK & MELISSA 125.22 41.82 41.70 41.70 - 09/08/2004 87.32- 18.42.2736.1 LENAGHEN, CHRIS 60.04 36.42 23.62 - 10/19/2004 35.00- 8.08.5058.2 LIEU, TINA MARIA 45.43 40.64 4.79 - 15.22.2378.3 LINDER, MARK & CHRISTINA 86.32 42.72 43.60 10/04/2004 53.40- 16.31.1002.3 LINDGREEN, NATHANAEL & HE& 114.74 73.62 41.12 10/1212004 75.00- 17.33.3658.1 LINDSAY, LAURA 61.46 29.80 31.66 - 10/07/2004 32.64- 15.22.0172.1 LITZEBAUER, WILLIAM & SHARC 46.56 44.60 1.96 10/05/2004 45.46- 16.32.0754.2 LONG, LUJEAN 156.72 78.42 78.30 - 10/01/2004 90.06- 16.31.1018.1 LONGSHAW, LAURA 118.45 43.62 74.83 09/27/2004 100.38- 14.19.6662.1 LOUGHNEY, EDWARD 86.34 47.42 38.92 09/27/2004 36.96- 15.21,3134.1 LOVE, JAMES & ELIZABETH 199.50 120.46 79.04 10/06/2004 75.12- 15.22,0324.2 LOWE, LOWELL 87.46 49.50 37.96 10/04/2004 100.00- 16.32.1320.1 LUKE, SHELLIE M. 51.96 46.56 5.40 - 10/01/2004 111.72- 14.20,1753.1 LYONS, STEPHEN & LINDA 60.54 60.50 .04 10/04/2004 53.00- 14.19,5486.2 LYTLE, ROBERT 78.82 43.66 35.16 09117!2004 5.16- 35.16- "' in Msg column indicates no Notice is to be sent f (r CITY OF MERIDIAN Delinquent Account List- council Page: 7 Standard Payment Customers Nov 03, 2004 03:37prn Current Period: 11/0512004 No Delinquent Minimum AmountDelinquent Balance Last Pmt Last Pmt Gust No Name Balance Non-Delinq 09/2012004 08/20/2004 07/20/2004 Date Amount 14.14.4428.2 - MAKA, ANN 138.66 63.76 74.90 - - 09/08/2004 143.56- 6.06.9818.2 MANDEL, KEITH 77.14 20.67 13.27 14.25 28.95 07/06/2004 27.97- 17.34.2808.1 MANN, KEVIN & VIVIAN 121.94 73.28 48.66 - - 10/05/2004 45,00- 17.34.1472.1 MARKHAM, RON 119.08 74.60 44.48 - 10/06/2004 73.50 - 13.13.4006.2 MARTIN, MICHAEL 109.88 60.66 49.22 - 10/1312004 413,22- 8.08.1288.2 MARTIN, SCOTT & JANELL 53.04 52.98 .06 - 10/01/2004 88.90- 15.21.2820.3 MARTINA, DAVID 110.58 80.16 30.42 - 10/06/2004 87.88- 13.13.8930.2 MARTINEZ, RONNIE & TIFFANY 88.80 48.64 40.16 - 09/07/2004 41.14- 14.20.1948.1 MCARTHUR, MARIA 196.66 155.90 40.76 - - 10/08/2004 112.74 - 18.42.0440.7 MCCLOUD, RUTH 105.38 34.54 33.46 37.38 07/28/2004 38.36 - 16.31.0194.1 MCCLURE, HOLLY 38.66 36.86 1.80 - 11/02/2004 36.86- 15.21.2114.3 MCGAHEY, JAMES & LISA 73.64 37,08 36.56 - 09/07/2004 90.00- 15-21-0014,2 MCGINLEY, LOUIS & JULIA 136.94 59.70 77.24 - 09/22/2004 70.37- 16.31.0822.1 MCKAY, JOHN 107.80 66.50 41.30 - 10106/2004 54.04- 15.21.1158.3 MCKINLEY, JUNE 142.82 59.70 83.12 - 08130/2004 37.06- 8.08.0150.2 MCLAUGHLIN, ARCHIE & ROSEI 146.94 63.50 83.44 - - 09/02/2004 141.40 - 17.33.2556.1 MCLEAN, BRANDON 78.06 44.02 34.04 - - 10/01/2004 50.00- 14.20.0130.2 MCREYNOLDS, MARTY 140.75 76.01 64.74 - 09/29/2004 83.00- 16.31.0668.4 MEADE, LENA 108.12 66.66 41.46 - - 10/06/2004 50.28- 13.13.8834.2 MELDRUM, JEREMY & COURTN 151.78 55.60 49.06 47.12 - 08/03/2004 52.98- 14.19.6604.1 MELTON, MARSHALL 114.45 53.96 40.98 19.51 - 11/02/2004 19.51- 17.33.2538.1 MENDOZA, GEORGE & ELIZABE 125.86 62.98 62.88 - - 09/27/2004 61.90- 18.43.0428.2 MERTES, JEFFREY P. 93.50 46.80 46.70 - - 10/08/2004 45.72- 16.31.0494.2 MESZAROS, LILLI 133.66 47.54 48.40 37.72 - 09/07/2004 100.00- 14.19.7124.1 MEYERS, TROY & JIMI 94.22 49.34 44.88 - - 09/16/2004 50.00- 17.33.7616.1 MICHAELSON, BRADLEY 116.42 50.37 66.05 - - 10/05/2004 71.93- 14.19.1708.2 MICHAS, JAMES 166.34 79.28 55.10 31.96 - 08/03/2004 70.78- 15.22.1384.3 MICHNO, FRANK 140.84 69.98 70.86 - - 08/25/2004 48.32- 15,22.1744.2 MILLER, CAMERON 84,86 41.08 43.78 - - 09/28/2004 47.00- 16.31.3032.3 MILLER, CHARLIE & SHELLY 55,52 55.30 .22 - - 10/05/2004 55,00- 17.34.1938.3 MILLER, DON 128.76 $3.72 78.32 18.72 - 09/08/2004 38.46- 9.09.0130.2 MILLER, JAMES 168.92 25.38 44.58 49.48 49.48 07/02/2004 101.90- 16.31.0568.2 MILLER, NEIL 99.30 62.74 36.56 - - 10/06/2004 51.58- 14.19.0284.2 MILLER, PAULA & ALLAN 163.96 52.12 55.92 55.92 - 09/01/2004 53.47- 17.34,1580.2 MIN ERT, JEFF & CARRIE 117.12 104.70 12.42 - - 10/21/2004 100.00- 16.31.3074.3 MOCABY, RYAN 69.30 34.70 34.60 - 09/02/2004 32.64- 14.20.1652.2 MOLEBASH, JOHN & MONICA 135.20 64.98 70.22 - - 09/2812004 31.19- 17.33.0302.2 MOMS, PEGGY 120.10 40,10 40.00 40.00 - 08/0312004 36.92- 15.22.0210.1 MONAHAN, MICHAEL 84.19 42.06 42.13 - - 09/07/2004 41.00- 18.42.1836.3 MONROE, BUD 65.74 57.68 8.06 - 10/2612004 60,00- 17.34.1540.1 MONTEFERRANTE, MICHELLE 45.86 31.76 14.10 - 10/0412004 60.00- 15.22.2088.2 MOODY, SHAIN 88.90 42.54 46.36 - 09/3012004 70.48- 13.13.8490.3 MORAN, BONNIE J 121.84 77.88 43.96 - 09/0212004 125.00 - 15.21.2026.2 MOREHOUSE, DALE & DENEE 44.02 42.06 1.96 - - 11/0212004 40.00 - 17.33.2700.2 MORGAN, HEATHER 71.92 35.52 36.40 - 11/0312004 36.40- 14.19.0102.1 MORGAN, LONNIE 33.58 33.36 .22 - - 10/0512004 23.66- 13.13.0006.4 MORGAN, SKY & MADELYNN 131.40 42.96 41.28 47.16 - 08/10/2004 48.14- 18.42.2774.5 MORIN, MICHAEL 135.00 58.24 76.76 - - 09/28/2004 73.82- 14.19,1300.2 MORRIS, LAURA 29.97 - - - 29.97 45/28/2004 26.10- 17.33.0290.1 MORRISON, HAROLD 29.13 28.80 .33 - - 10/05/2004 28.00- 14.20.3038.2 MOSHER, TRESA 59,70 32.62 27.08 - 09/14/2004 26.10- 6.10-18.42.2378.2 18.42.2378.2 MOSS, STEVEN 116,02 56.10 59.92 - 09/07/2004 128,66- 17.34.0500.1 MOURITSEN, LAYNE 177.44 65.74 111.70 - 10/05/2004 109,74- 15.21.1122.1 MULLIN, MICHAEL 174.24 85.00 89.24 - 09/0212004 152.02- 15.22.2614.2 MUNDELL, RANDY 37.48 34.54 2.94 - 09/27/2004 4.76- 74.76- - in Msg column indicates no Notice is to be sent CITY OF MERIDIAN Delinquent Account List- council Page: 8 Standard Payment Customers Nov 03, 2004 03:37pm Current Period: 11105/2004 No Delinquent Minimum AmountDelinquent Balance Last Pmt Last Pmt Cust No Name Balance Non-Delinq 09/20/2004 08/20/2004 07/2012004 Date Amount 15.21.1068.1 MURRAY, JOHN 101.96 63.50 38.46 - 09/27/2004 100.00- 14.19.6506.2 MUSICK, LYLE 113.28 55.92 45.46 11.90 - 09/02/2004 80.00- 16.32.1606.2 NASIATKA, JEFFREY 67.00 36.50 30.50 - - 11/02/2004 30.00- 16.32.063D.3 NASKASHIMA, NAHO & KLOPFE 92,83 65.98 26.85 - 09/27/2004 61.97- 8.08.1070.1 NEIDER, KYLEE & MEND! 123.30 45.46 38.92 38.92 09/17/2004 39.90- 16.31.0508.2 NELSON JOHN H. 56.02 27.18 28.84 - 10/15/2004 32.00- 9.09.0274.2 NELSON, MARTIN E 144.12 54.94 89.18 - 10/05/2004 144.06- 8.15.0056.1 NEWELL, JACQUELINE 156.08 58.86 51.34 45.88 - 08/31/2004 47.68- 10.10.2362.1 NISHIMURA, HARRY 223.48 52.40 40.16 47.68 83.24 - 16.31.2198.2 NORRIS, JOSHUA & COREY 115.88 34.46 38.26 43.16 - 09/07/2004 43.16 - 17.33.0288.1 NORTHNESS, RITA 78.90 26,04 26.92 25.94 - 08/03/2004 25.94- 8.08.1576.2 NOVAK, KRAIG 66.73 41.62 25.11 - - 9.09.0156.1 0_P.M. ENTERPRISES 84.18 47.42 36.76 10/05/2004 40.00- 13.13.6080.2 OSTERHOUT, BENJAMIN 60.92 54.94 5.98 - - 14.20.1718.4 PACKHAM, NOLAN 72.08 36.38 18.83 16.87 08/03/2004 30.84- 16.31.3504.1 PADDOCK, LINDA 102.22 42.38 59.84 - 10/05/2004 60.00- 16.31.1682.2 PADILLA, LEAH 85.78 44.42 41.36 08/30/2004 47.24 - 17.34.1230.1 PARENT, BEAU 49.24 39.28 9.96 10/05/2004 45.00- 16.15.0001.1 PARKWAY SUB 73.60 27.98 45.62 - 7.40.0146.2 PARR, SUSAN 93.06 57.14 35.92 09/08/2004 61.40- 9.09.9770.1 PATRIOT PROPERTY 13.21 11.86 1.35 - 15.15.0524.1 PATTEE, RICHARD & ROSIE 97.80 82.12 15.68 - 11/02/2004 35,00- 16.32.1392.1 PATTEN, JASON 38.45 35.52 2.93 - 10/13/2004 32,65- 8.08.1374.2 PATTEN, MILA 98.24 87.88 10.36 - 10/13/2004 37.06- 18.42.1162.3 PEDERSEN, JENNIFER 90.88 44.02 46.86 - 10/01/2004 43.92- 16.31.016a.3 PENA, DAVID 62.22 20.48 21,36 20.38 - 08/24/2004 25.28- 16.32.1256.2 PETERSON, JANA 70.60 22.44 23,32 21.36 3.48 07102/2004 50.00- 7.40.0236.3 PETERSON, JEAN & VAN 247.32 56.32 191.00 - - 10/29/2004 47.94- 16.32,0690.2 PETTERSON, KENNETH 120.54 77.28 43.26 - 10/06/2004 112.98- 16.32.0490.4 PFAFF, CHRISTOPHER & KRIST 109.78 31.76 $6.56 41.46 - 09107/2004 86.84- 17.33.2378.1 PHELPS, DAMON 67.34 34.70 32.64 - 09/07/2004 32.64- 3.03.5234A PHIL HORTON 121.66 40.14 52.64 28.88 - 07/30/2004 17.60- 15.21.0100.2 PIPPIN, LESIE & JEFF 77.64 38.88 38.76 09/21/2004 38.76- 15.21.1086.2 PITCHER, MIKE& CHRISTA 167.86 117.46 50,40 - 10/20/2004 60.00- 15.22.1344.1 PLOTT, JOHN 102.22 53.10 49.12 - - 10/19/2004 50.00- 17.34.1412.5 PONATH, JOHN 77.46 36.82 40.64 - - 09!0712004 50.44- 14.19.7352.1 POOLE 75.02 38.06 36.96 - 09/21/2004 35.98- 17.34.3262.2 PORTLOCK, JEFFREY 99.34 47.76 51.58 - - 09/21/2004 61,38- 15,21.0078.1 POTRIDGE, GAIL 44.76 43.78 .98 - 11/03/2004 45.82- 16.31.1010.1 PRADO, RIGOBERTO 93.98 46.56 47.42 - - 08126/2004 95.76- 17.34.1940.2 PRESLEY, ALLISON 39.50 36.50 3.00 - - 11/01/2004 50.06- 17.34.3330.1 PRITIKEN, ROGER & TERESE 109.16 80.22 28.94 - 10/07/2004 96.78- 18.42.2112.2 PROUTY, CLAYTON 150.04 41.32 60.24 48.48 - 09/02/2004 89,12- 17.33.2602.2 PRYOR, JUNE 74.28 36.50 37.38 .40 - 10/05/2004 36,00- 18.42.2144.2 PURSIFUL, BRIAN & HEIDE 110.64 53.42 57.22 - 10/01/2004 100.00- 15.21.0012.2 RAINFORD, ROBERT & ALINDA 110.14 38.46 71.68 - 09/07/2004 147.28- 14.19.0570A RALPHS, ROD 81.40 40.26 41.14 08125/2004 123.42- 16.16.3001.1 RATCLIFFE INVESTMENTS 20.88 - - 20.88 - 15.22.2280.2 REAVIS, JEFFREY 251.01 130.46 120.55 - 10106/2004 107.81- 8.08.1600.2 REED, BENJAMIN & AISHA 78.68 41.62 37.06 - 17.34.1792.1 REED, PATRICIA 214.78 96.66 118.12 09/14/2004 161.84- 15.21.2704.4 REEDER, STEVEN & EILEEN 129.20 84.78 44.42 10/01/2004 5.00- 15.21.2918.1 REYES, DAVID 139.58 83.58 56.00 10/07/2004 70.06- 15.22.2348.4 REYES, WALTER & VALERIE 49.08 37.16 11.92 - - 18.42.3094A RHODES, JUSTIN 65.86 32.50 33.36 - 09/21/2004 32.72- *** in Msg column indicates no Notice is to be sent CITY OF MERIDIAN - Delinquent Account List- council Standard Payment Customers Current Period: 11105/2004 No Delinquent Minimum AmounlDelinqueni Balance Page: 9 Nov 03, 2004 03:38pm Last Pmt Last Pmt Cust No Name Balance Non-Delinq 09/20/2004 08/20/2004 07/20/2004 Date Amount 10.10.0116.2 RICE, DONALD & JULIE 133.92 58.44 40,16 35,32 09/0112004 46.00- 16.31.2286.3 RICH, CORY 138.44 52,44 63,10 22,90 10/05/2004 50.00- 18.42.0310.3 RINKE, JOE & SMITH, RANDALL 138.74 52.12 84.94 1.68 - 10/04/2004 50.00- 17.33.0248.3 ROBERT, HAROLD 64.86 20.30 22.77 21.79 08/09/2004 19.83- 16.31.3048.2 ROBERTS, HARLAN 120.56 35.68 46.36 38.52 07/29/2004 38.52- 18.43.0328.2 RODIN, ADAM & HEATHER 92.18 50.4$ 41.70 - 10/05/2004 60.00- 16.32.0570.3 ROESBERRY, JANICE 70.36 70.34 .02 - 10/05/2004 74.14- 14A4.4450.2 ROGERS, JACK & DENISE 113.98 42.68 35.16 36.14 - 08106/2004 76.20- 16.32.0834.2 ROHAN, JERRY 83,50 35.44 48.06 - 09/08/2004 56.88- 14.20.2060.3 ROTMAN, MARY 94.18 51.26 42.92 - - 15.15.0040.3 ROWLEY, RICHARD 118.14 40.10 37.06 40.98 - 09/07/2004 108.82- 17.33.0128.1 ROYAL DYNASTY 536.94 18.83 6.69 - 511.42 06/08/2004 447,50- 15-21-0112,2 RUMMLER, MATHEW 84.24 40.84 42.68 .72 - 10/21/2004 40.00 - 13.13.6060,1 RUNGE, DUNCAN 224.74 79.26 45.88 78.82 20.78 08/04/2004 100.00- 9.09.0404.2 SAFFERY, BRETT & KATELLA 88.48 47.50 40.98 - - 09/14/2004 42.94- 14.19.7156.1 SALAZAR, DANIEL 90.80 60.94 29.86 - - 10/06/2004 58.74- 14.20.3032.2 SALLEE, BRET & DEBBIE 51.34 - 10.52 40.82 - 08/03/2004 76.08- 16.31.0818.1 SAMUEL, ANTHONY 96.76 50.88 45.88 - - 09/0712004 57.64- 14.20.2042.1 SANCHEZ, DANEEN 102.20 48.48 53.72 - - 09/16/2004 54.88- 17.34.1756.2 SANDBURG, LORA & TONY 111.33 37.16 37.06 37.11 - 09/20/2004 70.00- 15.15.0064.2 SANTENS, TONYA 47.06 41.08 5.98 - - - 14.14.5043.3 SARCO, BETTY 72.51 53.38 19.13 - - 10/08/2004 40.00- 17.34.1078.2 SAVELBERG, DOYLE 109.84 56.44 53.40 - - 09/07/2004 84.38- 15.22.1386.1 SCHAEFFER, MICHAEL 133.84 59.14 74.70 - - 10/05/2004 121.08- 16.32.0978.1 SCHEIDELER, COLETTE 123.86 56.10 67.76 - 09/07/2004 145.32- 9.09.9400,2 SCHNEIDER, JOSEPH & GLORIA 83.15 48.48 34.67 - - 3.03.5150.1 SCHROEDER ENT 40.43 21.18 15.77 3:48 - 08/13/2004 3,02- 17.33.2584,2 SCHULER, ROBERT & JAMIE 85.00 41.08 43,92 - - 10/05/2004 38,84- 16.32.0622.4 SCHUSTER, BILL & LESLIE 97.58 48.36 49.22 - 09/30/2004 70.78- 1&31.3334.1 SCHUSTER, DORTHY 58.02 29.56 28,46 - 09/30/2004 38.26- 7.40.0280.2 SCHUSTER, FORREST & DEBBII 72.80 67.14 5,66 - 10/28/2004 50.00- 1&31.3018.2 SCHUSTER, FORREST & DEBBII 153.22 80.88 72,34 - 10/06/2004 102.64- 8,08.0162.2 SCHWARTZ, PENELOPE 60.36 32.46 27.90 - - 09/01/2004 142.58- 15,22.1836.4 SCOTT, CHUCK & TIFFANY 270.12 66.34 62.70 66.62 74.46 07/07/2004 77.40- 6,06.1350,3 SCOTT, EVA M 37.46 30.49 6.97 - - - 17.34.1874.1 SEELY, RANDALL C. 84.00 38.62 45.38 09/27/2004 57,14- 16.31,04-44.1 SEIDEL, RICHARD 39.44 38.78 .66 10/0812004 39.00- 17.34.2784.1 SEVER, JASON W 89.90 45.00 44.90 08/31/2004 45.68- 15.21.2666.2 SEVY, JAMES 53.20 52.84 .36 10/28/2004 80.37- 15.15.1032.2 SHARON DICKINSON TRUST 75.20 38.14 37.06 08/30/2004 75.10- 14.20.3054.2 SHARP, LIZABETH 100.14 46.52 53.62 - 15.22.1316.2 SHAW, OWEN & CHRISTINA 178.58 73.26 102.56 2.76 09/2712004 100.00- 18.42.2526.1 SHELTRON, ROGER 110.98 45.74 65.22 .02 10/15/2004 62.26- 17.34.1782.2 SHEPHERD, TERRY & MARJI $5.85 41.72 44.13 - 09/09/2004 44.01- 15.22.1832.2 SHIELDS, CHRISTEN 123.66 45.42 78.24 09/08/2004 148.64- 15.22.0468.3 SHUMWAY, BENJAMIN 88.10 88.04 .06 10/08/2004 110.40- 18.42.2496.1 SIEMON, LESLIE 67.76 41.00 46.76 10/05/2004 54.74- 15.21.0208.1 SILSBY, TERRY 153.58 109.10 44.48 10/06/2004 150.00- 15.21.2730.1 SILVESTRI, PAUL & SHANA 129.58 81.52 48.06 - 11/02/2004 48.06- 17.34.1184.2 SIMONDS, ADAM & RUTH 115.18 36,50 41.30 37.38 08/03/2004 75.74- 16.31.3236.3 SINCLAIR, KEN 89.47 53.82 35.65 - - 16.31.0778.1 SIRANI, JOSEPH A 147.10 67.72 79.38 10/01/2004 92.12- 17.34.01320.2 SITZLAR, RON 66.92 31.76 35.16 10/05/2004 40.00- 1631.3562.3 SMITH, JUSTIN & TAMMY 139.00 52.60 86.40 09/06/2004 125.54- 15.21.1492.2 SMITH, KATHLEEN 65.38 31.76 33.62 09/21/2004 1.66- 31.66- - in Msg column indicates no Notice is to be sent CITY OF MERIDIAN Cust No Name Delinquent Account List- council Standard Payment Customers Current Period_ 11105/2004 No Delinquent Minimum AmountDelinquent Balance Balance Non-Delinq 09/20/2004 08/20/2004 07/20/2004 Page: 10 Nov 03, 2004 03:38pm Last Pmt Last Pmt Date Amount 14.19.0030.1 *** SMITH, MILTON & KAREN 92.00 42.14 49.86 - - 08/31/2004 58.68- 6.06.1334.2 SONNEMAN, DAVID 93.60 45.03 39.59 8.98 08/25/2004 80.00- 114A9.1074.2 SORENSEN, WILHELMINA 36.96 35.98 .98 - 10/01/2004 31.40- 15.22.2342.2 SPANBAUER, TODD & LISA 162.08 41.82 71.70 48.56 09/08/2004 96.14- 14.20.1228.1 ST. ALPHONSUS MEDICAL CEN' 149.23 81.62 67.61 - - 10/19/2004 67.61- 16.32.0718.2 STATES, FLOYD & CONNIE 57.07 49.90 7.17 - - - 14.19.7190.2 STAUFFER, JOHN 100.52 50.32 50,20 - 09/07/2004 102.36- 16.31,3456,1 STEELE, GREG 96.44 48.76 47.68 - - 09/17/2004 46.70 - 18.42.4266.2 STEGMANN, MIKE & JENNIFER 102.64 55.00 47.42 .22 - 09/21/2004 57.00- 10.10.1112.2 STEVENS, ARTHUR & LINDA 63.19 50.04 13.15 - - 18,42.3056.4 STINAR, ILENE 53.11 47.38 5.73 - 10/05/2004 60.00- 8,08.0522.2 STOVALL, TIMOTHY & MICHELL 50.90 50.04 .86 - - 10/28/2004 42.64 - 16.31.1060.1 STRONG, EARNEST 80.60 20.24 20.12 20.12 20.12 05/26/2004 286.86- 10,20.0130.2 STRUCK, JERYL & DEDREA 105.10 77.30 27.80 - - 10/19/2004 15,14- 16,32.1594.1 SWARTZ, TRAVIS 77.80 38.30 39.50 - 10/0512004 40,00- 18.42.2350.2 TADEVIC, GEORGE 96.92 48.52 48.40 - - 09/0812004 48.76- 10.10.2526.1 TAHOE HOMES 19.95 16.47 3.48 - - 09/07/2004 2.02- 8.08.0514.1 TAHOE HOMES 71.91 50.80 17.63 3.48 - 08/17/2004 1.74- 15.21.1084.1 TEASLEY, RICHARD & LINDA 105.12 48.96 56.16 - - 09/21/2004 63.02- 6.08.1086.2 THABACK, GABRIAL & DUOL, S1 74.16 53.38 20.78 - - 10/05/2004 70.00- 17.33.7600.2 THARP, ROBERT & CARRIE 89.69 47.75 41.94 - - 10105/2004 75.00- 15.22.1322,1 THEANDER, GLEN & KAREN 92.14 61.76 30.38 - - 09/01/2004 113.58- 8.85,0018.1 THOMAS & DUNN 151.33 74,94 21.36 17.60 37.43 - 6.06.1444.1 THOMPSON HOMES 70.13 57.45 12.68 - - 08/1112004 7.55- 16.32.1558.4 THOMPSON, GARY 116.24 75.82 40.42 - 10/06/2004 57.00- 13.13.8124.2 THOMPSON, RYAN 77.12 76.94 .18 - 10!0812004 1125.00- 16.31.3514.3 THOMPSON, SCOTTIE & REBEK 109.90 65.98 43.92 - 10/07/2004 37.06- 9.09.0338.2 THOMSEN, DAVY 105.30 57.88 47.42 - 09/14/2004 48.40- 14.19,1364,2 THOMSEN, LOME 98.76 54.12 44.64 - 08/30/2004 49.28- 15.21.2736,2 THURBER, RICK 131.20 60.76 70.44 09/14/2004 73.38- 118.42.0338,2 TONKS, TAUNA 60.05 30.54 29.51 - 09/15/2004 31.00- 18.42A216.1 TOROK, ZSOLT 61.94 30.54 31.40 - 09/02/2004 64.76- 9.09.9242,1 TRADEMARK HOMES 112.84 39.16 36.40 27,63 9.65 - 16.31.3500.1 TREPAGNIER, SCOTT 44.64 44.60 .04 - - 10/01/2004 46.40- 13.13.8546.2 TROGDON, TYKE JR 65.94 64.20 1.74 - - 11/01/2004 50.00- 14.14.3018.1 VAIL, RANDY & VICTORIA 104.16 59.26 44.90 - - 10/05/2004 46.86- 5.05.0010.1 VALLEY LIFE COMMUNITY CHUI 59.09 47.58 11.51 - - 17.34.1946.4 VANCE, CHRISTY 184.34 110.46 73.88 - 10/12/2004 133.62- 16,31,3388.3 VASQUEZ, COREY 173.29 46.96 126.33 10/07/2004 50.00 - 15.21.1032.1 VELADA, FEDERICO 94.18 46.44 47.74 10/01/2004 46,46- 16.32.1406.2 VICKERS, BETTY 132.32 72.88 59.44 10/07/2004 63.04- 15.21.2754.3 VICNG 118.32 54.80 63.52 10/05/2004 110.18- 17.34.1520.1 VICTORY, CHRISTOPHER 91.76 45.00 46,76 - - 10/19/2004 45.00- 16.32.0656.3 VICTORY, MICHAEL & YUNSUK 124.98 35,52 40.32 49.14 - 09/02/2004 38.36- 3,03.5728.1 VYACHESLAV OSIPCHUK 9.29 7.94 1.35 - 14.20.0448.1 WADE OLDENBURG 40.70 23.72 13.50 3.48 17.33.2294.3 WALCROFT, WALLY 61.62 40.10 21.52 - 5.08.0094.1 WALDORF & SONS 19.08 12.49 4.46 2.13 - - 17.34.3328.1 WALLIS, EVELYN 120.81 18.47 31.50 32.48 38.36 07/02/2004 102.35- 18,42,2304.1 WALMSLEY, CLIFFORD 162.10 69,34 92.76 - - 09/01/2004 206.10- 16,32,1306.2 WALSH, DAVID & CARA 91.04 45,58 45.46 - 10/27/2004 45.46 - 10A0.2442.2 WALTERS,BRETT&STEPHANIE 76.29 41,62 34.67 10.20.0310,1 WARMS SPRINGS CONSTRUCT 26.13 18.78 5.44 1.91 - 16.32.0444A WARNER, MICHAEL & CYNTHIA 85.60 68.20 17.40 - 10/05/2004 75.00- 8.08.1370.2 WATTERLIN, JUDITH 101.20 59.26 41.94 08/2712004 93.74- 3.74- "' in Msg column indicates no Notice is to be sent CITY OF MERIDIAN Delinquent Account List- council Standard Payment Customers Current Period: 11/05/2004 No Delinquent Minimum AmountDelinquent Balance Page: 11 Nov 03, 2004 03:38pm "` in Msg column indicates no Notice is to be sent Last Pmt Last Pmt Cust No Name Balance Nan-Delinq 09/20/2004 08/20/2004 07/20/2004 Date Amount 15.21.0070.1 WAY, KELLY 117.74 42.80 74.94 09/0112004 61.00- 15.21.3028.4 WEBB, JASON & BRENDA 162.14 78.46 83.68 - 09/17/2004 121.90- 17.33.0328.2 WEBB, VIOLA 71.60 35.36 36.24 08/27/2004 41.14- 15.21.2712.5 WEBBENHORST,JED 121.40 40.18 81.22 10/04/2004 96.00- 13.13.2056.3 WERHANE, WILLIAM 110.92 51.18 59.74 08/27/2004 80,46- 17.34.2124.3 WERLEY, JEFF 82.94 45.00 37.94 - 15.22.0474.1 WEST, ROBERT A 183.86 82.68 101.18 - 09/29/2004 93.34- 3.03.5516.1 WESTMINSTER HOMES 13.91 10.88 3.03 - - 8.15.0016.1 WESTROCK HOMES 55.54 21.18 21.36 9.52 3.48 - 14.20.1724.2 WHALEN, JOHN JR 136.28 54.94 81.34 - - 10105/2004 69.34- 18.42.1824.3 WHALEN, JOHN JR 104.35 64.02 40.33 - - - 16.16.3508.2 WHITMIRE, SCOTT & SYNDI 129.98 32.74 63.62 33.62 - 09/08/2004 65.28 - 10.10.0678.1 WHITNEY HOMES 87.00 54.36 32.64 - - 09/07/2004 17.60- 10.10,2444.1 WHITNEY HOMES 7.86 6.96 .90 - - - 16.31.3266.4 WIEDMEIER, GLENN & LISA 70.28 35.68 34.60 - 09/27/2004 35.58- 16.32A252.2 WILLIAMSON, DALE 54.46 25.54 23.48 5.44 - 10/08/2004 20.00- 15.21.2184.2 WILSON. BRADLY 113.94 57.52 56.42 - - 10/05/2004 57.40- 17.33.3662.1 WILSON, RANDY 89.90 44.02 45.88 - 09/07/2004 91.76- 15.21.1584.4 WIMMER, RICHARD & KATHLEE 48.68 39.12 9.56 - - 17.33.0524.1 WINKLE, STUART 468.74 123.51 129.77 120.95 94.51 07/23/2004 40.16- 8.08.1474.2 WITZKE, TOM & LOLEN 75.64 43.58 32.06 - - - 17.33.2358.3 WOLIN, DALE & LOIS 81.40 39.28 42.12 - 09!0112004 40.16- 17.33.4282.3 WOLIN, DALE & LOIS 79.92 39.04 40.88 - 09/28t2004 40.88- 14.14.3006.2 WOOD, DOUGLAS & MELANIE 42.51 41.70 .81 - 11/0112004 40.00- 14.19.7176.1 WOODS, DAVID 97.90 49.50 48.40 - - 09/01/2004 103.66- 3.03.5132.1 WOOLSTON, GEORGE 71.42 28.70 17.60 25.12 - 08/1112004 32.30- 16,31.32803 YENOR, SUNSHINE 75,66 38.38 37.28 - - 0911412004 35.32- 3,18.0423.1 YOUNG AMERICAN HOMES 8.53 6.96 1.57 - - 9.09.0574.1 YOUNG AMERICAN HOMES 63.46 38.34 25.12 - 09/21/2004 13.74 - 16.31.3248.2 YOUNG, REBECCA 108.02 44.34 55.02 8.66 10/2212004 40.00- 3.03.5750.1 ZAMBEZI GROUP 21.28 16.00 3.48 1.80 - 10.20.0230.2 ZANDSTRA, GARY 108.80 51.42 37.06 20.32 - 16.31.2200.1 ZELLER, STEVEN 125.86 60.04 65.82 - 1010512004 69.74- 9.74-Grand GrandTotals: 58,263.97 30,309.76 22,327.13 3,717.17 1,909.91 Report Criteria: Terminated customers not included Customer.Cust No () = (<) 880000001 Customer. Bill Cycle = 2 "` in Msg column indicates no Notice is to be sent DELINQUENCY FOR TURN OFF SCHEDULED FOR November 4, 2004 CYCLE 2 City of Meridian City Clem Office MAYOR: 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. Wednesday, November 3, 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. This service will be discontinued on November 4, 2004 unless payment is received in full. Is there anyone present who wishes to contest his or her water, sewer and trash delinquency? (No response.) MAYOR: 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 $27,954.21 CITY OF MERIDIAN Delinquent Account List- council Page: 1 Standard Payment Customers Nov 03, 2004 03:35pm Current Period: 11105!2004 No Delinquent Minimum Amount0elinquent Balance Report Criteria: Terminated customers not included Customer.Cust No () _ {<) 880000001 Customer, Bill Cycle = 2 Last Pmt Last Pmt Cust No Name Balance Non-Delinq 09/20/2004 08/20/2004 07!2012004 Date Amount 13.13.8426.2 *** A.M. THOMPSON MOONLAKE TI 66.23 65.02 1,21 10/28/2004 55.00- 18.42.2114.2 ACKLEY, WENDY 87.26 39.76 47.50 09/02/2004 120.77- 15.21.3146.3 AGUERO, JEREMY 159.44 94.94 64.50 09/14/2004 142.34- 16.31.0202.2 ALFERINK FAMILY TRUST 71.92 36.50 35.42 - 09/07/2004 88.76- 9.09.9144.2 ALIAS, MICHAEL 85.64 48.40 37,24 11/01/2004 38.92- 18.43.0156.1 ALIBEGIC, MUSTAFA 75,60 35.28 40.32 - - 10/05/2004 60.00- 15.15.0110.2 ALTA 122,02 75.58 46.44 - 10/06/2004 119.78- 14.19.6556.2 AMAR, STEVE 86.30 29.52 27.90 28.88 - 09/10/2004 28.88- 7.48.0004.1 AMERICAN BUILDING CONTRAC 53.82 24.94 28.88 - - 09/16/2004 47.68- 15.21.1784.1 ANDERSEN, SHARRON 114.90 58.48 56.42 - 10/28/2004 60.00- 14.20A420,2 ANDERSON, CARL & ANDREA 78.66 43.08 35,58 - 09/09/2004 33.62- 16.32.1532.2 ANDERSON, CHRISTY 91.86 45.00 46,86 - - 09/14/2004 44.90- 15.15.0037,2 ANDERSON, EDWARD 42.57 - - 8.13 34.44 07/12/2004 37.38- 14.1113.11360.1 ANDERSON, KIRK & CHERYL 80.71 - - 10.31 70.40 04/27/2004 35.20- 14.19-0068.2 ANDERSON, SKIP & JULIE 209.98 51.52 48.90 52.82 56.74 07/19/2004 29.02- 15.15.0638.2 ARCHULETA, STEVEN & HILLY [ 45.96 43.04 2.92 - - 10/19/2004 47.86- 14.20.2006,1 ARNETT, DUKE 74.46 48.56 25,90 - - 10/28/2004 65.00- 17.39.0002,1 ASIN HOMES 131.50 106.26 22.59 2.65 - 08/13/2004 22.62- 3.90.0152.1 ASPEN HOMES 36.00 21.18 11.34 3.48 - 08/0312004 1.04- 3,90.0160.1 ASPEN HOMES 49.24 $1.64 17.60 - - 09/08/2004 6.22- 3.90.0138.1 ASPEN HOMES 24.69 21.21 3.48 - - 09/08/2004 3,26- .26-3.90.0004.1 3.90.0004.1 ASPEN HOMES 89.40 27.86 40.16 21,36 - 013103!2004 8.23- 3.90,0244.1 ASPEN HOMES 190.04 79.04 51.44 55,10 4.46 - 10.20.0132.1 ASPEN HOMES 62.89 50.60 12.29 - - 08/26/2004 30.00- 9.09.0644.1 ASPEN HOMES 58.32 36.14 17.72 4.46 - - 15.21.0066.1 ATHAY, ROBERT 147.74 61.58 86.16 - - 09/07/2004 74.00- 15.22,1614.3 AULT, DANIEL & ALYSON 87.94 43.04 44.90 - - 09/30/2004 9.56- 1&31.3480.1 BAIRD, CATHARINE D 77.66 40.10 37.56 - - 08/26/2004 70.00 - 18.42.2076.2 BAISCH, SHELLY 171.68 68.18 69.06 34.44 - 07/29/2004 160.00- 17,34.0846.2 BAKER, MARREEN 47.26 43.68 3.58 - - 09/17/2004 100.00- 10,10.0022.2 BALDWIN, RENEE 87.08 48.40 38.68 - 09/29/2004 41.00- 15.21.0052.1 BALDWIN, ROBERT 85.80 45.90 39.90 - - 10105!2004 41.86- 9.92.7020.3 BALLARD, MICHAEL & JACQUE 82.41 44.16 37.06 1.19 - - 17.33.2646.2 BALNG TRUST 76.08 39.12 36.96 - 10/19/2004 45.00- 13.13.1200.3 BEATON. BONNIE 101.10 55.92 45,18 - 10/08/2004 42.00- 17.34.1572.2 BEATY, ANNA $3.67 33.64 .03 - 10/05/2004 45.25- 16.32.0652.2 BECKLEY, BRADLEY 109.32 45.00 64.32 - 11102%2004 75.00- 16.32.0716.1 BEDDOR, HAROLD 8& DOROTHY 40.74 39.74 1,00 - 10101/2004 44.15- 16.32.0508.1 BELL, DERRICK 118.70 67.22 51.48 - - 10/04/2004 120.00- 17.33.2316.1 BELL, RICHARD 197.48 73.46 94.92 29.10 - 10/04/2004 85.00- 17.33.18281 BELL, RONALD & JULIE 115.66 40.58 33,62 41.46 - 09/07/2004 80.96- 3.03.5064.1 BELLO HOMES 108.99 56.98 28.88 19.65 3.48 07/21/2004 2.13- 15.21.0490.2 BENHAM, MICHAEL & ISRAEL 102.20 55.34 46.66 - - 09/07/2004 9.56- 17.33.2772.3 BENNETT, GREG 133.14 81.14 52.00 - - 10/06/2004 52.00- 14.19.6688.1 BENNETT, MASON 135.44 19.82 34.02 39.90 41.70 07/21/2004 71.00- 14.14.3628.2 BENSON, JOSHUA 96.14 54.28 41.86 - - 09/21/2004 41.86- 15,21.0130.1 BESKER, GLORIA 150.46 88.82 61.64 - - 10/06/2004 58.70- 18.42.1798.1 BETTENCOURT, RICHARD 91.28 81.28 10.00 - 10/08/2004 64.10- 15.21.1410.2 BETZOLD, MARK & SHARON 177.78 101.98 75.80 - 10/06/2004 102.86- 15.21.3298.5 BEUTLER, SHANE 157.64 140.22 17.42 10108/2004 8 24- 88.24 - *** in Msg column indicates no Notice is to be sent CITY OF MERIDIAN Delinquent Account List -council Page: 2 Standard Payment Customers Nov 03, 2004 03:36pm Current Period: 1110512004 No Delinquent Minimum AmountDelinquent Balance Last Pmt Last Pmt Cust No Name Balance Nan-Delinq 09/20/2004 08/20/2004 07/2012004 Date Amount 18.42.4038.3 *** BIBIKOV, DANIEL 84.72 51.92 32.80 - 09/21/2004 65.60- 3.03,5124.2 BIGHAM, CINDY 72.91 40.64 32.27 - - - 15.22.1740.3 BINGHAM, DUNCAN & PAULINE 85.50 28.58 28.46 28.46 - 09/14/2004 35.38- 17,33.2432.1 BIRD, TROY 102.00 51.54 50,46 - 10/05/2004 53.40- 16.31.3372.2 BLACK,KENNETH 92.84 43.04 43.92 5.88 09/30/2004 43.92- 17.33.2600.1 BLACKHURST, SCOTT 112.24 35.52 37.38 39.34 - 09/07/2004 76.72- 17.33.2730.1 BLEiAZARD, BARRETT 96.44 48.76 47.68 - 09/27/2004 47.68- 10.20.0020.1 BOB BROWN 57.40 21.18 17.60 18.62 - 08/12/2004 3.48- 18.42.0408.1 BOBKO, RAYMOND 67.34 33.72 33.62 - - 08130/2004 75.08- 15.15.0774.2 BONNING, ROBERT & ANGELA 82.86 39.04 43.82 - 10/05/2004 38.92- 17.34A318.2 BOOHER, CRAIG & DANA 156.90 71.64 85.26 - 10/05/2004 105.84- 15,15,0528,2 BORGES, FRED & TRACY 72.76 39.04 33.72 - 08/11/2004 45.00- 18.42.3036.1 BOSIO, LAWRENCE 48.36 45.42 2.94 10/22/2004 45,30- 10.10,0626.1 BOSSLER, LISA 82.08 63.76 18.32 10/18/2004 117,38- 3.03.51663 BOSWORTH, SHARON 71.46 52.00 19.46 - 09/29/2004 25,02- 15.22.0840,1 BRAINARD, ROBERT & JEREEN 123.96 71.16 52.80 - - 10/0612004 52.80- 15.21.1054.1 BRAUNSTEIN, BERNARD & KAR 107.12 64.74 42.38 - 11/02/2004 54.40- 16.16.3306.2 BREWER, CHRIS & ELIZABETH 54.88 54.08 .80 - 10/21/2004 87.88- 16.32.0926A BRIGGS, NADINE 161.56 61.18 100.38 - - 11/01/2004 50.00- 3.03.5632.1 BRIT TENOW, KEVIN & MIA 69.93 40.14 23,29 3.48 3.02 - 13.13.8972.2 BROADBENT, GREG & TINA 52.24 34.18 18.06 - - 10/12/2004 10.56- 3.03.5514.1 BROADWAY HOMES 17.38 13.90 3.48 - - - 3.03.5512.1 BROADWAY HOMES 17.38 13.90 3.48 - - - 3.03.5020.1 BROADWAY HOMES INC 71.42 21.18 28.88 21.36 - 08/11/2004 28.38- 16.32.0436.1 BROWNING, MARK L. 53.82 51.86 1.96 - - 11/02/2004 74.30 - 18.42.1822.1 BRUCE, BITTON 102.86 41.98 60.88 - 09/07/2004 35,98- 8.08.0144.2 BRUCE, TIMOTHY 152.92 105.02 47.90 - 10/06/2004 92,60- 18.42.2398.2 BRYANT, JOHN 92.30 41.80 50.50 - 09/07/2004 83.88 - 15.21.2718,2 BUNCH, CORRINE 59.98 59.94 .04 - 10/07/2004 84.28- 14.19.7150.2 BURCHFIELD, DARRELL 88.74 43.94 44.80 - 10/01/2004 90.88- 14.19.6498,5 BURCHFIELD, DARRELL 115.28 66.32 48.96 - 10/04/2004 69.94- 15.22.1324,1 BURDEN, DAREON 129.60 57.02 72.58 - 09/27/2004 73.56- 17.34.0856.1 BURGESS, LIN 70.54 69.76 .78 - - 10/12/2004 83.00- 17.33.2264.2 BURNS, E. GALE 121.14 38.62 43.42 38.52 .58 08/06/2004 64,30- 17.34.1456.1 BURROUGHS, JEFF 138.88 59.06 61.90 17.92 - 09/21/2004 100.00- 15.22.2524.2 BURTON, LONNY & ANNE 117.58 48.36 69.22 - 09/08/2004 97.46 - 6.06.9212.2 BUSH, PHILLIP 47.32 29.01 18.31 10/13/2004 15.00- 17,33,2708.4 CALIMAG, EMMA 76.18 38.14 38,04 - - 09/07/2004 38.04- 15,21,0522.1 CALWELL, MARC 124.28 44.48 40,88 38.92 09/07/2004 74.70- 16.311.3536.2 CAMPBELL, SCOTT 86.74 28,98 28.88 28.88 08/06/2004 66.58- 15.211.2800.1 CAMPBELL, RON 250.39 - - - 250.39 05/27/2004 193.06- 116.311.3058.3 CANADA, JOHN & KIMBERLY 89.90 43.04 46.86 - - 09/01/2004 52.74- 16.32.0910.3 CANNELL, FRANK & CATHY 187.58 77.18 110.40 - 10/05/2004 90.14- 8.08.0532.1 CAPITOL BUILDING CO 9.51 7.94 1.57 - 16.32.1592.1 CARLYLE, KEITH 42.48 41.00 1.48 - 11/01/2004 40.00 - 17.34.2114.1 CARR, NANCY 82.28 47.44 - - 34.84 09/10/2004 90.00 - 15.22.1160.3 CARSON, PAMELA 162.13 29.73 60.08 72.32 - 09/08/2004 76.74- 3.18.0410.1 CHAMBERS CONSTRUCTION 22.22 16.41 4.46 1.35 - - 15.22.1328.2 CHAMBERS, ERIK & RACAHEL 172.70 68.28 104.42 - - 10/01/2004 96.98- 14.14,3012.2 CHAMPAGNE, KIMBERLY & DEN 94.46 60.08 34.38 - 10/04/2004 60.00 - 15.21.1402.2 CHAPMAN, JAMES 104.75 52.36 52.39 - 10/05/2004 60.00- 15.21.2658.1 CHAPPELL, ANTHONY 92.50 45.08 47.42 - 10/12/2004 75.00- 16.32.0360.1 CHERRY LANE: MOBILE PARK 1,279.95 1,279.16 .79 - 10/19/2004 1,468.30- 13.13.8808.2 CHRISTENSEN, ANNETTE & KAI 157.92 86.64 71.28 - 09/08/2004 70.30- 15.15.0034.2 CHRISTENSEN, BRANDON & ME 78.94 40.02 38.92 - 10/14/2004 9.90- 39,90- *** in Msg column indicates no Notice is to be sent CITY OF MERIDIAN Delinquent Account List- council Standard Payment Customers Current Period: 11 /0512004 No Delinquent Minimum AmountDelinquent Balance Last Pmt Cust No Name Balance Nan-Delinq 09/20/2004 08/20/2004 07/20/2004 Date Page: 3 Nov 03, 2004 03:36pm Last Pmt Amount 15.15.0047.2 CHRISTENSEN, DAVID 137.98 83.86 54.12 - 10/0612004 54.68- 15.22.1078.1 CLAPP, ROCH 135.35 92.36 42.99 - 09/01/2004 267.51 - 15A 5.0784.1 CLARK, JERMEY & HEATHER 85.98 42.06 43.92 - 09/17/2004 48.04- 14,20.1580.1 CLARK, MARK 87.00 55.26 31.74 - - 10/01/2004 100.00- 15.21.1902.2 CLARKE, MICHELE 83,92 46.88 37.04 - - 10/01/2004 80.00- 18.42.2376.3 CLAY, STEVEN & SUSAN 104.50 46.30 58.20 09/16/2004 135,00- 8.081340.2 CLEGG, ALAN & JULIE 100.40 55.92 44.48 09/21/2004 87.98- 15,21.11766,11 COFFMAN, RICK K. 108.36 52.68 55.68 - 10/05/2004 93.00- 15,21.2048.4 COLBURN, RICHARD 48,77 34.54 14.23 - 10/06/2004 41.89- 15,22.2306.2 COLEMAN, KEVIN 88.92 43.04 45.88 - 09/07/2004 44.90- 8,08.1002.1 COREY BARTON HOEMS 21.23 21.18 .05 - - 10/15/2004 32.50- 15.15.0134,3 COSSEL, TRAVIS & CANDICE 80.31 40.10 39.02 1.19 - - 15.22.2628.2 COSTNER, SHANNON 97.68 39.04 41.86 16.78 - 08/06/2004 04.98- 16.32.1610.7 COVINGTON, SARA 81.06 40.10 40.98 - - 09/07/2004 45.88- 5.88-14.14.3000.2 14.14.3000.2 COVINO, VINCE & KIMBERLY 57.46 55.50 1.96 - 09/21/2004 84.24- 9.09.9620.2 COWLES, GREGORY 65.53 41.62 23.91 - - 9.09.9672.2 COWLES, GREGORY B 58.19 51.02 7.17 - 9.92.7006.2 COX, ANN K. 67.92 41.62 26.30 - - - 15.21.1740.2 COX, JAY & CARROL 306.96 88.14 102.35 116.47 09109/2004 112.75- 17.34.2710,5 CRANE, SHANE 91.86 43.04 48.82 - 08/24/2004 123.52- 14,19.6670.1 CRIST, JERRY 83,24 45.86 37.38 10/05/2004 37.38- 17.34.1858.6 CROSBY, BRIAN & MICHELLE 162,12 75.72 86.40 - 09/02/2004 80.52- 16.32.1634.1 CROSBY, CRAIG 61.10 39.12 21.98 - - 10/27/2004 59.00- 18.42.2370.4 CROW, KEN & ALICIA 180.66 95.58 83.52 1.56 10/06/2004 60.00- 15.22.1149.1 CRYSTAL SPRINGS HOMEOWN 414.20 131.86 135.78 146.56 08/31/2004 216.68- 6.06.1930.1 CUPP, SHAD & BECKY 63.44 34.73 28.71 - 10/19/2004 59.47- 8.08.100.2 CURRY, BRIAN & RASHELLE 100.24 55.34 44.90 - 09/24/2004 44.90- 15.22.1640.1 CURTIS, BERNICE 68.50 67.52 .98 - 10/08/2004 62.94- 18.42.0434.1 DAHLGREN, SHIRLEY 57.86 28.00 29.86 09/07/2004 56,78- 18.42.2400.1 DAVIS, LEE W. 91.34 32.50 58.84 09102!2004 49.04- 17.34.1056.2 DAVIS, MIKE & MARY 114.74 61.34 53.40 - 09/2112004 62.42- 3.03.5178.2 DAVIS, ROMAN & HEATHER 90.44 47.50 40.98 1.96 09/30/2004 40,98- 17.34.1770.1 DAVIS, WADE & WYNETTE 123.50 44.18 58.78 20.54 10/04/2004 50.00- 15.21.0454.3 DAWDY, DEBRA & CALVIN 81.02 37,12 28.62 15.28 07/2212004 42.94- 18.42.0456.3 DAY, BARBARA 64.40 31.76 32.64 - 09/14/2004 31.66- 14.14.4324.1 DBD INC. 82.40 52.16 30.24 - - 10/26/2004 S5.00- 17.34.1136.2 DEATS, DAVID & BROOKE 87.94 43.04 44.90 - - 0910212004 42.94- 15.21.0206,3 DELANEY, MELISSA 121.38 77.48 43.90 - - 10/19/2004 99.90- 16.31.3002,3 DENKER, ERIN & JEFF 55.69 48.52 7.17 - - 3.03,5068.1 DESIGN CONSTRUCTION 8,53 6.96 1.57 - - 6.06,1254.2 DITTMAN, AARON & JANALEE 44.25 44.21 .04 - 10/19/2004 43.63- 3.03.5760.1 DODGE ENTERPRISES INC 30.87 25.48 3.48 1.91 - 6.06,9594.1 DOHERTY, JACOB 62.06 28.85 33.21 - 09/14/2004 50.85- 1&21.0144.1 DOMKA, DEBBIE 45.60 34.30 11.30 - - 10/08/2004 60.00- 17.33.2612.6 DONALDSON, NEAL 131.94 32.74 62.64 36.56 - 09/08/2004 54.36- 15.21,1958.1 DOTY. CHRISTY L. 156,78 78.94 77.84 - 09/02/2004 85.68- 3,03,5074.1 DOUBLE DUTCH 63.28 33.60 21.36 4.84 3.48 3.03.5362.1 DOUBLE DUTCH DEVELOPMEN' 36.96 21.18 11.34 4.46 - 08/17/2004 1.04- 3.03.5390.1 DOUBLE DUTCH DEVELOPMEN' 32.24 21.18 7.58 3.48 - 08/17/2004 1.04 - 14.19.0072,2 DUGGINS, ROY & ALTHEA 85.36 46.44 38.92 - - 09/01/2004 37,94- 9.09.0006.1 DUNSTAN, KYLE & LAUREL 95.79 46.52 17.62 17.62 14.03 - 18.42.2598.2 EASTBURN,GARY 128.96 63,56 65.40 - - 10/15/2004 72,26- 2.26-15.15.0004.4 15.15.0004.4 EDENBROOK, INC. 89.24 45.16 44.08 09/27/2004 48.00 - 17.34.1898.1 EDINGER, REX S. 144.88 78.68 66.20 10/06/2004 71,10- 16.31.3034.1 EDWARDS, MARILYN 92.76 61.92 30.84 10/06/2004 106.68 - - in Msg column indicates no Notice is to be sent 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN Delinquent Account List- council Page: 4 Standard Payment Customers Nov 03, 2004 03:36pm Current Period: 11/05/2004 No Delinquent Minimum AmountDelinquent Balance Last Pmt Last Pmt Cust No Name Balance Non-Delinq 09/20/2004 08/20/2004 07/20/2004 Date Amount 16.32.1258,2 ELAM, ROGER & PHAEDRA 132.98 80.56 52.42 - 10/0612004 80.46 - 14A9.1212A ELLIOTT CONSTRUCTION 96.92 42.92 28.88 25.12 08/17/2004 17.60- 14.20-1978.1 ELLIOTT, JANE 88.71 51.90 36.81 - 09/07/2004 20.00- 17.34.0592,1 ELLIS, TODD & DANA 82.09 60.12 21.97 - 11102!2004 50.00- 15.21,2876.1 ERNESTO, BRIAN 49.44 46.56 2.88 - 10/13/2004 45.00- 13.13.6040.2 EVERITT, JON 92.56 50,04 42.52 09/14/2004 47.42- 17.39.0004.1 FAIRVIEW LAKES BTS 222.37 202.93 19.44 09/27/2004 4.29- 14,20.1440.1 FALK, RICHARD 50,44 49.46 .98 09/07/2004 40.98- 3.03.5030.2 FARMER, THOMAS & TAMMY 46.19 42.60 3.59 - - 16.31.0820.1 FARR, JERRY 90.54 44.34 46.20 - 09/17/2004 53.06- 17.33.2404,11 FARRELL, MICHAEL 60.17 44,84 15.33 10/13/2004 38.23- 15.21.0988.3 FIELDING, J. DAVID & ALISON 236.60 89.72 146.88 10/05/2004 131.20- 17.34.2868.2 FINLEY, JASON & GLENNA 40.52 40.42 .10 10/01/2004 37.28- 14.14.3516.2 FLORES, DAVID 99.26 52.40 46.86 - 10/04/2004 51.76- 15,22.1616.3 FONNER, ROBERT & DENISE 64.99 39.12 25.87 - 16,31.0776.2 FOSTER, COLLEEN & WAYNE 99.04 47.12 51.92 09/10/2004 92.16- 15-22A6118.1 FOWERS, JOHN 131.08 54.84 76.24 - 10/05/2004 92.90- 16,31-a434.1 FRANK, GARY 57.86 28.00 29.86 09/07/2004 28.88- 15.22.2586.2 FRANKLYN, MARK & DONNA 91.54 44.38 47.16 10/14/2004 47.16 - 17.34.2933.1 FREI, LINDA 61,46 30.78 30.68 - 09/08/2004 29.70 - 17.34.0916.1 FRENCH, JOHN 70,41 48.76 21.65 - - 08/26/2004 150.00 - 17.34,1088.2 FUCHS, DARRIN 72.81 37.16 35.65 - - - 16.31,0176.2 FULLER, MELISSA 180.06 103.12 76.94 - 10/06/2004 94.58- 6.06,19118,3 FULLILOVE, RICHARD 88.54 49.93 38.61 - - 09/20/2004 37.63- 15.15.0053.2 GABRIEL,, RON 102.80 49.50 53.30 09/22/2004 75.46- 16.31.0226.4 GARCIA, REANA 120.10 40.10 40.00 40.00 09/07/2004 40.98- 15.21.0234.3 GARRETT, DAMON 129.14 82.60 46.54 - ? 10/07/2004 100.00- 14.20.1826.1 GIBBS, LORIN 121.24 110.82 10.42 11/0212004 87.98- 10.20.0026.2 GILL, HANSJEET & AMARJEET 66.53 66.52 .01 10/19/2004 67.05- 18.42.1240.1 GILLETT, JOSHUA 45.74 43.78 1.96 - 09/27/2004 42,68- 18.42.1176.1 GOLDENFEATHER HUD HOUSII• 46.44 - - - 46.44 07/06/2004 88.96- 15.21.1022.4 GORBERT, SCOTT & WARNER, 70.20 58.28 11.92 - - - 15.22.0900.1 GOWING, CHARLES & CAROLYt 47.45 47.44 .01 - - 10/19/2004 65.95- 17.33.4270.3 GRANT, KEVIN 48.38 23.26 25.12 - - 08/31/2004 27.08- 15.22.1754.2 GRAPATIN, JEREMY & EMILY 45.52 44.60 .92 - - 09/30/2004 90.00- 17.33,2752.1 GRAVES, DENNIS 103.96 52.52 51.44 - - 10/04/2004 5526- 15,21.1734.2 GROAT, STEPHANIE 166.00 98.80 67.20 - - 10/06/2004 60.00- 16.32.1168.1 GULBIS, ANTHONY 55.22 54.24 .98 - 10/29/2004 60.00- 16.21.0462,3 GUNNARSON, HOWARD & RUTt 78.68 78.26 .42 - 11/03/2004 90.00- 8,081044.2 GURRERO, CHRISELDA 102.20 57.30 44.90 - - 08/31/2004 73.52- 115.21.2696.2 HAAS, DAVID & JUDY 133.94 45.16 88.78 - - 09/08/2004 115.60- 15,21,2654.1 HAINES, TODD 93.44 56.34 37.10 - - 10/15/2004 30.00- 15,15,0029.2 HALL, JOHN & CAROLYN 83.16 43.78 39.38 - 10/04/2004 45.00- 815,0150.1 HALLMARK HOMES 24.64 4.64 - 20.00 17.34.2732.1 HAMILTON, LLOYD 83.36 39.28 44.08 - 10/19/2004 41.14- 17.33.1842.1 HAMMONS, KENNETH & MARIBI 77,46 34.86 42.60 09115/2004 85.72- 16.31.3378.3 HANCOCK, ROBERT 96.44 51.62 44.82 09/09/2004 20.00- 16.31.3394.2 HANHARDT, ANDREW & CAMILL 78.28 38.22 40.06 09/08/2004 63.06- 14.14.3640.2 HANSEN, ROBERT & MARY 61.46 46.96 12.50 - 11/0312004 45.00- 16.32.1170.2 HARRIS, JR., CHARLES EDWAF 143.88 47.60 46.52 49.76 08/17/2004 53.00- 15.21.2090.2 HARRIS, WILLIAM 123.96 87.62 36.14 - 10/06/2004 116.98- 17.34.0512.1 HARRIS, WILLIAM & EMO JEAN 121.29 39.76 81.53 - - 09/27/2004 100.25- 16.21.1786.1 HART, DOUGLAS & DONNA 109.96 41,54 49.89 18.53 - 08/31/2004 120.00- 15.22.2590.2 HART, JULIE 51.49 31.36 20.13 - 09/07/2004 51.09- 16.31.2218.1 HART, WILLIAM 93.36 35.28 58.10 09/08/2004 91.88- *** in Msg column indicates no Notice is to be sent CITY OF MERIDIAN Delinquent Account List -council Standard Payment Customers Current Period: 11105!2004 No Delinquent Minimum AmounlDelinquent Balance Cust No Name Balance Non-Delinq 09/20/2004 06120/2004 07/20/2004 Page: 5 Nov 03, 2004 03:37pm Last Pmt Last Pmt Date Amount 15.22.2288.2 - HARTMAN, BRUCE 56.12 27.34 28.78 09/08/2004 28,78- 18.42.0288.1 HARTWELL, MARK 84.50 41.82 42.68 - 09/08/2004 42,88- 14.19.110&3 HARVEY, BARBARA & CLAIR 150.04 58.32 46.86 46.86 08/17/2004 83.26- 15.22.2352.2 HARVEY, CLAIR & BARBARA 101.40 40.26 61.14 - 09/08/2004 45.06- 15.21.0182.3 HARWOOD, WILLIAM AND EMM, 165.56 - 55.52 41.80 69.24 06/30/2004 64.34- 15.21.1026.2 HATCH, DAVID 230.57 123.12 107.45 - - 09/09/2004 138.16- 17.34.3234.2 HATCH, GARY 91.84 $8,62 53.22 - - 10/13/2004 49.30- 15.21-1904,1 HATCHER, LAVONNE 128.60 40.02 88.58 - 10/01/2004 138.62- 10.10.2058.2 HAYS, ROBERT & TEFFANY 95.34 51.42 43.92 - - 09/02/2004 93.72- 16.15.0644.4 HEIL, SHAWN & MOINA 91.86 45.98 45.88 - - 09/27/2004 21.52- 17.33.4246.1 HELFERICH, ROGER 95.44 30,78 32.64 32.02 - 09/07/2004 65.00- 17.33.2766.2 HENDERSON, KEVIN 44.02 43.04 .98 - - 10/27/2004 41.96 - 15.21.0494.2 HENDRIX, JANIE 123.58 44.56 40.00 39.02 09/07/2004 39.02- 14.19.0822.1 HEPPER HOMES 38.13 37.87 .26 - 10/13/2004 37.19- 15,22.2526.2 HERBERT, WILLIAM III 158.86 44.60 75.46 38.80 09/08/2004 75.00- 9.09.0710,1 HERITAGE HOMES 37.79 33.33 4.46 - - 16.31.0248.1 HEUGHI NS, RUSSELLS. 72.90 35.52 37.38 09/09/2004 72.26- 15.21.0548.1 HIBDON, JOHN 61.82 3$.20 28.62 09/07/2004 54.30- 16.31-0848,11 HIGHLEY,TERESA 103.60 38.62 64.98 09/24/2004 66.94- 8.08.5082.2 HOAND, SAMANTHA & HO, LEIN 46.41 41.62 4.79 - - 16.32.1456.1 HOLLINGSHEAD, BRETT 159.38 77.78 81.60 - 10/06/2004 55.52- 17.33,4346,1 HOLLOWAY, PAIGE 82.74 29.72 53.02 - 10/12/2004 35.00- 15.21.1928.2 HOLMES, MICHAEL & LAURIE 184.20 90.82 92.66 .72 10/05/2004 65.00 - 6.06.2080,2 HOLT, PETE & KATHRYN 78.10 39.81 38.29 - 10/05/2004 44.17- 15.22.2334.2 HOLTZ, MARIANNE 83.04 42.06 40.98 - 09/17/2004 53.72- 3.72-16.31.3056.2 16.31.3056.2 HOME BUYERS GROUP LLC 156.23 22.79 39.58 42.52 51.34 07/06/2004 54.28 8.08.1534.2 HOPKINS, JUSTIN & TAMARA 72.70 41.62 31.08 - - - 6.06.1000.2 HORLACHER, DERK & JULIE 70.27 42.25 28.02 10/05/2004 32.89 = 14.20.0454.1 HOWELL, DONALD 42.84 41.70 1.14 - - 10/2512004 65.48- 9.09.9118.1 HRISTOV, JORDAN 65.26 43.90 21.36 - - 0910112004 17.60- 14.19.6554.2 HSU. TOMAS & GUADALUPE 105.80 58.12 47.68 - - 08/3012004 44.74- 16.31.3072.1 HULSIZER, KEN 52.48 45.74 6.74 - 11/0212004 45.74- 16.31.3648.2 HUMPHREY. MARIE & DAVID 152.78 75.96 76.82 10105/2004 79.76- 15.15.0048.3 HUNTER, PAUL 67.14 37.48 29.66 - 10/04/2004 50.00- 14.19.0264.1 HUTCHISON, DON 86.71 42.62 44.09 10/01/2004 42.13- 14,20.1780.2 HUTSON, ARTIE & RUTH ANN 89.52 87.44 2.08 09/30/2004 70.00- 10,32.0648.1 HUTTON, DAVID 74.54 35.36 39.18 - 09/29/2004 76.42- 9.G9.9232.2 HYMAS, AARON 66.73 41.62 25.11 - 8.08.0142.2 INGLE, ADAM & SARAH 69.10 63.10 6.00 10122!2004 62.32- 17.33.2754,11 INGOE, BRADLEY 95.62 47.38 48.24 - 08130/2004 98.44- 3.03.5008.2 IVIE, RONALD JR & HOLLY 115.17 63.76 37.06 14.35 - 18.42.1934.4 JACOBSEN, FRANK 101.82 46.56 55.26 - 09/21/2004 62.12- 15.15.0019.1 JAMES A BENJAMIN 33.40 31.76 1.64 09/02/2004 95.30- 17.33.0358.1 JAMES COURT APTS 631.60 623.60 8.00 - - 11/01/2004 616A6- 16.32.0936,1 JARDINE, MICHAEL 113.57 53.18 57.00 3.39 10/05/2004 65.00- 18.42.1902,3 JENKINS, LARRY & JEAN 88.10 17.70 17.60 17.60 35.20 - 16.32.1622,1 JENKINS, LELAND 90,88 45.00 45.88 - - 10/05/2004 44.90- 15.22.2530.2 JENNI, TERRY & KIM 97.26 45.26 52.00 10/05/2004 52.98- 7.40.0018.2 JENSEN, CHRISTOPHER & DON 120,02 65.24 54.78 10/04/2004 57.72 - 13.13.9102.3 JENSEN, SCOTT & REBECCA 153.14 - 37.06 37.06 79.02 - 18.42.1800.2 JEWELEE, MICHAEL 115.20 38.14 37.06 40.00 - - 17.33.2374.3 JLC PROPERTIES 86.96 43.04 43.92 - 09/21/2004 140.92- 17.34.2106.2 JLC PROPERTIES LLC 130.34 76.30 54.04 10/06/2004 52.12- 9.09.9012.2 JOHNS, CHARLES & TAMARA 125.74 70.54 55.20 09/24/2004 54.22- 16.32.0616.2 JOHNSON, CONN IE JO 161.92 36.50 125,42 - 11/02/2004 60.00- 160.00- - in Msg column indicates no Notice is to be sent CITY OF MERIDIAN Delinquent Account List- council Page: 6 Standard Payment Customers Nov 03, 2004 03:37pm Current Period: 11/05/2004 No Delinquent Minimum AmountDelinquent Balance Last Pmt Last Pmt Cust No Name Balance Non-Detinq 09/20/2004 08/20/2004 07/20/2004 Date Amount 16.32.1570.3 *** JOHNSON, JACOB & BAIRD, NIC 84.34 38.30 39.18 6.86 10/21/2004 39.18- 15,21.2790.2 JOHNSON, REX & DORTHY 74.51 50.16 24.35 - - 10/05/2004 - 16,31.0160.1 JOHNSON, WILLIAM 55.12 35.52 19.00 - 10/0512004 36.40- 9.09.0286.2 JOHNSTON, TONDA 43.82 43.66 .16 10/05/2004 35,00- 3.90.0162.2 JOHNSTON, TRAVIS & JULIE 121.42 50.44 70.98 - - 09109/2004 118.48- 16.32.1674.1 JONES, M JAY 97.04 32.74 31.66 32.64 - 09/14/2004 32.64- 15.22.1340.2 JONES, STEPHEN & CONNIE 70.60 31.92 38.68 - 09/01/2004 67.10- 10.20.G314.2 JORGENSEN, TOM & PATTY 103.18 57.30 45.88 10/13/2004 44.90- 18.42.2034.1 JOYCE, THOMAS 80.86 59.30 21.56 - 10/14/2004 88.58- 1&32.0522.2 JUHASZ, DON C. 96.08 53.50 42.58 - - 10/07/2004 45.00 - 13.13.4038.2 JUSTENSEN, LARRY & DANIELL 106.88 60.44 46.44 10/05/2004 46,44- 15,21.1422.4 K, MIA & GUSSIE, MITCH 81.08 40.10 40.98 09/21/2004 30,34- 7.40.0178.1 KATHAN, TIMOTHY 100.24 54.36 45.88 - - 09/07/2004 44.90- 15.22.1066.3 KAUFUSI, FAUNITENI & KAREN 114.56 49.24 56.56 8,76 10/20/2004 60.00- 17.34.0812.1 KAUTZ, KARL & LORRAINE 136.14 64.12 72,02 - - 10/05/2004 82.00- 15.21.0028.2 KEENEY, DONLAN & ELISABETF 82.80 38.06 40.88 3.86 11/02/2004 40.00- 18.18.5002.2 KELSO, DEBORAH & RICHARD 85,00 41.08 43.92 - 09/17/2004 42.94- 18.42.1810.2 KESTER, ROBERT 134.12 42.80 43.66 44.64 3.02 09/1312004 93,20- 14.20.1470.2 KIBBLE, HOWARD 109.06 55.34 53,72 - 09/07/2004 17.93- 15.22.1338.2 KILLION, DAVID & AMY 50.80 39.80 11.00 10/01/2004 42.00 - 15.21.1408.2 KING, JAMES 75.52 38.30 37.22 - 09/07/2004 37.22- 14.20.0428.4 KIRSCHNER, JOHN & MARILY 124,56 44.56 39.02 40.98 08/1012004 42.94- 3.03.5872.1 KOLE CROFTS 12,33 8.85 3.48 - - _ 3.03.5296.1 KOLE CROFTS 98.36 26.90 25.12 40.16 6.18 06/24/2004 30,00- 14.19.6642.1 KRENZ, ROY 186.26 37.62 35.98 36.96 75.70 07/08/2004 70.00- 10.10.0062.3 KROMAR, BRIAN & KRISTA 38.92 37.94 .98 - - 08126/2004 31.40- 9,09.9124.2 KURISU, ED 92.35 64.74 27.61 - - 17.33.4154.4 KUYKENDALL, STEPHEN & MICI 134.33 67.54 66.79 14.19.7180.3 LAFEVER, DANIEL 62.32 45.58 16.74 - - 15.15.3028.2 LAMKE, PATRICIA 86.14 42.64 43.50 - 09/07/2004 43.50- 7.40.0180.1 LANCASTER, M. & MCDONALD, 58.34 21.18 18.58 18.58 - 10/06/2004 17.6o- 15.21.11123 LANDEN, LAURA A 103.16 48.48 43.92 10.76 - - 15.21.2814.2 LANDOW, JOANN 97.28 47.38 49.90 - 10/05/2004 53.00- 9.09.0002.2 LANG, GARY & JANET 98.28 54.36 43.92 09/07/2004 44.90- 114.20,0208.2 LANGEVIN, MICHAEL & DARCIE 105.22 70.88 34.34 - 10/07/2004 64,42- 15.22.2066.2 LANORE, TAMARA 70.94 33.56 37.38 - 09/2312004 38.36- 15.21.3018,1 LARSON, GORDON 92.36 55.10 37.26 - - 10/1212004 45.00- 8.08.5064.2 LAWHORN, JASON & WENDY 188.00 94.14 46.44 47.42 - 09/0212004 50,36- 1313.9078.2 LEBEAU, CRAIG & KELCEE 103.68 38.92 33.36 31.40 - 08109/2004 67,70- 14.20-1986.3 LEDO, CHRISTOPHER & GLAYD 191.59 36.51 62.12 92.96 - 09/1312004 100,00- 18.43,0370.2 LEMAR, RICK & MELISSA 125.22 41.82 41.70 41.70 - 09/08/2004 87.32- 18.42.2736.1 LENAGHEN, CHRIS 60,04 36.42 23.62 - - 10/19/2004 35.00- 8.08.5058.2 LIEU, TINA MARIA 45.43 40.64 4.79 - 15.22.2378.3 LINDER, MARK & CHRISTINA 86.32 42.72 43.60 - 10/04/2004 53.40- 16.31.1002.3 LINDGREEN, NATHANAEL & H& 114.74 73.62 41.12 10/12/2004 75.00- 17.33.3658.1 LINDSAY, LAURA 61.46 29.80 31.66 10/07/2004 32.64- 15,22.0172.1 LITZEBAUER, WILLIAM & SHAR( 46.56 44.60 1.96 - 10/05/2004 45.46- 16.32.0754.2 LONG, LUJEAN 156.72 78.42 78.30 10/01/2004 90.06- 16.31.1018.1 LONGSHAW, LAURA 118.45 43.62 74.83 09/27/2004 100,38- 14.19.6662.1 LOUGHNEY, EDWARD 86.34 47.42 38.92 09/27/2004 36.96- 15.21.3134.1 LOVE, JAMES & ELIZABETH 199.50 120.46 79.04 10/06/2004 75.12- 15.22.0324.2 LOWE, LOWELL 87.46 49.50 37.96 - 10/04/2004 100.00- 16.32.1,320.1 LUKE, SHELLIE M. 51.96 46.56 5.40 - 10/01/2004 111.72- 14,20.1758.1 LYONS, STEPHEN & LINDA 60.54 60.50 .04 - 10/04/2004 53,00- 14.19.5486.2 LYTLE, ROBERT 78.82 43.66 35.16 09/17/2004 5 16- 35.16 - *** in Msg column indicates no Notice is to be sent CITY OF MERIDIAN Delinquent Account List- council Page: 7 Standard Payment Customers Nov 03, 2004 03:37pm Current Period: 1110512004 No Delinquent Minimum AmountDelinquent Balance Last Pmt Last Pmt Cust No Name Balance Non-Delinq 09/20/2004 08/20/2004 07/20/2004 Date Amount 14.14.4428.2 *** MAKA, ANN 138.66 63.76 74.90 - - 09108/2004 143.56- 6,06.9818.2 MANDEL, KEITH 77.14 20.67 13.27 14.25 28.95 07/06/2004 27.97- 17.34.2808.1 MANN, KEVIN & VIVIAN 121.94 73.28 48.66 - - 10/05/2004 45.00- 17.34.1472.1 MARKHAM, RON 119.08 74.60 44.48 - 10/06/2004 73.50- 13.13.4006,2 MARTIN, MICHAEL 109.88 60,66 49.22 - 10/13/2004 49.22- 8.08.1288.2 MARTIN, SCOTT & JANELL 53.04 52.98 .06 - - 10/01/2004 88.90- 15.21.28203 MARTINA, DAVID 110.58 80.16 30.42 - - 10/06/2004 87.88- 13.13.8930.2 MARTINEZ, RONNIE & TIFFANY 88.80 48.64 40.16 09/07/2004 41.14 - 14.20.1948.1 MCARTHUR, MARIA 196.66 155.90 40.76 - 10/08/2004 112.74- 16.42.0440.7 MCCLOUD, RUTH 105.38 34.54 33.46 37.38 07/28/2004 38.36- 16,31.0194.1 MCCLURE, HOLLY 38.66 36.86 1.80 - - 11102!2004 36.86 - 15.21.2114.3 MCGAHEY, JAMES & LISA 73.64 37.08 36.56 - - 09107/2004 90.00- 15.21.0014.2 MCGINLEY, LOUIS & JULIA 136.94 59.70 77.24 - - 09122/2004 70,37- 16.31,0822.1 MCKAY, JOHN 107.80 66.50 41.30 - - 10/06/2004 54.04- 16.21.1158.3 MCKINLEY, JUNE 142.82 59.70 83.12 - - 08/30/2004 37:06 - 8.08.0150.2 MCLAUGHLIN, ARCHIE & ROSE! 146.94 63.50 83.44 - 09/02/2004 141.40- 17.33,2556.1 MCLEAN. BRANDON 78.06 44.02 34.04 - - 10/01/2004 50.00- 14.20.0130.2 MCREYNOLDS, MARTY 140.75 76.01 64.74 - - 09/29/2004 83.00- 16.31,0668.4 MEADE. LENA 108.12 66.66 41.46 - - 10/06/2004 50.28- 13.13.8834.2 MELDRUM, JEREMY & COURTN 151.78 55.60 49.06 47.12 - 08/03/2004 52.98- 14,19.6604.1 MELTON, MARSHALL 114.45 53,96 40.98 19.51 - 11/0212004 19.51- 17.33.2538.1 MENDOZA, GEORGE & ELIZABE 125.86 62.98 62.88 - - 09/27/2004 61.90- 18,43.0428.2 MERTES, JEFFREY P. 93.50 46.80 46.70 - - 10/08/2004 45.72- 16,31.0494.2 MESZAROS,LILLI 133.66 47.54 48.40 37.72 - 09/07/2004 100.00- 14.19.7124.1 MEYERS, TROY & JIMI 94.22 49.34 144.88 - - 09/1612004 50.00- 17.33.7616.1 MICHAELSON, BRADLEY 116.42 50.37 66.05 - - 10/05/2004 71.93- 14.19.1708.2 MICHAS, JAMES 166.34 79.28 55.10 31.96 - 08103/2004 70.78- 15.22.1384.3 MtCHNO, FRANK 140.84 69.98 70.86 - - 08/2512004 48.32- 15.22,1744.2 MILLER, CAMERON 84.86 41.08 43.78 - 09/28/2004 47.00- 16.31.3032.3 MILLER, CHARLIE & SHELLY 55.52 55.30 .22 - - 10/05/2004 55.00- 17.341938.3 MILLER, DON 128.76 33.72 78.32 16.72 - 09/08/2004 38.46- 9.09,0130.2 MILLER, JAMES 168.92 25.38 44.58 49.48 49.48 07/02/2004 101.90- 16.31.05W2 MILLER, NEIL 99.30 62.74 36.56 - - 10/06/2004 51.58- 14.19.0284.2 MILLER, PAULA & ALLAN 163.96 52.12 55.92 55.92 09/01/2004 53.47- 17.34.1580.2 MIN ERT, JEFF & CARRIE 117.12 104.70 12.42 - 10/21/2004 100.00- 16.31.3074.3 MOCABY, RYAN 69.30 34.70 34.60 - 09/02/2004 32,64- 14.20.1662.2 MOLEBASH, JOHN & MONICA 135.20 64,98 70.22 - - 09/28/2004 31.19- 17.33.0302.2 MOMB, PEGGY 120.10 40,10 40.00 40.00 - 08/03/2004 36.92- 15.22.0210.1 MONAHAN, MICHAEL 84.19 42.06 42.13 - - 09/07/2004 41.00- 18.42.1836.3 MONROE, BUD 65.74 57.68 8.06 10/26/2004 60.00- 17.34.1540.1 MONTEFERRANTE, MICHELLE 45.86 31.76 14.10 10/04/2004 60.00- 15.22.2088.2 MOODY, SHAIN 88.90 42.54 46.36 09/3012004 70.48- 13.13.8490.3 MORAN, BONNIE J 121.84 77.88 43.96 09/02/2004 125.00- 15.21.2026.2 MOREHOUSE, DALE & DENEE 44.02 42.06 1.96 - 11/02/2004 40.00- 17.33,2700.2 MORGAN, HEATHER 71.92 35.52 36.40 - 11/03/2004 36.40- 14,19,0102.1 MORGAN, LONNIE 33.58 33.36 .22 - - 10/05/2004 23.66- 1,3,13.0006.4 MORGAN, SKY & MADELYNN 131.40 42.96 41.28 47.16 08/10/2004 48.14- 18.42.2774.5 MORIN, MICHAEL 135.00 58.24 76.76 - - 09/28/2004 73.82- 14.19.1300.2 MORRIS, LAURA 29.97 29.97 05/28/2004 26.10- 17,33.0290.1 MORRISON, HAROLD 29.13 28.80 .33 - 10105/2004 28.00- 114,20.30$8.2 MOSHER, TRESA 59.70 32.62 27.08 - 09/14/2004 26.10- 118.42.2378.2 MOSS, STEVEN 116.02 56.10 59.92 - 09107!2004 128.66- 17.34A500.11 MOURITSEN, LAYNE 177.44 65.74 111.70 - 10/06/2004 109.74- 15.21.1122.1 MULLIN, MICHAEL 174.24 85.00 89.24 - 09/02/2004 152.02- 15.22.2614.2 MUNDELL, RANDY 37.48 34.54 2.94 09/27/2004 4 76- 74.76 - *** in Msg column indicates no Notice is to be sent CITY OF MERIDIAN Delinquent Account List- council Page: 8 Standard Payment Customers Nov 03, 2004 03:37pm Current Period: 1110512004 No Delinquent Minimum Amoun€Delinquent Balance Last Pmt Last Pmt Cust No Name Balance Non-Delinq 09/20/2004 08/20/2004 07/20/2004 Date Amount 15.21.1068.1 MURRAY, JOHN 101.96 63.50 38.46 - 09/27/2004 100.00- 14.19,6506.2 MUSICK, LYLE 113.28 55.92 45.46 11.90 09102/2004 80.00- 16.32,1606.2 NASIATKA, JEFFREY 67.00 36.50 30.50 - 11/02/2004 30.00- 16.32.0630.3 NASKASHI MA, NANO & KLOPFE 92.83 65.98 26,85 - 09/27/2004 61.97- 8,08.1070.1 NEIDER, KYLEE & MENDI 123.30 45.46 38.92 38.92 09/17/2004 39.90- 16,31.0508.2 NELSON JOHN H. 56.02 27.18 28.84 - - 10/15/2004 32.00- 9,09.0274.2 NELSON, MARTIN E 144.12 54.94 89.18 - 10/05/2004 144.06- 8.15.0056.1 NEWELL, JACQUELINE 156.08 58.86 51.34 45.88 08/3112004 47.68- 10.10,2362.1 NISHIMURA, HARRY 223.48 52.40 40.16 47.68 83.24 - 16.31.2198.2 NORRIS, JOSHUA & COREY 115.88 34.46 38.26 43.16 - 09/07/2004 43.16- 17,33,0288.1 NORTHNESS, RITA 78.90 26.04 26.92 25.94 08/03/2004 25.94- 8.08,1576.2 NOVAK, KRAIG 66.73 41.62 25.11 - - 9.09.0156.1 O.P.M. ENTERPRISES 84.18 47.42 36.76 10/05/2004 40.00- 13.13.6080.2 OSTERHOUT, BENJAMIN 60.92 54.94 5.98 - - - 14.20.1718.4 PACKHAM, NOLAN 72.08 36,38 18.83 16.87 - 08/03/2004 30.84- 16.31.3504.1 PADDOCK, LINDA 102.22 42.38 59.84 - 10105/2004 60.00- 16.31,1682.2 PADILLA, LEAH 85.78 44.42 41,36 - 08130/2004 47.24- 17.34.1230.1 PARENT, BEAU 49.24 39.28 9.96 10105/2004 45.00- 16,15.0001A PARKWAY SUB 73.60 27.98 45.62 - 7.40.0146.2 PARR, SUSAN 93.06 57.14 $5.92 - 09/08/2004 61.40- 9.09.9770.1 PATRIOT PROPERTY 13.21 11.86 1.35 - - 15.15.0524.1 PATTEE, RICHARD & ROSIE 97.80 82.12 15.68 - - 11102/2004 35.00- 16.32.1392.1 PATTEN, JASON 38.45 35.52 2.93 - 10113/2004 32.65- 8.08.1374.2 PATTEN, MILA 98.24 87.88 10.36 - 10113/2004 37.06- 18.42.1162.3 PEDERSEN, JENNIFER 90.88 44.02 46.86 - 10/01/2004 43.92- 16.31.0168.3 PENA, DAVID 62.22 20.48 21.36 20.38 - 08/24/2004 25.28- 16.32.1256.2 PETERSON, JANA 70.60 22.44 23.32 21.36 3.48 07/02/2004 50.00- 7.40.0236.3 PETERSON, JEAN & VAN 247.32 56.32 191.00 - - 10/29/2004 47.94- 16.32.0690.2 PETTERSON,KENNETH 120.54 77.28 43.26 - - 10/06/2004 112.98- 16.32.0490.4 PFAFF, CHRISTOPHER & KRIST 109.78 31.76 36.56 41.46 - 09/07/2004 86.84- 17.33.2378.1 PHELPS, DAMON 67.34 34.70 32.64 - - 09/0712004 32.64- 3.03.5234.1 PHIL HORTON 121.66 40.14 52.64 28.88 07/3012004 17.60- 15.21.0100.2 PIPPIN, LESIE & JEFF 77.64 38.88 38.76 - 09/21/2004 38.76- 15.21.1086.2 PITCHER, MIKE& CHRISTA 167.86 117.46 50.40 10/20/2004 60.00- 15.22.1344.1 PLOTT, JOHN 102.22 53.10 49.12 - 10/1912004 50.00- 17.34.1412.5 PONATH, JOHN 77.46 36.82 40.64 - - 09/07/2004 50.44- 1419.7352.1 POOLE 75.02 38.06 36.96 - - 09/21/2004 35.98- 17.34.3262.2 PORTLOCK, JEFFREY 99.34 47.76 51.58 - - 09121/2004 61.38- 15.21.0078,1 POTRIDGE, GAIL 44.76 43.78 .98 - - 11/03/2004 45.62- 16.31.1010.1 PRADO, RIGOBERTO 93.98 46.56 47.42 - - 08/26/2004 95.76- 17,3C1940,2 PRESLEY, ALLISON 39.50 36.50 3.00 - - 11/01/2004 50.06- 17,34,3330.1 PRITIKEN, ROGER & TERESE 109.16 80.22 28,94 - - 10/07/2004 96.78- 18,42.2112,2 PROUTY, CLAYTON 150.04 41.32 60.24 48.48 - 09/02/2004 89.12- 17,33.2602,2 PRYOR, JUNE 74.28 36.50 37.38 .40 - 10/05/2004 36.00- 18.42,2144,2 PURSIFUL, BRIAN & HEIDE 110.64 53.42 57.22 - 10/01/2004 100.00- 15,21.0012,2 RAINFORD, ROBERT & ALINDA 110.14 38.46 71.68 - 09/07/2004 1147.28- 14.19.0570.1 RALPHS, ROD 81.40 40.26 41.14 - - 06/25/2004 1123.42- 16.16.30011 RATCLIFFE INVESTMENTS 20.88 - - 20.88 - 15.22.2280.2 REAVIS, JEFFREY 251.01 130.46 120.55 - 10106/2004 107.81- 8.08.1600.2 REED, BENJAMIN & AtSHA 78.68 41.62 37.06 - - 17.34.1792.1 REED, PATRICIA 214.78 96.66 118.12 09114/2004 161.84- 15.21.2704.4 REEDER, STEVEN & EILEEN 129.20 84.78 44.42 - 10/01/2004 5.00- 15.21.2918.1 REYES, DAVID 139.58 83.58 56.00 10/07/2004 70.06- 15.22.2348.4 REYES, WALTER & VALERIE 49.08 37.16 11.92 - 18.42.3094.1 RHODES, JUSTIN 65.86 32.50 33.36 09/21/2004 32.72- *** in Msg column indicates no Notice is to be sent QTY OF MERIDIAN Delinquent Account List- council Page: 9 Standard Payment Customers Nov 03, 2004 03:38pm Current Period: 11/0512004 No Delinquent Minimum AmountDelinquent Balance Last Pmt Last Pmt Cust No Name Balance Nan-Delinq 09/20/2004 08120/2004 07/20/2004 Date Amount 10.10.0116.2 *** RICE, DONALD & JULIE 133.92 58.44 40.16 35.32 - 09/01/2004 45.00- 16.31.2286.3 RICH, CORY 138.44 52.44 63.10 22.90 - 10/05/2004 50.00- 18.42.0310.3 RINKE, JOE & SMITH, RANDALL 138.74 52.12 84.94 1.68 - 10/04/2004 50.00- 17,33.0248.3 ROBERT, HAROLD 64.86 20.30 22.77 21.79 - 08/09/2004 19.83- 16,31.3048.2 ROBERTS, HARLAN 120.56 35.68 46.36 38.52 - 07/29/2004 38.52- 18,43.0328.2 RODIN, ADAM & HEATHER 92.18 50.48 41.70 - 1010512D04 60.00- 16.32.0570.3 ROESSERRY, JANICE 70.36 70.34 .02 - 10105/2004 74.14- 14.14.4450.2 ROGERS, JACK & DENISE 113.98 42.68 35.16 36.14 08106/2004 76.20- 16.32.0834.2 ROHAN, JERRY 83.50 35.44 48.06 - 09/08/2004 56.88- 14.20.2060.3 ROTMAN, MARY 94.18 51.26 42.92 - - 15.15.0040.3 ROWLEY, RICHARD 118.14 40.10 37.06 40.98 - 09/07/2004 108.82- 17.33.012a.1 ROYAL DYNASTY 536.94 18.83 6.69 - 511.42 06/08/2004 447.5D - 15.21.0112.2 RUMMLER, MATHEW 84.24 40.84 42.68 .72 - 10/21/2004 40.00- 13.13.6060.1 RUNGE, DUNCAN 224.74 79.26 45,88 78.82 20.78 08/04/2004 100,00- 9.09.0404.2 SAFFERY, BRETT & KATELLA 88.48 47.50 40.98 - - 09/14/2004 42.94- 14.19.7156.1 SALAZAR, DANIEL 90.80 60.94 29.86 - 10/06/2004 58.74- 14,20.3032.2 SALLEE, BRET & DEBBIE 51.34 - 10.52 40.82 08/03/2004 76.08- 16,31.0818.1 SAMUEL, ANTHONY 96,76 50.88 45.88 - 09/07/2004 57.64- 14.20.2042A SANCHEZ, DANEEN 102.20 48.48 53.72 - - 09/16/2004 54,88- 17.34.1756.2 SANDBURG, LORA & TONY 111.33 37.16 37.06 $7.11 - 09/20/2004 70.00- 15.15.0064.2 SANTENS, TONYA 47.06 41.08 5.98 - - 14.14.5043.3 SARCO, BETTY 72.51 53.38 19.13 - 10108/2004 40.00- 17.34.1078.2 SAVELBERG, DOYLE 109.84 56.44 53.40 - 09/07/2004 84.38 - 15.22.1386.1 SCHAEFFER, MICHAEL 133.84 59.14 74.70 10/05/2004 121.08 - 16.32.0978.1 SCHEIDELER, COLETTE 123.86 56.10 67.76 09/0712004- 145.32- 9.09,9400.2 SCHNEIDER, JOSEPH & GLORV 83.15 48.48 34.67 - _ 3.03.5150.1 SCHROEDER ENT 40,43 21.18 15.77 3.48 0811312004' 3.02- 17.33.2584.2 SCHULER, ROBERT & JAMIE 85.00 41.08 43.92 - 10/05/2004 38.84- 16.32.0622.4 SCHUSTER, BILL & LESLIE 97.58 48.36 49.22 - 09/30/2004 70.78- 16.31.3334.1 SCHUSTER, DORTHY 58.02 29.56 28.46 - 09/30/2004 38.26- 7.40.0280.2 SCHUSTER, FORREST & DEBB11 72.80 67.14 5.66 - - 10128t2004 50.00- 16.31.3018.2 SCHUSTER, FORREST & DEBBII 153.22 80.88 72.34 - - 10/06/2004 102.64- 8,08.0162.2 SCHWARTZ, PENELOPE 60.36 32.46 27.90 - - 09/01/2004 142.58- 15,22.1636.4 SCOTT, CHUCK & TIFFANY 270.12 66.34 62.70 66.62 74.46 07/07/2004 77.40- 6.061350.3 SCOTT, EVA M 37.46 30.49 6.97 - - - 17.34,1874,1 SEELY, RANDALLC. 84.00 38.62 45.38 09/27/2004 57.14- 16.31.0444.1 SEIDEL, RICHARD 39.44 38.78 .68 10/08/2004 39,00- 17.34.2784.1 SEVER, JASON W 89.90 45.00 44.90 - 08/31/2004 45.68- 15,21.2666.2 SEVY, JAMES 53.20 52.84 .36 10/28/2004 80.37- 15.15.1032.2 SHARON DICKINSON TRUST 75.20 38.14 37.06 - 08/30/2004 75,10- 14.20.3054.2 SHARP, LIZABETH 100.14 46.52 53.62 - 15.22.1316.2 SHAW, OWEN & CHRISTINA 178.58 73.26 102.56 2.76 - 09/27/2004 100,00- 18.42.2526.1 SHELTRON, ROGER 110.98 45.74 65.22 .02 - 10/15/2004 62,26- 17.34.1782.2 SHEPHERD, TERRY & MARJI 85.85 41.72 44.13 - - 09/09/2004 44.01- 15.22.1832.2 SHIELDS, CHRISTEN 123.66 45.42 78.24 - 09/08/2004 148.64- 15.22.0468.3 SHUMWAY, BENJAMIN 88.10 88.04 .06 10/08/2004 110.40. 10.40- 18.42.2496.1 18.42.2496.1 SIEMON, LESLIE 87.76 41.00 46.75 10/05/2004 54,74- 15.21.0208.1 SILSBY, TERRY 153.58 109.10 44.48 10106/2004 150,00. 50.00- 15.21.2730.1 15.21.2730.1 SILVESTRI, PAUL & SHANA 129.58 81.52 48.06 - 11/02/2004 48.06- 17.34.1184.2 SIMONDS, ADAM & RUTH 116.18 36.50 41.30 37.38 08/03/2004 75.74- 16.31,3236.3 SINCLAIR, KEN 89.47 53.82 35.65 - - 16.31.0778.1 $IRANI, JOSEPH A 147.10 67.72 79.38 10/01/2004 92.12- 17,34,0820.2 SITZLAR, RON 66.92 31.76 35.16 - 10/05/2004 40.00- 16.31.3562.3 SMITH, JUSTIN & TAMMY 139.00 52.60 86.40 09/08/2004 125.54- 15,21.1492.2 SMITH, KATHLEEN 65.38 31.76 33.62 09/21/2004 1.86- 31.66- *** In Msg column indicates no Notice is to be sent CITY OF MERIDIAN Delinquent Account List- council Page: 10 Standard Payment Customers Nov 03, 2004 03:38pm Current Period: 11105/2004 No Delinquent Minimum AmountDelinquent Balance Last Pmt Last Pmt Cust No Name Balance Non-Delinq 09/20/2004 08/20/2004 07/2012004 Date Amount 14.19.0030.1 '** SMITH, MILTON & KAREN 92.00 42.14 49,86 - 08/31/2004 58.68- 6.06.1334.2 SONNEMAN, DAVID 93.60 45.03 39.59 8.98 - 08/25/2004 80.00- 14.19.1074.2 SORENSEN, WILHELMINA 36.96 35.98 .98 - 10/01/2004 31.40- 15.22.2342.2 SPANBAUER, TODD & LISA 162.08 41.82 71.70 48.56 09108/2004 96.14- 14.20.1228.1 ST. ALPHONSUS MEDICAL CEN' 149.23 81.62 67.61 10/19/2004 67,61- 16.32.07182 STATES, FLOYD & CONNIE 57.07 49.90 7,17 - 14.19.7190.2 STAUFFER, JOHN 100.52 50.32 50.20 09/07/2004 102.36- 16.31.3456.1 STEELE, GREG 96.44 48.76 47.68 - - 09/17/2004 46,70- 18.42A266.2 STEGMANN, MIKE & JENNIFER 102.64 55.00 47.42 .22 - 09/21/2004 57,00- 10.10.1112.2 STEVENS, ARTHUR & LINDA 63.19 50.04 13.15 - 18.42.3056.4 STINAR, ILENE 53.11 47.38 5.73 10/05/2004 60.00 - 8.08.0522.2 STOVALL, TIMOTHY & MICHELL 50.90 50.04 .86 - 10/28/2004 42.64- 16.31.1060.1 STRONG, EARNEST 80.60 20.24 20.12 20.12 20.12 05/26/2004 286,86- 10,20.0130.2 STRUCK, JERYL & DEDREA 105.10 77.30 27.80 - - 10/19/2004 15.14- 16.32.1594,1 SWARTZ, TRAVIS 77.80 38.30 39.50 - 10/05/2004 40.00- 18.42.2350,2 TADEVIC, GEORGE 96.92 48.52 48.40 - - 09/08/2004 48.76- 10.10.2526.1 TAHOE HOMES 19.95 16.47 3.48 - - 09/07/2004 2,02- 8.08.0514.1 TAHOE HOMES 71.91 50.60 17.83 3.48 - 08/17/2004 1,74- 15.21.10841 TEASLEY, RICHARD & LINDA 105.12 48.96 56.16 - - 09/21/2004 63.02- 8.08.1086,2 THABACK, GABRIAL & DUOL, Sf 74.16 53.38 20.78 - 10/05/2004 70.00- 17.33.7600.2 THARP, ROBERT & CARRIE 89.69 47.75 41.94 - 10/05/2004 75.00- 15.22.1322A THEANDER, GLEN & KAREN 92.14 61.76 30.38 - - 09/01/2004 113.58 - 8.85.0018.1 THOMAS & DUNN 151.33 74.94 21.36 17.60 37.43 - 6.06.1444.1 THOMPSON HOMES 70.13 57.45 12.68 - - 08/11/2004 7.55- 16.32.1558.4 THOMPSON, GARY 116.24 75.82 40.42 - 10/06/2004 57.00- 13.1&8124.2 THOMPSON, RYAN 77.12 76.94 .18 - 10/08/2004 125.00- 16.31,3514.3 THOMPSON, SCOTTIE & REB EK 109.90 65.98 43.92 - 10/01/2004 7.06- 37.013- 9.09.0338.2 9.09.0338.2 THOMSEN, DAVY 105.30 57.88 47.42 - - 09/14/2004 48.40- 14.19.1364.2 THOMSEN, LORIE 98.76 54.12 44.64 - - 08/30/2004 49.28- 15.21.2736.2 THURBER, RICK 131.20 60.76 70.44 - 09/14/2004 73.38- 18.42.0338.2 TONKS, TAUNA 60.05 30.54 29.51 - 09/15/2004 31.00- 18.42,1216.1 TOROK, ZSOLT 61.94 30.54 31.40 - - 09/02/2004 64.76- 9.09.9242.1 TRADEMARK HOMES 112.84 39.16 36.40 27.63 9.65 - 16.31.3500.1 TREPAGNIER, SCOTT 44.64 44.60 .04 - - 10/01/2004 46.40- 13.13,8546.2 TROGDON, TYKE JR 65.94 64.20 1.74 11/01/2004 50.00- 14.14,3018A VAIL, RANDY & VICTORIA 104.16 59.26 44.90 10/05/2004 46.86- 5.0-5.0010,1 VALLEY LIFE COMMUNITY CHUI 59.09 47.58 11.51 - 17.34.1946.4 VANCE, CHRISTY 184.34 110.46 73.88 10/1212004 133.62- 16.31.3388.3 VASQUEZ, COREY 173.29 46.96 126.33 10107/2004 50.00- 15.21.1032.1 VELADA, FEDERICO 94.18 46.44 47.74 10/01/2004 46.46- 16.32.1406.2 VICKERS, BETTY 132.32 72.88 59.44 10/07/2004 63.04- 15.21.2754.3 VICNG 118.32 54.80 63.52 10/05/2004 110.18- 17.a4.1520.1 VICTORY, CHRISTOPHER 91.76 45.00 46.76 10/19/2004 45.00- 16.32.0656.3 VICTORY, MICHAEL & YUNSUK 124.98 35.52 40.32 49.14 09/0212004 38.36- 3.03.5728.1 VYACHESLAV OSIPCHUK 9.29 7,94 1.35 - - 14.20.0448.1 WADE OLDENBURG 40.70 23.72 13.50 3.48 17.33.2294.3 WALCROFT, WALLY 61.62 40,10 21.52 - 5.08.0094,1 WALDORF & SONS 19.08 12.49 4.46 2.13 - 17.34.3328,1 WALLIS, EVELYN 120.81 18.47 31.50 32.48 38.36 07/02/2004 10235- 18.42.2304.1 WALMSLEY, CLIFFORD 162.10 69.34 92,76 - 09/01/2004 206,10- 16.32.13G6.2 WALSH, DAVID & CARA 91.04 45.58 45.46 10/27/2004 45.46- 10.10.2442.2 WALTERS, BRETT & STEPHANIE 76.29 41.62 34.67 - - 10.20.0310.1 WARMS SPRINGS CONSTRUCT 26.13 18.78 5.44 1.91 - 16.32.0444.1 WARNER, MICHAEL & CYNTHIA 85.60 68.20 17.40 - 10/05/2004 75.00- 8.08.1370.2 WATTERLIN, JUDITH 101.20 59.26 41.94 08/27/2004 3.74- 93.74- '** in Msg column indicates no Notice is to be sent I !( E - CITY OF MERIDIAN Delinquent Account List- council Page: 11 Standard Payment Customers Nov 03, 2004 03:38pm Current Period: 1110512004 No Delinquent Minimum AmountDelinquent Balance Last Pmt Last Pmt Cust No Name Balance Non-Delinq 09/20/2004 08/2012004 07/20/2004 Date Amount 15.21.0070,1 WAY, KELLY 117.74 42.80 74.94 09/01/2004 61.00- 15.21.3028.4 WEBB, JASON & BRENDA 162.14 78.46 83.68 09/17/2004 121.90- 17.33,0328.2 WEBB, VIOLA 71.60 35.36 36.24 08/27/2004 41.14 - 15.21.2712.5 WEBBENHORST, JED 121.40 40.18 81.22 - 10/04/2004 96.00 - 13,13,2056.3 WERHANE, WILLIAM 110.92 51.18 59.74 - 08/27/2004 80.46- 17.34.2124.3 WERLEY, JEFF 82.94 45.00 37,94 - - 15.22.0474.1 WEST, ROB ERTA 183.86 82.68 101.18 09/29/2004 93.34- 3,03.5516.1 WESTMINSTER HOMES 13.91 10,88 3.03 - - 8,15.0016.1 WESTROCK HOMES 55.54 21,18 21.36 9.52 3.48 - 14.20.1724.2 WHALEN, JOHN JR 136.28 54.94 81.34 - - 10/05/2004 69.34- 1&42.1824.3 WHALEN, JOHN JR 104.35 64.02 40.33 - - - 16.16.3508.2 WHITMIRE, SCOTT & SYNDI 129.98 32.74 63.62 33.62 - 09!08!2004 65.28- 10.10.0678,1 WHITNEY HOMES 87.00 54.36 32.64 - - 09/07/2004 17.60- 10.10.2444.1 WHITNEY HOMES 7.86 6.96 .90 - - 16.31.3266.4 WIEDMEIER, GLENN & LISA 70.28 35.68 34.60 - 09/27/2004 35.58- 16,32.1252.2 WILLIAMSON, DALE 54.46 25.54 23.48 5.44 10/08/2004 20,00- 15,21,2184.2 WILSON, BRADLY 113.94 57.52 56.42 - 10/05/2004 57,40- 17.33.3662.1 WILSON, RANDY 89.90 44.02 45.88 - 09!0712004 91,76- 15,21.1584.4 WIMMER, RICHARD & KATHLEE 48.68 39,12 9.56 - 17.33.0524.1 WINKLE, STUART 468.74 123,51 129.77 120.95 94.51 07/23/2004 40.16- 8.08.1474.2 WITZKE, TOM & LOLEN 75.64 43,58 32.06 - - - 17.33,2358.3 WOLIN, DALE & LOIS 81.40 39,28 42.12 - 09/01/2004 40.16 - 17.33A282.3 WOLIN, DALE & LOIS 79.92 39.04 40.88 - 09/28/2004 40,88- 114.14.3006.2 WOOD, DOUGLAS & MELANIE 42.51 41.70 .81 - - 11/01/2004 40.00 - 14.19.7176.1 WOODS, DAVID 97.90 49.50 48.40 - - 09/01/2004 103.66- 3.03.5132.1 WOOLSTON, GEORGE 71.42 28.70 17.60 25.12 - 08/11/2004 32.30- 16.31.3280.3 YENOR, SUNSHINE 75.66 38.38 37.28 - - 09/14/2004 35.32- 3.18.0423.1 YOUNG AMERICAN HOMES 8.53 6.96 1.57 - - 9.09.0574.1 YOUNG AMERICAN HOMES 63.46 38.34 25.12 - - 09/21/2004 13.74 - 16.31.3248.2 YOUNG, REBECCA 108.02 44.34 55.02 8,66 - 10/2212004 40.00- 3.03.5750.1 ZAMBEZI GROUP 21.28 16.00 3.48 1.80 - - 10.20.0230.2 ZANDSTRA, GARY 108.80 51.42 37.06 20,32 - - 16.31.2200.1 ZELLER, STEVEN 125.86 60.04 65.82 - - 10/0512004 69.74- 9.74-Grand GrandTotals: 58,263.97 30,309.76 22,327.13 3,717.17 1,909.91 Report Criteria: Terminated customers not included Custome€.Gust No O = {c} 880000001 Customer.Bill Cycle m 2 - in Msg column indicates no Notice is to he sent October 29, 2004 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING November 3, 2004 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 23 REQUEST Ordinance - City Attorney AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY See aitached CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 49lel—' lllZ- By the City Council: Bird, Donnell, Rountree, Wardle AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 1, CHAPTER SC, SECTIONS I OF THE MERIDIAN CITY CODE REGARDING THE POSITION OF CITY ATTORNEY, PROVIDING FOR DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY(S); DEFINING DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY AND DEPUTIES; AND PROVIDING FOR A WAIVER OF THE READING RULES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO: Section 1. That Title 1, Chapter 8C, Section 1, Meridian City Code, be, and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: AR'T'ICLE C. CITY ATTORNEY 1-8C-1: APPOINTMENT; TERM OF OFFICE: A. The City Attorney shall be appointed by the Mayor, with the consent of the City Council, and shall hold office unless sooner removed pursuant to Meridian City Code 1-8-1. B. There shall be Deputy City Attorney(s) as mAy be required and approved by the Ma or and Cjjy Council. The De qt y City Attorney(I shall serve at the pleasure of the City Attorney by and with the advice and consent of the Mayor and City Council. (1999 Code; amd.2004) 1-8C-2: DUTIES: It shall be the duty of the City Attorney and any Deputy City Attorney acting under the authority of the City Attorney to: A. Provide the highest standard of legal ethics, accountability, and responsibility in representing the client the City of Meridian; and B. Advise the MUor and Council, as the client, on all legal matters related to the needs of the City of Meridian; and Ordinance — City Attorney Pagel of 3 C. Provide legal opinions to the_Mayor and Council when requested; and D. Prepare all necessary ordinances and resolutions to facilitate the needs the of the City of Meridian; and E. Reviewas recess all contracts a eements or instruments for legal sufficiency to protect the interests of the City of Meridian; and F. Prosecute defend or oversee the representation of the Qjjy of Meridian in all matters civil or criminal in courts of competent jurisdiction; and G. Provide legal advice to De artments Boards Commissions or Committees of the City of Meridian with the consent of the Ma or and Cjjy Council; and H. Retain independent legal counsel and ?Lny additional legal services when necessaU to further and protect the interest of the City of Meridian; and I. Attend the meetings of the Chy Council and provide legal advice as requested b the Mayor or City Council; and I Oversee manage, and direct the Human Resources function for the Cit of Meridian. K. Perform agy and all legal duties as directed in the interest of the City of Meridian. V Section 2. All ordinances, resolutions, orders, or parts thereof or in conflict with this ordinance are hereby voided. Section 3. That pursuant to the affirmative vote of one-half (112) plus one (1) of the Members of the full Council, the rule requiring two (2) separate readings by title Ordinance — City Attorney Page 2 of 3 and one (1) reading in full be, and the same is hereby, dispensed with, and accordingly, this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage, approval and publication. PASSVD by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this 3�d day of be -t-- , 2004. APPRQ, VED by t e Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this day of / IC S Ve,07 k&�--- , 2004. APPROVED - C; �Q {POS jf ATTEST:` Teo w SEAL CITY CLERK C5 lj J �1O,�P�Ps" v� � �{ •�• Ordinance - City Attorney Page 3 of 3 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING 3, f -- APPLICANT APPLICANTG'�'J !�'''"� l d'%12 ITEM NO. 93 REQUEST �,,,� �.r �f-PyC of AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY EIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: _ Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. COMMENTS Q LU2 LL O J U) tL w ILZ J x J LL N O v O Lo t% A 04 04 V o c) V9- N 0 -, CL O t. a UN m c U N a .O CL v m o r E 6e a N N c U U � � N CL O V � CL L2 69 - .a C as CLto � fts -, ❑ N c� O Q % c tm C C� It O y _d C 4 LL ca Q. C>: -, c U N w Q 4i Q dS O N c U U � c c`a s o -, C � o, as � :,oma a -r- C: cv o U E� ' o -a o m O e- c4.1 On m >%M 2-o o Q 1 U')CL 'U 0 cc N E"E N 6,9- c C C G? 6� Q N UO E CD . O O c4 O] a = .� 'U 5 C)- O Oa O co CU C]. O a) 1` E '�'� ai 07 [ c7 C) C) m CJ U '.t r m o fua� a� oa 00 uy m c4 09. LL ca 0 0 U U P Q E \ U) C � U co o � CU m c > o - o 0 r_C W U �. O .3 LO O +, O U cB CU SC 7, LoQ Q = ca it U U O U O c O E cn C XQ O Q a) N- Coca O Z Cu CU CU EtLU O C]. 1— , ( L ?, o U),. CD CD � y� C2 0 O C W C) U o (D a) m o V o : m LO N O ++ fll U 0 m > E ca Z C O lD N U m c o c� p co co LL o N U co Q O Q� O N N LL OcU D a) z c� } A.-' a) Q "0 U � {u a) NJ fU :3> CL cu Q m Q -o CD con U ( U U-) Ln in " co tr H? U O +-U O "- CD uJ N 1- N i- N >- N\ Q� c0 c N c� F-- O -a E LL LL LL F- N 1— City of Meridian 2005 Annual Report 2004 City of Meridian City of Meridian itk Clerk Office Executive Summary Marsh appreciates the opportunity to present City of Meridian with their 2005 renewal report. The intent of this report is to inform the Employee Benefits Committee of the proposed renewal rates and discuss the results of our marketing analysis. Blue Cross of Idaho (BCI) issued the initial renewal for the City of Meridian's 2005 plan year proposing a 33.41% increase. This represents an annual increase of $455,829.60 to the City for the current Medical PPO Plan. Marsh evaluated the renewal and determined the increase requested from Blue Cross was not substantiated based on claims utilization data and underwriting practices identified by Blue Cross. Marsh negotiated the renewal down to 22.62% or an annual increase of $308,661.00; which will save the City $147,168.60 over the proposed renewal. Based on proposals received from Regence Blue Shield of Idaho and United Healthcare and CBSA, which will be discussed further, we recommend renewing with Blue Cross of Idaho. Marsh also recommends the City consider changing the prescription drug plan to incorporate BCPs 3 -tier formulary. Currently under the 2 -tier structure, the participant's co -payments are determined based on the brand name or generic drug dispensed. BCI in conjunction with WellPoint developed a formulary separating cost effective brand name drugs from more expensive, newly approved brand name drugs while taking outcomes into consideration. The plan design of the 3 -tier formulary would change the current prescription drug benefit to the following: ® $10 generic co -payment for a 30 day supply (remains the same as current plan) ® $25 formulary brand name co -payment for a 30 day supply ($20 co -payment for brand name prescriptions is current plan design) * $40 non formulary brand name co -payment for a 30 day supply (current plan pays on 2 tier level) In determining the affect to the City's employees we asked BCI to review the City's formulary compliance percentage. Based on the City's prescription drug utilization for the last twelve (12) months employee's were 90.47% compliant with BCI's formulary list. This percentage is a good indicator on how this change will be perceived. City of Meridian 2005 Annual Report As with any benefit change, there will always be those employees whose prescriptions are not in the formulary. These employees have the option of discussing alternatives with their physicians or paying a higher co -payment for a non -formulary drug. This benefit change further reduces the overall increase to the medical plan to 20.76% an additional annualized savings of $34,687.80 to the City. The renewal conditions are based on Blue Cross of Idaho's Notice of Changes being implemented effective January 1, 2005. Please refer to the APPENDIX for a complete copy of the Notice of Changes BCI will make to the City of Meridian's contract. `Marken �a�k' round Medial On August 23, 2004 Marsh distributed a Request for Proposal (RFP) to Regence Blue Shield of Idaho (RBSI), United Healthcare and CBSA. We requested fully insured medical options as well as self funded alternatives to analyze. Responses to the RFP were due by September 3, 2003 in order to give each carrier ample time to reply to our market specifications, general background information and fees. The purpose and objective of this RFP is to assess the current plans and ensure current pricing and contract language is competitive within the marketplace. RBSI responded with a fully insured medical quote that represents a 22.18% increase over BCPs current rate. While the RBSI quote is very competitive, there are differences in plan designs between the BCI and RBSI. The prescription drug program with RBSI has a mandated 3 -tier formulary plan as compared to the current 2 tier plan with BCI. Regence's formulary is philosophically different than the formulary plan utilized BCI. Re�ence's formulary program is based on outcomes first, and net savings to the plan utilized as the 2" factor when determining which drugs will be considered for the formulary list. The key features that differ RBSI from BCI's are as follows: • 3 tier prescription drug plan ($10 generic/$20 formulary brand name/$40 non formulary brand name — 34 day supply or 100 unit doses which every is less. • Increased individual out of pocket maximum. • There is an annual maximum limitation of $250 paid for wellness benefits. • Emergency room care requires a $50 co -payment in addition to the deductible and coinsurance amounts. The co -payment is waived if admitted to the hospital within 24 hours of treatment. • Chiropractic care is limited to $500 per calendar year for in -network as well as out of network services. • Outpatient physical therapy is limited to $1,000 per calendar year for in -network as well as out of network services. United Healthcare provided a quote, however the proposed rates represent a 30.52% increase over the current BCI premiums. This coupled with lack of a strong physician network and uniquely different benefit design than the members are accustomed does not provide enough favorable factors to further consider this option. BCI, RBSI and United Healthcare all provided a self-funded proposals, however the proposed self-funded administrative fees, reinsurance cost and projected claims liability exceed the fully insured BCI renewal. City of Meridian 2005 Annual Report Marsh would not recommend the City taking this risk, when BCPs fully insured plans is competitive and provides no risk to the City. The Group Dental plan with Delta Dental renews on January 1, 2005. Delta Dental extended the current 2003 — 2004 contract period effective October 1, 2003 through December 31, 2004. The City entered into an experience rated contract October 1, 2003. Marsh solicited proposals from Blue Cross of Idaho, Regence Blue Shield, Assurant and Met Life, Jefferson Pilot and United Healthcare. Blue Cross and Regence, Jefferson Pilot and United Healthcare submitted proposals for a group dental plan. Our findings show all the rates provided were not competitive compared to the current plan in place with Delta Dental. ➢ Blue Cross of Idaho proposed a 36.38% rate increase ➢ Regence Blue Shield proposed a 56.42% rate increase ➢ Jefferson Pilot proposed a 38.88% rate increase ➢ United Healthcare does not currently have a dental network in place in Idaho ➢ Met Life and Assurant both declined to quote due to their plans being uncompetitive Business Psychology Associates (BPA) is proposing a 3.77% increase in their rate from $1.59 pepm to $1.65 pepm effective January 1, 2005. Marsh was able to negotiate a 2 year rate guarantee to the renewal contract. Currently the City's utilization is at 8.2% and employee visits range on average 2.4 visit hours. This illustrates the value of this benefit to the City's employees and we recommend the City continue to provide this valued benefit during the 2005 contract year. B The City implemented the current vision plan with Vision Service Plan (VSP) on January 1, 2001. Blue Cross of Idaho administers and consolidates the billing with the medical plan and the EAP programs. While there appears to be a significant increase to the vision plan for 2005, it is simply a correction as the rates that were nniscommunicated for the 2004 contract year. There is no increase from the 2004 to the 2005. City of Meridian 2005 Annual Report a Marsh solicited proposals from United Heritage, Jefferson Pilot, Regence Life and Health, CIGNA, Assurant and Met Life to determine the competitiveness of all ancillary plans. We received 3 proposals for your consideration. Out of the 6 carriers requested to provide a proposal 3 declined to quote. These carriers could not either quote the lines of coverage requested in the RFP, or were uncompetitive compared to Standard's current contract. Our marketing analysis identified United Heritage as providing the overall most competitive proposals. Short Term Disability United Heritage proposal matches the current rates and provides a 2 -year rate guarantee, which extends the current rates until December 31, 2006. United Heritage also matches the benefit design currently in place with Standard. In addition United Heritage will also include FICA tax filing as well as W-2 preparation not currently being offered by Standard. The annual savings to the City is soft as it saves time in administration. Long Term Disability United Heritage proposal provided a more competitive rate of 0.42% of covered payroll over the current rates and provides a 2 -year rate guarantee. Marsh has reviewed the contract language has found the contract to be the same or enhanced compared to Standard's current contract. The annual savings to the City is $787.81 to transfer to United Heritage, Life AD&D and Dependent Lie United Heritage responded with the same benefit and slight contract differences, resulting in a 5.9% decrease to the current rate. United Heritage's contract requires benefits to reduce at age 70 while there is no age reduction schedule under the Standard contract. Additionally Standard charges the dependent premium for every employee regardless of dependent status, while United Heritage only charges the premium for those employees with dependents. The annual savings to the City is $897.00 to transfer to United Heritage. Voluntary Life/AD&D United Heritage responded with a proposal that offers one rate table whether the employee is a smoker or nonsmoker and provided a lower rate table then the current Standard policy. United Heritage has agreed to grandfather all coverage amounts the employee's currently have enforce. City of Meridian 2005 Annual Report Marsh reviewed the contracts and identified a difference between Standard and United Heritage. Standard currently offers employee and spouse only AD&D coverage with no children) coverage available. United Heritage has agreed to grandfather the existing employee and spouses and any new employee wanting to purchase AD&D coverage. This will be administered through their partnership with Insurance Coordinators of Montana through the US Able Voluntary AD&D product which is very competitive and allows employees to cover their children for this coverage as well. City of Meridian implemented a Section 125 plan for the first time on January 1, 2001 with Xpress Flex formerly Payroll America FLEX. The current monthly administrative fee is $5.50 per employee per month (pepm) for the medical/dependent care reimbursement plan. This rate will not increase and continues through December 31, 2005. Marsh recommends that City of Meridian renew their contract with Xpress Flex as this fee is very competitive in the marketplace. BlueCross. F rB z ®f Idahon% 'ICE OF CHANGES To Your Blue Cross of Idaho Croup Policy .Please bead Car Dear Blue Cross of Idaho Enrollee: This Notice of Changes is a summary of the changes made to your policy. We encourage you to review it carefully. The changes will be effective January 1, 2045. Provider Directories Added specific information to the Benefit Outline to list how an Insured can locate a provider and obtain a Provider directory. Preview Replaced the .Preview section with two sections: Inpatient Notification and Prior Authorization. For Rirther information, please refer to the separate PriorAuthorization brochure included in your BCI benefit renewal packet. Comprehensive Major Medical Section • Modified policy term `Benefit Period'. Benefit Period is the specified period of time during which an Insured's incurred Covered Services accumulate toward annual limits, Deductibles and/or Out-of-pocket limits. • Modified the Covered Provider list to include Nurse Practitioners, Physician Assistants, Certified Nurse Midwives and Clinical Nurse Specialists. Added language at the beginning of the list to clearly state that when a provider is designated as `contracting' no benefits are available for `noncontracting' providers in the state of Idaho. • Clarified that there are no benefits for anesthesia when administered by the surgeon. Benefits are not available for both the surgery and administration of anesthesia when done by the same physician. • Modified the immunization lists to use more general terminology. • Added language to Durable Medical Equipment and Prosthetic Appliances stating the Insured is responsible for excess costs when the Insured or Provider chooses a more expensive treatment than determined by BCI to be the standard and most economical_ • Modified the Women's Cancer Rights language to include the lumpectomy and to state that the reconstructive surgery is connected with a disease related mastectomy/Iumpectomy. • Clarify the Emergency language to explain that the emergency has to be of sufficient severity to necessitate immediate medical care by, or that requires Ambulance Transportation to the nearest facility. 'rescription Drug Section • Clarified the Generic pharmacy language to state that even if the Physician or other covered provider, or the Insured requests a Brand drug, the insured is responsible for the difference in cost between brand and generic. • Modified the maintenance drug definition to explain that only certain drugs are considered maintenance medications, as determined by BCI or its designated agent. • Clarified the exclusion regarding biological sera and blood plasma to indicate benefits may be available under major medical. • Added an exclusion for Prescription Drugs that are newly approved by the FDA until BCT and the Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee has reviewed and approved said drugs. • Modified the cosmetic exclusion to remove the reference to Retin A and expand the language to be consistent with processing procedures. An Independent Licensee of the Blue Crass and Rfue Shield Association Eligibility Section • Modified the eligible dependent area to remove the reference to coverage on the last filed federal tax ret€un and state the dependent primarily receives financial support from the Insured. Definitions • Added definitions for Certified Nurse Midwife, Clinical Nurse Specialist, Nurse Practitioner, and Physician Assistant; and included these new providers in the definition of Provider. • Modified experimental / investigational to use tine term investigational only. Updated the definition to industry standards. Modified the maximum allowance definition to state that maximum allowance may differ depending on whether the provider- is contracting or noncontracting Exclusion Section ® Modified personal hygiene exclusion to include nonsurgical services intended to enhance the appearance. • Clarified the pulmonary and cardiac rehabilitation exclusion to state that this is only applicable to outpatient services. • Added new language to exclude cranial prostheses (wigs) and cranial holding helmets. • Added new language to exclude surgical removal of excess skin that.is the result of weight loss or gain, including but not Iimited to association with prior weight reduction (obesity) surgery. • Added new language to exclude the purchase of therapy or service dogs/animals and the cost of training/maintaining said animals. General Provisions • Records of Eligibility: clarified language to state tine group agrees to notify BCI in writing within 30 days of when a change in dependent status occurs. • Benefits to Which Insureds are Entitled: modified the language to better discuss responsibilities of the outgoing carrier when an Insured is a hospital inpatient. • Coordination of.Benefits: updated language by removing the reference to gender-based rules for coordination of benefits • Inquiry and Appeals Procedures: modified the language discussing adverse benefit determination and to state that an appeal may be sent to external review at the discretion of BCI. Please note: Any changes made to your benefit plan by your employer are not included in this Notice of Changes. This Notice of Changes is only a brief highlight of the changes made. 0€•05 PPO MARSH City of Meridian Revise' Renewal Option ( ...... -- -1 Note: This is a comparison only, not to supersede carrier contract. 'Refer to BCI Notice of mandated changes. Note: This is a comparison only, not to supersede carrier contract. 'Refer to BCI Notice of mandated changes. ( - o a � CL � �( z C C CL b `° tOLn N 19 .q V)- X :- X ' �, �. o j l 0 0,CL E. to c .a E .. . LID — CL m ami o CD ti 'a $ E �_ E E a),p >! m E (u AD w '0.. �a op �� o:..m -. �tO. G �ayNy p-� :�-.. O N...m 4 a 17 U �C O m a L d -.:O a1 ,A d' T- y�i l0 a. _d N C lD,. L C7��.'C W.' Ql - 57:. L + R O u b O '06 b a .tai V - : fl CL 'G:..'..y-+. ' q. :' u V Ui aci 7 v=i-'.-W�W a v=i - A..R uCD oi ° - v {� �i o o' -:. T N N n O In ani' 7 a a aD :c.0 o [1 40 O- y a u ;L V}I L a C N N V�j �1 ri N d L N a vr� a Earl o a' y ,a w tie:- v m o m m to t� o O ZO ti 0 �7 OLn chi C LQ m to Vim• lin m m N T GG7 llGlJ77 N - p- �mmcp t� �"' C O Iri b y in- 4& i1°l 44 M lop P% {� .Q 4�4 •--I �"' - .H ti O 4 Y-. o d ~Im, 3 R5 ucu N X m' k3 W X : la iy .ISCt _. ll _ V' a.a Gj : -; .[Yf O Q .i+ p O co w al CL-.. :�. 5 j y N p m 'Y L1 N tr1•'E ty C ,, L n a,Cay, E -LL°� tl' -:Y:.. �.,� �.`o E o mg oo m4 �' .: : a V mx mx a- �., m a - m °1 a EN E: m a o. - a im yo Z o arr.ymE�� =oo o Q 4 in ^'M N omm.EamE g ro a 0-0 a m �v q,q�� °oma m� -m w': d m. CR c� Err w E n m . N rvsr IftW we aw m"�w$'�,v on on mmm O u M:� 4� cc a°:. m- a10 nor'aMEN Co. RL M- �iRx- w N N' m. 6i 1.. �u a"m iaa N a cm_@ESE um�_a am 9 n _a+0' m vY .- - Ou 5 L CL co 6 O V 10 0 C3 CD N m ra jv N V. -0 vr� lu E ,q R '� N.i c Lain p o M o. o yr N c> �q -m �n a ? G u 8 ma o ro yr9 m [gam o$ n m o x E E� E'er 0 a >> o M o ma a g �'.m � o E 4 E ro n ^' y o v o:01O rg g a . E� C_ h e a''a m.j.... C �„w Ln O _ '.�T '= = Qj U ui ro. a '. C -. a � 0 a YJ '= 07.:1`'1 {[/a�� A i Y. a1 dJ o N' ro m o o In ar . ai a: a -. m C v m a .. C 'L] mm a w 3 a] '� roZ n F 3 W] � p .2 i O a TL ' a In d Ul m al O 7} fl3 .D 7 QJ V1• u L 4 4 0 0 4 N ti r'I a to Q (V N. N M m ro O 7 .> N " p N Ti _ m 1p Vr O n .-� Ln c M n v, L,,. O o o'� +n yr ar yr MtoN A a w - w O 1a� io�nr1 , o•' c a o a EPI m a c ' N 0.. C if- ,-e N iR N m m c y ro:�� m °4 pza o� oym �E 0E p E �w a a c'g ro a ,., f9 5--C) g E- E ai o •a •-� o R. p � . ' o in NM M�, voi o � na I- CL � N T m mLn Ln o V o wM a v o aaQ tlRm �+:w c�� c fl' c �� o ami raE:nr6E N pa,m of NNLNn�>m�mm VV z; m v v n� a arT^'�^a E v E a c t� cmi. }: a ca Q1 m U u qj V aai o :. w U rn v 0 Mas { as co w m ��•• W c r C AM c a d E N toce �QU,uj N = C E ra •[a'[ y a m v C s+ [A U [d G! IO .O a a L+ � N S V m � c Ri � W S � •�• acts St'mUO~LL:aS a E E � � O y i+ CL t! G G � � �i E ? aE i3 cECL E a iN a° E E m OI o IN Ln Iry'na co. o rn S T- -- p 1� ri i ry m Ln N C] � N 1 hE L' av a � a Z o c �: a a c r c 2 v a s `r m >$ 10 of N +ar f0 L QJ Z a O v III m c7 y U cq Q. E +� cn C ul 01 Lo C. N O C 'i }, 6 ro x n, �yy L E o 0 a s.c 1 v c d - 5i" � Su y 'G 'a � c a } 7 C O a Z a - a Z o M a �y a H Go w Co. C3 00 0 ' >. .7 y u m ca M CM oo.a c `m a >- �: o..;co $ .. ry v E �i-. •a co a.. :.a a'.- -yy m 3 E 'O o .._'6 a Ln G C O N tn- �.. Ulp a a Vr Pi ro � a a L q� O ,o I-V O CD o::: 0QQ ii :'^. '� o, -,p aro+ o OOC �.. �T�7 °Jw� ai m d'CO U .': U U r0.^3L lu. C, Ln a '. Z N y'. d a LU3 } v E `. m'., a .�.z a '. ? n. p a a. -: a. [T {�. '. Ln..A:. C U1 O H v y Ci .O 'A a AV ma o: c b M N Cl. 7 7 �.+� 9 Y > u0 L�� O M ¢ 6 N V E 'Oy a CL C O G m G q > E vim, z :3d tn cn 0.ya; ti m` :: f Dq ry Ln T- -- p 1� ri i ry m Ln N C] � N hE L' a � a c r c 2 v a s >$ 10 of N f0 L QJ Z a O v III m y GNN Q. E +� (u C m ro `o 01 Lo C. N O C 'i }, 6 ro x n, �yy L E o 0 a s.c 1 v c d - 5i" Su T- -- p 1� ri i ry m Ln N C] � N City of Meridian Market Analysis for MEDICAL ONLY Self -Funded Pian Designs with Stop Loss Coverage Effective Date: January 1, 2005 A. Plan Administration Costs Medical Plan Design Single EE Rate (1P) Dental Plan Design: Single EE Rate (IP) Total Employees Monthly Plan Administration Expense B. Individual Stop Loss (ISL) Coverage Coverage Basis (imu,,aWpae) Benefits Covered Stop Loss Level Maximum Lifetime Reimbursement 1J7rk3tle0tMsnW & Nenoa Single EE Rate (1P)* Monthly premiums C. Aggregate Stop Loss (AGG) Coverage Coverage Basis (irlcunWp 1a) Benefits Covered Aggregate Basis p00% +riskmrridor) Maximum Annual Reimbursement Single EE Rate (1P)* Monthly Premiums D. TOTAL MONTHLY FIXED COSTS (A + B + C) E. Expected Medical & RX Claims Liability Single EE Rate (1P)* Monthly Expected Calms Liability F. Medical & RX Monthly Aggregate (AGG) Liability Single EE Rate (1P)* Monthly Aggregate Liability G. Estimated Monthly Reserves Single EE Rats (IP)* Monthly Esbina ted Reserves H. EXPECTED LIABILITY (D + E + G) Monthly Expected Liability I. LIABILITY BASED UPON AGG LIABILITY (D + F +G) Monthly Aggregate Liability I. EXPECTED LIABILITY PEPM ( H # Employees) K. AGGREGATE LIABILITY PEPM (I 1 # Employees) Census PPO 197 197 197 197 197 197 197 197 197 197 197 197 197 197 This Is a comparison of benefits only, not to supersede carrier conlraets. Illustrated rates are based on census and health Information provided and may vary based on final underwriting. Regence Blue Shield Proposed PPO $ S 49.30 6.80 11 051.70 Regence Blue Shield Proi3osed PPO $ $ $ $ 12/15 Medical / Rx 35,001) 965,000 144.20 28,407 Regence Blue Shield . Proposed PPD $ $ 12115 Medical / Rx 125% 13.50 2,660 42,119 $ 522.38 75.38 $- 117,760 $ 652.98 75.38 $ 143,487 S 108.83 12.56 23,914 183.793 $ 209,520 932.96 $ 1,063.55 This Is a comparison of benefits only, not to supersede carrier conlraets. Illustrated rates are based on census and health Information provided and may vary based on final underwriting. a c �.. U N m a U OO En >1N N a7 E co N fEa CNil C m O �G 3: tiW C OY i'7 G O O O O O TS a COD ai O vi O m U is cin C v C ++ m a) m c 7N'+ t� c p a •� - •- a1 G! d a4a ooPPoo e M pio �i� dna N F E m rn rn m m V V: 'S N G r fo N c ,�:3 y 3 } � �m"4"��� W N� � � ^'�' a N V N 'O O C Y N c m �'t7 _iis=i m mN m '� F VT `i '� {fh V} iR �p o Cil Ly L m -O n C m 7 7 y a N W 0 0 o a oo E 2 u N O m y c. a o 0 0 0 z z z c cu O vi vcuz a j R. C E ro E E nip v. 3 p 0 m O x Vl C O aEi w m U W j O a) 3 vi r>o. cmo Y U vi c76 Z :3 � � x c 2 m E '` m c u aci c � {., y m nnniani C13,m Eami � p com�a�!° ya' n a s K N o f a m ro E a c a 'm v c _ u v E ru 3 E A n, a •ES X al Cam X u jp C Q) U N u d 4 { �''+I m C }p y N N N • 0 CD 0 {, R Q 4= a ;:I G '� C mi7i N 8 O z O O O O co N :9 A d a O N o N vi v rnrna c In O 0 C In l!1 rtnnn��. G aha al �1 N w c c N N a p 3 } N uNi n n a"`• 11l 'c c m m m m 0 �_ A_ a v c1 �i L ti O Q U C c O s, L m m m E r -W, a� �+r +rr n°0i pf P7 3Gii Exu u=E¢�hpn�c N c c a .a vv i E m 'O �1`! Ln cav�c'+4 c� zzz E mac _o me +� a Dl 'a a`i ¢i E O m Y 70 rEo E m O� 7 C: m m m C N N m m N m N O E c o .0 �] j W 004 m Ln a, E E u O N v a Z o wF O j �� Ul O d O CL Q N rn V o d E o `�rnEC u c+� aci .21 m m` ai 'a N N m N C !0 2S� 3 = Q) rn� p c -o-.-. Q S7 N a/ m = ?• N 'a] Ql Ql F• C7� Ul al O inn Ul N DI C C h 'c yO.. m Q1 �� m E E m N 7 a G,.40. E m 4n Ln NN m Ln N O CO co ,..i O O � vi o , c as CAU -, >' M 'D rn rn to � � M a 9 2i fg :m n m c �9 vi y o a j m is 'm �r ar v� yr s� �ej tG c c E s � U'OP E #'c:,_0 0 O m �} o u rl M ��► aEfo 00o u is v o o o p o z z z a v o m C3 m g �' N Z E _ E E p O M Q X u1 V N Vui � N Ln N cu ai C 60 N ->E C� � o0 c u,N-i-i a ia� u C Ln noo heves IV 0 CL) via rnm V"mvo NNN 'ry�� y b 0, C3. E1 y � -d) � Ar v) W ry`W M 3, Lp y" x cp, 'o O E zx�,�yN o p i Vi - N C U C J..� E o yO al V i N c ID 7i C E 9 c N N C7 4Rd L •E p� iRr. q. 'Gan Q% N al iiD T C' N amen W O� U 14 B cn C •-f c C I.; U �O m m oa C mNm �nau4 �r� E o c ID (.J N 3 c G ?` u N vT m O O O zzz C E� N =M N v �i3 C E Ln Ln M Lm Ln fns oN N U R LLq kq m rV ri m C% to in d• W 0ai CM C L N = 2 j +fir L4 84 iR Mf 0O O� Ol N 7•• N W E E O — GO O G CA e•1 iIt rE E -- o m xm u LL! 0 U- a y Q a V > 7MMO,-i u1 r1 N In C LLI y'1.2 L E S al N "� 'O uv h d E D E v S � em a °N'Q�°6C' Aa _ a �Clm,p n > o" _ 0) � m ociauC33 } �v_a7aciu C= a p ,B m A LIna C\j A} '+n P CA } O N_ E G7 Ul N QOl aOi aOi W W a> > a N +r UT C G. 00 C R] O R 2 CO L O W !- 0 0 0 0 0 0 ca a 4 a U 4 ®LLI a+ C Q n a— LU LU E Ei F- � ti eEu Fes• Lo C LO 0 CL C V N rl 0 !6 n a mem 6 O O a0 W C 4vl � . N d 0 0 ` i M N m fi CN 'C 'C go 01 m[71 O1 y ca T m m in tnn Cd vt +rr ri a`� " 3 ani n N i y a n Yn Y Poi .-� .-i ni Cv O n i¢ N IV 01 6i UD U7 N m o w O 'm m ro '� +y AA- uF 4+ air Neq !t' N Qj m c= Z' o 0 o C iH• 'i E Q d o z zzz m > > r m a E n a a �j vi A N •6 E L° 612 E w w 0 cO Ln O E o a tj O N N W T7 T% E ICO o -0 SO cri Q Ul IO D '�' NFT n ?' y C D 0. yEa R 4n o. -I ,-r p 64 'n 6) N G U 'n C% T N C C C N i- n'1 3� 7� (� A O a LB �p "•� 0 O C m 7 D O m 0 m m o m j m m io E 'i w �rj �F 06 rq a o o a� m !9 a o z Z 0 d 4Ar€ co Ln .� € o f a z u �a a v E m ra a u E 1L E y m o gas V O Ln m ® a 00 u. `m- E E' _ FNo E a N o p _ rn a"'o m a A N -0 Ea Ln o �. N V vi .- a •p of of o t� .+ M O v °' ani i j Q E E G' +�mr �y LA x M y $ v c Z w Cc, E w o o aN V C U.a QJ .0 . CD a 4 ro O Q12 Eo vv o5E a ari`i E LO n 6 N W, a te' w 1O ��� rn o m cu U a a- = c; ron y ono ' a O � � wvv �2m n_Zw,� o zzz v Ln t0 E 'y pj o a_mi �- yq 'm m E G In In In In C. O SV Lri E u 7 �rI Q �� I�-'I 6� v� T rno, �� us 4i rcc el �yE z:Q 3� MrTq w o u m V a c44 a n 0 Ln MN Inn N an 3 3 O 9 E dLLI C • q: s p x a o o a -per iS i = e 0 j V p n N V M N a�a11 N N 4�1 N Cri a C m w1 m �1 .o i7 f/f 9t j. T, Y .J J N C �Sii►"o m S e a m £ O '' a mf w d0000 a a+ G Q O w uj [Euwww ICI LA O O C�! m c m m O V N,A O O N 2 .(u C m P n H� V = J .- t t W C � G � a .� as ,a) o :j U � �,. = d o000 o 0 O= 1-4 00 = =11 w -: 10 0'= 6 ^ [- [-: 03 N W) 59 fe 5e 01 a! con m' oo ¢ tfn fos 6:} 0000 mkn4"r3 Cl- kn N O M 00 ¢, U cn �M��cmn�d N � � ss sFr 64 Q� r -I o q y} v �i CI U 0 0 0 O \0 m OR Od O O b 11 c+i m fJ to 0� N O a dt m vl t- [� c 01 44r �o 00 N N V"7 M M M 64 a% M m VI UM Q M 00 69 64 54 � p C N � 00 cocoon 0\0 m o0OoO 0 `c3 = M N \0 wfit in l� O" _v c tn Q_� M O\ Ono M' �Cr tTr� ¢ •� cn �s vFi s9 N U a o U VI va va Cn y Q o CR j w V� a 9 � m AGIe� 8 v 0 H —C8 ab L Q % W r17 .2 w .� r}� V ais Fm � (DCCY) to th LN C4 O O (fl O C\ O � 693- O �C O 440- 0CDw Y]OONLO LL In 001`Nfl_01`N O ti O N (D co CD O N H � L ~ N L6'— P, r O ig O N N (F} lQ Ofl_ON is a O p O N XCV) Lo Ld ff3 W � (DCCY) to th LN co O cocflN_O O � 693- 60- 440- 0CDw Y]OONLO In 001`Nfl_01`N ti O N (D co CD O N cQ � L ~ N L6'— P, r 64 N (F} {a is 0 0 LO o O Oa N N U X !L CllO X , U CO CO .rte. E C N CU _2 Co CA CU C w" N w N,- <U(DEaiiT(D cc$cO'D X W .a U CO -0 0 W U E c� Ri C C a) CO Q co C C O LI- _Ise co .`OC i 0�OS�coCD 0 � I—�Z ® 1 1%O 4� A LO N cv N � dam' 00 b 6� N f2q x�. W a) v F� s i O O O 00 00 00 � � 6s IT tZ tn 14 'C N 00 M 00 cu a) w c 0 �a a WW 3 A 00 i&S 00 N a� •� N V3 a E 1:11zz 00 6q 0000 0 00 000 00 'dam- dam- dn' CA E8- � �63 ai N-' r c W im 72 ■ me m � � n lZ CV x N O F- o a 00 N N o r- C\l.N 00 C\l ^ CM ti CY) CM � � � � O O O� N O O ti s i) LO C O L 0 O I` CD (D CU Cl) � X C(Y) LO N CN Ccm N N +� 2 .4 b�} f33 61). it tit Q) 0-01 LO CD (I) R X N 0 N } U N X LL co cd LL Co X •U 0 O u- O Cq N ~ Eco U :3 CO W O- E Qi L (" w cU� L? 0 I.I.. L f0� �..4.. I..L 0 �IL co LU U X V 0- 0w Q) x_ (D �r� W C� U (� RS < O E L CLoa) 2).� �, -a (D CL E H x -4 o 0cocn (a CON uL.LZ i0 v BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF PACKARD ESTATES DEVELOPMENT, LLC FOR APPROVAL OF 92 SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING LOTS AND 19 COMMON LOTS ON 30.67 ACRES IN AN R -S ZONE, LOCATED SOUTH OF EAST USTICK ROAD AND EAST OF NORTH EAGLE ROAD IN A RESUBDIVISION OF PORTIONS OF LOTS 4, 5, AND 9, GEORGIANNA MILK'S FIRST SUBDIVISION AND A PORTION OF THE WEST % OF THE NE 1/ OF T. 3N., R. IE., SECTION 4 CIC November 3, 2004 CASE NO. FP -04-061. ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT This matter coming before the City Council for Final Plat approval pursuant to Meridian City Code § 12-3-7 on November 3, 2004, and the Council finding that the Administrative Review is complete from Sonya Allen, Assistant City Planner for the Planning and Zoning Department, and Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager for the Public Works Department, dated: Hearing Date: November 3, 2004, to the Mayor and Council, and the Council having considered the requirements of the preliminary plat the Council takes the following action: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR REDFEATHER ESTATES SUBDIVISION NO. 2/ (FP -04-061) Page 1 of 4 1. The Final Plat of "PLAT SHOWING REDFEATHER ESTATES SUBDIVISION NO. 2 A RESUBDIVISION OF PORTIONS OF LOTS 4, 5, AND 9, GEORGIANNA MILK'S FIRST SUBDIVISION AND A PORTION OF THE WEST %2 OF THE NE '/ OF T. 3N., R. IE., SECTION 4, BOISE MERIDIAN, MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO 2004,140101—PLT.DWG 07/14/04 BKB, HANDWRITTEN DATE: 07114/04, SHEET I OF 3, ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS, LLP, EAGLE, IDAHO, IDAHO SURVEY GROUP, MERIDIAN, IDAHO", Packard Estates Development, LLC, Developer, is Conditionally Approved subject to those conditions of Staff comments as set forth in the Memorandum to the Mayor and City Council from Sonya Allen, Assistant City Planner for the Planning and Zoning Department and Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager for the Public Works Department, dated: Hearing Date: November 3, 2004, listing 27 SITE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS/FINAL PLAT, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto marked Exhibit "A", and consisting of 5 pages, and by this reference incorporated herein, and the response letter from Engineering Solutions, LLP, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto marked Exhibit "B" and consisting of 3 pages, and by this reference incorporated herein, and the additional requirements from the action of the Council taken at their November 3, 2004 meeting as follows, to -wit: ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR REDFEATHER ESTATES SUBDIVISION NO. 2/ (FP -04-061) Page 2 of 4 1.1 Adopt the action of the City Council taken at their November 3, 2004 meeting and specifically pertaining to the Staff Report under Conditions of Approval, number 22, which reads as follows: Conditions of Approval 22. Increase the width of any side yard public utilities, drainage and irrigation easement where a pressurized irrigation main line is located. The minimum width shall be the pipe offset from the property line plus 5 -feet. Adding a Special Note: If easement is a lesser standard the City will require a confirmation letter from Nampa Meridian Irrigation District. 2. The final plat upon which there is contained the Certification and signature of the City Clerk and the City Engineer verifying that the plat meets the City's requirements shall be signed only at such time as: 1. The Plat dimensions are approved by the City Engineer; and 2. The City Engineer has verified that all off-site improvements are completed and/or the appropriate letter of credit or cash has been issued guaranteeing the completion of off-site and required on-site improvements. 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 issue. A ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR REDFEATHER ESTATES SUBDIVISION NO. 2/ (FP -04-061) Page 3 of 4 request for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for Judicial 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 § 67-6521. An affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which maybe adversely affected by this decision may, within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of this decision and order, seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code. By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on therd day of Nc)yc n ber— 72004. 55,y 55VVf Ikllllllt 1 �` ���4�� �� ���`�/r f a • e- eerd o iC a ty of Meridian Attest: SEAL William G. Berg, Jr., City Clerk Copy served upon Applicant, the Planning and Zoning Department, Public Works Department, and City Attorney. By- f�--r Dated: C1 y Clerk's Office ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR REDFEATHER ESTATES SUBDIVISION NO. 2/ (FP -04-061) Page 4 of 4 MAYOR .� Tammy de Weerd CITY OF``I' /01 CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS Keith Bird e' Christine Donnell Shaun Wardle IDAHO Charles M. RountreeR, CF�ft a I'REASURF V 9m'C8 19A;1 STAFF REPORT: To: Mayor and City Council From: Sonya Allen, Assistant City Planner c1 Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager Re: Redfeather Estates Subdivision No. 2 CITY HALL (208) 8884433 — Fax 887-4813 PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING DEPARTMENT (208) 887-2211 — Fax 898-9551 LEGAL DEPARTMENT (208) 466-9272 — FAX 466-4405 Hearing Date: November 3, 2004 Request for Final Plat Approval of Ninety-two (92) Single -Family Residential Building Lots and Nineteen (19) Common Lots on 30.67 Acres in an R-8 Zone for Redfeather Estates Subdivision No. 2, by Packard Estates Development, LLC (File No. FP -04-061). We have reviewed the above -referenced submittal and offer the following comments, as conditions of approval. These conditions shall be considered in full, unless expressly modified or deleted by motion of the Meridian City Council: APPLICATION SUMMARY & LOCATION The applicant, Packard Estates Development, LLC, has applied for Final Plat approval of 92 single-family residential building lots and 19 common lots on 30.67 acres of land for Redfeather Estates Subdivision No. 2. This is a re -subdivision of portions of Lots 4, 5, and 9, Georgianna Milk's First Subdivision. The zoning designation for the proposed subdivision is R-8 (Medium Density Residential). This subdivision will have a gross density of 3.01 d.u./acre and a net density of 4.08 d.u./acre. Redfeather Estates Subdivision No. 2 is located south. of E. Ustick Road and east of N. Eagle Road, in the NE t/aof Section 4, T.3N., R.IE. This is the first final plat to be recorded in compliance with the Red Feather Estates Subdivision No. 2 preliminary plat. The first preliminary plat (Red Feather Estates Subdivision) and the first final plat are within the corporate limits of the City of Boise. The City of Boise processed and approved those applications. The common area lots within the subdivision consist of landscape, open space, and drainage lots and will be maintained by the Homeowner's Association. There is a clubhouse, pool, and FP -04-061 Exhibit "A" Redfeather Estates Sub2. FP.doc Mayor & City Council Hearing Date: November 3, 2004 Page 2 of 5 recreation area proposed for Lot 1, Block 16. The pressurized irrigation system within this development is to be owned and maintained by Nampa Meridian Irrigation District. A Conditional Use Permit was approved for this subdivision that allowed for reductions to the minimum requirements for the R-8 zone for the following: Iot size (from 6,500 s.f. to 5,250 s.f. — detached), street frontage (from 65 -feet to 37 -feet & cul-de-sac from 40 -feet to 33 -feet), and house size (from 1,301 s.f. to 1,200 s.f.). The submitted final plat substantially complies with the approved preliminary plat. Some lots were reconfigured in Block 9; however, the number of building lots stayed the same. There is one lot less on the final plat than was approved on the preliminary plat for Block 13 and two lots less on block 10; however, open space was increased on both of these lots. Staff recommends approval of the final plat with the comments and conditions stated in this report. SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Applicant shall meet all terms of the approved Preliminary Plat (PP -03-024), Conditional Use Permit (CUP -03-041), and Development Agreements (Inst. No's. 104129529 & 104129528) approved for this development. 2. The pressurized irrigation system within this development is to be owned and maintained by Nampa Meridian Irrigation District. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water. If a creek or well source is not available, a single -point connection to the municipal water system shall be required. If a single -point connection is utilized, the developer shall be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to signature on the final plat by the Meridian City Engineer. 3. Sanitary sewer service to this subdivision shall be via an extension from the South Slough Trunk. The applicant will be responsible to construct the sewer mains to and through this proposed development, thereby making them available to adjacent properties. Subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. Applicant shall execute City of Meridian standard forms of easements, for any mains that are required to provide service. 4. Municipal water to this site shall be via extensions from existing mains in E. Ustick Road, and N. Eagle Road. Applicant will be responsible to construct the water mains to and through this proposed development, thereby making them available to adjacent properties within the City of Meridian's Urban Services Planning Area. Subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. Applicant shall execute City of Meridian standard forms of easements, for any mains that are required to provide service. 5. Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and. construction FP -04-061 Exhibt "A" Redfeather Estates Sub2. FP.doc Mayor & City Council Hearing Date: November 3, 2004 Page 3 of 5 inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process, prior to signature on the final plat per Resolution 02-374. 6. Any drainage areas (detention/retention basins) must be designed to ensure that water will percolate or discharge within a period of time not to exceed 24 hours for all storms up to and including a 100 -year storm event. 7. Temporary construction fencing to contain debris shall be installed along the boundaries of this phase unless permanent fencing already exists at the subdivision boundaries. All fencing shall be in compliance with MCC 12-4-10. 8. Submit final street name approval letter prior to signature on the final plat. 9. Maintenance of the twenty -foot wide landscape easement on Lot 1, Block 16, along N. Grenadier Way shall be addressed in the CC&R's. Submit a revised copy of the CC&R's with this inclusion noted prior to signature on the final plat. 10. Graphically depict all sewer easements and/or other easements on the face of the plat. 11. Add or revise the following plat notes: Note 43: "...at the time of re -subdivision. Uon an redevelo mento Lot 1 Block 16 the existing stub street„ in Dawson Meadows Subdivision„ must be extended to provide Inner-connectavi between Red Bather Estates Subdivision No 2 and Dawson Meadows Subdivision." Note #5: "...zoning regulations of the City of Meridian and CUP -03-041." Note #10: Add Lot 21, Block 16 as a storm drainage lot per the landscape plan. 12. Revise the Landscape Plan (dated 10-8-04) as follows: a. Six-foot vinyl fencing is required adjacent to E. Ustick Road to match proposed. fencing along subdivision boundary on the cast. b. Contours must be shown for all drainage swales (Lot 1, Block 10 is listed in the notes on the plat as storm drainage). C. Landscaping (min. 5 -feet) must be shown in the parkway area between the curb and sidewalk along Ustick Road. Also, if the unimproved street right-of-way is greater than 13 -feet from edge of pavement to edge of sidewalk or property line, the developer must maintain a 10 -foot wide gravel shoulder and landscape the remainder with lawn or other vegetative groundcover. A license agreement will be required between the property owner and ACHD for Iandscaping within the right-of-way (MCC 12-13-10-9). Show gravel shoulder on the plan. d. Pathways shown on Lot 20, Block 16, and Lot 15, Block 16, must be paved. C. Fencing (max. 4 -ft. tall if solid material) must be shown along all micropaths. No fencing is required. along the north side of Lot 20, Block 16. f. The plant size for woody shrubs is 2 gallon pot minimum (MCC 12-I3-7-3). The Prince of Wales juniper is shown in the legend at I -gallon size. FP -04-061 Exhibt "A" Redfeather Estates Sub2. F.P.doc Mayor & City Council Hearing Date: November 3, 2004 Page 4of5 g. Grass symbol must be shown for all grassy areas (Lot 2, Block 16 and parkway on Lot 1, Block 14). h. Define symbol shown in bottom of stormwater detention basins along with grass. (Cobble is not allowed except in a rock sump or as arranged in a dry creek bed design). i. Relocate tree shown in the middle of the access drive on Lot 1, Block 16. j. Include information of the firm who prepared the landscape plan. 13. Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project shall 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. 14. Two -Hundred -fifty watt (250w) and One -Hundred watt (100w), high-pressure sodium streetlights will be required at locations designated by the Public Works Department. All streetlights shall be installed at subdivider's expense. Typical locations are at street intersections and/or fire hydrants. Final design locations and quantity are determined after power designs are completed by Idaho Power Company. Street light contractor to obtain design and permit from the Public Works Department prior commencing installations. 15. 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. 16. Coordinate fire hydrant placement with the City of Meridian's Deputy Fire Chief and the Public Works Department. 17. Submit a copy of the encroachment agreement with NMID for the Milk's Lateral prior to pre -construction meeting. 18. Sidewalks within the proposed subdivision shall be built in accordance with MCC 12-13-10- 8. 19. All development shall comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act, 20. Please submit a copy of the Ada County Street Name Committee's "Final" letter for the street names and lot & block numbering. Make all corrections necessary to comply. 21. All irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or lying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be tiled per City Ordinance 12-4-13. Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate .irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association (ditch owner's), with written approval or non -approval submitted to the Public Works Department. If lateral users association approval can't be obtained, plans will be reviewed and approved by the meridian City Engineer prior to final plat signature. 22. Increase the width of any side yard public utilities, drainage and irrigation easement where a pressurized irrigation main line is Iocated. The minimum width shall be the pipe offset from FP -04-061 Exhibt "A" Redfeather Estates Sub2. FP.doe Mayor & City Council Hearing Date: November 3, 2004 Page 5 of 5 the property line plus 5 -feet. 23. Street signs are to be in place, water system shall be approved and activated, pressurized irrigation system approved and activated, drainage lots constructed, fencing installed, and road base approved by the Ada County Highway District prior to applying for building permits. All development improvements, including, but not limited too, perimeter fencing, irrigation, and landscaping shall be installed and approved prior to obtaining certificates of occupancy. A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all fencing, Iandscaping, pressurized irrigation, amenities, sanitary sewer, water, etc., prior to signature on the final plat. 24. Please submit all updated groundwater/soils monitoring data to the Public Works Department for review. Any 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. Any portion of a drainage area not improved with sod/grass seed. (or other approved landscaping) shall not count towards the required open space area. The project engineer should pay close attention to the results of field. studies determining the groundwater, soil type & and characteristics during the design and construction phases. The engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3 -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 1 -foot above. 25. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 26. There appears to be a drafting error in the depicted location of the section corners. From the legal description in the Certificate of Owner's, it appears that the centerline of E. Ustick Road and the section line are one in the same. Please correct, or clarify the discrepancy. 27. Staff's failure to cite specific preliminary plat, or conditional compliance. RECOMMENDATION ordinance provisions or terms of the approved annexation use permit does not relieve Applicant of responsibility for Staff recommends approval of the final plat for Redfeather Estates Subdivision No. 2 with the above stated comments and conditions. FP -04-061 Exhibt "A" Redfeather Estates Sub2. FP.doc E N l50 Bast Aikens Street, Suite B bq L�a�er Eagic. IQ 836I6 Phone, (209) 938-0980 UTIONS,PBax: (209) 938-0941 G-[nail: es-becky n:Yigc vest. net November 2, 2004 Mayor and City Council City of Meridian 33 East Idaho Avenue Meridian, ID 83642 Re: Redfeather Estates Subdivision No. 2 File No. FP -04-061 Dear Mayor and Council: We have reviewed the recommendations for the City Council meeting of November 3, 2004, and have the following responses: APPLICATION SUMMARY AND LOCATION For clarification Purposes, the clubhouse/pool/recreation area is ail Lot 1, Bloch 14. (The third paragraph references Lot 1, Block 16.) SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The applicant %,411 comply. 2. The applicant will comply. United Water will provide the second source based on the fact that the NMJI) regional pump station is located within Boise City limits. 3. The applicant will comply. 4. The applicant will comply. 5. The applicant will comply. 6. The applicant will comply. 7. The applicant will comply. 8. The applicant will comply. C!0mumentsand Intcrnct ries,01,K] S 1tee9Rcsponse.doc November 2, 2004 Page 2 9, The applicant will comply. 10. The applicant will comply. 11 The applicant will revise the final plat. 12. The applicant will revise the landscape plan. 13. The applicant will comply. 14. The applicant will. comply. 15, The applicant will comply. 16. The applicant will comply. 17. The applicant will comply. 18. The applicant will comply. 1.9. The applicant will comply. 20. The applicant will comply. 21. The applicant will comply. 22. Lots 11 and 16, dock 9, are 50 and 53 feet wide. We respectfully request that the standard 5° side yard easement apply to these lots. We are concerned that m larger Vi easement for pressure irrigation may compromise the building pad area and•ender the lot difficult to build upon. ,�Ov t PAID i/�� o_ fA , V( �c � r�2� "'ii 23. The applicant will comply. of - 24. The applicant will comply. 25. The applicant will comply. 26. "Che applicant will comply. 27. Noted. i:.°:[)oi wwnt5 asid Selling! `Teri pmry hitcmct i14 .OF lS`liccxResixmse.doe Exhihil 11" Mayor and City Cwncil`' November ?, 2004 Page 3 We appreciate staff's review of our project. We respectfully request approval of the application for final plat with the clarifications noted above. Thank you. Sincerely, Engineering Solutions, LLP Becky McKay, Partner Project Manauer l3M:ss cc: Mr. R. Craig Groves C' Documents and SctthtrvJcmporiry €sttentct C'i€cs':oL€:l5' €2escTtes�o�3se.doc I:xhibii "€3" BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF PACKARD ESTATES DEVELOPMENT, LLC FOR APPROVALOF 46 SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING LOTS AND 3 COMMON LOTS ON 13.73 ACRES IN AN R -S ZONE, LOCATED SOUTH OF EAST USTICK ROAD AND EAST OF NORTH EAGLE ROAD IN A RESUBDIVISION OF PORTIONS OF LOTS 5, 6, 7, AND 9, GEORGIANNA MILK'S FIRST SUBDIVISION LOCATED IN THE SW'/ OF THE NE % OF T. 3N., R. LE., SECTION 4 CIC November 3, 2004 CASE NO. FP -04-062 ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT This matter coming before the City Council for Final Plat approval pursuant to Meridian City Code § 12-3-7 on November 3, 2004, and the Council finding that the Administrative Review is complete from Sonya Allen, Assistant City Planner for the Planning and Zoning Department, and Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager for the Public Works Department, dated: Hearing Date: November 3, 2004, to the Mayor and Council, and the Council having considered the requirements of the preliminary plat the Council takes the following action: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR REDFEATHER ESTATES SUBDIVISION NO. 3/ (FP -04-062) Page 1 of 5 1. The Final Plat of "PLAT SHOWING REDFEATHER ESTATES SUBDIVISION NO. 3 A RESUBDIVISION OF PORTIONS OF LOTS 5, 6, 7 AND 9, GEORGIANNA MILK'S FIRST SUBDIVISION LOCATED IN THE SW % OF THE NE % OF T. 3N., R. IE., SECTION 4, BOISE MERIDIAN, MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO 2004, 140301—PLT.DWG 09/21/04 BKB, HANDWRITTEN DATE: 09129104, SHEET 1 OF 2, ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS, LLP, EAGLE, IDAHO, IDAHO SURVEY GROUP, MERIDIAN, IDAHO,"PACKARD ESTATES DEVELOPMENT, LLC, Developer, is Conditionally Approved subject to those conditions of Staff comments as set forth in the Memorandum to the Mayor and City Council from Sonya Allen, Assistant City Planner for the Planning and Zoning Department and Brace Freckleton, Development Services Manager for the Public Works Department, dated: Hearing Date: November 3, 2004, listing 25 SITE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS/FINAL PLAT, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto marked Exhibit "A", and consisting of 5 pages, and by this reference incorporated herein, and the response letter from Engineering Solutions, LLP, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto marked Exhibit "B" and consisting of 2 pages, and by this reference incorporated herein, and the additional requirements from the action of the Council taken at their November 3, 2004 meeting as follows, to -wit: 1.1 Adopt the action of the City Council taken at their November 3, 2004 meeting, and specifically pertaining to the staff report, under Conditions of ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR REDFEATHER ESTATES SUBDIVISION NO. 3/ (FP -04-062) Page 2 of 5 Approval, to strike number 9 and Ila, and revise number 19 to allow the ditch to remain open, which read as follows: 9. Lot 5, Block 20 is not configured the same as was approved on the preliminary plat. Restore to its approved configuration. I la. Revise the lot configuration on Lot 5, Block 20 per the approved preliminary plat. 19. All irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or lying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be tiled per City Ordinance 12-4-13. Plans will. need to be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association (ditch owners), with written approval or non -approval submitted to the Public Works Department. If lateral users association approval can't be obtained, plans will be reviewed and approved by the meridian City Engineer prior to final plat signature. 1.2 Adopt the Recommendation of the Central District Health Department as follows: The Central District Health requires after written approval from the appropriate entities are submitted, they can approve this proposal for central sewage and central water; that plans must be submitted to and approved by the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, Division of Environmental Quality for central sewage and central water; that run-off is not to create a mosquito breeding problem; and it is suggested that the stormwater be pretreated through a grassy swale prior to discharge to the subsurface to prevent impact to groundwater and surface water quality; that engineers and architects should obtain current best management practices for stormwater disposal and design a stormwater management system that is ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR REDFEATHER ESTATES SUBDIVISION NO. 3/ (FP -04-062) Page 3 of 5 E preventing groundwater and surface water degradation. Manuals for guidance: 1. State of Idaho Catalog of Stormwater Best Management Practices for Idaho Cities and Counties. Prepared by the Idaho Division of Environmental Quality, July 1997. 2. Stormwater Best Management Practices Guidebook. Prepared by City of Boise Public Works Department, May 2000. 2. The final plat upon which there is contained the Certification and signature of the City Clerk and the City Engineer verifying that the plat meets the City's requirements shall be signed only at such time as: 1. The Plat dimensions are approved by the City Engineer; and 2. The City Engineer has verified that all off-site improvements are completed and/or the appropriate letter of credit or cash has been issued guaranteeing the completion of off-site and required on-site improvements. 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 issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for Judicial 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 § 67-6521. An affected person being a person who has an interest ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR REDFEATHER ESTATES SUBDIVISION NO. 31(FP-04-062) Page 4 of 5 in real property which maybe adversely affected by this decision may, within twenty-eight(28) days after the date of this decision and order, seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title b7, Idaho Code. By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the —3 rd' day OV e eerd ?� �o �Ma ty of Meridian Attest: BEAL - y a) William G. Berg Jr. C' y d&_%// _%// Copy served upon Applicant, the planning and Zoning Department, Public Works Department, and City Attorney. By Dated: U -24-c,4 City Clerk's Office ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR REDFEATHER ESTATES SUBDIVISION NO. 3/ (FP -04-062) Page 5 of 5 CITY HALL (208) 888-4433 — Fax 887-4813 PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING DEPARTMENT (208) 887-2211 —Fax 898-9551 LEGAL DEPARTMENT (208) 466-9272 — FAX 466-4405 STAFF REPORT: Hearing Date: November 3, 2004 To: Mayor and City Council From: Sonya Allen, Assistant City Planner 4 Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager Re: Redfeather Estates Subdivision No. 3 Request for Final Plat Approval of Forty-six (46) Single -Family Residential Building Lots and Three (3) Common Lots on 13.73 Acres in an R-8 Zone for Redfeather Estates Subdivision No. 3, by Packard Estates Development, LLC (File No. FP -04-062). We have reviewed the above -referenced submittal and offer the following comments, as conditions of approval. These conditions shall be considered in full, unless expressly modified or deleted by motion of the Meridian City Council: APPLICATION SUMMARY & LOCATION The applicant, Packard Estates Development, LLC, has applied for Final Plat approval of 46 single-family residential building lots and 3 common lots on 13.73 acres of land for Redfeather Estates Subdivision No. 3. This is a re -subdivision of portions of Lots 5, 6, 7, and 9, Georgianna Milk's First Subdivision. The zoning designation for the proposed subdivision is R-8 (Medium Density Residential). This subdivision will have a gross density of 3.35 d.u./acre and a net density of 4.19 d.u./acre. Redfeather Estates Subdivision No. 3 is located approximately '/2 mile south of E. Ustick Road and % mile west of N. Cloverdale Road, in the NE % of Section 4, T.3N., R.I.E. This is the second final plat to be recorded in compliance with the Red Feather Estates Subdivision No. 2 preliminary plat. The first preliminary plat (Red Feather Estates Subdivision) and the first final plat are within the corporate limits of the City of Boise. The City of Boise processed and approved those applications. FP -04-062 Exhibit "A" Redfeather Estates Sub3. FP.doe MAYOR Tammy de Weerd CITY OF L; CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS Keith Bird Christine Donnell Wardle IDAHO Charles M. Rountree F✓ RFi n 41,AE1L5L11iv. V =1903 CITY HALL (208) 888-4433 — Fax 887-4813 PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING DEPARTMENT (208) 887-2211 —Fax 898-9551 LEGAL DEPARTMENT (208) 466-9272 — FAX 466-4405 STAFF REPORT: Hearing Date: November 3, 2004 To: Mayor and City Council From: Sonya Allen, Assistant City Planner 4 Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager Re: Redfeather Estates Subdivision No. 3 Request for Final Plat Approval of Forty-six (46) Single -Family Residential Building Lots and Three (3) Common Lots on 13.73 Acres in an R-8 Zone for Redfeather Estates Subdivision No. 3, by Packard Estates Development, LLC (File No. FP -04-062). We have reviewed the above -referenced submittal and offer the following comments, as conditions of approval. These conditions shall be considered in full, unless expressly modified or deleted by motion of the Meridian City Council: APPLICATION SUMMARY & LOCATION The applicant, Packard Estates Development, LLC, has applied for Final Plat approval of 46 single-family residential building lots and 3 common lots on 13.73 acres of land for Redfeather Estates Subdivision No. 3. This is a re -subdivision of portions of Lots 5, 6, 7, and 9, Georgianna Milk's First Subdivision. The zoning designation for the proposed subdivision is R-8 (Medium Density Residential). This subdivision will have a gross density of 3.35 d.u./acre and a net density of 4.19 d.u./acre. Redfeather Estates Subdivision No. 3 is located approximately '/2 mile south of E. Ustick Road and % mile west of N. Cloverdale Road, in the NE % of Section 4, T.3N., R.I.E. This is the second final plat to be recorded in compliance with the Red Feather Estates Subdivision No. 2 preliminary plat. The first preliminary plat (Red Feather Estates Subdivision) and the first final plat are within the corporate limits of the City of Boise. The City of Boise processed and approved those applications. FP -04-062 Exhibit "A" Redfeather Estates Sub3. FP.doe Mayor & City Council Hearing Date: November 3, 2004 Page 2 of 5 The common area lots within the subdivision consist of landscape, open space, and drainage lots and will be maintained by the Homeowner's Association. The pressurized irrigation system within this development is to be owned and maintained by Nampa Meridian Irrigation District. A Conditional Use Permit was approved for this subdivision that allowed for reductions to the minimum requirements for the R-8 zone for the following: lot size (from 6,500 s.f to 5,250 s.f — detached), street frontage (from 65 -feet to 37 -feet & cul-de-sac from 40 -feet to 33 -feet), and house size (from 1,301 s.f. to 1,200 s.f.). The submitted final plat substantially complies with the approved preliminary plat. The open space/storm drainage lot increased and lot frontages decreased slightly in size in Block 21; however, they are still within the minimum frontage approved for the planned development. The open space configuration on Lot 5, Block 20 has changed since preliminary plat approval; however, staff is requesting that it be restored to its previously approved configuration. Staff recommends approval of the final plat with the comments and conditions stated in this report. SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Applicant shall meet all terms of the approved Preliminary Plat (PP -03-024), Conditional Use Permit (CUP -03-041), and Development Agreements (Inst. No's. 104129529 & 104129528) approved for this development. 2. The pressurized irrigation system within this development is to be owned. and maintained by Nampa Meridian Irrigation District. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water. If a creek or well source is not available, a single -point connection. to the municipal water system shall be required. If a single -point connection is utilized, the developer shall be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to signature on the final plat by the Meridian City Engineer. 3. Sanitary sewer service to this subdivision shall be via an extension from the South Slough Trunk. The applicant will be responsible to construct the sewer mains to and through this proposed development, thereby making them available to adjacent properties. Subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. Applicant shall execute City of Meridian standard forms of easements, for any mains that are required to provide service. 4. Municipal water to this site shall be via extensions from existing mains in E. Ustick Road, and N. Eagle Road. Applicant will be responsible to construct the water mains to and through this proposed development, thereby making them available to adjacent properties within the City of Meridian's Urban Services Planning Area. Subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. FP -04-062 Exhibit "A" Redfeather Estates Subl FP.doc Mayor & City Council Hearing Date: November 3, 2004 Page 3 of 5 Applicant shall execute City of Meridian standard forms of easements, for any mains that are required to provide service. 5. Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process, prior to signature on the final plat per Resolution 02-374. 6. Any drainage areas (detention/retention basins) must be designed to ensure that water will percolate or discharge within a period of time not to exceed 24 hours for all storms up to and including a 100 -year storm event. 7. Temporary construction fencing to contain debris shall be installed along the boundaries of this phase unless permanent fencing already exists at the subdivision boundaries. All fencing shall be in compliance with MCC 12-4-10. 8. Graphically depict all sewer easements and/or other easements on the face of the plat. 9. Lot 5, Block 20 is not configured the same as was approved on the preliminary plat. Restore to its approved configuration. 10. Add or revise the following plat notes: (5.) ...zoning regulations of the City of Meridian and CUP -03-041. (14.) (Complete recording information.) 11. Revise the Landscape Plan (dated 9-27-04, prepared by Harvest Design) as follows: a. Revise the lot configuration on Lot 5, Block 20 per the approved preliminary plat. b. Pathway through Lot 5, Block 20 must be paved. 12. Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within. this project shall 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. 13. One -Hundred watt (100w), high-pressure sodium streetlights will be required at locations designated by the Public Works Department. All streetlights shall be installed at subdivider's expense. Typical locations are at street intersections and/or fire hydrants. Final design locations and quantity are determined after power designs are completed by Idaho Power Company. Street light contractor to obtain design and permit from the Public Works Department prior commencing installations. 14. 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. F.P-04-062 Exhibit "A" Redfeather Estates Sub3. FP.doc Mayor & City Council Hearing Date: November 3, 2004 Page 4 of 5 15. Coordinate fire hydrant placement with the City of Meridian's Deputy Fire Chief and the Public Works Department. 16. Sidewalks within the proposed subdivision shall be built in accordance with MCC 12- 13-10-8. 17. All development shall comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 18. Please submit a copy of the Ada County Street Name Committee's "Final" letter for the street names and lot & block numbering. Make all corrections necessary to comply. 19. All irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or lying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be tiled per City Ordinance 12-4-13. Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association (ditch owners), with written approval or non -approval submitted to the Public Works Department. If lateral users association approval can't be obtained, plans will be reviewed and approved by the meridian City Engineer prior to final plat signature. 20. Increase the width of any side yard public utilities, drainage and irrigation easement where a pressurized irrigation main line is located. The minimum width shall be the pipe offset from the property line plus 5 -feet. 21. Street signs are to be in place, water system shall be approved and activated, pressurized irrigation system approved and activated, drainage lots constructed, fencing installed, and road base approved by the Ada County Highway District prior to applying for building permits. All development improvements, including, but not limited too, perimeter fencing, irrigation, and landscaping shall be installed and approved prior to obtaining certificates of occupancy. A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all fencing, landscaping, pressurized irrigation, amenities, sanitary sewer, water, etc., prior to signature on the final plat. 22. Please submit all updated groundwater/soils monitoring data to the Public Works Department for review. Any 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. Any portion of a drainage area not improved with sod/grass seed (or other approved landscaping) shall not count towards the required open space area. The project engineer should pay close attention to the results of field studies determining the groundwater, soil type & and characteristics during the design and construction phases. The engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3 -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 1 -foot above. FP -04-062 Exhibit "A" Redfeather Estates Sub3. FP.doc Mayor & City Council Hearing Date: November 3, 2004 Page 5 of 5 23. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 24. The situate statement in the legal description of the Certificate of Owner's lists Lots 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9 of Georgianna Milk's First Subdivision, however the situate on the face of the plat excludes Lot 4. Please correct. 25. Staff's failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or terms of the approved annexation preliminary plat, or conditional use permit does not relieve Applicant of responsibility for compliance. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the final plat for Redfeather Estates Subdivision No. 3 with the above stated comments and conditions. FP -04-062 Exhibit "A" Redfeather Estates Subl FP.doc November 2, 2004 Mayor and City Council City of Meridian 33 East .idalio Avenue Meridian, ID 83642 Re: Redfeather Estates Subdivision Na. 3 Fele No. FP -04-062 Dear Mayor and Council' 150 East Aikens Street. Suite B Eagle, 1D 83016 Phone: (208) 93&0980 Fax: (208) 938-0941 E-mail: cs-bcckyny! !q( vest.net We have reviewed the recommendations for the City Council meeting of November 3, 2004, and have the following responses: SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The applicant will comply. 2. The applicant will comply. 3. The applicant will comply. 4. The applicant will comply. 5. The applicant will comply. 6. The applicant will comply. 7. The applicant will comply. 8. The applicant will comply. 9. We have discussed this item with staff, and it has been agreed that the configuration was changed from are tbe ng constructed as part o Redfeatheproved rf Estateshe street Subdivision ers No���,Lot 5, Block 20, 10. The corrections to the notes have been made. It. Per item 9 above, the combined landscape plans for Redfeather Estates Subdivisions Nos. 2 and 3 reflect the approved preliminary plat configuration. C Ooctinienls and Intemot File-OI..K15lRecsResponFcl.doc C Mayor and City Council November 2, 2004 Page 2 12. The applicant will comply. 13. The applicant will comply. 14. The applicant will comply. 15. The applicant will comply. 16. The applicant will comply. 17. The applicant will comply. 18. The applicant will comply. 19. The applicant will comply, with the exception of the Clover Meadows Subdivision ditch which lies on the south boundary. Mover Meadows homeowners, during the preliminary plat hearing, requested the ditch be left opera and the developer offset Y the fence two feet north. 20_ The applicant will comply. 21. The applicant will comply. 22. The applicant will comply. 23. The applicant will comply. 24 The situate statements will be corrected. 25 Noted. Thank you for your review of our project. We respectfully request approval of the application for final plat with the clari tl ications noted above. Thank you. Sincerely, Engineering Solutions, LLP Becky McKay, Partner Project Manager BM;ss cc: Mr. R. Craig Groves C: hatnntents and S ftinQa �[lc�is.[..uca1 Scttin':i'c�npor�ry lntcM�et Fins'.OLiC75'dtessRcsats�l.dc�c Fxhihst "B" BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF SAGEWOOD DEVELOPMENT, INC. FOR APPROVAL OF 35 SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING LOTS AND 6 COMMON LOTS ON 8.84 ACRES IN AN R-8 ZONE, LOCATED NORTH OF WEST USTICK ROAD AND EAST OF NORTH LINDER ROAD IN A PORTION OF THE NE/40F THE SW!/40F T. 4N., R. 1W., SECTION 36 CIC November 3, 2004 CASE NO. FP -04-064 ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT This matter conning before the City Council for Final Plat approval pursuant to Meridian City Code § 12-3-7 on November 3, 2004, and the Council finding that the Administrative Review is complete from Sonya Allen, Assistant City Planner for the Planning and Zoning Department, and Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager for the Public Works Department, dated: Hearing Date: November 3, 2004, to the Mayor and Council, and the Council having considered the requirements of the preliminary plat the Council takes the following action: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: The Final Plat of "PLAT SHOWING SIENNA CREEK SUBDIVISION NO. 1 LOCATED IN A PORTION OF THE NE % OF THE SW/40F T. 4N., R. 1 W., ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR SIENNA CREEK. SUBDIVISION NO. 1 / (FP -04-064) Page 1 of 4 SECTION 36, BOISE MERIDIAN, MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO 2004, HANDWRITTEN DATE: 09108/04, SHEET I OF 3, BAILEY ENGINEERING, INC.", Sagewood Development, Inc., Developer, is Conditionally Approved subject to those conditions of Staff comments as set forth in the Memorandum to the Mayor and City Council from Sonya Allen, Assistant City Planner for the Planning and Zoning Department and Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager for the Public Works Department, dated: Hearing Date: November 3, 2004, listing 14 SITE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS/FINAL PLAT and 7 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto marked Exhibit "A", and consisting of 4 pages, and by this reference incorporated herein, and the additional requirements from the action of the Council taken at their November 3, 2004 meeting as follows, to -wit: 1.1 Adopt the action of the City Council taken at their November 3, 2004 meeting: Rear fencing for the lots bordering common areas may be constructed of 4' solid material with up to 2' open vision on the top, or of 5' wrought iron open vision material. Furthermore, side yard fencing along Lots 2 and 7, Block 5, Lots 1 and 11, Block 2, and Lot 7, Block 3 may be constructed of 4' solid material with up to 2' open vision on the top, or of 5' wrought iron open vision material. Fencing within 20' of the front property lines shall comply with City Code. ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR SIENNA CREEK SUBDIVISION NO. 1 / (FP -04-064) Page 2 of 4 2. The final plat upon which there is contained the Certification and signature of the City Clerk and the City Engineer verifying that the plat meets the City's requirements shall be signed only at such time as: 1. The Plat dimensions are approved by the City Engineer; and 2. The City Engineer has verified that all off-site improvements are completed and/or the appropriate letter of credit or cash has been issued guaranteeing the completion of off-site and required on-site improvements. 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 issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for Judicial 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 § 67-6521. An affected person being a person who has an interest in real propertywhich maybe adversely affected by this decision may, within twenty-eight(28) days after the date of this decision and order, seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code. By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the _3 day of Novemb& , 2004. ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR SIENNA CREEK SUBDIVISION NO. 1 / (FP -04-064) Page 3 of 4 r By: ` !=rrrrrrrr,, Tamm d Mayor, of Meridian Attest: C1`` ���0 _ SEAL _ William G. Berg, Jr., it Clem o Copy served upon Applicant, the Pt'a> ►n n aRq Zgn�i�g�T�epartment, Public Works Department, and City Attorney. :,":_1 :. � . • By: Dated: 1j -<A -(A 01 j -<A- 1 y Clerk's Office ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR SIENNA CREEK SUBDIVISION NO. 1 / (FP -04-064) Page 4 of 4 STAFF REPORT: Hearing Date: November 3, 2004 To: Mayor and City Council From: Sonya Allen, Assistant City Planner Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager Re: Sienna Creek Subdivision No. 1 Final Plat approval of Thirty-five (35) Single -Family Residential Building Lots and Six (6) Common Lots on 8.84 Acres in an R-8 Zone by Sagewood Development, Inc. (File No. FP -04-064). We have reviewed the above referenced submittals and offer the following comments as conditions of approval. These conditions shall be considered in full, unless expressly modified or deleted by motion of the Meridian City Council: APPLICATION SUMMARY & LOCATION The applicant, Sagewood Development, Inc., has applied for Final Plat approval of 35 single- family residential building lots and 6 common lots on 8.84 acres of land for the first phase of Sienna Creek Subdivision. The zoning designation for the proposed subdivision. is R-8 (Medium Density Residential). This subdivision will. have a gross density of 3.9 d.u./acre and a net density of 5.5 d.u./acre. Sienna Creek Subdivision is located approximately % mile north of W. Ustick Road and % mile east of N. Linder Road, in the SW t/ of Section 36, TAN., R.1 W. The common area lots within the subdivision consist of landscape, open space, and drainage lots and will be maintained by the Homeowner's Association. The pressurized irrigation system within this development is to be owned and maintained by Settlers irrigation District. A Conditional Use Permit was approved. for this subdivision that allowed for reductions to the minimum requirements for the R-8 zone for lot size (from 6,500 s.f to 5,000 s.f.) and street frontage (from 65 -feet to 50 -feet). The submitted final plat substantially complies with the approved preliminary plat. FP -04-064 Exhibit "A" Sienna Creek Sub I FP.doc tF LEGAL DEPARTMENT MAYOR Tammy de Weerd a' CI'T'Y OF WWII, I (208) 466-9272 Tax 466-4405 CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS .. PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING DEPARTMENT Keith Bird t/ r� ;�s �1 (208) 887-2211 -Fax 887-1297 Christine Donnell IDAHO Shaun Wardle Charles M. Rountree 'F�, PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT FST' Y �'� (208) 884-5533 • FAX 888-6854 , f S�Bf=E STAFF REPORT: Hearing Date: November 3, 2004 To: Mayor and City Council From: Sonya Allen, Assistant City Planner Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager Re: Sienna Creek Subdivision No. 1 Final Plat approval of Thirty-five (35) Single -Family Residential Building Lots and Six (6) Common Lots on 8.84 Acres in an R-8 Zone by Sagewood Development, Inc. (File No. FP -04-064). We have reviewed the above referenced submittals and offer the following comments as conditions of approval. These conditions shall be considered in full, unless expressly modified or deleted by motion of the Meridian City Council: APPLICATION SUMMARY & LOCATION The applicant, Sagewood Development, Inc., has applied for Final Plat approval of 35 single- family residential building lots and 6 common lots on 8.84 acres of land for the first phase of Sienna Creek Subdivision. The zoning designation for the proposed subdivision. is R-8 (Medium Density Residential). This subdivision will. have a gross density of 3.9 d.u./acre and a net density of 5.5 d.u./acre. Sienna Creek Subdivision is located approximately % mile north of W. Ustick Road and % mile east of N. Linder Road, in the SW t/ of Section 36, TAN., R.1 W. The common area lots within the subdivision consist of landscape, open space, and drainage lots and will be maintained by the Homeowner's Association. The pressurized irrigation system within this development is to be owned and maintained by Settlers irrigation District. A Conditional Use Permit was approved. for this subdivision that allowed for reductions to the minimum requirements for the R-8 zone for lot size (from 6,500 s.f to 5,000 s.f.) and street frontage (from 65 -feet to 50 -feet). The submitted final plat substantially complies with the approved preliminary plat. FP -04-064 Exhibit "A" Sienna Creek Sub I FP.doc Mayor & City Council Hearing Date: November 3, 2004 Page 2 Staff recommends approval of Sienna Creek Subdivision with the comments and conditions stated in this report. SITE SPECIFIC COMMENTS 1 FINAL PLAT Applicant is to meet all terms of the approved Annexation (AZ -04-014), Conditional Use Permit (CUP -04-021), and Preliminary Plat (PP -04-019). 2. Temporary construction fencing to contain debris shall be installed along the boundaries of this phase unless permanent fencing already exists at the subdivision boundaries. All fencing shall be in compliance with MCC 12-4-10. 3. Revise or add the following notes on the face of the plat: (1.) ...public right-of-way line, subdivision boundary, and along all rear lot lines, unless otherwise shown... . (10.) (Complete recording information.) (11.) Revise note #11: "Fencing adjacent to the pathways and common areas within the subdivision..." (12) "The owner(s) of each lot across which passes an irrigation/drainage ditch or pipe, is responsible for the maintenance thereof unless such res onsibili has been assumed b an irrigration1draingge district. " (13) "Building setbacks and dimensional standards in this subdivision e in - _ � vision shall b com liance with Title 11 and Title 12 of the Qu Code unless modified d by Conditional Use Permit (CUP -04-021}n which allowed for reduced ed otherwise - aced lot sizes and street frontages. " 4. The landscape plan shall prepared by The Land Group, Inc. and dated 1018104, shall be revised as follows: a. Per Preliminary Plat Site Specific requirement #4, "Fencing for the lots bordering common areas shall be 4' in height and made of a semi-solid material. Fencing adjacent to the proposed park shall be 4' in height (to increase the visibility of the park)." Revise plan to reflect this requirement. b. If drainage swales are proposed, show contours on plan. C. Show a minimum 5' wide paved pathway on micropath lots. d. Revise landscape plan to match the revised plat dated 8116104. The applicant has indicated that Settlers Irrigation District will own and maintain the pressure irrigation system within this development. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water. If a creek or well source is not available, a single -point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single -point connection is utilized, the developer shall be responsible for the payment of assessments for the irrigable common areas prior to signature on the final plat by the Meridian City Engineer. FP -04-064 Exhibit "A" Sienna Creek Sub I FP.doe Mayor & City Council Hearing Date: November 3, 2004 Page 3 6. All irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or lying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be tiled per City Ordinance 12-4-13. Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association (ditch owners), with written approval or non -approval submitted to the Public Works Department. If lateral users association approval can't be obtained, plans will be reviewed and approved by the Meridian City Engineer prior to final plat signature. 7. Street signs are to be in place, water system shall be approved and activated, pressurized irrigation system approved and activated, drainage Lots constructed, fencing installed, and road base approved by the Ada County Highway District prior to applying for building permits. All development improvements, including, but not limited too, perimeter fencing, irrigation, and landscaping shall be installed and approved prior to obtaining certificates of occupancy. A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all fencing, landscaping, pressurized irrigation, amenities, sanitary sewer, water, etc., prior to signature on the final plat. S. Sanitary sewer and water service to this site shall be via the existing mains adjacent to the proposed subdivision. Applicant will be responsible to construct the water mains to and through this proposed development, thereby making them available to adjacent properties. Subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. Applicant shall execute City of Meridian standard forms of easements, for any mains that are required to provide service. This development shall be subject to latecomer fees to reimburse those responsible for extending service into the area, said fees shall be due and payable prior to signature on the final by the City Engineer. 9. Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan. review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process, prior to signature on the final plat per Resolution 02-374, 10. Any drainage areas (detention/retention basins) must be designed to ensure that water will percolate or discharge within a period of time not to exceed 24 hours for all storms up to and including a 100 -year storm event. All storm drainage must be in compliance with MCC 12-13-14, Stormwater Integration. 11. The boundary bearing quadrant adjacent to the south side of Lot 8, Block 5, the west side of Lots 2-6, Block 5, and across the west end of the W. Ashton Drive right-of-way don't match the corresponding bearings found in the legal description of the Certificate of Owner's. Make the appropriate corrections. 12. Graphically depict 5 -foot wide public utilities, drainage and irrigation easements adjacent to the west side of Lots 1, Block 4, and Lot 1, Block 6, as these will be side yards adjacent to future phases. FP -04-064 Exhibit "A" Sienna Creek Sub FP.doc Mayor & City Council Hearing Date: November 3, 2004 Page 4 13. Increase the width of any side yard public utilities, drainage and irrigation easement where a pressurized irrigation main line is located. The minimum width shall be the pipe offset from the property line plus 5 -feet. 14. Staff's failure to cite specific ordinance provisions, or terms of the approved Annexation, Conditional Use Permit, or Preliminary Plat does not relieve the Applicant of responsibility for compliance. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 1. 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. 2. Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will have to be removed from their domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and. 9-4-8. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation. 3. Two -hundred -fifty and one -hundred -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 Works Department prior commencing installations. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. Coordinate fire hydrant placement with the City of Meridian Public Works Department, 7. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the final plat with the above stated comments and conditions. FP -04-064 Exhibit "A" Sienna Creek Sub! FP.doc C. * TX CONFIRMHtiON REPORT ** AS OF NOV 09 '04 04-14 PAGE.01 CITY OF MERIDIAN DATE 'EINE TO/FROM MODE MIN/SEC PGS CMD4 STATUS 31 11/09 04:11 3910150 EC --S 02'32" 005 030 OK ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CITY OF MEWDIAN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Wednesday, November 3, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers 1. Roll -call Attendance: D Shaun Wardle X Christine Donnell X Charlie Rountree _XKeith Bird - Mayor Tammy de Weerd 2. Pledge of Allegiance: J01.4 1�4141_7C&4 f�o5 Jco �P /66 3. Community Invocation by pastor Bud Henthorn, with Meridian Gospel Tabernacle:� 4. Adaption of the Agenda: Apprnv_.e_ 5- Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of September 21, 2004 Pre -Council Meeting: wrvv-�t— B. Approve Minutes of September 28, 2004 Pre -Council Meeting,„ro C- Approve Minutes of October 12, 2004 City Council Regular Meeting: v,,— D. Tabled from October 12, 2004: Land Lease_ Agreement with Ken Hamilton Presentations: a,1,r-o„14— E. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 04- 024 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 47.66 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for proposed Silverleaf Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC — 2883 West Ghinden Boulevard: F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 04- 031 Request for Preliminary Flat approval for 143 single-family residential building lots and 19 common lots on 47.66 acres in a Proposed R-4 zone for proposed Sllverleaf Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC — 2683 West Chinden Boulevard: Meridian City Council Agenda— Novcmbcr 3, 2004 Fagc 101`4 All matcrialc prescntcd at public meetings shall become property of the City of iutcridi.. Utyone doiring accommodation for disebilirics rclaled to doements and/or has ing Pl=c contact du City Clerk's Office at 8884433 at Icust 48 houE prior to the public mcering, C. * TX CONFIRKH,ION REPORT * AS OF NOV 04 '04 10:12 PAGE.01 CITY OF MERIDIAN DATE TIME TO/FROM MODE MIN/SEC PGS CMD# STATUS 21 11/04 10:05 3810160 EC ---S 02'32" 005 032 OK 22 11/04 10:09 2088886854 EC --S 01'27" 005 032 OK 23 11/04 10:11 IDAHO ATHLETIC C EC --S 01'28" 005 032 OK CITY OF MFRIDIAN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Wednesday, November 3, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers I. Roll -call Attendance: Shaun Wardle ?C Christine Donnell _Y Charlie Rountree mac_ Keith Bird __ A Mayor Tammy de Weerd 2. Pledge of Allegiance: Jotle f�teLL /°nrJ, fcoF, P /66 3. Community Invocation by Pastor Bud Henthorn, with Meridian Gospel Tabernacle:-gf 4. Adoption of the Agenda: 5. Consent Agenda. A. Approve Minutes of September 21, 2004 Pre -Council Meeting: B. Approve Minutes of September 28, 2004 Pre -Council Meeting: "*i o t� C. Approve Minutes of October 12, 2004 City Council Regular Meeting: D. Tabled from October 12, 2004: Land Lease Agreement with Ken Hamilton Presentations: ovtc� "°� E. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval; AZ 04- 024 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 47.66 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for proposed Silverleaf Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC — 2683 West Chinden Boulevard: F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval. PP 04- 031 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 143 single-family residential building lots and 19 common lots on 47.66 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Silverleaf Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC —2683 West Chinden Boulevard: Gt�v19r'� t� Mcridiats City Council Agenda —]November 3, 2004 Page 1 of4 All materials preaenled at public mcctings sltatl become propeM, orthc City of Meridi:m. Anyone dcsiting accommodation fordisabih6cas related to docutnettts and/or hearing please contact the City Clcrk's Oliiee at $88.4433 at le=48 hours priur to the public meeting. *K* TX RMATICN REPORT ** AS OF NOV 04 '04 F� -}5 PAGE. 01 CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Wednesday, November 3, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers 1. Roll -call Attendance: 0 Shaun Wardle X Christine Donnell X Charlie Rountree _ x Keith Bird A Mayor Tammy de Weerd 2. Pledge of Allegiance: .%j -A- 1(x4lY cZ /3ay fcok f ]i�op /66 3. Community Invocation by Pastor Bud Henthorn, with Meridian Gospel Tabernacle: /-IYT_12 c 4. Adoption of the Agenda: Aplwv-'_ ar ,2 aCr 5- Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of September 21, 2004 Pre -Council Meeting: 4ffyv-,— B. Approve Minutes of September 28, 2004 Pre -Council Meeting: row._ C. Approve Minutes of October 12, 2004 City Council Regular Meeting: 4,r,.,, c-,-- D. ,.4 D. Tabled from October 12, 2004: Land Lease Agreement with Ken Hamilton Presentations: q y jy-al,,,` E_ Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 04- 024 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 47.66 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for proposed Silverieaf Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC — 2683 West Chinden Boulevard: G?Ylovu F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 04- 031 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 143 single-family residential building lots and 19 common lots on 47.66 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Sllverloaf Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC — 2683 West Chinden Boulevard: MMdian City Council Agenda— Yovanbu 3.2004 Page 1 or4 All =terials ptcscnted m p"blis meelines shall bcamcpwp=ty of the City of Metidinn. Anyone desiring accommndadan fordisabilitics rdactd codocwnmu an&or bossing please wnoct the City Clcrk's Office 31 88&A431 at least 4g boss . prim to the public meeting. DATE TIME TO/FRCM MODE MIN/SEC PGS CMD# STATUS 01 11/04 08:e4 PUBLIC UDRKS EC --S 01'29" 005 030 OK 02 11/04 0a:e6 12084664405 EC --S 01'29" 005 030 OK 03 11/04 08:08 8841159 EC --S 01'29" 005 030 OK 04 11/04 08:10 2086840744 EC --S 01'32" 005 030 AK 05 11/04 08:12 POLICE DEPT EC --S 01'28" 005 030 OK 06 11/04 08:14 6985501 EC --S 01.27" 005 030 OK 07 11/04 08:16 LIBRARY EC --S 01'55" 005 030 OK 08 11/04 08118 92083776449 EC --S 01'28" 005 030 OK 09 11/04 08:20 3886924 EC --S 01128" 005 030 OK 10 11/04 08:22 2088885654 EC --S 01'27" 005 030 OK 11 11/04 08:24 208 895 0390 EC --S 01'28" 805 030 OK 12 11/04 08:26 12830e040 53--S 01'56" 005 030 OK 13 11/04 08:28 206 387 6393 EC --S 01'32" 005 030 CK 14 11/04 08:30 ADA CTY DEUELMT EC --S 01'29" 005 030 OK 15 11/04 2$:33 8885052 EC --S 01'27" 005 030 OK 16 11/04 08:35 CHERRY LANE 53--S 03'07" 005 030 OK 17 11/04 08:38 IDAHO ATI-1_ETIC C EC --S 01'29" 005 030 OK 18 11/04 08:40 ID PRESS TRIBUNE EC --S 01'30" 085 030 OK 19 11/04 08:43 22886701 EC --S 01'29" 005 030 OK 20 11/04 08:55 VALLEY TIMES ----S 00100" 000 030 BUSY THIS DOCUMENT IS STILL IN MEMCRY CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Wednesday, November 3, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers 1. Roll -call Attendance: 0 Shaun Wardle X Christine Donnell X Charlie Rountree _ x Keith Bird A Mayor Tammy de Weerd 2. Pledge of Allegiance: .%j -A- 1(x4lY cZ /3ay fcok f ]i�op /66 3. Community Invocation by Pastor Bud Henthorn, with Meridian Gospel Tabernacle: /-IYT_12 c 4. Adoption of the Agenda: Aplwv-'_ ar ,2 aCr 5- Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of September 21, 2004 Pre -Council Meeting: 4ffyv-,— B. Approve Minutes of September 28, 2004 Pre -Council Meeting: row._ C. Approve Minutes of October 12, 2004 City Council Regular Meeting: 4,r,.,, c-,-- D. ,.4 D. Tabled from October 12, 2004: Land Lease Agreement with Ken Hamilton Presentations: q y jy-al,,,` E_ Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 04- 024 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 47.66 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for proposed Silverieaf Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC — 2683 West Chinden Boulevard: G?Ylovu F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 04- 031 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 143 single-family residential building lots and 19 common lots on 47.66 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Sllverloaf Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC — 2683 West Chinden Boulevard: MMdian City Council Agenda— Yovanbu 3.2004 Page 1 or4 All =terials ptcscnted m p"blis meelines shall bcamcpwp=ty of the City of Metidinn. Anyone desiring accommndadan fordisabilitics rdactd codocwnmu an&or bossing please wnoct the City Clcrk's Office 31 88&A431 at least 4g boss . prim to the public meeting. 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. TX CONFIRMATION REPORT* AS OF OCT 29 '04 17:23 PAGE.01 CITY OF MERIDIAN DATE TIME TO/FROM MODE MIN/SEC PGS CMD# STATUS 10/29 16:44 3810160 EC --S 02'02" 004 008 OK 10/29 16:47 PUBLIC FORKS EC --S 01'11" 004 00B OK 10/29 16:48 2084664405 EC --S 01'11" 004 008 OK 10/29 16:50 8841159 EC --S 01'11" 004 008 OK 10/29 16:52 2088840744 EC --S 01'15" 004 008 OK 10/29 16:54 POLICE DEPT EC --S 01'11" 004 008 OK 10/29 16:55 6985501 EC --S 01'10" 004 008 OK 10/29 16:5? LIBRARY EC --S 01'34" 004 008 OK 10/29 16:59 92083776449 EC --S 01'10" 004 008 OK 10/29 17:00 3886924 EC --S 01'11" 004 008 OK 10/29 17 02 2088886854 EC --S 01'10" 004 008 OK 10/29 17:04 ALL AMERICAN INS EC --S 01'11" 004 008 OK 10/29 17:06 208 895 0390 EC --S 01'11" 004 008 OK 10/29 17 08 128300040 G3 --S 01'34" 004 008 OK 10/29 17:10 208 387 6393 EC --S 01'11" 004 008 OK 10/29 17:11 ADA CTY DEUELMT EC --S 01'12" 004 008 OK 10/29 17:13 8885052 EC --S 01'11" 004 008 OK 10/29 17:15 CHERRY LANE G3 --S 02'31" 004 008 OK 10/29 1'7:18 IDAHO ATHLETIC C EC --S 01'13" 004 008 OK 10/29 17:20 ID PRESS TRIBUNE EC --S 01'14" 004 008 OK 10/29 17 22 2088885701 EC --S 01'13" 004 008 OK ��ov Yost�{a�Pdbl�C'/No{�'u-���a. CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Wednesday, November 3, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers Roll -call Attendance: Shaun Wardle Christine Donnell Charlie Rountree Keith Bird Mayor Tammy de Weerd Pledge of Allegiance: Community Invocation by Pastor Bud Henthorn, with Meridian Gospel Tabernacle. Adoption of the Agenda: Consent Agenda: j �A�; °�st�uf Udl�lic, Mloh'ct ;1n� fa! CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Wednesday, November 3, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers 1. Roll -call Attendance: Shaun Wardle Christine Donnell Charlie Rountree Keith Bird Mayor Tammy de Weerd 2. Pledge of Allegiance: 3. Community Invocation by Pastor Bud Henthorn, with Meridian Gospel Tabernacle: 4. Adoption of the Agenda: 5. Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of September 21, 2004 Pre -Council Meeting: B. Approve Minutes of September 28, 2004 Pre -Council Meeting: C. Approve Minutes of October 12, 2004 City Council Regular Meeting: D. Tabled from October 12, 2004: _Land Lease Agreement with Ken Hamilton Presentations: E. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 04- 024 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 47.66 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for proposed Silverleaf Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC — 2683 West Chinden Boulevard: F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 04- 031 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 143 single-family residential building lots and 19 common lots on 47.66 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Silverleaf Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC — 2683 West Chinden Boulevard: Meridian City Council Agenda — November 3, 2004 Page 1 of 4 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. G. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 04-033 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development consisting of a school lot and single-family residential lots with reductions to the minimum requirements for lot size and street frontage for proposed Silverleaf Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC — 2683 West Chinden Boulevard: H. Order to Remand back to Planning and Zoning Commission for Alexandria Subdivision AZ 04-011, PP 04-017, and CUP 04- 015: I. Coral Creek 1 Blackstone Lift Station Upgrade: J. Change Order No. 1 for the 2004 McMillan Water Extension Proiect: K. Approve Bills: 6. Department Reports: 7. (Items Moved from Consent Agenda) 8. FP 04-059 Request for Final Plat approval of 3 single-family residential building lots on .45 acre in an R-4 zone for Ashford Greens Subdivision No. 7 by Brighton Corporation. (Ashford Greens Sub. No. 7 is a re- subdivision of Lots 88, 89, 90 and 91 of Block 23 of Ashford Greens Sub. No. 2) — east of North Black Cat Road and north of West Cherry Lane: 9. FP 04-060 Request for Final Plat approval of 2 single-family residential building lots on .34 acre in an R-4 zone for Ashford Greens Subdivision No. 8 by Brighton Corporation. (Ashford Greens Sub. No. 8 is a re- subdivision of Lots 43, 44 and 45, Block 23 of Ashford Greens Sub No. 2) — east of North Black Cat Road and north of West Cherry Lane: 10. FP 04-061 Request for Final Plat approval of 92 single-family residential building lots and 19 common lots on 30.67 acres in an R-8 zone for Redfeather Estates Subdivision No. 2 by Packard Estates Development, LLC — south of East Ustick Road and east of North Eagle Road: 11. FP 04-062 Request for Final Plat approval of 46 single-family residential building lots and 3 common lots on 13.73 acres in an R-8 zone for Redfeather Estates Subdivision No. 3 by Packard Estates Development, LLC — south of East Ustick Road and east of North Eagle Road: Meridian City Council Agenda — November 3, 2004 Page 2 of 4 Ail materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing please contact the City Clerk's Office at 8884433 at least 49 hours prior to the public meeting. 12. FP 04-063 Request for Final Plat approval for 50 single-family residential building lots and 13 common lots on 15.34 acres in a R-8 zone for Sheridan Place Subdivision by Robert Chavez — east of North Locust Grove Road and north of East McMillan Road: 13. FP 04-064 Request for Final Plat approval of 35 single-family residential building lots and 6 common lots on 8.84 acres in an R-8 zone for Sienna Creek Subdivision by Sagewood Development, Inc. — north of West Ustick Road and east of North Linder Road: 14. AP 04-003 Request to appeal the decision and order of the Planning and Zoning Commission denying the Preliminary Plat of Kingsbridge Subdivision by Vision First, LLC — 4070 South Eagle Road: mm 15. Continued Public Hearing from October 19, 2004: AZ 04-023 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 76.72 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for proposed Kingsbridge Subdivision by Vision First, LLC — 4070 South Eagle Road: 16. Continued Public Hearing from October 19, 2004: CUP 04-032 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development consisting of single-family residential lots with reductions to the minimum requirements for lot size, street frontage and request to exceed the maximum block length allowed for proposed Kin sbrid a Subdivision by Vision First, LLC — 4070 South Eagle Road: 17. Public Hearing: VAC 04-007 Request for a Vacation of irrigation easements in Block 1 of Stokesberry Subdivision on the east 10 feet of Lots 2, 3 & 4; the northerly 10 feet of Lot 2; the southerly 10 feet of Lot 3; the northerly 5 feet of Lot 3; and the southerly 5 feet of Lot 4, by Properties West, Inc — west of North Eagle Road and north of East Fairview Avenue: 18. Public Hearing: CUP 04-029 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a daycare facility for 30 to 40 children in an R-8 zone for Condra Steeves Daycare Center by Condra and Donald Steeves — 1258 East Cougar Creek Drive: 19. Public Hearing: RZ 04-011 Request for a Rezone of 9.16 acres from R- 8 to C -C zone for Cairns Crossing Subdivision by Landmark Engineering and Planning, Inc. — south of West Cherry Lane and east of Linder Road: 20. Public Hearing: PP 04-033 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 11 commercial building lots on 9.16 acres in a proposed C -C zone for Cairns Meridian City Council Agenda —November 3, 2004 Page 3 of 4 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. Crossing Subdivision by Landmark Engineering and Planning, Inc. — south of West Cherry Lane and east of Linder Road: 21. Public Hearing: AZ 04-025 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 121.96 acres from R4 (Ada County) to R-4 zone for Vienna Woods Subdivision No. 1-7 and Edinburgh Place Subdivision No. 1-2 by the City of Meridian — NEC of East McMillan Road and North Locust Grove Road: 22. Water, Sewer, & Trash Delinquencies: 22. Ordinance No. City Attorney: Meridian City Council Agenda — November 3, 2004 Page 4 of 4 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing please contact the City Clerk's Office at 989-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.