Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-05-16CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, May 16, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho `Although the City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony, all presentations before the Mayor and City Council are expected to be truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter." Roll -call Attendance: Shaun Wardle Joe Borton Charlie Rountree _ Keith Bird C, Mayor Tammy de Weerd 2. Pledge of Allegiance: I' FAVAI,0�1 3. Community Invocation by Pastor Fred Thompson, with Meridian Assembly of God: 4. Adoption of the Agenda: Ppfry-.Rv<- ti.f �v-eCc�• 5. Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of April 18, 2006 City Council Regular Meeting: o,�/7vv 0-'-- B. Sewer Reimbursement Agreement with Strada Bellissima, LLC: Arr"v - C. Agreement for Installation of Electrical and Controls for WWTP Entrance Gate by Custom Electric: ap&-oma D. Development Agreement: RZ 04-011 Request for a Rezone of 9.16 acres from R-8 to C -C zone for Cairns Crossina Subdivision by Landmark Engineering and Planning, Inc. — south of West Chert' Lane and east of Linder Road: E. SHP 05-001: Request for Short Plat Approval of Conglomerate Consisting of 4 Commercial Building Lots on 4.276 Acres in a C -G zone by Afton Pacific, LLC: ay9?,-,,, v,c- Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda — May 16, 2006 Page 1 of 3 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. • 0 F. SHP 06-003: Request for Short Plat Approval of Quenzer Commons Condominiums No. 2 Consisting of 16 Condominium Units on 4 parcels of Ground on 2.12 Acres in a C -N zone by Brighton Commercial, Inc.: oj�q"v-,- G. Approve Access Easement Between the City of Meridian (Grantor) and ACHD (Grantee) on Lot 21 of the Amended Plat of Block 1 of the Townsite of Meridian (55 East Broadway) requested as a Condition of the Creamery Alley Vacation: H. Change Order No. 1 for the Landinq Lift Station Project with JUB Engineers, Inc.: I. Approve Beer and Wine License Renewal for ChinaTown's Quik -Wok Restaurant at 3055 E. Fairview Avenue Ste. 200: ti7o1,wv1,1— J. Contract for Design of Ten Mile Diversion Sewer Phase 2 with JUB Engineers, Inc.:,�ov,x1 6. Department Reports: A. Finance Department - Stacy Kilchenmann 1. Quarterly Financial Statement:�� B. Mayor's Office 1. Request for Approval to Negotiate Contract for Construction Manager & Architect: h o + 4 l C t� oc- 44 2. Committee Appointments: %e,( 7. Items Moved from Consent Agenda: 8. Update Report on the Appeal Hearing for Order to Remove Junk Vehicle by Steven Cady with Meridian Cherry Lane Mobile Home Park: U/; de� 9. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Order to Remove Junk Vehicle by Steven Cady with Meridian Cherry Lane Mobile Home Park: ,� v -c- 10. Request for a Waiver of the First Year Lease Payment Obligation Pursuant to the Lease Agreement for Lakeview Meridian Golf Club: r-ove- 11. Approve Agreement with R.R. Davis Properties, Inc.. Lakeview Meridian Investors. LLC and Idaho Independent Bank to grant security interest in Lease for Lakeview Golf Course: �rrrrro vie, Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda — May 16, 2006 Page 2 of 3 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. 0 0 12. FP 06-020 Request for Final Plat approval for 12 single-family residential building lots and 1 common lot on 5.47 acres in an R-8 zone for Quenzer Commons Subdivision No. 10 by Brighton Development, Inc. — west of Locust Grove Road and north of Ustick Road: Oir?r erV-G 13. Continued Public Hearing from May 9, 2006: AZ 06-003 Annexation and Zoning of 24.03 acres from RUT to R-8 (12.31 acres), R-15 (8.04 acres) and C -C (3.68 acres) for Hightower Subdivision by Hightower, LLC — southwest comer of Chinden Boulevard and Jericho Road: az-rrvv'<-- lortp*--e- elf- d e'a 14. Continued Public Hearing from May 9, 2006: PP 06-003 Preliminary Plat approval of 106 residential lots, 4 commercial lots, 2 private street lots and 25 common lots on 22.94 acres in proposed R-8, R-15 and C -C zones for Hightower Subdivision by Hightower, LLC — southwest comer of Chinden Boulevard and Jericho Road: - —�� �•c �/� �!� 15. Continued Public Hearing from May 9, 2006: CUP 06-004 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Mixed Use Planned Development that includes single-family detached, townhouse units, commercial uses, private streets, a neighborhood park and a vehicular access to Chinden Boulevard for Hightower Subdivision by Hightower, LLC — southwest comer of Chinden Boulevard and Jericho Road: —1"IPA--t wlc � *c/"—' 16. Continue Public Hearing from May 9, 2006: VAR 06-004 Request for a Variance to construct an access to Chinden Boulevard, a State Highway, for Hightower Subdivision by Hightower, LLC — southwest corn9r of Chinden Boulevard and Jericho Road: �vrr�►^ e�rt—r�.t�t 4r� 17. Public Hearing: AZ 06-012 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 9.43 acres from RUT to R-2 for Hendrickson Subdivision by Kingsbridge Subdivision, LLC — 4240 East Bott Lane: 1-e 18. 18. Public Hearing: PP 06-010 Request for a Preliminary Plat approval for 18 single-family residential lots and 4 common lots on 9.43 acres in a proposed R-2 zone for Hendrickson Subdivision by Kingsbridge Properties, LLC — 4240 East Bott Lane: Leh �--r✓re-,oa,c -�C/� d e -It 19. Public Hearing: VAR 06-009 Request for a Variance to allow for a patio structure in the required rear yard for 5278 N. Cougar Flat Place by Dana & Rhonda Patterson — 5278 N. Cougar Flat Place: ecru v'c- 20. Ordinance No. 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: 4Wrvvw. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda — May 16, 2006 Page 3 of 3 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. 0 • Meridian City Council Meeting May 16, 2006 The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:30 P.M., Tuesday, May 16, 2006, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd. Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, Keith Bird, Charlie Rountree, Shaun Wardle, and Joe Borton. Others Present: Bill Nary, Will Berg, Anna Canning, Bob Stowe, Kenny Bowers, Len Grady, Stacy Kilchenmann, and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll -call Attendance: Roll call. X Shaun Wardle X Charlie Rountree X X Joe Borton X Keith Bird Mayor Tammy de Weerd De Weerd: Okay. I will go ahead and call this meeting to order. Good evening. It is Tuesday, May 16th. It is 7:30. We apologize for the late start. I will begin with roll call attendance. Mr. Berg. Item 2: Pledge of Allegiance: De Weerd: Item 2 is the pledge of allegiance. Tonight we will be led by Sidney Edwards. If you will all rise. (Pledge of allegiance recited.) Item 3: Community Invocation by Pastor Fred Thompson, with Meridian Assembly of God: De Weerd: Sidney, I'd like to present you with a pin for the City of Meridian for leading us tonight. Thank you. Okay. Item No. 3 is the community invocation. Tonight we will be led by Pastor Fred Thompson. He is with the Meridian Assembly of God Church. Welcome. If you will all join us in the community invocation or take this as an opportunity for a moment of silence. Thompson: Heavenly Father, we ask that you grant the leaders of our growing city the wisdom and courage to process the business before them in a way that glorifies your name. Give each Council Member a sense of the right way to vote on issues. On difficult decisions grant your special insight and wisdom. We are aware that in the Christian Bible James wrote if any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God who gives generously to all without finding fault and it will be given to him. On simpler decisions, Lord, grant your peace. Thank you, Lord, for wisdom that comes from heaven, which Meridian City Council • • May 16, 2006 Page 2 of 57 is, first of all, pure, then, peace loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere. These things we ask in Jesus' name, amen. De Weerd: Pastor, I'd like to thank you for joining us and I have a pin for you, too. Thank you. I don't know, I guess I should ask Council if they had a little bit longer in prayer, because nothing is simple. Bird: We can always use all we can get. Item 4: Adoption of the Agenda: De Weerd: I know. We appreciate your invocation and, again, welcome. Council, No. 4 is adoption of the agenda. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move that we approve the agenda as published and that would include Item 20, which is Ordinance No. 06-1232. Approve the adoption of it. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. Councilmember Bird, we did have a request to pull G from the Consent Agenda, so 5-G. Bird: Yeah. De Weerd: Mr. Bird, do you want that noted in your motion or do you want it under Consent? Bird: I was just going to do it when I did the Consent Agenda. De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve the adoption of the agenda as presented. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 5: Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of April 18, 2006 City Council Regular Meeting: B. Sewer Reimbursement Agreement with Strada Bellissima, LLC: Meridian City Council May 16, 2006 Page 3 of 57 C. Agreement for Installation of Electrical and Controls for WWTP Entrance Gate by Custom Electric: D. Development Agreement: 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: E. SHP 05-001: Request for Short Plat Approval of Conglomerate Consisting of 4 Commercial Building Lots on 4.276 Acres in a C -G zone by Afton Pacific, LLC: F. SHP 06-003: Request for Short Plat Approval of Quenzer Commons Condominiums No. 2 Consisting of 16 Condominium Units on 4 parcels of Ground on 2.12 Acres in a C -N zone by Brighton Commercial, Inc.: H. Change Order No. 1 for the Landing Lift Station Project with JUB Engineers, Inc.: I. Approve Beer and Wine License Renewal for ChinaTown's Quik -Wok Restaurant at 3055 E. Fairview Avenue Ste. 200: J. Contract for Design of Ten Mile Diversion Sewer Phase 2 with JUB Engineers, Inc.: De Weerd: Item 5 is the Consent Agenda. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: That's been requested to pull Item G off the agenda completely, as things are not ready. And with that I move we approved the revised agenda and for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest on all papers. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll. Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 6: Department Reports: Meridian City Council May 16, 2006 Page 4 of 57 A. Finance Department — Stacy Kilchenmann 1. Quarterly Financial Statement: De Weerd: Okay. Item 6-A, our finance department. Stacy. Kilchenmann: Good evening. I will be quick. I'm not going to spend -- unless there is specific questions -- so, the quarter actually ended in March and we are already in May, but unless there is specific questions, I'm not going to talk about the statements themselves. What I want to do is just update you a little bit on the budget process and where we are. We -- all the departments have turned in their enhancement requests and we have compiled lists of those on the summaries. We are done compiling the base budget and I just put in front of you the revenue manual for FY -07 in the back -- right in the back you should have the details. I want to really -- I'm going to talk just a little bit about some things that we are going to need to pay some attention to in this year's budget process. One of them is the Enterprise Fund revenue is shrinking in comparison to the cost, so we have spent a week with the Public Works department -- well, it's been two days, but it seems like a week. Kind of grueling over this and they have substantially changed the enhancements they are requesting and we are looking at the details to try to figure out where in the revenue structure we need to make some changes. It's been an evolving process. One of the things that's happened in the last couple years is that we started -- before Enterprise Fund revenue was always taken as a total and compared to the total expenses and Brad, which rightly so, thought that that wasn't necessarily representative. So, in 2002 when he redid the fee structure, we separated out operations which is funded by the fees we charge for water and sewer usage, and connect the construction, which is funded by the connection fees, when somebody builds a new home and connects to water and sewer. So, we have kind of gone back and reconstructed what that would be in the past if we had done it that way. And there is a couple of things that have happened on the usage fee side. One is that we have started charging them -- or in the last few years we charge them overhead for Public Works and we also charge a part of the General Fund. Are you guys passing notes? De Weerd: Yes. Bird: Yes. Kilchenmann: Do you want to read them to the class? So, I kind of did a worksheet -- Bird: He's the go between. Kilchenmann: Okay. All right. He's the middle man. Rountree: Do you want me to read it? Meridian City Council May 16, 2006 Page 5 of 57 Kilchenmann: No. I did a worksheet that you can look at that just shows how the indirect costs have increased. So, we will probably need to go back to the base fee we charge to cover the indirect costs and increase that. And, then, I did a comparison of the direct costs, which would be the costs of like the water meters and so forth, just the costs unique to the plant themselves and, then, on the revenue side there are a lot of other factors in there. I just picked out the revenue -- usage revenue itself, but, in reality, we have interest and we have -- we have had latecomers fees in the past and we have third -party billing fees and miscellaneous fees. So, when we sit down and do the budget this year, we will need to be making some decisions about what we are going to do with the fees, how soon we are going to do it. We will have to look at those General Fund transfers we make. So, it's going to be a little tougher than it has been in the past. I'm just forewarning you. Although Brad's done a lot of work to cut it down. On the General Fund side, just -- I will just go back to the current year for the quarter. We are ahead of revenue, just because the sales tax revenue has been strong in Idaho and that -- probably there is no indication that won't continue throughout the year. And, then, our interest is a little higher. Surprisingly, we are getting the highest interest rates from our checking account, because interest -- short-term interest is so high. So, if anybody is so interested and they look at our investment portfolio and see a lot of money in cash, which is not something we should do, and that's why. So, are there any questions? De Weerd: Council, any questions? Bird: That's a great job again, Stacy. Kilchenmann: So, let me know if anyone has questions on the revenue manual as suggestions or if you find some hidden revenue that I overlooked or -- De Weerd: I hope I do. Kilchenmann: I hope so, too. Thank you. B. Mayor's Office 1. Request for Approval to Negotiate Contract for Construction Manager & Architect: De Weerd: Okay. Council, Item 6-B under number one, the request for approval to negotiate contract for the construction manager and architect. In front of you are the recommendations from our selection committee for construction management. The selected firm was Petra General Contractors and in the architectural services it was Lombard Conrad Architects. These are names that the committees have -- the committee has brought forward and the next step is to enter into negotiations. I would need Council approval for us to move into that stage. We do have representatives from Lombard Conrad, Russ Moorhead. And for Petra is Jerry Frank and Michael Nye. If Meridian City Council May 16, 2006 Page 6 of 57 you would stand up, gentlemen? So, we appreciate you joining us this evening. Thank you. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I would move that we have our negotiation team move in to negotiate with Lombard Conrad Architects and Petra Construction for Architectural and Construction Management of the new City Hall. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. Discussion? Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Madam Mayor, just for the public, could you briefly outline the committee's task and their meetings and how they came at this decision and any things that might have the public record after that. De Weerd: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Wardle. We put out bid for Construction Manager and Architect services for a new City Hall project. That went out in March, I believe. We did meet once with our committee. At that time we had approximately -- and this is off the top of my head, so -- about 13 members. We did a review of the applications for construction managers. We had ten bids or RFQs, proposals, and seven in our architectural services. Then we rated those through the documents that were submitted and selected the top three. Those top three were, then, interviewed by a slightly smaller committee, because not everyone could be there on that day, and the ratings are there in front of you and the two names I'm bringing to you this evening to move forward with are Petra and LCA. Was that a brief enough synopsis? Wardle: Thank you, Madam Mayor. I have certainly read through the proposals and just wanted to -- for those that weren't involved in the process to understand that we had a very open process with the committee and that had come at this through all of our policies and procedures and arrived at these top two candidates, so -- De Weerd: Thank you. Mr. Berg, as well as Mr. Baird, they helped shepherd us through this process to make sure that all the I's were dotted and T's were crossed, to make sure it was fair. We did record the interviews for any consideration by Council, if you wanted to listen to those, and so it was a very open and transparent process. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I just wanted to extend my thanks to city staff and the elected officials that participated, as well as the citizens that participated in the committee. Going through 17 0 Meridian City Council May 16, 2006 Page 7 of 57 proposals is no easy task and trying to evaluate them and come out with what's perceived as and what actually is a fair and unbiased selection is tough work and I appreciate your effort and looking forward to a new City Hall that is a fruit of their efforts. De Weerd: Well, we are very pleased to bring these names in front of you tonight. can tell you in our top three in both categories the city definitely couldn't have gone wrong, but I can also say that the selected firms showed energy and excitement and we look forward to working together with them. If there is no further discussion, Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. 2. Committee Appointments: De Weerd: Thank you. And thank you, gentleman. You will be getting a call I think at 8:00 o'clock a.m. tomorrow to set a date. The next item is committee appointments. This will be the negotiation team. Council, I would ask your approval of the appointment of the negotiating team, which is Will Berg, Keith Bird, Ted Baird, and myself. So, would like your approval by a motion. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move that we approve the committee as stated by the Mayor for selection -- or for negotiation of the agreement and contracts for the new City Hall. Wardle: Second. De Weerd: Okay. Motion to approve the committee as appointed. These will be coming back in front of you for your final consideration. Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll on that. Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 7: Items Moved from Consent Agenda: De Weerd: Okay. There were no items moved from the Consent Agenda. Item 8: Update Report on the Appeal Hearing for Order to Remove Junk Vehicle by Steven Cady with Meridian Cherry Lane Mobile Home Park: Meridian City Council • May 16, 2006 Page 8 of 57 Item 9: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Order to Remove Junk Vehicle by Steven Cady with Meridian Cherry Lane Mobile Home Park: De Weerd: Item 8 is an update report. Mr. Nary or Lieutenant Stowe, who is -- Mr. Nary. Nary: Madam Mayor. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I have had some numerous updates from the code enforcement division since last week's hearing -- appeal hearing on Mr. Cady's case. There are Findings in your packets. According to Mr. Venneman from code enforcement, both at the end of last week, as well as today, he was able to verify that there are no more vehicles or junk property that are now out of -- that are out of compliance on this property. They are now in full compliance with the city code. The Findings, the only recommendation -- or only addition I would have is the Findings reflect the property at 224 West Cherry Lane, but this is, actually, the -- or, excuse me, 424 West Cherry Lane. It's actually property next door, it's 314 West Cherry Lane. And so Mr. Berg can make that amendment, if that's included in your motion, but the Findings are ready for your approval. De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Nary. Any questions from Council? Okay. If not, I would need a motion. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I would move we approve Item No. 8, Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and order to remove junk vehicles by Steve Cady and amend that to 314 West Cherry Lane, Meridian Cherry Lane Mobile Home Park. Borton: Second. De Weerd: Okay. You have heard the motion. We do have a second. Is there any discussion? Okay. Hearing none, Mr. Berg. Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Okay. Council, we do have a note from our Planning Director on Cabella Creek. Cabella Creek is not on our agenda tonight. If you're here for that application, it was posted on the property that the hearing would be this evening and it's not on our published agenda. Is there anyone here to hear that application? Well, good. We are glad that no one was misinformed. Meridian City Council • May 16, 2006 Page 9 of 57 De Weerd: Okay. Item 9 is Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law -- we just did. I'm sorry. Request for waiver. I will ask Mr. Nary to introduce this one. Item 10: Request for a Waiver of the First Year Lease Payment Obligation Pursuant to the Lease Agreement for Lakeview Meridian Golf Club: Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: I do need to recuse myself from Items 10 and 11. De Weerd: Okay. Borton: So, I'll sit quietly. De Weerd: You're leaving the room, then? Borton: Yes. De Weerd: It's the only way I know of to keep an attorney quiet. Okay. Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Nary: On Item 10, the lessees of the Lakeview Meridian Golf Club have made a request to you for the waiver of the first year lease payment obligation pursuant to their lease agreement. This is not a specific condition in their lease, but it was discussed at the time this new lease was entered into with the operators, that they could come back each year to request the city, based on the number of improvements and the amount of improvements and the cost of those improvements, whether the city would be willing to waive the requirement to pay the annual fee to the city. The current fee under the contract is 6,000 dollars. I see Mr. Davis in the audience. I don't know if he has more information than what was provided in your letter. De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Davis, do you have anything to add to what was in your letter? Davis: Not really. De Weerd: Okay. Council, do you have any further information that you have need for or do you have any questions for Mr. Davis? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Meridian City Council • May 16, 2006 Page 10 of 57 Bird: I don't hear anybody jumping up to talk, so I move that we approve the waiver of '06's lease payment as stated in the redoing of the lease that -- for each hole he did was worth 2,000 dollars. He's done three holes. So, that's 6,000 dollars and that's our year's deal. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Wardle: Madam Mayor, I would just like to point out that -- and I mean we had a presentation by Dick Davis and Eric Oaas as to the state of the golf course and the improvements they have made this year and certainly feel that that justifies this amendment. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, absent. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 11: Approve Agreement with R.R. Davis Properties, Inc., Lakeview Meridian Investors. LLC and Idaho Independent Bank to grant security interest in Lease for Lakeview Golf Course: De Weerd: Thank you. Item 11. Mr. Nary. Nary: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Item 11 is an agreement with Mr. Davis and the Lakeview Meridian Investors, LLC, and Idaho Independent Bank. I have an agreement prepared by Mr. Freeman, Council for Independent Bank. It has not been signed by all of the parties at this point, but what the gist of it is, there was already an existing agreement with the prior vendors of previously Cherry Lane Golf Course. This is to substitute Mr. Davis into that particular financial arrangement. The city's property -- and Mr. Madison is here from Idaho Independent Bank if I misstate this, but the way I understand this agreement, as well as the prior, the city's ground is not obligated in this agreement, nor is the city indemnifying this agreement. The city has the ability to purchase the improvements on the ground if a foreclosure were to occur, but they are not obligated to do that. So, all it is is it's the original agreement that the city had previously entered into with Cherry Lane Golf Course. It now substitutes the new vendor of Mr. Davis and the Lakeview Meridian Investors, LLC, into their place with the same basic terms and conditions. They do want -- there is some time sensitivity to getting this completed, so if the Council is of a mind to approve this, what I would recommend is that you authorize the Mayor to sign and attest after the other parties have attested to this agreement and, then, therefore, they can get it done probably before your next Council meeting, if that's acceptable to you. Did I get that right, Mr. Madison? That's the way I read it, so -- Meridian City Council • May 16, 2006 Page 11 of 57 De Weerd: Okay. Council? Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I move that we approve Item No. 11, agreement with R.R. Davis Properties, the Lakeview Meridian Investors, LLC, and Idaho Independent Bank and to direct the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest after other property owners have also signed and attested. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. There is a motion and a second. Any discussion? Mr. Berg. Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, absent. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 12: FP 06-020 Request for Final Plat approval for 12 single-family residential building lots and 1 common lot on 5.47 acres in an R-8 zone for Quenzer Commons Subdivision No. 10 by Brighton Development, Inc. — west of Locust Grove Road and north of Ustick Road: De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Council, Item No. 12 is FP 06-020. 1 see that there -- the applicant has agreed with all staff recommendations, so I would entertain a motion. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we approve FP 06-020. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. Motion to approve Item 12. Is there any discussion? Mr. Berg, roll call. Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 13: Continued Public Hearing from May 9, 2006: AZ 06-003 Annexation and Zoning of 24.03 acres from RUT to R-8 (12.31 acres), R-15 (8.04 Meridian City Council • May 16, 2006 Page 12 of 57 acres) and C -C (3.68 acres) for Hightower Subdivision by Hightower, LLC — southwest corner of Chinden Boulevard and Jericho Road: Item 14: Continued Public Hearing from May 9, 2006: PP 06-003 Preliminary Plat approval of 106 residential lots, 4 commercial lots, 2 private street lots and 25 common lots on 22.94 acres in proposed R-8, R-15 and C -C zones for Hightower Subdivision by Hightower, LLC — southwest corner of Chinden Boulevard and Jericho Road: Item 15: Continued Public Hearing from May 9, 2006: CUP 06-004 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Mixed Use Planned Development that includes single-family detached, townhouse units, commercial uses, private streets, a neighborhood park and a vehicular access to Chinden Boulevard for Hightower Subdivision by Hightower, LLC — southwest corner of Chinden Boulevard and Jericho Road: De Weerd: Thank you. Items 13, 14 and 15 are continued from May 9th. Anna. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is a continued public item. The applicant provided a new disk to me to put in the computer and the computer has eaten that disk and now I can't get my computer to work at all. So, I'm at a bit of a disadvantage. The applicant is definitely at a advantage. I don't have anything. Can have five minutes to just -- or a couple minutes to continue working on this? It's not good. De Weerd: Yes. I apologize to all of those that are in the audience, but we will take a five minute recess. (Recess.) De Weerd: Okay. I'll go ahead and call this meeting to order again. It looks like we have things up and going. Anna. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, thank you. And thanks to the city engineer for his kind assistance. This is the Hightower project. This was continued last week for information from the Idaho Transportation Department on the required right of way. We are breaking this hearing up to consider annexation and zoning, preliminary plat, conditional use, and private streets at this time and, then, we will discuss the variance in a little while. The outstanding issues before Council were -- there was one going into the previous hearing and you have had a presentation from staff, so I'm just going to go back to why the issue was tabled for a week. The outstanding issue going into the last hearing was some flag lots. This one in particular, the townhomes, and that -- at that hearing the applicant did agree that these two units would be removed and that these flags would become ten feet in width as required by code. Then there was the question of whether the appropriate right of way width was 70 feet or 100 feet and we did coordinate with both Sue Sullivan and Kevin Sublon of Idaho Transportation Meridian City Council May 16, 2006 Page 13 of 57 Department and they are asking for 70 feet in this location. And, then, finally -- I'm not going to discuss the variance, but when we get to the variance application, one of the recommendations from staff is that we add a condition of approval into the development agreement. So, we asked that you not take action on the annexation until the variance item is heard. So, this may get a little confusing, but I think what needs to happen is that you can go ahead and hold the Public Hearing, you could probably close the Public Hearing on the preliminary plat and the Conditional Use Permit if you would like, but, then, we ask that you continue those items for their final decision until after you hear the variance and then -- but you can't make a decision on the variance until you have approved the annexation. So, Bill may be able to explain that a little better than I just did. Which ever way you do it it gets rather confusing, but -- so we do ask that you consider that before you close all the public hearings on these items. And with that the applicant does have his presentation for you from last week and they got into some of the issues last week, but did not give a full overview of the project, so they would like to do that. I'll answer any questions you may have right now. De Weerd: Thank you, Anna. Any questions, Council? Thank you. The applicant. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Hull: I will. Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. My name is Phil Hull with the Land Group, 462 East Shore Drive, Eagle, Idaho. 83616. De Weerd: Thank you. Hull: Since we went over most of the presentation at the City Council meeting last week, I will keep this kind of brief and run through these slides real quickly. Just to remind everyone, our site is located right here between Locust Grove and Meridian Road and there is a neighborhood center designation on the Comp Plan at that location. So, we are proposing a mixed use development with three commercial lots up front and some R-15 zoning behind it, feathering back into R-8, as it feathers back into the Saguaro Canyon project. This slide shows buffer areas up front along Chinden with sidewalk, which we confirmed at the last meeting it was going to be ten feet, instead of the five feet that we were showing. We have got buffer areas along Jericho here as well. We have got a sound -- sound wall in front of the townhome area there. And the layout of the commercial area, we broke that up into smaller -- smaller buildings to kind of get away from the strip mall look and make it more of a neighborhood center feel, with -- just make it more walkable with plaza spaces at each entrance and separated sidewalks and whatnot, so you flow through all the way through it and cut down on -- basically cut down on vehicle trips, trying to attract the neighbors within this area into that commercial area. As you go back into the single family residential area, we have a couple of different product types back there. In the central area here around the park site, a one acre park site here, we have homes that back up onto that park site that are alley loaded and on the opposite side of the alley we have homes with the front porches up on the streetscape there. Throughout development we have separated sidewalks with an eight foot planter strip with a five foot walk, with street trees on all the lot lines. And, again, that park site in the center has multiple amenities, such as a gazebo, tot lot, Meridian City Council May 16, 2006 Page 14 of 57 open space play area, barbecue pits, that sort of thing, that provides recreation for the residents. And, again, as staff mentioned, we also agreed to remove these two townhomes to create a park site here, so that these homes would front on that and have a much nicer view, as opposed to looking at the sides of some homes. And that's located here on the site plan, identical to what we are proposing on the north side here. And with that I'll stand for questions. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Any questions, Council? Bird: I don't have any at this time. De Weerd: Okay. Hull: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. This is a Public Hearing. Is there any members of the public who would like to provide testimony on this application? Okay. Hearing none, Anna, do remember from last week that -- was there not a question about the amount of right of way for Chinden? Was this -- Canning: Yes, ma'am. There was conflicting letters. One said 70, one said 100, but we verified that, indeed, they are looking for 70. The 100 was made as a generalized statement and was not site specific. At this location, because of the other constraints along Chinden, they are only looking for 70 feet of right of way. De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Madam Mayor, Mr. Nary, I have a procedural question. Anna addressed just briefly. Do we need to close these public hearings and, then, potentially reopen the annexation after hearing the variance or do we need to continue them until after the -- Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Wardle, General Henry Robert could not probably figure this out any easier than we have. What we think is the most appropriate way to handle this matter is to continue -- and what Mrs. Canning suggested is the preliminary plat and the CUP are probably not in play here, but for the sense of ease, if you continue all three of these matters, you can hear the variance, make decisions -- if the variance is going to be granted, to, then, include those conditions into the annexation conditions -- or the development agreement and, then, close your Public Hearing on your variance, go back to your other matters, finish those, and, then, go back to your variance. Courts are real picky about the specificity and order that you do these things, but to hear them to make some sense out of that is what we are hoping to accomplish, so that there isn't a final decision made on the annexation until you have all the information you need in front of you, but then -- and not a final decision on the variance until you have actually approved to annex the property. Those are the two things we are trying to accomplish here and I think this is probably the best way we can do it. Meridian City Council • May 16, 2006 Page 15 of 57 De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Nary. Nary: That was the short answer. De Weerd: Well, I'm glad you didn't give us the long version. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Wardle. Wardle: With that I would move that we continue Items 13, 14, and 15. Bird: I would second it. De Weerd: Okay. There is a motion to continue Items 13 through 15 to after 16. All those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 16: Continue Public Hearing from May 9, 2006: VAR 06-004 Request for a Variance to construct an access to Chinden Boulevard, a State Highway, for Hightower Subdivision by Hightower, LLC — southwest corner of Chinden Boulevard and Jericho Road: De Weerd: And now, Mr. Rountree, we will see you later. Rountree: I would recuse myself for Item 16. De Weerd: Okay. I will go ahead and open Item 16, continued Public Hearing from May 9th, VAR 06-004, with Anna's comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, on the -- I'm sorry, for some reason I didn't -- I was on the wrong presentation. That was what confused me. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, on this variance request associated with Hightower, they are proposing one new approach to Chinden Boulevard and that was evident on the preliminary plat site plan. So, you will notice that this does align with the road across the street on Chinden. You will also notice Jericho Road just east of this property. If you look at the vicinity map, the half mile mark is over here. So, we are just a little bit off of the half mile mark. However, this entrance, as noted before, does line up. We started talking to ITD about this quite awhile ago and with the north Meridian plan we worked with Sue Sullivan at ITD to determine that this, actually, would be the best location for the half mile collector system. So, what they have proposed is, indeed, a collector through to at least this point. So, it begins as a collector and, then, it will continue down into Saguaro Canyon. And you will see how it lines up with the street network in Saguaro. So, this will provide access for all of Saguaro Canyon and, then, Meridian City Council • May 16, 2006 Page 16 of 57 the subdivision to the west of there, as well as Arcadia and we have got a little bit of Reserve Subdivision here. So, with ITD's acceptance of this as the half mile location, staff has recommended approval of this variance, based solely on ITD's support of that project. Now, the original letter from Kevin Sublon asked the Council to condition the -- condition the variance with Jericho Road being closed and I will go back to that site plan, so you can see Jericho Road. They wanted the Council to condition that this needed to be closed before you granted the variance. Well, staff had concerns about tying those two things together, because ACHD is the -- has final approval over whether that road is closed or not. So, yesterday Sue Sullivan and Kevin Sublon from ITD, as well as Steve Siddoway and Lori Den Hartog from ACHD, all met and what they discussed and consentually agreed to is that the most appropriate recommendation as far as staff was concerned, that regardless of whether Jericho is closed or not, the appropriate location for the half mile collector and future light is this location here that is being proposed by the applicant. What they have suggested -- and, I'm sorry, Mr. Hull was at that meeting also and he's also agreed to this -- that prior to a final plat being submitted anywhere on this subdivision, that the applicant file an application with the city to vacate this right of way. It would just be from Chinden to this connecting road here. So, it would be the small portion of Jericho. That they file that with the city and with ACHD. And, then, all the respective agencies can consider that vacating that piece of property at that time, but they will -- they have consented that that would be an appropriate thing to do in the -- because I won't go into that discussion until a future date, but -- so just to -- just to reiterate, though, it wouldn't -- the plat wouldn't necessarily be continued on achieving that vacation, it was just that they submit those two applications -- or vacation requests. So, with that that really summarizes the main issue with this one and I can answer any questions you may have. De Weerd: Okay. Council, do you have any questions? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Anna, if I understand you right -- and this is just -- they want to add to the development agreement when we approve the annexation and zoning, if we do, that the owner consents to the vacation of Jericho Road and that before they get the final plat application, they will have a vacation or exchange of right of way for Jericho Road to the City of Meridian and to Ada County Highway District; am I not right? Canning: Yes. That they will submit those applications. They may not be processed, but they will submit complete applications. Bird: Okay. De Weerd: Okay. Bird: Thank you. Meridian City Council • May 16, 2006 Page 17 of 57 De Weerd: Any other questions for staff? Would the applicant have anything to add? If you will, again, state your name and address for the record. Hull: Yes, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Phil Hull with the Land Group, 462 East Shore Drive, Suite 100, Eagle, Idaho. 83616. De Weerd: Thank you. Hull: Just a couple of quick comments about the variance application. It has been a long road to get to this point, so I will agree upon this one location for the mid mile entry. Many meetings with ITD staff, Compass staff, Patricia Nelson and, of course, the city staff with Steve Siddoway and Anna and whatnot and ACRD, Lori Den Hartog, and -- and it's been quite a process for everyone to agree on this one location. So, I think we have come a long way and I'm hoping that everybody can see the merits in having it at this point. De Weerd: Great. Well, we appreciate you working with all the agencies on that. Hull: Yeah. De Weerd: Council, any questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you. Hull: Thank you. De Weerd: Is there any public testimony on this application? Okay. Seeing none. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I'll do the procedural work and Mr. Bird will do the motion. I move that we -- or hearing no further testimony, I move that we continue Item 16. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It has been moved to continue Item 16 to hear them after 13, 14, and 15. Okay. All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 13: Continued Public Hearing from May 9, 2006: AZ 06-003 Annexation and Zoning of 24.03 acres from RUT to R-8 (12.31 acres), R-15 (8.04 acres) and C -C (3.68 acres) for Hightower Subdivision by Hightower, LLC — southwest corner of Chinden Boulevard and Jericho Road: Meridian City Council • • May 16, 2006 Page 18 of 57 Item 14: Continued Public Hearing from May 9, 2006: PP 06-003 Preliminary Plat approval of 106 residential lots, 4 commercial lots, 2 private street lots and 25 common lots on 22.94 acres in proposed R-8, R-15 and C -C zones for Hightower Subdivision by Hightower, LLC — southwest corner of Chinden Boulevard and Jericho Road: Item 15: Continued Public Hearing from May 9, 2006: CUP 06-004 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Mixed Use Planned Development that includes single-family detached, townhouse units, commercial uses, private streets, a neighborhood park and a vehicular access to Chinden Boulevard for Hightower Subdivision by Hightower, LLC — southwest corner of Chinden Boulevard and Jericho Road: Wardle: Madam Mayor, with that I would move that we reopen the public hearings on Items 13, 14, and 15. Bird: Second. De Weerd: I don't -- I don't necessarily need a motion. I had just -- Canning: I don't think you closed them. De Weerd: No, we didn't. Okay. So, we will now consider Items 13 through 15. Council, do you need further information or have any questions for either the applicant or staff at this time? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Again, I will ask if there is any additional public testimony. Seeing none, I would entertain a motion to close the public hearings on Items 13 through 15. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I move we finally close the public hearings on Items 13, 14, and 15. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Okay. Any discussion or do I have a motion? Okay. There is no discussion. Meridian City Council • May 16, 2006 Page 19 of 57 Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: First off, I do want to thank the applicant and Anna for -- it might have just been me, my confusion on the right of way issue on Chinden, 70 versus 100 feet, so I appreciate getting that cleared up. I would move we approve Item 13, AZ 06-003, and the condition of approval be part of that annexation. Mr. Nary? Nary: For the development agreement. Borton: Development agreement. And add a condition of approval to that development agreement. Nary: Yeah. The condition of the development agreement, I think, was in relation to the application for the variance, so that would include that in the development agreement, if that's what Council member wants. Borton: Right. But is this -- do we do it in the annexation? Nary: Yes. Borton: Okay. I will kind of clumsily try and get that condition of approval in the development agreement. I include that the owner consents to vacation of Jericho Road and the owner will submit a complete application to include -- read my notes here -- to ACHD prior to approval of the preliminary plat. Wardle: Second. De Weerd: Okay. Borton: For discussion, is that -- procedurally is that phrased right? Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Borton, yes, that was what was recommended by the staff. Yes. And consented to by the applicant. De Weerd: Okay. Nary: Madam Mayor, on this particular one, because that condition has an impact, both on the variance, it would probably be appropriate if Councilmember Rountree were to abstain from this -- from just the annexation. De Weerd: Okay. Okay. So, we do have a motion. And was that complete? Borton: I believe so. Meridian City Council • • May 16, 2006 Page 20 of 57 De Weerd: Okay. Do I have a second? Wardle: I seconded it. De Weerd: Okay. A motion and second. Any discussion? Okay. Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, abstain; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSTAIN. De Weerd: Okay. Item 14. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: I move we approve Item 14, PP 06-003, preliminary plat for Hightower Subdivision. Wardle: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to approve Item 14. If there is no discussion -- Canning: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Anna. Canning: Does the maker of the motion intend to include the developer's commitment to remove the two townhouse lots? Borton: Yes. Wardle: Second agrees. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you for that clarification. Mr. Berg, can you, please, call roll. Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Okay. Item 15. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Meridian City Council • May 16, 2006 Page 21 of 57 Borton: I move we approve Item 15, CUP 06-004, request for Conditional Use Permit for Hightower Subdivision. Wardle: Second. De Weerd: Okay. Motion to approve Item 15. Is there any discussion? Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 16: Continue Public Hearing from May 9, 2006: VAR 06-004 Request for a Variance to construct an access to Chinden Boulevard, a State Highway, for Hightower Subdivision by Hightower, LLC — southwest corner of Chinden Boulevard and Jericho Road: De Weerd: Okay. Item 16. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Hearing no need for further public comment, I move we close the Public Hearing on Item 16. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to close the Public Hearing on 16. All those in favor say aye. Will the record not -- yes, thank you. That Councilmember Rountree abstained. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSTAIN. De Weerd: Okay. Do I have a motion on Item 16? Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I move we approve Item 16 and include the applicant and staff comments. Borton: Second. De Weerd: Okay. We have a motion to approve Item 16. Mr. Nary, do we need also the conditions that were stated in the annexation in this item as well? Meridian City Council • • May 16, 2006 Page 22 of 57 Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, no, you don't need to restate those, because those were just for the annexation. De Weerd: Okay. Nary: This is just approving the variance as recommended. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. If there is no further discussion, Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, abstain; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSTAIN. Item 17: Public Hearing: AZ 06-012 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 9.43 acres from RUT to R-2 for Hendrickson Subdivision by Kingsbridge Subdivision, LLC — 4240 East Bott Lane: Item 18: Public Hearing: PP 06-010 Request for a Preliminary Plat approval for 18 single-family residential lots and 4 common lots on 9.43 acres in a proposed R-2 zone for Hendrickson Subdivision by Kingsbridge Properties, LLC — 4240 East Bott Lane: De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Thank you for bearing with us through this process. Okay. Items 17 and 18. 1 will open these public hearings on AZ 06-012 and PP 06-010. Start with Anna's comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Hendrickson project. It is located just east of Kingsbridge Subdivision and it's west of Selatir and east of Eagle, south of Victory, which is just up the -- would be up at the top of the slide there and north of Amity, which is right down here on the bottom of the slide. It's getting toward the edge of our area of city impact. Actually, this dotted line is our current area of city impact. This is within Boise's area of city impact. The applications include annexation, zoning, and preliminary plat. The gross residential density is 1.9 units per acre. It includes 18 single family lots on 9.43 acres in a proposed R-2 zone. Most of the lots in this area range from 12,000 and, then, they are a little larger on the perimeter. I do want to point out some awkward lots that -- we have a flag lot here that's a 30 -foot flag and a house here. We have the existing house on a large lot back here that would also have a 30 foot flag coming out and they currently take access to Bott Lane, which is in this location at the southeast corner of the property. The open space for the project has a flag coming off this street, opens up briefly back here, and another flag going that way. The staff has recommended a development agreement. Some of those provisions that are unusual or site specific include that the applicant shall install and maintain the proposed off-site vegetation shown in the strip along the eastern property line. What we have is -- you can just see it here. Selatir is a public street. It ends and, Meridian City Council r • May 16, 2006 Page 23 of 57 then, you have Selatir as a private lane extending from there. There is a small strip of land between Selatir Lane held in separate ownership and between this property. And I'm -- they have agreed to an off-site commitment to landscape that piece of property. The other development agreement condition is this -- that a maximum of 18 single family building lots will be platted on the property and, then, the applicant has proposed that all the homes in Block 2 would be single story and the Commission added a development agreement condition that stated that the homes in Block 3 would be similarly restricted. The Commission recommended approval at their April 4th hearing. In favor of the application were Ken Elliott, Gordon Bates, Don Hendrickson, and Christine Hendrickson. In opposition were David LaVigne and Leonard Vanskoy. And commenting were Tim Petchy, Shelly Robertson, Lisa Becker, Jerry Larsen, Virginia Welkerstein and Susan Brender. And I apologize for any mispronunciations on any of those names. Key issues of the discussion by the Commission were access to Bott Lane as I noted down here. Design of the open space as I called out. It's kind of double L shaped, I suppose. Or double flagged. Limiting the height to single stories on some of the lots. And, then, the stub street to the north. The key Commission changes to staff recommendations were that they -- and I noted before, they did restrict the building heights on Lot 3 to be similar to what was proposed on Lot 2. So, if the applicant wanted to allow two story homes on Lot 2, then, lot -- or Block 2, then, Block 3 would not be limited either. And they also decided -- the Commission has recommended that the existing home be allowed to continue to access Bott Lane until Hendrickson Avenue, which is the street on the east end of the property, until it is extended as a public street to the southeast. I wanted to show you where Bott Lane goes. I believe this is the current path of Bott Lane and, then, it cuts across here to Cloverdale and then -- it's not showing, but it does eventually connect to Cloverdale, I believe. And the applicant may have a comment about that, but it does make its way there eventually. The outstanding issues before Council -- I have referenced the applicant's letter that you have received on your desk today and I did go through all of the other concerns. The first concern that they note is the Planning and Zoning Commission's restriction on height for Block 3. 1 think I have explained all the issues there, that, apparently, at the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing they also -- the applicant did offer to set the homes on Block 3 25 feet from the back of property line to provide some additional buffer to those homes that are on Selatir. The zone only requires 15 feet. The applicant has also raised the question about fencing on the south boundary. They may need to explain this one further. I wasn't sure exactly where they were going. It's -- there are two general conditions in the landscape provisions that call out required fencing for the perimeter of the subdivision. I believe their concern is if they are accessing Bott Lane that they don't want to put a fence over it and, clearly, we allow breaks in those fences to accommodate access routes. The applicant also raised questions about the Ten Mile feeder improvements. That comment is not referencing an actual condition of approval, it's just in the analysis and the Findings. So, there is no need to address that on Council's part. There is a -- the applicant notes that there is some contradiction between staff analysis and Section 10 in the conditions of approval. This is not uncommon. Staff writes their analysis, they develop the conditions of approval. If the Commission decides to change those conditions of approval, we just go and change the conditions of approval, we don't go back and change the analysis. The Meridian City Council 0 • May 16, 2006 Page 24 of 57 analysis is still left as it was for the planning -- original staff report for the Planning and Zoning Commission. So, that covers a lot of the items in that. One -- number one on their -- on their list under those is, yes, the preliminary plat revisions now address the issues discussed in Section 10, but we don't typically remove that analysis from the report. Item number two. Yes, those conditions have been met, but regarding a redesign of the site, staff had proposed a redesign. The applicant took another route to address those concerns and that's the one you see before you tonight, so -- but those references are still there, but they have redesigned the site. Condition 1.1.4, as noted, was removed, because it was inconsistent with the Commission's decision, but it's noted in the key changes. So, there is really no action needed on that one either. Item number four, the applicant -- the Commission has recommended that the applicant be allowed to continue to use Bott Lane until Hendrickson Road extends to the southeast. I noted that before. They are asking you to address language in the -- again, in the analysis section stating that access to Bott Lane be fenced off. So, it doesn't reference a condition of approval. There is no condition of approval that says Bott Lane has to be fenced. But I did want to take this opportunity to point out that staff is still very concerned about allowing this property to maintain access off of Bott Lane. This is our one chance and our only chance, basically, to get this current property owner to abdicate their rights to that access and as we have seen on Wingate Lane, it's crucial that the furthest in -- and this is the property furthest in on Bott Lane, that they -- that we sequentially abandon those rights. Now, in this case it may not affect the City of Meridian much, given that it's close to the boundary, but it may prevent the logical extension of Hendrickson Avenue if it's contending with Bott Lane access before it gets out to Cloverdale and that east -west connection through the section does become important, even if it is Boise city property it becomes important. Comment number five on their response, again, it references the analysis section. It's not necessary to address that one at this time. Finally, the applicant has requested that the Council remove the condition for the stub street and instead allow the applicant to have an emergency access to Selatir Place, the private lane just to the east. ACHD has provided comment for you. They sent an e-mail over immediately stating that it is a condition of their approval and they do want to see that stub street go in. If the applicant wants to provide an emergency access to Selatir in addition to that, they are free to do that, but they want to have that stub street and they will address the issue of whether it should connect at a later time. This does not provide a connection to Selatir at this time and they will address that later, but they are pretty adamant that they want that stub street to remain. So, the issues that need to be addressed from my notes are the stub street, access to Bott Lane, and the height for Block 2, and Block 3 and, then, the redesign that staff had proposed basically removed these flag lots from being so secluded and also made the open space more open. Again, the Commission has recommended this one to you. Staff still has concerns about these private -- these residences on these flag lots. Code does allow it. It's up to I suppose Council to decide whether it's in the best interest of the city to have these flag lots tucked way behind these other lots. And with that I will answer any questions that you may have. De Weerd: Council, any questions for staff at this time? Meridian City Council • May 16, 2006 Page 25 of 57 Bird: I have none. Rountree: Mr. Mayor? De Weerd. Yes, Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Anna, I can't read the number on this parcel. It's either three or five. Is that part of the flag lot access or is that -- can it be a common lot or what's going on there? Is that part of this lot here? Canning: It is the common lot. It comes down here, kind of shaped like a -- Rountree: Okay. Okay. Canning: -- flag with a pendent that connects. De Weerd: Okay. Anything else, Council? Okay. Is the applicant here? If you will state your name and address for the record. Elliott: Thank you. Good evening, Madam Mayor and Members of the Council. My name is Ken Elliott, I'm with Vision First, LLC. Our address is 661 South River Shore Lane, Eagle, Idaho. 83616. De Weerd: Thank you. Elliott: Gordon Bates, who is our project manager, will be dealing with two of the points that Anna raised. I'd like to talk -- or I had planned to talk just about the height restriction on Block 3, but I first want to clarify one point on the Bott Lane access that I think may not have been stated clearly and that is that it's only the existing Hendrickson house on Lot 10 of Block 2 that will maintain its historic access to Bott Lane. The rest of the project will have that stub street blocked by a barricade and we will not seek or have any access to Bott Lane. Just the one house. And the Planning and Zoning Commission agreed with that compromise and, again, it will not interfere with the future extension of our southern stub to the south or the east, because the condition further says that once that public street connection is made, then, the Hendricksons will use that instead and will relinquish the existing access to Bott Lane. With that said, I'd like to go on to the -- the single story restrictions on Block 3. And interpreting the Planning and Zoning Commission's reasoning, I think it was primarily based on the fact that as a matter of contract when we bought the Hendrickson's land, we agreed that those interior lots that back up against the Hendrickson's backyard will be restricted to single story. Planning and Zoning seemed to think that if we did it voluntarily as a matter of the land purchase, that we should, then, go ahead and restrict those that adjoin Selatir. As you can see, the Hendrickson's house is oriented -- the backyard is to the northeast and that's the primary view from this area is of the Boise foothills, Bogus Basin, those lots if - - on the interior, if they were two story, would directly block the Hendrickson's existing view to the northeast and that's why we agreed to that concession. Along the eastern Meridian City Council • May 16, 2006 Page 26 of 57 boundary, Block 3, we did make several compromises with the Selatir neighbors and we thought that we had reached a census that did not include limiting those houses to single stories. As Anna mentioned, we have voluntarily agreed to a 24 foot rear yard setback. We are putting a three foot berm at the property line with a six foot privacy fence on top of it. There is an existing 16 foot wide strip to the west of that private lane, that's the area that we will be improving with landscaping and, then, maintaining through the homeowners association. Then we have a 50 foot right of way and, then, we have the front yards on the houses ranging anywhere from 50 and up, 50 feet and up. We eliminated one of the lots there. We originally had six lots. We reduced that to five, so that we have the largest lots in the subdivision adjoining Selatir. All of them are well in excess of 15,000 square feet. One is over 16. Each lot lines up with the existing lots on Selatir. So, we have a house -- a house on Selatir, a house on Hendrickson and, then, the fifth one at the south end adjoins an open space tract that's being held under the farm use covenant. So, we, basically, have four new lots aligned with four existing houses. These are the largest lots in the subdivision and with the primary view as it is to the Hendricksons, the primary view for the folks on Selatir is to the northeast and we think that the agreements that we reached voluntarily are adequate to buffer their front yard view from any two story houses that are built on our eastern block. I would note that Selatir is not restricted. One of the four houses has an existing two story house. The other three houses that adjoin us could add a second story at any time. There is no such restriction on their property rights. We are asking that the Council reconsider the Planning and Zoning's recommendation. You may recall as part of the Kingsbridge Subdivision approval that we voluntarily -- or through a negotiated settlement with the neighbors, limited the height on several of our preliminary lots to single stories along Zaldia Lane, along Dartmoor, the subdivision. Just to make this more than a hypothetical exercise, I want to let you know that we have signed lot reservation agreements on all of phase one in Kingsbridge from 18 builders who want to be part of the project. We had that on all the lots, except those that are restricted to single story. We expect that they will eventually sell, but it shows that there is a very real drag on the marketability of those lots when they are restricted to single story. So, we would ask that these five lots not be so restricted. And I'd invite Gordon Bates now, project manager, to address the other two points that Anna raised. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Elliott: Unless there are questions that -- Rountree: Madam Mayor, I have a question. De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: You indicated that the 16 foot strip over here -- Elliott: Yes. Rountree: -- would be landscaped and maintained by the homeowners? Meridian City Council • May 16, 2006 Page 27 of 57 Elliott: Correct. Rountree: Is that a piece of property that your company owns or is that owned by the neighboring homeowners? Elliott: Madam Mayor, Councilor Rountree, it's owned by the -- either one or two of the residents of Selatir Place and so it will be an off-site obligation that we are taking on as a matter of deed restriction and covenants that will affect our subdivision. Rountree: And is that something that you could do? I mean have you negotiated that at this point or is that just wishful thinking? Elliott: That's part of our agreement that we have reached with the Selatir neighbors, that they want us to improve and landscape and, then, maintain that strip. Rountree: Thank you. Elliott: Thank you. Bates: Good evening. Gordon Bates. I work for Vision First. My business address is 661 South River Shore Lane, Suite 120, Eagle, Idaho. I very quickly will go through the presentation we have this evening. I want to thank all of you and Madam Mayor and the Council members for your time. We agree with most of the Exhibit B conditions of approval. I think the clarification letter that I sent speaks for itself there. There is a few items that we will discuss here in just a few moments. The neighbors that are here I believe will mostly speak to their concerns regarding the stub street and they will also voice their opinion on the height restrictions. I would like to note that this project does comply with the R-2 zoning, including the five percent open space, 15,000 square foot minimum lot size, 80 foot frontage. There are actually 15 foot flag lots and that's per the UDC and that was based upon redesign comments from Joe Guenther and I believe also Caleb Hood on that. They do have a shared driveway, which is the hatched area. There is a shared driveway here. There is another shared driveway right here. We do believe that these flag lots meet the UDC code. Amenities. If you could switch to the next handout there, Anna. The green. Thank you. A little bit of a zoom out, please. The green space highlighted is the common area. This is a detention area and common area here with trees and landscaping. The park originally came down a very narrow flag lot and flared out in this area. There was no access to Hendrickson Avenue here. This has been redesigned based primarily on Lieutenant Stowe's comments from the city police department to provide a flare visibility from the street here into the park to provide visibility and access into the park here, so that we meet his primary concerns about anybody, a police officer or otherwise, would have visibility back into this park. We also feel like this is a very centrally located park, it provides access by the new lots, it also provides access from the existing home. It provides a path area for younger children to play in it away from the street. We looked at separating the major recreational activity from the street traffic. We feel like that is very save. And as per Meridian City Council May 16, 2006 Page 28 of 57 staff comments, we will have non -trespass light to provide very low level lighting to discourage activity after dark, but, yet, will also provide these neighbors with very limited visibility into that. This light will not splash out into those lots and creating a type of nuisance. It will most likely be three foot high bollards of light, shielded lighting on top. And we feel that P&Z has -- as they have approved this as noted in Exhibit B, item 4.1. We have had numerous meetings with the neighbors. Three of them to be exact. Lots of communication. There is concerns with the stub street going north to Mr. Dan Johnson's parcel. This area here that I did not highlight, because it's off site, is our 15 foot landscape strip, and the neighboring association has agreed verbally, we have not developed a written agreement yet, that would allow us to not only construct these improvements, but maintain them by the Hendrickson homeowners association. It will include a three foot berm and a six foot privacy fence centered on our easterly boundary and their westerly boundary. Ken went through the other concessions. I won't repeat those. I would note that we have the 25 -foot yard -- rear yard setback and that's on note 15 of the preliminary plat. Fifteen foot wide buffer strip, a 50 -foot wide right of way and, then, we start getting into their front and side yards over here. Staff notes -- also note that we comply with the Comprehensive Plan, low density residential future use. We also have provided reasonable transition lots and voluntary concessions that exceed the city requirements. Regarding the access -- Anna, if you could go to the next handout, please, with the fence. Existing Lot 10 of Block 2 is a portion that the Hendricksons are retaining ownership of. Their existing house is here. Their existing driveway comes down and comes into the Ten Mile feeder canal right of way and continues down to Bott Lane. We are not -- we are proposing to provide dual access for this lot. They will have a gate here with a paved shared driveway for city code, access to Hendrickson Avenue to Kingsbridge Drive and westerly. We are requesting that their existing legal and historic access to Bott Lane to the south remain and be allowed to continue until Hendrickson Avenue is extended to the south. Mr. Hendrickson is not here this evening. He'd point out that many of their friends and most of the community that they have relationships with are along Bott Lane and they would just like to continue that access for their sole purpose for this lot only. They would secure this gate and not let public access come onto their private property. They would not allow public access to come to Bott Lane. It would be solely for their use only and not the remaining subdivision or any adjoining streets. Fencingwise. There is some comments regarding fencing the south boundary against the canal located here. We are providing fencing from this point to here along the south boundary to the gate. These are all fenced -- either proposed fence or open fence around the common area. It connects to the fencing proposed for Kingsbridge Subdivision to the west. We are asking for a formal waiver from this point to the southwest corner of Lot 10, Block 2, to the gate at the westerly terminus of the shared driveway. Mr. Hendrickson's pointed out that they enjoy the canal there, it's part of the amenities of their property, even though it is not part of their property, it's on a separate parcel and is requested not to have to fence this, since we are providing fencing boundary in other areas of the subdivision and we would ask for a formal waiver noting that portion. Regarding the stub street, the developer, ourselves, and the neighbors along Selatir Lane would dearly love to see that stub street go away. Mr. Dan Johnson, the owner of this parcel here, speaks for himself on that matter. The staff report indicates that this stub street connects to Selatir Lane and Meridian City Council May 16, 2006 Page 29 of 57 up to Victory. To date I'm not aware of Mr. Johnson having a formal application to do that. I feel like this stub street may go nowhere. It really depends on Mr. Johnson's development plans and I'll let him speak for himself. Selatir is a county road. It has no sidewalks. We feel that future connectivity is much better served down Hendrickson Avenue to a full urban street with sidewalks and connection over towards development off of Cloverdale Road. We would offer -- if we could have that next slide, please, Anna. I would note that this is purposefully a hand sketch change. This is just a proposal. It's not gone to ACHD, etc. But if ACHD agrees to eliminate the stub street here, we would offer to substitute that with the gravel and gated emergency vehicle only access lane to provide enhanced vehicle access to the Hendrickson and the easterly side of Kingsbridge Drive. De Weerd: Sir, if you could, please, summarize. Bates: You bet. In closing, we meet the zoning requirements, Comprehensive Plan designation. We are providing the city with larger lots south of the freeway, in comparison to the relatively denser subdivisions elsewhere. We ask that the city would reconsider the height restriction on Block 3. We ask that you could concur with the Planning and Zoning allowance for the continued legal use of the access of Lot 10, Block 2, to Bott Lane. We ask that you would grant a fence waiver on the southerly portion of Lot 10, Block 2. We ask that you would allow for -- subject to ACHD approval, the removal of the stub street to be replaced by an emergency vehicle access, again, contingent upon ACHD approval at a later date. This would allow for staff level approvals of those changes of preliminary plat, rather than a new public hearing before you. We also would -- De Weerd: Sir? Bates: Yeah. De Weerd: Your time is over. Bates: Okay. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I have a question. De Weerd: Okay. Bates: Yes. Meridian City Council May 16, 2006 Page 30 of 57 Rountree: What is this feature? 0 Bates: That is an existing canal. It will be piped around the perimeter of the property. That's the McDonald Lateral. And we have worked that out with the Boise Project Board of Control. They feel like the hydraulics there are reasonable such that a piping will work just fine through there. It's got several checks providing lots of fall that we can pipe on the perimeter. Rountree: So, it will be on the southern perimeter? Southerly and westerly perimeter, yes, sir. Rountree: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions for the applicant at this time? Okay. Bates: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. I have a number of people signed up here. When I read your name I will also read how you have checked the form. If you wish to provide testimony when I read your name, please, come forward. If not, we will at least record your name and opinion for the record. Lisa Becker. Against. Becker: Good evening. My name is Lisa Becker. 3421 South Selatir Place in Meridian. De Weerd: Thank you. Becker: I live one lot north of the proposed development. Both Vision First and the homeowners testified at Planning and Zoning Commission. All opposed the northern stub street, so we wanted to explain why we oppose it. Our street Selatir is a very narrow street. It was designed as a dead end cul-de-sac to access six estate lots. I wrote you a letter, but the picture didn't turn out very good, so I wanted to show you the width of the road. You can see if two -- if two cars are on that road, basically, there is no room for another car to get by. The road is, actually, 23.5 feet wide and we have irrigation runoff on both sides of the barrow pits. A lot of times the irrigation runoff it's basically from side to side. So, it's a very narrow road. ACHD in their letter dated March 21st indicated that that northern stub street was placed there in anticipation of a future connection to Selatir Place. We feel this creates a safety risk. It would allow dumping urban density residential from Kingsbridge and Hendrickson onto this very narrow rural lane. ACHD also indicated that the stub street was there for future development to the north. However, we don't feel that's necessary. Our restrictive covenants only permit up to one acre lots. They are currently all five acre estate lots and our restrictive covenants only allow future development to one acre lots. Those one acres could be accessed easily off of Selatir. There is no need for the stub to access future development. We want to indicate that we do support the vision for connectivity between neighborhoods. That's why we have proposed a compromise of the fire lane, which would allow bike and pedestrian access between the neighborhoods without Meridian City Council May 16, 2006 Page 31 of 57 dumping urban density traffic onto this rural road. So, we just ask -- I'd ask in summary that you either remove the stub street -- we have talked with Commissioner Huber from the ACHD and she's indicated that on some occasions you have been willing to remove stub streets. Or we ask that you refer it back to the ACHD for a public hearing. De Weerd: Thank you. Becker: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Jeff Welkerstein. And I really apologize if I just messed up your name. Welkerstein: That's okay. De Weerd: And, please, state your name and address for the record. Welkerstein: Jeff Welkerstein. 3702 South Selatir Place. De Weerd: Thank you. Welkerstein: I live down about the cul-de-sac, second house from the end. I just want to concur with the previous testimony from my neighbor concerning allowing the stub street to connect into Selatir Place. I just want to reiterate it's a rural narrow road with barrow pits and no sidewalks. On the ACHD report they estimated that the Hendrickson Subdivision would add about 170 vehicle trips per day. I don't believe there was any mention of the additional traffic that would be added from the adjacent Kingsbridge Subdivision to the west that would want to shortcut through there as well. Also, we were unaware of any ten day appeal process to the ACHD report. The letter was dated March 21st and I did not receive a copy of the e-mail until after the ten day appeal period. So, I also would appreciate City Council recommending removal of the stub street or sending it back to ACHD for review. Another point I want to make is originally we were opposed to the density as it currently stands. I would be happier if the lot sizes mirrored the size of the Kingsbridge lots abutting the Dartmoor Subdivision, which was a half acre to one acre transition on some of the perimeters and some height restrictions as well. In talking with Vision First, we told them we would be more amenable to the proposed site, which are about third acre lots, assuming the house and the out buildings adjacent to Selatir Place are limited to one story and maintained a 25 -foot setback. And so that's what Planning and Zoning recommended and we support restricting those and I think it's Lot 3 to one story. Then, finally, I also believe there is confusion about whether or not the Hendrickson property is included in this -- in the 9.43 acres. If it's not, I mean I'm confused, if they still want access to Bott Lane, if they are not part of the subdivision, then, including them in the 9.3 acres, the density is too great for R-2 zoning. So, in summary, concerns about the stub street. Hopefully, we can send it back to ACHD for review. And concerns about the density and/or the height restrictions. Meridian City Council • May 16, 2006 Page 32 of 57 De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Jenny Welkerstein. Welkerstein. Also against. Okay. Thank you. David LaVigne. Exactly. I always appreciate coaching, though. Okay. If you would like to step forward and just say your name and address for the record. LaVigne: I didn't want to use my minutes up yet, so I was just waiting -- De Weerd: We won't start it until she's ready. LaVigne: Okay. Nary: Please summarize. LaVigne: Wait a minute. My name is David LaVigne. I live at 3317 South Selatir Place, which is just a little north of the proposed subdivision. And so what I wanted to do is just kind of talk -- walk you through some of the points. One of our primary concerns -- you want to flip to the next slide -- is -- we are requesting denial of the proposed plat map primarily because of the concern for the stub street to the north property for future. Primary concern is just the stub street. If you could go to the next slide. And as you saw, this is the stub street that we were talking about we would like to see removed. And if you want to go to the next slide. The Selatir Place, as referred, is a rural road, it's 22.3 feet wide with no sidewalks, barrow pits, and as you can see on the right-hand side over here, this is water that fills up with the irrigation water on the side. Cars in the middle here and you want -- I have got -- I have got two kids -- I have got three kids. Two three year old twins and -- forget how many I have. I don't get a lot of sleep. Rountree: How many is that? LaVigne: I don't know. It's a blur. But they -- you know, they, actually, go down and visit Jeffs kids down at the end of the street, which they have to run all the way down here at the end of the street and it's a one mile road. So, if you want to go to the next slide. So, as you can kind of see the way that the road is, it's a long -- long narrow road, barrow pits on each side, and it's 1.75 -- one to 1.75 acres and if you open this thing up to -- to what's coming over on Selatir from Kingsbridge and from the Hendrickson Subdivision, it's going to be like a speedway and a question to you guys is where are our kids supposed to walk and go down and visit their friends when you have -- when you potentially have 500 cars per day coming down this road when you open it up to Hendrickson Subdivision, as well as portion -- back portion of Kingsbridge. So, the next slide. To give you a flavor of what's on the street, if you haven't been down there before, just to kind of give you an idea of some of the homes, the estate homes that are on here. There is anywhere between one and five acre lots and it's right on the edge of the Meridian city limits, if you have seen it. If you want to go to the next slide. These are just some more five acre estate lots in Selatir Place. Just to kind of give you a flavor, the homes are setback, they are big acreages, and nobody's -- I mean it's just a - - it's a great rural environment that's still within -- you know, it's close to the City of Meridian, which we are getting fewer and fewer homes that are -- developments that are still out here like this. If you want to go to the next slide. So, what we'd like to -- the Meridian City Council • May 16, 2006 Page 33 of 57 primary concern is the public safety is the primary concern regarding the potential connection to Selatir Place via the stub street on the Hendrickson Subdivision. And as you have kind of heard, what we'd like to kind of propose is some options -- layout some options for you. If you want to go to the next slide. And the Selatir homeowners, as well as Vision First, we were, first, unaware of the 10 day appeal period that must be filed to contest ACHD recommendations. That had actually lapsed, almost, by the time we had gotten to talk to the Planning and -- to Planning and Zoning. And what we'd like to recommend is the City Council -- one of the options is to -- the City Council not act on the report and -- De Weerd: If you will, please, summarize. LaVigne: Okay. This is -- if you want to go to the next slide. That was one option. And the next option. Bottom line is -- you have heard a lot of the options and you also heard about the proposed stub street. Removing the stub street and that piece of strip, spite strip that we have been talking about, is granting access across, is -- that's in lieu of -- we would grant access to something like that, because it's, actually, a part of the homeowners association. The group has purchased it under the homeowners association, that spite strip, and we would, actually, like to encourage some connectivity, but we don't want to encourage the connectivity to have all of the traffic coming down, but we do agree with the connectivity of neighborhoods. We would like to have connectivity between Kingsbridge, as well as Selatir as well. So, we would be more than happy to offer that up in lieu of removing the stub street regarding any future connectivity to that whole piece as well as you see right there. And one other last option, a quick summary, and I'm out of here, is that -- is that on putting a restriction on the stub street, which I had talked to Sherry Huber, ACHD commissioner about, she said that you could actually put a restriction on this stub street that it could not be used for -- for vehicle access, only emergency access or pedestrian access, if the stub street still had to stay there. So, that's an additional option for you to consider. So, appreciate your time. Thanks a lot. De Weerd: Thank you. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Sir, we have a question for you. Wardle: Okay. Mr. LaVigne -- and I'm referencing your mention of increased traffic and those sorts of things. And maybe I'm not understanding the plat right. Does this stub street connect to your lane or does it just -- LaVigne: It does not. It is the future -- I mean we are -- it's -- the next step would be -- the person -- if you want to put up a slide of where it stubs out, the person or the property to the north is considering right now subdividing that -- that parcel and putting additional homes on it. ACHD has -- Lori Den Hartog, in her report, had mentioned that she would be willing to -- or she likes the idea of the connectivity and would like -- the Meridian City Council May 16, 2006 Page 34 of 57 whole -- there is nothing in the back here and there is a stub street right here right now in Kingsbridge, which is already here. There is already one over here. So, one additional stub street here and, then, you have one down here. One going here out to this road. If Dan Johnson subdivides and brings that -- or approves -- you know, ACHD says they would like to connect, bottom line is and the concern is once -- once Dan Johnson decides to subdivide, which he's planning on doing and we don't know what the plat map looks like, because he hasn't filed it, but the next step would be to -- you know, the connectivity would go out to -- ACHD would like that connectivity out there. So, that's kind of where -- we are trying to be a step ahead of it. We have been talking about this for two years now as Kingsbridge was going through all this and wanting to connect over to this way, over to Selatir as well. So, we are trying to be a step ahead of it, because we know the next step is just going to be a continuous -- I mean that's kind of what the end result's going to be. We are trying to prevent that. Does that help? That's your question? Wardle: That clarifies it. Thank you. LaVigne: Okay. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton. Borton: It raised a question. Maybe it confused me. LaVigne: Sure. Borton: So, the concern that -- if there is a stub street here and there is connectivity here, it's not going to increase traffic on the street in front of these properties. LaVigne: It would not. Borton: Okay. Your concern is for properties up here? LaVigne: My concern is for properties up there that go all the way up. There is probably a quarter mile roadway from here all the way up here and my kids go walk down here right now to catch the bus, as well as other kids down here walk from here down the street to catch the bus at the end at Victory. Borton: Your photographs were of these properties, not -- or of the street up here, not of the street down here? LaVigne: Correct. These are all -- there is two more -- that's my property right there. There is two more properties here and there is more over here, but -- Borton: Okay. Thank you. Meridian City Council May 16, 2006 Page 35 of 57 LaVigne: Does that help? All right. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Susan Brender signed up against. Brender: I'm Susan Brender. I live at 3568 South Selatir Place, which is the second one acre lot on the east side of Selatir, not exactly adjacent, but my south property line would be the same as the north property line for the Hendrickson Subdivision. De Weerd: Thank you. Brender: I agree with everything that's been said so far. I just want to add two things. One is in regards to the safety along Selatir if the stub street were put in there and future access for all of Kingsbridge traffic were to dump out on Selatir -- right now the street is one of those where it's been blacktopped a couple of times and so on the sides there is probably a five inch dropoff in someplaces to the gravel. I'm sure the kids riding their bicycles down there, if they were trying to avoid a car, it could be serious and there are a lot of children on that street. The other issue that I have -- that I want to emphasize -- it's already been mentioned -- is the height restriction on the east lots or Block 3. Contrary to the statement that everyone's view is to the northeast, which is true, but we also have a terrific view to the southwest. We can see the Owyhees. We won't be able to see them with two story houses. But the major thing is that single story restriction of Block 3 would be compatible with the house across the street. Those are my concerns. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Jerry Larsen signed up against. Larsen: Jerry Larsen. 3536 South Selatir Place. De Weerd: Thank you. Larsen: Ditto all my neighbors on the -- especially on the stub street. We have pretty much run that one. A couple of comments on the single story development. It is wrong for the area. It's a very open area. I agree they have made a big point about the view to the northeast -- primarily east northeast. We also do have a fantastic view out the west. I have some amazing pictures of the setting sun that a nine foot fence would not occlude those two story skulking homes from ruining. So, I would ask they be restricted to single story. Also, I'd note that if you look at the scale on Kingsbridge would like to talk about how far away the houses are across the road and across our front yards. If you scale that, they -- those one story homes, hopefully, would be about the same distance away as the one story homes surrounding Mr. Hendrickson. So, it's the same distance. The other point I'd like to make is -- as explained on P&Z meeting when we were here before, the norm is that when somebody joins the city, they give up access to the county. I would ask that that be enforced here. Mr. Hendrickson seems to -- or Mr. Hendrickson needs to decide whether he wants to be in the city or in the county and either get in or get out, rather than cherry pick to his own exclusive advantage. The -- Meridian City Council May 16, 2006 Page 36 of 57 you know, if he wants to have his dogs play in the ditch and have access to the ditch, then, stay in the county, don't develop. He can make that choice. But if he wants to be in the city, I think he needs to be in the city, so -- and if he is -- you know, if he is allowed access and out, then, let's take his property out of the density calculation, you know, not have it both ways. That's my comments. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Rick Anderson signed up against. Okay. Thank you. Delphia Anderson. Or Delpha. Thank you. Dan Johnson. Neutral. Johnson: My name is Dan Johnson. I live at 3501 South Selatir Place. Good evening, Madam Mayor and Council Members. I don't know if neutral is really the right way I feel right now, because I mean I have had some conversations about maybe doing something at some point with my property. I have been out there since '91. Built the house, enjoyed it. I'm seeing things change. But I agree with all my neighbors and also with Vision First that that stub street is not needed, not wanted, and doesn't belong there. You have seen what sort of area we live in. If I ever do split lots off, it will not be to move Hendrickson and Kingsbridge traffic down Selatir. I know from my two neighbors -- and we are all three irrigators, we fill those borrow pits full of water about twice or three times a month and it's not safe. Victory Lane is only -- or Victory Road is only two lanes with no turn -- center turn and there is no way you can stack maybe a third of a mile of cars in commuter time up and down our road. So, everybody's right, if I ever do split my lots, I don't need that stub street and I'm going to fight it with the rest of my neighbors. I know the Council here can make that decision. It's back to ACHD. But I think, from what I understand, the Planning and Zoning Commission understood what we were all saying is that that emergency access is really a gift from the neighborhood to allow something to happen while the dynamics of development and connectivity and things like that happen. My understanding is that it's going to be about 14 to 18 months before the sewer and water and the absorption rate of Kingsbridge and Hendrickson come our way. In that amount of time it's hard to say what could happen to the other parcels and ACHD needs to understand that, Council, and everybody else. So, I'm standing with my neighbors. I don't want the stub street. I will not connect to it if it stays. And so that's where I am. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you, sir. Okay. Tim Petchy signed up against. Hasn't changed yet, uh? Petchy: Not yet. My name is Tim Petchy. I live at 3726 South Selatir and that's actually -- I, actually own these two lots at the end of the road here. And I'm with my neighbors on stopping the stub street connecting out to Victory Road in the future. That's just -- there is no place for that on our street. It's a small rural road. But another concern of mine is that the restriction on Block 3, we do enjoy a view out to the west. Actually, the way this lays out, we would have three of those lots would actually be abutting my property and we do enjoy our sunsets, our views out to the west. If I'm out - - our house actually views out to the northwest from the front of our house, so that directly affects our views and I kind of thought we had P&Z on our side protecting that. We did make some concessions on the size of those lots, so I don't feel that third acre Meridian City Council • May 16, 2006 Page 37 of 57 lots are really a transition to the five and one acre pieces we have out there. So, I thought that was maybe a concession that we could work with with Vision First and that's my comments. De Weerd: Thank you, sir. Lisa Petchy is also against. Thank you. And Bob Becker. Against. B. Becker: Good evening, Madam Mayor, Council Members. I really don't have much more to add. I think my wife did an excellent job. Nary: Name and address. Name and address, sir. De Weerd: Oh, yes. B. Becker: I'm sorry. Bob Becker, 3421 South Selatir Place. She stole all my notes, so she, essentially, did my work for me. The only thing I would like to add is you, essentially, have everyone here opposing the stub street. You have the developer opposing the stub street. You have the adjacent landowner Dan Johnson opposing the stub street. You have all of the other neighbors opposing the stub street. And we would ask that you send this back to ACHD, so that they can study it and hold a hearing and we have a chance to maybe get the stub street removed. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Is there any additional testimony on this? Canning: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Canning: I forgot to address one knew issue that the applicant had raised in their letter and I just feel it's important to at least note it on the record, so that we have a clear record for the future. They have asked that Mr. Hendrickson be allowed to continue having livestock on the property, the larger lot that's being proposed. In the past the city has allowed livestock to continue on larger properties for a limited time as a nonconforming use. If the Council does wish to grant that request as part of the development agreement, the applicant would need to document what animals they have and what animals they continue to have -- will continue to have and when that use will end, because they are not allowed in the city. So, they did raise that issue in their letter. It was not discussed previously, so -- typically we see that that -- well, the last time you did it, the ability to have horses was limited to the current property owner only and I think we limited it to exactly the number she had on the property at that time, which was three. Actually, I think we limited it to those three horses that were on the property, so -- De Weerd: And we lost them through attrition. Canning: Yeah. Meridian City Council • May 16, 2006 Page 38 of 57 De Weerd: Okay. If there is no further public testimony, I would ask the developer if they would like to have -- yes. I'm sorry. Before we call you up -- Wardle: Madam Mayor. De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: If Mr. Inselman could ask -- or could answer a question that's been raised by the neighbors and that would be the process to -- is there a process to appeal ACHD's decision on this stub street? Inselman: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Gary Inselman representing ACRD. 3775 North Adams. This was acted on in March. There is a ten day appeal period. The developer certainly knew. It was attached to our staff report that went to them. If the Council approved a plat that differed from the one we did, there would have to be a reconciliation of. If they denied this plat and the applicant resubmitted, certainly we would review the new plat and hold public hearings now we are aware of all of the interest in the neighborhood. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: While we have got the other black cat up here, I'm confused by your letter. And the letter starts off about -- you didn't require a stub street to the east, because of the strip of property and so you proposed a stub street to the north and required that. Your letter ends with this statement: The district is supportive of the neighbors' proposal to allow an emergency access from Selatir Place across the strip of property now owned by the homeowners association. So, they kind of got ahead of this -- or in the middle of this. Does that mean that if that were provided you would still take their -- or ACHD would still take the strong position for a stub street? Inselman: The lane to the east is private, so a public stub to a private road would not serve a lot of benefit to the public and, then, there is that spite strip that would need to be crossed at some point. The only reason for the stub to the north is to preserve the opportunity for the connectivity. There is no guarantee that there will ever be a connection to Selatir if Johnson, I believe that's his name, developed his property in a manner that it does not require connection to this subdivision or does not require a connection to Selatir, perhaps it would never happen. I can't say until that parcel comes in. It's only to preserve options for the future. That stub could be moved west of where it's at, anywhere along that north boundary would provide a little more circuitous route in the future if it ever did connect. It may never connect if Mr. Johnson doesn't develop. If it ever did, we certainly look at the condition of the existing street. We are very concerned about a place for pedestrians. We have to tackle these issues, unfortunately, far too regularly in the county, where older narrower streets are Meridian City Council • May 16, 2006 Page 39 of 57 developed at the end and more traffic is put down them and as best we can we require off-site improvements to widen that road to provide a place -- safe place for the pedestrians. It's difficult to require the developer of a small parcel like Mr. Johnson's to improve a quarter mile of road with curb, gutter, and sidewalk, but we will certainly make what provisions we can for the safety of the pedestrians in the future. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, if I could follow up on that. I have been involved with at least one project that was similar to this where what we ended up doing is taking the stub up, run it over, and, then, run it up again and some of the houses would have faced what is Selatir on this one. So, there are ways of getting public street connections in there without having a direct access to Selatir at this time. And so it's -- this one is -- everyone's assuming that the next one will just end -- you know, pull that public street right to that cul-de-sac and my experience has been that ACHD commission does listen and that they try and meet those concerns that Mr. Inselman has pointed out. De Weerd: Yeah. But, Anna, I guess there is this problem of institutional memory, too, if Mr. Johnson sells and the next person comes and does it, you know, they can do it a little bit differently and we have seen the dangers of urban densities connecting to some of these private roads or rural roads that are really there to serve just more of that rural level development and it is -- we are seeing that all around and this is the first time I have seen it really be asked to stub into it. Canning: Madam Mayor, we -- I have had hits on probably half of those five acre lots, people looking to buy them, assemble them, and redevelop them. De Weerd: Well, that is sad. I really like the pictures I saw. Tell them there is other places and land. Thanks, Gary. Okay. If the developer would like to come up with wrapping up remarks. You have five minutes. Elliott: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Again, for the record I'm Ken Elliott for Vision First, 661 South River Shore Lane, Eagle, Idaho. 83616. We have -- I think looking at this map, it is helpful to recall that the Kingsbridge Subdivision does have two stub streets to the north, one near the northwest corner, one near the northeast corner, then, we have our primary access out to Eagle Road, plus a secondary access through Dartmoor. So, by adding 17 houses to that 125 unit subdivision, we are being asked to, essentially, add two additional stub streets. We think one is warranted. We think an emergency access is warranted through Selatir, but what we think is going to happen, what the scuttlebutt is, is that that large rectangle to the south of the R-1 abutting Cloverdale, which is split by the Meridian and Boise areas of impact, is likely to develop and that with some cooperation from our neighbors to the south on the large ten acre tracts that we could loop the Hendrickson Avenue connection over to that large rectangle and go out to Cloverdale Road. That's been our hope and plan all along. That's what we told the Council and the Planning and Zoning with Kingsbridge, that we were hoping to acquire Hendrickson, so that we could get access out either by Bott Lane and, again, although it's not shown, the part that's within Meridian City Council • May 16, 2006 Page 40 of 57 the Portland -- or the -- Portland. Boise. I'm slipping back to a past life. The Boise area of impact, that is all a public street all the way to the point where it gets to the canal, which is the diagonal road. In response to the one gentleman that would take away Hendrickson's access through Bott Lane, it seems a little counter productive if you're going to add one more house that has no way to get out when we are trying to maintain an access that goes back about 80 years. The canal was sold to the New York Canal Company at a time when that ten acre lot owner was a shareholder of the canal company and so to just take that access away because they are a remnant parcel and now part of the Hendrickson subdivision, that was certainly never our understanding as a developer, it was never the Hendrickson's contemplation that they would give up their access to a county road, the only stretch that's private, I think they have got a good argument for the title company, if it has to be made, that they have an established legal access to the point where they connect to Bott Lane. So, we urge you to give them that -- to allow them to maintain that historic access. Again, it's only for them. We have got a fence and barricades preventing any of the other future residents of the subdivision from accessing Bott Lane. We will go out on the public streets through the city. I would also like the Council's consideration of -- to allow them the personal right, as long as they own the property, to maintain the number of horses or llamas that they have on the land, not limited to lives in being -- as to the livestock, but allow the Hendrickson to enjoy the right that they have historically had and to allow them, as one of the animals die, they could replace it, they wouldn't have any more in number than they have now, but they wouldn't lose their rights slowly as the old critters fall away. Thank you very much. De Weerd: I guess I do have a question for you and it's something that hasn't come up through testimony. Can you show the plat, Anna? I am curious. You mentioned the open space and it's very accessible and in a good location. I don't see what's good about it. It's behind people's houses, it's tucked behind, and it is out of the vision of the public. So, it is concern of the safety aspect. It looks like it's more beneficial to only a couple of people, rather than the entire development in terms of the esthetic value. And, then, you also count your drainage lot as -- in your open space calculations. There is not too much play that goes on in a retention area, but I would like to hear your comments regarding open space. Elliott: Madam Mayor, we meet the code requirement for open space. We redesigned the park at the express -- with advice of the police department. It was a narrow strip coming in from the east -west street to the north. We flared that open, adding that Lot 5 to the park, so they have complete visibility into it. It's quite clearly a pocket park and I think there are lots of those in -- in other subdivisions. We think by adding the opening to Hendrickson Avenue to the east, that we create a nice loop, we create a safe area for young kids to play, but the people who are cutting through the neighborhood on bicycles can also readily good through the park. De Weerd: Well, I guess I will politely disagree. I sometimes think that we are creating attractive nuisances behind -- and hiding them from the public eyes keep them safer. And so I guess there is just a difference of opinion. And, yes, you did meet our Meridian City Council • • May 16, 2006 Page 41 of 57 minimum requirements. You know, nothing more and nothing less. But I guess in -- well, it just seems like it's -- it's pretty minimal and there is not too much benefit to the homes that are in and around there. But that's, again, my perception of it. Elliott: I guess in response, Madam Mayor, I would just say, again, that we -- we got some pretty strong criticism from the police department and redesigned it in a way that they approved and that Planning and Zoning Commission approved. And we think there are benefits to having the main -- the main play area removed from the street for safety and so you get a little peace and quiet, rather than just being right out on the street front. De Weerd: Well, again, I guess in what I have observed through community design is the more eyes on open space you can get the safer it, really, truly is. So, again, just a difference of opinion. Elliott: We do have six or eight households with their backyards up to that park, so I think there will be a lot of -- a lot of eyes on it. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Elliott: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Council, any further information from the applicant or staff? If not, I would entertain a motion to close this Public Hearing. Or to continue it for reconsideration back to ACHD regarding the stub street. Bill, would that take a continuation to have it go back to ACHD or what is the process for that? Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, if I understood Mr. Inselman correctly, I guess there wasn't -- there isn't a mechanism to remand this back to ACHD. If the Council approved a plat that was different than what they approved, or did not allow a plat, they would, then, have an opportunity to revisit it. But there isn't a mechanism to just simply remand it. De Weerd: So, we have no appeal of their decision either, then? Nary: No. De Weerd: Okay. Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: So, the only -- the only avenue is to turn this down and make them go through the whole process all over again? Nary: Well, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, certainly that's an option and that would certainly be one process. If the Council was of a mind to recommend a different Meridian City Council • • May 16, 2006 Page 42 of 57 plat configuration without a stub street or with the stub street in a different location or with the other connection -- again, I think it was -- if I understood Mr. Inselman correctly, if this Council recommended something different than what they have seen, they would, then, have to revisit it and I think there has been some proposed alternatives. So, you wouldn't necessarily have to reject it just to have it reviewed. Madam Mayor, if you wouldn't mind, the only thing I guess additionally I would like the Council to consider and maybe we have all become a little more heightenly aware of these types of concerns. You have a consentual annexation, but it appears that a lot of the testimony from the applicant is disagreeing with the conditions either placed on this by ACHD or staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission and I guess just for your consideration in making your deliberations, you may want to consider whether there is truly a consentual annexation request in front of you or whether their conditions are such that it no longer is conceptual and that may not be something the city wishes to annex at this time. The conditions regarding the animals on the property, although may be small, is a significant change from what you have done in the recent past. The conditions regarding access to the public street is a significant change from what's been required in the past. The conditions regarding the house sizes and limitations was fully discussed at the Planning and Zoning Commission and that was their recommendation. It just appears, I guess -- and I just wanted to just make all of you aware and maybe you already are, that, you know, normally a consentual annexation doesn't always place quite so many conditions upon their consent and if their consent is so conditioned, I guess I just wanted to make the Council aware that you may want to factor that into your deliberation and give that some due consideration as well. De Weerd: Okay. Questions from Council? What direction -- I would look for a motion as to what direction you would like to go on this. Rountree: Is the Public Hearing still open? De Weerd: Yes, it is. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: If there is no further information or public testimony, I move we close the Public Hearing on Items 17 and 18. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to close the public hearings on 17 and 18. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Rountree: No. De Weerd: Okay. Three ayes. Motion carries. Meridian City Council • May 16, 2006 Page 43 of 57 MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. De Weerd: Discussion? Rountree: Madam Mayor, the reason I'm opposed to closing the hearing is because I think it's still valid to get some more input. We don't have -- and I don't know that Anna has the road situation for the adjacent subdivision to the west and where those stub streets may or may not come into this parcel. Canning: To the west, sir? Rountree: Yeah. Canning: To the east? Rountree: Kingsbridge. Canning: Kingsbridge? The only -- Rountree: That's the only one? Canning: That's the only stub on their eastern property line, I believe. Yes. Rountree: I thought I heard somebody indicate that there was one -- Canning: I believe they have two to the north. Rountree: Further north? Bird: On the north. Rountree: Okay. Thank you. De Weerd: Council, any comments? I guess I'll give my -- I don't have a vote, unless you tie, so I will start discussion. You know, I appreciate larger size lots. We don't have a whole lot in our city. But at what cost? You know, just because they are bigger lots doesn't mean they are really a true amenity to add to our community. I'm concerned about the open space. I think it will be nice for a couple of houses to have that open space, but the safety of our kids -- I mean we looked at park design, we don't like to tuck things behind things. It's better to have it open to the vision of all and it's even that self - policing, thinking a car can drive by and -- and it's another set of eyes. It's another set of eyes for that safety. I know I'm a big advocate for connectivity. I appreciate the concession to bring this stub out and have it pedestrian. I can't imagine that those neighbors are going to be walking -- their kids will be walking to the elementary school that's going to be down the road and they will be walking through those subdivisions. Meridian City Council • May 16, 2006 Page 44 of 57 So, it's a good access to have. I get concerned about the ability to connect vehicles to those more rural natured roads that don't have curb, gutter, and sidewalk. Again, it is a safety factor. So, the open space and the stub street are certainly concerns of mine, but when a property subdivides, sells it off and subdivides, they lose some of their rights. I mean the right to develop urban and they also want to stay agricultural. They need to make up their mind and, again, that's only my opinion, but there is a real contradiction on this that has some areas of concern and I guess it's going back to a phrase that has been used -- we are in no hurry to add more land to our city limits, that these kind of concerns should be answered before they get here. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: You have heard me say those words before. De Weerd: I quote my favorite people. Rountree: And I think you made something -- you made a statement that really rang true to me is that this is a confused venture, in my opinion. It's a property owner who wants the best of all worlds and at some consideration, but not total consideration of what the world that they are going to create around them is going to be. I very much support the idea of internal circulation and I think that it needs to be accommodated. If that's the best location in the world, I would be surprised. I think there are other combinations that could be done. It's somewhat limited by the fact that out of this parcel somebody wants to run a hobby farm in the city. It's either city or it's a ranchette. It can't be both. I'm really concerned about our experience with lanes. We have fought lanes for the last ten years and I got to tell you, they are nightmarish and nobody comes out winners. We have been to court. People have been to court. Nobody wins. The City's come out all right, but there is issues with those things created. As far as restricting heights, et cetera, in this particular subdivision, the sale is I assume pending or done based on the conditions of height restrictions on some lots and to me that's between the contract holder and seller and on that point I guess I don't have any strong feeling. I think that the lots are big enough and the spaces are spaced enough that that really is not an issue, from my perspective. It's proposed as a city subdivision, yet we have ordinances that require a subdivision to be fenced, yet they don't want to do that as an entire subdivision. It's really hard for me to say that I can't support this particular application, because I have been pushing for larger lots and Anna's going to growl at, because— De Weerd: Me, too. Rountree: -- we like small lots from a planning perspective. Canning: It's the density, not the design. It's design, not density. Sorry. I got that backwards. Meridian City Council • • May 16, 2006 Page 45 of 57 Rountree: It is design. It is about design. And, I don't know, I could go either way, but I think that there is nothing that don't work for me with this particular project that now is the time to say they didn't work. For me. I don't know what the rest of the Council wants to do. I'd probably -- unless I hear a really good argument, not support this particular annexation at this point in time. I would be willing, however, to reopen the Public Hearing and look at some additional design details or changes that the applicant might want to make to save them the aggravation of trying to do this over. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Councilman Rountree reopened it and what you want to bring back, the problem is one of your biggest holdups was the existing hobby farm and I'm in the same boat you are. We both love the larger lots and everything, but I -- I mean, evidently, we are not talking about a couple of horses or one or two llamas, they want to go on and keep it the deal. They don't want their south end fenced, when everybody else's is fenced. I think if you're going to be annexed in, you live under the same rules and regulations as everybody else in the subdivision. That's my personal opinion on that. I'm quite shocked. I wouldn't want -- I wouldn't want a way over to there, because if they got water standing like that, I certainly -- beside the fence, I certainly don't want my kids walking -- or grandkids walking down it. That was a pretty good volume of water going down there. In fact, I'm shocked that we didn't see a bunch of mosquitoes -- De Weerd: I did. Bird: -- with animals and stuff around there. I'm kind of like Councilman Rountree, I could go with a new design to a degree, but I also -- the owner of the property that sold the property is -- in my book, has to live within the same regulations. I have no problem with if he's got two or three animals on there now, he can have them, but once they decease or he sells them, he don't replace them. And pretty soon he's not a hobby ranchette. So, I can -- I could support opening it up again if he felt -- I don't know what kind of redesign they are going to do, unless they do a complete redesign. I do like -- I really do like the size of their lots, though. De Weerd: Okay. Any further comments? We would look for your direction. I guess, Mr. Nary, some of the options would be to remand back to Planning and Zoning to address some of the issues that Councilman Rountree and Councilman Bird have discussed or what are the options? Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I think you probably have -- have two primary options. I mean you can -- you can certainly -- well, I guess three. You can approve the project as presented. You can make amendments as you have done. You can reject the project as presented. You can remand it. There is a number of issues that you have raised and I guess I'll concede to Mrs. Canning, I mean at a certain point Meridian City Council May 16, 2006 Page 46 of 57 the staff time that's necessary to re -analyze a redesign when you have raised -- I mean I just made a very quick note as you have been speaking of six primary issues that there are some significant concerns about. To the lane, to whether the -- the private lane. The animals on the property. The height restriction. The stub street to the north. The access to Bott Lane. In addition to the access to the canal. And the fencing surrounding the property. And the relationship with the other county subdivision that's adjacent. Those are quite a bit of -- of redesign to one project, but, again, like I said, it's been my experience from the staffs perspective at planning, you know, the remands work fairly well when it's fairly small and lot sizes -- or parks. I'm sorry. The open space is another issue you had raised. When it's simply a redesign of a minor thing or just a park redesign or streets or one thing, but you get a number of them, the staff time gets eaten up pretty heavily and realistically a re-application is just as -- just as easy on the staff as it is to try to remand it and redesign it that way. But I don't know if Mrs. Canning has a different opinion. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, if I might add to that. In the past when you have remanded things, even if they were large redesigns, it was generally when staff was unaware of a City Council concern and was not able to guide the applicant through the review process to address some of those concerns. We have worked with the applicant on all these issues. We have made suggestions that were not followed. We have told them that the access lane was an issue in the pre -application conference. And we have really struggled to get to this point today. And so I would ask that -- I would certainly prefer a new application. De Weerd: Okay. Council, you have heard some of the choices that you can make in the form of a motion. I would entertain a motion or further discussion. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I just -- just a comment as far as my preference to -- and I understand staffs concern with continuing to work with the applicant. I recall this same applicant on the application next door, as I recall we denied one of those and they brought back a new project and, really, in my mind addressed the concerns we had at the meeting and so I don't think that we necessarily need to deny this and send it back, we can probably work through some of these issues. But that's just my opinion. De Weerd: Well, I look forward to whatever the motion is going to be. Rountree: You guys on that end do it tonight. Borton: I can chime in my list as well. They have been said. I have got similar concerns. In no particular order. The Bott Lane access. The single story, double story side. I made a list like Mr. Nary did. Sixteen foot landscape buffer on the east. Fence on the south. Stub street. The livestock. And the open space parks. And I agree with Meridian City Council • May 16, 2006 Page 47 of 57 the Mayor. Those are -- that's the start of my list and if it's easier and more appropriate from staffs perspective to redo this, I'd defer to their experience and expertise in it. And with that I'd move to deny Item 17, AZ 06-012, request for annexation and zoning. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to deny Item 17. Is there any discussion? Mr. Berg, you will call roll. Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, nay; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. De Weerd: Okay. Item 18. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton. Borton: I move we deny Item 18, PP 06-010, request for preliminary plat. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to deny on Item 18. If there is no discussion, Mr. Berg. Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, nay; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. Item 19: Public Hearing: VAR 06-009 Request for a Variance to allow for a patio structure in the required rear yard for 5278 N. Cougar Flat Place by Dana & Rhonda Patterson — 5278 N. Cougar Flat Place: De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Item 19 is a Public Hearing on VAR 06-009. 1 will open this Public Hearing with staff comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is a variance application for 5278 North Cougar Flat Place by Dana and Rhonda Patterson and you can see the outline of the property. It is at the end of the cul-de-sac, right near the entrance to Lochsa Falls. And so Lochsa Falls is between Linder Road and McMillan as you know. This is a picture of the patio that has been constructed. And I'm going to -- I forgot to put the site plan in the presentation, so I will have to put in up just to ask her. These two posts -- the setback -- the required setback is 15 feet. This post is at ten feet six inches. This post is at nine feet nine inches. And you can see the additional posts as you go down the property. The structure itself, this portion of -- the living portion of the Meridian City Council • May 16, 2006 Page 48 of 57 building, is outside the setback area. It's just they extended the roof to cover their patio and that's where they got in trouble. Staff has recommended denial. We were not able to make the findings for approval of the variance -- or two of the three findings for the approval of the variance. It's a pretty straight forward application. I'll go ahead and switch to the overhead, so that you can see the site plan. As I note, I believe this -- this dotted line shows the 15 foot setback and, then, they have marked the location of each post and its distance to the rear yard fence -- rear yard property line. With that I will answer any questions Council may have. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Anna, did they have a permit when they put the patio -- I won't call it a cover. think what they -- patio cover in? Did they get a building permit? Canning: I believe the applicant has all that information. Bird: Okay. De Weerd: Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward. Canning: And she's very nervous, so you need to be nice to her. Patterson: I'm just a mom. De Weerd: We will be nice. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Patterson: My name is Rhonda Patterson and I'm at 5278 North Cougar Flat Place in Meridian, Idaho. 83642. I'm going to go ahead and read this, if that's okay, so I can be quick. Just so how you know we got to this point. Obviously, it's already built. We do acknowledge we goofed and we are only blaming ourselves. My -- we are our own contractors and my father is a licensed contractor and he's been guiding us through this process, but -- he's helped us with five homes and with each home he hopes we learn a little bit more and he steps back a little bit more. This being our fifth one, he really wasn't that involved. Needless to say, he's not very happy with me right now, because I messed things up. He's not here -- yeah. And he's not here tonight, because this is my mess to clean up, so another learning opportunity. So here I am. As I said, we have built four other homes and we had always planned to sell those homes, so we built them to sell. This actual home we plan to stay in, because my husband won't move again. Before we submitted plans we, of course, had our list of extras that we wanted to have in our home and the numbers were coming in that we probably couldn't afford the patio cover, so we submitted plans without a patio cover. Goof number one. Our plans were approved. We started the foundation. We started framing and, then, as more bids came in it looked like we could swing the patio, so we went ahead and added it on. We Meridian City Council May 16, 2006 Page 49 of 57 did that prior to the framing inspection, because we knew the -- the inspector would be there and he would inspect it, had no idea that it, obviously, had it been on the plan they would have caught it at the time we would have submitted plans, but he came and -- want to just make sure you know we do realize if we are granted a variance, we do have to resubmit plans with the patio cover on them and I don't want anyone to think we were trying to get out of paying that extra permit fee, because that wasn't it. We were just really excited we could afford the patio cover, so we jumped ahead. Obviously, that lesson's been learned and we could have avoided this whole problem had we just thought about what we were doing. When we put the patio cover up, we were under the impression that all the measurements were taken from the footings and none of our footings are in the 15 foot setback. When the inspector came through, of course, he told us he measures from the posts and so we have marked that our posts are in -- into the setback. He did recommend that we go ahead and talk Don at the building department, which we did. He reviewed our problem. He did recommend that we go ahead and apply for a variance. He noted that our request would have merit, because we are not trying to overbuild on a small lot, it's just an odd shaped lot, specifically the shallow depth in a logical place where the house would logically go. And that that created a bit of a hardship. We, then, went to Planning and Zoning and at the pre - meeting they went over their issues and their biggest issue seemed to be that two of the posts do fall within the ten foot utility easement. One is three inches into it and one is 16 inches into it. And they did say if we were granted a variance that those posts would either have to be moved or we would need to get a vacate of that easement and we never did intend to get a vacate, we just -- we can move those posts without it posing any problem. We have talked to the truss company about that. Just a few things to consider. Obviously, because of this process and going through the neighborhood meeting and everything we have gotten to know our neighbors quite well. Only a couple of them actually came to the neighborhood meeting and they only came to see if they could help. They were all very nice. We have several neighbors that actually have a front, rear, and side view of our property and we went to them door to door and just explained what had happened and what we had done and what we were trying to do and, actually, they were all actually -- and in my packet they all signed letters in support of what we were trying to do. So, to my knowledge no one has voiced any opposition. And they have signed letters in support. The second consideration is that the patio does give our two story an improved appearance, because it breaks up the back of the two story and it wraps around the side and so it does show from the front and it just offers some variance in the roof line and it does have it's own roof. It's not part of the house roof. Let's see. All of the neighbors in the cul-de-sac felt like the addition would improve all of our property values. Thirdly, the property behind us right now is a five acre tree farm and they currently have planted mature trees all along the perimeter fence line, so we have mature trees all along behind our patio. They have done this in an effort to screen all of our development from them and it also provides us with screening from them. So, I would imagine those trees would stay planted even after the property is sold, if and when that happens. That tree farm currently has no plans to sell, but when and if they do, if a residential area would go in back there, logically, the lot behind us would be a corner lot, so we are looking at our rear lot facing someone's side lot line. That would just be logical. Of course, I have no idea what they would end up Meridian City Council May 16, 2006 Page 50 of 57 • doing. And, then, fifthly, and over 800 home sites in Lochsa Falls, most of the properties have an average of 110 to 120 feet in depth. There are some that have less. There are just a handful that have around 95 feet in depth and that's about where we sit with where our house sits. We do have a lot of lot space, but it's in a funny location on the sides and the back of our property, and we set the house in the cul-de-sac so it flowed with the existing homes that were already on -- they were already all built. So, basically, this patio cover is 72 feet long. It's taken, obviously, a lot of time, labor, material, and money. So, I am here before you now, knowing that a variance would allow us to correct our problem with the least amount of expense, labor, and time and it would allow us to fully utilize this beautiful feature. And we are at your mercy. And thank you for your time. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: Mrs. Patterson, on your -- go back to the elevation, would you? No. The first one that -- there we go. Right there. Are the trusses -- the trusses aren't strong enough if you were to take the -- the posts out, are they? Patterson: We have talked to the truss company about moving them out of the setback. Bird: Yeah, you can move them back, but you can't -- you can't eliminate them. Patterson: I can't eliminate them, no, because they are holding -- Bird: And if you get them too far in, then, if you get snow load -- Patterson: Actually, the way the truss company was looking into designing it, if we were to move them, they, actually, said that wouldn't pose any kind of a problem with whatever truss they had engineered to fix it. The only problem they were having was right here on this corner. Bird: That's what I was going to say. What's going to hold it up. Patterson: That's the problem. Bird: And if you move it back in you have got the two coming out. Which ones are in your right of way. Patterson: Can I walk over there? De Weerd: Yeah. You will need to use the -- ma'am, if you can use that. Patterson: Okay. This one and this one are the two that are in the easement area. Meridian City Council • May 16, 2006 Page 51 of 57 Bird: And they are in by three inches? Patterson: Three inches. Three inches and 16 inches. Bird: Okay. So -- and I take it it's the corner ones, probably, is the one that's the farthest in and that's probably the one that's holding the most weight. Patterson: Yes. The truss company has worked with us. On the two that are in the ten foot easement, they are working with us on getting those moved out. So, that -- that at this point should be doable without any stability problems. Bird: Well, I just -- you know, I personally know that you made an honest mistake, you didn't do it purposely and we have all made mistakes before and it can be redone, but I -- you know, you can't -- you can't do something that hurts the integrity of the building. That's the whole thing. And if it's already up there, I mean it would be major if you had to go in there and take everything out. Grady: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Grady. Grady: I think we can work with -- if you choose to grant this, I think we can work with the applicant to vacate easements or whatever we have to do. For a matter of a few inches, I don't think it's a problem. I think structurally I don't think it's a good idea to be messing with it, so -- De Weerd: I think it sounds like the greatest punishment has been facing your father. It would have been mine. Patterson: And right I now I live with him, because he's helping us and -- yeah, it's been fun. De Weerd: Any other questions from Council? C O ►• Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: Len or Bill, If you vacate that easement, is the variance needed, then? Nary: It's the 15 -foot setback. Bird: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council May 16, 2006 Page 52 of 57 De Weerd: Mr. Bird. • Bird: Now, if we grant this variance and you have to come back in with plans and everything and at that point we can go out and inspect and make sure that everything is still structural and everything and, Len, I want to thank you on that variance deal. I think that's great if they can do something like that. De Weerd: Okay. Do I have a motion, then? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I would move -- De Weerd: To close the Public Hearing? Bird: To close the Public Hearing on VAR 06-009. 1 was just wanting to get out of here. Wardle: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to close Item 19. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Bird. Bird: Madam Mayor, I move we approve VAR 06-009, the request for a variance to allow for a patio structure in the required rear yard at 5278 North Cougar Flat Place. Rountree: Madam Mayor, I have a question for the maker of the motion. De Weerd: Okay. Rountree: Would that -- the intent of that is to at a minimum move the physical structures out of the existing easement and that the variance would allow those structures to be within the 15 foot setback requirement? Bird: Yes. That is my intent on it and if it's possible that they don't have to move it within the easement, with the help of our Public Works, I am all for that and -- yes. Rountree: Okay. I will second that. De Weerd: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Meridian City Council • May 16, 2006 Page 53 of 57 Canning: Madam Mayor, I'm unclear now. So, if they submit a vacation application for the easement, you would consider that and, then, decide on moving the structures with the vacation application or did you want to condition that now. Did the question make sense for -- Bird: Yeah. Anna -- and I -- yeah, Bill, I don't know if we need to -- if we bring that together in one motion or not, because they have got a -- the vacation of an easement is different than going and getting -- and all they are doing is asking for a variance from setback; is that not right? Canning: Correct. Bird: And, then, is the easement within that same variance? Canning: No. Bird: That's what I mean. Can we have it in the same motion? Nary: Madam Mayor, I guess I thought I understood Councilmember Bird's motion to be to grant the variance to allow the structure to remain in the 15 -foot setback, but that there will either be no structures in the ten foot easement or that the portion that is encroaching on the easement be vacated. So, either option of those -- so, the ten foot easement area either has to be cleared or vacated, but the 15 -foot setback variance is what was being granted. Rountree: That would be a whole lot easier with that vacation. Bird: Yeah. With the vacation. That's -- yeah. Thanks, Bill. That's all I -- Anna, do you and Will understand that now? Rountree: That's how I understand it. Canning: Yes. Again, Mr. Nary has worked his translation magic from Council to the planning department and planning department to Council, so -- Bird: Okay. Well, thank you very much. De Weerd: Mr. Berg, do you have something to add? Berg: No. If it's in writing, it will be great. The Findings will tell it all; right? De Weerd: Okay. If there is no further discussion, Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, nay. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. Meridian City Council • May 16, 2006 Page 54 of 57 Borton: It's just -- for what it's worth, my comments on the no is I -- I don't see there is any specific characteristic of the site and I know it's -- it's a simple mistake. But variances require certain findings and there was nothing particularly unique about this particular piece of property that requires a variance, other than the fact that a mistake was made and I understand it was an honest mistake and I appreciate your efforts in trying to get it fixed, but to be a stickler for the rules I'd say that. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. The motion was passed. Just thought I'd tell you that. Item 20: Ordinance No. 06-1232 : RZ 04-011 Request for a Rezone of 9.16 acres from R-8 to C -C zone for Cairns Crossina Subdivision by Landmark Engineering and Planning, Inc. — south of West Cherry Lane and east of Linder Road: De Weerd: Okay. Item 20 is Ordinance No. 06-1232. Mr. Berg, will you, please, read this ordinance by title only. Berg: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Ordinance 06-1232. An ordinance for property located as described in Attachment A of this ordinance and rezoning certain lands and territories situated in Ada County, Idaho, and within the corporate limits of the City of Meridian, as required by Stubblefield Development and Planning, Inc., and rezoning the land use zoning classification of said lands from R-8 to C -C in the Meridian City Code, providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County assessor, the Ada County recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law, and providing for a waiver of the reading of the rules, and providing an effective date. De Weerd: Thank you. You have heard this ordinance read by tile only. Is there anyone who would like to hear it read in its entirety? Seeing none, do I have a motion to approve? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Before I make the motion to approve, I want it noted publicly that on the list of Council it's got Donnell where it should be Borton. He is the one passing it, not Donnell. Isn't that -- am I not right, Will? That's what ours was. Berg: Madam Mayor, I did not go over this or correct this ordinance and when I noticed that I thought I would probably just get the corrected copy. Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this highlights the problem we have had a couple times that you have seen. The ordinance is submitted with the development agreement. The development agreement -- Meridian City Council May 16, 2006 Page 55 of 57 Bird: Waited too long. Nary: -- then waited until it was signed and brought back. Now, there has, obviously, been a fairly significant lag when it is done, so once we have sent it, the clerks, of course, we don't review it a second time when it gets in front of you, they just wait for the development agreement to come back and, then, they approve it. So, I think that's probably where the oversight may have been, but I don't know, I just -- Bird: Well, I just wanted to make sure publicly that we -- that we noticed that. De Weerd: Okay. Berg: Thank you, Madam Mayor. We will get that corrected before you sign the ordinance tomorrow. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Bird. Bird: With that I move we approve Ordinance No. 06-1232 with suspension of rules. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. We have a motion to approve and a second. Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Okay. I would consider a motion to adjourn. Rountree: Madam Mayor, I have a question for Will. De Weerd: Yes. I'm sorry. Rountree: Do you have any need for the proposals, additional copies, or can we dispose of the ones we have? Do you want to keep some around for file copies or do you have more or -- Berg: Madam Mayor, I would collect them if you do not want to look at them anymore, because they are a public record and if somebody does want them, I would not have to reproduce them, I could just give them to them. And we have had quite a few of the applicants, I guess I could say, from the proposals, who wanted just to look and see Meridian City Council May 16, 2006 Page 56 of 57 �J what the other ones did, so they could improve theirs, maybe, the next time. So, that would probably be good if you didn't -- if you were going to distribute it and -- Rountree: I will bring you a box. De Weerd: I have a whole bunch, too. Hey, Council, we are submitting ideas on the AIC City Achievement Awards. The deadline is on Friday. If you have anything that you, in particular, think that the city does very well that should be submitted for this, I would need to know as soon as possible, so we could start the writing up of that project to submit for this. Bird: Tell me one thing we don't do well. Rountree: Madam Mayor, I would suggest that the recently passed UDC and most specifically the risk that the city undertook by ordinance that deals with highways. That's probably the only one in the state that I know of. De Weerd: I think Caldwell has a pretty good -- Bird: Bill's about ready to turn white. Rountree: Well, you know, we are going to test it for everybody. De Weerd: Might as well. Any other ideas that are a little bit less contentious? Borton: State championship for Meridian High in football. Bird: Yeah. There we go. State championship. De Weerd: Yeah. We have a lot to do with that, I'm sure, so -- okay. Well, I would entertain a motion to adjourn. Bird: So moved. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. All those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Thank you. Meridian City Council May 16, 2006 Page 57 of 57 MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:24 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) 0 0 6 v1' , a6 t 11111111e°o DATE APPROV�p of ° LJ WILLIAM G. BERG JW, CI ERK • May 12, 2006 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 16, 2006 APPLICANT ITEM NO. S-A REQUEST Approve Minutes of April 18, 2106 City Council Regular Meeting: AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: COMMENTS Refer to Distributed Minutes Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. L-1 May 5, 2006 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING YGY177W �AAy Ky ;9-00(19 APPLICANT Public Works ITEM NO. 5-B REQUEST Sewer Reimbursement Agreement with Strada Bellissima LLC: Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CIN 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. . "000*4 - I ",.. a. -M., .tr_ ...-.- C 3 Qi - if '�a ped ----- Sef 6 of Pap 77 0 NO 1# ORU M44 Pap 77 May 5, 2006 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING Maw 9, 6 HAV ((o I �?-JQ fa APPLICANT ITEM NO. S -C REQUEST Agreement for Installation of WWTP Gate Electrical and Controls by Custom Electric AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: Contacted: COMMENTS See Attached Agreement yre v-1-/ Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. RECEIVED MAY 0 5 Zppg City Of Meridian City Clerk Office Memo To: Will Berg; Tara Green From: Jon Mills, Staff Engineer CC: File Date: May 5, 2006 Re: Proposed Agenda Item for May 9 or May 16, 2006 City Council Meeting The Public Works Department respectfully requests the following items be placed on the May 9 City Council agenda, if possible, under Consent Agenda, for Council's consideration. If this is received too late, May 16 will be acceptable. Installation of WWTP Gate Electrical and Controls by Custom Electric This project consists of installing electrical security controls and appurtenances on the front gate of the Wastewater Treatment Plant. Custom Electric has provided a bid of $9850.41, as shown on the attached sheets, to install and calibrate these items. Recommended Council Action: The Public Works Department recommends that City Council approve the agreement for installation services for Installation of WWTP Gate Electrical and Controls by Custom Electric for $9,850.41 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 Custom Electric, Inc. 2800 West Idaho Blvd. Emmet4 Idaho 83617 208-365-2700 Fax, 208-365-2768 To: City of Meridian W.W.T.P. DC Engineering Date: April 24, 2006 Timer 1:27:56 PM Quote Contract Calculation City of Meridian W.W.T.P. Contract Price 9,850.41 Extra Charge If In Boise City Permit Calculations: Permit Cal Go 0 Controls 0 Equipment 9,850.41 Bid Total 9850 41 Base: 100.00 Base $100 Percentage: 98.50 1.0% Of Total Cost: Boise City Extra: Tota/ Permit: 198.50 Wiring cost Not to exceed $2000 Base $40.00 40 2.5% Of Total Cost: 0.025 Wiring Cost Over $2000 but less $10,000 Base $100 100 1.0% Of Total Cost: 0.01 Wiring Cost Over $10,000 Base $180.00: 180 .50% Of Cost Over $10,000: 0.005 Page 1 0 0 155895 Bid with Eq to Request for Proposal # 2 Custom Electric, Inc. 2800 West Idaho Blvd. Emmeft, Idaho 83617 208-365-2700 Fax, 208-365.2768 To: City of Meridian W.W.T.P. Facility Expansion El Quote ivle 5,zou.ba IUtAL 963.98 TOTAL 61.75 9 A lied En ineerin 1015 1G2G Unde round box 3z.aoo zea.00 0.600 720 300 4C #20 TSP Cable 0.430 129.00 0.095 1.50 200 2" Soh 40 PVC Conduit 1.310 262.00 0.005 1.60 1750 1" Sch 40 PVC Conduit 0.620 1,085.00 0.003 5.25 1 Permit Cost 0.000 80.000 80.00 0.5000.50 14 Conduit Bell ends 1.420 19.88 0.050 0.70 1 Markertape 20.000 20.00 0.100 0.10 1 2" LB and connection to panel 42.000 42.00 0.200 020 2 1" LB and connection to panel 35.000 70.00 0.010 0.02 2265 #4 THHN Std Cu Wire 0.580 1,313.70 0.015 33.98 D.006 12.46 3 4 to 10 connectors and gate interconnection dig and rework 10.000 30.00 2.500 7.50 755 Trenching and back fill 1.000 755.00 0.015 11.33 1 replace sod 0.090 7.000 7.00 1 Sod cutter 95.00095.00 4.000 4.00 600 PUB eAsting TSP cable into conduits 0.005 3.00 ivle 5,zou.ba IUtAL 963.98 TOTAL 61.75 Custom Electric Generic Bid Sheet Info Inputs: Overhead & Administration 10.00% Mark-up & Profit 15.00% Labor Rate: $ 55.00 Job Title: City ofMeridfan W. W. T.P. Description: Facility Expansion (Don't Forget Bonding If General) City of Meridian W.W.T.P. (Note: If Job is in the City of Boise Place a Y in the box): IF MORE ITEMS THEN FOUR ARE NEEDED BE SURE ADD THESE ITEMS TO THE SUMMARY FORMULA CALCULATIONS (FOUND IN BOX BELOW) TOTAL - ALL ITEMS OH&Admin Profit Material Total 3,259.58 0.10 0.15 4,123.37 Material Sales Tax 162.98 - 0.00 162.98 Misc. Total 963.98 0.10 0.15 1,219.43 Misc. Sales Tax Lbr Rt 48.20 - 0.00 48.20 Labor Hrs Total 55.00 3,396 0.10 0.15 4,296.43 Total Hrs 62 Geucasn 0.00 TOTAL BID 9,850.41 TOTAL COST 7,831.13 TOTAL PROFIT 2,019.29 Request for Proposal # 2 OH&Admin Profit Material Total 3,259.58 0.10 0.15 4,123.37 Material Sales Tax 162.98 - 0.00 162.98 Misc. Total 963.98 0.10 0.15 1,219.43 Misc. Sales Tax Lbr Rt 48.20 - 0.00 48.20 Labor Hrs Total 55.00 3,396.39 0.10 0.15 4,296.43 Total Hrs 61.75 ITEM 1 BID 9,850.41 ITEM 1 COST 7,831.13 ITEM 1 PROFIT 2,019.29 r May 12, 2006 10 RZ 04-011 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 16, 2006 APPLICANT Landmark Engineering and Planning, Inc. ITEM NO. Jr -D REQUEST Development Agreement: Request for a Rezone of 9.16 acres from R-8 to C -C zone for Cairns Crossing Subdivision — south of West Cherry Lane and east of North Linder Road AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: Contacted: Emailed: COMMENTS See attached Development Agreement UV Y Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ADA COUNTY RECORDER J. DAV AVARRO AMOUNT 00 �' ` • BOISE IDAHO 06105!00 01:05 PI DEPUTY Bonnie UEST F III Iillllllllfl�ll�llfll�llllll III111 RECORDED -REQOF Meridian CIk 106088999 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PARTIES: 1. City of Meridian 2. Stubblefield Development Company, Owner/Developer THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (this "Agreement'), is made and entered into this Sr^ day of 0. , 2005, by and between CITY OF MERIDIAN, a municipal corporation olkhe State of Idaho, hereafter called "CITY', and Stubblefield Development Company, whose address is PO Box 327, Meridian, Idaho 83680, hereinafter called "OWNER/DEVELOPER. RECITALS: 1.1 WHEREAS, "/DEVELOPER" is the sole owner, in law and/or equity, of certain tract of land in the County of Ada, State of Idaho, described in Exhibit A for each owner, which is attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein as if set forth in full, herein after referred to as the "Property"; and 1.2 WHEREAS, I.C. § 67-6511A, Idaho Code, provides that cities may, by ordinance, require or permit as a condition of re -zoning that the "Owner/Developer" make a written commitment concerning the use or development of the subject "Property"; and 1.3 WHEREAS, "City" has exercised its statutory authority by the enactment of Ordinance 11-15-12 and 11-16-4 A, which authorizes development agreements upon the annexation and/or re -zoning of land; and 1.4 WHEREAS, "Developer" has submitted an application for annexation and zoning of the "Property's" described in Exhibit A, and has requested a designation of (C -C) Community Business District, (Municipal Code of the City of Meridian); and 1.5 WHEREAS, "Owner/Developer" made representations at the public hearings both before the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission and before the Meridian City Council, as to how the subject "Property" will be. developed and what improvements will be made; and DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ -04-011 CAIRNS CROSSING) PAGE 1 OF 14 CW 1.6 WHEREAS, record of the proceedings for the requested annexation and zoning designation of the subject "Property" held before the Planning & Zoning Commission, and subsequently before the City Council, include responses of government subdivisions providing services within the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction, and received further testimony and comment; and 1.7 WHEREAS, City Council, the 23rd day of November, 2004, has approved certain Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order, set forth in Exhibit B, which are attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein as if set forth in full, hereinafter referred to as (the "Findings'); and 1.8 WHEREAS, the Findings require the "Owner/Developer" to enter into a development agreement before the City Council takes final action on annexation and zoning designation; and 1.9 "OWNERS/DEVELOPER" deems it to be in its best interest to be able to enter into this Agreement and acknowledges that this Agreement was entered into voluntarily and at its urging and requests; and 1.9 WHEREAS, "City" requires the "Owners/Developer" to enter into a development agreement for the purpose of ensuring that the "Property" is developed and the subsequent use of the "Property" is in accordance with the terms and conditions of this development agreement, herein being established as a result of evidence received by the "City" in the proceedings for annexation and zoning designation from government subdivisions providing services within the planning jurisdiction and from affected property owners and to ensure annexation and zoning designation is in accordance with the amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian adopted August 6, 2002, Resolution No. 02-382, and the Zoning and Development Ordinances codified in Meridian City Code Title 11 and Title 12. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ -04-011 CAIRNS CROSSING) PAGE 2 OF 14 0 • 2. INCORPORATION OF RECITALS: That the above recitals are contractual and binding and are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 3. DEFINITIONS: For all purposes of this Agreement the following words, terms, and phrases herein contained in this section shall be defined and interpreted as herein provided for, unless the clear context of the presentation of the same requires otherwise: 3.1 "CITY": means and refers to the City of Meridian, a party to this Agreement, which is a municipal Corporation and government subdivision of the state of Idaho, organized and existing by virtue of law of the State of Idaho, whose address is 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho 83642. 3.2 "OWNERS/DEVELOPER": means and refers to Stubblefield Development Company, whose address is PO Box 327, Meridian, Idaho 83642, the party owning said "Property" being developed and shall include any subsequent owners)/developer(s) of the "Property". 3.3 "PROPERTY": means and refers to that certain parcel(s) of "Property" located in the County of Ada, City of Meridian as described in Exhibit A describing the parcels to be annexed and zoned C -C attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein as if set forth at length. 4. USES PERMITTED BY THIS AGREEMENT: 4.1 The uses allowed pursuant to this Agreement are only those uses allowed under "City's" Zoning Ordinance codified at Meridian City Code Section 11-7-2 C which are herein specified as follows: Construction and development of a planned development consisting of 11 commercial lots in a single phase with an average lot size of 36,270 square feet in a proposed C -C zone. 4.2 No change in the uses specified in this Agreement shall be allowed without modification of this Agreement. 5. DEVELOPMENT IN CONDITIONAL USE: "Owner/Developer" has submitted to "City" an application for conditional use permit, and shall be required to obtain DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ -04-011 CAIRNS CROSSING) PAGE 3 OF 14 0 • the "City's" approval thereof, in accordance to the City's Zoning & Development Ordinance criteria, therein, provided, prior to, and as a condition of, the commencement of construction of any buildings or improvements on the "Property" that require a conditional use permit. 6. CONDITIONS GOVERNING DEVELOPMENT OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: "Developer" shall develop the "Property" in accordance with the following special conditions: A. Adopt the Special Recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission as follows: A cross access agreement must be established for all subdivision lots. In addition, a cross access agreement must be established with the Linder Crossing parcel to the west. 2. All Cherry Lane facing building elevations on Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, Block 1 (lots adjacent to Cherry Lane) shall have at least 40% glass and floors above the main floor shall have a minimum of 20% glass. Also, on the aforementioned lots, one or more of the following shall be incorporated into all building walls facing Cherry Lane: awnings, modulated/articulated walls, parapets, eave overhangs or similar design features. 3. All HVAC units located on the roofs of buildings must be screened. 4. Lots 8, 9, 10, and 11, Block 1 (all lots adjacent to the south property line) shall have a restriction that any use that is not consistent with a standard Limited Office zone use shall be restricted to hours of operation between 6:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. every day of the week. 5. The south perimeter block wall shall be designed such that the top ofthe wall matches the top of the existing wall in Linder Crossing, allowing for overall wall height to exceed six feet if the ground contours demand. B. Adopt the Recommendations of the Meridian Planning & Zoning Department as follows: 1. Sanitary sewer service to this site will be from main line extensions from mains adjacent to the proposed development. Subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ -04-011 CAIRNS CROSSING) PAGE 4 OF 14 Sewer mains will not be allowed within landscape areas, beneath landscape islands, and manholes will not be allowed in parking and loading areas. Developer shall execute City of Meridian standard forms of easements, for any mains that are required to provide. 2. Water service to this site will be from main line extensions from existing water mains adjacent to the proposed development. The developer will be responsible to construct water mains to and through this proposed development. Subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. Developer shall execute City of Meridian standard forms of easements, for any mains that are required to provide service. 3. Per MCC 12-13-10-4, construct a minimum 25 -foot wide street buffer along Cherry Lane and a minimum 25 -foot wide buffer adjacent to the southern boundary and a minimum 20' buffer along the eastern boundary. All required street buffers shall be located beyond any future right-of-way. 4. All landscape buffers shall be constructed prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy within the subdivision. 5. Developer shall provide additional information on relocation of Cairns lateral. Developer shall work with staff to the plan the final relocation of the Cairns lateral. 6. The Preliminary Plat shall be revised as follows: a. Show where pump station will be relocated; b.Modify play to show two access points off of Cherry Lane and align eastern access point with the library's ingress access point; c. Provide a pedestrian connection to Cherry Lane at the western driveway; d.Show an emergency access connection and pedestrian connection at the 13`h Street stub; and e. Show second access point to the west on preliminary plat. 7. A detailed fencing and landscape plan, in compliance with MCC 12-13, shall be submitted with the final plat application. 8. Any future proposed drive-thru's will require a Conditional Use Permit application. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ -04-011 CAIRNS CROSSING) PAGE 5 OF 14 9 • 9. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) will be required prior to the issuance of building permits. Since parking is not assessed with the preliminary plat, compliance with parking requirements will be verified with the Certificate(s) of Zoning Compliance. SSC must approve the site plan prior to the issuance of a CZC for the subject property. 10. 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. Requiring landscaping trees will not be considered as replacement trees for those that have to be removed. 11. A drainage plan designed by the State of Idaho licensed architect or engineer is required and shall be submitted to the City Engineer (Ord. 557, 10-1-91) for all off-street parking areas. Storm water treatment and disposal must be designed in accordance with Department of Environmental Quality 1997 publication Catalog of Storm Water Best Management Practices for Idaho Cities and Counties and City of Meridian standards and policies. Off-site disposal into surface water is prohibited unless the jurisdiction which has authority over the receiving stream provides written authorization prior to development plan approval. The applicant is responsible for filing all necessary applications with the Idaho Department of Water Resources regarding Shallow Injection Wells. 12. 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. Side slopes within drainage areas shall not exceed 3:1. 13. The developer has indicated that the business owners association 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 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. 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 developer shall be DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ -04-011 CAIRNS CROSSING) PAGE 6 OF 14 • required to utilize any existing surface or well water for the primary source. 14. Emergency access located at the 13'h Street stub shall be a minimum twenty foot (20') wide access gate for emergency services and two (2) five foot (5') wide pedestrian openings, per the drawing submitted by the applicant at the November 3, 2004 City Council hearing. The exact design details shall be coordinate with staff at the time of preparation of construction drawings for the preliminary plat. 15. Revise the plat note addressing setback lines; the note incorrectly lists the front setback as 20'. The setback is 25' for the C -C zoning district. 16. Ordinance requires landscape buffers to be located in a common lot but developer may request to have the landscape buffers to be located in easement. If the landscape buffers are located in an easement the landscaping shall be maintained by a common business owners association. Adopt the ACRD conditions as follows: Construct a 35 -foot wide curb return driveway that intersects Cherry Lane to align to 13th Avenue on the north side of Cherry Lane. Construct the driveway as a 15 -foot curb return type driveway and pave the driveway its full width and at least 30 -feet into the side beyond the edge of Cherry Lane. 18. Construct a 35 -foot wide curb return type driveway that intersects Cherry Lane at the east property line to align with a driveway on the north side of Cherry Lane that serves the Meridian Public Library. Construct the driveway as a 15 -foot curb return type driveway and pave the driveway its full width and at least 30 -feet into the site beyond the edge of Cherry Lane. 19. Do not extend 13a' Avenue as a public street. Construct a single 10 -foot wide access (minimum) or two 5 -foot wide accesses to allow pedestrians and bicyclists to freely travel between the existing neighborhood and the new commercial development. Coordinate with Meridian City Emergency Services and District staff to determine an appropriate means for emergency access, pedestrian and bicycle traffic. 20. Submit a signed cross access agreement for this parcel and the parcel to the west to share ingress and egress to Cherry Lane. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ -04-011 CAIRNS CROSSING) PAGE 7 OF 14 21. Other than the access points that have specifically been approved with this application, direct access to Cherry Lane is prohibited and shall be noted on the final plat. 22. Comply with the Standard Conditions of Approval. C. Comply with all the conditions in the corresponding applications in this matter, Rezone RZO 1-011. D. Adopt the action of the City Council taken at their November 23, 2004 meeting as follows: For clarification: 1. A cross access agreement must be established for all subdivision lots. In addition, a cross access agreement must be established with the Linder Crossing parcel to the west. 2. All Cherry Lane facing building elevations on Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, Block 1(lots adjacent to Cherry Lane) shall have at least 40% glass and floors above the main floor shall have a minimum of 20% glass. Also, on the aforementioned lots, one or more of the following shall be incorporated into all building walls facing Cherry Lane: awnings, modulated/articulated walls, parapets, eave overhangs or similar design features. 3. All HVAC units located on the roofs of buildings must be screened. 4. Lots 8, 9, 10, and 11, Block 1 (all lots adjacent to the south property line) shall have a restriction that any use that is not consistent with a standard Limited Office zone use shall be restricted to hours of operation between 6:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. every day of the week. 5. The south perimeter block wall shall be designed such that the top of the wall matches the top of the existing wall in Linder Crossing, allowing for overall wall height to exceed six feet if the ground contours demand. 7. COMPLIANCE PERIOD/ CONSENT TO REZONE: This Agreement and the commitments contained herein shall be terminated, and the zoning designation reversed., upon a default of the "Owner/Developer" or "Owner/Developer's" heirs, successors, assigns, to comply with Section 6 entitled "Conditions Governing Development" of subject DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ -04-011 CAIRNS CROSSING) PAGE 8 OF 14 "Property" of this agreement within two years of the date this Agreement is effective, and after the "City" has complied with the notice and hearing procedures as outlined in I.C. § 67- 6509, or any subsequent amendments or recodifications thereof. 8. CONSENT TO DE -ANNEXATION AND REVERSAL OF ZONING DESIGNATION: "'Owner/Developer" consent upon default to the de -annexation and/or a reversal of the zoning designation of the "Property" subject to and conditioned upon the following conditions precedent to -wit: 8.1 That the "City" provide written notice of any failure to comply with this Agreement to "Owner/Developer" and if the "Owner/Developer" fails to cure such failure within six (6) months of such notice. 9• INSPECTION: "Owner/Developer" shall, immediatelyupon completion of any portion or the entirety of said development of the "Property" as required by this agreement or by City ordinance or policy, notify the City Engineer and request the City Engineer's inspections and written approval of such completed improvements or portion thereof in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Development Agreement and all other ordinances of the "City" that apply to said Development. 10. DEFAULT: 10.1 In the event "Owner/Developer", "Owner/Developer's" heirs, successors, assigns, or subsequent owners of the "Property" or any other person acquiring an interest in the "Property", fail to faithfully comply with all of the terms and conditions included in this Agreement in connection with the "Property', this Agreement maybe modified or terminated by the "City" upon compliance with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. 10.2 A waiver by "City" of any default by "Owner/Developer" of any one or more of the covenants or conditions hereof shall apply solely to the breach and breaches waived and shall not bar any other rights or remedies of "City" or apply to any subsequent breach of any such or other covenants and conditions. 11. REQUIREMENT FOR RECORDATION: "City" shall record either a memorandum of this Agreement or this Agreement, including all of the Exhibits, at DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ -04-011 CAIRNS CROSSING) PAGE 9 OF 14 "Owner/Developer's" cost, and submit proof of such recording to "Owner/Developer", prior to the third reading of the Meridian Zoning Ordinance in connection with the annexation and zoning of the "Property" by the City Council. If for any reason after such recordation, the City Council fails to adopt the ordinance in connection with the annexation and zoning of the "Property" contemplated hereby, the "City" shall execute and record an appropriate instrument of release of this Agreement. 12. ZONING: "City" shall, following recordation of the duly approved Agreement, enact a valid and binding ordinance zoning the "Property" as specified herein. 13. REMEDIES: This Agreement shall be enforceable in any court of competent jurisdiction by either "City" or "Owner/Developer", or by any successor or successors in title or by the assigns of the parties hereto. Enforcement may be sought by an appropriate action at law or in equity to secure the specific performance of the covenants, agreements, conditions, and obligations contained herein. 13.1 In the event of a material breach of this Agreement, the parties agree that "City" and "Owner/Developer" shall have thirty (3 0) days after delivery of notice of said breach to correct the same prior to the non - breaching party's seeking of any remedy provided for herein; provided, however, that in the case of any such default which cannot with diligence be cured within such thirty (30) day period, if the defaulting party shall commence to cure the same within such thirty (3 0) day period and thereafter shall prosecute the curing of same with diligence and continuity, then the time allowed to cure such failure may be extended for such period as may be necessary to complete the curing of the same with diligence and continuity. 13.2 In the event the performance of any covenant to be performed hereunder by either "Owner/Developer" or "City" is delayed for causes which are beyond the reasonable control of the party responsible for such performance, which shall include, without limitation, acts of civil disobedience, strikes or similar causes, the time for such performance shall be extended by the amount of time of such delay. 14. SURETY OF PERFORMANCE: The "City" may also require surety bonds, irrevocable letters of credit, cash deposits, certified check or negotiable bonds, as allowed under Meridian City Code § 12-5-3, to insure that installation of the improvements, which the "Owner/Developer" agrees to provide, if required by the "City". DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ -04-011 CAIRNS CROSSING) PAGE 10 OF 14 15. CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY: The "Owner/Developer" agrees that no Certificates of Occupancy will be issued until all improvements are completed, unless the "City" and "Owner/Developer" have entered into an addendum agreement stating when the improvements will be completed in a phased developed; and in any event, no Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued in any phase in which the improvements have not been installed, completed, and accepted by the "City". 16. ABIDE BY ALL CITY ORDINANCES: That "Owner/Developer" agrees to abide by all ordinances of the City of Meridian and the "Property" shall be subject to de - annexation if the owner or his assigns, heirs, or successors shall not meet the conditions contained in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, this Development Agreement, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian. 17. NOTICES: Any notice desired by the parties and/or required by this Agreement shall be deemed delivered if and when personally delivered or three (3) days after deposit in the United States Mail, registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed as follows: CITY: c/o City Engineer City of Meridian 33 E. Idaho Ave. Meridian, ID 83642 with copy to: City Clerk City of Meridian 33 E. Idaho Ave. Meridian, ID 83642 OWNER/DEVELOPER: Stubblefield Development Company PO Box 327 Meridian, Idaho 83680 OWNERS: 17.1 A party shall have the right to change its address by delivering to the other party a written notification thereof in accordance with the requirements of this section. 18• ATTORNEY FEES: Should any litigation be commenced between the parties hereto concerning this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled, in addition to DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ -04-011 CAIRNS CROSSING) PAGE 11 OF 14 0 . any other relief as may be granted, to court costs and reasonable attorney's fees as determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction. This provision shall be deemed to be a separate contract between the parties and shall survive any default, termination or forfeiture of this Agreement. 19. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE: The parties hereto acknowledge and agree that time is strictly of the essence with respect to each and every term, condition and provision hereof, and that the failure to timely perform any of the obligations hereunder shall constitute a breach of and a default under this Agreement by the other party so failing to perform. 20. BINDING UPON SUCCESSORS: This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties' respective heirs, successors, assigns and personal representatives, including "City's" corporate authorities and their successors in office. This Agreement shall be binding on the "Owner/Developer" of the "Property", each subsequent owner and any other person acquiring an interest in the "Property". Nothing herein shall in any way prevent sale or alienation of the "Property", or portions thereof, except that any sale or alienation shall be subject to the provisions hereof and any successor owner or owners shall be both benefited and bound by the conditions and restrictions herein expressed. "City" agrees, upon written request of "Owner/Developer", to execute appropriate and recordable evidence of termination of this Agreement if "City", in its sole and reasonable discretion, had determined that "Owner/Developer" has fully performed its obligations under this Agreement. 21. INVALID PROVISION: If anyprovision of this Agreement is held not valid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such provision shall be deemed to be excised from this Agreement and the invalidity thereof shall not affect any of the other provisions contained herein. 22• FINAL AGREEMENT: This Agreement sets forth all promises, inducements, agreements, condition and understandings between "Owner/Developer" and "City" relative to the subject matter hereof, and there are no promises, agreements, conditions or understanding, either oral or written, express or implied, between "Owner/Developer" and "City", other than as are stated herein. Except as herein otherwise provided, no subsequent alteration, amendment, change or addition to this Agreement shall be binding upon the parties hereto unless reduced to writing and signed by them or their successors in interest or their assigns, and pursuant, with respect to "City", to a duly adopted ordinance or resolution of "City". DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ -04-011 CAIRNS CROSSING) PAGE 12 OF 14 0 Ll 22.1 No condition governing the uses and/or conditions governing development of the subject "Property" herein provided for can be modified or amended without the approval of the City Council after the "City" has conducted public hearing(s) in accordance with the notice provisions provided for a zoning designation and/or amendment in force at the time of the proposed amendment. 23. EFFECTIVE DATE OF AGREEMENT: This Agreement shall be effective on the date the Meridian City Council shall adopt the amendment to the Meridian Zoning Ordinance in connection with the annexation and zoning of the "Property" and execution of the Mayor and City Clerk ACKNOWLEDGMENTS IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have herein executed this agreement and made it effective as hereinabove provided. Attest: IME OWNER/DEVELOPER: CITY OF MERIDIAN k1ti1111111 de WEERD Attest. J�'13 Gali�r�G�G A; L _ CITY CLERK DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ -04 r� ���ING) PAG i F 14 STATE OF IDAHO ) ss COUNTY OF ADA On this 9"' day of me, a Notary Public, personally appeared in the year 2006 before known or identified to me to be the -John 541.4 hbkpj p t of Stubblefield Development Company, and the person who executed the instrument and acknowledged to me that they having executed the same. (SEAL) of b1irQldah si gat: r"PIrl►ah, Commission expires:_LC _ j _ a o STATE OF IDAHO ) :ss County of Ada ) On this_�te *0 day of M C�,t in the year 200 , before me, a Notary Public, personally appeared Tammy de eerd and William G. Berg, Jr., know or identified to me to be the Mayor and Clerk, respectively, of the City of Meridian, who executed the instrument or the person that executed the instrument of behalf of said City, and acknowledged to me that such City executed the same. `SFR co i� i XOTARy sv► PUBLIG0. .r0 -'01 E p= K� Notary Public for Idaho Residing at: (jam Commission expires:_ /0 -(S-- / i DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ -04-011 CAIRNS CROSSING) PAGE 14 OF 14 . Aug 24 04 08:08a 0 19 Re -Zone Bowdary Description for Stubbleffwfld DOvelopment A parcel for re -zone purposes located in the NW % of the NW '/ of Section 12, Township 3 North, Range 1 Wes, Boise Meridian, Ada County, described as follows: nty, Idaho, more parfac ularly BEGINNING at a 5/8 ;nd', diameter iron of the NW '/. {1/16 Com from the northeasterly comer of said NW northwest ), which a brass cap monument marking the �� NW of NW « Comer) bears N 8905355"W a distance of 1326.46 feet; Thence S w1fi'O6" distance of 495.77 feet to a along � e asterly boundary of said NW '/, of the NW % a of North Gate No. 3 Subdivisionter iron pin rnarldng the northeasterly, comer as shown in gook 38 of plats at Page 3160 in the ofFce of the Recorder, Ada County, Idaho; Thence N 89"44'01' Subdivision and tfne northerly boundary of said North Gate No. 3 Book 33 of Plats at P boundary North Comte No. 2 Subdivision as shown in distance of 894.44 feet Page pow mthe office of the Recorder. Ada County, Idaho. a Thence N 3.57W E along the a distance of 205.67 feet to a 5J8M � lly boundary of said North Gate No. 2 Subdivision narrater iron pin; on the Thenc'enortherly bounds said NN N 0°12'40" E a distance of 287.99 feet to a point of the NW Y Thence S 89°53'55" E along said POINT OF BEGINNING. northerty boundary a distance of 881.50 feet to the This parcel contains 10.04 acres and is submit to any easements existing or in use. Clinton W. Hansen, pLS Land Solutions, Inc. August 24, 2004 4 T a 11.118 ��y9lF OF roa w NPS p.2 FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF. LAW AND DECISION & ORDER In the Matter of a Rezone of 9.15 Acres from R-8 to C -C AND preliminary Plat Approval for Eleven Commercial Building Lots in a Proposed. C -C Zone for Cairns Crossing Subdivision, by Landmark Engineering & Planning, Inc. Case Nos. RZ-04011, PP -04-033 For the City Council Hearing Date of: November 16, 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 November 3, 2004, public hearing. 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 Witten recommendation on the subject matters 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. 3. Application and Property Facts a. In addition to the application and property facts noted in the staffreport and the Planning &,Zoning Recommendation for the subject application(s), it is hereby CITY OF MERIDIAN FNDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NOS. RZ-04-011 & PP -04-033 -PAGE 1 of 4 0 • verified that the property owne(s) of record at the time, of issuance of these findings is Stubblefield Development Company. 4. Required Findings per Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance EL See Exhibit E for the findings required for the Rezone application. b. See Exhibit F for the findings required for the Preliminary plat 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 19752" 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 comments) 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 y affected party requesting notice. 7. That this approval is subject to the Legal Description. in Exhibit A., the Pref pPlat Approval stamp dated September 29, 2004 as shown in Exhibit B and the Conditions o in Exhibits C and D. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant al shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application. C. Decision and Order Pursuant to the City Council's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 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 stamp dated September 28, 2004 is hereby conditionally approved; and, Plat CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACE, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NOS. RZ-04-011 & PP -04033 - PAGE 2 of 4 0 • 2. The site specific and standard conditions of approval are as shown in Exhibits C and D. 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- Auer approval of final plat, theowner 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.) 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: Rezone Conditions of Approval Exhibit D: Preliminary Platt Conditions of Approval (all. agencies) Exhibit E: Rezone Findings Exhibit F: Preliminary Plat Findings By a tion of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the .�s day of 1j��YG/7r.��-v, 2004. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACr, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NOS. RZ-04_Ol l & PP -04-033 - PAGE 3 of 4 0 • COUNCIL MEMBER SHAUN WARDLE VOTED _6t--� COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTINE DONNELL VOTED—��' COUNCIL MEMBER CHARLIE ROUNTREE VOTEDA' COUNCIL MEMBER KEITH BIRD VOTED MAYOR TAMMY de WEERD (TIE BREAKER) VOTED OF de Weerd Attest: .A..,/4'- _ fl William G. Berg, Jr., it}�'Cldsk Copy served upon Applicant, The Pf1 and City Attorney. 44 6il&ng Department, Public Works Department By: Dated: 12-1-4-Q • City Clerk's Oil�ice CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NOS. RZ-04-011 & PP -04-033 - PAGE 4 of 4 IF 0 • Legal Description Cairns Crossing Rezone (RZ-04-011) for A parcel tor' oa- pun=w boded in tha KW % of ttre WV V ofSaftn12, 1 VAMC Baca IhbfWk n, Ada C", MWM, ax" parl mbjy e�ii�ituta d ®sem ton � oo� of sold MW 41M14 of five aAN Y. (/1' Conan, from Whicha brace OV I, emft&dm Nye► the t►nnr isecttort corms berag w didenft of S 06te9pB' W along tha Gambroy wwdmy of WM NW y of the NW V. a Of Nwh Na 3 !t, q on w S lase, �s y wmw rlteime a>i shag, h Book 3B of Pbft at lige 3180 in the adios of the lteae�rder. Ada max. rte: Trance N x'4411- W WMV ito „,may ► of $Bid Nome Cate too. 3 dfdwm d W4,44 tie+el dim of the Rte, Ad, Canmty, tdateo, a Tharme N 366PW E ftM flee Y Of MW Nth � No. 2 n a dim of2Dti�8'i• feat t&a SM kWh ion tM on 1"9 noft*bmm�► of ft t y k dkjarm of 287-99 teat a ppi�„t Theauae s s9 t33 tits Eft%said a didwm of 681M feet to the POINT OF BMNWq& ThiefVSMW cmbkm1404 $peas and is 4p wV SOMOMWO exisMV or in tem. AW024,2M 2M S slts.�'r 0 0 Approved Preliminary Plat Cairns Crossing (PP -04033) 0 Rezone Conditions of Approval Calrns Crossing (File RZ-04-011) The City Council of the City of Meridian hereby approves the Rezone as requested by the Applicant for the property described in the application, subject to the following: 1. The legal description submitted with the application meets the requirements of the City of Meridian and State Tax Commission and places the parcel contiguous to existing city limits, 2. The subject property is within the Urban Service Planning Area. Essential City services can be made available to the subject property, 3. All future development on said property shall comply with the City of Meridian ordinances in effect at the time of application. 4. A Development Agreement shall be required. Said agreement shall contain the following conditions: A. A cross access agreement must be established for all subdivision lots. In addition, a cross access agreement must be established with the Linder Crossing parcel to the west. B. All Chevy Lane facing building elevations on Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, Block 1 (lots adjacent to Cherry Lane) shall have at least 40% glass and floors above the main floor shall have a minimum of 20% glass. Also, on the aforementioned lots, one or more of the following shall be incorporated into all building walls facing Cherry Lane: awnings, modulated/articulated walls, parapets, eave overhangs or similar design features. C. All HVAC units located on the roofs of buildings must be screened. D. Lots 8, 9, 10 and 11, Block 1 (all lots adjacent to the south property line) shall have a restriction that any use that is not consistent with a standard Limited Office zone use shall be restricted to hours of operation between 6:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m, every day of the week. E. The south perimeter block wall shall be designed such that the top of the wall matches the top of the existing wall in Linder Crossing, allowing for overall wall height to exceed six feet if the ground contours demand. Preliminary Plat Conditions of Approval Cairns Crossing Subdivision (File PP -M-033) The City Council of the City of Meridian hereby approves the requested Preliminary plat as requested by the Applicant for the property described in the application, subject to the following: A. 1. Sanitary sewer service to this site will be from main line extensions from mains adjacent to the proposed development. Subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. allowed within landscape areas, beneath landscape islands, and manholes will not be allowed in parking and loading areas. ,applicant shall execute City of Meridian standard forms of easements, for any plains that are required to provide service. 2. Water service to this site will be from main line extensions from existing water mains adjacent to the proposed development. The applicant will be responsible to construct water mains to and through this proposed development. 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. 3. Per MCC 12-13-104, construct a minimum 25 -foot wide street buffer along Cherry Lane and a minimum 25 -foot wide buffer adjacent to the southern boundary and a minimum 20' buffer along the eastern boundary. All required street buffers shall be located beyond any future rightof-way. 4. All landscape buffers shall be constructed prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy within the subdivision. 5. Please provide additional information on relocation of Cairns lateral, Applicant shall work with staff to plan the final relocation of the Cairns Lateral. ti. The Preliminary Plat shall be revised as follows: a. Show where pump station will be relocated, b. Modify plat to show two access points off of Ch erry eastern access point with the lib Lane and align C. Provide a pedestrian connection to Cherry access point; Lane at the western driveway, 0 • d. Show an emergency access connection and pedestrian 13a' Street stub; and connection at the e. Show second access point to the west on preliminary plat. 7. A detailed fencing and landscape plan, in compliance with MCC 12-13 shall b submitted with the final plat application. e 8. Any future proposed. drive-thm's will require a Conditional - Use permit application. 9. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) will be required prior to the issuance If building permits. Since parking is not assessed with the preliminary plat compliance ,with parking requirements will be verified with the Certificate(s) of Zoning Compliance. SSC must approve the site plan prior to the issuance of a CZC for the subject property. 10, - 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. 11. A drainage plan designed by a State of Idaho licensed architect or engineer is required and shall be submitted to the City Engincer (Ord. 557, 10-1-91) for all off-street parking areas. Storm water treahnent and disposal must be designed in accordance with Department of Environmental Of Storm Water .Best MpracticesQuality 1997 publities andcation Catalog Counties City of Meridian standardsan policies. ff-site disposal fbr Idaho linto a urface wat and r is Prohibited unless the jurisdiction which has authority over the receiving stream Provides written authorization prior to development plan approval. The applicant is responsible for filing all necessary applications with the Idaho Department of Water Resources regarding Shallow Injection Wells. 12. 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. Side slopes within drainage areas shall not exceed 3:1. 13. The applicant has iridicated that the business owners association will own and maintain the pressure irrigation system within this development. Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation The City of f gation systems be supplied by a year-round source owater. If a creek or well source is not available, a single -paint 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 at by the Meridian City Engineer. Complete plans and specifications shall be be reviewed by the Public Works Department as part of the development plan review process. A 9 i draft copy of the pressurized irrigation system O&lei 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. 14. Emergency access located at the 13th Street stub shall be a minimum twenty foot (20') wide access gate for emergency services and two (2) five foot (5) wide pedestrian openings, per the drawing submitted by the applicant at the November 3, 2004 City Council hearing. The exact design details shall be coordinated with staff at the time of preparation of construction drawings for the preliminary plat. 15. Revise the plat note addressing setback lines; the note incorrectly lists the front setback as 20'. The setback is 25' for the C -C zoning district. 16. Ordinance requires landscape buffers to be located in a common lot but applicant may request as a part of their application to have the landscape buffers to be located in easement. If the landscape buffers are located in an easement the landscaping shall be maintained by a common business owners association. Pior to City Council applicant must either modifry the plat or request alternative compliance to allow the landscaping easement from the Planning Director. 13. PRLLIMIATARY PLAT GENERAL REOUIREI�r1ENTg 1. Submit letter from the Ada County Street Name Committee, approving the subdivision and street names. Make any corrections necessary to conform. 2. Coordinate fire hydrant placement with the City of Meridian Public Works Department. 3. Assessment fees for water and sewer service are determined during the building plan review process. 4. Two -hundred -fifty -watt, High-pressure sodium streetlights will be locations deli y required at designated b the Public Works Department. All streetlights shall be installed at subdivider's expense. Typical locations are at street intersections and/or fire hydrants. 5. Underground, year-round pressurized irrigation must be provided to all landscape areas on site. Please submit hook-up and design details based on the proposed 'landscaping. Due to the size of landscaped area, P water supply connection to the City's mains will not be allowed. Applicant be required to utilize any existing surface or well water for the primary source. 6. All irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or lying adjacent and conn subdivided shall be tiled �� to the area being should be shown on theps to plans. � ordinance y��n� to be aditch roved bes to be y PP y the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association, with written confirmation of said approval submitted to the Public Works Department. ?• Show all existing and proposed easements for irrigation/drainage facilities located within the boundaries of this proposed development. 8. Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will have to be removed from their domestic service per City Ordinance 9-4.8. Wells may be used for non-domSection 9-1-4 and estic purposes such as landscape irrigation. 9. Provide five -foot -wide sidewalks throughout development in accordance with City Ordinance. 10. All construction shall conform to the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. C- Adopt the Reconunendations of ACED as follows: 1 • Construct a 35 -foot wide curb rsid � driveway that intersects Cherry Lane to align to 13a' Avenue on the northane. a 15 -foot curb return type driveway and pave the driveway Construct itss fun widthveway and tas least 30 -feet into the site beyond the edge of Cherry Lane 2. Construct a 35 -foot wide curb return type driveway that intersects Cherry Lane at the east Property line to align with a driveway on the north side of Cherry Lane that serves the Meridian Public Library. Construct the driveway as a 15 -foot curb return type driveway and pave the driveway its full east -fee into the site beyond the edge of Cherry Lane. width and at l30t 3• Do not extend 13t" Avenue as a public street. Construct a single 10 -foot wide access (minimum) or two 5 -foot wide accesses to allow pedestrians and bicyclists to freely travel between the existing neighborhood and the new commercial development. Coordinate with. Meridian City Emergency Services and District staff to determine an appropriate means for emergency access, pedestrian and bicycle traffic. 4. Submit a signed cross access agreement for this parcel and the parcel to the west to share ingress and egress to Cherry Lane. 5. Other than the access points that have specifically been approved with this application, direct access to Cherry final plat. Lane is prohibited and shall be noted on the 6. Comply with all Standard Conditions of Approval. Standard Conditions of Approval 1. Any existing irrigation facilities shall be relocated outside of the right-of-way. 2. All utility relocation costs associated with improving street frontages abutting the site shall be borne by the developer. 3. Replace any existing damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk and any that may be damaged during the construction of the proposed development. Contact Construction Services at 387-6280 (with file number) for details. 4. Utility street cuts in pavement less than five years old are not allowed unless approved in writing by the District. Contact the District's Utility Coordinator at 387-6258 (with file numbers) for details. 5. All design and construction shall be in accordance with the Ada. County Highway District Policy Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Construction Services procedures and all applicable 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 #198, also known as Ada County Highway District Road Impact Fee Ordinance. 9. It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify all existing utilities within the right-of-way' The applicant at no cost to ACHD shall repair- existing utilities damaged by the applicant. The applicant shell 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 619(spare or filled) are c 0 in the event any ACRD conduits Operations 38?- any phase of consconstruction.ompromised during 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 0 9 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. D. Adopt the Meridian Fire Department Recommendations as follows: 1. Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department. a. Fire Hydrants shall have the 4 %a" 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' -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. 2. All entrance and internal roads shall have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48' outside radius. 3. Provide a 20' wide Fire Lane for all internal & external roadways. 4. Fire lanes and streets shall have a vertical clearance of 13'6". This includes mature landscaping. 5• Commercial and office occupancies will require a fire -flow consistent with the international Fire Code to service the proposed project. Fire hydrants shall be placed an average of 300' apart. 6. The 11 Office/commercial lots lot will have an unknown transient population and will have an unknown impact on Meridian Fire Department call volumes. The Meridian Fire Department has experienced 2397 responses in the year 2003. According to a report completed by Fire & Emergency Services Consulting Group our requests for service are projected to reach 2800 in the year 2005 and 3800 by the year 2010. 7. Maintain a separation of 5' from the building to the dumpster enclosure. 8. Provide a Knoxbox entry system for the complex. 4• All processes & storage practices shall be required to comply with the International Fire Code. M. Provide exterior egress lighting as required by the International Building & Fire Codes, 11. Please contact the Fire .Marshall at 888-1234 to work specific issues associated with this project. 12. If buildings are sprinkled all fire connections will be within 100' of a hydrant. E. Adopt the Recommendations of the Central District Realth Department as follows: 1 • This proposal can be approved for central sewage & central water after written approval from appropriate entities is submitted. 2. The Applicant's central sewage and central water plans must be submitted to and approved by the Idaho Department of Health & Welfare, Division of Environmental Quality. 3. Run-off is not to create a mosquito breeding problem. 4. Stonnwater 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. F• Adopt the Recommendations of Narnpa Meridian Irrigation District as follows: 1 • If all storm drainage is retained on-site there will be no impact on Nampa, & Meridian Irrigation District and no further review will be required. 2. If any surface drainage leaves the site, the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District requires a Land Use Change Application be filed for review prior to final platting. Please contact Donna Moore at 466-7861 for further information. 3. All.laterals and waste ways roust be protected. 4. The developer must comply with Idaho Code 31-3805. 0 • 5" It is recommended that irrigation water be made available to all developments within the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District. EXHIBIT E Rezone Findings (File RZ-04-011) The City Council hereby approves the following analysis of required findings by staff; According to Ordinance 11-15-11, General Standards Applicable to Zoning Amendments, both the P&Z Commission and Council are required "to review the zoning amendment in terms of the particular facts and circumstances of each proposed following standards and shall find adequate evidence answering the following guesiions 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; Staff finds that the 2002 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designates the subject property as "Commercial." The with the Comprehensive Plan designation of ` CormmercialProposed C coning is compatible Staff 430 finds the f°uowing 2002 Cornprehemsive Plan text policies to be applicable {sta„ 'analysis is in italics below policy): • "Locate new community commercial area on arterials or collectors near residential areas in such a way as to complement with adjoining residential areas." (Chapter VII, Goal I, Obj. B, #5) The proposed Cairns Crossing Subdivision has frontage Cherry Lane, a Principal arterial roadway. The applicant is proposing a pedestrian connection with the residential subdivision to the south of the subject property. The proposed commercial residential areas. development complements adjoining • "R�uire screening and buffering of commercial and industrial properties and residential use with transitional zoning." (Chapter VII, Goal IV., Obj. A, #6) 14s required under MCC 12-13, the applicant is proposing landscaping bufj`ers at the edges of the subject property bordering Northgate residential subdivision. • "Permit new ... commercial ... developments only where urban services can be reasonably provided at the time of final approval and development is contiguous to the City." (Chapter IV, Goal I, Obj. A, #6) 0 • Cairns Crossing Subdivision is con"guous to existing city limits and sanitary sewer, water and other urban utilities can be extended to meet the needs of the development. B- 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; The property immediately to the west of the subject property was recently developed as a commercial development. Linder Crossing, a multi -tenant commercial building with C -N zoning was perinitted through a CZC application in 2002. Staff finds a rezone of the proposed property would be compatible with other land use and facility changes in the area. C. 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; No specific uses are proposed with this application. Staff finds that any future uses, if designed, constructed and operated in accordance with adopted city ordinances and standards, should be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing character of the vicinity. D. Will the proposed uses not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses; Staff finds the majority of the potential future uses on the subject property allowable in the C -C zoning district will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses if all development and landscaping ordinanare ces exercised. The proposed landscape buffers and the block walls located at the southern edge of the property and the southwest edge of the property adjoining residential uses are intended to mitigate any disturbances. E. Will the area be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, police and fire protuion, drainage structures, refuse disposal, waters sewer or that the person responsible for the establishment of proposed zoning amendment shall be able to provide adequately any of such services; Staff finds the public streets adjacent to the subject property will handle the additional traffic generated by future development. See the report from the Ada County Highway District for further details concenung the potential traffic impacts of the proposed development. ACHD has recommended that the applicant provide only two access Points to Cherry Lane and that the eastem access point be aligned with the library's access point directly north of the subject property. See Zoning Comment "H" regarding the stub street at 13th Street. Sanitary sewer and water are either currently available or can be Heade available to provide service to the area. All other public services and facilities noted above appear to be adequate to service this property. F Will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and will not be dehftenn.tal to the economic welfare of the community; Staff finds that this development will not cause excessive additional requirements at public cost. All site improvements will be funded and constructed by the developer. We also find that the rezone alone will not be detrimental to the community's economic welfare. G. Will the proposed uses not involve •uses, activitles, 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; Staff finds that several of the allowed uses in the C -C zone may involve activities, processes, materials, equipment or conditions that could produce excessive traffic and noise and have other public impacts. The allowed uses in the C -C zone are generally limited to uses compatible with residential uses. The Commission and Council require that a Development Agreement be entered into to address any Potentially detrimental activities (e.g. hours of operation). 13• 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; Staff finds that the vehicular approaches, if modified as recommended by staff and ACRD, will not create an interference with traffic on surrounding streets. See the report from the Ada County Highway District for further details concerning the potential traffic impacts of the proposed development. ACHD has recommended that the applicant provided only two access points to Cherry bane and that the eastern access point be aligned with the library's access point directly north of the subject property and that the appliamt provide a pedestrian connection and emergency access at the 13a' Streit stub located to the south of the subject property. The applicant is proposing to not provide a vehicular connection between the stub located at 13th Street at the southern edge of the subject property and the proposed commercial subdivision. The applicant is, however, proposing to provide emergency vehicle access and a pedestrian connection at 13th Street; this proposal is supported by both Meridian's Police and Fire Departments and ACHD. Staff is I. J supportive of the applicant's proposal to provide a pedestrian connection and emergency access at the 13'' Street stub in light of the strong opposition by the residents of 13a' Street to the vehicular connection and the relatively close Proximity of 13th Street to Linder Road. The pedestrian connection will allow residents to easily access the commercial subdivision by foot or bicycle and steel feels that the proximity of 13s' Street to Linder Road does not necessitate a vehicular connection at 13t` Street, The connection at 13th Street was discussed at the public hearings held in 2001 for the Linder Crossing CUP and rezone applications. The applicant originally proposed to provide a vehicular connection at 1P Street. The CLTp and rezone applications (RZ-00-005 and CUP -00-048) were withdrav,,n by the applicant before any decisions were made by Council regarding the access Spoint at 13s' treet. Will not result in the destruetionr loss or damage of a natural or scenic feature of major importance; and Staff finds that the rezone alone will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of natural or scenic features. Is the Proposed zoning amendment in the best interest of the City of Meridian. (Ord. 592,11-17-1992)" Staff finds that the rezoning of this property would be in the best interest of the City for the following reasons. • mcreased commercial land base; increased property tax revenue; • municipal services are available to the area; sand • application substantially complies with the Comprehensive Plan. Preliminary Plat Findings (File PP -04-033) The City Council hereby approves the following analysis of required findings b staff: Y Sections 12-3-3 J.2 and 12-3-5 D read as follows: "In determining the acceptance o a proposed ,subdivision, the ComjnissionlCouneil shall ccnsuler the objectives oJthis title and at least the following; a. The conformance of the subdivision with the Comprehensive Development Plan; Staff finds that the 2002 the subjectComprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designates pTOPY as "Commercial" and stafffinds the subdivision to be in substantial compliance with the Plan. See other findings under the Annexation and Zoning analysis above. b. The availability of public services to accommodate the proposed development; Staff finds that public services subdivision. are readily available to the lots within the proposed the Meridian The are and Council should review comments provided by Fire and Police Departments. In accordance with Comp Plan policy #12 finds that the number of vehicular access Points 7�) and policy #2 (pg. 1U7), staff restricted and comply with ACRD points to Cherry Lane should be movement on the roadway at build -out Staff and ACRD arorder to e preserve the 'and the applicant modify the proposedg at of Cherry Lane site plan to include only two access points off rather than the three access points proposed by the applicant. c- The continuity of the proposed development with improvement program; the capital Staff finds that the subdivision is in conformance with and will not negatively impact the capital improvement funds. d - The develoopmenpt; mel financial capability of supporting services for the proposed Staff finds that the development will not require major expenditures for May 12, 2006 SHP 05-001 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 16,2W6 APPLICANT Afton Pacific, LLC ITEM NO. 5-E REQUEST Request for Short Plat Approval of Conglomerate Short Plat Consisting of 4 Commercial Building Lots on 4.276 acres in a C -G zone: 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 shall become property of the City of Meridian. • May 12, 2006 S H P 06-003 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 16, 2006 APPLICANT Brighton Commercial, Inc. ITEM NO. 5-F REQUEST Request for a Short Plat Approval of Quenzer Commons Condominiums No. 2 Consisting of 16 Condominium units on 4 parcels of ground on 2.12 acres in a C -N zone: AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See attached 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: R 7. - S -®C3® Emailed: j 1� �� a(ID- q r)Staff Initials: 4-j �Ag- Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. i 1) MAY 11 2006 City Of Meridian City Clerk Office April 6, 2006 Gene Smith Engineering NorthWest, LLC 423 N. Ancestor Place, Suite 180 Boise, Idaho 83713 RE: Short Plat for Quenzer Condominium Subdivision No. 2 Dear Mr. Smith: Per the findings of the attached staff report for Quenzer Condominium Subdivision No. 2, I am granting approval of the short plat for this project. The short plat shall become null and void if the applicant fails to record the plat within one year of the approval date of this letter per Unified Development Code (UDC) 11 -6B -7A. An extension of time may be approved if needed under the provisions stated in UDC 11 -6B -7C. The applicant, Director, or a party of record may appeal this decision or a condition of approval by requesting City Council review of this decision. All requests shall be filed in writing with the Planning Department within fifteen (15) days of the date of this letter and comply with the provisions of UDC 11 -5A -6B. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please don't hesitate to call Kristy Vigil at 884-5533. Sincerely, Anna Borchers Canning, AICP Planning Director cc: Ada County Highway District May 12, 2006 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 16, 2006 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 5-G REQUEST Approve Access Easement between the City of Meridian and ACHD on Lot 21 of the Amended Plat of Block 1 of the Townsite of Meridian (55 East Broadway) requsted as a condition of the Creamery Alley Vacation AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: Contacted: Emailed: COMMENTS See Previous Item Packet / Minutes Date: Phone: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. r May 12, 2006 11 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 16, 2006 APPLICANT Public Works Department ITEM NO. 5-H REQUEST Change Order No. 1 for the Landing Lift Station Project with JUB Engineers, Inc.. AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: See Attached Memo CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: / CITY SEWER DEPT: yY 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 properly of the City of Meridian. i 0 MAY 1 if 20Pq City Of Meridiani City Clerk Office Memo To: Will Berg; Tara Green From: Max Jensen, Public Works Inspector CC: Brad Watson, Public Works Director Date: 05\08\2006 Re: Proposed Agenda Item for May 16, 2006 City Council Meeting The Public Works Department respectfully requests the following item be placed on the May 16, 2006 City Council agenda, under Consent Agenda, for Council's consideration: Landing lift Station project, change order no. 1. The Change order is summarized below: Change order no. 1: Install a new US Filter control panel $14,746.87 Recommended Council Action: The Public Works Department recommends that City Council approves the change orders for the Landing Lift Station project for $14,746.87 and authorize the Mayor to sign it. Thank you for your consideration. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding any of these items. From the desk of... Max Jensen 859-8731 Public Works Inspector Meridian Public Works Department 660 E. Watertower Lane, Suite 200 Meridian, ID 83642 Office: (208) 898-5500 Fax (208) 898-9551 0 Page 1 • DATE OF ISSUANCE May 8.2006 CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 0 No. 1 EFFECTIVE DATE May 8. 2006 OWNER City of Meridian CONSULTANT J -U -B Engineers, Inc. Contract: 2006 Landing Lift Station Project: 2006 Landing Lift Station OWNER's Contract No. N/A ENGINEER's Contract No. N/A ENGINEER Thil Krichbaum P.E. You are directed to make the following changes in the Contract Documents to the Landing Lift Station Upgrade: Description: This change order consists of the following work: • Install a new US Filter control panel Reason for Change Order: To install an updated control panel. Attachments: (List documents supporting change): . 1) Star Construction, LLC fax dated 1-16-06. CHANGE IN CONTRACT PRICE: Original Contract Price $ 96.825.00 Net Increase (Decrease) from previous Change Orders No. 0 to 0 $ 0.00 Contract Price prior to this Change Order: $_96.825.00 Net increase (decrease) of this Change Order: $ 14,746.87 Contract Price with all approved Change Orders: $ 111,571.87 RECOMMENDED: ACCEPTED: By: By: Max Jei sen, Insp ctor Consultant Date: -® Date: Approved by City Council: CHANGE IN CONTRACT TIMES: Original Contract Times: Substantial Completion: Ready for final payment: (days or dates) Net change from previous Change Orders No. _0_ 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) APPROVED: By: Tammy de Weerd, Mayor Date: ATTEST: By: William G. Berg, Jr. City Clerk 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. Ivo 14. iD reA zub;jz�aj�36 I MER PUBLIC FORKS 11002/003 16 2006 08:34 231#67947 STAR CONWIDN PAGE: 6I STAR CONSTRUCTION, Q.L.C. P.O. Box '157 Star, ]D 83669 Ous: (209) 286-9195 Ancil = Cell: 567-7052 Fax; (208) 286-7947 Faz To: Att. P4ii EL Phone; 37rc.an Ante; 1-164)6 Nom ot'P"m fn� rover sheet i Fru�oat: Aecb Fir: g y - CC: • Uri D For Yoat ltevicar ❑ Rem ASAP' ❑ pip ` Pbil, APar in ep g the ele =iCd panel at Landing L Sudan I WWW like to irestxll a new US F&,%; pm.]sad r�troller in oo�rdrmctian v�th the �� a to eoiapatible with wbat is being used now in 'DI- Thu{ Will be the may i several ins om We may be able w delcte Qg hetp a casts ifyou wishh, The old panj is fru�ionia,g now► and capable of performing with 1.16MIations made for tite mw p�B�� Y have nvt rein applic atiov), I am wacenl d t}: Boss mg for this runt Oawg t�ab!Hdes at swift civ may lead to problems with time and for Y "" per, i not ecce tb�at tis is o WM sQPPIY the submittals for this scope . s=d Y to Cliff. This Y . dot a of to tl� city and if eat I witi c rWCW switch over -R d do nit waw vvwk�rms1 bid, I am not are' of the st mcftce chain but this. is a in a direction that anylinks st shut downit n. I do want to kad the city is not reasonable so I would file your 00=ents. 1�ak's Ancil hiWnger rac sales, panel w/ tax and & iight' 8695.92 S, datrical sub oto' 3100.00 Star dation 3°0 hr g 297,50 826:.50 Tara! for p t M markup rrals. And sub 2123.45 14746,97 • 0 MAY 1 U 2006 City Of Meridian City Clerk Office Memo To: Will Berg; Tara Green From: Max Jensen, Public Works Inspector CC: Brad Watson, Public Works Director Date: 05\08\2006 Re: Proposed Agenda Item for May 16, 2006 City Council Meeting The Public Works Department respectfully requests the following item be placed on the May 16, 2006 City Council agenda, under Consent Agenda, for Council's consideration: Landing lift Station project, change order no. 1. The Change order is summarized below: Change order no. 1: Install a new US Filter control panel $14,746.87 Recommended Council Action: The Public Works Department recommends that City Council approves the change orders for the Landing Lift Station project for $14,746.87 and authorize the Mayor to sign it. Thank you for your consideration. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding any of these items. From the desk of... Max Jensen 859-8731 Public Works Inspector Meridian Public Works Department 660 E. Watertower Lane, Suite 200 Meridian, ID 83642 Office: (208) 898-5500 Fax. (208) 898-9551 0 Page 1 C� CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 DATE OF ISSUANCE May 8.2006 • No. 1 EFFECTIVE DATE May 8. 2006 OWNER City of Meridian CONSULTANT J -U -B Engineers, Inc. Contract: 2006 Landing Lift Station Project: 2006 Landing Lift Station OWNER's Contract No. N/A ENGINEER's Contract No. N/A ENGINEER Phil Krichbaum, P.E. You are directed to make the following changes in the Contract Documents to the Landing Lift Station Upgrade: Description: This change order consists of the following work: • Install a new US Filter control panel Reason for Change Order: To install an updated control panel. Attachments: (List documents supporting change): 1) Star Construction, LLC fax dated 1-16-06. CHANGE IN CONTRACT PRICE: Original Contract Price $ 96,825.00 Net Increase (Decrease) from previous Change Orders No. 0 to 0 $ 0.00 Contract Price prior to this Change Order: $ 96,825.00 Net increase (decrease) of this Change Order: $ 14,746.87 Contract Price with all approved Change Orders: $ 111,571.87 RECOMMENDED: ACCEPTED: By: a By: Max Jensen, I spector Consultant Date: • d &P Date: Approved by City Council: CHANGE IN CONTRACT TIMES: Original Contract Times: Substantial Completion: Ready for final payment: (days or dates) Net change from previous Change Orders No. _0_ 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) APPROVED: By: Tammy de Weerd, Mayor Date: ATTEST: By: William G. Berg, Jr. City Clerk Date: EJCDC 191048-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. --u 14.io rRk "bdzdddjb 1[ 2Bt06 0634 29R 7947 - MER PUBLIC WORKS R 002/005 STAR MIQN STAR CONSTRUCTION, LdLrCs P.O. Box '157 Stas, ID 83669 Bus: (los) 286-9198 Ancil., Cell: 867-70S2 Fax; (2(}8) 296-7947 Fax Ta: Att: R'4ii X Ante: 1-16-06 xW"'" Of mrvwsb=e Fiv�aat: Aecil PAGE 01 Phones—_ Z71C.'fZ�� F&K: 323-9336 � -- or 0#1 detinn rtonfi4,s1 nsnid . CC: REAi.►7 IIr D Foz Your Rftieav RePly AS.t>` D Pjaasa Co Afkr impwting thio electricd pan"' at L"xl g Lift StASOA I �� $ to filter pau al and Willer in wild .lila to �bla with wktat is Got�tmcti� With the pmje�t, .This lel will be the g used now in sem=W instaffi4o m We may be able w delete qpo" li'*S to help offset � if YOU wish. The old SW is Of �`a8 'with asod��o made for tho stew s � ilo'NI+ and capable aPP�i�an). I am canceaned � 1�P � Y have nvt raa costs o�uR dor this fu out t� this iia sway lead to Problems with time and =110akg c�abMdes m switch mm. you wish I w� for � • Phil, I an not suit that this is in 'v SuPPty the submittals for this scope . send Y CUM This Y of cork to the city ,end if not I will ng an informd bid, I am not sm of the structtue chain but this is a c rWW switch over.end do not wast any weak links et shut &WA, Ida nat a direcdm that s`s not re wImable sa I would Ike to 1=0 'the City Tmk's yon commel, Ana InW agm P= sales, Patrol w/ tax and $°*,k- 8596.42 Sid, cl=t ic:ai sib om&wtor 3100.00 Star man 3.0 br (d 297,50 - 826.So Star CoAouuction► mwk-uP nda.And sub 2123.4 Tota! for parvo 14746,97 Memo To: Will Berg; Tara Green From: Max Jensen, Public Works Inspector CC: Brad Watson, Public Works Director Date: 05\08\2006 Re: Proposed Agenda Item for May 16, 2006 City Council Meeting t MAY y 'V 2006 Q;ify Of Meridian C Clerk Office The Public Works Department respectfully requests the following item be placed on the May 16, 2006 City Council agenda, under Consent Agenda, for Council's consideration: Landing lift Station project, change order no. 1. The Change order is summarized below: Change order no. 1: Install a new US Filter control panel $14,746.87 Recommended Council Action: The Public Works Department recommends that City Council approves the change orders for the Landing Lift Station project for $14,746.87 and authorize the Mayor to sign it. Thank you for your consideration. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding any of these items. From the desk of... Max Jensen 859-8731 Public Works Inspector Meridian Public Works Department 660 E. Watertower Lane, Suite 200 Meridian, ID 83642 Office. (208) 898-5500 Fax (208) 89&9551 0 Page 1 0 CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 DATE OF ISSUANCE May 8, 2006 am EFFECTIVE DATE May 8. 2006 OWNER City of Meridian CONSULTANT J -U -B Engineers, Inc. Contract: 2006 Landing Lift Station Project: 2006 Landing Lift Station OWNER's Contract No. N/A ENGINEER's Contract No. NIA ENGINEER Phil Krichbaum, P.E. You are directed to make the following changes in the Contract Documents to the Landing Lift Station Upgrade: Description: This change order consists of the following work: • Install a new US Filter control panel Reason for Change Order: To install an updated control panel. Attachments: (List documents supporting change): 1) Star Construction, LLC fax dated 1-16-06. CHANGE IN CONTRACT PRICE: Original Contract Price $ 96.825.00 Net Increase (Decrease) from previous Change Orders No. 0 to 0 $ 0.00 Contract Price prior to this Change Order: $ 96.825.00 Net increase (decrease) of this Change Order: $ 14,746.87 Contract Price with all approved Change Orders: $ 111.571.87 RECOMMENDED: By: Max Jensen, I spector ACCEPTED: By: Consultant Date: ° � ° 0 &P Date: Approved by City Council: CHANGE IN CONTRACT TIMES: Original Contract Times: Substantial Completion: Ready for final payment: (days or dates) Net change from previous Change Orders No. _0_ 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) APPROVED: By: Tammy de Weerd, Mayor Date: ATTEST: By: William G. Berg, Jr. City Clerk 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. vvb 1z: ib rAX 2023239336 ,16 / 2006 .08:34 287947 + MER PUBLIC WORKS 2002/005 STAR CONSVION PAGE 01 STAR CONSTRUCTIO N, L.L.C. '�Ik P.O. Box 157 Star, YD 83669 Bus: (209) 286-9148 Anct1= Cell: 567-7082 Fax: (208) 286-7947 Fag To.- Aft A �u ,iti K. Aster 1-16-96 Nmobw ofP"M fiWh4ft vo"Wsbeez 1 From _ i�eftit Phone:C 323-9336 atotinn @4 eir"I Pena CC: REMARJO • urM* 0 Foryawneviev p Rq,:y P D Nam Phit Affir hqAwdng the electrical panel ffi ' install a new US Frear el and t Lmmft Lid StaEaoa I wauld .1&0 to r8quen a chazW to cO:npatible with wb�at ism oonjtmdift wkb the project, This pawl will be the may i being used now in several inst dI tiolm We may be able to ddldc Qg help offset costs if you wiiclt, The old pandl is &nct;u now and capable of performing w made for tato Mw pimps,( I have not run mats OM £ot this ]icativn). I am rwo cerned though that this scamdv may lead to problems with time and functioning c�pabilkims at sv*ch over. If you wish I .%g apply the submittals for this scope . for }Huge review, Phil, I am not s� dw this is in your Mope of work to the city sad if not I will scud &=tly to Clim. This being an ,informal bid , I am not PM of Grswitch over Rod do ncR want an weak - the sttucxune drain but this is a Y links at shirt down. I do not ama to lead the city =nairearori that is not ramnsble so I would like yyr's Ancil Irminger Pae sales, panel w/ tact and fx*,ht- 8696.92 -'MPv doctricel sub comrmuw 3100.00 Star mon 3,0 arc @ 297,50 $26.50 Star C*"Uuctian, mak-op nds. And sub 2123.45 Total fnw panel 14746,97 0 May 12, 2006 r1 L MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 16, 2006 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 5-I REQUEST Approve Beer and Wine License Renewal for ChinaTown's Quik -Wok Restaurant at 3055 E. Fairview Avenue, Ste. 200: AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT. CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: COMMENTS See Attached Comments / Application Contacted: Date: Phone: _ Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. May 12, 2006 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 16, 2006 APPLICANT ITEM NO. S -J REQUEST Contract for Design of Ten Mile Diversion Sewer Phase 2 with JUB Engineers, Inc. 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: Emailed: Date: Phone: _ Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. Memo To: Will Berg; Tara Green From: Kyle Radek, P.E., Staff Engineer CC: File PtECEIVED MAY , 12006 CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY CLERK OFFICE Date: 5/11/06 Re: Proposed Agenda Item for May 16, 2006 City Council Meeting The Public Works Department respectfully requests the following item be placed on the January 17 City Council agenda, under Consent Agenda, for Council's consideration: Contract for Design of Ten Mile Diversion Sewer — Phase 2 with JUB Engineers Inc This contract is for the design of Phase 2 of the Ten Mile Diversion Sewer on Franklin Road, east of Ten Mile Road. Current Construction terminates the sewer immediately west of the Ten Mile Creek Bridge on Fanklind Road. This project will provide design for the sewer approximately 700 lineal feet east to match the limits of ACHD's widening project. This contract work will be performed on time and material basis not to exceed $12,037. Recommended Council Action: The Public Works Department recommends that City Council approve the contract with JUB Engineers, Inc. for design of Ten Mile Sewer Diversion — Phase 2 at a cost not to exceed $12,037, and authorize the Mayor to sign it. Thank you for your consideration. any of these items. 0 Page 1 Please contact me if you have any questions regarding �J Uf J -U -B ENGINEERS, Inc. 250 S. Beechwood Avenue, Suite 201 • Boise, Idaho 83709-0944 • Telephone (208) 376-7330 0 FAX (208) 323-9336 AUTHORIZATION FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES - NO. 6 CLIENT: City of Meridian PROJECT NAME: Misc. Wastewater Proiects J -U -B Project Number: 10-05-025 The following additional items of work on the project referenced above have been or will be provided by J -U -B ENGINEERS, Inc. These additional services are a supplement to the scope of services contained in J -U -B's existing Agreement for Engineering Services for this project, dated February 15, 2005 Additional Services: Ten Mile Diversion Sewer — Phase 2: Refer to Attachment "A" J -U -B ENGINEERS, Inc. was verbally authorized to provide these services by: n/a n/a Name Date Unless otherwise noted below, J -U -B ENGINEERS, Inc. will provide these additional services on a time and materials basis, using the Firm's standard billing rates, or if applicable, the billing rates established in the initial Agreement for Engineering Services. Other Basis for Payment: Refer to Attachment "A" Dated this day of 2006. City of Meridian J -U -B ENGINEERS, Inc. Print or Type Client Name By: By: Client or Representative Signature Project Represents Sign ure Tammy de Weerd, Mayor Phillip H. Krichbaum, P.E., Project Mqr. Print or Type Name and Title Print or Type Name and Title J -U -B ENGINEERS, Inc. • • Attachment 'A'- 70-05-025 CITY OF MERIDIAN - MISCELLANEOUS WASTEWATER PROJECTS ADDENDUM NO. 6 - TEN MILE DIVERSION SEWER - PHASE 2 Proiect Overview This project entails design of Phase 2 of the Ten Mile Diversion Sewer on Franklin Road, east of Ten Mile Road. Current construction terminates the sewer immediately west of the Ten Mile Creek Bridge on Franklin Road. This project will extend the sewer approximately 700 lineal feet east to match the limits of ACHD's widening project. It is intended that this project will be incorporated into the ACHD construction contract. Items to be Provided by the City 1. Provide ongoing review of J -U -B's work and timely consideration of policy issues within a timeframe acceptable to the City and J -U -B. 2. Provide a liaison person with ACHD on an as -needed basis. 3. Pay for all permits, fees, or other payments required to secure permitting for the design and construction of the proposed improvements. 4. Provide locations of sewer stub -outs for adjacent properties. Task 1 - Topographic Survey, Final Design, and Construction Plans (Lump Sum) 1. Research, Control, and Topographic Survey and Mapping. A. Research Ada County Surveyor's records for survey monuments to add in establishing horizontal control and include research of land monuments, plats, records of survey, right-of-ways, and easements of record along the alignment. Horizontal coordinate system shall be based on NAD 1983 translated to the Ada County G.I.S. system. Vertical control shall be based on NAVD 1988. B. Establish two temporary construction control points. C. Utilize existing utility information from the ACHD project survey. D. Complete topographic mapping in AutoCAD 2000. The anticipated scale of the plan and profile drawings will be 1 "=20' and 1 "=5' vertical scale. Topographic features shall be depicted using standard symbols utilized in past City projects. Topographic features shall be shown on the construction plans to the extent that they are found or utilized from the ACHD survey. Monuments of record will be shown to the extent they are visible in the field or where there is evidence of their existence from the Ada County G.I.S. mapping. 2. Basic Design of Sewer (60%) A. Complete preliminary design of the trunk sewer alignment in Franklin Road with considerations to master plan sewer serviceability depths, constructability with ACHD's proposed bridge widening project and other future facilities, surface disturbance, sanitary separations, utility conflicts, construction access, excavation depths, and other pertinent design issues. For parcels without development plans, considerations for manholes and block-out locations will be made with City Misc. Wastewater Services - Authorization for Additional Services No. 6 Page 1 L' J -U -B ENGINEERS, Inc. • Attachment 'A'- 10-05-025 direction. Design alignment of the sewer will be based on section line stationing of ACHD's Ten Mile Road widening project. B. Design crossing under the proposed Ten Mile Creek Bridge on Franklin Road. C. Prepare details for the trunk sewer. per ISPWC and City of Meridian Standards. D. Perform design drafting in AutoCAD 2005 of the construction plans which will include project title blocks, City standard notes, vicinity maps, sheet indexes, north arrows, bar scales, topography, pipe size, type, slope, invert elevations, ground surface elevations, surface repair, boring details, property lines, easements, found monuments and property corners, land ownerships, survey control, pay limits, special details necessary for a biddable product. Drafting shall be completed on 22" x 34" mylars, ANSI standard size "D" sheets. To the extent practicable, the 2002 City of Meridian Standard Specifications and Drawings for Construction will be utilized in the design. E. Submit 60% complete plans to the City for review and comment. 3. Final Design and Construction Plans A. Prepare 90% complete construction plans and contract documents. B. Prepare Special Provisions in accordance with the 2005 Edition of the Idaho Standard Public Works Construction (ISPWC) format, and City Standard Specifications and Drawings. C. Submit two (2) sets to the City for review. D. Develop an opinion of probable construction cost. E. Meet with City and incorporate review comments. F. Prepare 90% complete construction plans and prepare Special Provisions to the ISPWC for City review and for agency review and approvals. Meet with City and incorporate review comments. G. Complete in-house constructability review and QA/QC review of the 90% complete construction plans and Special Provisions. Incorporate appropriate suggestions into project design. H. Incorporate appropriate revisions as suggested by the City and reviewing agencies in the final set of plans and Special Provisions. I. Develop bid items and issue a final opinion of probable construction cost. Task 2 - Agency Coordination and Permitting (TELM) 1. ACHD Coordination A. A kickoff meeting will be held with the City and ACHD to establish acceptable sewer corridors and to discuss incorporating the project into ACHD's construction contract. This is anticipated to include: 1) Meeting with ACHD and obtain available construction plans and pertinent design information for Misc. Wastewater Services Authorization for Additional Services No. 6 Page 2 J -U -B ENGINEERS, Inc. • Attachment' ' - - A 10 05 025 the Ten Mile Road widening project and associated Ten Mile Creek bridge construction; 2) Discuss bridge foundation design to obtain allowable crossing locations from the ACHD bridge engineer; 3) At this time, it is not known if a 404 permit has been applied for by the ACHD to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). J -U -B will request ACHD revise the 404 permit to include the sewer crossings work. B. At completion of 60% design, plans will be submitted to ACHD for review and comment. Pertinent comments will be incorporated. C. 90% complete plans and technical specifications will be submitted to ACHD for review and comment. 2. Drainage/Irrigation District Coordination and Permitting A. Permitting with Nampa -Meridian Irrigation District (NMID) will be required. J -U -B will prepare one (1) license agreement for the Ten Mile Creek crossing. J -U -B will prepare the necessary license agreement applications, legal descriptions and exhibits. 3. IDEQ Submittal Packages A. J -U -B shall coordinate, prepare, and submit final construction plans, specifications, and checklists for approval to the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEA). B. Incorporate applicable IDEQ review comments into the construction plans and specifications. Basis of Fees The CITY shall pay J -U -B for its services and reimbursable expenses. Refer to Attachment "B" for a detailed breakdown. Task 050 - Misc. Wastewater Projects - Ten Mile Diversion Sewer, Phase 2 Task 1 on a lump sum price of...................................................................$8,921 Task 2 on a time and materials basis with an estimated budget of ........................$3,116 \\Boisefiles\Public\ProjectManagers\PMIO-05-025-Meridian Misc. W W Projects\10-05-025-Admin\Contracts and B71mgWddNo.6 anacb A -Ten Mle Diversion Phase 2.doc Misc. Wastewater Services - Authorization for Additional Services No. 6 Page 3 0 0 m I 0 • May 12, 2006 Department Reports MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 16, 2006 APPLICANT Finance Department — Stacy Kilchenmann ITEM NO. 6-A-1 REQUEST Quarterly Financial Statement AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials• COMMENTS Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. • UTILITY OPERATIONS - REVENUE - INCLUDES SALES - INTEREST - MISC Actual FY2002 Actual FY2003 Actual FY2004 Actual FY2005 Budget FY2006 Water $3,447,221 $3,625,724 Misc $4,073,139 FY2005 Proj $4,555,163 FY2006 $3,700,000 WWrP $3,470,686 $4,471,408 Total $4,836,895 $4,968,713 $1,562,000 $4,903,300 $6,917,907 $8,097,132 $8,910,034 $9,523,876 $10,165,300 17.05% 10.04% 6.89% 6.730/_ UTILITY OPERATIONS - INDIRECT COST Utility Billing Actual FY2002 Actual FY2003 Actual FY2004 Actual FY2005 Budget FY2006 Public Works Admin $379,251 $731,598 $415,466 $830,059 $390,115 $1,148,120 $492,374 $549,975 General Fund Transfer Total $245,243 $303,014 $308,815 $1,681,993 $397,698 $1,930,119 Indirect Allocatior $1,356,092 $1,548,539 $1,847,050 $2,572,065 $510,740 -$2,990,83--4- 14.19% 19.28% 39.25%0 16.28 /o UTILITY OPERATIONS - DIRECT COST Water Operations WWTP Operations $2,643,086 $3,383,196 $3,209,118 $4,174,986 $3,698,828 $4,571,747 $5,844,733 Total Direct Costs $6,026,282 $7,384,104 $4,495,595 $8,194,423 $5,002,007 $9,573,754 $5,998,125 0 53/0 10.97% 16.83% $11,842,858 23.70% Depreciation Expense $1,872,022 $2,108,039 $2,392,717 $2,571,269 $2,800,000 12.61% 13.50% 7.46% 8.90% Utility usage fees Implemented In FY2002 Is two part - base charge to cover Indirect fixed costs volume charge to cover direct costs RECEIVED MAY 16 2006 City of Meridian City Clerk Office • w 0 N M rM T Q co) Q J 0 0 Q Q < a W M Zg ,Vwv N O0:LU �p0 man�jnair oo �i O t W O O 017 p0 �p. CC O w N O O C C d 0 V J l`70 � V AO $OwN�wN��wwfn O ROm�ppO (ppb 0 �i fDNN 5P0)f0 CD- �fXf 2Rq l t01� 0`v�v°iv 0O ai M o fA 6969 w en lypp 1N7 ((Npp ��fDO Oft: 001 F m ID �N7 ((Ory �{1O7yE ISww www WD "1pI a! a m� x(00 Ol7 Lc^ f9�wtHw E9N LL1p p p$p VON WOn M 01 lM R co O cp t1�0 �N7 lY In 17 /7 00 r p (V� lh O fA r C0f7 ��mtf7 MUM.,w 0$ 17^ _• Of9 r U c- -n32828g . C O O 17 01 0 0 0 0 2l0N-:gs1�o vl+o mww �wu zo N o pppo o .- N N � O l�7 l7 p 0 l7 amp W((pp gu E9 (9 X4^9 l90 O.00 o v) w f» fn 0 U)N co o p C EE iam �mmm eoa� 0 CO 0N1 0 N n YOI Qr T ry L ^ g 10 � I7q m r l7 m (O O p tN V3 f9 w wP !p .50��O I- 0 17 m69 10 0 m 2mtr Np W G G w 0 N M rM T Q co) Q J 0 0 Q Q < a W M Zg ,Vwv N O0:LU �p0 man�jnair oo �i O t W O O 017 p0 �p. CC O w N O O C C d 0 V J l`70 � V AO $OwN�wN��wwfn O ROm�ppO (ppb 0 �i fDNN 5P0)f0 CD- �fXf 2Rq l t01� 0`v�v°iv 0O ai M o fA 6969 w en lypp 1N7 ((Npp ��fDO Oft: 001 F m ID �N7 ((Ory �{1O7yE ISww www WD "1pI a! a m� x(00 Ol7 Lc^ f9�wtHw E9N LL1p p p$p VON WOn M 01 lM R co O cp t1�0 �N7 lY In 17 /7 00 r p (V� lh O fA r C0f7 ��mtf7 MUM.,w 0$ 17^ _• Of9 r U c- -n32828g . C O O 17 01 0 0 0 0 2l0N-:gs1�o vl+o mww �wu zo N o pppo o .- N N � O l�7 l7 p 0 l7 amp W((pp gu E9 (9 X4^9 l90 O.00 o v) w f» fn 0 U)N co o p C EE iam �mmm eoa� 0 CO 0N1 0 N n YOI Qr T ry L ^ pp O x� N 0 17 m69 10 m 2mtr Np W G G LL m -6 E E 2 co Q N m c ~ �m Win' m C7 a v LL L p, to •d, ,^v � O a fg cc b jp !A Q O N O O 000 O O p 00occ fo 69 O f9 [9 ^ N o Q a m D m t = m E E LL ws ams $$ N LL Zb�C71W r C 2� RECEIVED City of Meridian MAY 16 2006 FY200 7 Budget Cita of Maidim Revenue Manual Cay Clerk Office CITY of MERIDIAN ECONOMIC & POPULATION ]FORECAST No matter what forecasting tool is used Meridian is facing continued population and development growth. For revenue forecast purposes we forecast building permits and assume 2.93 residents per house to arrive at population numbers. The mountain region, which includes Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming, had the highest job growth rate of any region in the United States. Idaho's job growth was largely due to the construction boom. During the first quarter of 2005 the construction sector was creating jobs five times faster than during the previous year's first quarter. 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 2005 was a record year for housing starts in Idaho. The number of Idaho starts has been steadily growing since 1998, at a rate of about 13% a year. The forecast prepared by the State Division of Financial Management has 2005 as the housing start peak with succeeding years on the downward side. This is due to increasing interest rates and slowing local population growth. The decrease in housing starts is expected to be gradual because: interest rate changes are expected to be gradual, there does not appear to be an excess housing inventory in the state, and Idaho could benefit from a boom in second homes. Idaho Housing Starts - Idaho Economic Forecast - January 2006 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY 02 FY03 FY04 FY05 Est Est Est Est FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 Canyon County had the highest percentage of construction job growth (26%) and Ada County added the most jobs (2,166). Meridian has definitely been a major player in the construction boom. From 1998 to 2003 Meridians number of housing starts stayed consistently at about 9% of Idaho's housing starts. Beginning in 2004 Meridian's growth as a percentage of total Idaho growth started increasing from 13% in 2004, 15% in 2005, and an estimated 18% in 2006. (Based on Meridian's fiscal year and the State's calendar year so • percentages may vary slightly.) It does not appear likely that Meridian's growth will slow down significantly in the next three years. Meridian Housing Starts as Percent of Idaho Housing Starts Aeu.uuu7o 18.000% 16.000% 14.000% 12.000% 10.000% 8.000% 6.000% 4.000% 2.000% 00000/- 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY 02 FY03 FY04 FY05 Est Est Est Est FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 Estimated Meridian Population Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Est Est Est Est Est FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 2 • C� IDAHO ECONOMIC FORECAST — JANUARY 2006 DIVISION OF FINANICAL MANAGEMENT Each year the State of Idaho Division of Financial Management releases an economic forecast in time for the start of the legislative session. We use the data and analysis in this report when predicting Meridian's economic future. Last year the prediction was that Idaho's economy would continue to grow faster than the national economy. That prediction was accurate — 2005 was a peak year for Idaho. However the prediction was that construction growth would start to decline due to rising interest rates and slower population growth. A year late the housing start forecast has been revised upward although the caution about interest rates and population growth remains exactly the same. Idaho construction employment has actually increased 14 of the last 15 years. From 1991 to 2005 Idaho construction employment has increased about 5.7% per year in contrast to nonfarm employment which has grown 3.2% over the same period. Due to the importance of the construction sector in Idaho's economy there is always speculation about what will happen when it does slow down. No place in Idaho has been listed as one of the "housing bubble" communities. The general consensus is that the construction jobs and housing starts will decline gradually. The nongoods-producing sector accounts for six out of every ten jobs in Idaho, making it a very important job sector. The two largest nongoods producing job components are services and trade. The services category is the largest, with the leading three areas: professional and business services, education and health services, and leisure and hospitality services. The trade sector includes retail and wholesale. Over the forecast period (through 2009) Idaho's total private nongoods producing employment is expected to average 3.3% per year. Services employment should expand at a 3.4% rate and trade employment should increase an average of 3.1 % per year. Employment in Idaho's largest manufacturing sector, electronics is expected to remain flat. Logging and wood products will actually remain stable for a few years due to the strong national housing market. Mining will remain relatively stable but after years of decline it represents a small percentage of the Idaho labor market. Where does Meridian fit in this forecast? It is pretty obvious that housing start growth will remain strong for at least the next two years and continue to outpace the state as a whole. The strong nongoods producing employment sector is particularly relevant to Meridian since a great deal of Meridian's commercial growth is, and is planned to be, in the trade and services sector. This includes retail, health services, and professional. 3 0 REVENUE SOURCES City revenue comes from two principal sources. One, tax revenue that is used to finance services that cannot be provided on a fee per user basis such as public safety, parks, and city administration. Two, fee revenue that results from charging a fee for the measurable use of a service such as consumption fees for water and sewer or connection fees to hook buildings to utility lines. Analysis and projection of revenue is essential to the City's budget development process. Starting in budget year 2002 the City adopted a budget process that identified the cost necessary to maintain the $20,000,000 $18,000,000 $16,000,000 $14,000,000 $12,000,000 $10,000,000 $8,000,000 $6,000,000 $4,000,000 $2,000,000 $0 0 current service and activity levels, referred to as the "base budget". Estimated revenue minus base equals discretionary revenue, the revenue that is available to the City to use for program "enhancements". Budget enhancements are additions to the budget for new programs or services to allow the City to provide that same service level in spite of population growth. The following graphs illustrate changes in the base budget and available discretionary revenue over time in the City's three main funds. General Fund Revenue Distribution FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 Prj Prof FY2006 FY2007 B Base Budget p Discretionary Revenue M Use of Fund Balance a Park Impact Fees ® Grant Revenue Development services Fund Revenue Olstrlbutlon $7,000,000 $6,000,000 $5,000,000 $4,000,000 $3,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $0 FY2004 FY2006 Prj FY2006 Prof FY2007 M Basa Budget C3 Olnarationary Ravanua 0 0 • Enterprise Fund Capital Budget Revenue D`ustril ❑ Discretionary Revenue ❑ Use of Fund Balance ■ Projects Budget — --- $50,000,000 $40,000,000 $30,000,000 $20,000,000„ $10,000,()00 $0 -$10,000,000 -$20, 000, 000 -$30,000,000 FY2005 Proj FY2006 Proj FY2007 Enterprise Fund Operating Budget Revenue Distribution O Discretionary Revenue ■ Base Budget $12,000,000 $10,000,000 $8,000,000 $6,000,000 $4,000,000 $2,000,000 $0 -$2,000,000 FY2005 Proj FY2006 Proj FY07 5 • GENERAL FUND REVENUE The majority of general fund revenue comes from property tax. Other sources of revenue include state revenue sharing and other intergovernmental agreements, cable, electrical, and gas franchise agreements, park impact fees and investment interest. These revenues fund the fire, police, parks, and city administration. The percent of contribution of each type of revenue to the general fund revenue "pie" changes little from year to year. The only "service" that is fully supported by user fee charges is the building department. The building department issues permits and conducts building inspections for both residential and commercial developments. The Planning and Zoning Department also charges fees for services. The Building • Department and the Planning and Zoning Department are accounted for in a fund called Special Services. Revenues generated above expenses are transferred to a capital projects fund to be used for buildings or park development projects. Actual audited general fund revenue for fiscal year FY2005, fund accounting basis was $16,958,223 with the FY2006 revenue projected to be $18,573,000. This does not include Special Services revenue. For FY07 we are projecting revenue of $20,107,900. This amount includes revenues and interest income that are available only for specific uses, such as the interest from the fire truck fund, park impact fees and interest, and capital improvement fund interest. General Fund Revenue $12,000,000 — $10,000,000 $8,000,000 $6,000,000 $4,000,000 $2,000,000 , $0 �e ■ FY03 Actual j t El FY04 Actual I O FY05 Actual I O FY06 Projected G tion 0 INP 10 The external auditors classify income as shown to the right. The auditors combine building fund revenue for purchase of building permits, inspections and planning and zoning filing fees with the general fund revenue. For the purposes of this report they will be shown in the special services fund, where they are budgeted. PROPERTY TAX Property tax is the City of Meridian's largest source of general fund revenue. Property tax is calculated by Ada County based on State of Idaho code. The following is a brief summary of very complicated tax code that has been changed many times since its inception. Idaho code limits the amount of property tax that cities can collect. Starting in the late seventies and continuing through the nineties the Idaho Legislature passed numerous laws in response to taxpayers concern with increases in property tax. Finally in 1995 the Idaho legislature enacted code that limited property tax increases to 3% over the prior year. The first cap became effective in fiscal year 1997. Later code revisions allowed cities to apply the prior years levy rate to new construction and annexation. A quasi tax revolt started in 2005 with citizens protesting rapid increases in property tax bills. The grumbling started in resort type areas where property values had increased substantially. The Idaho legislature convened an interim tax committee who conducted large public hearings all over the state. When the 2006 legislative session finally recessed and the fur stopped flying the only bill impacting property tax to go to the Governor's desk • Taxes Property Tax Penalties & Interest Licenses & Permits Alcohol Beverages Dog Licenses Misc Intergovernmental State Liquor Apportionment Court Revenue States Sales Tax Sharing States Revenue Sharing Rural Fire Grants Miscellaneous Fines & Forfeitures Parking Fines Charges for Services Franchise Fees School Resource Officers Sanitary Service Admin Fee Recreation Programs Golf Course Expansion Fees Park Reservation Fees Park Impact Fees Interest General Fund Park Impact Fund Fire Truck Fund Capital Improvement Fund was to increase the homeowner's exemption from $50,000 to $75,000. The chance of property tax legislation being introduced in the FY07 legislative session is pretty much 100%! Meridian has traditionally had a low levy rate. During the eighties cities had various opportunities to increase the levy rate. Meridian, as a small town with few services, did not take advantage of them. Now, the only way to increase the levy is with a 60% vote. The levy would be increased to .004 for one year. Meridian unsuccessfully attempted to pass levy rate increases in 2001 and 2002. It is not likely that the City will attempt to do so again in the near future. The levy rate is the percentage of each dollar of the market value of a property that will be paid in property tax. Each year the rate "levied" against the taxable value of all properties is recalculated. The ability to include the value of new construction and annexation to arrive at the maximum property tax that can be levied has been helpful for Meridian. One idea tossed around in 2006 legislative session was to disallow using new construction in calculating the allowable 7 budget amount. This would have severe consequences for Meridian. The City needs the new construction tax dollars to try to maintain services levels in spite of rapid growth. New construction value was over $200,000,000 in calendar year 2004 and tax year 2005 was a record breaking $495,000,000. Property is appraised on a calendar year basis and collected over the $600,000,000 $500,000,000 $400,000,000 $300,000,000 $200,000,000 $100,000,000 $1,800,000 $1,600,000 $1,400,000 $1,200,000 $1,000,000 $800,000 $600,000 $400,000 $200,000 $0 $0 0 next fiscal year. Annexation values vary from year to year; new values are not available from the Ada County Appraisers office until June. The tax year 2005 annexation value was $107 million. The following graphs show the value of Meridian's new construction by tax year and the additional dollars the City has been able to collect in property tax as the result of that new construction. New Construction Value by Tax Year Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual 111197 1/1/98 111199 1/1/00 111101 1/1/02 111/03 1/1/04 1/1106 Dollars City Received from New Construction by Fiscal Year FYO1 FY00 FY02 FYO1 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY06 FY06 The likely increase in taxable market value from tax year 2005 to tax year 2006 is going to push Meridian's levy rate below .003 in FY2007. If the taxable value continues to increase at the same rate the levy will drop lower and lower. The following tables illustrate what will happen if taxable value continues to increase by even 20%. A 20% increase is conservative because not only is Meridian growing in the number of homes and businesses but the property values in the area are also going up. Growth Increase Scenario - 20% Increase in total taxable value At the writing of this report taxable market value and new construction numbers are not available from the Ada County Assessors Office. Numbers used in this report are estimates only. 0.0040 0.0035 0.0030 0.0025 0.0020 0.0015 0.0010 0.0005 0.0000 The next two charts show actual levy rates through 2006, estimated levy rates through 2009 and Meridian's growth in total taxable value. City of Meridian - Actual Levy Rates thru FY06 - Estimate FY06 - FY09 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 Est Est Est FY07 FY08 FY09 0 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 Computation of 30/6 budget increase highest of last 3 years budget 1 $8,163,7481 $10,281,1021 $12,156,854 $13,778,723 multiply by 30/6 $8,408,6601 $10,589,5351 $12,521,5601 $14,192,084 New Construction/Annex new construction $494,832,404 $500,000,000 $400,000,000 $350,000,000 annexation $107,332,095 $20,000,000 $20,000,000 $20,000,000 Prior Year levy rate 0.00310952 0.003014075 0.002993244 0.002827149 new construction budget increase $1,197,298 $1,507,038 $1,197,298 $989,502 annexation budget increase $59,865 $60,282 $59,865 $56,543 Maximum Property Tax $10,281,102 $12,156,854 $13,778,723 $15,238,129 Taxable Value $3,384,525,684 $4,061,430,821 $4,873,716,985 $5,848,460,382 Levy Rate 0.003014075 0.002993244 0.002827149 0.002605494 At the writing of this report taxable market value and new construction numbers are not available from the Ada County Assessors Office. Numbers used in this report are estimates only. 0.0040 0.0035 0.0030 0.0025 0.0020 0.0015 0.0010 0.0005 0.0000 The next two charts show actual levy rates through 2006, estimated levy rates through 2009 and Meridian's growth in total taxable value. City of Meridian - Actual Levy Rates thru FY06 - Estimate FY06 - FY09 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 Est Est Est FY07 FY08 FY09 0 0 • Total Taxable Value by Tax (Calendar) Year $8,000,000,000 $7,000,000,000 $6,000,000,000 $5,000,000,000 $4,000,000,000 $3,000,000,000 $2,000,000,000 $1,000,000,000 $0 Pe Pe Pe Pr Pay Pe STATE REVENUE SHARING State revenue sharing is the City's second largest general fund revenue source. The State of Idaho collects a 5% sales tax. 13.75% of the collected sales tax is distributed to cities and counties. 7 3/4 % is distributed into a program called Revenue Sharing — State Distribution, and 6% is distributed into a program called Revenue Sharing — County Distribution. The total revenue sharing pool is split as follows: CITIES — 28.2% COUNTIES — 28.2% BASE & EXCESS — 35.9% SPECIAL DISTRICTS — 7.7% The City portion is divided and distributed based on market value and population. The base is distributed based on the fourth quarter 1999 distribution plus 5%. The excess portion is then divided by population. House Bill 468, passed in the 2000 legislature, created a new distribution formula for that portion of the state sales tax that had been known as the "Business Inventory Replacement". The new revenue sharing combined the old Business Inventory Tax replacement portion with the sales tax distribution known as City -County Revenue Sharing. The state revenue sharing distribution remained the same but the amount equivalent to the Business Inventory Tax is distributed like the state revenue, each city, county, and special district will be provided a new base. The base is the amount received for the fourth quarter of 1999. Additional growth in sales tax will be distributed to cities and counties according to population growth. Sales tax revenue sharing is generally on the table each legislative session. The State passed a temporary sales tax hike 10 two years ago to help get through a budget shortfall. This increase was not shared with municipalities. The increase expired in 2006. The only issue with sales tax in the 2006 legislative session was in reference to reducing property tax and replacing it with a sales tax increase. Most likely this increase in sales tax would not have been shared with the cities. No action was taken on this proposal. The City of Meridian saw revenue sharing growth rates from 14 to 16 percent from 1999 thought 2002. In FY03 that changed, and the amount of revenue received was 2% less then that received in FY02. However revenue rebounded in FY04 with a 14% increase to $1.9 million dollars. In FY05 our sales tax revenue shot up again, to a total of $2,290,985. is At the time of this report the City has received the first quarter's revenue sharing and it is more than for the comparative period last year. Late in the year the Association of Idaho Cities provides an estimate of what the subsequent year revenue will be. However this estimate is too late to use in our revenue manual. In FY06 we will most likely break the $2 million mark again. Sales tax is impacted by the economy and predicting the economy is extremely uncertain at best. Therefore we always make conservative sales tax predictions. State revenue sharing is the general fund's second largest source of revenue so we do not want to over estimate. We are budgeting for $1.8 million in FY07, FY08, and FY09. State Revenue Sharing - Actual and Estimated Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual 2 s Proj Proj Proj 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 06 2007 2008 2009 FRANCHISE FEES The state of Idaho allows cities to enter into franchise agreements with water, gas, electric, cable, and solid waste collection providers. The percentage collected varies from I% to 6% of the provider's gross sales. Natural Gas — The franchise fee is 3% of gross (net of uncollected accounts) 11 • annual sales. The City currently has a 30 -year franchise agreement with Intermountain Gas Company, which expires January 7, 2017. The revenue has generally increased each year with the increase in the number of households. Rate changes and the weather make it difficult to predict the fee which is paid once a year on a calendar year basis. Calendar year 2005 revenue of $555,615 was almost 40% above 2004 revenue due to rate increases caused by the hike in the price of gas. However for FY07 we will budget a flat amount of $500,000 due to inherent uncertainty about energy costs and weather. Cable — The franchise fee is 5% of gross sales. Cable franchise revenue is paid twice a year based on a calendar year. FY2005 actual revenue was $216,500. Based on the first payment received in fiscal year 2006, 2006 revenue should be around $248,000. With changes in the cable company ownership revenue can be difficult to predict so we are going for $260,400 for fiscal year 2007. Electricity — Franchise fee is 1 % of Idaho Power gross sales in Meridian. The City currently has a 25 -year franchise agreement with Idaho Power, which expires November 1, 2023. As with gas, uncertainty over rate changes and weather merits a conservative approach. We are leaving the fiscal 0 year 2007 budget the same as the 2006, at $215,000. With heavy snowfall during 2005/2006 Idaho Power is talking about a 16% rate decrease so it is difficult to predict where our revenue will end up. Solid Waste Disposal — The City has contracted with a private company, Sanitary Services Co to provide garbage pick-up service since April 1, 1997. The City receives 6% of gross sales for an administration fee. The City includes the garbage collection charge on its utility bills and remits to SSC. The SSC administrative fee revenue has been increasing annually along with the growth in the City's number of households and indexed increases in the fee rate. Since September 7, 1999 SSC has provided a recycling program for Meridian residents. SSC sells the recyclable materials and uses the proceeds to pay for the cost of the program. Any remaining proceeds are paid to the City. The City has determined that various organizations can request monies from the fund to pay for playground or other equipment made from recycled materials. Recycle revenue is projected to be around $40,000 although in FY05 it was $47,000. There are expenses associated with the program, from $8,000 to $9,000 per year. This means the net that goes to the recycle committee is about $30,000. 12 • 0 GENERAL FUND FRANCHISE FEES Actual Actual Actual Projected Projected Projected Projected Description FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 Natural Gas $252,656 $369,199 $469,042 $525,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 percent incr 46.13% 27.04% 11.93% -4.76% 0.00% 0.00% $163,005 $181,692 $216,481 $248,000 $260,400 $ 270,800 $ 280,OOOI Incr 11.46% 19.15% 14.56% 5.00% 3.99% 3.40% ty $195,288 $185,692 $228,354 $215,000 $215,000 $215,000 $215 Incr -4.91% 22.97% -5.85% 0.00% 0.00% 0. rServ, $196,674 $229,500 $273,019 $324,000 $372,600 $ 428,490 $ 492,7641 incr 16.69% 18.96% 18.67% 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% Incr $25,000 $29,920 $47,573 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 19.68% 59.00% -15.92% 0.00% 0.00% LIQUOR TAX The City receives a portion of the State's liquor sales surcharge. The State charges a 15% surcharge on liquor sold through the State Liquor Dispensary. The surcharge is distributed to cities, counties, and specific programs. After distributions to alcoholism treatment, public schools, community colleges, the cooperative welfare account, and the state general fund the remainder is distributed 49% to counties and 60% to cities. The basis for distribution is the city's share of statewide liquor sales if the city has a liquor store. Some portion of the overall city share is distributed to cities that do not have a liquor store based on their population. Meridian has two liquor stores. The amount of revenue the City collects varies. The final amount distributed depends on liquor sales and the Dispensary's needs for working capital. FY2006 quarterly receipts are almost 16% higher than FY2005 quarterly receipts. The total amount of revenue is not known until September of each year when the distribution of excess revenue is made. With the growth in population in Idaho as a whole there is no reason to think that the tax collected will not continue to increase. However the projected amount is left at about the same as the FY05 actual at $260,000. Liquor Tax Actual Actual Actual Projected Projected Projected Projected 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 $193,812 $227,943 $258,973 $260,000 $260,000 $260,000 $260,000 17.61% 13.61% 0.40% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 13 PUBLIC SAFETY Court Revenue: The City receives ninety percent (90%) of all fines and forfeitures collected under Idaho Code. The number of infractions and the pay schedule of each is the basis for the City's fine revenue. The penalty for an infraction is set in the payment schedule adopted by the Supreme Court order. Collections have average about $30,000 a month. The City contracts with the City of Boise to handle prosecution services, currently neither Meridian nor Boise has been able to get access to the data controlled by Ada County needed to determine if 100% of total fine revenue is collected or if some of it is lost to delinquency. False Alarm Fees: Penalty fees are assessed to alarm subscribers who transmit an alarm signal accidentally. Penalty fees are assessed after more than two false alarms within the calendar year; these fees vary from $25 through $100 depending how many alarm violation have incurred. Animal Control and Adoption Fees: City code authorizes animal fees and fines to be charged for licensing and impounding domestic animals, and for violations. Fees tend to remain fairly consistent from year to year, so no significant change in revenue is projected. The City also charges fees for pets adopted from the animal shelter. School Resource Officers: Meridian School District #2 has had an agreement with the Meridian Police Department to provide School Resource Officers at designated campuses and special events. The school district has paid approximately 47% of the officer's wages (the cost of benefits is not shared). The agreement is for the school period; which starts in August and ends in June. As the result of school district budget cuts FY05 the City's school district money was virtually eliminated. In FY06 the school district once again contracted with the City for school resource officers. Between the contract and an extra amount spent for security at special events reimbursement to the City should be about $155,000. Rural Fire Contract: The Rural Fire District has an agreement with the Meridian Fire Department to provide service within the fire district boundaries. Both parties review this agreement each year. The Rural Fire District paid 25% of certain of the City's Fire expenses in FY05. The reimbursement for FY06 is at 20%. The expenses have increased as more stations are built and staffed. The Rural Fire District cost sharing percentage will continue to decrease as the City annexes more of the county area into the City limits and more emergency calls are City versus Rural. In fiscal year 2006 the Rural Fire District is reimbursing the City for other operating and personnel expenses for $1,015,000. The exact amount of future annual reimbursement will vary depending on what the fire department budget is and the percent of reimbursement. We are estimating about $1,000,000 for fiscal years 2007 through 2009. 14 PUBLIC SAFETY REVENUE Description Actual FY03 Actual FY04 Actual FY05 Est FY06 Proj FY07 Proj FY08 Proj FY09 Court Revenue $306,407 $286,597 $345,812 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 False Alarm $17,716 $12,475 $11,325 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 School Resource $130,265 $148,721 $73,507 $155,000 $155,000 $155,000 $155,000 Animal Control $34,510 $31,070 $31,498 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 Rural Fre $635,578 $823,326 $811,332 $1,015,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,124,476 $1,302,189 $1,273,474 $1,510,000 $1,495,000 $1,495,000 $1,495,000 PARKS AND RECREATION Parks and Recreation Fees: Specific programs are charged fees, such as the summer recreation programs. The City Council is authorized by Idaho State Code to establish fees for certain services provided. Rates are separately set for each fee. Fee schedules are periodically reviewed and adjusted as necessary to cover related costs. There are two types of recreation programs. Adult sports revenue are fees collected for teams playing in leagues such as the softball league. Recreation program revenue is the revenue collected from a wide variety of classes and activities organized through the City Parks Department. It includes revenue from the summer camp program and special events such as fun runs. With the growth in City population and the addition of recreation staff we are predicting that recreation revenue should show an upward trend. Park Reservations: Fees are charged for the reserved use of City's park shelters, baseball fields, and special events held on City property. Revenue projections are based on the population growth, availability of park shelters - fields, and are impacted by the weather. Facilities Lease: In October 1978 a 25 -year lease agreement was signed between the City of Meridian and Cherry Lane Recreation, Inc. A 25 - year time extension was put in place in 2001, it expires October 3, 2028. The sum of six thousand dollars is paid per year, in advance, as rental of the municipal golf course property. During FY05 the leaseholder was changed to Lake View Meridian Investors and Boise Ranch Golf Course and the name of the course changed to Lake View. In essence the $6,000 lease will be returned to the leaseholder for golf course improvements. The City leases part of Generations Plaza to Smokey Mountain Pizza for $2,400 a year. Donations for Parks: Donations reflected in the budget are various small cash donations the City receives. The larger donations of land, equipment or in-kind services are not reflected in the governmental accounting system except at year-end when the GASB 34 statements are prepared. Therefore in-kind and land 15 • donations are not reflected in the budget. Impact Fees: At the issuance of the building permit the City collects $763.16 per single family residence and $694 per multi -family residential building permit to use for new park development. The money is tracked in a separate account and is used only to develop new parks. C� At the time of the writing of this report the City is in the process of re- evaluating and updating the impact fee calculation. The City is also considering adding public safety impact fees. No details are available. The forecast for impact fees is based on the current rate and the building permit sale forecast. HOWEVER - when the Parks Department makes agreements made with developers to exchange land for Impact fees this lowers the impact fee revenue. At this time we are not aware of any such agreements PARKS AND RECREATION REVENUE Actual Actual FY03 Actual FY04 Actual FY05 Rec Prog $45,964 $47,121 $73,682 Park Resery $11,270 $17,050 $22,396 Donations $4,035 $2,006 $1,659 Park Impact $639,990 $1,250,792 $2,051,678 149,415 LICENSES AND FEES Est FY06 Est FY07 Est FY08 Est FY09 $80,000 $90,000 $100,000 $100,000 $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 $2,000 ,167,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000, The City collects fees for various licenses and permits. These fees are a minor percentage of general fund revenue and do not change significantly from year to year. LICENSE & FEE REVENUE Description Actual Actual Actual Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 Beer $9,050 $9,150 $13,412 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 License Liquor $10,125 $9,050 $11,395 $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 License Wine $6,500 $7,150 $9,473 $9,000 $9,000 $9,000 $9,000 License Mise $2,335 $239 $2,958 Total $28,010 $27,679 $37,238 $27,000 $36,000 $36,000 $36,000 SPECIAL SERVICES FUND BUILDING AND DEVELOPMENT REVENUE Fees collected for building permits, inspections, and planning and development services are general fund revenue. The City accounts for these programs in a separate fund called Special Services. The revenues collected pay all of the expenditures for these activities. Any excess of 16 • 0 revenue over expenditures for a fiscal year is residential and commercial building transferred to a fund set aside for general fund projects. These private inspectors are paid a capital projects. The cost of code enforcement, percentage of the permit fees. Permit fees economic development, street lighting, and are based on the dollar value of the project. other special projects are included in this fund. 90% of the revenues collected in the Special Service Fund are from the Building Department. The Building Department issues and collects money for building permits and performs building inspections. The Building Department contracts with inspectors who conduct building, electrical, plumbing, fire, and gas inspections for $6,000,000 $6,000,000 $4,000,000 $3,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $0 Both Building Department and Planning Department revenue are obviously completely tied to construction activity. When building growth drops off the revenue will drop correspondingly. The following graph shows Building Department revenue compared to Planning Department revenue. Special Services Fund Revenue Actual FY03 Actual FY04 Actual FYO6 Based on the first six months of FY2006 residential building permit sales will be just slightly less then the 3226 sold in FY2006. Based on ground available for development it is not unreasonable to expect that permits sales will stay at about 3000 in FY2007. As discussed above the Idaho Economic forecast views 2005 as the M Building Dept ® Planning Dept boom housing start year with things cooling off a bit in 2006. There are no obvious black clouds on the horizon. There is however uncertainty about inflation and interest rates increasing. At the time of the writing of this report there are predictions for astronomical oil prices by summer. If this happens it is bound to drive up prices and create inflationary pressure. 17 460 400 360 300 250 200 160 100 60 0 0 City of Meridian - Residential Building Permit Sales Oct Nov Deo Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sept Plumbing, gas, and electrical permit projections were based on averages from the last few years. The Building Department does not differentiate between commercial and residential when these permits are sold. Commercial building permit revenue is very hard to project. The fee charged is based on the size of the project. The revenue for one large commercial project may easily exceed the revenue for several smaller projects. Fire Inspections & Permit Fees: Fees the Fire Department charges are to cover '=?�lI�•�I:C • _ :cru �, � :�4/�. ( � FY2003 FY2004 11- FY2005 _ FY2006 the cost of fire sprinkler plan review, site inspections, fire sprinkler compliance, and other fire inspections required outside the normal working hours. Effective October 1, 2003 City Council approved the fire inspection fees to cover the extra cost caused by commercial growth in Meridian. These fire inspection fees are based on size of new multi -family dwellings, new commercial buildings and any commercial remodels. During fiscal year 2005 the collection of all these fees was moved to the Building Department 18 Actual actual actual Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2X08 2009 Permits Residential $934,899 $1,930,315 $3,02+4,465 $3,000,000 $3,00,000 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 Bullding Pemdts 106.47% 56.680/0 -0.81% 0.000/0 0.00% 0.00°/ Plumbing $276,686 $536,673 $739,528 $700,000 $70,000 $700,000 $70,000 Gib $235,142 $413,115 $534,541 $50,000 $500,000 $50,000 $500,000 ©ecbical $212,572 $370,567 $484,051 $500,000 $500,000 $50,000 $500,000 $724,400 $1,320,355 $1,758,121 $1,70,000 $1,70,000 $1,70,000 $1,70,000 %Of change 8227°/6 33.16% -3.31% 0.000/0 0.000/0 0.00°/ Commercial $453,394 $817,672 $726,925 $70,000 $500,000 $500,000 $60,000 %of change 36.236/0 17.696/6 ~3.70% 28.576/0 0.006/o O.W Total Pemdt Rave $2,112,693 $3,866,342 $5,509,510 $5,401%000 $5,200,0DO $5, 0,000 $5,200,000 Fire Inspect Fee $95,336 $168,955 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 License $50,889 $13,690 Mel: X194 $22,367 $22,471 $22,000 $22,000 $22,000 $22,000 Total $2,185,776 $3,999,736 $5,70,936 $5,672,000 $5,472,000 $4472,000 $5,479000 18 PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVENUE Fees for the Planning Department cover the cost of development applications; site inspections, site and landscape plan reviews, certificates of zoning compliance, etc. Effective January 2, 2002 City Council approved new fees and increased PLANNING & ZONING REVENUE fees to cover the costs that were not being recouped through the old fee structure. The fees were increased again in September of 2005. The new fee increase substantially increased fee revenue. ENTERPRISE FUND The City provides water and sewer services on a fee basis. There are two separate fee structures. Water and sewer usage fees are charged for the operation and maintenance of the existing plants. Assessment (connection) fees are charged to build out plant infrastructure and increase the service area. Total enterprise fund audited revenue for FY05 was $23,677,643, significantly more than FY04 revenue of $17,677,522. The increase is attributable to the increase in building permits sold increasing the system connection fee revenue. The revenue from usage fees is used to pay for the day to day operations of the water and sewer system — personnel and operating expense. The assessment fees are used for capital projects, to increase the capacity of utility infrastructure. There is a third component of enterprise revenue, the value of sewer and water lines put in by developers and owned by the City. We do not budget for contributed capital although it is included as revenue in the audited financial statements. Total Enterprise Fund Revenue - Construction and Operating $16,000,000 $14,000,000 $129000,000 $10,000,000 $8,000,000 $6,000,000 $4,000,000 $2,000,000 $0 Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Est 0 Construction 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 o Operating M Actual Actual Actual Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Filing Fees $266,162 $271,325 $356,957 $575,000 $575,000 $575,000 $575,000 % of change 1.94% 31.56% 61.08% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Misc P &Z $107 $149 $403 Total $266,269 $271,474 $357,360 $575,000 $575,000 $575,000 $575,000 ENTERPRISE FUND The City provides water and sewer services on a fee basis. There are two separate fee structures. Water and sewer usage fees are charged for the operation and maintenance of the existing plants. Assessment (connection) fees are charged to build out plant infrastructure and increase the service area. Total enterprise fund audited revenue for FY05 was $23,677,643, significantly more than FY04 revenue of $17,677,522. The increase is attributable to the increase in building permits sold increasing the system connection fee revenue. The revenue from usage fees is used to pay for the day to day operations of the water and sewer system — personnel and operating expense. The assessment fees are used for capital projects, to increase the capacity of utility infrastructure. There is a third component of enterprise revenue, the value of sewer and water lines put in by developers and owned by the City. We do not budget for contributed capital although it is included as revenue in the audited financial statements. Total Enterprise Fund Revenue - Construction and Operating $16,000,000 $14,000,000 $129000,000 $10,000,000 $8,000,000 $6,000,000 $4,000,000 $2,000,000 $0 Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Est 0 Construction 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 o Operating M • 0 FY05 Enterprise Operations Revenue - $9,557,078 FY05 Enterprise Construction Revenue - $14,120,565 Income Develop r Reimb rse $2,3#,824 Sewer System UTILITY USAGE FEES The number of utility accounts continues to grow steadily as construction proceeds at a rapid pace. The number of utility Syste $4,007, accounts increased 17% from the end of fiscal year 2004 to the end of fiscal year 2005. Changes in the structure for water rff 0 0 and sewer and usage fees were implemented in FY2002. WATER The rate consists of two components: Base (minimum charge) — Administrative costs that stay fixed regardless of the level of operation. For example, billing and accounting services. Even if the account has zero usage this rate will be charged. Volume Charge — Covers the direct costs of providing the service, costs tend to fluctuate with the quantity of output. Such costs include maintenance and repairs, depreciation of assets and plant labor. The fee structure is as follows: The base fee is $3.59 to be updated to $3.74 during FY06 The volume charge (cost per 1000 gallons) is $1.01 to be updated to 1.05 during FY06. After the rate structure realignment in FY02 water sales dropped and sewer sales increased. Water sales were down by 4% in FY03 and increased 5% respectively in FY04 and FY05. Sewer sales increased 22% in FY03, 10% in FY04, and 5% in FY05. To project water and sewer sales we look at July 1 of FY06 Public Works will be increasing fees by 4%. We are showing revenue increasing about 11 % from FY06 to FY07. This is based on actual revenue for the first six months of FY06 plus anticipated growth in accounts and additional fee increases. the expected increased in accounts. From With the growth in operations cost and FY03 to FY04 gallons pumped did not administrative overhead the current fee change substantially and increased slightly structure is not adequate to cover base from FY04 to FY05 so there are factors in expenses and new programs. During FY06 addition to account increase that determine it is likely that the fee structure will be water sales. Variables include weather, changed or at the least the current fees will length of irrigation season, conservation, be increased beyond the already approved and water waste. 4%. SEWER The fee structure is as follows: The base fee is $4.20 to be updated to $4.37 during FY06. Even if the account has zero usage this rate will be charged. The volume charge (cost per 1000 gallons) is $2.87 to be updated during FY06 to $2.97. 21 • The philosophy and methodology for the monthly user sewer charge is the same as the water charge with one change. The system cannot separate water used outside the house from water used inside the house. Water used inside the house goes into the sewer system. So, to calculate the sewer rate for each user the $12,000,000 $10,000,000 $8,000,000 $6,000,000 $4,000,000 $2,000,000 $0 0 City averages the gallons used by the homeowner during the four winter months December, January, February, and March. This is based on the assumption that no water is used outside the house during those months. This averaged rate is recalculated on an annual basis. Total Utility Usage Revenue Compared to Number of Water Accounts :7 Total Utility Sales 4 Water Accounts Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Est Eat Est Est Est 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 ASSESSMENT FEES Fees were updated in FY06 to: • Wastewater Treatment - $835 Collection City Projects - $327 Collection Contributed - $1,209 Total - $2,371 • Water Distribution and Supply City Projects - $449 Distribution Contributed - $1,080 Total - $1,529 40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 When a building permit is issued a utility homeowner is assessed $2,371 for a sewer connection fee is charged. This revenue is connection and $1,529 for a water called assessment revenue. Assessment connection. The current rates became fees are calculated and structured to recover effective March 2006. the costs of replacing capacity in the systems taken up by the new connections. Part of the fee is intended to assess new When a new residential property connects to the City Sewer and Water systems the connections to the system their proportionate share of the capital costs of the existing treatment plant. The other part 22 of the fee is to expand or extend the system and in the case of a certain size water and sewer trunk extensions provide funds for reimbursements in lieu of the traditional Latecomer Agreements. 11 a business might be assessed 10 ERU's, which means that they will use an amount of water equivalent to the amount that 10 residents would use. Starting in FY2004 the number of building The assessment is collected at the time the permits sold has skyrocketed. FY05 building permit is issued. For commercial residential building permits sold exceeded assessments Public Works makes a 3,200, a record for the City. When determination of the amount they think a building permits increase the assessment residence will use, referred to as " ERU" an revenue increases. "equivalent residential unit". For example System Connection Fees and # of Residential Building Permits $14,000,000 $12,000,000 $10,000,000 $6,000,000 $6,000,000 $4,000,000 $2,000,000 $0 40 To project residential sewer and water assessment revenue we are using 3,000 for FY07 through FY09 and 2,800 for FYI 0. Commercial assessments are difficult to PUBLIC WORKS REVIEW FEES Effective March 1, 2002 City Council approved the New Fee Schedule for the Public Works Department. Resolution 02- 374 established fees for services related to, but not to exceed, the actual cost of providing said services. Services include the Public Works review of development application; inspections, site plans and INTEREST INCOME All of the City of Meridian's funds have cash and investment balances that generate 3,600 3,000 2, 600 2,000 1,600 1,000 600 m 0 01—Connection Revenue -*--Water Accounts project since the fee varies greatly depending on the type and size of the project. development plan reviews, Water, Sewer and Drainage System inspections. In the last two years Public Works has collected around $500,000 in review fees. We are using $500,000 for fiscal years FY07 through FY 10. interest. The City's investment vehicles are in accordance with the Idaho code. The City 23 C� retains an investment advisor who, for an annual fee of a quarter of a percent of the dollar amount invested, maintains a portfolio of certificates of deposit, and government bonds of varying maturities. The City also invests in the State of Idaho investment pool. The pool behaves somewhat like a money market account; it is highly liquid with no restrictions on deposits or withdrawals. Due to the lack of restrictions the interest rate is generally low. The State of Idaho allows local governments to invest in its diversified bond fund. The State bond fund is currently the City's highest yielding investment. Fees for participating in the bond fund are minimal. This fund is considered to be a longer term investment and withdrawals and deposits are limited. The City usually maintains the minimum amount of cash possible for operations in the checking account, transferring receipts to interest bearing accounts whenever possible. However at the time of the writing of the report the checking account interest rate is so high we are maintaining a large cash balance. Predicting interest rates requires a crystal ball to predict what will happen with inflation. The Federal Reserve chairman has the job of fighting inflation. One of the differences between the new chairman Ben Bernanke and Alan Greenspan are their respective philosophies on controlling inflation. Greenspan did not believe in setting inflation target rates. His position was that • setting a rate would hamper the government's ability to respond during a crisis. Bernanke on the other hand feels that target inflation rates of between 1% and 2% increase the Feds ability to control price stability. Inflation is a target of discussion due to the speculation that high energy costs will push the prices of everything higher. The big question concerns inflation. When inflation increases interest rates increase as buyers of government bonds demand higher interest rates since they are losing purchasing power. Other predictions call for interest rates to increase very gradually. Finally there are those that say predicting interest rates are impossible! The Idaho Division of Financial Management forecasts interest rates increasing gradually as illustrated by the graph below. The Federal Funds rate is the interest rate at which a depository institution lends overnight funds to another depository institution. This rate can be influenced by the Federal Reserve through open market operations that increase or decrease member banks reserves and their ability to lend and borrow. The rate is closely watched because it signals the Feds intentions regarding monetary policy and interest rates. The ten year U.S. Government 5 year notes are the most frequently quoted when discussing the performance of the US government bond market and is used to convey the markets take on longer term macroeconomic expectations. It is also the benchmark for setting mortgage interest rates. 24 Since the City can only invest in low risk, hence low rate investments, our yield will obviously not increase as quickly as the prime rate. We also have investments in the portfolio that will have to mature before they can be rolled over to take advantage of the new interest rates. Additionally many of the bonds in the portfolio are purchased at a premium to buy a higher interest rate. The premium must be amortized and as such reduces interest. At the end of March 2006 our total portfolio was averaging just over 4%. It is realistic to expect that by fiscal year 2007 interest rates may be approaching 5%. However for the purposes of budgeting we are going to use 4.25%. By necessity we keep a certain amount of money in liquid low yielding investments to meet operating and construction needs. The tables below show the historical and projected fund balances and interest income. The general fund includes the fire truck fund. The enterprise fund includes the assessment reimbursement fund. CIP stands for capital improvement fund. The balance in the special service fund is transferred to the capital improvement fund at the end of each fiscal year. Half of the City Hall is budgeted out of the capital improvement fund which will result in it dropping significantly by the end of FY07. The general fund year-end balance should remain the same throughout FY07, perhaps increasing slightly if sale tax or other revenue exceeds the budgeted amount. The park impact fund has been growing rapidly however at the writing of this report almost the entire existing fund balance has been budgeted. If those projects are actually budgeted the fund balance obviously will significantly decrease. The enterprise fund balance, like the general fund balance, has increased steadily. However the enterprise fund currently has over 35 million dollars worth of capital projects budgeted with a fund balance of about $44 million. If about a third are completed annually that would reduce the fund balance by 12 million over the next three years. However, if the construction boom continues assessment revenue (fees for connecting new buildings to the utility system) will cover construction costs. The building of the City Hall however will not be recovered through assessment fees. Usage fees need to be adjusted to cover operating expenses, including the City hall, to prevent assessment fees covering operating expenses as well as construction. 25 • 0 At the time of the writing of this report the City is evaluating changing the amount charged for park impact fees as well as implementing public safety impact fees. Such changes could alter projected fund $g 1 An 17R $400,6' $1,928,723 $1,117,912 $6,234,318 balances but the information is not yet available. The next chart shows the City's investments by type as of March 31, 2006, the portfolio composition stays consistent over time. INTEREST BEARING ACCOUNTS PORTFOLIO DISTRIBUTION $20,959,114 11 Government Bonds ❑ Corporate Bonds O Certificates of Deposit * Advisor Money Market ■ Checldng $1,695,718 O Money Market Wells Fargo Bond Reserve $18,707,275 O Idaho State Pool w 9 GENERAL FUND C� CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTFUND Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Budgeted Projected Projected Projected Projected Revenues FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 Taxes 6,091,150 7,151,597 8,567,301 10,258,311 10,300,000 12,156,900 13,778,700 15,238,100 Licenses and Permits 0 95,336 168,955 150,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 Alcoholic licenses 25,675 25,350 37,006 27,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 Fire Inspection 22,000 22,000 43,894 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 Dog License/Adoption 34,510 31,070 31,498 32,100 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 Miscellaneous 3,113 2,090 1,095 0 0 0 0 0 Total licenses -permits 63,298 58,510 113,493 59,100 66,000 66,000 66,000 66,000 Intergovernmental 301 516 874 0 0 0 0 State liquor apport. 193,812 227,943 258,973 220,000 260,000 260,000 260,000 260,000 State revenue sharing 1,681,372 1,922,055 2,290,985 1,800,000 2,300,000 1,800,000 1,800,000 1,800,000 Rural Fire 635,578 823,326 811,332 1,015,000 1,015,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 Grants 14,940 102,218 555,910 24,012 0 0 0 0 Total intergovernmental 2,525,702 3,075,542 3,917,201 3,059,012 3,575,000 3,060,000 3,060,000 3,060,000 Fines and forfeitures CourtRevenue 306,407 286,597 345,812 275,500 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 Other Total Fines and Forfeits 306,407 286,597 345,812 275,500 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 Charges for Service Franchise Fees 610,892 736,722 913,877 790,000 988,000 975,400 985,800 995,000 School Resource OffIcr 130,265 148,721 73,507 140,000 155,000 155,000 155,000 90,000 Sanitary Service Admin 226,594 269,317 320,664 326,000 364,000 412,600 468,500 532,800 False Alarm Fees 0 12,477 11,325 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 Recreation programs 45,964 47,121 73,682 60,000 80,000 90,000 100,000 100,000 Parts Reservations 11,270 17,050 22,396 20,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 Park Impact Fees 639,990 1,250,792 2,051,678 1,200,600 2,050,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 Total charges for services 1,664,975 2,482,200 3,467,130 2,546,600 3,682,000 3,678,000 3,754,300 3,762,800 Interest Restricted 41,292 63,402 77,273 63,800 130,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 Interest Unrestricted 306,399 305,294 337,624 376,000 520,000 672,000 600,000 600,000 Miscellaneous Rent 12,940 11,546 10,348 8,000 Donations 4,035 2,184 97,080 63,140 Miscellaneous 12,588 9,285 24,980 2,000 Total Miscellaneous 29,563 23,015 132,389 73,140 0 0 0 0 TOTAL REVENUE 11,028,735 13, 18,573,000 2U,UI7,suu 21,544,00U 23,111,9001 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTFUND Actual Actual Actual Budgeted Projected Projected Projected Projected Revenues FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2008 Interest 121,673 107,000 169,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 SPECIAL SERVICES FUND 27 Actual Actual Actual Budgeted Projected Projected Projected Projected Revenues FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2004 FY 2004 Licenses and Permits 2,163,582 3,882,032 5,509,510 3,858,793 5,400,000 5,200,000 5,200,000 5,200,000 Fire inspection Fees 0 95,336 168,955 150,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 Charges for Service Ada County Impact Fee 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 Filing Fees 266,162 271,325 356,957 300,000 575,000 575,000 575,000 575,000 Total charges for services 288,162 293,325 378,957 322,000 597,000 597,000 597,000 597,000 Interest 12,492 24,977 63,902 50,000 91,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 Miscellaneous 301 516 874 0 0 0 0 TOTAL REVENUE 27 ENTERPRISE FUND Revenues rges for services: Water revenues Sewer revenues Sale of meters Latecomers Miscellaneous Interest Income Water connections Sewer connections TOTAL REVENUE: Operating Revenue Capital Projects Reven Actual Actual Actual Budgeted Projected Projected Projected Projected FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 2,985,058 3,246,597 3,275,095 4,723,359 3,700,000 4,100,000 4,300,000 4,515,000 4,022,917 4,442,941 4,699,816 6,581,341 4,903,300 5,354,440 5,622,136 5,903,248 274,105 455,505 830,000 862,000 862,000 862,000 860,000 860,000 392,628 947,804 2,350,824 0 0 0 0 0 487,192 598,952 752,168 400,000 750,000 700,000 700,000 700,000 1,096,161 1,134,739 1,239,371 1,100,000 1,750,000 1,755,000 1,555,000 1,500,000 1,381,561 2,576,677 4,007,089 3,300,898 5,281,600 5,187,000 5,087,000 5,087,000 2,693,958 4,332,476 6,523,281 7,064,902 7,723,200 7,716,000 7,616,000 7,616,000 13,333,580 17,735,691 23,677,643 24,032,500 24,970,100 25,674,440 25,740,136 26,181,248 7,769,272 8,743,995 9,557,079 12,566,700 10,215,300 11,600,855 11,482,136 11,978,248 5,564,309 8,991,696 14,120,565 11,465,800 14,754,800 14,073,585 14,268,000 14,203,000 28 • 0 May 12, 2006 Department Reports MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 16, 2006 APPLICANT Mayor's Office ITEM NO. 6-B-1 REQUEST Request for Approval to Negotiate Contract for Construction Manager and Architect AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: Contacted: Emailed: COMMENTS Arr Date: Phone: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. 0 0 Final Rankings for Interviewed Architects & Construction Managers for Meridian City Hall Project Eight evaluators, performing final ranking of interviewees from 1 to 3 based on all information provided in submittals and interviews. 0 Submittal Rating Summary for Architects & Construction Managers for Meridian City Hall Nine evaluators using criteria listed on RFQ TOTAL 824 816 814 Beniton Construction Co. 1 767 Heery International 760 737 692 652 628 550 Ewing Company Layton Construction Co. CSDI Company JW Construction Knothe-Zior-Casali Construction TOTAL 818 801 798 Cole + Poe Architects 1 766 Trout Architects 1 737 BRS Architects 1 731 Design West Architects 1 717 May 12, 2006 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 16, 2006 APPLICANT Mayor's Office Department Reports ITEM NO. b -B -Z 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 meet[4�all b pme properly 4 City of an. M 0 • May 12, 2006 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 16, 2006 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 8 REQUEST Report on Appeal Hearing for Order to Remove Junk Vehicle by Steven Cady with Meridian Cherry Lane Mobile Home Park: AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT. MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: Contacted: Emailed: COMMENTS See Previous Item Packet / Minutes Date: Phone: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. • May 12, 2006 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 16, 2006 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 9 REQUEST Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Order to Remove Junk Vehicles by Steven Cady with meridian Cherry Lane Mobile Home Park AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY See attached Findings 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. 0 0 Sharon Smith From: Will Berg Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 8:48 AM To: Tara Green; Sharon Smith Subject: FW: 314 w cherry Attachments: Cady.Appeal.FFCL.doc From: Bill Nary Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 5:23 PM To: Joe Venneman; Will Berg Cc: Greg Kortan; Jennifer L. Stoy Subject: RE: 314 w cherry Attached are the findings for tomorrow night. )1)x1 I " <z:: -k Citi, Nliorney/HR I)iI—k-lot Q1, olAfelidly] 703 YVlailt Street VAvichan, ID 84642 208.898.5506 or 208.898-5503 (office) 208.884.8723 (fax) From: Joe Venneman Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 3:52 PM To: Bill Nary; Will Berg Cc: Greg Kortan; Jennifer L. Stoy Subject: FW: 314 w cherry Importance: High Page 1 of 2 �E� MAY 16 200153 City of Meridian City Clerk Office Bill, Per your request, I am sending this email to confirm that Mr. Steven Cady has now complied with the remaining code issues at 314 W. Cherry Lane. Specifically, the pickup truck parked next to the U -Haul has been removed, and the U -Haul now had current license plates. With this latest compliance I am now closing this file. Thanks to Jennifer for taking the pictures for me. If we could receive a copy of the Resolution which is to be given tomorrow night that would be appreciated. If you have any questions prior to Council's meeting please let me know. Joe Venneman Code Enforcement Officer Meridian Police Department 846-7386 (office) 440-8774 (cell) From: Jennifer L. Stoy 5/16/2006 . • Page 2 of 2 Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 11:57 AM To: Joe Venneman Subject: 314 w cherry Joe, these are all of the current vehicles and they all have good tags. Jen 5/16/2006 • CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER • In the Matter of. an Appeal by Steven P. Cady, representing as the owner of Cherry Lane Mobile Home Park For the City Council Hearing Date of: May 2, 2006 and May 9, 2006 A. Findings of Fact 1. That pursuant to Meridian City Code Title 4, Chapter 4, Section 4: It shall be unlawful for any person to maintain, store, park or keep a junk vehicle, vehicles or parts thereof or junk personal property on real property, public or private, in the City, except as authorized in this Chapter. 2. That pursuant to Meridian City Code Title 4, Chapter 4, Section 6: Abandoned vehicles, stolen vehicles, junk vehicles, and junk personal property are hereby declared to be a public nuisance 3. That the City of Meridian Police Department Code Enforcement Division sent notice to the titled owner Agnes Hoff on April 6, 2006 to remove junk vehicles and junk property from the location of the Cherry Lane Mobile Home Park located at 424 W. Cherry Lane. 4. That Steven P. Cady appeared as the owner of said Cherry Lane Mobile Home Park and provided the City with a Purchase and Sale Agreement that indicated his ownership interest. 5. That Steven P. Cady filed a Notice of Appeal as required by Meridian City Code within the required time period, 6. That the Meridian City Council held a hearing on May 2, 2006 and took evidence and testimony from Joe Venneman, Meridian City Code Enforcement officer, Steven P. Cady, appellant, and also received photographic evidence of the site and the accumulated property. 7. After said the hearing the Meridian City Council did move to continue the matter for one week to May 9, 2006 to allow the appellant to complete the removal of junk property and to allow for the removal or registration of working vehicles. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER STEVE CADY / MERIDIAN CHERRY LANE MOBILE HOME PARK - PAGE 1 of 3 • 8. That on May 9, 2006 the appellant returned and indicated that only two remaining items needed to be removed for the property to be in compliance with the Meridian City Code. B. Conclusions of Law 1. The City of Meridian has authority from Idaho Code § 50-302 to create laws and ordinances to maintain peace and promote the general welfare of the City with corresponding authority to enforce said laws and ordinances. 2. The Meridian City Council takes judicial notice of its own ordinances, specifically Title 4, Chapter of the Meridian City Code as related to ABANDONED OR INOPERABLE VEHICLES OR PERSONAL PROPERTY. 3. That City of Meridian Code Enforcement Division is an authorized enforcement entity of the City for the enforcement of this ordinance. 4. That reasonable grounds did exist to take enforcement action in regards to the accumulation of junk vehicles and junk personal property as defined by Meridian City Code. 5. That proper notice was sent to the property owner as required by Ordinance. 6. That the property did timely request an appeal hearing as allowed by the ordinance. 7. That a hearing was held with adequate notice and for opportunity for the City and the appellant to be heard. C. Decision and Order Pursuant to the City Council's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 4-4-9 and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: 1. The appellant property owner, Steven Cady, is ordered to remove all junk vehicles and junk property as defined by the Meridian City Code from the property of the Cherry Lane Mobile Home Park located atW. Cherry Lane in the City of Meridian, Idaho. P* 2. That the owner of Cherry Lane Mobile Home Park is on notice that the order of the City Council is on-going and the property must remain free and clear from the accumulation of junk vehicles and junk personal property as defined by the Meridian City Ordinance. 3. That pursuant to Meridian City Code § 4-4-9 this Order of the City Council is final and conclusive. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER STEVE CADY / MERIDIAN CHERRY LANE MOBILE HOME PARK - PAGE 2 of 3 i • By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the �� day of 2006. COUNCIL MEMBER SHAUN WARDLE VOTED__Pew COUNCIL MEMBER JOE BORTON VOTED COUNCIL MEMBER CHARLIE ROUNTREE VOTED— COUNCIL MEMBER KEITH BIRD VOTED MAYOR TAMMY de WEERD VOTED (TIE BREAKER) Mayors �di,Weerd Attest: y2.s William G. Berg, Jr., Ci Cler Copy served upon Appellant, Code Enforcettorney By: Sho-qtr&'UVL Dated: 5— 1 �% City Clerk CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER STEVE CADY / MERIDIAN CHERRY LANE MOBILE HOME PARK - PAGE 3 of 3 • May 12, 2006 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 16, 2006 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 10 REQUEST Request for a Waiver of the First Year Lease Payment Obligation Pursuant to the Lease Agreement for Lakeview Meridian Golf Club: AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: See affached CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: Contacted: Date: Phone: _ Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. 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. May 1, 2006 Mayor Tammy de Weerd Council President Shaun Wardle Meridian City Council City of Meridian Meridian, Idaho 83642 Dear Mayor de Weerd and Council President Wardle, MAY - s 20M City ®f Meridian Citty Clads Office Thank you for allowing us to present a progress update on the Lakeview Meridian Golf Club. As you certainly gathered from the information, we are very excited about the progress we have made in our first year of operation. We appreciate your confidence and look forward to a mutually beneficial long term relationship with the City of Meridian. Needless to say, we have made substantial capital improvements this year and although the pace of future upgrades is likely to be a bit less aggressive, much more is coming. Accordingly, we are formally requesting a waiver of the first year lease payment obligation pursuant to the lease agreement. Again, thank you for your support and. we hope that you areas pleased as we . are with our progress on this crown jewel of Meridian. We look forward.to having you visit the course facility for a walk through and will look to schedule this in the next several weeks. Very truly yours, Dick Davis' • , •. *a ane P.O. Box 2020 ® Boise, Idaho 83701 Ph. (208) 429-9596 ® Facsimile (208) 429-9597 May 12, 2006 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 16, 2006 APPLICANT ITEM NO. REQUEST Approve Agreement with R.R. Davis Properties, Inc. Lakeview Meridian Investors, LLC and Idaho Independent Bank to Grant Security Interest in Lease for Lakeview Golf Course 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: 00nn U� 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. FOLEY FREEMAN BORTON, PLLC ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW P.O. BOX 10 MAY 15 2006 77 EAST IDAHO City of Meridian HERITAGE BLDG., SUITE 100 fity Clerk Office MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 HOWARD R. FOLEY TELEPHONE: (208) 888-9111 MARK S. FREEMAN FACSIMILE: (208) 888-5130 JOSEPH W. BORTON WEB SITE: Amw foley, freeman.com PAUL J. FITZER JOSHUA J. SEARS May 12, 2006 VIA HAND DELIVERY William L.M. Nary Meridian City Attorney's Office Re: Agreement between City of Meridian, R.R. Davis Properties, Inc., Lakeview Meridian Investors, LLC, and Idaho Independent Bank Dear Bill: Enclosed please find an original Agreement which is on the agenda for the May 16, 2006 City Council meeting. Please don't hesitate to contact Mr. Freeman should you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, FOLEYYREEMAN BORTON, PLLC aylor sistant Enclosure 0 AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made as of the day of May, 2006, by and between the City of Meridian, Idaho, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City"); R.R. Davis Properties, Inc., an Idaho corporation, and Lakeview Meridian Investors, LLC, an Idaho limited liability company (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Lessee"); and Idaho Independent Bank, a banking corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Idaho (hereinafter referred to as "Bank"). RECITALS: A. City and Lessee previously entered into an AMENDED LEASE AGREEMENT FOR THE PROVISION OF GOLF COURSE OPERATIONS AT CITY OF MERIDIAN'S MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE dated May 17, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the "Lease"). B. Lessee has requested a loan and other financial accommodations from Bank to which the Bank is willing to provide to Lessee upon certain conditions, which conditions include the Lessee's grant of a security interest in Lessee's leasehold interest in the Lease by the execution of a Leasehold Deed of Trust in the form as attached hereto as Exhibit "A" which is incorporated by this reference (hereinafter "Deed of Trust"). C. Lessee intends to use the funds received from Bank's loan to pay for improvements upon the real property which is subject to the Lease. D. Section 9, Paragraph F, of the Lease provides in part that "Lessee shall not, without the prior written consent of the City assign, hypothecate, or mortgage this Agreement, or sublease or sublicense any portion of the premises, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld". E. City acknowledges that it will benefit from the improvements constructed or to be constructed upon the City's real property subject to the Lease as a result of Bank's loan to Lessee. NOW THEREFORE, In consideration of the covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. Incorporation of Recitals. The parties agree that the foregoing Recitals are contractual and binding and are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. AGREEMENT Page 1 of 8 2. Consent to Lessee's Grant of Security. City hereby agrees and consents to Lessee's grant of a security interest in Lessee's leasehold interest in the Lease to Bank by way of Lessee's execution of the Deed of Trust as security for Bank's loan to Lessee. 3. City to Provide Notice of Modification to Lease. During the entire term of the Deed of Trust, City agrees that no modification of the Lease shall occur without City first providing Bank, in writing, at least ninety (90) days prior to the effective date of such modification, of City's intent to modify the Lease. 4. City to Provide Notice of Lessee's Default. In the event of any default by Lessee under the terms of the Lease, City agrees to notify Bank of such default in writing at lease thirty (30) days prior to City taking any action to enforce any of City's rights under the Lease. During such above-described thirty -day notice period, Bank shall have the option to cure the default or to take such other action as may be necessary to protect the Bank's security interest in the Lease resulting from the Deed of Trust or any other agreement between Bank and Lessee. 5. Purchase Option to City in Event of Foreclosure. In the event Bank shall foreclose Lessee's interest in the Lease pursuant to the terms of the Deed of Trust, Bank agrees that City shall have the exclusive first right to purchase Bank's interest in the Lease (including all other collateral pledged by Lessee as security for Bank's loan) by tendering to Bank an amount equal to the total amount then owing to Bank by Lessee, together with all costs, expenses, attorney's fees, and other fees of the Bank. In the event City shall exercise its option as provided herein, the City shall deliver the option price in cash or certified funds to Bank no later than 3:00 p.m., Mountain Standard time, at least one (1) business day prior to the date of any scheduled foreclosure sale. In the event Bank shall commence foreclosure under the Deed of Trust, the Bank shall provide City with written notice the foreclosure and the date thereof. City may file a request for a copy of a notice of default or notice of sale, pursuant to Idaho Code § 45-1511, and the Bank shall provide City with the necessary information concerning the recording of the Deed of Trust to enable City to file such a request. In the event of a foreclosure by Bank, Bank shall also cause City to receive notice in the manner provided for in Idaho Code § 45-1505 at the address herein provided even in the event City shall fail to record a request for notice. 6. Lessee's Use of Funds Received from Bank. Lessee represents to City that funds received from any loan from Bank which is secured by the Deed of Trust will be used exclusively to pay for the construction, renovation, repair or replacement of improvements upon the real property which is subject to the Lease. 7. General Provisions. AGREEMENT Page 2 of 8 7.1 Litigation Between the Parties. In the event of any litigation between the parties concerning this Agreement, except for an agreed declaratory judgment action sought to clarify the responsibility and/or authority of the parties hereunder, the unsuccessful party in such litigation shall fully reimburse the prevailing party for all reasonable costs and expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees, incurred in such litigation. 7.2 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Idaho. 7.3 Titles and Headings. Titles and headings to articles, sections, or paragraphs of this Agreement are inserted for convenience of reference and are not intended to affect the interpretation or construction of this Agreement. 7.4 Notices. Any notice under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be treated as duly delivered if the same is personally delivered to the other party or deposited in the United States Mail, certified, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, and properly addressed as follows: CITY: City of Meridian Attn: City Clerk 33 E. Idaho Meridian, Idaho 83642 LESSEE: Lakeview Meridian Investors, LLC R.R. Davis Properties, Inc. 4200 W. Talamore Meridian, Idaho 83642 BANK: Idaho Independent Bank 113 E. Idaho Meridian, Idaho 83642 7.5 Authority of the Parties. Each party to this Agreement represents and warrants that the execution, delivery, and performance of this Agreement has been duly authorized by all necessary action of such party and is a valid and binding obligation upon the persons or entity signing this Agreement. 7.6 No Assignment. No party may assign this agreement or any interest therein. 7.7 Representation. This Agreement was drafted by the attorney for Bank as matter of convenience only and shall not be construed for or against any party on that account. 7.8 Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement among the parties to it and supersedes any prior understanding or agreement. AGREEMENT Page 3 of 8 7.9 Execution in Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and all of which shall constitute the same instrument. 7.10 Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and shall be binding upon the parties hereto and their respective successors and, if permitted, assigns. 7.11 Recordation of Agreement. City or Bank shall have the right to record this Agreement or a memorandum thereof, provided they provide a copy of such recording to the remaining parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement on the dates set forth below. CITY: CITY OF MERIDIAN in MAYOR TAMMY deWEERD Dated: Attest: WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk LESSEE: R.R. DAVIS PROPERTIES, INC. 0 Richard R. Davis, President Dated: AGREEMENT Page 4 of 8 i 0 LAKEVIEW MERIDIAN INVESTORS, LLC By: OAAS LANEY, LLC, a Member T. Eric Oaas, Manager Dated: By: LANEYLAND, L.P., a Member By: Steven Laney, General Partner Dated: By: R.R. DAVIS PROPERTIES, INC., a Member By: Richard R. Davis, President Dated: BANK: IDAHO INDEPENDENT BANK By: GERALD W. MATTISON Dated: STATE OF IDAHO ) ) ss. County of Ada ) On the day of May, 2006, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared Tammy DeWeerd and William G. Berg, Jr., known or identified to me to be the Mayor and Clerk, respectively, of the City of Meridian, who executed the within and foregoing instrument on behalf of said City, and acknowledged to me that such City executed the same. AGREEMENT Page 5 of 8 • 0 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. Notary Public for Idaho Residing at , Idaho My Commission Expires: STATE OF IDAHO ) ) ss. County of Ada ) On the day of May, 2006, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared Richard R. Davis, known or identified to me to be the President of R.R. Davis Properties, Inc., the person who executed the within and foregoing instrument on behalf of said corporation, and acknowledged to me that such corporation executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. Notary Public for Idaho Residing at , Idaho My Commission Expires: STATE OF IDAHO ) ) ss. County of Ada ) On the day of May, 2006, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared T. Eric Oaas, known or identified to me to be the Manager of Oaas Laney, LLC, the person who executed the within and foregoing instrument on behalf of said limited liability company, and acknowledged to me that such limited liability company executed the same as a Member of Lakeview Meridian Investors, LLC. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. Notary Public for Idaho Residing at , Idaho My Commission Expires: AGREEMENT Page 6 of 8 STATE OF IDAHO ) ) ss. County of Ada ) On the day of May, 2006, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared Steven Laney, known or identified to me to be the General Partner of Laneyland, L.P., the person who executed the within and foregoing instrument on behalf of said limited partnership, and acknowledged to me that such limited partnership executed the same as a Member of Lakeview Meridian Investors, LLC. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. Notary Public for Idaho Residing at , Idaho My Commission Expires: STATE OF IDAHO ) ) ss. County of Ada ) On the day of May, 2006, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared Richard R. Davis, known or identified to me to be the President of R.R. Davis Properties, Inc., the person who executed the within and foregoing instrument on behalf of said corporation, and acknowledged to me that such corporation executed the same as a Member of Lakeview Meridian Investors, LLC. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. Notary Public for Idaho Residing at , Idaho My Commission Expires: STATE OF IDAHO ) ) ss. County of Ada ) On the day of May, 2006, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared Gerry W. Mattison, known or identified to me to be the Vice President of Idaho Independent Bank, the person who executed the within AGREEMENT Page 7 of 8 and foregoing instrument on behalf of said corporation, and acknowledged to me that such corporation executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. Notary Public for Idaho Residing at , Idaho My Commission Expires: AGREEMENT Page 8 of 8 May 12, 2006 FP 06-020 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 16, 2006 APPLICANT Brighton Development, Inc. ITEM NO. 12 REQUEST Request for Final Plat approval for 12 single-family residential building lots and 1 common lot on 5.47 acres in an R-8 zone for Quenzer Commons Subdivision No. 10 — west of N. Locust Grove Road and north of E. Ustick Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See attached Staff Comments CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: No comment CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: No Comment 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. • 0 BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF BRIGHTON DEVELOPMENT, INC., FOR FINAL PLAT APPROVAL OF 12 SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING LOTS AND 1 COMMON LOT ON 5.47 ACRES IN AN R-8 ZONE LOCATED WEST OF LOCUST GROVE ROAD AND NORTH OF USTICK ROAD IN A PARCEL OF LAND BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 10, BLOCK 13 OF QUENZER COMMONS SUBDIVISION NO. 9, AND A PARCEL NO.1 AS SHOWN ON RECORD OF SURVEY NUMBER 3774 OF ADA COUNTY RECORDS, WHICH PARCEL IS A PORTION OF LOT 13 OF CRESTWOOD SUBDIVISION NO. 1, ALL LOCATED IN THE E % OF SECTION T. 4N., R. 1E. C/C May 16, 2006 CASE NO. FP -06-020 ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT This matter coming before the City Council for Final Plat approval pursuant to Unified Development Code 11-6B-3 on May 16, 2006, and the Council finding that the Administrative Review is complete from Kristy Vigil, Assistant City Planner for the Planning and Zoning Department, and Michael Cole, Development Services Coordinator for the Public Works ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR QUENZER COMMONS SUBDIVISION NO. 10 / (FP -06-020) Page 1 of 5 i 0 Department, dated: Hearing Date: May 16, 2006, 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: 1. The Final Plat of "PLAT SHOWING QUENZER COMMONS SUBDIVISION NO. 10 LOCATED IN A PARCEL OF LAND BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 10, BLOCK 13 OF QUENZER COMMONS SUBDIVISION NO. 9, AND A PARCEL NO. 1 AS SHOWN ON RECORD OF SURVEY NUMBER 3774 OF ADA COUNTY RECORDS, WHICH PARCEL IS A PORTION OF LOT 13 OF CRESTWOOD SUBDIVISION NO. 1, ALL LOCATED IN THE E %Z OF SECTION T. 4N., R. IE.BOISE MERIDIAN, MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO 2006, HANDWRITTEN DATE: 04/06/06, SHEET 1 OF 3, ENGINEERING NORTHWEST, LLC", BRIGHTON 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 Kristy Vigil, Assistant City Planner for the Planning and Zoning Department and Michael Cole, Development Services Coordinator for the Public Works Department, dated: Hearing Date: May 16, 2006, listing 14 SITE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS/FINAL PLAT and 13 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 response letter from Engineering NorthWest, LLC, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto marked Exhibit `B" and consisting of 1 page, and by ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR QUENZER COMMONS SUBDIVISION NO. 10 / (FP -06-020) Page 2 of 5 • • this reference incorporated herein, and the additional requirements from the action of the Council taken at their May 16, 2006 meeting as follows, to -wit: 1.1 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 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 ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR QUENZER COMMONS SUBDIVISION NO. 10 / (FP -06-020) Page 3 of 5 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 TAE3NGS 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 property which may be 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 J Ut— day of , 2006. e s B y MAYOR de WEERD ZTE: 1 WILLLIAM G. BERG, i ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR QUENZER COMMONS SUBDIVISION NO. 10 / (FP -06-020) Page 4 of 5 • Copy served upon: ✓ Applicant v"'— Planning and Zoning Department Public Works Department �CCity Attorney By: Dated: E5 - 3C -Cu Clerk's office ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR QUENZER COMMONS SUBDIVISION NO. 10 / (FP -06-020) Page 5 of 5 CITY OF MERIDIANOANNING AND PUBLIC WORKS DATMENTS STAFF REPORT STAFF REPORT: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: We have reviewed this These conditions shall Meridian City Council: Hearing Date: May 16, 2006 Transmittal Date: May 11, 2006 Mayor and City Council f IDA" V 1 j k+6 ie _as Kristy Vigil, Assistant City Planner N° Michael Cole, Development Services Coordinator e- Quenzer Commons Subdivision No. 10 Request for Final Plat Approval of Quenzer Commons Subdivision No. 10 Consisting of 12 Single-family Residential Building Lots and 1 Common/other Lots on 5.47 Acres in an R-8 Zone by Brighton Development, Inc (File# FP -06- 020) submittal and offer the following comments and conditions of the applicant. be considered in full, unless expressly modified or deleted by motion of the APPLICATION SUMMARY & LOCATION The applicant, Brighton Development, Inc., has applied for final plat approval of Quenzer Commons Subdivision No. 10, which consists of 12 single-family residential building lots and 1 common/other lot on 5.47 acres in an R-8 zone. The gross density for this subdivision is 2.19 dwelling units per acre. The net density is 2.46 dwelling units per acre. Quenzer Commons Subdivision No. 10 is located in the East 1/2 of Section 31, TAN, R.IE. The site is located north of Leigh Field Drive and west of N. Locust Grove. This site currently contains a rural residence, and a portion of the property has been previously annexed and platted as Lot 10, Block 13 of Quenzer Commons Subdivision No. 9. Staff finds that the proposed final plat substantially complies with the approved Preliminary Plat. Staff recommends approval of Quenzer Commons Subdivision No. 10 with the comments and conditions stated in this report. SITE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS 1. Applicant is to meet all terms of the approved annexation (AZ -05-063), development agreement (Inst. No. 106064914), and preliminary plat (PP -05-063). 2. The applicant has indicated the pressurized irrigation system in this development is to be owned and operated by Settlers Irrigation District. Therefore, a letter of plan approval shall be submitted prior to scheduling of a pre -construction meeting. 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 Exhibit "A" FP -06-020 Quenzer Commons Sub10 FP.doc PAGE 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN*ANNING AND PUBLIC WORKS DEOTMENTS STAFF REPORT 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. 4. All fencing installed on the site must be in compliance with UDC 11 -3A -6B and 11-3A-7. Temporary construction fencing to contain debris shall be installed around the perimeter of this phase where permanent fencing is not proposed, prior to release of building permits. 5. The applicant will be responsible for all costs associated with the sewer and water service extension. 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. 6. Sanitary sewer service to this site is being proposed via extension of mains in a previous phase. The applicant shall install sewer mains to and through this development. The applicant shall coordinate main size and routing with the Public Works Department. Cover over sanitary sewer mains shall be no less than three feet from finish grade to the top of the pipe. If cover is less than three feet from the sub -grade to the top of the pipe, alternated pipe materials shall be used per the Meridian Public Work's Standard Specifications. 7. Water service to this site is being proposed via extension of mains in a previous phase. The applicant will be responsible to construct water mains to and through this proposed development. 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. 8. The existing house that is remaining shall be required to connect to the City services. The applicant shall be required for the payment of assessments to the municipal services as well as the actual physical hook-up. 9. Remove all buildings that do not meet setbacks established in the Unified Development Code, prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. 10. Include the instrument number on the face of the plat for the temporary turnaround. 11. The landscape plan, prepared by Jensen Belt Architects and dated 3/30/06, shall be revised as follows: a. Include planning and installation details as necessary to ensure conformance with all required standards. b. Revise landscape plan to include three additional trees within the parkway, or common area to meet UDC 11 -3G -3B5 and 11-3B7C3 requirements. Submit 3 copies of the revised landscape plan to the Planning Department prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. 12. Revise or add the following note(s) on the face of the plat dated 4/6/06, prepared by Engineering Northwest, LLC., prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer: (10). Delete note, it is not applicable to this phase. (13). Include instrument number. (14). Include instrument number. (*). Include a note that limits the houses on Lot 16, Block 13 and Lot 6, Block 31 to single Exhibit "A" FP -06-020 Quenzer Commons Sub10 FP.doc PAGE 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN &NNING AND PUBLIC WORKS DEOTMENTS STAFF REPORT story construction. (*). Add a note: "This plat is subject to a development agreement recorded as instrument number of Ada County records." (*). On the face of the plat, complete the recorded instrument number for the ACHD temporary turnaround easement. 13. Complete the Certificate of Owners and accompanying acknowledgement. 14. Staff's failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or terms of the approved annexation, development agreement, preliminary plat, or conditional use permit does not relieve the Applicant of responsibility for compliance. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS All irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or lying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be tiled per UDC 11-3A-6. 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, alternative plans will be reviewed and approved by the meridian City Engineer prior to final plat signature. 2. Street signs are to be in place, water system shall be approved and activated, fencing installed, drainage lots constructed, road base shall be approved by the Ada County Highway District, and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded, prior to applying for building permits. 3. A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% shall be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities, pressurized irrigation, sanitary sewer, water, etc., prior to signature on the final plat. 4. All development improvements, including but not limited to water, sewer, fencing, micro -paths, pressurized irrigation and landscaping shall be installed and approved prior to obtaining certificates of occupancy. 5. A written certificate of completion shall be prepared by the landscape architect, landscape designer or qualified nurseryman responsible for the landscape plan upon completion of the landscape installation. The Certificate of Completion shall verify that all landscape improvements, including plant materials and sprinkler installation, are in substantial compliance with the approved landscape plan. 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. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. Exhibit "A" FP -06-020 Quenzer Commons Sub10 FP.doc PAGE 3 CITY OF MERIDIAN &NNING AND PUBLIC WORKS DEOTMENTS STAFF REPORT 10. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES Permitting that may be required by the Environmental Protection Agency. 11. All development features shall comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 12. 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. 13. Approval of the preliminary plat shall become null and void if the applicant fails to record the fmal plat within two years of the approval of the preliminary plat per UDC 11 -6B -7A. In the event that the development of the preliminary plat is made in successive phases in an orderly and reasonable manner, and conforms substantially to the approved preliminary plat, such segments, if submitted within successive intervals of eighteen months, may be considered for final approval without resubmission for preliminary plat approval per UDC 11 -6B -7B. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the final plat for Quenzer Commons Subdivision No. 10 (FP -06-020) with the above stated comments and conditions. Exhibit "A" FP -06-020 Quenzer Commons Sub 10 FP.doc PAGE 4 05-16-'06 14:00 FFON-EWering N,61, 2483765556 0 T-423 P002/002 F-490 _ nizi teerircg NoiihWest, LZ.0 423 N. Ancestor Place, Suitt 180 Boise, Idaho 83704 (208) 376-5000 . Pax (208) 376-5556 May 16, 2006 Mayor and City Council City of Meridian 660 E. Watertower, Suite 200 Meridian, ID 83642 Re: Quenzer Commons Subdivision No. 10 I am writing on behalf of our client, Brighton Development, Inc. who has indicated to us their acceptance of the conditions of approval as outlined by staff for the above referenced. Our response to the City's Site Specific Comments for this project is as follows: Site Specific Requirements 1) All terms of the approved annexation (AZ -05-063), development agreement (Inst. No. 106064914) and preliminary plat (PP -05-063) have been met. 2) The Homeowner's Association will own and maintain the pressure irrigation system within this development, not Settlers Irrigation District. 3) A private well has been established in an earlier phase of the Quenzer Commons Subdivisions and will be used as the secondary source for irrigation water. 4) Agree. 5) Agree. 6) Agree 'n Agree. 8) Agree, 9) Agree. 10) An exhibit for the temporary turnaround has been submitted to ACRD. When the temporary easement has been recorded, the instrument number will be added to the plat. 11) Agree. 12) Note 10. has been deleted from the plat. Instrument numbers will be added to the plat for notes 13 & 14 prior to final plat signature. A note has been added to the plat limiting single story construction to Lot 16, Block 13 and Lot 6, Block 31. A note for the development agreement with instrument number has been added to the plat. 13) The Certificate of Owners will be completed prior to signature of the plat. 14) Agree. Should you have any questions or need anything else feel free to give me a call. Thank you, ZLI — Gene P. Smith, P.E. Cc: Jay Walker, Brighton Development Exhibit "13" 0 May 12, 2006 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING AZ 06-003 May 16, 2006 APPLICANT Hightower, LLC ITEM NO. 13 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from May 9,2006: Annexation and Zoning of 24.03 acres from RUT to R-8, R-15 and C -C zones for Hightower Subdivision — SW comer of Chinden Boulevard and Jericho Road: AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: COMMENTS See Previous Item Packet / Minutes Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. May 12, 2006 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 16, 2006 APPLICANT Hightower, LLC ITEM NO. 14 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from May 9,2006: Preliminary Plat approval of 106 residential lots, 4 commercial lots, 2 private street lots and 25 common lots on 22.94 acres in proposed R-8, R-15,8 C -C zones for Hightower Subdivision — SWC of Chinden & Jericho Roo AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: COMMENTS See Previous Item Packet / Minutes Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. May 12, 2006 CUP 06-004 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 16, 2006 APPLICANT Hightower, LLC ITEM NO. 15 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from May 9,2006: Request for a CUP for a Mixed Use Planned Development including single family detached, townhouse units, commercial uses, private streets, a neighborhood park & vehicle access to Chinden Blvd for Hightower Subdivision — AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: Contacted: Emailed: Date: COMMENTS See Previous {tem Packet / Minutes Phone: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. May 12, 2006 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 16, 2006 APPLICANT Hightower, LLC ITEM NO. 16 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from May 9, 2006: Request for a Variance to con- struct an access to Chinden Blvd, a State Highway, for Hightower Subdivision — SWC of Chinden Blvc and Jericho Road: AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: Contacted: Emailed: COMMENTS See Previous Item Packet / Minutes Date: Phone: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. May 12, 2006 RZ 04-011 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 16, 2006 APPLICANT Landmark Engineering and Planning, Inc. ITEM NO. 20 REQUEST Ordinance No. : Request for a Rezone of 9.16 acres from R-8 to C -C zone for Cairns Crossing Subdivision - south of West Cherry Lane and east of North Linder Road AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: COMMENTS See Attached Ordinance Contacted: Dater t' -4;- C* Phone: Emailed: CjjStaff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. CITY OF MERIDIAN AUA Wunry RECORDER J. DAVID NAVARRO BOISE IDAHO 06/06106 01:0M AMOUNT .00 S RECORDED °REQUEST OF III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIilllllllllllll Meridian CIV 106088997 ORDINANCE NO. 06 r 4 Z 32�_ BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BIRD, BORTON, ROUNTREE, WARDLE AN ORDINANCE (RZ-04-011 AKA CAIRNS CROSSING SUBDIVISION) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AS DESCRIBED IN ATTACHMENT "A" OF THIS ORDINANCE AND RE -ZONING CERTAIN LANDS AND TERRITORY, SITUATED IN ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, AND WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN AS REQUESTED BY STUBBLEFIELD DEVELOPMENT & PLANNING, INC.; AND RE -ZONING THE LAND USE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF SAID LANDS FROM R-8 TO C -C (COMMUNITY BUSINESS DISTRICT) IN THE MERIDIAN CITY CODE; PROVIDING THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE FILED WITH THE ADA COUNTY ASSESSOR, THE ADA COUNTY RECORDER, AND THE IDAHO STATE TAX COMMISSION, AS REQUIRED BY LAW; AND PROVIDING FOR A WAIVER OF THE READING RULES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO: SECTION 1. That the following described land as evidenced by attached Legal Description herein incorporated be reference as Exhibit "A" is within the corporate limits of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and that the City of Meridian has received a written request for re- zoning by the owner of said property, to -wit: Stubblefield Development SECTION 2. That the above-described real property is, and the same is hereby and re -zoned from R-8 to C -C (Community Business District), in the Meridian City Code. SECTION 3. That the City has authority pursuant to the laws of the State of Idaho, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian to re -zone said property. SECTION 4. That the City has complied with all the noticing requirements pursuant to the laws of the State of Idaho, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian to annex and zone said property. SECTION 5. That the City Engineer is hereby directed to alter all use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps, and all official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance. RE -ZONE OF RZ-04-011 AKA CAIRNS CROSSING SUBDIVISION Page 1 of 3 0 SECTION 6. All ordinances, resolutions, orders or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed, rescinded and annulled. SECTION 7. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication, according to law. SECTION S. The Clerk of the City of Meridian shall, within ten (10) days following the days following the effective date of this ordinance, duly file a certified copy of this ordinance and a map prepared in a draftsman manner, including the lands herein rezoned, with the following officials of the County of Ada, State of Idaho, to -wit: the Recorder, Auditor, Treasurer and Assessor and shall also file simultaneously a certified copy of this ordinance and map with the State Tax Commission of the State of Idaho. SECTION 9. That pursuant to the affirmative vote of one-half (1/2) plus one (1) of the Members of the full Council, the rule requiring two (2) separate readings by title and one (1) reading in full be, and the same is hereby, dispensed with, and accordingly, this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage, approval and publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this � day of 92006. /APPROVED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this ! � � day of /h!!�' 92006. RE -ZONE OF RZ-04-011 AKA CAIRNS CROSSING SUBDIVISION Page 2 of 3 MAYOR T de WEERD ATTEST: I I I t 111 ald /ddd�dd®�ssai \\`'4t\4�ass i CITY CLERK 4 RE -ZONE OF RZ-04-011 AKA CAIRNS CROSSING SUBDIVISION Page 2 of 3 0 STATE OF IDAHO, ) )ss. County of Ada ) On this JID " day of M ft U , 2006, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, persknally appeared TAMMY de WEERD and WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., known to me to be the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and who executed the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that the City of Meridian executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. +•erof (SEA)`%O T<Q;`;�',: s Jumyubku� NOTARY PUBLIC FOR THE STATE OF IDAHO RESIDING AT: (1 uax u ID MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: 10-11-11 RE -ZONE OF RZ-04-011 AKA CAIRNS CROSSING SUBDIVISION Page 3 of 3 nus c -r Wt ua: U"a • 0 p.2 Re -Tone Bowdary Description for Stubbld Development A parcel for re -zone purposes located in the NW % of the NW Y, of Section 12, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at a 5/8 inch diameter iron pin marking the northeasterly comer of said NW % of the NW % (1/16 Corr, from wi ich a brass cap monument marking the northwesterly comer of said NW % of to NW'/ (Section Corm bears N 89'53'55" W a distance of 1326.46 feet; Thence S 0016VW W a" the fly boundary of said NW % of the NW Y4 a distance of 495.77 feet to a 5/8 inch diarriefer iron pin marking the northeasterly comer of North Gate No. 3 Subdivision as shown in Book 38 of Plats at Page 3160 in the office of the Recorder, Ada County, Idaho; Thence N 8944'01' W along the northerly boundary of said North Gate No. 3 Subdivision and the northerly boundary of North Gate No. 2 Subdivision as shown in Book 33 of Plats at Page 2024 in the office of the Recorder, Ada County, Idaho, a distance of 894.44 feet to a point Thence N W57W E along the westerly boundary of said North Gate No. 2 Subdivision a distance of 205.67 feet to a 5/8 inch diameter iron pin; Thence leaving said westerly boundary N 0"12'40" E a distance of 287.99 feet to a point on the northerly boundary of said NW % of the NW %4; Thence S 89053'55" E along said northerly boundary a distance of 881.50 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. This parcel contains 10.04 acres and is subject to any easements existing or in use. Clinton W. Hansen, PLS Land Solutions, Ire. August 24, 2004 Meridian PbbHe Works DepL 5 �G, o < a 11118 qrF o yl°a w . HP`S Hug 24 04 08:08a A n N r J � 0 0 W TD s j J � C w.o.rn Ay �i o O w Ic w v ca v v o� Im z w CP! w A v Z = m OD m OD m e+1 w .1 C; 0f" :0o rn_ V!� rnx 10 o� �m rrI_m in0 g r 2 M . 1. J N (112740' E 287.99' ■ 1� OD O O z zz c c 0 a s z 0 0 -4 z z Z O O Z Z z � � p m C-7 w 0 O col .LUSS* m .909tH S p.3 NOTICE AND PUBLISHED SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE PURSUANT TO I.C. § 50-901(A) CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 06- 2 PROVIDING FOR AN ANNEXATION AND ZONING ORDINANCE An Ordinance of the City of Meridian granting annexation and re -zoning for land known as Cairns Crossing Subdivision commonly located on located south at West Cherry Lane and East of Linder Road, more particularly described in Attachment "A". This parcel contains 9.16 acres more or less. Also, this parcel is SUBJECT TO all easements and rights-of-way of record or implied. As surveyed by Landmark Engineering and Planning, Inc., and verified by the City of Meridian on or about August 25, 2004 and attached as exhibit `B" and is not based on an actual field survey. A full text of this ordinance is availt*%fw'insp8ction at City Hall, City of Meridian, 33 ast Idaho Avenue, Mend;' �d'nance shall become effective on the day of 'z* ®o Mayor and City Council the ity i - By: William G. Berg, , Jr., City Clerk First Reading: rs by suspension of the Rule as allowed pursuant to Idaho Code'6. NO - Second Second Reading: ® >,��f t eac3. . STATEMENT OF MERIDIAN CITY ATTORNEY AS TO ADEQUACY OF SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 06- /2 5,7 - The undersigned, William L.M. Nary, City Attorney of the City of Meridian, Idaho, hereby certifies that he is the legal advisor of the City and has reviewed a copy of the attached Ordinance No. 06- I A3,'� of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and has found the same to be true and complete and provides adequate notice to the public pursuant to Idaho Code § 50-901A (3). DATED this .9d> day of A -t 2006. C✓ `-' William. L.M. Nary, City Atto ey ORDINANCE SUMMARY - RZ-04-011 CAIRNS CROSSING SUBDIVISION Page 1 of 1